I have no clever riddles to summit only a further connectivity regarding your solution made by the late great mathematician Paul Erdős; that is in his referring to children as epsilons in them being an arbitrarily small positive quantity. Then again as he never had any of his own I don’t think he understood their full potential; that is of course only the human variety I mean.
“If numbers aren't beautiful, I don't know what is.”
OK, this is based on a chicken joke I saw on FB (Jenny's Think Tank and Holistic Comedy Bar - drop in sometimes, Bee. BTW this means it can be "researched." It's a concept joke, I hope it gets around.) An entangled particle said to its partner across the lab, "how do I get to the other side?" What did the other particle say back?
Hmmm ... My meaning was, each particle is also "on the other side" because of their strange connection, not sure how SRT fits in but tx Bee for rapid response. I do realize that simultaneity issues makes it difficult to say some influence literally goes across the distance (ie, even if we did allow FTL, how does it fit into various reference frames.)
Epsilon?
ReplyDeleteYes!
ReplyDeleteNow you have to make one up :o)
Hi Bee
ReplyDeleteI have no clever riddles to summit only a further connectivity regarding your solution made by the late great mathematician Paul Erdős; that is in his referring to children as epsilons in them being an arbitrarily small positive quantity. Then again as he never had any of his own I don’t think he understood their full potential; that is of course only the human variety I mean.
“If numbers aren't beautiful, I don't know what is.”
-Paul Erdős
Best,
Phil
OK, this is based on a chicken joke I saw on FB (Jenny's Think Tank and Holistic Comedy Bar - drop in sometimes, Bee. BTW this means it can be "researched." It's a concept joke, I hope it gets around.)
ReplyDeleteAn entangled particle said to its partner across the lab, "how do I get to the other side?"
What did the other particle say back?
Re my riddle: OK, here is the joke as I finished it on Facebook:
ReplyDeleteAn entangled particle said to its partner across the lab, "how do I get to the other side?"
The other particle said, "you are on the other side!"
If you understand what entanglement is, you can get the metaphysical insinuation. (Not that anyone "gets" *how* entanglement works!)
(Captcha-oid offered "pathf" which makes me go hmmm ...)
I found it funnier with chickens ;o). You don't need entanglement for that, just relativity.
ReplyDeleteHmmm ... My meaning was, each particle is also "on the other side" because of their strange connection, not sure how SRT fits in but tx Bee for rapid response. I do realize that simultaneity issues makes it difficult to say some influence literally goes across the distance (ie, even if we did allow FTL, how does it fit into various reference frames.)
ReplyDeleteOkay, so how about that modification:
ReplyDeleteAn entangled particle said to its partner "how did you get to the other side?" - "I didn't!" - "Yes, you did!" - "No, I didn't" ...
Cute, tx, I'll note that at my blog thread on my version of the joke. Or are we the ones who argue, the particles don't need to as they just "are" ...
ReplyDeleteHaha, the WV was "reversion", I kid you not ...