Program For Highly Capable Students: Fill & Download for Free

I can’t agree with Dr Brewer more (e.g., I agree with Dr Brewer) . Knowledge is not in a state of progression, but fulfills the definition of entropy, to the point of Chaotic collapse into total randomness. This is part of a memo I sent not a few months ago inside the various government organizations that do the work or otherwise pay the bills…In Holography, Black Hole physics, String, M-Theory, and so on, the definition for entropy in Information Entropy is: the loss of information regarding the microstates of elements within a system.Richard Van Noorden. Global scientific output doubles every nine years. Nature: 07 May 2014. In this paper, he is deriving data from a study: Lutz Bornmann, Rüdiger Mutz. Growth rates of modern science: A bibliometric analysis based on the number of publications and cited references. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 8 May 2014. arXiv:1402.4578. The total number of papers they found was currently (May 2014) 755,607,107 cited references in total, with approximately 2.5 million published per year in the natural sciences [Arif E. Jinha. Article 50 million: an estimate of the number of scholarly articles in existence. Learned Publishing, 23:258–263 doi:10.1087/20100308] and doubling every 9 years.There are currently somewhere between 250 million and one billion unique, novel hypotheses. The very nature of the requirements for publications, and obtaining one’s PhD ensures complete entropy of knowledge, as described below. The inability to determine the actual number leads to the second postulate, regarding the definition of Information Entropy. In order to publish, the content must be novel and unique. In order to obtain a PhD, same requirement. Ensured entropy by design.The authors above all agree that the difficulty in determining the actual number of papers makes doing so actually impossible. This is ‘loss of information regarding the microstates of elements within a system.’ We cannot even determine the number of papers, much less the content.Citations and cross-referencing make an artificially larger number, and lack of such makes an artificially smaller number. I think it was Jinha who said, ‘if it wasn’t cited than it probably was useless information anyway…’Jinjha’s statement is essentially the condition of science today, it is a contest to be a Rock Star, like a great Battle of the Bands. Scientists have actually (typically with enthusiastic financial backing from their respective institutions) paying tens of thousands of dollars for press releases announcing their ‘great discovery.’ In fact, since you do not subscribe to nor read the peer-reviewed scientific literature, if you know about it, it is because more money was spent making it a high profile media circus than you paid for your car.By using Chaos Theory, a nearly forgotten art, and applying May’s Fractal, this result clearly shows the number as knowledge undergoing Chaotic Collapse into total, true randomness, as shown below.That is, if the papers were of the same nature, focused and driving in a singular direction, dismissing improvable hypotheses and moving forward with deliberate focus; that would be progress.However, this is not the case. Instead, improvable hypotheses are not only entertained, but also expanded upon, and split of in as many directions as there are authors with imaginations.This is entropy similar in nature to our Cayley Tree (a system that keeps splitting off into n branches), in this case, the Cayley Tree has n-nodes of exponentially increasing value. That is, every 9 years, the number of nodes doubles. Where we are accustomed to Cayley Trees of 2 or 3 nodes, there are currently 2.5 million nodes, in nine years, that Complexity will increase to 5 million nodes, and so on. Furthermore, the authors demonstrate that the current exponent is 9 years, but is decreasing such that in 9 years, it will be doubling in every five years. In a century, it will be doubling every ten seconds.I generated this graph to demonstrate (yes, Chaos Theory is still useful) the fractal approach to Chaos, because of Scale Invariance in fractal mathematics, means that the ‘level of ignorance’ (as Susskind refers to it) of the microstates of the system is equal at the top of the waterfall is it is at the bottom. That is, the elements at the bottom of the graph are totally dependent on the elements at the top. The elements at the top of the graph are by design, going to become the elements at the bottom. This is like our AdS/CFT model of DeSitter Space-time, of Scale Invariance, most of us have gone to Escher to demonstrate:In this diagram, taken from a lecture by Buosso, ‘L’ as seen on the surface is the length between points on the outermost boundary of DeSitter Space, that is where we live.For a complete description of the AdS/CFT model of DeSitter space see my answer at Bill Bray's answer to Quantum physics says that merely observing an object changes it. Does a first observation maintain any effect or control over how later observations affect the object? Do multiple observations of the same object result in an “average” change?In that answer, there are also nested links to my other answers relating to Quantum Gravity, Holographic Theory, Emergent Gravity, Gravity Waves, Quantum Entanglement, the correct definition and use of the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle, and about 200 references in all between them.Note that none of the answers I see on this site are referenced properly, in the rare instance where one provides a single reference, it is from Wikipedia, or otherwise does not even state what the author claims. All of the references I provide are relevant, and in the public domain so that you can access them (sometimes you have to type the term PDF in to find the actual PDF). Without proper references and citations, you can dismiss any other answer, as it is clearly the ‘opinion’ of the author, very few of whom are qualified to write on the subject. There are no ‘part time physicists,’ ‘physicists at large,’ ‘deep knowledge of physics,’ and so on. Either you have a PhD in physics or you do not. There, got that off my chest…In reality, the lizards on the edge, although appear tiny, are the same size as those in the middle. That is DeSitter Space-time (Scale Invariant Conformal Field Theory). The point is, the tiny lizards living on the surface of DeSitter Space-time (that’s where we are) are interdependent with the scale of those in the middle (back in time), and the measure of those in the middle is with our locally quantized meter stick, as a tiny lizard on the surface.That is, a lizard on the surface has a locally quantized meter stick that is the smallest possible value in DeSitter space-time, at the surface, which is the present. According to my smallest locally quatized meter stick in the history of the cosmos, those lizards in the middle are HUGE, requiring a zillion of my little meter sticks just to measure one lizard in the middle. However, they are a fractal. The lizards, from the center out, are all the same size, they are just ‘fracks’ from the center on outward.Oddly, this is the most cited paper in human history, yet, the most unread. EVERY THING WE OBSERVE IN PARTICLE PHYSICS TO THE ‘ACCELERATING EXPANSION OF THE COSMOS IS AN ARTIFACT OF THIS LIZARD IMAGE.Again, our locally quantized meter stick is on the surface, very small. Thus, when we look back in time, we see the larger lizards, requiring many of our tiny meter sticks to equal one big lizard in the middle. As a result, we think velocity is faster at the center, the big lizards, back in time, according to our tiny locally quantized meter stick, make it appear as though things moving across them are moving faster, when in fact, they are not. It is an artifact of - I’ll use the microscope analogy later down the page.Dark Matter, Dark Energy, all of particle physics, 99% of Quantum Field Theory, 99.99999% of the things we explain away with the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle, the entire Standard Model (quarks were never intended to be ‘real things,’ they were a group theory approach to understanding the particle zoo; John Nash was the father of that approach), and so on, I would guess in all, of the billion hypotheses out there, all but about 5 or 6 are the result of this single artifact.I went into explaining how this ‘artifact’ is the phenomenon from which space-time and its geometry emerge, you have to read a couple of them, they are all linked in the above reference.That info, by the way, taken together has about 200 references, all up to date.As an example of Scale Invariance, If I take a hemocytometer, a tiny glass slide marked in microns, put a lactobacilli on it, and look at it under a microscope, I will see it is about 10 microns long. If I project that image of the bacteria on the hemocytometer onto a big screen TV, I take out my ruler, and it, according to my ruler is about a meter long, and proven by the fact that the hemocytometer, now clearly indicates on the big screen that it is indeed a meter long, because that is the scale on the screen of the markings on the hemoctytometer. If I don’t know that the markings are supposed to represent microns, my meter stick tells me they are decimeters, and the bacilli is a meter long. In this scenario, there is no common frame of reference save for my knowledge of how big the markings are supposed to be.Then we see a microbacilli crossing the length of the lactobacilli. The microbacilli is 1/10 the length of the lactobacilli (1 micron). It takes ten seconds for the microbacilli to cross the length of the 10 micron lactobacilli. Therefore, its true velocity is 1 micron per second. However, as projected onto my big screen HDTV, it takes ten seconds to cross 1 meter, so it is moving one meter per second as measured with my locally quantized meter stick.When I measure the velocity of recession, my locally quantized meter stick tells me that I need many meter sticks per second to make 1 lizard per second billions of light years away.So, I try a second frame of reference, light, and find that the light, whose meter stick’s origin is a billion light years away, is ‘red shifted.’ The photons seem longer than my photons.So I try a 3rd frame of reference, brightness (supernova), whose luminosity falls off with the square of the distance, quite predictable? It has to cross a sea of fractal lizards, each growing smaller in size as the photons travel forward in time toward the surface of DeSitter Space-time.The reason I cannot correct for brightness vs redshift is that the redshifted photons also had to change scale as they corkscrewed through space-time to reach the surface of DeSitter space, where I am, but I haven’t figured that out yet, because I’m just an astronomer. I don’t even know what DeSitter space is. In fact, I thought I knew what it was from Wikipedia and TV, and wrote a bunch of papers to pile on the heap of a billion hypotheses…All of Physical Cosmology is a virus of hypotheses that are a result of this single artifact. To give a clear example, in order to make a statement, ‘the expansion of the cosmos is accelerating,’ you need a precision of 0.02%RSD. Why? It is easier to show you why not.This is what we get for the Hubble parameter as measured over the past 15 years:Furthermore, you can see there is no improvement in precision with time and technology. It is a seemingly random splay of data. With this random splay of data, where did the ‘accelerating expansion’ value of 70.9(+/-) 0.02 come from that the authors published? That number cannot even be had if you creatively select certain data points and creatively discard others. I tried it. That number is nowhere in that data, or any combination of data points by creative selection.Did you know, as an aside, that there is the Anthropic Principle, the debate whether we create the universe or we are an artifact of the universe. This is the ultimate response to the conscious observer upsetting the Ontologically challenged. The term, ‘survivor bias,’ is an equivalent Darwinian Natural Selection. Of the estimated minimum of 10E500 False Vacua (universes that didn’t make it) we are the sentient species that exists in the ‘surviving cosmos that was capable of creating the artifact of life.’ There are actually people who ‘believe’ this. Now, back to my irregularly unscheduled program…However, if you organize them by distance surveiled, you get this:These are definite jumps, almost as though they were quantized. However, the thing to know is that the 6 jumps I’ve labeled are by supercluster group. The more distant superclusters have to pass through more overlapping Gravity Waves then the closer ones, hence, the parameter seems slower (the more distant superclusters start from left to right) at greater distance.For a descriptin of the Lin-Shu Density Wave that creates this phenomenon, see Bill Bray's answer to How likely is it that, since dark matter and dark energy are basically unknowns, we might be wrong at the very basics? If we can't observe what most of the universe is made of, could it be that our theories are simply wrong?The steep slope in r value on the Chaotic Fractal Graph clearly indicates Chaotic collapse into true randomness. Like trying to canoe back up a waterfall, clearly that r value is not going back uphill to its origin.Since Bikini Atoll, 1954, when physicists ‘accidentally’ detonated a thermonuclear (fusion) device several times the expected yield, science was made to stop. It did not happen by accident.To make it clear, here is an image of the 9 decommissioned test ships anchored at Pearl Harbor that were intended to be enveloped in the blast, the picture taken just a few weeks before the test:These and only these ships were intended to be directly exposed to the blast.Here is an image with the test ships circled in black:All of the arrows point to the observation ships, with men on the deck, observing the blast.Two seconds into the blast:5 seconds into the blast:10,000 men died that day, not recorded in TV documentaries.That is why we still drive vehicles driven by fire, 95% of the USA and UK public read at a 6th to 8th grade level, PhDs earn their degree by writing improvable hypotheses.Since that time, no new science has been discovered or invented, other than that which has been fudged for funding purposes. The computers, cell phones, HD TVs, and all of the seeming wanders are the transistor, 1947, electricity, 19th century, radio electronics, 19th century, electric motors, 19th century, nuclear fission, 1945, internal combustion engines, 1859, the LASER, 1954 (as a microwave emitter, then again in 1954 for visible light by a grad student). Rockets… WWIINothing in our world today is less than half a century old technology. Most of our useful technology is at least a century old. You do not drive a car that elevates and moves by artificially reshaping space-time, your car is powered by fire. We do not transfer energy via conduits of photonic energy, our fission reactors generate steam, which is used to boil water, make steam to turn early 19th century dynamos…splitting the atom to boil tea. Your cell phone was patented in 1859. Your computer is a composite of technology from prior to the Cuban Missile Crisis.For a description of why ‘predictability’ is not a factor of success of a model, read: Bill Bray's answer to What is the difference between quantum physics and quantum field theory?For a description of abuse of ludicrous hypotheses that went viral until proven otherwise, read: Bill Bray's answer to How likely is it that, since dark matter and dark energy are basically unknowns, we might be wrong at the very basics? If we can't observe what most of the universe is made of, could it be that our theories are simply wrong?I was just answering another question, ‘Who wrote the most papers in science,’ as though that is a barometer, it is a barometer, but this is what I wrote:I don’t know. In fact, I was just writing/wrote a very long response regarding the entropy of science as a result of publication. Look down my content list, I wrote it recently.Publishing in a journal has so many down sides for a ‘real’ scientist:They own your work, you cannot publish any of your own content from it.It is buried amongst what appears to be about 2.5 million papers a year. as a result, it is forever lost.There are currently an estimated 1 billion scientific papers out there, but no one can actually get a number, fulfilling the definition of Information Entropy.In order for anyone to know you published something, you have to issue a ‘press release, which costs thousands of dollars. If you pay thousands of dollars for such a press release, then you have an agenda, not a ‘discovery.’As a result of all of the above, whoever wrote the most papers is the least scientist.Scientists throughout history published books, not papers. That is a barometer of success, as science has not budged in a century. Imhotep, Aristotle, Plato, Pakal, Ptolemy, DeVinci, Copernicus, Newton, Keppler, and so on. All books, not papers.Einstein published over 300 papers, all of which I have and have read, and I do not know anyone who knows (with the exception of a few historians) he wrote over 300 papers. People know of two, but of the scientists teaching the subject, I have not met one who has actually read either. Scientists are aware of papers he co-authored with some other scientists, but of those, even they are not read. They are actually made into entire documentaries, class lectures, and so on, without having read them.I am glad this issue of scientific publication is coming up often.The moral to that story is, if you publish a paper, no one will read it, although they may cite it (referred to as reference mining, to lend false credibility to your new ‘big theory). Your information, your work, ranging from totally useless gibberish to save the universe, is forever lost amongst at least a billion papers, but no one knows the actual number, nor amidst several attempts has anyone been able to determine the actual number (even the NSA cannot determine it).If they cannot even determine how many papers there are, for whatever reason, your information is forever lost. Therefore, a ‘real scientist’ (as apposed to a virtual scientists) will self publish a book, so as to have complete control over the content. Which is exactly what every great scientist throughout history has done. And the Einstein example (300 papers that no one even knows exists from one of the greatest minds in history) is the perfect example of why not to bury your work in journals, which is the death of your work.The publication, primarily due to the publication requirements of unique, novel information (same requirement to get a PhD) in scientific journals is the worst thing that has happened to mankind since the Pleistocene ice age.We are in fact living in what is called The Holocene Extinction, a mass global extinction event, that no one knows about, because no one pays for press releases.Does that answer the question? I’m not sure.The agreement of a dumb theory with reality says nothing. – Lev Landau, Russian Nobel laureateUnzicker, Alexander. The Higgs Fake - How Particle Physicists Fooled the Nobel Committee (p. 34). Unknown. Kindle Edition.Beware of false knowledge, it is more dangerous than ignorance – George Bernard ShawThe fact that an opinion has been widely held is no evidence that it is not utterly absurd; indeed, in view of the silliness of the majority of mankind, a widespread belief is more likely to be foolish than sensible. – Bertrand RussellUnzicker, Alexander. The Higgs Fake - How Particle Physicists Fooled the Nobel Committee (p. 35). Unknown. Kindle Edition.My aim is: to teach you to pass from a piece of disguised nonsense to something that is patent nonsense. – Ludwig WittgensteinImagine you are visiting another civilization where a shaman tells you the above story (all of them). Suppose you were never taught modern physics, would that seem convincing to you? Or rather a fancy piece of mythology? But not only that. It’s not the uneducated are too dumb to appreciate such sophisticated concepts, the greatest minds to which we owe our civilization would be super-skeptical of that story. - Unzicker, Alexander.Did Newton, Maxwell, Einstein, Schrödinger, Dirac all share a near religious predilection for simplicity that – sorry, sorry – turned out to be wrong? No. It was their very experience that their accomplishments consisted of simplification. Once they had understood, the complicated mess went away. - Unzicker, Alexander.It is easier to recognize a prejudice in its naïve primitive form than the sophisticated dogma to which it often transforms.[7] – Erwin SchrödingerInsanity in individuals is something rare – but in groups, parties, nations and epochs, it is the rule. – Friedrich Nietzsche, German philosopherConsidering science in general and on longer time scales, there is much that particle physicists could learn from history. In particular, the philosopher Thomas Kuhn, in his epoch-making treatise, The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, pointed out the mechanisms that occur whenever humans do science. Most importantly, increase in knowledge is never linear in time. Periods in which progress seems to be incremental are interrupted by scientific revolutions where a good deal of the previously existing knowledge is destroyed. - Unzicker, Alexander.Scientific knowledge and advancement comes, as history dictates, in waves, and we are NOT currently riding one - wjbREFERENCES RELEVANT TO THIS DISCUSSION1.Gingerich, Owen (2005). The Book Nobody Read. London: Arrow. p. 306. ISBN 0-09-947644-4.2.Dreyer, John Louis Emil (1953) [1906]. A History of Astronomy from Thales to Kepler. New York, NY: Dover Publications.3.Georges Saliba "The Astronomical Work of Mu’ayyad al-Din al-’Urdi (died 1266): A Thirteenth Century Reform of Ptolemaic Astronomy", Markaz dirasat al-Wahda al-'Arabiya, Beirut, 1990, 19954.Teresa Borawska, Tiedemann Giese (1480–1550) w życiu wewnętrznym Warmii i Prus Królewskich Tiedemann Giese (1480–1550) in the Internal Life of Warmia and Royal Prussia, Olsztyn, 1984.5.Westman, Robert S. (2011). The Copernican Question: Prognostication, Skepticism, and Celestial Order. Los Angeles: University of California Press. ISBN 9780520254817.6.M. Saliba, Univ Michigan, 1979 Volumes 1 and 2 detail the prior work of Mu'ayyad al-Din al-'Urdi in the 13th century.7.http://ghhv.quetroi.net/74LEHAIN...8.Barker and Goldstein. "Theological Foundations of Kepler's Astronomy", pp. 112–13.9.Galina Weinstein , Einstein, Schwarzschild, the Perihelion Motion of Mercury and the Rotating Disk Story, Tel Aviv University November 25, 201410.Einstein, Albert (1915a). "Zur allgemeinen Relativitätstheorie." Königlich Preuȕische, Akademie der Wissenschaften (Berlin). Sitzungsberichte, 778-786.11.Einstein, Albert (1915b). "Zur allgemeinen Relativitätstheorie. (Nachtrag)."Königlich Preuȕische Akademie der Wissenschaften (Berlin). Sitzungsberichte, 799-801.12.Einstein, Albert (1915c). "Erklärung der Perihelbewegung des Merkur aus der allgemeinen Relativitätstheorie." Königlich Preuȕische Akademie der Wissenschaften (Berlin). Sitzungsberichte, 831-39.13.Earman, John and Janssen, Michel (1993). "Einstein's Explanation of the Motion of nMercury's Perihelion." In John Earman, Michel Janssen, John D. Norton (ed), The Attraction of Gravitation: New Studies in the History of General Relativity, Einstein Studies, MA: Springer, 129-172; 141.14.The Collected Papers of Albert Einstein. Vol. 4: The Swiss Years: Writings, 1912–1914 (CPAE 4). Klein, Martin J., Kox, A.J., Renn, Jürgen, and Schulmann, Robert(eds.), Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1995, "The Einstein-Besso Manuscript on the Motion of the Perihelion of Mercury", 349-351.15.Asimov, Isaac (1964). Asimov's Biographical Encyclopedia of Science and Technology. ISBN 978-038517771916.Drake, Stillman (1978). Galileo At Work. Mineola, NY: Dover. ISBN 0-486-49542-6.17.Van Helden, Albert (1977). The Invention of the Telescope. Philadelphia, PA: The American Philosophical Society. ISBN 0-87169-674-6.18.Van Helden, Albert (1985). Measuring the Universe. Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press. ISBN 0-226-84881-7.19.Finocchiaro, Maurice (2010). Defending Copernicus and Galileo: Critical Reasoning in the two Affairs. Springer. ISBN 978-9048132003.20.Finocchiaro, Maurice A. (1997). Galileo on the world systems: a new abridged translation and guide. Berkeley and Los Angeles, CA: University of California Press. ISBN 0-520-20548-0.21.Finocchiaro, Maurice A. (1989). The Galileo Affair: A Documentary History. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press. ISBN 0-520-06662-6.22.Finocchiaro, Maurice A. (Fall 2007). "Book Review—The Person of the Millennium: The Unique Impact of Galileo on World History". The Historian. 69 (3): 601–602. doi:10.1111/j.1540-6563.2007.00189_68.x.23.Big Bang: the etymology of a name | Astronomy & Geophysics | Oxford Academic24.Alpher R Herman R 1997 in The George Gamow Symposium (Astronomical Society of the Pacific, San Franscisco) 49.25.Beatty C Fienberg R 1994 Sky and Telescope 87:320.26.Bondi Het al. 1959 Rival Theories of the Universe (Oxford University Press, London).27.Brush S 1993 Perspectives on Science 1 245.28.Cox Eet al. 1949 Journal of Meteorology 6 300.29.Dicke Ret al. 1965 Astrophys. J. 142 414.30.Eddington A 1928 The Nature of the Physical World (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge).31.Gamow G 1951 The Creation of the Universe (Viking Press, New York).32.Gamow G 1968 American Institute of Physics33.Hanson N R 1963 in Philosophy of Science 2 (Interscience, New York) 465.34.Hawking S Tayler R 1966 Nature 209 1278.35.Heckmann O 1961 Astronomical J. 66 59936.Horgan J 1995 Sci. Amer. 272:3 46–48.37.Hoyle F 1949 The Listener 41 567–568.38.Hoyle F 1965 Galaxies, Nuclei and Quasars (Harper & Row, New York).39.Lemaitre G 1931 Nature 127 706.40.Lightman A Brawer R 1990 Origins (Harvard University Press, Cambridge, Mass.).41.McVittie G 1961 Science 133 1231.42.McVittie G 1974 Quart. J. Royal Ast. Soc. 15 246.43.Peebles J 1966 Astrophys. J. 146 542.44.Weinberg S 1962 Phys. Rev. 128 1457.45.Nussbaumer, H. & Bieri, L. preprint at [1107.2281] Who discovered the expanding universe? (2011).46.Way, M. & Nussbaumer, H. Physics Today, August, p. 8 (2011).47.Nussbaumer, H. & Bieri, L. preprint at [1107.2281] Who discovered the expanding universe? (2011).48.Van den Bergh, S. preprint at [1106.1195] The Curious Case of Lemaitre's Equation No. 24 (2011).49.Block, D. preprint at arxive.org (2011).50.Van den Bergh, S. in The Extragalactic Distance Scale, eds. M. Livio, M. Donahue, & N.Panagia (Cambridge: CUP), p. 1 (1997).51.Eddington, A. S. The Mathematical Theory of Relativity (Cambridge: CUP), p. 162(1923).52.Lemaître, G. Ann. Soc. Sci. Brux. A 47, 49 (1927).53.Strömberg, G. ApJ, 61, 353 (1925).54.Hubble, E. P. ApJ, 64, 321 (1926).55.Hubble, E. P. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA, 15, 168 (1929)56.Lemaître, G. Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 91, 483 (1931).57.Gingerich, Owen (2005). The Book Nobody Read. London: Arrow. p. 306. ISBN 0-09-947644-4.58.Dreyer, John Louis Emil (1953) [1906]. A History of Astronomy from Thales to Kepler. New York, NY: Dover Publications.59.Georges Saliba "The Astronomical Work of Mu’ayyad al-Din al-’Urdi (died 1266): A Thirteenth Century Reform of Ptolemaic Astronomy", Markaz dirasat al-Wahda al-'Arabiya, Beirut, 1990, 199560.Teresa Borawska, Tiedemann Giese (1480–1550) w życiu wewnętrznym Warmii i Prus Królewskich Tiedemann Giese (1480–1550) in the Internal Life of Warmia and Royal Prussia, Olsztyn, 1984.61.Westman, Robert S. (2011). The Copernican Question: Prognostication, Skepticism, and Celestial Order. Los Angeles: University of California Press. ISBN 9780520254817.62.M. Saliba, Univ Michigan, 1979 Volumes 1 and 2 detail the prior work of Mu'ayyad al-Din al-'Urdi in the 13th century.63.http://ghhv.quetroi.net/74LEHAIN...64.Barker and Goldstein. "Theological Foundations of Kepler's Astronomy", pp. 112–13.65.Galina Weinstein , Einstein, Schwarzschild, the Perihelion Motion of Mercury and the Rotating Disk Story, Tel Aviv University November 25, 201466.Einstein, Albert (1915a). "Zur allgemeinen Relativitätstheorie." Königlich Preuȕische, Akademie der Wissenschaften (Berlin). Sitzungsberichte, 778-786.67.Einstein, Albert (1915b). "Zur allgemeinen Relativitätstheorie. (Nachtrag)."Königlich Preuȕische Akademie der Wissenschaften (Berlin). Sitzungsberichte, 799-801.68.Einstein, Albert (1915c). "Erklärung der Perihelbewegung des Merkur aus der allgemeinen Relativitätstheorie." Königlich Preuȕische Akademie der Wissenschaften (Berlin). Sitzungsberichte, 831-39.69.Earman, John and Janssen, Michel (1993). "Einstein's Explanation of the Motion of nMercury's Perihelion." In John Earman, Michel Janssen, John D. Norton (ed), The Attraction of Gravitation: New Studies in the History of General Relativity, Einstein Studies, MA: Springer, 129-172; 141.70.The Collected Papers of Albert Einstein. Vol. 4: The Swiss Years: Writings, 1912–1914 (CPAE 4). Klein, Martin J., Kox, A.J., Renn, Jürgen, and Schulmann, Robert(eds.), Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1995, "The Einstein-Besso Manuscript on the Motion of the Perihelion of Mercury", 349-351.71.Asimov, Isaac (1964). Asimov's Biographical Encyclopedia of Science and Technology. ISBN 978-038517771972.Drake, Stillman (1978). Galileo At Work. Mineola, NY: Dover. ISBN 0-486-49542-6.73.Van Helden, Albert (1977). The Invention of the Telescope. Philadelphia, PA: The American Philosophical Society. ISBN 0-87169-674-6.74.Van Helden, Albert (1985). Measuring the Universe. Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press. ISBN 0-226-84881-7.75.Finocchiaro, Maurice (2010). Defending Copernicus and Galileo: Critical Reasoning in the two Affairs. Springer. ISBN 978-9048132003.76.Finocchiaro, Maurice A. (1997). Galileo on the world systems: a new abridged translation and guide. Berkeley and Los Angeles, CA: University of California Press. ISBN 0-520-20548-0.77.Finocchiaro, Maurice A. (1989). The Galileo Affair: A Documentary History. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press. ISBN 0-520-06662-6.78.Finocchiaro, Maurice A. (Fall 2007). "Book Review—The Person of the Millennium: The Unique Impact of Galileo on World History". The Historian. 69 (3): 601–602. doi:10.1111/j.1540-6563.2007.00189_68.x.79.Sharon Begley, Chris Wickham; A Nobel prize for being in two places at once, SCIENCE NEWS OCTOBER 9, 201280.J. D. Bekenstein, Lett. Nuov. Cim. 4, 737 (1972); J. D. Bekenstein, Phys. Rev. D 7, 2333 (1973); J. D. Bekenstein, Phys. Rev. D 9, 3292 (1974)81.Arntzenius, Frank. (2000) “Are there Really Instantaneous Velocities?”, The Monist 83, pp. 187-208.82.Barnes, J. (1982). The Presocratic Philosophers, Routledge & Kegan Paul:83.Barrow, John D. (2005). The Infinite Book: A Short Guide to the Boundless, Timeless and Endless, Pantheon Books, New York.84.Benacerraf, Paul (1962). “Tasks, Super-Tasks, and the Modern Eleatics,” The Journal of Philosophy, 59, pp. 765-784.85.Bergson, Henri (1946). Creative Mind, translated by M. L. Andison. Philosophical Library: New York.86.Black, Max (1950-1951). “Achilles and the Tortoise,” Analysis 11, pp. 91-101.87.Cajori, Florian (1920). “The Purpose of Zeno’s Arguments on Motion,” Isis, vol. 3, no. 1, pp. 7-20.88.Cantor, Georg (1887). "Über die verschiedenen Ansichten in Bezug auf die actualunendlichen Zahlen." Bihang till Kongl. Svenska Vetenskaps-Akademien Handlingar , Bd. 11 (1886-7), article 19. P. A. Norstedt & Sôner: Stockholm.89.Chihara, Charles S. (1965). “On the Possibility of Completing an Infinite Process,” Philosophical Review 74, no. 1, p. 74-87.90.Copleston, Frederick, S.J. (1962). “The Dialectic of Zeno,” chapter 7 of A History of Philosophy, Volume I, Greece and Rome, Part I, Image Books: Garden City.91.Dainton, Barry. (2010). Time and Space, Second Edition, McGill-Queens University Press: Ithaca.92.Dauben, J. (1990). Georg Cantor, Princeton University Press: Princeton.93.De Boer, Jesse (1953). “A Critique of Continuity, Infinity, and Allied Concepts in the Natural Philosophy of Bergson and Russell,” in Return to Reason: Essays in Realistic Philosophy, John Wild, ed., Henry Regnery Company: Chicago, pp. 92-124.94.Diels, Hermann and W. Kranz (1951). Die Fragmente der Vorsokratiker, sixth ed., Weidmannsche Buchhandlung: Berlin.95.Dummett, Michael (2000). “Is Time a Continuum of Instants?,” Philosophy, 2000, Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, pp. 497-515.96.Earman J. and J. D. Norton (1996). “Infinite Pains: The Trouble with Supertasks,” in Paul Benacerraf: the Philosopher and His Critics, A. Morton and S. Stich (eds.), Blackwell: Cambridge, MA, pp. 231-261.97.Feferman, Solomon (1998). In the Light of Logic, Oxford University Press, New York.98.Freeman, Kathleen (1948). Ancilla to the Pre-Socratic Philosophers, Harvard University Press: Cambridge, MA. Reprinted in paperback in 1983.99.Grünbaum, Adolf (1967). Modern Science and Zeno’s Paradoxes, Wesleyan University Press: Middletown, Connecticut.100.Grünbaum, Adolf (1970). “Modern Science and Zeno’s Paradoxes of Motion,” in (Salmon, 1970), pp. 200-250.101.Hamilton, Edith and Huntington Cairns (1961). The Collected Dialogues of Plato Including the Letters, Princeton University Press: Princeton.102.Harrison, Craig (1996). “The Three Arrows of Zeno: Cantorian and Non-Cantorian Concepts of the Continuum and of Motion,” Synthese, Volume 107, Number 2, pp. 271-292.103.Heath, T. L. (1921). A History of Greek Mathematics, Vol. I, Clarendon Press: Oxford. Reprinted 1981.104.Hintikka, Jaakko, David Gruender and Evandro Agazzi. Theory Change, Ancient Axiomatics, and Galileo’s Methodology, D. Reidel Publishing Company, Dordrecht.105.Kirk, G. S., J. E. Raven, and M. Schofield, eds. (1983). The Presocratic Philosophers: A Critical History with a Selection of Texts, Second Edition, Cambridge University Press: Cambridge.106.Maddy, Penelope (1992) “Indispensability and Practice,” Journal of Philosophy 59, pp. 275-289.107.Matson, Wallace I (2001). “Zeno Moves!” pp. 87-108 in Essays in Ancient Greek Philosophy VI: Before Plato, ed. by Anthony Preus, State University of New York Press: Albany.108.McCarty, D.C. (2005). “Intuitionism in Mathematics,” in The Oxford Handbook of Philosophy of Mathematics and Logic, edited by Stewart Shapiro, Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp. 356-86.109.McLaughlin, William I. (1994). “Resolving Zeno’s Paradoxes,” Scientific American, vol. 271, no. 5, Nov., pp. 84-90.110.Owen, G.E.L. (1958). “Zeno and the Mathematicians,” Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society, New Series, vol. LVIII, pp. 199-222.111.Posy, Carl. (2005). “Intuitionism and Philosophy,” in The Oxford Handbook of Philosophy of Mathematics and Logic, edited by Stewart Shapiro, Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp. 318-54.112.Proclus (1987). Proclus’ Commentary on Plato’s Parmenides, translated by Glenn R. Morrow and John M. Dillon, Princeton University Press: Princeton.113.Rescher, Nicholas (2001). Paradoxes: Their Roots, Range, and Resolution, Carus Publishing Company: Chicago.114.Pages 94-102 apply the Standard Solution to all of Zeno's paradoxes. Rescher calls the Paradox of Alike and Unlike the "Paradox of Differentiation."115.Rivelli, Carlo (2017). Reality is Not What It Seems: The Journey to Quantum Gravity, Riverhead Books: New York.116.Rivelli's chapter 6 explains how the theory of loop quantum gravity provides a new solution to Zeno's Paradoxes that is more in tune with the intuitions of Democratus because it rejects the assumption that a bit of space can always be subdivided.117.Russell, Bertrand (1914). Our Knowledge of the External World as a Field for Scientific Method in Philosophy, Open Court Publishing Co.: Chicago.118.Russell champions the use of contemporary real analysis and physics in resolving Zeno’s paradoxes.119.Salmon, Wesley C., ed. (1970). Zeno’s Paradoxes, The Bobbs-Merrill Company, Inc.: Indianapolis and New York. Reprinted in paperback in 2001.120.Szabo, Arpad (1978). The Beginnings of Greek Mathematics, D. Reidel Publishing Co.: Dordrecht.121.Tannery, Paul (1885). “‘Le Concept Scientifique du continu: Zenon d’Elee et Georg Cantor,” pp. 385-410 of Revue Philosophique de la France et de l’Etranger, vol. 20, Les Presses Universitaires de France: Paris.122.Tannery, Paul (1887). Pour l’Histoire de la Science Hellène: de Thalès à Empédocle, Alcan: Paris. 2nd ed. 1930.123.Thomson, James (1954-1955). “Tasks and Super-Tasks,” Analysis, XV, pp. 1-13.124.Tiles, Mary (1989). The Philosophy of Set Theory: An Introduction to Cantor’s Paradise, Basil Blackwell: Oxford.125.Vlastos, Gregory (1967). “Zeno of Elea,” in The Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Paul Edwards (ed.), The Macmillan Company and The Free Press: New York.126.White, M. J. (1992). The Continuous and the Discrete: Ancient Physical Theories from a Contemporary Perspective, Clarendon Press: Oxford.127.Wisdom, J. O. (1953). “Berkeley’s Criticism of the Infinitesimal,” The British Journal for the Philosophy of Science, Vol. 4, No. 13, pp. 22-25.128.Wolf, Robert S. (2005). A Tour Through Mathematical Logic, The Mathematical Association of America: Washington, DC.129.Aristotle (1930) [ancient]. "Physics," from The Works of Aristotle, Vol. 2, (R. P. Hardie & R. K. Gaye, translators, W.D. Ross, ed.), Oxford, UK:Clarendon, see [1], accessed 14 October 2015.130.Laertius, Diogenes (about 230 CE). "Pyrrho". Lives and Opinions of Eminent Philosophers IX. passage 72. ISBN1-116-71900-2131.Sudarshan, E.C.G.; Misra, B. (1977). "The Zeno's paradox in quantum theory". Journal of Mathematical Physics 18 (4): 756–763.132.T. Nakanishi, K. Yamane, and M. Kitano: Absorption-free optical control of spin systems: the quantum Zeno effect in optical pumping Phys. Rev. A 65, 013404 (2001).133.Fischer, M.; Gutiérrez-Medina, B.; Raizen, M. (2001). "Observation of the Quantum Zeno and Anti-Zeno Effects in an Unstable System". Physical Review Letters 87 (4): 040402.134.M. C. Fischer, B. Guti´errez-Medina, and M. G. Raizen, Department of Physics, The University of Texas at Austin, Austin, Texas 78712-1081 (February 1, 2008)135.Weyl, H. (1928), Gruppentheorie und Quantenmechanik, Leipzig: Hirzel136.Searchable Online Accommodation Research; Light Sensitivity.137.SOAR; Employees with Epilepsy.138.SOAR; Employees with Lupus.139.Shadick NA, Phillips CB, Sangha O; et al. (December 1999). "Musculoskeletal and neurologic outcomes in patients with previously treated Lyme disease". Annals of Internal Medicine 131 (12): 919–26. doi:10.7326/0003-4819-131-12-199912210-00003. PMID 10610642140.Canadian Center for Occupation Health and Safety; Lighting Ergonomics, Light Flicker.141.Furuta, Aya (2012), "One Thing Is Certain: Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle Is Not Dead", Scientific American.142.Ozawa, Masanao (2003), "Universally valid reformulation of the Heisenberg uncertainty principle on noise and disturbance in measurement", Physical Review A, 67 (4): 42105, arXiv:quant-ph/0207121 Freely accessible, Bibcode:2003PhRvA..67d2105O, doi:10.1103/PhysRevA.67.042105143.Loudon, Rodney, The Quantum Theory of Light (Oxford University Press, 2000), ISBN 0-19-850177-3144.D. F. Walls and G.J. Milburn, Quantum Optics, Springer Berlin 1994145.C W Gardiner and Peter Zoller, "Quantum Noise", 3rd ed, Springer Berlin 2004146.D. Walls, Squeezed states of light, Nature 306, 141 (1983)147.R. E. Slusher et al., Observation of squeezed states generated by four wave mixing in an optical cavity, Phys. Rev. Lett. 55 (22), 2409 (1985)148.Breitenbach, G.; Schiller, S.; Mlynek, J. (29 May 1997). "Measurement of the quantum states of squeezed light" (PDF). Nature. 387 (6632): 471–475. Bibcode:1997Natur.387..471B. doi:10.1038/387471a0.149.G. Breitenbach, S. Schiller, and J. Mlynek, "Measurement of the quantum states of squeezed light", Nature, 387, 471 (1997)150.Entanglement evaluation with Fisher information - http://arxiv.org/pdf/quant-ph/06...A.I. Lvovsky, "Squeezed light," [1401.4118] Squeezed light151.L.-A. Wu, M. Xiao, and H. J. Kimble, "Squeezed states of light from an optical parametric oscillator," J. Opt. Soc. Am. B 4, 1465 (1987).152.Heidmann, A.; Horowicz, R.; Reynaud, S.; Giacobino, E.; Fabre, C.; Camy, G. (1987). "Observation of Quantum Noise Reduction on Twin Laser Beams". Physical Review Letters. 59: 2555. Bibcode:1987PhRvL..59.2555H. doi:10.1103/physrevlett.59.2555.A.Dutt, K. Luke, S. Manipatruni, A. L. Gaeta, P. Nussenzveig, and M. Lipson, "On-Chip Optical Squeezing," Physical Review Applied 3, 044005 (2015). [1309.6371] On-Chip Optical Squeezing153.Ou, Z. Y.; Pereira, S. F.; Kimble, H. J.; Peng, K. C. (1992). "Realization of the Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen paradox for continuous variables". Phys. Rev. Lett. 68: 3663. Bibcode:1992PhRvL..68.3663O. doi:10.1103/physrevlett.68.3663. PMID 10045765.154.Villar, A. S.; Cruz, L. S.; Cassemiro, K. N.; Martinelli, M.; Nussenzveig, P. (2005). "Generation of Bright Two-Color Continuous Variable Entanglement". Phys. Rev. Lett. 95: 243603. arXiv:quant-ph/0506139 Freely accessible. Bibcode:2005PhRvL..95x3603V. doi:10.1103/physrevlett.95.243603. PMID 16384378.155.Grote, H.; Danzmann, K.; Dooley, K. L.; Schnabel, R.; Slutsky, J.; Vahlbruch, H. (2013). "First Long-Term Application of Squeezed States of Light in a Gravitational-Wave Observatory". Phys. Rev. Lett. 110: 181101. arXiv:1302.2188 Freely accessible. Bibcode:2013PhRvL.110r1101G. doi:10.1103/physrevlett.110.181101.156.The LIGO Scientific Collaboration (2011). "A gravitational wave observatory operating beyond the quantum shot-noise limit". Nature Physics. 7: 962. arXiv:1109.2295 Freely accessible. Bibcode:2011NatPh...7..962L. doi:10.1038/nphys2083.157.Wineland, D. J.; Bollinger, J. J.; Heinzen, D. J. (1 July 1994). "Squeezed atomic states and projection noise in spectroscopy". Physical Review A. 50 (2): 67–88. Bibcode:1994PhRvA..50...67W. doi:10.1103/PhysRevA.50.67.158.Machida, S.; Yamamoto, Y.; Itaya, Y. (9 March 1987). "Observation of amplitude squeezing in a constant-current driven semiconductor laser". Physical Review Letters. 58 (10): 1000–1003. Bibcode:1987PhRvL..58.1000M. doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.58.1000. PMID 10034306.159.O. V. Misochko, J. Hu, K. G. Nakamura, "Controlling phonon squeezing and correlation via one- and two-phonon interference," [1011.2001] Controlling phonon squeezing and correlation via one- and two-phonon interference160.Ma, Jian; Wang, Xiaoguang; Sun, C.P.; Nori, Franco (December 2011). "Quantum spin squeezing". Physics Reports. 509 (2–3): 89–165. arXiv:1011.2978 Freely accessible. Bibcode:2011PhR...509...89M. doi:10.1016/j.physrep.2011.08.003.161.Hosten, Onur; Engelsen, Nils J.; Krishnakumar, Rajiv; Kasevich, Mark A. (11 January 2016). "Measurement noise 100 times lower than the quantum-projection limit using entangled atoms". Nature. 529: 505–8. Bibcode:2016Natur.529..505H. doi:10.1038/nature16176. PMID 26751056.162.Cox, Kevin C.; Greve, Graham P.; Weiner, Joshua M.; Thompson, James K. (4 March 2016). "Deterministic Squeezed States with Collective Measurements and Feedback". Physical Review Letters. 116 (9): 093602. arXiv:1512.02150 Freely accessible. Bibcode:2016PhRvL.116i3602C. doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.116.093602. PMID 26991175.163.Bohnet, J. G.; Cox, K. C.; Norcia, M. A.; Weiner, J. M.; Chen, Z.; Thompson, J. K. (13 July 2014). "Reduced spin measurement back-action for a phase sensitivity ten times beyond the standard quantum limit". Nature Photonics. 8 (9): 731–736. arXiv:1310.3177 Freely accessible. Bibcode:2014NaPho...8..731B. doi:10.1038/nphoton.2014.151.164.Lücke, Bernd; Peise, Jan; Vitagliano, Giuseppe; Arlt, Jan; Santos, Luis; Tóth, Géza; Klempt, Carsten (17 April 2014). "Detecting Multiparticle Entanglement of Dicke States". Physical Review Letters. 112 (15): 155304. arXiv:1403.4542 Freely accessible. Bibcode:2014PhRvL.112o5304L. doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.112.155304. PMID 24785048.165.Rini, Matteo (September 6, 2016). "Synopsis: A Tight Squeeze". Physics.166.Vahlbruch, Henning; Mehmet, Moritz; Danzmann, Karsten; Schnabel, Roman (2016-09-06). "Detection of 15 dB Squeezed States of Light and their Application for the Absolute Calibration of Photoelectric Quantum Efficiency". Physical Review Letters. 117 (11): 110801. Bibcode:2016PhRvL.117k0801V. doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.117.110801. PMID 27661673.167.Eberle, Tobias; Steinlechner, Sebastian; Bauchrowitz, Jöran; Händchen, Vitus; Vahlbruch, Henning; Mehmet, Moritz; Müller-Ebhardt, Helge; Schnabel, Roman (22 June 2010). "Quantum Enhancement of the Zero-Area Sagnac Interferometer Topology for Gravitational Wave Detection". Physical Review Letters. 104 (25): 251102. arXiv:1007.0574 Freely accessible. Bibcode:2010PhRvL.104y1102E. doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.104.251102. PMID 20867358.168.Polzik, E. S. (1992-01-01). "Spectroscopy with squeezed light". Physical Review Letters. 68 (20): 3020–3023. Bibcode:1992PhRvL..68.3020P. doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.68.3020.169.Leroux, Ian D.; Schleier-Smith, Monika H.; Vuletić, Vladan (25 June 2010). "Orientation-Dependent Entanglement Lifetime in a Squeezed Atomic Clock". Physical Review Letters. 104 (25): 250801. arXiv:1004.1725 Freely accessible. Bibcode:2010PhRvL.104y0801L. doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.104.250801. PMID 20867356.170.Louchet-Chauvet, Anne; Appel, Jürgen; Renema, Jelmer J; Oblak, Daniel; Kjaergaard, Niels; Polzik, Eugene S (28 June 2010). "Entanglement-assisted atomic clock beyond the projection noise limit". New Journal of Physics. 12 (6): 065032. arXiv:0912.3895 Freely accessible. Bibcode:2010NJPh...12f5032L. doi:10.1088/1367-2630/12/6/065032.171.Kitagawa, Masahiro; Ueda, Masahito (1 June 1993). "Squeezed spin states". Physical Review A. 47 (6): 5138–5143. Bibcode:1993PhRvA..47.5138K. doi:10.1103/PhysRevA.47.5138.172.Braunstein, Samuel L.; van Loock, Peter (29 June 2005). "Quantum information with continuous variables". Reviews of Modern Physics. 77 (2): 513–577. arXiv:quant-ph/0410100 Freely accessible. Bibcode:2005RvMP...77..513B. doi:10.1103/RevModPhys.77.513.173.Furusawa, A. (23 October 1998). "Unconditional Quantum Teleportation". Science. 282 (5389): 706–709. Bibcode:1998Sci...282..706F. doi:10.1126/science.282.5389.706.174.Menicucci, Nicolas C.; Flammia, Steven T.; Pfister, Olivier (22 September 2008). "One-Way Quantum Computing in the Optical Frequency Comb". Physical Review Letters. 101 (13): 13501. arXiv:0804.4468 Freely accessible. Bibcode:2008PhRvL.101m0501M. doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.101.130501. PMID 18851426.175.Kim, Yoon-Ho; R. Yu; S.P. Kulik; Y.H. Shih; Marlan Scully (2000). "A Delayed "Choice" Quantum Eraser". Physical Review Letters. 84: 1–5. arXiv:quant-ph/9903047 Freely accessible. Bibcode:2000PhRvL..84....1K. doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.84.1.176.Ionicioiu, R.; Terno, D. R. (2011). "Proposal for a quantum delayed-choice experiment". Phys. Rev. Lett. 107 (23): 230406. arXiv:1103.0117 Freely accessible. Bibcode:2011PhRvL.107w0406I. doi:10.1103/physrevlett.107.230406. PMID 22182073.177.Jump up ^ Greene, Brian (2004). The Fabric of the Cosmos: Space, Time, and the Texture of Reality. Alfred A. Knopf. p. 198. ISBN 0-375-41288-3.178.Octavio Obreg´on, Superstatistics and Gravitation, Entropy 2010, 12, 2067-2076; doi:10.3390/e12092067179.Verlinde, E.P. On the origin of gravity and the laws of Newton. arXiv 2010, 1001.0785.180.Beckenstein, Black Holes and Entropy, Phy Rev D 7(8) 15April 1973181.Y Wang, J M Kratochvil, A Linde, and M Shmakova, Current Observational Constraints on Cosmic Doomsday. JCAP 0412 (2004) 006, astro-ph/0409264182.John Archibald Wheeler, Geons, Phys. Rev. 97, 511 – Published 15 January 1955183.Heisenberg, W. (1927), "Über den anschaulichen Inhalt der quantentheoretischen Kinematik und Mechanik", Zeitschrift für Physik (in German), 43 (3–4): 172–198, Bibcode:1927ZPhy...43..172H, doi:10.1007/BF01397280.. Annotated pre-publication proof sheet of Über den anschaulichen Inhalt der quantentheoretischen Kinematik und Mechanik, March 21, 1927.184.John Archibald Wheeler, Geons, Phys. Rev. 97, 511 – Published 15 January 1955185.Daniel M. Greenberger, Conceptual Problems Related to Time and Mass in Quantum Theory, Dept. of Physics, CCNY, New York, NY, 10031,USA. Sep 2010186.V. Bargmann, Ann. Math. 59, 1(1954).187.Roberto Colella, Albert W. Overhauser, Samuel A. Werner. “Observation of Gravitationally Induced Quantum Interference”, Physical Review Letters, 34, 1472 (1975). Abstract.188.Magdalena Zych, Fabio Costa, Igor Pikovski, Časlav Brukner. “Quantum interferometric visibility as a witness of general relativistic proper time”, Nature Communications, 2, 505 (2011). Abstract. 2Physics Article.189.Yair Margalit, Zhifan Zhou, Shimon Machluf, Daniel Rohrlich, Yonathan Japha, Ron Folman. “A self-interfering clock as a 'which path' witness”, published online in 'Science Express' (August 6, 2015). Abstract. 2Physics Article.190.Igor Pikovski, Magdalena Zych, Fabio Costa, Časlav Brukner, “Universal decoherence due to gravitational time dilation”, Nature Physics ,11, 668-672 (2015). Abstract.191.Max Born, "Einstein's Theory of Relativity," Dover, 1962, pp. 318-320192.Carsten Robens, Wolfgang Alt, Dieter Meschede, Clive Emary, and Andrea Alberti, “Ideal Negative Measurements in Quantum Walks Disprove Theories Based on Classical Trajectories,” Phys. Rev. X 5, 011003 (2015)A.J. Leggett and A. Garg, “Quantum Mechanics Versus Macroscopic Realism: Is the Flux There When Nobody Looks?,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 54, 857 (1985)B.Emary, N. Lambert, and F. Nori, “Leggett-Garg Inequalities,” Rep. Prog. Phys. 77, 016001 (2014)193.M. E. Goggin, M. P. Almeida, M. Barbieri, B. P. Lanyon, J. L. O’Brien, A. G. White, and G. J. Pryde, “Violation of the Leggett-Garg Inequality with Weak Measurements of Photons,” Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 108, 1256 (2011)194.G. C. Knee et al., “Violation of a Leggett-Garg Inequality with Ideal Non-Invasive Measurements,” Nature Commun. 3, 606 (2012)195.G. Waldherr, P. Neumann, S. F. Huelga, F. Jelezko, and J. Wrachtrup, “Violation of a Temporal Bell Inequality for Single Spins in a Diamond Defect Center,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 107, 090401 (2011)A.Palacios-Laloy, F. Mallet, F. Nguyen, P. Bertet, D. Vion, D. Esteve, and A. N. Korotkov, “Experimental Violation of a Bell’s Inequality in Time with Weak Measurement,” Nature Phys. 6, 442 (2010)196.S. Nimmrichter and K. Hornberger, “Macroscopicity of Mechanical Quantum Superposition States,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 110, 160403 (2013)197.K. Hornberger, S. Gerlich, H. Ulbricht, L. Hackermüller, S. Nimmrichter, I. V. Goldt, O. Boltalina, and M. Arndt, “Theory and Experimental Verification of Kapitza–Dirac–Talbot–Lau Interferometry,” New J. Phys. 11, 043032 (2009)198.Pound, R. V.; Rebka Jr. G. A. (November 1, 1959). "Gravitational Red-Shift in Nuclear Resonance". Physical Review Letters. 3 (9): 439–441. Bibcode:1959PhRvL...3..439P. doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.3.439.199.Cf. Misner, Thorne & Wheeler 1973, §20.4 (‘Gravitation’)200.Physics for Scientists and Engineers, Volume 2, page 1073 - Lawrence S. Lerner - Science – 1997201.McGlinn, William D. (2004), Introduction to relativity, JHU Press, p. 43, ISBN 0-8018-7047-X Extract of page 43202.E. F. Taylor; J. A. Wheeler (1992), Spacetime Physics, second edition, New York: W.H. Freeman and Company, pp. 248–249, ISBN 0-7167-2327-1203.L. B. Okun', The concept of mass (mass, energy, relativity), Institute of Theoretical and Experimental Physics, Moscow Usp.Fiz.Nauk 158, 511-530 (July 1989)204.Erik Verlinde, On the Origin of Gravity and the Laws of Newton; arXiv:1001.0785v1 [hep-th] 6 Jan 2010205.Rees, Martin (May 3, 2001). Just Six Numbers: The Deep Forces That Shape The Universe. New York, NY: Basic Books; First American edition. p. 4.206.Gribbin. J and Rees. M, Cosmic Coincidences: Dark Matter, Mankind, and Anthropic Cosmology p. 7, 269, 1989, ISBN 0-553-34740-3207.Davis, Paul (2007). Cosmic Jackpot: Why Our Universe Is Just Right for Life. New York, NY: Orion Publications. p. 2. ISBN 0618592261.208.Stephen Hawking, 1988. A Brief History of Time, Bantam Books, ISBN 0-553-05340-X, p. 7, 125.209.Lawrence Joseph Henderson, The fitness of the environment: an inquiry into the biological significance of the properties of matter The Macmillan Company, 1913210.R. H. Dicke (1961). "Dirac's Cosmology and Mach's Principle". Nature. 192 (4801): 440–441. Bibcode:1961Natur.192..440D. doi:10.1038/192440a0.211.Heilbron, J. L. The Oxford guide to the history of physics and astronomy, Volume 10 2005, p. 8212.Profile of Fred Hoyle at OPT Archived 2012-04-06 at the Wayback Machine.. Telescopes, Astronomy Cameras, Telescope Mounts & Accessories. Retrieved on 2013-03-11.213.Paul Davies, 1993. The Accidental Universe, Cambridge University Press, p70-71214.MacDonald, J.; Mullan, D. J. (2009). "Big bang nucleosynthesis: The strong nuclear force meets the weak anthropic principle". Physical Review D. 80 (4): 043507. arXiv:0904.1807 Freely accessible. Bibcode:2009PhRvD..80d3507M. doi:10.1103/physrevd.80.043507.215.Abbott, Larry (1991). "The Mystery of the Cosmological Constant". Scientific American. 3 (1): 78.216.Lemley, Brad. "Why is There Life?". Discover magazine. Retrieved 23 August 2014.217.Adams, Fred C., 2008, “Stars in other universes: stellar structure with different fundamental constants”, Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics, 08: 10. doi:10.1088/1475-7516/2008/08/010218.Barnes, Luke A., 2012, “The fine-tuning of the universe for intelligent life”, Publications of the Astronomical Society of Australia, 29(4): 529–564. doi:10.1071/AS12015219.Carter, B., 1974, “Large number coincidences and the anthropic principle in cosmology”, in M. S. Longair (ed.), Confrontation of Cosmological Theory with Observational Data, Dordrecht: Reidel, pp. 291–298.220.Collins, R., 2009, “The teleological argument: an exploration of the fine-tuning of the cosmos”, in W. L. Craig and J.P. Moreland (eds.), The Blackwell Companion to Natural Theology, Oxford: Blackwell221.Colyvan M., J. L. Garfield, and G. Priest, 2005, “Problems with the argument from fine-tuning”, Synthese, 145(39): 325–338. doi:10.1007/s11229-005-6195-0222.Donoghue, John F., 2007, “The fine-tuning problems of particle physics and anthropic mechanisms”, in Carr 2007: 231–246. doi:10.1017/CBO9781107050990.017223.Earman, John and Jesus Mosterín, 1999, “A critical look at inflationary cosmology”, Philosophy of Science, 66(1): 1–49. doi:10.1086/392675224.Grinbaum, Alexei, 2012, “Which fine-tuning arguments are fine?”,, Foundations of Physics, 42(5): 615–631. doi:10.1007/s10701-012-9629-9225.Hogan, Craig J., 2000, “Why the universe is just so”, Reviews of Modern Physics, 72: 1149–1161. doi:10.1103/RevModPhys.72.1149226.Landsman, Klaas, 2016, “The fine-tuning argument: exploring the improbability of our own existence”, in K. Landsman and E. van Wolde (eds.), The Challenge of Chance, Heidelberg: Springer227.McCoy, C.D., 2015, “Does inflation solve the hot big bang model’s fine-tuning problems?”, Studies in History and Philosophy of Modern Physics, 51: 23–36. doi:10.1016/j.shpsb.2015.06.002228.Roberts, John T., 2012, “Fine-tuning and the infrared bull’s eye”, Philosophical Studies, 160(2): 287–303. doi:10.1007/s11098-011-9719-0229.Tegmark, Max, 2014, Our Mathematical Universe: My Quest for the Ultimate Nature of Reality, New York: Knopf.230.Tegmark, Max and Martin J. Rees, 1998, “Why is the cosmic microwave background fluctuation level 10−510−5”, The Astrophysical Journal, 499(2): 526–532. doi:10.1086/305673231.Tegmark, Max, Anthony Aguirre, Martin J. Rees, and Frank Wilczek, 2006, “Dimensionless constants, cosmology, and other dark matters”, Physical Review D, 73(2): 023505. doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.73.023505232.Wheeler, J. A. (January 1955). "Geons". Physical Review. 97 (2): 511. Bibcode:1955PhRv...97..511W. doi:10.1103/PhysRev.97.511.233.J S Briggs 2008 J. Phys.: Conf. Ser. 99 012002, A derivation of the time-energy uncertainty234.Jan Hilgevoord, The uncertainty principle for energy and time, Department of History and Foundations of Mathematics and Science, Utrecht University, P.O. Box 80.000, 3508 TA Utrecht, The Netherlands, (Received 29 January 1996; accepted 10 June 1996)235.L. MANDELSTAM * and lg. TAMM, THE UNCERTAINTY RELATION BETWEEN ENERGY AND TIME IN NON-RELATIVISTIC QUANTUM MECHANICS, Academy of Scioences of the USSR, 1945.236.J. A. Wheeler and R. P., Feynman, “Interaction with the absorber as a mechanism of radiation”, Rev.237.Mod. Phys. 17 157 (1945).238.J. E. Hogarth, “ Considerations of the Absorber Theory of Radiation”, Proc. Roy. Soc. A267,239.pp365-383 (1962).240.Cramer, John G. (July 1986). "The Transactional Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics". Reviews of Modern Physics. 58 (3): 647–688. Bibcode:1986RvMP...58..647C. doi:10.1103/RevModPhys.58.647.241.Cramer, John G. (February 1988). "An Overview of the Transactional Interpretation" (PDF). International Journal of Theoretical Physics. 27 (2): 227–236. Bibcode:1988IJTP...27..227C. doi:10.1007/BF00670751.242.Cramer, John G. (3 April 2010). "Quantum Entanglement, Nonlocality, Back-in-Time Messages" (PPT). John G. Cramer's Home Page. University of Washington.243.Cramer, John G. (2016). The Quantum Handshake: Entanglement, Nonlocality and Transactions. Springer Science+Business Media. ISBN 978-3319246406.244.Richard Feynman: A life in science, p.273 et seq., John Gribbin, Mary Gribbin, Dutton, Penguin Books, 1997245.M. C. Fischer, B. Guti´errez-Medina, and M. G. Raizen, Department of Physics, The University of Texas at Austin, Austin, Texas 78712-1081 (February 1, 2008)246.Sudarshan, E.C.G.; Misra, B. (1977). "The Zeno's paradox in quantum theory". Journal of Mathematical Physics 18 (4): 756–763.247.T. Nakanishi, K. Yamane, and M. Kitano: Absorption-free optical control of spin systems: the quantum Zeno effect in optical pumping Phys. Rev. A 65, 013404 (2001).248.P. Facchi, D. A. Lidar, & S. Pascazio Unification of dynamical decoupling and the quantum Zeno effect Physical Review A 69, 032314 (2004)249.UNIFORM DETERMINATION OF DEATH ACT , Perspectives on Death and Dying 5th Edition, An Online Textbook edited by Dr. Philip A. Pecorino.250.Dr. Leon Kass, in "A Statutory Definition of the Standards for Determining Human Death: An Appraisal and a Proposal," 121 Pa. L. Rev. 87. 1975251.§1. [Determination of Death.] An individual who has sustain ­either (1) irreversible cessation of circulator and respiratory­functions, or (2) irreversible cessation of all functionsof the entire brain, including the brain stem, are dead. A determination of death must be made in accordance with ­accepted medical standards.252.§2. [Uniformity of Construction and Application.] This Act shall be applied and construed to effectuate its general purpose to make uniform the law with respect to the subject of this Act among states enacting it.253.§3. [Short Title.] This Act may be cited as the Uniform Determination of Death Act.254.Capron, A. M. and Kass, L. R. "A Statutory Definition of the Standards for Determining Human Death" University of Pennsylvania Law Review 121:87-118, 1972.255.Kim, Yoon-Ho; R. Yu; S.P. Kulik; Y.H. Shih; Marlan Scully (2000). "A Delayed "Choice" Quantum Eraser". Physical Review Letters. 84: 1–5. arXiv:quant-ph/9903047 Freely accessible. Bibcode:2000PhRvL..84....1K. doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.84.1.256.Scully, Marlan O.; Kai Drühl (1982). "Quantum eraser: A proposed photon correlation experiment concerning observation and "delayed choice" in quantum mechanics". Physical Review A. 25 (4): 2208–2213. Bibcode:1982PhRvA..25.2208S. doi:10.1103/PhysRevA.25.2208.257.Ma, Zeilinger, et al., "Quantum erasure with causally disconnected choice". See: Quantum erasure with causally disconnected choice "Our results demonstrate that the viewpoint that the system photon behaves either definitely as a wave or definitely as a particle would require faster-than-light communication. Because this would be in strong tension with the special theory of relativity, we believe that such a viewpoint should be given up entirely."258.Peruzzo, et al., "A quantum delayed choice experiment", arXiv:1205.4926v2 [quant-ph] 28 Jun 2012. This experiment uses Bell inequalities to replace the delayed choice devices, but it achieves the same experimental purpose in an elegant and convincing way.259.Zajonc, A. G.; Wang, L. J.; Zou, X. Y.; Mandel, L. (1991). "Quantum eraser". Nature. 353 (6344): 507–508. Bibcode:1991Natur.353..507Z. doi:10.1038/353507b0.260.Herzog, T. J.; Kwiat, P. G.; Weinfurter, H.; Zeilinger, A. (1995). "Complementarity and the quantum eraser" (PDF). Physical Review Letters. 75 (17): 3034–3037. Bibcode:1995PhRvL..75.3034H. doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.75.3034. PMID 10059478. Archived from the original (PDF) on 24 December 2013. Retrieved 13 February 2014.261.Walborn, S. P.; et al. (2002). "Double-Slit Quantum Eraser". Phys. Rev. A. 65 (3): 033818. arXiv:quant-ph/0106078 Freely accessible. Bibcode:2002PhRvA..65c3818W. doi:10.1103/PhysRevA.65.033818.262.Jacques, Vincent; Wu, E; Grosshans, Frédéric; Treussart, François; Grangier, Philippe; Aspect, Alain; Rochl, Jean-François (2007). "Experimental Realization of Wheeler's Delayed-Choice Gedanken Experiment". Science. 315 (5814): 966–968. arXiv:quant-ph/0610241 Freely accessible. Bibcode:2007Sci...315..966J. doi:10.1126/science.1136303. PMID 17303748.263.Chiao, R. Y.; P. G. Kwiat; Steinberg, A. M. (1995). "Quantum non-locality in two-photon experiments at Berkeley". Quantum and Semiclassical Optics: Journal of the European Optical Society Part B. 7 (3): 259–278. arXiv:quant-ph/9501016 Freely accessible. Bibcode:1995QuSOp...7..259C. doi:10.1088/1355-5111/7/3/006. Retrieved 13 February 2014.264.Jordan, T. F. (1993). "Disppearance and reappearance of macroscopic quantum interference". Physical Review A. 48 (3): 2449–2450. Bibcode:1993PhRvA..48.2449J. doi:10.1103/PhysRevA.48.2449.265.Peruzzo, Alberto; Shadbolt, Peter J.; Brunner, Nicolas; Popescu, Sandu; O'Brien, Jeremy L. (2012). "A quantum delayed choice experiment". Science. 338 (6107): 634–637. arXiv:1205.4926 Freely accessible. Bibcode:2012Sci...338..634P. doi:10.1126/science.1226719. PMID 23118183.266.Eberhard, Phillippe H.; Ronald R. Ross (1989). "Quantum field theory cannot provide faster-than-light communication". Foundations of Physics Letters. 2 (2): 127–149. Bibcode:1989FoPhL...2..127E. doi:10.1007/BF00696109.267.Benoit B. Mandelbrot, Fractals, Encyclopedia of Statiscal Sciences, DOI: 10.1002/0471667196.ess0816 1977268.John Archibald Wheeler, Geons, Phys. Rev. 97, 511 – Published 15 January 1955269.Misner, Thorne, Zurek; John Wheeler, relativity, and quantum information, http://its.caltech.edu/kip/pubsc...270.Bondi, H, Relativity and Common Sense 1980 ISBN-13: 978-0486240213271.Kennard, E. H. (1927), "Zur Quantenmechanik einfacher Bewegungstypen", Zeitschrift für Physik (in German), 44 (4–5): 326–352, Bibcode:1927ZPhy...44..326K, doi:10.1007/BF01391200.272.M. Tegmark; N. Bostrom (2005). "Is a doomsday catastrophe likely?" (PDF). Nature. 438 (5875): 754. Bibcode:2005Natur.438..754T. doi:10.1038/438754a. PMID 16341005273.M. Stone (1976). "Lifetime and decay of excited vacuum states". Phys. Rev. D. 14 (12): 3568–3573. Bibcode:1976PhRvD..14.3568S. doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.14.3568274.P.H. Frampton (1976). "Vacuum Instability and Higgs Scalar Mass". Phys. Rev. Lett. 37 (21): 1378–1380. Bibcode:1976PhRvL..37.1378F. doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.37.1378275.M. Stone (1977). "Semiclassical methods for unstable states". Phys. Lett. B. 67 (2): 186–188. Bibcode:1977PhLB...67..186S. doi:10.1016/0370-2693(77)90099-5.276.P.H. Frampton (1977). "Consequences of Vacuum Instability in Quantum Field Theory". Phys. Rev. D15 (10): 2922–28. Bibcode:1977PhRvD..15.2922F. doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.15.2922.277.S. Coleman (1977). "Fate of the false vacuum: Semiclassical theory". Phys. Rev. D15: 2929–36. Bibcode:1977PhRvD..15.2929C. doi:10.1103/physrevd.15.2929.278.C. Callan; S. Coleman (1977). "Fate of the false vacuum. II. First quantum corrections". Phys. Rev. D16: 1762–68. Bibcode:1977PhRvD..16.1762C. doi:10.1103/physrevd.16.1762279.Alekhin, Djouadi and Moch (2012-08-13). "The top quark and Higgs boson masses and the stability of the electroweak vacuum". Physics Letters B. 716: 214–219. arXiv:1207.0980 Freely accessible. Bibcode:2012PhLB..716..214A. doi:10.1016/j.physletb.2012.08.024280.P.H. Frampton (1976). "Vacuum Instability and Higgs Scalar Mass". Phys. Rev. Lett. 37 (21): 1378–1380. Bibcode:1976PhRvL..37.1378F. doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.37.1378281.Sharon Begley, Chris Wickham; A Nobel prize for being in two places at once, SCIENCE NEWS OCTOBER 9, 2012