So, do entanglement between solid particles (atoms, electrons, etc) was experimentaly verified, except photons entanglement?
Do DavidD is big do ideot?
Another incisive contribution to the science of physics by The Doc !!!!!!!!!!!
I find it hilarious that you accuse my posts of having no 'substance' and then you post this.
Here and here you fail to (or are unable to, take your pick) respond to the points I raised in my previous two posts. And when BDW supports my earlier statements, you fail to respond too. And guess what that makes you, Eddie? A hypocrite
Here and here you fail to (or are unable to, take your pick) respond to the points I raised in my previous two posts. And when BDW supports my earlier statements, you fail to respond too. And guess what that makes you, Eddie? A hypocrite
Hey all,
I saw this article a while back. I'm still trying to process it all, but have a go yourselves.
Peace,
Ron
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/...70905133621.htm
I saw this article a while back. I'm still trying to process it all, but have a go yourselves.
Peace,
Ron
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/...70905133621.htm
David, an aligned fighter certifies a saint. The chunk develops the trendy puzzle beside the breakfast. Thus the packet advertises around the cuddly heterosexual and the algebra eliminates an essential tiger around a farm.
But a scrap copes below a telephone, so why does the barrister dance the overflow?
Thanks to http://watchout4snakes.com/creativitytools...omSentence.aspx
But a scrap copes below a telephone, so why does the barrister dance the overflow?
Thanks to http://watchout4snakes.com/creativitytools...omSentence.aspx
Thanks AN!
Now we can all be cranks.
Now we can all be cranks.
No, now we can all be DavidD or Mott.Carl. To do the cranks who can actually construct a coherent sentence, we'd have to lower ourselves even further. They are worse than incoherent, because they can clearly think straight but cannot rationalise at all. At least if you are an idiot, a real 'Cletus the slack jawed yockel' (ala The Simpsons) then you have an honest excuse.
It doesn't necessarily has to be deliberate.
There are some disability's in the brain that leaves the language 'disorganized' without impairing other abilities.
Then David may think that what he is presenting is very clear (to him), but to us reading it it will still be a mystery.
As for Mott Carl though :) I think he is deliberately confusing :) And is having fun too.
There are some disability's in the brain that leaves the language 'disorganized' without impairing other abilities.
Then David may think that what he is presenting is very clear (to him), but to us reading it it will still be a mystery.
As for Mott Carl though :) I think he is deliberately confusing :) And is having fun too.
Einstein farms outside Relativity. Can the electorate survey a heritage? Relativity springs onto Einstein. Will the connecting poison think Einstein? Why does Einstein impress a separator? How does a tired monopoly smile beneath Einstein?
QUOTE
Hey all,
I saw this article a while back. I'm still trying to process it all, but have a go yourselves.
Peace,
Ron
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/...70905133621.htm
I saw this article a while back. I'm still trying to process it all, but have a go yourselves.
Peace,
Ron
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/...70905133621.htm
Need to know how much strong was established entanglement or in another words how much small was noise, becouse I read on arcxix that entanglement coefiecent between atoms is 0.003 and it's more than small. So don't enough claims about entanglement between atoms, need strong proof about it to be sure, that it's not noise/measurement artifacts.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Hey all, I saw this article a while back. I'm still trying to process it all, but have a go yourselves. Peace, Ron http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/...70905133621.htm |
Need to know how much strong was established entanglement or in another words how much small was noise, becouse I read on arcxix that entanglement coefiecent between atoms is 0.003 and it's more than small. So don't enough claims about entanglement between atoms, need strong proof about it to be sure, that it's not noise/measurement artifacts.
No, now we can all be DavidD or Mott.Carl. To do the cranks who can actually construct a coherent sentence, we'd have to lower ourselves even further. They are worse than incoherent, because they can clearly think straight but cannot rationalise at all. At least if you are an idiot, a real 'Cletus the slack jawed yockel' (ala The Simpsons) then you have an honest excuse.
Quantum computers working with Monte Carlo method.
This sentence I like most:
"The reported purification rate is a record (although the entangled state is not yet pure enough for use in a working computer or other device) with more than one success for every three attempts, compared to one in a million in the photon experiments." http://www.physorg.com/news80396930.html
Do photon entanglement is one in a milion, or atoms one in a milion?
Here entanglement between atom and photon with ~0.90 instead theoretical 1 success http://www.iontrap.umd.edu/publications/ar..._photon_ion.pdf
"The reported purification rate is a record (although the entangled state is not yet pure enough for use in a working computer or other device) with more than one success for every three attempts, compared to one in a million in the photon experiments." http://www.physorg.com/news80396930.html
Do photon entanglement is one in a milion, or atoms one in a milion?
Here entanglement between atom and photon with ~0.90 instead theoretical 1 success http://www.iontrap.umd.edu/publications/ar..._photon_ion.pdf
PhysOrg scientific forums are totally dedicated to science, physics, and technology. Besides topical forums such as nanotechnology, quantum physics, silicon and III-V technology, applied physics, materials, space and others, you can also join our news and publications discussions. We also provide an off-topic forum category. If you need specific help on a scientific problem or have a question related to physics or technology, visit the PhysOrg Forums. Here you’ll find experts from various fields online every day.
To quit out of "lo-fi" mode and return to the regular forums, please click here.