I am a Time Traveler from 2015

Darby said:
What it really means is that you can only know a certain total quantity of information about a quantum particle. Momentum and position are just two quantum properties of the state a particle. There are more - mass, energy, spin, charge, angular velocity, angular momentum...

But it's the non-commutating properties that are inportant to uncertaity. I won't go into matrix algebra, but that is where it is explained. In short, the non-commutatig properties goes like this:

A x B = C
B x A =/ C
A and B are non-commutating. You can't arbitrarily switch the order in which A and B appear in the equation/inequality because the order determines the outcome.

A x B = C
B x A = C
A and B are commutating in the manner that we all learned when we were taught the basic rules of arithmetic.

A, B and C are individual matrices, columns and rows of numbers, representing the individual quantum states of the particles under consideration.
Click to expand...

You know there is a physical phenomena that parallels this type of math. The Faraday riddle. A rotating conductor in a uniform magnetic field will generate a current perpendicular to the axis of rotation. Yet when the uniform magnetic field is rotated instead, no current is generated through the conductor.
 
Einstein said:
Gee, I guess I wasn't paying attention. Or maybe it's that professed time travelers don't seem to get my attention anymore. But that is interesting that this particular time traveler claims it isn't possible to predict the future due to the uncertainty principle. I thought I was the only one that realized that. And no predictions of gloom and doom. That's a first.

Perhaps if he can pass this test, I might pay attention a little more.

How can a wave appear to be a particle?
Click to expand...

Believe me, you do not want to pay any attention to this person (in regard to their claims of being a time-traveller).
 
Mylo.X. said:
Believe me, you do not want to pay any attention to this person (in regard to their claims of being a time-traveller).
Click to expand...


You don't have to worry. There haven't been any time travel claimants that have come back from the future with any future knowledge about science.

In fact the majority seem to be scientifically illiterate. Its like people from the future appear to be less educated than people in the present.

But the usual course of action for the time travel claimant, is that my question will go unanswered. And then most likely his postings will stop. And then in about two weeks another claimant will take his place.
 
[quote="For example, the Uncertainty Principle states that I am prevented from knowing, even in theory, the exact states of the individual molecules of a certain volume of water. But if that water happens to be flowing in the Colorado River I can pretty well state with a high degree of certainty that the water that neither evaporates, is absorbed into the soil nor is otherwise siphoned off will eventually end up in Lake Mead.[/quote]

An observation: If actions can not be predicted how can we not say that water will always end at Lake Mead? To look at this incontrovertible truth is to look at a greater principle that we may have overseen altogether. What could that be? Care to guess anyone?
 
You've chosen lake Mead as the predetermined destination for the water in the river. But that is only one of the possible outcomes available that could be the destination of each of the water molecules that make up the river of water. Some of the water will make it to lake Mead. But predicting which water molecules will is the dilemma. The only certainty is the multiple future paths are already there.
 
John Thomas said:
I am not John Titor 1.
My handle is John Thomas.
I mix a lot of lies in with the truth in order to protect our time-line.
.....
"Predictions" that will be proven shortly.
.....
Russia and the U.S.A. will work out a deal on Syria.
Romney will lose by a historical landslide to Obama.
.....
Click to expand...

As in June 2014, only 2 predictions are correct.
 
If you are listing "Romney will lose by a historical landslide to Obama" as a prediction, then it was an obvious failed prediction. As I recall at the time, Romney's popular vote was very close in count to Obama's.
 
Einstein said:
If you are listing "Romney will lose by a historical landslide to Obama" as a prediction, then it was an obvious failed prediction. As I recall at the time, Romney's popular vote was very close in count to Obama's.
Click to expand...
You are correct, Einstein. Obama appears to have won 332 electoral votes to Romney’s 206. It is not a historical landslide.
 
Einstein said:
You know there is a physical phenomena that parallels this type of math. The Faraday riddle. A rotating conductor in a uniform magnetic field will generate a current perpendicular to the axis of rotation. Yet when the uniform magnetic field is rotated instead, no current is generated through the conductor.
Click to expand...


"Rotated" only along the "B" axis. Video demonstrating with a CRT:




Interesting that they had to go to Modern Physics for the "probable" answer.......................Some answers in the link:

Faraday paradox - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Fascinating reading link about such:

Why does a magnetic field remain stationary...

Axial rotation of a magnetic field detection

Excellent Video:

 
Einstein said:
If you are listing "Romney will lose by a historical landslide to Obama" as a prediction, then it was an obvious failed prediction. As I recall at the time, Romney's popular vote was very close in count to Obama's.
Click to expand...

You are dead wrong. It was a landslide. 332 to 206 in the electoral college; a 38% lead!

I suppose you wouldn't necessarily count the popoular vote as a landslide, with President Obama carrying only 5,000,000 more votes, but that isn't how we elect presidents.

But, of course, anybody with a pulse on politics was aware that any Republican was going to lose hard. Strong candidates rarely challenge Presidential incumbents.

Moz
 
Back
Top