Home   |   Browse       NEW: (hypothetically starring) VIC REEVES as LUKE SKYWALKER .. in "Waiting for Godot, the hollywood version".

'This is not the intensity of a wave [..] but it is instead the chance that a particle comes as being counted by a photo-multiplier.' (Richard Feynman)   Share:  
Thrust of argument: He is talking about the 'paroxysms of reasoning' which Newton suffered when faced with the strange behaviour of light's reflection in glass when one layer is placed upon another (or a layer of soap is on the surface of water). Direction of resistance / implied resistance: Feynman explains that there is no system of logic which is consonant with ordinary ideas of causality - which explains this or describes this.


bae (at half strength)
AT APPROX 552.50 capita (at half strength)
AT APPROX 465.90 centrica AT APPROX 144.80 g4s AT APPROX 252.60 gkn AT APPROX 300.80 glencore AT APPROX 349.00 m&s AT APPROX 310.60 morrison AT APPROX 211.80 rollsroyce (at half strength)
AT APPROX 832.50 rsa (at half strength)
AT APPROX 597.00



Enter your DOMAIN NAME to
collect this point:


Removal of resistance: We have a set of rules which are empty of a model of the type you're expecting. We don't know what a particle is, in some key way which means that we don't comprehend why it is that probability, not determinism, holds the universe together. Unification: See a lecture probably (!) entitled: 'Fits of Reflection and Transmission - Quantum Behaviour - Richard Feynman.'
Rebut this point   Support this point   Edit this point

(TVhobo's estimated size of readership since 2013, mainly in the UK and USA, with Germany in third place:
over 200,000 readers across approximately 200 cities/towns


Copy/paste point into your work:

Type: Open statement

1 versions:

1. Server time: 17:25:20 on 9/9/2017

Related points:





previous point on the grid   |   next point on the grid


Click here to read about Shams Pirani, the editor and chief author on this grid - note, if you can actually prove anything written above wrong, I would gladly, if the proof is sufficient, correct what I've written and what I think - if I could, however, prove your attempted proof wrong, then I would accordingly say so and maintain whatever point of view is completely based on fact and proof.