Back to the main page

Mailing List Logs for ShadowRN

Message no. 1
From: Achille Autran aautran@*************.fr
Subject: (Quantic) Smartlinked Bows
Date: Tue, 25 Apr 2000 13:22:06 +0200
Gurth wrote:
>According to Chronos, at 13:39 on 23 Apr 00, the word on the street >was...
> <SNIP>
>> Although this article deals with Human Brains interracting with
>> particles, who says that these particles cannot interact with one
>> another, and their patterns measured and calculated depending upon >what
>> types of materials interfaced with it?

Chronos, you're taking things the wrong way. Of course quantic
particules interact with one another, the whole theory would be pretty
pointless otherwise. However, the LEAR experiments about human/machine
correlation without physical interaction are still empirical recordings
(subject to debate) without solid theoretical basis. The new and
unverified can't imply the old and reliable.
Please forgive me if I sound rude. I do know however that quantum
physics are a very deceiptive subject, that usually brings up many
misconceiptions, and that should not be used for common sense physics,
since it doesn't make any.

>I'm no quantum physicist, so I'm not going to say if it is or isn't
>possible. However, it seems to me a highly impractical way of >determining
>what kind of bullet is in the weapon... Wouldn't this need something >like
>a particle accelerator?

Highly impractical indeed, all the more so as a bullet isn't the place
for quantic events at all (except DU ones, maybe). There are plenty of
easier solutions, e.g. with magnetic fields.
A particle accelerator is not a measure device, it just creates
interesting quantic events at well known places and times. Anyway I
wouldn't like to have this 40t CERN detector around my gun...
Enough quantic babble, it's off-topic.

Further Reading

If you enjoyed reading about (Quantic) Smartlinked Bows, you may also be interested in:


These messages were posted a long time ago on a mailing list far, far away. The copyright to their contents probably lies with the original authors of the individual messages, but since they were published in an electronic forum that anyone could subscribe to, and the logs were available to subscribers and most likely non-subscribers as well, it's felt that re-publishing them here is a kind of public service.