Co nen mua gel titan khong

28 Tháng Bảy Trang Web mà sẽ được ăn uống, để thảo luận về chủ đề của Titan Gel đánh giá Mua Titan Gel mà không có nhiều hy vọng, và tôi đã làm.
Table of contents

You said you have "an interpretation of quantum mechanics that gives, in my opinion, the closest thing to local realism we can get, and in the same time relies entirely on the standard formalism of quantum mechanics. A new paradigm means, not only a new mindset, but also a new formalism, that of course should be compatible with all previous experimental evidence, and be falsifiable, but also bring something new. Kuhn pointed out accuracy, consistency, scope, simplicity and fruitfulness as the rational aspects two competing theories would be compared upon.

My question, now: If you agree that "any measurement setup has local real solutions" why do you think you have to restrict yourself to the quantum mechanics formalism? Can't you begin from scratch and invent a new solution? Much more easy to say it than do it, right? But Go for It, Physicists!! Change the paradigm! Best regards Teresa. Cristinel Stoica replied on Sep. Hi Teresa, "don't you think that the two phrases are in contradiction? To see that they are not in contradiction, you can check the links I gave you. Hence, you can only see the time displayed on the screen, so you think Hence, you can only see the time displayed on the screen, so you think that it is just a clock.

But you would like to have a cell phone. You are prepared to toss this clock and buy a cell phone. Say that accidentally you discover how to unlock the screen, and use it as a phone. You realize that what you thought is a clock, it is in fact a smartphone. Would you still find justified to toss it and buy a cell phone? But since up to this point the boundaries of the experiments are precisely those of the theory, then I don't think I am restricting myself. There are a lot of great physicists who work in the foundations of quantum mechanics and try to reconstruct it from different principles and using different formalisms.

Up to this point, their reconstructions either don't fit the data give different inequalities , or are complicated by adding new axioms to make them reproduce the same data as QM. But if you follow them, you can see that they have brilliant, radically new ideas, based on new paradigms and so on. Whatever you ask for. And there are so many physicists working at local or realistic versions of QM.

Your manifesto comes a bit late, because there are already so many trying to do this. Perhaps you are not satisfied with their work, but did you read it? I think even the smartest guys barely have enough time to read and understand all that is written every day on this subject. Up to this point, there were proposed hundreds of alternative formulations and formalisms of QM, but the simplest and most fit is the Hilbert space formalism. It is not that people don't try to solve these puzzles, they do.

The one you should convince seems to be not them, but Nature. Nature doesn't seem to care about our taste. You say that all experiments testing Bell's theorem have loopholes. This is an overstatement. To exploit those loopholes, Nature would have to be very sneaky, and to do this at purpose, and change the way to use the loopholes in different ways, depending on the experiment. So either nature violates Bell's inequalities, or obeys them using various complicated improvisations a la Rube Goldberg.

But anyway, say that testing Bell's theorem is not perfect so it must be wrong. How about the Kochen-Specker theorem? This doesn't even need an experiment to test it. It proves that QM is contextual. Also, are you aware that there are versions of Bell's theorem without inequalities? I doubt you can find loopholes based on imperfect measurements here. So this is why I don't think I should toss the good old formalism. But please read my papers and watch my videos, where I try to explain why the old formalism still allows things considered forbidden by most scientists: In a similar vein, people don't like singularities in GR and come with radically new theories.

But when singularities are understood, we see that not only they are not bad, but they are even helpful my other video is about this. So I don't think physics lacks revolutionary ideas and new paradigms. Every day you will find on arxiv a new revolution, a new paradigm. The problem is that there are some that always win, when the math is checked, or when the experiments are performed.

And that's why it seems that physicist are so short sighted and can't replace them with better ones: It doesn't mean that in the future we will not realize that something radically new is better, but this day is not today. Cristi view post as summary. Hi Christi Thank you for answering. You say: So let me rephrase: What I think the fastest way to promote a paradigm shift in Physics is when scientists and deciders of research funds accept that for the quantum phenomena there is a limit - like in Special Relativity there is a limit, nothing goes faster than the speed of light - and that limit is Local Realism.

Because local realism has not been rejected, Physicists should FIRST find a solution within that limitation, and not search for that solution all over the place. Can I ask you something? It makes any sense for you, the claim J. Especial made, that in Bell tests under non-ideal detection, the respective inequalities, all, confused Fair Sampling with Perfect Correlation between Contrafactual Detections? Looking forward for your answer Teresa.

Hi Teresa, I see you emphasize the "or" in my phrase about the other approaches to QM, but you ignore the "and" in the phrase in which I discuss my own approach. It is difficult to judge someone's work only by a one sentence summary. But I understand that nobody can actually read carefully everything that is written. I wish you good luck with the paradigm shift which you promote, which is to replace the current paradigm in QM with a new one, which is actually the old one of local realism.

On the other hand, you can probably see that there are many physicists still trying to find some local realistic approach to QM, but so far this didn't lead to significant progress. On the other hand, the others are the ones that advanced QM, both in theory and in applications. This doesn't mean that I consider them right, but only practical. I see that you consider that, because I don't reject Bell's theorem, I am against local realism. But I think this would be unfair, and I gave you some links that may help you understand my position, if you will be interested and decide to spend some time on this.

On the other hand, why wouldn't you find that new local realistic approach to QM which really is what you want? I wish you good luck in your mission. Hi Cristi Glad you answered but didn't answered my question When I commented on just one of your sentences, you should not think I didn't read all your post. I appreciated it, and also the amount of time you have put on it. The "or" phrase. That was the phrase that mostly "interested" me. Exactly because the "or" part. The "or" is the part that The "or" is the part that shows that today' physicists think that Local Realism, was experimentally rejected.

After all, that is what they have been told in school. And those are the "aceptable" alternatives. You see why the "or" was so important? As I see it, that is a big problem Am I wrong? Math is Math, a cool science - the only exact science we have. But you do need experiments to test what makes sense in the real world. Physics is not an exact science, you always need to test your hypotesis with an experiment. Math is a tool. Math is not "the truth", and everything that math "says" doesn't necessarily have to be real.

Because it is so counter-intuitive one have to rely of math to find the "truth". And it leads to completely exaggerated new hypothesis Is there another test to disprove Local Realism? Teleportation and Quantum computer experimentalists: They have to do something to test it - they do a Bell test. Bell theorem, is ok. Every physicist except Dr. Christian and al. It is math. It uses inequalities to find the limits of Local Realism. The problem with the Bell tests is with the "transformed" Bell inequalities that have to be used to a particular experiment.

That is the reason why I made you my important question. I really don't care about "loopholes" but mainstream physicists do, and they teach the opposite. I want the world to have a local realist theory to explain quantum phenomena, that could make predictions in a broader scope than QM, for instance Gravity.

I want a theory that is consistent with all other sciences, from Chemistry my area to Cosmology. I want a theory that can be used by engineers to develop new technologies, create value, and help the world to overcome this awful economic crisis. I also want a theory that is as accurate as QM in its prediction.. And also I want a theory whose formalist that doesn't need to be renormalized to give predictions.

Can I find it? Not alone, I can't. But, what I believe, is that J. Especial found and put the finger where the problem of today's Physics is. And no one, or very few, are looking where the solution might be. I want more. More physicists looking for that solution. I can't convince you.. No problem For me, that is the necessary step to begin a scientific revolution. One more time, thank you for your time, I do enjoy the time I spend 'talking' to you. Best regards Teresa "I don't reject Bell's theorem, I am against local realism" view post as summary.

You extended the "or" phrase, but still avoided the "and" phrase from my very first post here: Because of this you still don't understand me and consider me "friennemy". I gave you links to a view which I consider as local AND as realistic as it can, and still compatible with Bell and KS, and with unitary evolution, and with relativity. It may be It may be not what you want, but you still ignore it. You try to make all of us look like clones of Niels Bohr for some reason: Well, while the links I gave you at the beginning are "as local and realistic as possible", I actually have something that I consider even more local AND realistic.

I mentioned in a comment on FQXi's website a local realistic solution, which I actually don't consider true, but you may want to try it. If you will read my comments on that page and on the related posts chronologically, you will see that I gave full consideration to the one you consider the only local realist alive, but his ideas were so wrong.

I see that you consider theorems of Bell and Kochen-Specker as not being real, because they are "math". The point is, any theorem has three parts, a hypothesis, a proof, and a conclusion.


  • france t253 male enhancement.
  • target lotion male enhancement reviews?
  • Titan Gel – nó hoạt động – đánh giá giá – nơi để mua – hiệu thuốc.
  • blue 60 male enhancement pills.

To reject the conclusion, you have to find errors in the proof, or to show that the conditions in the hypothesis don't apply. In the case of QM, the conditions in the hypothesis are fulfilled. And they were not made "a posteriori" as you said. So you should show that the proof is wrong. In general, the proof is pure logic although the propositions are mathematical , so if you don't find an error, you should to reject logic. Well, in a few hours I will fly to a conference where I will meet a lot of non-standard quantum theorists who have PhD students. But assuming you are right, this isn't a problem.

For my PhD I studied another tabu subject: You see, people want to sell their own theories to replace GR, so they claim that GR is wrong because of singularities, so they don't want them to be fixed.


  1. Titan Gel – tác dụng phụ – choáng – không, nó sai rồi – đau.
  2. Hướng dẫn cách sử dụng Titan Gel hiệu quả!
  3. Titan Gel Chính Hãng của Nga | paradigmpartners.com.au.

    4. I wanted to show that singularities are not bad, and are actually useful. Even after I succeeded, I had great difficulties because of this, and for two years I tried to find a new supervisor. I eventually found one, after I managed to publish several articles on the subject. Actually, eventually people even liked my results, although they are not very well known yet. So you see, there may be difficulties, so what? Best regards, Cristi P.

    I think I will be unavailable the next days, as I mentioned. I will come back, too. See you soon. Hi Teresa, Here is the link to the conference, and I am back. Thank you, thank you, thank you Cristi I followed your conference link and I found what I needed.

    Titan Gel – giá, đánh giá, forum. Mua ở đâu, ebay thuốc hoặc nhà sản xuất? | Health Blog

    How was the conference? Tell me Joe Fisher wrote on Sep. Dear Teresa, I have already rated your video. I do not know why each person is not allowed just to vote one star. That would be more fair than the graduated voting that is allowed. In the essay contest, my essay got perfect 10 ratings from a Physics Professor and two Doctorate Degree certificate holders. Joe Fisher. Hi Joe As I said to Christi, in the last post: Go for it, Physicists! And you are trying, don't give up! You have made your point, in this small community.

    We have heard you: Real light is the only real stationary substance in the real Universe. And, if anybody has listen to me hehe soon there will be funding for all local realistic research. Hi Theresa, I can feel you try with all your effort to make a change in physics happen - a science you seem to have a lot passion and dedication for. This is admirable and at times when I struggle with animation, illustration, drawing - things I love - I shall be reminded of the way you pursue your goal. I wish I could plug myself into the actual debate you're involved in and contribute more to the discourse you wish to have - but my knowledge is to limited too join the debate on a satisfactory level.

    I hope you find the chance to check out our video and tell us what you think. If you could vote for us it would be really appreciated, since as you mentioned earlier, votes count for all of us and we would like to share support and appreciation. Madeleine Piezoelectricity: A Love Story. Mark Edward Prince wrote on Sep. Hi Theresa, you have got my vote and l look forward to receiving yours for my video http: Who cares? Good luck in the competition!!!

    Ramona Leigh Taylor wrote on Sep. Nice video. Interesting points! Jonathan J. Dickau wrote on Sep. I agree with your premise Theresa.. Physics does need a shift, if it is to remain scientific, and maybe it is time for a local realistic revolution. But nobody wants to even try to slay the giant, unless they have a theory in hand, and those who try like Dr. Christian get slapped down mighty hard by the QM establishment. I guess I'm saying there will have to be quite compelling reasons to adopt a new view, before the world-view that embraces non-locality and entanglement can be laid to rest.

    Good luck in your crusade! You are likely to need it. All the Best, Jonathan. Peter Jackson wrote on Sep. Hi Teresa, Top marks, and Especial's proof isn't the only one. I showed in my essay this year how a real local classical mechanism can produce the effects considered as 'non-local', summarised here; Classical reproduction of quantum correlations.

    Titan Gel Gold: mua kem tăng kích thước dương vật từ Hendel’s Garden

    It's achieved just by changing one fundamental assumption inherited by Bell. I hope you'll read it and comment. I'm quite convinced it will contribute to the long overdue paradigm shift, if entrenched academic inertia will now allow any such shifts at all! Best of luck Peter. Hi Peter, I followed your link and found lots of interesting articles to read. This one https: What I think the fastest way to promote a paradigm shift in Physics is when scientists and deciders of research funds accept that for the quantum phenomena there is a limit - like in Special Relativity there is a limit, the speed of light - and that limit is local realism.

    That is the importance of recognizing, and not teaching the opposite, in what regards the experimental results of Bell tests. Don't you think? It was 3 sentences. Thank you, I think I will need a little bit of luck. Teresa, I watched your video and I want to thank you for bringing to my attention the fact that experiments like Aspect's that attempt to disprove the possibility of local realism are subject to loopholes such as Fair Sampling and Measurement Crosstalk.

    I found J. Especial's paper "Bell inequalities under non-ideal conditions" too technical for me, but I have been "enlightened" on the subject by reading Wikipedia's articles "Loopholes in Bell test experiments", "Local hidden variable theory" and "Superdeterminism". Of course, the fact that there are loopholes in these experiments do not prove that local realism holds, so entanglement and "spooky action at a distance" are very much still in the running All we can say with certainty is that the jury is still out As Cristinel Stoica pointed in his post on your forum, there will always be physicists who try to imagine new theories, and it is a good thing.

    We know that, at some point, there will have to be some major shift, since General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics are incompatible. As we say in french, "Qui vivra verra! Here's the direct link: Adam Katcher wrote on Sep. Hello Teresa, thanks for commenting on our video. Your video is interesting, but I am puzzled about the claim that the experimental verification that local realism is just lore. Are there other experiments that confirm it? Also, great soundtrack! In case you didn't yet, feel free to look up our video, in which we discuss what is quantum gravity, present an existing solution and give examples of applications and future directions: Best, --Pedro.

    Hi Pedro are you portuguese? Just saw your video and rated it. There are other theoretical attempts, theorems, but not experimental evidences came out of those theorems.

    Titan Gel – giá, đánh giá, forum. Mua ở đâu, ebay thuốc hoặc nhà sản xuất?

    And do you know what happens when, over and over again, an attempt to reject a whole category of theories have been performed and none has successfully achieved it? That means that Local Realism is still a viable alternative to Quantum Mechanics. And you, students have a choice to pursue the path you feel is correct. And talking about quantum gravity Will you debate this between you? I will be here, if you need more information. Best of luck in the contest. Schatzie Dudee wrote on Sep. Nice video! You're right - quantum physics is counter-intuitive.

    Great point! Please rate my 2 videos, if you don't mind so that we can also move on to the next level. Have a great day! Schatzie Dudee. Michael muteru wrote on Sep. Dear maam fantastic video very revolutionary. Henri Vonn De Roule wrote on Sep. Dear Dr. Thank you for trying to shake up a science that is still in the late 19th century!!!

    Einstein and most other physicists have been looking at the world in macro terms. The question of the existence of time is becoming more mainstream and as we delve into the quantum world we are finding the "spooky action at a distance" to be the norm. When one delves into the quantum world and leaves behind classical physics it is like leaving the English measuring system and accepting the metric system. There are still some holdouts there as well. We should tell our students that it is up to them to decide whether the information provided is correct, and if they feel it is not, to pursue the path they feel is correct.

    Great work!! Hi, Ron I 'm glad you asked. If you want to know if I have a new quantum theory local and realistic for quantum phenomena in my hand? I must say I don't. If you want to know, in my opinion, what is the easier and fastest way to achieve one? That, I can answer. We are here, today, because of a simple video contest, within one of the most influential physics community We are here, today, because of a simple video contest, within one of the most influential physics community in the world - the FQXi community.

    Between its members and followers we can find people that, because of their achievements and media attention have this capacity to act as catalysts of one big idea, if there is a consensus to correct an error made in the past. And this consensus is relatively easy to achieve: If you are a theoretical physicist , from time to time, [ And the crackpot will have a theory about how the world really works. And you feel quite like obliged to maybe read it, because you are funded by a government grant You know it is wrong!

    You can exclude a whole class of theories! FWXi could promote a serious discussion over J.

    Titan Gel không thực sự tốt

    Especial findings, and take a position over whether or not these new generalizations of Bell inequalities are now correctly formulated. The conclusion should be transmitted to the whole physics community, both theoretical and experimental. The result of this action could have a huge impact in the future of Physics. FQXi could promote the idea, that, to correct a 30' year error, a quota for local realistic research funds could be drawn, to encourage new brilliant physicists that are also exquisite mathematicians to use their imagination and skills and present the world new solutions.

    Don't you think this could be the beginning of a scientific revolution? Sincerely Teresa view post as summary. I posted my letter to Prof. Hooft, in almost all your forum areas, and that is against FQXi guidelines. Sorry about that. It is the revolutionary fuss I won't do it again. I wish we had a forum for all of us to post and be notified by mail. Why not Local Realism? Because it was reported as incorrect, all posts were deleted, including the comments.

    Even the one I wrote here. The news is: I got an answer from Prof. Are you interested in following this discussion? I can't publish his comments, without his authorization, of course, but I can post my answers. Should I post them here? Will anybody see them? From plus. From news. From titangel. From sites. Org -. From about. Read my articles. From suckhoedoisong. Powered by Scoop. How do I publish content on my topic? Easy to do! You can: How to grow my audience and develop my traffic? Publishing quality and relevant content you curate on a regular basis will develop your online visibility and traffic.

    Why should I share my scoops? Sharing your scoops to your social media accounts is a must to distribute your curated content. Not only will it drive traffic and leads through your content, but it will help show your expertise with your followers. Learn how to connect your accounts. Why should I brand my topic? Branding your topics will give more credibility to your content, position you as a professional expert and generate conversions and leads. Learn more. How to integrate my topics' content to my website? By redirecting your social media traffic to your website, Scoop.

    Learn more about the different existing integrations and their benefits. How to curate as a team?