Use Of New I-9 Form Delayed: Fill & Download for Free

112 Squadron RAF Kittyhawk IA (P-40E) in Egypt, 1942.UPDATED: British and Commonwealth forces operated most US designed and built fighters available during the Second World War. Indeed of the main types used by the USAAF and USN, only the P-38 Lightning and P-61 Black Widow were not adopted by the British Commonwealth in some capacity.Commonwealth forces almost certainly preferred the P-51 Mustang, closely followed by the F4U Corsair and F4F Hellcat, over all other types, although the P-40 Tomahawk and Kittyhawk shouldered a larger burden for longer and at a much more critical period as one of the RAF’s main fighters in North Africa, Sicily and Italy and the principle Commonwealth fighter in the Pacific theatre.British and Commonwealth use of US built fighters from 1940–45 is a long story that began with a joint British-French purchasing commission sent to the USA in October 1939, just after the war began. Before the lend-lease agreement was in place, buying equipment from the then neutral USA was seen as a short-cut to help rapidly build up the RAF and Armee de l’Air.6 squadron SAAF Mohawk IVs (ex-French Hawk 75-As), Durban, South Africa, April 1942In 1939 there were only two useful fighters in production in America - the USAAC’s Curtis P-36 Hawk and the USN’s Brewster F2A Buffalo. France ordered lots of P-36s to make up shortfalls in quality and domestic production of its principle single-seater, the Morane Saulnier 406, and delays in fielding the much better Dewotine 520, while Britain ordered F2As (B-339Es) for service in Asia (Singapore, Malaya and Burma).Both Britain and France ordered other promising designs not yet in production - Bell P-39 Airacobras, Curtis P-40 Warhawks, Grumman F4F Wildcats and Douglas DB-7 Havocs - off the drawing board, so to speak.5 squadron RAF Mohawk IVs over Assam, India, 1943.A number of French ordered Hawk 75-As (export version of the Curtis P-36) reverted to the RAF after the fall of France. Most were sent to South Africa, where they were used as operational trainers to transition pilots to P-40s, although some were used by the SAAF to provide air defence over Capetown and Durban after the Japanese attack in 1942–43.A licence production agreement had been made with Hindustan Aeronautics in India to produce the Mohawk (as the P-36 was called by the RAF) for Nationalist China, although only 8 were produced before the Japanese attack, after which production was terminated to enable Hindustan to focus on RAF and RIAF aircraft repair work. In early 1942 these few airframes were commandeered by the RAF and formed the only air defence squadron in India!The remaining ex-French Mohawk airframes held in storage in Britain were hurriedly sent to Calcutta in 1942, and along with the few locally produced models served with three squadrons in the fighter and army cooperation role (artillery spotting, ground attack and tactical reconnaissance) in quieter northern Burma sectors from mid ’42 to early ‘43.601 Squadron RAF Bell P-400s (Airacobra Is), England September 1941.By the time the Anglo-French P-39, P-40 and F4F procurement was ready for delivery France had fallen, and Britain took over the orders. It was quickly determined that the P-400 export variant of the P-39 was not going to live up to its promise of a 400 mph fighter, and only one Squadron (601 Sqn.) was equipped with the type, and they transitioned back to Spitfires after only 6 months.In the event the bulk of the P-400 order was sent via Arctic convoys to the Soviet Union as lend lease (where they were much liked and better suited to the low level air combat conditions typical of the Eastern Front), or taken up by the USAAC for use in the Pacific theatre (most of the ex-RAF order P-400s went to New Guinea) in the months immediately after Pearl Harbor.112 Squadron RAF P-40C (Tomahawk IIb), Libya, summer 1941.The P-40B/C was also judged not suitable for use in NW Europe, due to its poor performance at altitude and sluggish rate of climb (most air combat over Britain and France took place over 20,000 feet).A few Northern Ireland-based RAF and RCAF squadrons were briefly equipped with Tomahawks (as the British called the P40B/C) in the low-level tactical reconnaissance role in 1941, but the vast majority were sent to North Africa.In Egypt, Libya and Tunisia (and later Sicily and Italy) they served with RAF, SAAF and RAAF squadrons in the RAF’s 1st Tactical Air Force (the Desert Air Force) where they proved successful and were admired for their range and rugged construction.The air war in the desert took place over vast distances in a tactical close air support context and played to the P-40s key strengths - long range, ability to take punishment, competitive low-level performance and the ability to carry a range of air-to-ground ordnance.3 squadron RAAF Merlin-powered Kittyhawk IIAs (P-40Ls), Desert Air Force, Italy, 1943.While not a match for the Luftwaffe’s Bf 109s at altitude, Kittyhawks could hold their own with Bf 109s at low level and outperform most Italian types. From mid 1942 onwards P-40s were supplanted by Spitfire Vs and VIIIs in the air superiority role and were re-roled to replace Hurricane IICs, Ds and Es as the principle RAF tactical fighter-bomber in the Mediterranean theatre, where their pilots and ground crews nicknamed them Kittybombers.40 squadron South African Air Force P-40N (Kittyhawk IV) fighter-bomber, Italy 1944.It was 112 Squadron in Egypt that first painted the iconic ‘shark mouth’ nose-art on their Tomahawks in early 1941, a design copied and made famous by Claire Chennault’s American Volunteer Group (the Flying Tigers) in Burma and China later that year. 112 kept their sharkmouth on P-40s and P-51s throughout the war, indeed until they were disbanded in 1957 they wore it on their CF-86s (Sabre F4s) and Hawker Hunter F6s too.A 15 squadron RNZAF P-40E (Kittyhawk IA), October 1942. P-40s were used by both the RAAF and RNZAF in the Southwest Pacific from 1942–44, after which they were replaced by F4U Corsairs (RNZAF) and P-51D Mustangs (RAAF). The cadre of experienced pilots for 15 squadron was made up of F2A Buffalo pilots who had escaped from Singapore to New Zealand, via Indonesia and Australia. Two RCAF squadrons also took the P-40E to war against the Japanese in the Aleutians in 1942–3.P-40s were the mainstay tactical fighter-bomber of the RAF in North Africa and the Mediterranean theatre from 1942–44, after which they were replaced by Merlin-powered P-51s (Mustang IIIs and IVs) and bomb-carrying Spitfire XVIs.3 Squadron RAAF, attached to the Desert Air Force in North Africa and Italy, was the only Commonwealth squadron to operate the Packard Merlin powered Kittyhawk II and IIA (P-40Fs and Ls). These were the most common variants operated by the USAAF in the Mediterranean from 1942–43. 3 Sqn RAAF converted to P-51s in Italy towards the end of the war.RAAF, RNZAF and RCAF squadrons operated Kittyhawks in the Pacific theatre from 1942, with RAAF squadrons converting to Mustang IVs (P-51Ds) and RNZAF squadrons converting to Corsair IIs (F4U-Ds) late in the war. The RAAF even used a few Republic P-43 Lancers as reconnaissance platforms in 1942–3.The Vultee P-66 Vanguard was a low-cost monoplane fighter of moderate performance developed for export in the late 1930s. The RAF took over some of the Swedish order for use as advanced trainers. In the event most were sent to Nationalist China as lend-lease.In 1941 Britain also took delivery of 100 Vultee P-66 Vanguard fighters, intending to use them as advanced trainers in Canada. The type had been developed for export to Sweden pre-war, but the order was embargoed by the US Government after Pearl Harbor. After evaluation the RAF decided not to use the P-66 trainers, and the RAF airframes and the rest of the Swedish order (which went to the USAAC) were eventually sent to China as lend-lease.Martlet IIs (P&W Twin Wasp powered F4F-3s) from HMS Indomitable over the Indian Ocean, 1942. The Royal Navy dropped the British name ‘Martlet’ in 1943 and adopted the US name ‘Wildcat’. Wildcats served aboard British escort carriers through to the end of the war in every theatre.Royal Navy aviation had been controlled by the RAF up to 1939, and had been starved of funding as a consequence. The absence of good British naval fighters meant that the Fleet Air Arm used US designs extensively from 1942 onwards.The first early-model F4F Wildcat (called the Martlet I in FAA parlance) squadron was formed by the Royal Navy in 1940 with ex-French ordered machines, and fought during the Battle of Britain, providing fighter cover over the Home Fleet’s base at Scapa Flow in Orkney.Another squadron was formed in the Mediterranean in 1941 with early production machines originally ordered by the Greek air force (called Martlet III and IIIAs - these were USN F4F-3As - the IIIA were without folding wings), which were used as land-based fighters to protect the Royal Navy’s base at Alexandria, Egypt.Grumman Martlet Is (ex-French ordered Wright Cyclone powered F4F-3s) of 804 Naval Air Squadron, Fleet Air Arm, patrolling over the RN base at Scapa Flow in October 1940. On Christmas Day 1940, two of 804’s F4F-3s shot down a Junkers Ju 88 - the first recorded Wildcat kill. The F4F-3 has the distinction of being the only US-built single seat fighter to participate in the Battle of Britain.805 Naval Air Squadron Martlet IIIs (ex-Greek ordered F4F-3As, identical to the USN variant: the Martlet IIIA was the same variant, minus the wing folding mechanism), Alexandria, Egypt, April 1942British purchased Pratt and Witney Twin Wasp powered Martlets (Marlet IIs) began to arrive in late 1941 too. Unlike the USN version they had self sealing tanks, reflector gunsights and cockpit armour. They were used aboard the fleet carriers HMS Indomitable and HMS Formidable in the Indian Ocean and HMS Victorious and HMS Illustrious in the Mediterranean and Pacific (Victorious operated with USS Saratoga as part of the US Pacific Fleet for six months in 1943 carrying both FAA and USN Wildcats). Martlet IIs were used on the first escort carrier too, HMS Audacity. Eric “Winkle” Brown, the famous post-war test pilot shot down two Fw Condor patrol aircraft in his Martlet II from Audacity.RN Wildcat IV (lend lease supplied F4F-4s) with invasion stripes, July 1944. The Wildcat IV was the standard fighter carried aboard RN escort carriers at the time.By 1943 the Wildcat IV (F4F-4) had become the standard Royal Navy and Royal Canadian Navy fighter on 35 Royal Navy escort carriers, and were very well regarded by Fleet Air Arm pilots both as defensive fighters and for use in attacks on surfaced submarines in the Atlantic (armed with 60lb air-to-surface rockets).21 (City of Melbourne) Squadron RAAF Buffalo Is, Singapore, December 1941 . The hastily assembled RAF purchased Buffalo Mk1s were flown by mostly New Zealand and Australian reservists and trainee pilots with no prior experience of monoplane fighters, obsolete tactical training and very little conversion time on the type. They were outclassed by Japanese Zeros and Oscars in late 1941 and early 1942 over Malaya and Burma, although the surviving pilots went on to fly better US types such as P-40s, P-51s and F4U Corsairs successfully over the Southwest Pacific for the RAAF and RNZAF.Twelve 243 Squadron RAF Buffalo Mk1s escorting Bristol Blenheim IV light bombers over Malaya during the Japanese invasion, December 1941.The RAF, Finnish, Belgian and Dutch East Indies air forces also ordered F2A Buffalos in 1939. The British ordered B-339Es were not effective, partially due to the model selected being under-powered (200hp less powerful than the standard USN F2A-2 and those supplied to the Dutch East Indies, Belgium and Finland) and overweight (the British added self-sealing tanks, cockpit armour, armoured glass and reflector sights), and partially due the lack of experienced fighter pilots in the theatre.A rare shot of an 805 Naval Air Squadron F2A Buffalo II operating from the fleet carrier HMS Eagle in the Mediterranean in 1941.805 Naval Air Squadron also operated Buffalos (more powerful ex-Belgian B-339Bs). These were originally ordered by the Belgian Air Force and diverted to Canada and Britain after the German occupation. They served in Egypt from late 1940 (before replacement with Martlet IIIs in September 1941). A flight of 805 squadron Buffalos were used from September 1940 to replace Sea Gladiators providing air defence for the Mediterranean fleet from the old light carrier HMS Eagle.An RAF Allison-powered Mustang I (similar to the P-51A) over southern England in 1942. They were issued to several RAF and RCAF tac recce wings in Britain.The North American P-51 Mustang was the outcome of the by now all British purchasing commission providing a specification to North American to develop a fighter that addressed the weaknesses of the P-40 in NW Europe (they had originally asked North American to licence produce P-40s, but NA made a counter-proposal to rapidly develop a new type better-suited to European conditions). Even the early Allison engined P-51 models were much appreciated by the RAF, although they lacked useful performance at altitude.The rocket and bomb armed P-51B/C and D/K (Mustang III and IV) replaced P-40Ns in the ground attack role with the RAF and SAAF Desert Air Force fighter-bomber squadrons in Italy from mid-1944.The UK directly purchased Mustang Is and IAs and received P-51As under lend-lease (called Mustang IIs by the RAF). These Allison powered Mustangs were used, like P-40C Tomahawks before them, for low level tactical reconnaissance missions in NW Europe, and served with distinction in that role from 1942–44. At low level an early Mustang could outperform a Bf 109G or Fw 190A (one of the few bright spots of the disastrous Dieppe Raid in 1942 was the stellar performance of the RAF Mustangs against FW-190s at low-level over the beaches).The Allison -powered Mustang IA had 4x20mm cannon and was used by RAF Fighter Command for low level tactical reconnaissance over France. The oblique camera mounting can be seen clearly behind the cockpit.The cannon armed British-purchased tactical recce models (Mustang IA - a P-51A variant armed with 4x20mm Hispano cannon) had a particularly good record against both Luftwaffe types, so much so that RAF squadrons worked hard to keep them in service long after production had shifted to the Merlin 60 powered P-51C/D, as they preferred the Allison-powered Mustangs to the Spitfire FRIXs that replaced them in the low-level tac recce role.112 Squadron RAF (again!) Mustang IVA (P-51K), Italy 1945. From 1944 onward, 112 Squadron turned in its Kittyhawk IVs (P-40Ns) for Merlin-engined Mustangs in Italy. P-51s were the RAF’s primary tactical fighter-bomber in Italy, Greece and the Balkans in 1944–45.Not all Commonwealth P-51s wore camouflage. These are 3 squadron RAAF Mustang IVs (P-51Ds) over Italy, 1945.Whilst the majority of early production Packard Merlin-engined P-51Bs and Cs went to the USAAF’s 8th Air Force (which needed them most as long range fighter escorts), those that the RAF received under lend lease were also very much liked, and were used to form a few long range escort wings in the UK (Polish and Canadian squadrons got most of them).The British also developed the Malcolm hood (a Spitfire-like blown canopy - to improve visibility) and used Packard Merlin engined P-51B/Cs, Ds and Ks (Mustang III and IVs) to reequip the remaining RAF and SAAF P-40N Kittyhawk IV fighter-bomber squadrons in Italy in late 1944.Packard Merlin powered Mustang IIIs (P-51Cs) of 315 squadron RAF, a Polish fighter squadron, in eastern England, December 1943. Mustangs provided long range escort for daylight precision raids by Mosquitos and Lancasters on Gestapo HQs in Denmark and France, the V1 and V2 launch sites in Germany and Holland and the Tirpitz and other warships holed up in Norwegian Fjords. The P-51Bs and Cs were replaced by P-51Ds and Ks in late 1944.19 Squadron RAF P-51Cs (Mustang IIIs) over southern England, April 1944. 19 squadron escorted Mosquito interdiction raids and performed close air support missions during the Normandy landings.Merlin-engined RAF and RCAF Mustang IIIs and IVs were used like their USAAF counterparts as long range escorts, but mostly at lower altitudes. Lancaster daylight precision raids with Barnes Wallis designed Tallboy and Grand Slam 10,000 lb and 20,000 lb ‘earthquake’ bombs on critical infrastructure, the Peenemunde rocket research facilities and V1 and V2 sites were escorted by Mustangs, as were Mosquito low-level precision raids and anti-shipping strikes.Another 19 squadron Mustang, this time a P-51D (Mustang IV) photographed from a Mosquito FBVI over the North Sea in late 1944. Operating from Peterhead in Scotland, 19 squadron provided long range escort for anti-shipping strikes by the Banff Wing’s Mosquitoes in Norwegian waters.Royal Canadian Navy Corsair II (F4U-D), British Pacific Fleet, Okinawa 1945. On 9 August 1945, days before the end of the war, Corsairs from HMS Formidable attacked Shiogama harbour on the northeast coast of Japan. RCN pilot, Lieutenant Robert Hampton Gray, of 1841 Squadron was hit by flak but pressed home his attack on a Japanese destroyer, sinking it with a 1,000 lb (450 kg) bomb but crashing into the sea. He was posthumously awarded Canada's last VC, becoming the second fighter pilot of the war to earn a Victoria Cross as well as the final Canadian casualty of World War II.The Royal Navy was the first to take the F4U Corsair to sea on an aircraft carrier in 1943, and loved their early model Corsairs. The Royal Navy cleared the F4U for carrier operations well before the U.S. Navy. In Royal Navy service, because of the limited hanger deck height in several classes of British carrier, many Corsairs had their outer wings "clipped" by 8 in. This also reduced the F4U's propensity to "float" in the final stages of landing. Despite the clipped wings and the shorter decks of British carriers, Royal Navy pilots found landing accidents less of a problem than they had been in the U.S. Navy, thanks to the curved approach they used. British units solved the landing visibility problem by approaching the carrier in a medium left-hand turn, which allowed the pilot to keep the carrier's deck in view. This technique was later adopted by U.S. Navy and Marine fliers for carrier use of the Corsair.Royal Navy FG-1Ds (Corsair IVs), aboard the light carrier HMS Vengeance in late 1945.The Royal Navy developed a number of modifications to the Corsair that made carrier landings more practical. Among these are a bulged canopy (similar to the Malcolm Hood), and raising the pilot's seat and wiring shut the cowl flaps across the top of the engine compartment, diverting oil and hydraulic fluid spray around the sides of the fuselage.Corsair Is (F-4U-1 and 1A) were used to escort Operation Tungsten, a carrier strike on the Tirpitz in April 1944. Although the battleship survived 15 bomb hits and two waterline holings, she was severely damaged and unable to intervene during the Normandy invasion.Corsairs were used to escort carrier strikes on the Tirpitz and other shipping in Norway and to provide fighter cover during the Battle of North Cape in 1943 (where the German battlecruiser Scharnhorst was sunk).Royal Navy Corsair Is (F-4U-1A) launching from a carrier in the North Atlantic in late 1943.Both Corsairs and Hellcats were used from 1943–45 as fleet fighters in the Atlantic, Arctic and Pacific with great success.1840 Naval Air Squadron Hellcat Is (F6F-3) over England in June 1944Short-ranged British Seafires (navalised Spitfires) were used to provide Combat Air Patrols over the fleet, while the US built fighters were used offensively as escorts and attack aircraft. The British Pacific Fleet conducted extensive operations against Japanese targets in Malaya, Indonesia, Okinawa and over Japan in 1944–45 using these types.Royal Navy Hellcat II (F6F-5), with the British Pacific Fleet off Okinawa, 1945. Hellcats and Corsairs were the primary offensive fighters of the Royal Navy fleet carrier force in 1944–45, Seafires were used defensively to provide fighter cover over the fleet.1839 Naval Air Squadron FAA Hellcat MkIIs (F6F–5) on HMS Indomitable, Pacific Fleet, 1945. 1844 Squadron, also aboard Indomitable, was the Pacific Fleet’s highest scoring unit over Okinawa and Japan in 1945, with 32.5 kills.While Republic P-47 Thunderbolts were not immediately used by the RAF when they became available in 1943, from late 1944 it was decided to transfer a large number of ex-US 8th and 9th Air Force P-47D Thunderbolts to the RAF and RIAF in India. These were to replace a mix of Hurricane IIC/Ds and IVs and Vultee Vengeance dive bombers then being used in the tactical fighter-bomber and close support role by the 3rd Tactical Air Force in India and Burma.“Razorback” P-47D Thunderbolt Is on the flightline, Chittagong India, December 1944From October 1944, thousands of these tired former USAAF P-47s (many of them the early ‘razorback’ models) were shipped from the UK to RAF maintenance depots in Egypt, where they were tropicalised and refurbished and sent on to India.From December 1944 they became the mainstay of the 3rd Tactical Air Force’s fighter-bomber wings attacking Japanese forces during the drive to Rangoon, and were a distinct improvement on the old Hurricanes, which were themselves hand-me-downs from the RAF in Egypt.Some of these P-47s went on to serve with the Armee de L’air against the Viet Minh in Indochina post-war.A 30 squadron RAF Thunderbolt II (P-47D) sorties from Cox’s Bazaar, India, early 1945. P-47s were the RAF’s primary tactical fighter-bomber in Southeast Asia from late 1944 to the end of the war. They were mostly surplus USAAF 8th and 9th Air Force machines, shipped from England to India via Egypt under lend-lease.Early in the war the RAF also converted a large number of Douglas DB-7 attack bombers (originally ordered by France) to Havoc I night fighters for service during the winter of 1940–41. These had extra fuel tanks in the bomb-bay and 8 .303 Browning machine guns in a solid nose. The mid-upper defensive gun position was glazed over and replaced by an AI Mk1 air interception radar and operator, with antenna mounted on the nose and under the wings.The radar, long endurance and good overall performance of the Havoc enabled the type to successfully fill the night-fighter role until purpose designed Beaufighter and Mosquito night fighters became available in sufficient numbers from 1942. The Havocs, alongside early model Beaufighters and similarly modified Bolton Paul Defiants, contributed much to blunting the German blitz on London and other cities.RAF Havoc I (a heavily modified ex-French order DB-7 with an 8 x .303 machine gun solid nose, extra fuel tanks and early British AI radar), winter 1940–41.In summary, the Mustang, Hellcat and Corsair provided British and Commonwealth Air Forces and Navies with capabilities they could not supply from domestic industry, and were indispensable to the RAF, SAAF, RAAF, RNZAF, RCAF and RN and RCN Fleet Air Arms.Without access to US-supplied fighters, and especially the P-40, the RAF and Commonwealth Air Forces would not have been able to rapidly scale up offensive tactical air forces simultaneously in three theatres from 1941, and by 1944 P-40s, P-47s and P-51s formed the mainstay of the fighter-bomber squadrons of the 1st and 3rd Tactical Air Forces in the Mediterranean and Far East and of Commonwealth fighter forces in the Pacific.In Northwest Europe P-51 Mustangs allowed RAF Fighter Command and the RAF 2nd Tactical Air Force to roam deep into Nazi occupied Europe from 1942 onwards, initially to conduct tactical reconnaissance missions and later to provide escort for Mosquito and Lancaster bombers on daylight precision bombing raids and anti-shipping strikes.US-built fighters were even more important for the Royal Navy and Royal Canadian Navy, and without them it is doubtful that the British carrier force could have reached its full potential and contributed so ably to the defeat of the German submarine and German and Italian surface threat and Japanese forces in the Indian Ocean and Pacific.441 squadron RCAF Mustang III (P-51C) of RAF Fighter Command, eastern England, 1944.Technical information on the RAF variants of US WW2 fighters can be found on the wiki entires for each type, or alternatively you can ask me about them in a comment. More details on RAF P-51 variants can be accessed here https://erenow.net/ww/mustang-thoroughbred-stallion-of-the-air/8.php

Start with the present tense. Write a couple of paragraphs about who you are right now. Don’t mention the past or the future. Even though you are writing about yourself, you may include information about others or the world in general. But keep everything in the present tense: The moon slips behind a cloud again. I am sitting at a table in a dimly lit kitchen.Do the same with the past tense. Write about events that happened in your past. My mother was ill for perhaps three years after the birth of my younger brother. She had so much energy before she became ill.Do the same with the future tense. Write several paragraphs about your future. Don’t mention the present or the past. This terrible rain will not last. Soon the truckers will be able to navigate the roads northward, and, for only the second time in my life, I will go with them.Go online and locate a table of irregular verbs. This search will provide you with a list of all tenses. It will also show you that some verbs are highly irregular (inflected) and need special attention. Example: to go is irregular — I go, I went, I have gone. If it were a regular verb, it would be conjugated entirely with -Ed endings. I go, I goed, I have goed.Write a story in which you use the helping verbs has, have, had as many times as you can. I have tried to be as useful as possible. I had tried last week to finish roofing the barn all alone. The older men had told me I should have gained more experience before taking on such a big job, but, of course, I didn’t listen. I should have paid attention to their words.Copy five sentences that you have found that begin with if. Pay attention to the if clause and the independent clause that follows it. If I study, I will pass the test. If I studied, I would have passed the test.Learn the names of the tenses.Pick a regular verb and write the first person singular for each of the tenses.Pick an irregular verb and write the first person singular for each of the tenses.Probably the most ambitious project you could attempt here would be working with future perfect, future conditional and related tenses and moods. They are not difficult, but they are used in very refined speech and writing and are often “steered around” ( usually successfully) by both writers and speakers. Writing a paragraph or two using these verb forms might be enjoyable. Examples of their use: By the time the new flight school facility is finished, I will have completed all my instructor certifications. I would have completed them this year, but recovering from my motorcycle accident delayed my study. If I had studied independently during my rehab, I would have been able to sign off on a couple of requirements. Nonetheless, in a year or so, I will be fully certified.

Ok, so I got so many requests on this subject that I feel like Santa the week before Christmas.First, understand that I have answered this question in several different ways on Quora, so I will be referring you to several of my former answers rather than re-write the whole thing over again. Second, I have written a text for laymen, which was free to Quora users, but I get crap from the Quora High Command whenever I refer you off site. So, although there is an entire 850 page thick book freely available, I’m not allowed to direct you to it. My answers are typically copy and paste from the text.I was just writing for class on this subject and remembered this old post, which I thought to update. This should prove interesting.In this section I am going to write as though the native wave function has a sequitur description for locality and hence velocity. The reason is because not doing so makes the discussion too mystical to describe without a lot of exotic math. I will speak in terms as if the native photon and/or electron wave function moves from A to B and leaves a trail of artifact E and M bosons in its wake. That is the best I can do without getting so caught up in math and vocabulary this becomes a grad cadet course. There is no sequitur locality hence velocity, I am just going to render the explanation in those terms as though it were so, in a sense, again because otherwise this turns into a grad cadet course.Physicists have been chasing around native photon and electron wave functions for the past century, scratching their heads, in violation of their own convention, which is the paradox..What is happening is, as I previously pointed out, the Electric and Magnetic bosons are the only wave functions that have a valid mass description, again not a revelation but convention; applied rather than denied. As such, they are the only native wave functions that are mass limited to v << c. Herein lies the obvious result. In all of the variations of the 2-slit ontology, the physicists are chasing native photon and electron [or any] wave functions around, which have no sequitur locality description other than infinite distribution, by observing the only detectable thing in normal space-time, their associated massive, slow moving Electric and Magnetic bosons. In normal space-time, only electric and magnetic bosons, the EM, is detectable, no other phenomenon is directly detectable, nothing.Now you are a Nobel Laurette. The artifact E and M bosons cannot possibly represent any sequitur locality, hence velocity, nor any other such characteristic, of any native wave function, because they are the only wave functions limited to v << c.Then we get to the mystical quality where the physicist tries to bunch the native wave function up, because of this observation, into a limited locality. That is, the native photon wave function is by convention of infinite distribution, Physics 101. Nonetheless, Professor Poopstein has to explain off seeing it here rather than there. So he renders some mystical mathematical mythos in unobservable dimensionalities that violates fundamental theorem to do something like this:Which I'm using only because it is familiar. However, the fundamental Theorem in question is the Limits at Infinity, which is the theorem upon which all of Calculus, hence all mathematics extending beyond Platonic geometry is based: [I promise this is the most complicated math I will provide]Is a singular state function. You cannot slice the infinite distribution to creatively select your benchtop out of that infinity; which literally extends beyond the scope of the entire cosmos.As Theorem, it is not open to debate, opinion, argument, interpretation, certainly not violation; which selective distribution is clearly a violation.The Nobel answer to the ontology of photons being watched is the mundane answer that the artifact Electric and Magnetic bosons, which are the only way that photon can interact in this universe, are left far behind in the photon's wake as discrete, massive, slow moving wave functions, hence cannot represent the locality of the photon. We put a piece of Kodak film in the path of the native photon wave function, and nothing happens, because the native wave function does not interact with this universe. Moments later, the E and M bosons, trailing far behind in the wake catch up and strike the film, hence we marvel at it. Because they trail far behind, there is a temporal delay, and it matters when we place the film in the path.That is the Nobel answer. As you can see, it is mundane as it gets.Furthermore, this is by convention, not revelation, which astounds me.The HUP is described at: Bill Bray's answer to The double slit experiment proved that direct observation altered results. What would happen if the sensors recorded results but the results weren't accessible by humans? For example, what if a computer put an impossible password on the results?The first thing you need to review is this, which describes the Delayed Choice Quantum Eraser experiments by Kim, et al: https://www.quora.com/If-an-electron-is-in-a-superposition-state-of-two-possible-energy-levels-from-where-would-it-absorb-energy-to-jump-to-the-next-level-if-the-wave-function-collapses/answer/Bill-Bray-6You will note that in the first video, he mentions a Nobel for answering this question. That is completely true and correct. Therefore, since no Nobel has been awarded to any web site or TV documentary for answering the subject, COMPLETELY FORGET everything you have heard.Just to clarify: when we got to describing the Delayed Choice Quantum Eraser, that erased all doubt that the conscious observer plays a role in the system, not merely an inert detector. Again, no mechanistic argument otherwise has been awarded the awaiting Nobel, therefore counter arguments otherwise simply ideologically contradict the outcome of the experiments. The current verbiage uses the term ‘entangled with the past’ rather than outwardly state ‘retro causality,’ or causality violation.’ Among the countless claims of an explanation, none have occurred. In 2012 Wineland and Haroche were awarded a Nobel for scaling the phenomenon up to the macroscopic scale. [Sharon Begley, Chris Wickham; A Nobel prize for being in two places at once, SCIENCE NEWS OCTOBER 9, 2012] Some have misidentified this with a Nobel for a mechanistic explanation of the Delayed Choice Quantum Eraser. This development led to the current Quantum Computing model.Essentially, what Wineland and Haroche accomplished was to hit an atom with exactly half of the photon energy to move it to another position. What resulted was the atom being in both locations simultaneously. Normally such a superposition is limited to a single photon or electron. However, scaling it up to atomic proportions was a Nobel piece of work.To make it more clear, Superposition is an observed phenomenon. There are countless mathematical descriptions of it. HOWEVER, there is NO explanation what or why it is. To use superposition as an explanation is non-sequitur. Superposition is not defined, albeit there are tons of mathematical equations describing the behavior by way of observation; that is not an explanation of what or why it is. The math only describes what it may or may not do.In the double slit phenomenon, why does superposition occur at one or both slits rather than anywhere else in the cosmos? Even according to all of the current mathematical descriptions of superposition, there is a wide distribution of possible localities extending out to infinity. While there is a greater probability that it is superpositioned across a more narrow choice of locations, there is no equation on Earth that describes that there are exactly two possible superpositions, oddly at each slit. (Except for those that are fudge).The answer being superposition (with respect to spacial locality), then, is a billion times more mysterious than the original question. That is, the choices in superposition of localities is infinite, and inexplicably result in one or both slits; the odds are exactly infinity to 1 that this is the correct answer. It is in fact so absurd, that it is embarrassing to watch.In the Delayed Choice portion of Kim et al’s setup, why does superposition occur 8ns back in time at detector D-zero rather than any other time in the universe? The answer, again, of the magic black box superposition then becomes a billion times more mysterious than the original question; again. Yes, the wave function is superpositioned in time, and again, the choice of possible localities in time is ultimately spread across (this differs a little) from the Big Bang until the exact present. Why it is superpositioned at exactly two localities in time and not smeared equally across 4 x 1027 (the number of nanoseconds of the age of the current cosmos) temporal localities is a thousand, trillion, trillion times less likely to be the correct answer. That is, the temporal location in superposition is a smear, rather than a distinct locality. In spacial locality, there are one or two outcomes, and we’re OK with that. In temporal locality, (like Bob and Alice) once two positions materialize, the temporal order between them becomes a smear, not distinct. If the temporal localities were distinct, normal ‘signaling’ between Bob and Alice would be observed, taking time; and Quantum Entanglement would not be observed. Again, this suggestion is so bizarre it is embarrassing to watch someone say it. (Like you’re the one who is embarrassed when the comedian or performer on stage sucks, an oddity in human empathy).Part of what Wineland and Wickham achieved was in fact, getting an atom to superposition where they wanted it to be. However, their methodology is in no way related to the Delayed Choice or the Quantum Eraser phenomenon.Again, I need to stress, amidst the claims of mechanistic answers and claims of observed, yet unexplained phenomenon being an answer is only embarrassing to watch and hear. No one has explained what or why superposition is, there is only math describing the way it behaves after observing it for a century. There is a degree of predictability, but there is no such (non-fudged) equation that places the outcomes at exactly both of the spacial localities of Kim, et al’s setup (which was an arbitrary choice) and temporal localities of exactly 8 nanoseconds apart in Kim’s choice of placement of detector Dx and D0, which was also chosen arbitrarily.It is akin to stating that the God of Superposition was watching over Kim and his colleagues, and taking very careful measurements of their setup while they were not looking, so as to befuddle mankind’s understanding of reality.<���x��8That is, the only Nobel on the Delayed Choice Quantum Eraser is scaling it up in size to the real world. There is no universally accepted model which removes the conscious observer from the system. However, those who do render such arguments are quite vocal and zealous. They make claims of ‘closed time loops,’ the HUP, pure probability, and so on, but again, no universally acceptable answer.“I regard consciousness as fundamental. I regard matter as derivative from consciousness. We cannot get behind consciousness. Everything that we talk about, everything that we regard as existing, postulating consciousness.” - Max Planck [Kahn, Boundless Paradox, Dec 4, 2015]Again, I need to stress, amidst the claims of mechanistic answers and calm dismissals, there is no such answer the removes the conscious observer from the system. You can and will find countless arguments to this effect, but the best that has been achieved is to scale the phenomenon up is size to the atomic.I have read a lot of dismissals of the DCQE as some mechanistic argument, none work. Regarding the photon as superpositioned in space and time (which it is) does not dismiss the result, especially in light of the fact that this phenomenon has been scaled up to the macroscopic.Then, go on to this answer to review the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle. The explanation will undoubtedly raise hell because of the urban myths that have prevailed since childhood. Nonetheless, this is the correct meaning of the HUP: https://www.quora.com/The-double-slit-experiment-proved-that-direct-observation-altered-results-What-would-happen-if-the-sensors-recorded-results-but-the-results-werent-accessible-by-humans-For-example-what-if-a-computer-put-an/answer/Bill-Bray-6In that answer, you can see that causality was never a ‘property’ of physics. There is no linearity to time. We choose to perceive time in this way (linear) because we are quantumly weird.For instance, I do not want you to drag this information into your frame of reference and homogenize it with your view, you MUST move into this frame of reference of the explanation, else, walk away with nothing but another confabulated myth. That is, don’t try and validate your concepts via these explanations, forget everything you know and move into this new frame of reference with me.Then we get to Quantum Gravity. You need to know this because, rather than the Higg’s having to do with anything, it appears in current thinking that space-time and its geometry (gravitation), and hence the forces and constants, properties and so on, are emergent phenomenon as a direct result of quantum entanglement.First you need to understand the Planck units: Bill Bray's answer to Why is Planck length minimum measurable length?In another text, I’m not sure where, I take the -1 Law of Thermodynamics (That’s negative 1 law of thermodynamics), ‘Information cannot be destroyed,’ as per Susskind’s statement, and express what information is according to Bekenstein’s Black Hole entropy, Wheeler’s work on it, and eventually led to Verlinde’s definition:Where ‘N’ represents the number of bits of information, AΩ represents a 2-dimensional Schwarzschild surface (like the surface of a Black Hole), and I believe by now we have discussed Lp. Therefore, I extrapolate this such that we can determine what ‘N’ is: (no one has outwardly stated what scope ‘N’ is, but it is obvious)Furthermore, as a natural number, we set ‘c’ equal to 1, such that Lp = tpTo simplify, we think of entropy as an increase in the number of possible outcomes of a superposition of that wave function, and Ordiny as a decrease in the number of possible outcomes of that superposition. As the area AΩ increases, the number of possible outcomes of a superposition increases, entropy increases. As AΩ decreases, the number of possible superpositions decreases, Ordiny, or Gravitation. This then extends out to the other forces as well. Each force demonstrates either, ultimately, an increase in the number of possible superpositions (entropy) or decrease in the possible number of superpositions (Ordiny). We see Ordiny as an ‘attractive force,’ and entropy as repellent.So we take 1 bit, N, 4Lp^2, like a trigonal pyramid, but shape is impossible on a Planck scale, because, for instance, a triangle's hypotenuse is not an integer value of Lp, and therefore a triangle cannot exist, likewise for a circle, with pi diameters, and every other possible shape, and so on. Everything at the Planck scale - the Planck scale is a shapeless domain.This would be a good time to look at: Bill Bray's answer to Does Planck length go against the idea of a continuous space and time?This image was used to try and visualize quantized space on a Planck scale:In any case, you can see that a triangle, which therefore has a hypotenuse ofa is not an integer value of Lp, and therefore impossible. A circle has a relationship to its diameter of pi, also not an integer of Lp, and so on with every possible normal shape.Then you can review : Bill Bray's answer to Is there a way how natural wormholes could form?This describes the ‘quantum foam,’ a characteristic of space-time that describes the dynamic structure on the Planck scale. There is a short review of this by wilczek, who actually measured the quantum foam’s effect on the strong and weka forces (for which he earned a Nobel, at 48 minutes into:In this bit, N, we either have information in it, or there is no information in it. If there is information in it, it by definition is entangled with some other bit of information somewhere. As the distance between these two bits N and N’ increases, the probability that they are quantum entangled decreases, because the wave function in the HUP limits the amount of time such a thing can exist. If N is entangled with N’, then each has an element a or its symmetric partner a’.If there is no N’ then there is no space-time in this scenario. If there is an N’, then time limits us to the probability that it contains either a or a’. From this time constraint, the number of possible superpositions is defined, and so the size of our world sheet, AΩ.This is how space-time is then an emergent form from information entropy vs. Ordiny. You may also note that ‘c’ is not a velocity, it defines the relationship between the world-sheet AΩ with respect to Lp and tp (space and time). It is not a ‘speed limit’ it is the definition of space-time.1.Arntzenius, Frank. (2000) “Are there Really Instantaneous Velocities?”, The Monist 83, pp. 187-208.2.Barnes, J. (1982). The Presocratic Philosophers, Routledge & Kegan Paul:3.Barrow, John D. (2005). The Infinite Book: A Short Guide to the Boundless, Timeless and Endless, Pantheon Books, New York.4.Benacerraf, Paul (1962). “Tasks, Super-Tasks, and the Modern Eleatics,” The Journal of Philosophy, 59, pp. 765-784.5.Bergson, Henri (1946). Creative Mind, translated by M. L. Andison. Philosophical Library: New York.6.Black, Max (1950-1951). “Achilles and the Tortoise,” Analysis 11, pp. 91-101.7.Cajori, Florian (1920). “The Purpose of Zeno’s Arguments on Motion,” Isis, vol. 3, no. 1, pp. 7-20.8.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.9.Chihara, Charles S. (1965). “On the Possibility of Completing an Infinite Process,” Philosophical Review 74, no. 1, p. 74-87.10.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.11.Dainton, Barry. (2010). Time and Space, Second Edition, McGill-Queens University Press: Ithaca.12.Dauben, J. (1990). Georg Cantor, Princeton University Press: Princeton.13.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. 92-124.14.Diels, Hermann and W. Kranz (1951). Die Fragmente der Vorsokratiker, sixth ed., Weidmannsche Buchhandlung: Berlin.15.Dummett, Michael (2000). “Is Time a Continuum of Instants?,” Philosophy, 2000, Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, pp. 497-515.16.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. 231-261.17.Feferman, Solomon (1998). In the Light of Logic, Oxford University Press, New York.18.Freeman, Kathleen (1948). Ancilla to the Pre-Socratic Philosophers, Harvard University Press: Cambridge, MA. Reprinted in paperback in 1983.19.Grünbaum, Adolf (1967). Modern Science and Zeno’s Paradoxes, Wesleyan University Press: Middletown, Connecticut.20.Grünbaum, Adolf (1970). “Modern Science and Zeno’s Paradoxes of Motion,” in (Salmon, 1970), pp. 200-250.21.Hamilton, Edith and Huntington Cairns (1961). The Collected Dialogues of Plato Including the Letters, Princeton University Press: Princeton.22.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. 271-292.23.Heath, T. L. (1921). A History of Greek Mathematics, Vol. I, Clarendon Press: Oxford. Reprinted 1981.24.Hintikka, Jaakko, David Gruender and Evandro Agazzi. Theory Change, Ancient Axiomatics, and Galileo’s Methodology, D. Reidel Publishing Company, Dordrecht.25.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.26.Maddy, Penelope (1992) “Indispensability and Practice,” Journal of Philosophy 59, pp. 275-289.27.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.28.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. 356-86.29.McLaughlin, William I. (1994). “Resolving Zeno’s Paradoxes,” Scientific American, vol. 271, no. 5, Nov., pp. 84-90.30.Owen, G.E.L. (1958). “Zeno and the Mathematicians,” Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society, New Series, vol. LVIII, pp. 199-222.31.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. 318-54.32.Proclus (1987). Proclus’ Commentary on Plato’s Parmenides, translated by Glenn R. Morrow and John M. Dillon, Princeton University Press: Princeton.33.Rescher, Nicholas (2001). Paradoxes: Their Roots, Range, and Resolution, Carus Publishing Company: Chicago.34.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."35.Rivelli, Carlo (2017). Reality is Not What It Seems: The Journey to Quantum Gravity, Riverhead Books: New York.36.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.37.Russell, Bertrand (1914). Our Knowledge of the External World as a Field for Scientific Method in Philosophy, Open Court Publishing Co.: Chicago.38.Russell champions the use of contemporary real analysis and physics in resolving Zeno’s paradoxes.39.Salmon, Wesley C., ed. (1970). Zeno’s Paradoxes, The Bobbs-Merrill Company, Inc.: Indianapolis and New York. Reprinted in paperback in 2001.40.Szabo, Arpad (1978). The Beginnings of Greek Mathematics, D. Reidel Publishing Co.: Dordrecht.41.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.42.Tannery, Paul (1887). Pour l’Histoire de la Science Hellène: de Thalès à Empédocle, Alcan: Paris. 2nd ed. 1930.43.Thomson, James (1954-1955). “Tasks and Super-Tasks,” Analysis, XV, pp. 1-13.44.Tiles, Mary (1989). The Philosophy of Set Theory: An Introduction to Cantor’s Paradise, Basil Blackwell: Oxford.45.Vlastos, Gregory (1967). “Zeno of Elea,” in The Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Paul Edwards (ed.), The Macmillan Company and The Free Press: New York.46.White, M. J. (1992). The Continuous and the Discrete: Ancient Physical Theories from a Contemporary Perspective, Clarendon Press: Oxford.47.Wisdom, J. O. (1953). “Berkeley’s Criticism of the Infinitesimal,” The British Journal for the Philosophy of Science, Vol. 4, No. 13, pp. 22-25.48.Wolf, Robert S. (2005). A Tour Through Mathematical Logic, The Mathematical Association of America: Washington, DC.49.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 2015.50.Laertius, Diogenes (about 230 CE). "Pyrrho". Lives and Opinions of Eminent Philosophers IX. passage 72. ISBN1-116-71900-251.Sudarshan, E.C.G.; Misra, B. (1977). "The Zeno's paradox in quantum theory". Journal of Mathematical Physics 18 (4): 756–763.52.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).53.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): 040402.54.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)55.Weyl, H. (1928), Gruppentheorie und Quantenmechanik, Leipzig: Hirzel56.Searchable Online Accommodation Research; Light Sensitivity.57.SOAR; Employees with Epilepsy.58.SOAR; Employees with Lupus.59.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 1061064260.Canadian Center for Occupation Health and Safety; Lighting Ergonomics, Light Flicker.61.Furuta, Aya (2012), "One Thing Is Certain: Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle Is Not Dead", Scientific American.62.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.67.04210563.Loudon, Rodney, The Quantum Theory of Light (Oxford University Press, 2000), ISBN 0-19-850177-364.D. F. Walls and G.J. Milburn, Quantum Optics, Springer Berlin 199465.C W Gardiner and Peter Zoller, "Quantum Noise", 3rd ed, Springer Berlin 200466.D. Walls, Squeezed states of light, Nature 306, 141 (1983)67.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)68.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:10.1038/387471a0.69.G. Breitenbach, S. Schiller, and J. Mlynek, "Measurement of the quantum states of squeezed light", Nature, 387, 471 (1997)70.Entanglement evaluation with Fisher information - http://arxiv.org/pdf/quant-ph/061209971.A. I. Lvovsky, "Squeezed light," [1401.4118] Squeezed light72.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).73.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.59.2555.74.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 Squeezing75.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 10045765.76.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 16384378.77.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.110.181101.78.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/nphys2083.79.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.50.67.80.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 10034306.81.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 interference82.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.2011.08.003.83.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 26751056.84.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 26991175.85.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.2014.151.86.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 24785048.87.Rini, Matteo (September 6, 2016). "Synopsis: A Tight Squeeze". Physics.88.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 27661673.89.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 20867358.90.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.68.3020.91.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 20867356.92.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:10.1088/1367-2630/12/6/065032.93.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.47.5138.94.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.77.513.95.Furusawa, A. (23 October 1998). "Unconditional Quantum Teleportation". Science. 282 (5389): 706–709. Bibcode:1998Sci...282..706F. doi:10.1126/science.282.5389.706.96.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 18851426.97.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.84.1.98.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 22182073.99.Jump up ^ Greene, Brian (2004). The Fabric of the Cosmos: Space, Time, and the Texture of Reality. Alfred A. Knopf. p. 198. ISBN 0-375-41288-3.100.Octavio Obreg´on, Superstatistics and Gravitation, Entropy 2010, 12, 2067-2076; doi:10.3390/e12092067101.Verlinde, E.P. On the origin of gravity and the laws of Newton. arXiv 2010, 1001.0785.102.Beckenstein, Black Holes and Entropy, Phy Rev D 7(8) 15April 1973103.Y Wang, J M Kratochvil, A Linde, and M Shmakova, Current Observational Constraints on Cosmic Doomsday. JCAP 0412 (2004) 006, astro-ph/0409264104.John Archibald Wheeler, Geons, Phys. Rev. 97, 511 – Published 15 January 1955105.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, 1927.106.John Archibald Wheeler, Geons, Phys. Rev. 97, 511 – Published 15 January 1955107.Daniel M. Greenberger, Conceptual Problems Related to Time and Mass in Quantum Theory, Dept. of Physics, CCNY, New York, NY, 10031,USA. Sep 2010108.V. Bargmann, Ann. Math. 59, 1(1954).109.Roberto Colella, Albert W. Overhauser, Samuel A. Werner. “Observation of Gravitationally Induced Quantum Interference”, Physical Review Letters, 34, 1472 (1975). Abstract.110.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.111.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.112.Igor Pikovski, Magdalena Zych, Fabio Costa, Časlav Brukner, “Universal decoherence due to gravitational time dilation”, Nature Physics ,11, 668-672 (2015). Abstract.113.Max Born, "Einstein's Theory of Relativity," Dover, 1962, pp. 318-320114.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)115.A. J. Leggett and A. Garg, “Quantum Mechanics Versus Macroscopic Realism: Is the Flux There When Nobody Looks?,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 54, 857 (1985)116.C. Emary, N. Lambert, and F. Nori, “Leggett-Garg Inequalities,” Rep. Prog. Phys. 77, 016001 (2014)117.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)118.G. C. Knee et al., “Violation of a Leggett-Garg Inequality with Ideal Non-Invasive Measurements,” Nature Commun. 3, 606 (2012)119.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)120.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)121.S. Nimmrichter and K. Hornberger, “Macroscopicity of Mechanical Quantum Superposition States,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 110, 160403 (2013)122.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)123.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.3.439.124.Cf. Misner, Thorne & Wheeler 1973, §20.4 (‘Gravitation’)125.Physics for Scientists and Engineers, Volume 2, page 1073 - Lawrence S. Lerner - Science – 1997126.McGlinn, William D. (2004), Introduction to relativity, JHU Press, p. 43, ISBN 0-8018-7047-X Extract of page 43127.E. F. Taylor; J. A. Wheeler (1992), Spacetime Physics, second edition, New York: W.H. Freeman and Company, pp. 248–249, ISBN 0-7167-2327-1128.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)129.Erik Verlinde, On the Origin of Gravity and the Laws of Newton; arXiv:1001.0785v1 [hep-th] 6 Jan 2010130.Rees, Martin (May 3, 2001). Just Six Numbers: The Deep Forces That Shape The Universe. New York, NY: Basic Books; First American edition. p. 4.131.Gribbin. J and Rees. M, Cosmic Coincidences: Dark Matter, Mankind, and Anthropic Cosmology p. 7, 269, 1989, ISBN 0-553-34740-3132.Davis, Paul (2007). Cosmic Jackpot: Why Our Universe Is Just Right for Life. New York, NY: Orion Publications. p. 2. ISBN 0618592261.133.Stephen Hawking, 1988. A Brief History of Time, Bantam Books, ISBN 0-553-05340-X, p. 7, 125.134.Lawrence Joseph Henderson, The fitness of the environment: an inquiry into the biological significance of the properties of matter The Macmillan Company, 1913135.R. H. Dicke (1961). "Dirac's Cosmology and Mach's Principle". Nature. 192 (4801): 440–441. Bibcode:1961Natur.192..440D. doi:10.1038/192440a0.136.Heilbron, J. L. The Oxford guide to the history of physics and astronomy, Volume 10 2005, p. 8137.Profile of Fred Hoyle at OPT Archived 2012-04-06 at the Wayback Machine.. Telescopes, Astronomy Cameras, Telescope Mounts & Accessories. Retrieved on 2013-03-11.138.Paul Davies, 1993. The Accidental Universe, Cambridge University Press, p70-71139.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.80.043507.140.Abbott, Larry (1991). "The Mystery of the Cosmological Constant". Scientific American. 3 (1): 78.141.Lemley, Brad. "Why is There Life?". Discover magazine. Retrieved 23 August 2014.142.Adams, Fred C., 2008, “Stars in other universes: stellar structure with different fundamental constants”, Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics, 08: 10. doi:10.1088/1475-7516/2008/08/010143.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/AS12015144.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. 291–298.145.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: Blackwell146.Colyvan M., J. L. Garfield, and G. Priest, 2005, “Problems with the argument from fine-tuning”, Synthese, 145(39): 325–338. doi:10.1007/s11229-005-6195-0147.Donoghue, John F., 2007, “The fine-tuning problems of particle physics and anthropic mechanisms”, in Carr 2007: 231–246. doi:10.1017/CBO9781107050990.017148.Earman, John and Jesus Mosterín, 1999, “A critical look at inflationary cosmology”, Philosophy of Science, 66(1): 1–49. doi:10.1086/392675149.Grinbaum, Alexei, 2012, “Which fine-tuning arguments are fine?”,, Foundations of Physics, 42(5): 615–631. doi:10.1007/s10701-012-9629-9150.Hogan, Craig J., 2000, “Why the universe is just so”, Reviews of Modern Physics, 72: 1149–1161. doi:10.1103/RevModPhys.72.1149151.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: Springer152.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.2015.06.002153.Roberts, John T., 2012, “Fine-tuning and the infrared bull’s eye”, Philosophical Studies, 160(2): 287–303. doi:10.1007/s11098-011-9719-0154.Tegmark, Max, 2014, Our Mathematical Universe: My Quest for the Ultimate Nature of Reality, New York: Knopf.155.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:10.1086/305673156.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.73.023505157.Wheeler, J. A. (January 1955). "Geons". Physical Review. 97 (2): 511. Bibcode:1955PhRv...97..511W. doi:10.1103/PhysRev.97.511.158.J S Briggs 2008 J. Phys.: Conf. Ser. 99 012002, A derivation of the time-energy uncertainty relation.159.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)160.L. MANDELSTAM * and lg. TAMM, THE UNCERTAINTY RELATION BETWEEN ENERGY AND TIME IN NON-RELATIVISTIC QUANTUM MECHANICS, Academy of Scioences of the USSR, 1945.161.J. A. Wheeler and R. P., Feynman, “Interaction with the absorber as a mechanism of radiation”, Rev.Mod. Phys. 17 157 (1945).162.J. E. Hogarth, “ Considerations of the Absorber Theory of Radiation”, Proc. Roy. Soc. A267,163.pp365-383 (1962).164.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.58.647.165.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/BF00670751.166.Cramer, John G. (3 April 2010). "Quantum Entanglement, Nonlocality, Back-in-Time Messages" (PPT). John G. Cramer's Home Page. University of Washington.167.Cramer, John G. (2016). The Quantum Handshake: Entanglement, Nonlocality and Transactions. Springer Science+Business Media. ISBN 978-3319246406.168.Richard Feynman: A life in science, p.273 et seq., John Gribbin, Mary Gribbin, Dutton, Penguin Books, 1997169.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)170.Sudarshan, E.C.G.; Misra, B. (1977). "The Zeno's paradox in quantum theory". Journal of Mathematical Physics 18 (4): 756–763.171.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).172.P. Facchi, D. A. Lidar, & S. Pascazio Unification of dynamical decoupling and the quantum Zeno effect Physical Review A 69, 032314 (2004)173.UNIFORM DETERMINATION OF DEATH ACT , Perspectives on Death and Dying 5th Edition, An Online Textbook edited by Dr. Philip A. Pecorino.174.Dr. Leon Kass, in "A Statutory Definition of the Standards for Determining Human Death: An Appraisal and a Proposal," 121 Pa. L. Rev. 87. 1975175.§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.176.§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.177.§3. [Short Title.] This Act may be cited as the Uniform Determination of Death Act.178.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, 1972.179.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.84.1.180.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.25.2208.181.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."182.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.183.Zajonc, A. G.; Wang, L. J.; Zou, X. Y.; Mandel, L. (1991). "Quantum eraser". Nature. 353 (6344): 507–508. Bibcode:1991Natur.353..507Z. doi:10.1038/353507b0.184.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 2014.185.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.65.033818.186.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 17303748.187.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 2014.188.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.48.2449.189.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 23118183.190.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/BF00696109.191.Benoit B. Mandelbrot, Fractals, Encyclopedia of Statiscal Sciences, DOI: 10.1002/0471667196.ess0816 1977192.John Archibald Wheeler, Geons, Phys. Rev. 97, 511 – Published 15 January 1955193.Misner, Thorne, Zurek; John Wheeler, relativity, and quantum information, http://its.caltech.edu/kip/pubscans/VI-50.pdf194.Bondi, H, Relativity and Common Sense 1980 ISBN-13: 978-0486240213195.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.