|
|
In short, a parent's overreaction caused the school's overreaction. The teacher will get a "slap on the wrist" for including materials without following proper procedure. There will be no criminal charges.
Oh, and the reading of internet stories about prostitutes was a complete fabrication.
No technique ever becomes archaic; it becomes an artistic choice, like black-and-white photography. Same with focus, which probably won't ever go away since it's so intrinsic to how our eyes work. I agree that this could be a huge development once artists figure out what to do with it.
Businesses will offer spaces to the handicapped on their own because it's good for business.
No, they won't. There aren't enough handicapped customers to justify--profit-wise--the reduced number of parking spaces due to the greater width and restrictions of handicapped spaces. When markets forces fail to produce a desired outcome (i.e., allowing the disabled to participate in commerce), legislation can (and sometimes does) correct the failure.
It's not just about being closer to the building. Parking spaces for the disabled also tend to be wider to allow those with wheelchairs, crutches, and other aids to more easily exit their vehicle. If you can't find a space with an empty spot next to it, how is someone in a wheelchair supposed to get out of their car?
I don't know what interfering across time means. What experiment or situation are you referring to?
That's not a dumb question; I've been thinking about this all day and getting depressed over how much quantum mechanics I've forgotten.
The question the paper asks isn't so much whether the wavefunction is "real" or not, but of how to interpret it. The question the paper attacks is this: Is the wavefunction a representation of physical property of a system ("real")? Or is it a representation of the information we have about the system ("mathematical tool")?
An analogy: I show you a coin. You measure its diameter and find that it is 24 mm across. That number--24--represents a physical property of the coin. Now, I flip the coin and cover it with my hand. You observe that the quarter has a 50% chance of being face up. That number--50--is not really a property of the quarter, but a property of your knowledge about the quarter. To prove this, I can look at the quarter while keeping it hidden from you. From your point of view, the probability of heads is 50%, but for me, it is either 0% or 100%.*
The paper is a proposed proof that the wavefunction of a system is more akin to the diameter of a quarter than to the probability of it being heads up. In short, the wavefunction is a property of a system, not of our knowledge of a system. Given a complete physical description of a system, there must be exactly one wavefunction that corresponds to it. Thus, the wavefunction is the physical description.
* There's an argument to be had here between Frequentists and Bayesians which I am totally uninterested in.
Both of your examples involve a single wavefunction interfering with itself. In a single-photon double-slit experiment, the particles wavefunction spreads out into both slits and interferes with itself. The paper is talking about the wavefunctions of two different systems (e.g., two different photons) communicating non-locally.
e^(i*tau) - 1 = 0
That reminds me: how do you tell if you're dating a French horn player?
When you're making out with her, she'll try to stick her hand up your ass.
Pyros of the world... IGNITE !!!