---

Posted by Berger Roy Al on 08-12-2005 at14:50:

  temporary DA Messageboard

Look everyone! I'm starting a temporary DA Mesageboard here in case the real DA messageboard goes down again!!

---

Posted by larryl on 08-12-2005 at14:51:

 

ummmmm......thanks .berger. you are a wise man

---

Posted by Audiori J on 08-12-2005 at14:52:

 

Just don't forget to remember to don't pull its plug too.

---

Posted by Berger Roy Al on 08-12-2005 at14:52:

 

I really don't know why one of you didn't think of it before.

---

Posted by bereal on 08-12-2005 at14:56:

 

berger, thanks for solving all our DAmb problems!

---

Posted by tchandler on 08-12-2005 at14:59:

 

berger you moron, you put the temporary DA Messageboard ON the actual DA Messageboard. if the DA Messageboard goes down, the temporary board will go down too.

---

Posted by Berger Roy Al on 08-12-2005 at15:00:

 

... ... ...What?

---

Posted by baxter on 08-12-2005 at15:01:

 

Berger,

your mind is too fine a machine to be concerned with insignificant problems like the DAMB. You need to focus on global warming or how to stop Pat Robertson from saying those dreadfully embarrassing things.

---

Posted by Berger Roy Al on 08-12-2005 at15:01:

 

(HAHAgkk. Stupid Chandler. He doesn't understand how messageboards and such work.)

---

Posted by Berger Roy Al on 08-12-2005 at15:04:

 

quote:

your mind is too fine a machine to be concerned with insignificant problems like the DAMB. You need to focus on global warming or how to stop Pat Robertson from saying those dreadfully embarrassing things.

There, take that, Chandler! Now, who's the moron??! Hmmmm? I'm a guy what gots a mind what could fix global cooling and Pat Robertsccxxxson.

---

Posted by larryl on 08-12-2005 at15:13:

 

pay may be causing the global cooling.........





either that or the arkansas lavoris spill

---

Posted by peawinkel on 08-12-2005 at15:21:

 

Someone say lavoris?

---

Posted by bereal on 08-12-2005 at15:22:

 

larryl is under the influence

---

Posted by peawinkel on 08-12-2005 at15:25:

 

Burger, I mean Berger, (there- I corrected it, he'll never no, I mean know) has that effect on others @ times.

---

Posted by bereal on 08-12-2005 at15:27:

 

He'll never aaaagggkkkkkkkhagggggkkkkve tha effaaagggggkkkect on me.

---

Posted by Berger Roy Al on 08-12-2005 at15:39:

 

Hey! You guys are all speaking my langggxkkkkguage!

---

Posted by larryl on 08-12-2005 at15:40:

 

i have absotively no idea what you are talking about.

i am busily learning those two note bass parts for my upcoming choir tour

---

Posted by Berger Roy Al on 08-12-2005 at15:41:

 

We have typically f (x) < ´2 (x) i. e. a two dimensional
Dirac function. Neglecting the overlap between the two
waves in the holes the intensity I (x)  | (x) |2 equals
approximately |Af (x  xA) |2 + |Bf (x  xB) |2. If we
put a detection screen just behind the apertures plane
we expect to see two narrow peaks of relative intensities
PA = |A|2/B. In this context we can define the distinguishability
D = |PA  PB| = ||A|2  |B|2|/ D = |PA  PB| = ||A|2  |B|2|/

The meaning of D is clear if we consider the case PA =
PB corresponding to D = 0. Indeed if we detect a pho-
ton in the far field of the aperture planes (i. e. in the
plane where we expect to see fringes) we can not then
say from which hole cames from the photon: the two
holes are indistinguishable. Oppositely if PB = 1 = D
we are sure that the photon detected in the far field came
from B and not from A. In order to obtain a mathemati-
cal formulation of wave-particle duality we must consider
the interference pattern recorded in the far-field. To do
that we can introduce a converging lens behind the aper-
tures plane. The eect of this lens on the photon can
be mathematically described by Fresnel’s diraction the-
ory. We consider here a lens with a gaussian transmission
T (x) = e(x/)2/2. We omit the irrelevant z dependent
factor in the wave function (the z axis being the optical
axis) and we deduce:

(X)  Aek (X/P +xA/P)
+Bek2(X/P2+xB/P) 2 gkk! ggxxkkk!!

---

Posted by bereal on 08-12-2005 at16:02:

 

I don't have a clue what you are talking about berger.

---

Posted by larryl on 08-12-2005 at16:04:

 

i do, and i think his findings are flawed. his hypodermia was wrong, therefore he worked towards an invertebrate wrong result, resulting in his coming to a fautly concubine