|
Post by abacus9900 on Jan 21, 2011 19:49:06 GMT 1
Re the Abacus link on Len Wossname. Seems to me he reckons that we are all living on the inside of a black hole ..with the 'edge of the Universe' being the inside face of the event horizon. I didn't get that bit either. You see, at least he tried to use analogies to aid understanding but STA doesn't even bother.
|
|
|
Post by abacus9900 on Jan 21, 2011 19:56:55 GMT 1
Re the Abacus link on Len Wossname. Seems to me he reckons that we are all living on the inside of a black hole ..with the 'edge of the Universe' being the inside face of the event horizon. These guys, it seems to me, are following through where their mathematics leads them and erecting a fantasy world that cannot be proved or disproved by the 'scientific method' In other words (at this stage anyway), it ain't science but it's metaphyisical kite- flying Perhaps it is a fantasy world but at least we can, more or less, follow the thought processes. On here, I'm afraid we keep getting spoon fed complete gobbledygook with no attempt to explain the jargon. For example, yesterday STA used the term 'scalar', now what in the world does that mean? Why can't she use more common words, even if they are not strictly accurate? At least that way we might gain a rough idea of what she is attempting to communicate. When you teach people something you do not normally begin at an advanced level, do you?
|
|
|
Post by Progenitor A on Jan 21, 2011 21:58:08 GMT 1
Perhaps it is a fantasy world but at least we can, more or less, follow the thought processes. On here, I'm afraid we keep getting spoon fed complete gobbledygook with no attempt to explain the jargon. For example, yesterday STA used the term 'scalar', now what in the world does that mean? Why can't she use more common words, even if they are not strictly accurate? At least that way we might gain a rough idea of what she is attempting to communicate. When you teach people something you do not normally begin at an advanced level, do you? Complete gobbledeygook is an accurate but insufficient description. She really is a quite ignorant person as I can tell when she moves into areas that I have expertise in Quite frankly I do not consider her worth anything at all. Good on you for trying, but I am afraid it is hopeless
|
|
|
Post by abacus9900 on Jan 21, 2011 23:31:13 GMT 1
Perhaps it is a fantasy world but at least we can, more or less, follow the thought processes. On here, I'm afraid we keep getting spoon fed complete gobbledygook with no attempt to explain the jargon. For example, yesterday STA used the term 'scalar', now what in the world does that mean? Why can't she use more common words, even if they are not strictly accurate? At least that way we might gain a rough idea of what she is attempting to communicate. When you teach people something you do not normally begin at an advanced level, do you? Complete gobbledeygook is an accurate but insufficient description. She really is a quite ignorant person as I can tell when she moves into areas that I have expertise in Quite frankly I do not consider her worth anything at all. Good on you for trying, but I am afraid it is hopeless I really do not see the point of asking her any more questions, I just end up confused, and I'm not being vindictive.
|
|
|
Post by buckleymanor1 on Jan 22, 2011 1:25:21 GMT 1
Sorry, yes, you can go that way as well! But it still isn't the original photon. I'm trying to stop people getting the wrong idea -- that A photon can have various energy states, or that you can ADD energy to a photon and increase its energy. Although sometimes usage gets a bit confusing, such as when we talk about a photon scattering off a charged particle, and loosing energy (hence changing frequency), and changing momentum. I supose I'm just trying to stop the idea of CHANGING the energy state of a photon, or talking about the possible energy states of A photon (as opposed to the possible photon energies). The first sounds as if A single photon, THIS photon, can occupy various energy states. Which isn't quite the case, it's NOT the same case as when an electron in an atom can have various energy states, be excited from one level to a higher one. Whereas for a photon, the thing that CAN have various energy states is the em quantum field, but those energy states are usually described as (for example) no photons 1 photon with energy E 2 photons each with energy E 3 photons each with energy E and so on (supposing we had a set-up where possible photon energy was only E, rather than the continuous set of energies and frequencies we can have). Which probably doesn't help much -- but I could just detect an unusual and non-standard usage that I think was giving people the wrong ideas. So I suppose the original 1 photon has energy E which is probably the smallest amount of energy a single photon can have.So if it's not possible to lower the photons energy state, observation of the photon must do something to collapse the wave function. Is it the sensitivity of the photons state and the equipment used to illuminate the photon for observation responsible for the collapse. If it is caused by gravity does the wave function collapse only when you observe when the equipment is on. Does the photon exhibit wave like properties if the equipment is on but you are not observing.
|
|
|
Post by Progenitor A on Jan 22, 2011 9:47:19 GMT 1
Complete gobbledeygook is an accurate but insufficient description. She really is a quite ignorant person as I can tell when she moves into areas that I have expertise in Quite frankly I do not consider her worth anything at all. Good on you for trying, but I am afraid it is hopeless I really do not see the point of asking her any more questions, I just end up confused, and I'm not being vindictive. You are only confused, I feel, because you attempt to understand what she is saying. As it is mainly gobbledegook then there is no wonder you are confused The 'calculus' questions should have alerted you. On this very simple process she made no attempt to explain the principles of calculus , but simply quoted text-book solutions of a couple of classic diferentiation and Integration problems, without any attempt to show how they were derived. Then when you questioned where they had come from, she called you an idiot and treated you with contempt - her usual defensive mecahnism to hide her ignorance.
|
|
|
Post by abacus9900 on Jan 22, 2011 9:53:19 GMT 1
I really do not see the point of asking her any more questions, I just end up confused, and I'm not being vindictive. You are only confused, I feel, because you attempt to understand what she is saying. As it is mainly gobbledegook then there is no wonder you are confused The 'calculus' questions should have alerted you. On this very simple process she made no attempt to explain the principles of calculus , but simply quoted text-book solutions of a couple of classic diferentiation and Integration problems, without any attempt to show how they were derived. Then when you questioned where they had come from, she called you an idiot and treated you with contempt - her usual defensive mecahnism to hide her ignorance. Do you really think she is a fake? If she really was a lecturer she would have shown some ability to get over ideas to anyone, regardless of how little they knew. Surely, if the best minds in the business can do it she can! She said she had studied at Oxford university, do you think she really did?
|
|
|
Post by carnyx on Jan 22, 2011 10:05:48 GMT 1
@~Bickleymanor1 ..
In which case, what is the mystery?
Surely if the energy required to detect them is equal to the energy contained in them, no wonder they 'disappear'.
|
|
|
Post by Progenitor A on Jan 22, 2011 10:24:32 GMT 1
Do you really think she is a fake? If she really was a lecturer she would have shown some ability to get over ideas to anyone, regardless of how little they knew. Surely, if the best minds in the business can do it she can! She said she had studied at Oxford university, do you think she really did? No, I do not think that she is a fake I know that she is a fake She has made so many fundamental errors in the fields in which I have some expertise (the very latest is information theory where she evidently does not have a clue when I speak of information being defined (partly) by change - she quotes a digital store wher no changes occur - the information is static without recognising that if the store is filled with just 1's and we read out the store we get the smallest possible amount of information, whereas if it is filled with alternate 0's an 1's and we read it out we get the maximum possible information - the information is conrtained in the changes from element to element - in her typically dismissive attitude I am confused! Then there is this little gem of logic 'Information is DEFINED as being a scalar way of measuring the amount of information' absolute circular gibberish), her total inabilty to communicate, her paraphrasing huge chunks of text wher it is self-evident that she has not a clue (see the nonsense posted on the holographic universe where the text thaty she paraphrased did not so much as address the questions you asked), her inability with the English language all these epoint unerringly to a fraud. As to Oxfoed, I haven't a clue, She might have got in, but certainly did not finish whatever course she started. I imagine that Oxford insists on intellectual honesty and she sure don't display that.
|
|
|
Post by abacus9900 on Jan 22, 2011 10:51:42 GMT 1
To be honest, I've always wondered why someone who purports to be a lecturer feels the need to keep posting on here when they have papers to mark, etc. We are often told that teachers have busy lives and are always occupied preparing lessons and marking papers etc., so where does STA get the time to post here? You don't think she's in some institution do you and leads some kind of fantasy life?
|
|
|
Post by buckleymanor1 on Jan 22, 2011 12:32:43 GMT 1
@~Bickleymanor1 .. In which case, what is the mystery? Surely if the energy required to detect them is equal to the energy contained in them, no wonder they 'disappear'. You might be right, though I have a sneaky suspicion that the wave function collapse might be more subtle than that. I am not sure if anyone knows precisely what happens.
|
|
|
Post by Progenitor A on Jan 22, 2011 13:31:18 GMT 1
@~Bickleymanor1 .. In which case, what is the mystery? Surely if the energy required to detect them is equal to the energy contained in them, no wonder they 'disappear'. You might be right, though I have a sneaky suspicion that the wave function collapse might be more subtle than that. I am not sure if anyone knows precisely what happens. Many distinguished physicists agree with you buckley. The physicians take care of those that are sure they know
|
|
|
Post by speakertoanimals on Jan 24, 2011 14:26:20 GMT 1
Utter nonsense.
If we have a coin that ONLY ever comes up heads, then obviously HHHHH carries no more information than H. But if we have a true coin that can be either H or T, then HHHH carries just as much information as HTTH (or anyother sequence of 4 tosses). The important point, as Shannon knew, being whether or not successive tosses are identically and independantly distributed, and what the exact distribution IS.
So, in the digital store case,. the whole pointn is that ANY bit can be set to either 0 or 1 independantly of any other, hence we can access the full 2^N configurations.
Alternate 0's and 1's, if we have a fixed rule that 0 can only follow 1, and 1 can only follow 0, is as empty of information as 000000000 where 1 can never occur. But when each bit is independant, 00000 carries just as much information as 01011, because each is just one of the 2^5 possible configurations of 5 bits.
And its a classic mistake from those who think they understand information theory, but actually have no idea of the mathematical theory of information.
According to Shannon, measure of information content is just - log p. So, for any N bit binary message, p is (1/2^N), hence information content is -log(1/2^N) = N, whether the message is 00000000...... or 011001011110000.............
The mistake is in assuming that if we just have zeros, means we have LESS information. This is wrong.
So, as I said before, IF we have a two-headed coin (ie probability of a tail is zero, probability of head is 1), then HHHHHHH.... occurs with probability 1, however long the string, and information content is 0.
However, if we have a true coin, then probability of HHHHHH..... is (1/2^N) as above, and information content of ANY string of N throws is just N, and same holds for HHHHHH..... as for any other more-random looking string.
What this says, in effect, is the MORE unlikely the message (the smaller p), the more information it contains. And elementary probability tells you that for a true coin, HHHHHH is just as unlikely as ANY OTHER string of heads and tails. A fundamental fallacy that we see every week when it comes to the lottery, where people think strings of numbers that seem to contain some structure (such as 3 successive numbers) are somehow less random than string that LOOK properly random. Hence no one chooses 1 2 3 4 5 6 as their 6 numbers, thinking it is somehow LESS likely than any other sequence.
If you'd rather believe the idiots and fantasists on this one, I suggest you first take a look at the entry on 'quantities of information' on wikipedia, rather than letting the idiots spread their own mistakes even further, no matter how PLAUSIBLE they sound.
|
|
|
Post by speakertoanimals on Jan 24, 2011 15:29:38 GMT 1
I should add, what possibly causes the confusion is that just saying 'all heads' seems to be a short way of encoding the string of six million heads (say). Except if you encode the string of six million heads by the message 'all heads', it means if you want to retain the ablity to also transmit any other string of length six million, all those have to be preceeded by the proviso -- NOT all heads.
If you add up the cost of saying 'not all heads' for all (2^six million) - 1 strings which aren't all heads, you find that what you save by just saying 'all heads' for that one string is more than lost by having to say 'not all heads' in front of all other possible strings!
Which is what shannon was on about. Turns out if you have distinct events with probabilities p_{i}, then the optimum codeword length for saying that event i has occured is given by -log P_{i}.
What this means is that you get the shortest message length, on average, by giving common events SHORT codewords, and rare events LONGER codewords.
So, for strings of N bits, the probability of any one string is (1/2^N), hence optimum codeword length is N, which is just the length of the original string! There is no advantage to trying to give a shorter codeword (all zeros, say), to the event of six million zeros.
Let's suppose instead we have events A probability (1/2), B probability (1/4), and C probability (1/4).
A should have a 1 bit codeword, B and C 2 bits.
Easiest way: A indicated by 0, B a indicated by 10, and C by 11.
Mean length: 1*(1/2) + (1/4)*2 + (1/4)*2 = 1.5 bits
In effect, the leading 1 says NOT A, and you need second bit to distinguish between B and C.
So, to go back to a string of N zeros. We could say that if we send a 0, that means (all zeros), and stop there for 000000000.....
If we have a string that ISN'T all zeros, we hence have to first send 1 (which says NOT all zeros), then the actual N bits of the message.
000000.... probability (1/2^N) codeword length 1 (message 0)
any other string (2^N)-1 of those, codeword length 0 (not all zeros, then actual N bits.
Hence average message length is:
(1/2^N) + (( 2^N)-1)*(1/2^N)*(N+1) = (N+1) - N/(2^N)
whereas sending original string length N for all possible messages gives average length of just N. Which is LESS than the result above for all N greater than or equal to 1, trying to take a shortcut for sending 'all zeros'.
|
|
|
Post by Progenitor A on Jan 24, 2011 15:39:46 GMT 1
. But when each bit is independant, 00000 carries just as much information as 01011, because each is just one of the 2^5 possible configurations of 5 bits. You really are stupidly blind! Why do you never ask what people mean? Of course 00000 conveys as mich information as 01011 if they are a 5-bit encoding of analogue information If each bit in a five-bit sequence corresponds to one sample of analogue information then the sequence 00000 is conveying far less information than 01011. Only a fool would say that the following 5-bit sequences convey as much information as each other? Sequence A: 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 Sequence B: 01011 01000 01100 00000 11111 Information is contained in the changes of sequence That is the very essence of communication theory We would need a system of bandwidth 1x units to transmit Sequence A We would need a system of bandwith 5x units to transmit sequence B
|
|