links for 2008-11-10

4 thoughts on “links for 2008-11-10

  1. Warnock’s Dilemma is interesting. I’ve done a lot of hair pulling about the silent response to substantive posts. After reading about the phenomenon and the Bermuda Triangle-like effects, I won’t spend time analyzing the vacuum.

    Thanks for posting that link.

  2. I propose Bates’ Corollary to Warnock’s Dilemma: the problem of interpreting a lack of response to a comment in a thread and not just a post. I also propose Bates’ Ancillary Dilemma: why do respondents (repliers? sorry) address some of the key points made in a post or comment, and not others – even if the poster/commenter pleads or insists, and even repeatedly, that the unanswered points are relevant or even more relevant? I have in mind, in the thread, that neither Chad nor anyone else would address my concern about why “collapse” (or whatever) happens so far downchain in the interaction of say a photon, instead of earlier. In particular, why doesn’t the interaction with an initial beamsplitter cause a photon to just collapse and go one way or the other, instead of indeed “splitting” the single photon wave to enable subsequent interference. But then, at the detectors at the far end of the MZ interferometer etc., there is a “hit” at one or the other detector. Er, maybe if Chad or anyone is reading this comment, you could sneak in a reply to that question? I thank you in advance for your cooperation 😉 .

  3. I haven’t responded to your question because I have a limited amount of time in which to write blog posts, and also respond to questions and comments. I have a day job, a book in progress, and I’m doing the stay-at-home-dad thing three days a week.

    I will get to your comment when I get to it, not before. Nagging me about it just pisses me off, and actually makes it less likely that you’ll get a response.

  4. Sorry Chad. I just got caught up being interested in Warnock’s Dilemma and wanted to write a corollary about responses to portions of posts or comments as well. Then I started thinking of that particular example and it got out of hand, I should have just left it alone. I did think of the entire set of commenters there and meant to just make the technical point, but it came off snarky and pushy and I’m sorry for that. I also thought maybe you’d say that no one really knows the answer (I hope there is some understanding) so it wasn’t helpful to respond or etc. However, you actually helped answer the WD question, since being too busy is indeed a valid reason why someone might not reply. Indeed, no need to reply to this since I just wanted to make amends.

Comments are closed.