Recent content by ktx49

thanks for response. i know my question was poorly formulated...but am I incorrect to say that space expanded faster than C in the early stages of inflation after the big bang? could the curvature of space ever create an effect similar to that of expansion; in which things moved apart at a...

well in the context of the quote I provided, I assumed it would in fact simplify things, particularly in regards to the number of footprints in the different frames. many of the replies to the OPs scenario seem(at least to me) to be centered around how contraction would change the distance of...

this is interesting. however, the answers provided so far have been difficult for me to dissect...so let's simplify things and say the traveller only has one leg and hops around leaving just one footprint per "stride". how would the number of footprints compare in the 2 different reference...

Hi, We all know everyone's favorite "exception" to the speed of light limit...that space itself can expand faster than C. My question is whether space can curve faster than C? I understand that gravity travels at the speed of light...but can space itself move faster than this limit in other...

so its not useful to think about measurement in terms of information theory? (PS, don't be offended by my ignorance here, I'm learning so much about QMs just by asking you guys these sort of noob questions...thanks!)

so it would not be adequate to describe "measurement" as any exchange of information between the environment and a quantum system that lowers the entropy of said system?

i don't even see anything unintuitive about these results no matter how many times you've said it...I'm not trying to argue with you or go around in circles, so if possible could you just point out the flaw(s) in my "intuitive explanation" of these results? even if there's a detector below the...

^ very cool Strilanc...helps to see it visually. thanks for posting!

correct...but it's also always going towards detectors A and B. what do you mean detect a photon at M? its a mirror. I don't see the relevance of this? why would the photon be required to know this information to create these results? what am i missing? i don't see anything non-intuitive...

lets take the coin analogy a step further... it is possible to "measure" the coin(along a certain "unstable" axis) in a manner so that both outcomes are possible yet neither outcome is actually decided...so with this measurement both alternatives are actually present, however we can only speak...

i still don't get it...as far as what is traveling towards M? this is obviously the wave-function...if we put a detector at M we will certainly detect photons(look at my original question posed in this thread). we know that a photon behaves as a wave-function until we observe it otherwise, so...

I'm not saying your wrong here as your basically saying the same thing as the Wikipedia page...which seems to be the entire premise behind the "paradox" of this experiement. However, I don't think the statement Necessarily implies the truth of the second statement In fact, I think we could...

I'd define consciousness as the attachment of subjective experience/"feelings" while processing information...I'd venture and say that any biological form that can process information about its environment is "conscious" to some degree. Personally I think we as human beings do not like to think...

thanks anyway you could quickly show me how you got the ~2.1% for A and ~72.9% for B...i can sort of intuitively understand why it would now be possible for ~2.1% of photons to reach detector A but I'd love to see the exact math for the partial interference if you get a chance. also I'm having...

here this is taken from the wikipedia page on Mach-Zehnder Interferometers: and to be clear your saying the results would be ~2.1% for A, ~72.9% for B, and 25% at C? Thanks