[Help] GRR! Updates to this post /post/237467-grr Sat, 05 Dec 2009 03:59:52 +0100 Reply from mwanawakenny /post/237467-grr#reply-5038486 Say what…….???????????

]]> mwanawakenny Thu, 28 May 2009 13:02:43 +0100 Reply from babii_expres /post/237467-grr#reply-5032175 just kidding, i just realized u posted this like a billion years ago i hope u found the stuff u were looking for though.

]]> babii_expres Mon, 25 May 2009 07:58:18 +0100 Reply from babii_expres /post/237467-grr#reply-5032171 I would totalyyy help you!…i swear i would but i have no idea what your talking about perhaps giving the actual name of the anti body things would help i have a specialty in hunting down all their is on the web.. (:

]]> babii_expres Mon, 25 May 2009 07:52:31 +0100 Reply from mamelani_a3 /post/237467-grr#reply-4894869 thank you very much for your reply to my post. I will pray for you. I just hope that you will not judge me and my uncle also. May God be with you.

]]> mamelani_a3 Mon, 23 Mar 2009 14:20:53 +0100 Reply from chunkymove /post/237467-grr#reply-4769222 WIN! Happy about that. 2 out of three. So whats the more precise/accurate/accepted answer?

about #1. I just made it up. I was trying to think about the problem of communicating the measurement, even if its to yourself in the future, so you can compare it to the next thing you measure.

eg, will the couch fit through the door? measure door, measure couch. you have to be sure the tape hasn’t changed in that time. This becomes challenging when measuring less quantifiable things, and when communicating that to another across language. This making sense? is their a simple principle that captures this succinctly?

Oh, another one is defining the rule. A shock report was realised today about the number of abused kids in town, but looking closer, it included “verbal abuse” which you can’t really nail down.

]]> chunkymove Mon, 09 Feb 2009 07:06:07 +0100 Reply from lucif /post/237467-grr#reply-4769207 I have never heard about problem 1…

]]> lucif Mon, 09 Feb 2009 06:51:57 +0100 Reply from lucif /post/237467-grr#reply-4769206 2 and 3 are more or less correct!

]]> lucif Mon, 09 Feb 2009 06:51:44 +0100 Reply from chunkymove /post/237467-grr#reply-4762281 I don’t know, but I find I learn far more if I guess and then find out the answer.
so,
1. Constant scale - being able to use the same units accuratly across time and distance.
2. Heisenberg - to measure it, we change it.
3. Perspective - the measurer can never be objective

]]> chunkymove Fri, 06 Feb 2009 09:22:59 +0100 Reply from lucif /post/237467-grr#reply-4760517 well, I really don’t need any help anymore, I have (by now) find the answer.

But if you stay subscribed, and you like a scientific endeavour.

What are the Three main ‘measurement problems’ ?

]]> lucif Thu, 05 Feb 2009 17:34:43 +0100 Reply from chunkymove /post/237467-grr#reply-4759681 did you expect anyone to be able to really help? I thought you were just venting some frustration. I’ll stay subscribed to this post, be cool if someone really could help

]]> chunkymove Thu, 05 Feb 2009 09:38:15 +0100 Reply from lucif /post/237467-grr#reply-4757823 It depends a lot on your chemisty backround I guess, this is a bi-molecular quantum state we are talking about. Just Quantum mechanics.

]]> lucif Wed, 04 Feb 2009 19:43:24 +0100 Reply from spuroa /post/237467-grr#reply-4757754 Good luck with finding what you need to find mate. I have a bit of a chemistry background, so maybe I can help with your question. Could he be referring to sigma and sigma*? Like this… http://www.madsci.org/posts/archives/…

]]> spuroa Wed, 04 Feb 2009 19:04:18 +0100 Reply from chunkymove /post/237467-grr#reply-4735648 that was his claim. Was a 1000fold increase he said. I’ts not my feild, but it sounded cool. I’m trying to do some background reading to be able to understand what the hell that means in real terms

]]> chunkymove Tue, 27 Jan 2009 12:27:35 +0100 Reply from lucif /post/237467-grr#reply-4735643 No I am at the RU

70 sec. A stable Quantum bit for 70 seconds?

]]> lucif Tue, 27 Jan 2009 12:20:36 +0100 Reply from chunkymove /post/237467-grr#reply-4735640 They are working on quantum computing and managed to get a stable nucleus for 70sec which is freaking huge!

]]> chunkymove Tue, 27 Jan 2009 12:16:20 +0100 Reply from chunkymove /post/237467-grr#reply-4735638 not being able to be understood by others is handy in research sometimes. Its a code so others can’t steal work and its a lingo, so others in the hood can know how cool you are.

Are you at ANU by any chance? There are some people who talk crazy talk thats sounds a bit like that around there. They all ride these weird tall bikes and make rude jokes.

]]> chunkymove Tue, 27 Jan 2009 12:15:14 +0100 Reply from lucif /post/237467-grr#reply-4729648 (the reason you cannot comprehend is because I found out that it is a notation my professor uses and isn’t generally used)

]]> lucif Sun, 25 Jan 2009 13:26:44 +0100 Reply from lucif /post/237467-grr#reply-4729646 [quote Fat Puddin]Each line in a molecular orbital diagram represents a molecular orbital, which is the volume within which a high percentage of the negative charge generated by the electron is found. The molecular orbital volume encompasses the whole molecule. It can be assumed that the electrons would fill the molecular orbitals of molecules like electrons fill atomic orbitals in atoms.

What is it you need.[/quote]

Dude you wouldn’t even comprehend if I’d tell you.
Lets see:
In Bi-moleculare Quantum states, There is an order of symmetry between possible states if one were to seperate the radial and the non radial parts of the molecules. We have Bonding and anit-bonding states. Now the symmetrical notations were hard to find, but the small subscripts u and g impossible. u and g are signs of parity of the symmetrical operators that make a rotation or vibration or something of the alike. It is this u and g I was having trouble finding….

]]> lucif Sun, 25 Jan 2009 13:19:18 +0100 Reply from Fat Puddin /post/237467-grr#reply-4727793 Each line in a molecular orbital diagram represents a molecular orbital, which is the volume within which a high percentage of the negative charge generated by the electron is found. The molecular orbital volume encompasses the whole molecule. It can be assumed that the electrons would fill the molecular orbitals of molecules like electrons fill atomic orbitals in atoms.

What is it you need.

]]> Fat Puddin Sat, 24 Jan 2009 23:16:17 +0100 Reply from flamedancer66 /post/237467-grr#reply-4709091 ….no idea what you just said….

]]> flamedancer66 Sun, 18 Jan 2009 16:07:33 +0100