K^2

Ugh. That's what happens when you try to do quantum gravity. Stuff breaks. The kind of stuff that shouldn't break. And it's not always clear if things are actually broken like that in nature, or if the math is bad. Now, smart money is on math being bad in this case, but it's one of these cases where experimental check does a lot more good than volumes of theoretical work. In principle, speed of light is a purely local limit. That's why we have things like Alcubierre Drive. So you can always envision something, even a particle, moving faster than light. In theory. In practice, these things come with a shopping list of highly implausible things. Like negative mass. So I don't think a lot of people seriously expect to see FTL neutrinos, but if it actually shows up in this particular effective field theory, it's worth excluding in the experiment. And then it will be back to the drawing board for a bunch of theorists.

Chlorine Trifluoride. You can't get more Kerbal than that.

Fair enough. So long as you promise not to bring up this nonsense again until then, or until you can actually demonstrate any sort of an ability to contribute to discussion.

So you admit that you don't know how to do the math involved, and you are talking out of your behind, right? Experiment is very simple, though. I might just run it next time I'm at my alma mater.

That's wrong. But show me math that proves your case. Or better yet, simulation. Oh, and to prove that your simulation works, I do need it to be capable of reproducing DCQE results.

So here is the thing I don't understand about black hole drive. If you already have a rapidly evaporating singularity, why not just keep feeding it ordinary matter with a particle accelerator? Shouldn't be very difficult to organize a steady matter stream. Then you don't have to worry about the singularity evaporating away, and you're not limited to the 3 year voyage time. Yes, it bothers me a little that such a drive doesn't conserve baryon and lepton numbers, but there is nothing in nature that says that they have to be strictly conserved, a bunch of indications that they are not, and everything points to black holes just not giving the slightest for that particular conservation law. So black hole should be capable of converting matter to energy without need for antimatter, and you just can't do better than that. Making a quantum singularity is the tricky part, of course, but that's sort of the prerequisite for a black hole drive.

Not even close. Take all cases of D0 and Dac1. That's just a random set of points. Take any other pair, it's also just a random set of points. There is no operation you can perform on two uncorrelated random sets to get anything other than a random set. Again, this is trivial to show with a simulation.

You can't measure Dac1 and (Dbc1 or Dbc2). If either Dbc1 or Dbc2 detector triggers, Dac1 will not. If you get signal from Dac1, no signal from either Dbc1 or Dbc2. These detectors are purely yes/no. That's all they measure. And there is just one photon for these four detectors to measure, so only one detector at a time will trip. There are exactly 4 possible outcomes for any one photon. 1) Position on D0 and Dac1 is on, Dac2, Dbc1, Dbc2 are off. 1) Position on D0 and Dac2 is on, Dac1, Dbc1, Dbc2 are off. 1) Position on D0 and Dbc1 is on, Dbc2, Dac1, Dac2 are off. 1) Position on D0 and Dbc2 is on, Dbc1, Dac1, Dac2 are off. That's it. No other combinations are possible.

Oh, that's even better. D0 and Dac1 and (Dbc1 or Dbc2) will NEVER produce any results. You'll be staring at a blank screen. If Dac1 or Dac2 fire, neither Dbc1 nor Dbc2 will ever fire. And vice versa. In fact, in your setup, only one of four detectors will fire per photon. Same for D1-4 in the original experiment. But if you don't believe me, just write a simulation. You know how to do that, right?

The first one or the second one? And have you figured out yet how to place beam splitters, and how to use the coincidence counter?

Nobody's looking at interference patterns at D1-4. They are yes/no detectors. Interference pattern is taken from D0 via coincidence counter. In your setup, the result at D0 will be identical to D3 and D4 coincidences in original experiment, regardless of how you want to hook it up. You can see the results of your experiment by looking at images for D3 and D4 that I've posted. Do you see interference pattern? This is the actual experiment actually carried out, and your prediction is already wrong. I don't know why you think QM is non-deterministic. It just happens to be the kind of system you cannot simulate in a subsystem. So it appears non-deterministic to us, because we are part of the system. If you consider any closed system, however, of which observer is not a part of, QM is 100% deterministic. Also 100% boring, like most systems with no observers.

What. Utter. Nonsense. Not only does the first set of beam splitters do nothing, but your second set is setup incorrectly as well. Do you even understand what a beam splitter does? Because it doesn't look like it. And the fact that you did not understand anything about how DCQE works is no surprise, of course. But you seem to not even have an idea what the coincidence counter is there for, and what sort of interference pattern we're looking for. Anyways, that's not even relevant. If someone was to come in and fix your experiment, removing unnecessary beam splitters, turning the second set of splitters to face correctly, and hooks up detectors to coincidence counter, neither of four patterns will show interference. Because Dbc1 and Dbc2 tell you that photon passed through slit B, while Dac1 and Dac2 tell you that it passed through slit A. This is equivalent to having detector in the slit, which produces no interference. In fact, these are equivalent to detectors D4 and D3 on the original diagram. And hey, look at that, no interference on these. Again, actually understanding the experiments, instead of just quoting text you don't understand, is very important in understanding why standard model is there, and why your nonsense is nonsense.

You do understand that what you're doing is telling a fairy tail, right? It's religion, not science. At best. You cannot simply say, "it looses cohesion". What is it about the interaction that does that? Describe the actual interaction between particle and wave, and how interaction with detector causes that loss of "cohesion". I'm not seriously expecting you to be able to. I know you can't. I need you to understand that you can't. And that it's not how any sort of a scientific model works. It's how Sunday Church works. But even without getting into all of that, and even if we pretend that your explanation makes sense, we look at more experiments and it quickly collapses. If the particle looses "cohesion" with the wave, how in the world does delayed choice quantum eraser work? Particle tracks back, finds its lost wave, and gains "cohesion" again? You might as well drop all pretense and call it magic for all the ad-hoc nonsense you've been dropping.

Who cares what you call the thing that "waves"? Is it local? No, because it has interference properties. Is that the thing that interacts with detector? Yes, because otherwise interference wouldn't go away when detector detects the particle passing through it. So really, what we are detecting is the passage of that wave. The "particle"? We don't even care. It doesn't interact with anything, but if you insist that it's there, it's a violation of Bell's Inequalities. Again, you can't have it both ways. And if you spend just a little bit of time actually studying the subject, instead of parroting quotes from all sorts of sources without understanding as much as a single formula, maybe then you'd have a chance to understand some of it. But you're not even making an effort. Sit down and derive interference, at least. With any model. Something other than just throwing around quotes you don't understand.

Once you take a couple of steps from the very top, Russian space agency is pretty apolitical. For starters, the concentration of intelligent people who can see through gov't's BS is much higher there. And also, as you'd expect, most of them care more about space and rockets than what's happening between countries. They want to do cool stuff with anyone else who wants to do cool stuff. Funding is a separate issue, but I suspect that Western partners end up fronting most of the bills on shared projects like that. At which point, none of the top suits in the agency have grounds for complaints.

You can call it whatever you like. If it is responsible for interference pattern on the screen, it has to be the thing that interacts with the detector. Particle has nothing to do with this interaction, and is just a hidden parameter in your hypothesis. A totally unnecessary one, I might add, since it never interacts with anything, and just happens to go to where the interaction happened. Either way, the delocalized portion is not hidden. It's the actual thing that interacts with the detector. Again, if this wasn't the case, the interference patterns caused by non-local interactions would not disappear. And you are back to two options, either you aren't replicating the double-slit experiment, or the local information about "actual particle" location is the only hidden variable, and you are violating Bell's Theorem. We have decades of experiments specifically designed to demonstrate that the only physical, interacting representation of the "particle" is non-local. That it is a field. No local component can exist. Hidden or otherwise. Which means that it is absolutely impossible for particle to go through just one slit.

This model was bad when it was proposed, for reasons cited. Since then, it has been thoroughly discredited. The view of pilot wave being the non-local hidden variable only works if you presume measurements to be these magical state collapses that the original, 1930's formulation of QM had. In modern QM, interaction is part of the Hamiltonian. It's the only way to properly describe the measurement. So the only way you get results identical to experimental observation is if pilot-wave interacts with the detector, not the particle. In which case, the position of the particle goes back to being a local hidden variable. If this was not the case, interference would NOT disappear when you take the measurement in one of the slits. The detector HAS to change the pattern of the pilot-wave for interference to disappear. And now we're back to the theory breaking Bell's Inequality. You really can't have it both ways. Either particle is the observed object, and pilot-wave is hidden, in which case interference pattern will show up regardless of whether you make the measurement. Or particle is hidden and local, violating Bell's Inequalities. Feel free to choose either option, since they both tell you the hypothesis is completely wrong and inconsistent with experimental evidence.

You do have a local hidden variable. Location of a particle. If it's non-local, there is no problem for that location to be both slits. If you insist that it passes through just one slit, it's a local hidden variable. You can't have it both ways. Of course, if you don't understand what "local" means, it problably doesn't tell you much, huh?

Sure, constants work. As for reading text, you can read it directly into a char array from file using the fread() command. You will have to do your own line/delimiter parsing, though, unless new lines and white spaces are the only delimiters in the file, in which case, fscanf is your friend. FILE f; char pcBuffer[1024]; // This is fine, so long as you never expect to read more than 1023 characters at a time. f = fopen("data.txt", "rb"); // Or whatever your file is called. while(fscanf("%s", pcBuffer)) { // Process pcBuffer } fclose(f);

Oh, you meant comparing individual characters IN the string. Sure. That works. Like I said, C-style string it's just an array of chars. I think, part of your problem is the fact that you're using a "string" type at all. There is absolutely no reason to bother with the overhead that involves. Also, keep in mind that printing stuff to console isn't cheap, time-wise. It's good for debugging, but don't forget to disable it when you're actually trying to process billions of symbols. Finally, you can actually use 'A' in place of 65. Exactly like that, with single quotes. Means exactly the same thing, but would make the code a bit easier to read.

Because 'A' isn't a string. It's a character. "A" is a string, which contains two characters. 'A' and '\0'. The trailing '\0', which happens to be ASCII 0, is there to indicate that the string has ended. Here's a demo for you that might help. #include <stdio.h> #include <string.h> int main(void) { char* pcPassword = "MySecretPassword"; // This is the correct password. It's a pointer to first character. char pcBuffer[128]; // This is an array of characters where attempt will be stored. while(1) { printf("Enter password: "); scanf("%s", pcBuffer); // Read user input into pcBuffer. if(strcmp(pcPassword, pcBuffer)) // If strings are DIFFERENT... { printf("Incorrect! Try again.\n"); } else // If they are the same... { printf("Correct!\n"); break; // Leave the loop. } } return 0; } Note that you should never, ever test passwords like that, and not just because one could buffer-overflow this code. But I don't think you're worried about security in your code. This approach is fine if you are just parsing a file, or something. And you can use sscanf and fscanf in exactly the same way. There are also several variations of that strcmp functions, including ones that ignore case differences and ones that only compare first n characters. Look up the docs. Keep in mind that strcmp will return false if strings are the same. It's counter-intuitive but there are some reasons for it that probably aren't relevant to what you are doing. P.S. I'm using Hungarian Notation here. The "pc" on variables stands for "Pointer to Char". Technically, char[] and char* aren't the same thing, but in this case, they serve the same purpose, so both are labeled with "pc".

In other words, you've opened up the Wikipedia page on Bell's Inequalities, didn't understand any of it, rambled on with some key words, and decided that it passes for an explanation. Bell's inequalities were designed specifically to probe whether there is such a thing as "actual location" of a particle, or if QM is actually correct in treating a particle as existing in both states at the same time. They are precisely the way to use statistics between distinguishing particle going through just one slit or both slits. And we have carried out a great deal of these experiments. And guess what? Particle actually goes through both slits. As verified by actual experiments. This isn't new. We've had theoretical framework for nearly a century, and actual experiments confirming it for at least a couple of decades. Everything you claim comes from ignorance and total refusal to sit down and actually learn how things work. We have considered possibility of actual particle and wave working together. We have discarded it as incompatible with experiments. Experiments specifically designed to test this sort of thing. Fact that you don't understand even the theoretical background behind these experiments does not excuse you. In fact, it makes it worse. Your claims have been verified to be false. Please stop pretending that you know something that far better qualified people don't.

Why? A string in C is literally an array of characters. string.h has a bunch of functions for manipulating strings. And if you need to do conversion to number or what have you, there is sscanf() function in stdio.h. You are just spoiled by managed types. These do not exist in C/C++ because they are slow. Want to have fast code? Learn to manage your own data.

That's a violation of Bell's Inequalities. Id est, experimentally proven to be wrong.

sft_flyer, how is this different from having a car on the belt and simply stepping on the throttle to drive off?