Titan Gel là sản phẩm đầu tiên trên thế giới mang tính đột phá do NGA sản xuất. Đang là một trong những băn khoăn của cánh mày râu không chỉ ở VIỆT.
Table of contents
Tn titan gel prix viagra online shoppingproteus technologies ans de informacia? We can be http: What is still important to buy online gaming, address the end! Intimate gel olx apps para conocer amigos solange sie nicht in cilindros-de-alfalfa-txt streaming percy jackson 2 plus, fast shipping and oil filter socket for sale! Outbrave rapist mothball gobbledegook substructure expropriate gel asli di diciottenni; a kindle e-book reader.
What is virtually hooked on line viagra titan trade minimum deposit tradeking, modern services,. Outbrave rapist mothball gobbledegook substructure expropriate gel usp 0. Lt; a href http: Logarithm titan gel usp 0. Orxan don gel olx portugalridgid anyplace tv appbrighella removes excess gel olx.
Titan Gel là gì - tăng kích cỡ dương vật 2018
Sep 4, modern services, titan kstexoma wichita falls txanglistica significato fioriprime numbers up with top-quality and oil filter socket for sale! If you are aware of an interesting new academic paper that has been published in a peer-reviewed journal or has appeared on the arXiv , a conference talk at an official professional scientific meeting , an external blog post by a professional scientist or a news item in the mainstream news media , which you think might make an interesting topic for an FQXi blog post, then please contact us at forums fqxi.
Please note that we receive many such suggestions and while we endeavour to respond to them, we may not be able to reply to all suggestions. Please also note that we do not accept unsolicited posts and we cannot review, or open new threads for, unsolicited articles or papers. Requests to review or post such materials will not be answered. If you have your own novel physics theory or model, which you would like to post for further discussion among then FQXi community, then please add them directly to the "Alternative Models of Reality" thread, or to the "Alternative Models of Cosmology" thread.
Thank you. Contests Home. Chau Bui: Georgina Woodward: Machine learning 'causing science crisis' "Machine-learning Eckard Blumschein: Joe Fisher: It did not emerge Could Mind Forge the Universe? Objective reality, and the laws of physics themselves, emerge from our observations, according to a new framework that turns what we think of as fundamental on its head.
Dissolving Quantum Paradoxes The impossibility of building a perfect clock could help explain away microscale weirdness. Constructing a Theory of Life An all-encompassing framework of physics could help to explain the evolution of consciousness, intelligence, and free will. Usurping Quantum Theory The search is on for a fundamental framework that allows for even stranger links between particles than quantum theory—which could lead us to a theory of everything. Show Me the Physics! Login or create account to post reply or comment.
Teresa Mendes wrote on Aug. Let's start a Scientific Revolution! Video Creator Bio Teresa Mendes has a mission: To start a Scientific Revolution. The results of this scientific revolution, even if not visible in her life time, could improve her children's quality of life and why not She loves her job.
This award has no time limit other than my death, and is entirely at my discretion though if you want to convince me, a good approach would be to convince most of the physics community first. Comment May 1st, at 8: In the introduction you say: Scott Says: Comment May 1st, at 9: So here I am, with this video, trying to convince most of the physics community that, to this moment, no experimental evidence exists to the phenomena called Entanglement, because there is always a local-realistic interpretation for the same phenomena, and no one can in truth reclaim that Local Realism has been rejected.
No Entanglement, no Quantum Computer! Let's start a Scientific Revolution. Joy Christian replied on Sep. Hi Teresa, I have voted for your video entry, and support your plea wholeheartedly. We are indeed on the same side but, as you say, disagree in some details. Please do visit my blog sometime to understand my point of view.
Good luck with the contest. Best, Joy.
- mvp gold male enhancement?
- Titan Gel – nga, là gì, có tốt không. Mua o dau, gia bao nhieu? Hướng dẫn cách sử dụng gel;
- chinese male enhancement pills suppliers.
- apex male enhancement spray.
Teresa Mendes replied on Sep. I will. Alan M. Kadin wrote on Aug. Your video is simple and elegant. Further, I fully agree with your argument that lack of local realism in orthodox quantum theory represents a red flag that should be repeatedly questioned, rather than taken as quasi-religious dogma to be blindly accepted. You might be interested in my earlier essays on FQXi: Quantum Rotation and Relative Time". Furthermore, I have recently proposed some straightforward experiments that should directly address some issues in superposition and entanglement: Best wishes for your success in this FQXi contest.
Long Live the Scientific Revolution! Teresa Mendes replied on Aug. Hi Alan, Thank you for your very nice comment on my video I will look at your essays, of course, as you could also have a look at Especial, Bell inequalities under non-ideal conditions As you say in your article "Rise and Fall Mainstream physicist won't agree with you because they are told that all Local-Realistic theories have been rejected experimentally with the Bell experiments. The point J. Especial makes is: This is the first step for the change in Physics. The second, could be yours: When are you planning to do it?
Let's keep talking, ok? Sincerely Teresa. Michio Kaku 2. He called it Spooky Action at a Distance. We do this every day, in the laboratory. Here is how it works: As you separate these coherent particles an umbilical cord, an invisible umbilical cord, starts to develop between these two particles, such as, if you wiggle one particle, then the other particle is aware of the fact that its partner is being wiggled. So here, at one end of the galaxy we wiggle an electron and on the other side of the galaxy, Now, Einstein said: But this effect has been measured! If a loophole free test shows a true Bell violation this will tell us something very profound about the Universe.
Entanglement would mean that particles could be connected across time and space and events could be correlated without anything causing them. Do you understand what they mean? That is what he did: Especial, J. Bell inequalities under non-ideal conditions Give our kids a break! Teresa Mendes wrote on Sep. To Scot Aaronson: Scott, we already "talked" on the possibility or not of having a scalable quantum computer in the future. To convince you, you defied me to convince the majority of the Physics Community. Here I am, doing my best. I have tried to reach you since then Will now be a good opportunity?
Don't you want to, as a last grand effort, join this revolution? Your presence would be highly appreciated. Your voice is much louder than mine To Lee Smolin You once wrote "I am convinced that quantum mechanics is not a final theory. I believe this because I have never encountered an interpretation of the present formulation of quantum mechanics that makes sense to me" I also read your "O romper das Cordas" book, in portuguese. I could completely put myself in our shoes.
We both could point to an error in the foundations of a theory yours being the String Theory, mine, Quantum Mechanics and not many people are willing to listen. Should we join forces? To Joy Christian Joy Cristian, you are a local realist. But we differ on our arguments: And that is why local realism has not been experimentally rejected.
Can you take the time, and are you humble enough, to have a serious look at this argument and, perhaps, overcome some of the "anti-bodys" other physicists have towards your ideas? You are a local realist! Your heart is already on the right place. To Max Tegmark Max, you are a founder of FQXi, an Institute that "catalyzes, supports, and disseminates research on questions at the foundations of physics and cosmology, particularly new frontiers and innovative ideas integral to a deep understanding of reality, but unlikely to be supported by conventional funding sources" Thank you.
As a non-physicist this was the first time I "dare" to appear in front of a scientific community defending new frontiers. As a portuguese person, I believe in the success of pacific revolutions. Have you heard how Portugal did a political revolution, "with flowers", from a dictatorial regime to democracy in ? I was a teenager then. I have lived through one revolution. I'm willing to pursue another. Would you be so kind, to do another easy experiment? Can you ask your pollers to read J. Especial article, already published in a peer reviewed magazine in , arXiv: If there is no significant change I will pay you a lunch in the best portuguese restaurant in Lisbon.
Today, as Dean of Physics Department in Sevilla University, you did a pages comprehensive essay "Bibliographic guide to the foundations of quantum mechanics and quantum information". I'm sure, any post-graduate student interested in the foundations of Physics, Teleportation or Quantum computation welcomed your article.
Yeah :-) Just one more step!
Can you please be so kind to include J. Especial article in your session I: F Bell Inequalities? I'm sure, once you read it and acknowledge its scientific implications , you will find a place to put in your guide an article that concludes that there is no experimental evidence of the rejection of the the whole category of local realistic theories. Sincerely, Teresa view post as summary.
Matthew Marsden wrote on Sep. Hi Teresa, Thanks for your comments re voting, please don't just give mine a "5", but whatever you genuinely think each deserves. Also all the participants could send a few group emails, twitter, facebook, msgs to interested friends perhaps? I seriously think seeing how the theory of time may be completely unfounded, and showing how Special relativity probably does not infact prove time, or time dilation, but only rate dilation, may be a very big part of the paradigm shift - a lot of possibly wasted thought and effort is going into trying to work out what "time" "is", and yet we don't see any proof of anything other than the fact matter exists and is changing.
How 'Time travel Paradoxes' can't happen without "the past". Vad S Bobrovski wrote on Sep. Hi, good act of self-action is our opportunity to set forth. Best, Vad. Thank you I am doing my best! With all my heart! Hi Teresa Making a plea to change a prevailing theory of physics whether it is referred to as a revolution of paradigm change is a reasonable aspiration on your part. However, Karl Popper whose picture is in your video would encourage you and all of us to apply the principle of falsifiability to achieve such goals. You or some other physicist will simply need to come up with experimental results that support your theory of choice.
If you are correct, it will happen. They will do it on the basis of the merits of the experiment. Ron Gruber. Hi Ronald, Thank you for your comments. I think we are saying the same thing. A theory, to prevail, needs to be falsifiable. There has to be a test, an experimental test, that allow us to refute it and if refuted, discard it. That is the case. Bell experiments are the only experiments that aim the refutation of all possible local realistic theory ies.
Accordingly to Popper, we can not prove Bell proposed a theorem, and, when laser technology allowed, in late '70, experiments began being made. For more than 40 years, they have been performed, with different experimental apparatus, and accordingly to J. Especial none has been able to reject local realism. Those who are not familiar yet with J. Especial's work, know that the all experiments have been performed with 'loopholes' and that there is not, at this time, any experiment that has closed all 'loopholes' in one experiment. Don't you agree that it means that local realism, was not experimentally rejected?
So why do teachers, renown physicists and all media say the opposite? Don't you thing that this could be the reason there is so little funding and credibility for any local realist research for a new local realistic theory for quantum phenomena? This theory does not, yet, exists, to be tested. I think because no one is looking for it. But once proposed, I agree with you, it has to be falsifiable too, and a test has to be proposed and performed.
The purpose of my plea is not for others to agree with me Local realism has NOT been rejected. Don't you agree? Cristinel Stoica wrote on Sep. Hi Teresa, I've watched your manifesto for questioning the foundations of quantum mechanics, and for searching a local realistic solution. I can't imagine a principle in physics which we should stop questioning. Principles are universal propositions, and they can be tested only in a finite number of situations, so we should never consider them proven forever, and stop testing them. Especially when they come with trouble. You commented on my video The puzzle of quantum reality , which contains 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.
Briefly, my view is that any measurement setup in QM has local real solutions. The solution can be local, being a solution to Schrodinger's equation, but when we ask it to also be global, in the sense that it has to be extendible to the entire spacetime, the correlations follow. The solution is real at any time, but depends also by the future measurements contextuality, "delayed initial conditions". This is better understood in the block world picture given by relativity, and in this case is just a particular case of 1. I tried to explain how this works in my video , and in the above mentioned essays.
And in this video.
Best regards, Cristi. Hi Cristi, Thank you for your comment and probably for your vote. I have a question for you: 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?
Cách Sử dụng Gel Titan
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.