<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article10_03_18_1527203</id>
	<title>Quantum State Created In Largest Object Yet</title>
	<author>samzenpus</author>
	<datestamp>1268932680000</datestamp>
	<htmltext>SpuriousLogic writes <i>"A team of researchers have <a href="http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8570836.stm">created a 'quantum state' in an object billions of times larger than ever before</a>. From the article: 'Such states, in which an object is effectively in two places at once, have until now only been accomplished with single particles, atoms and molecules. In this experiment, published in the journal <em>Nature</em>, scientists produced a quantum state in an object billions of times larger than previous tests. The team says the result could have significant implications in quantum computing.'"</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>SpuriousLogic writes " A team of researchers have created a 'quantum state ' in an object billions of times larger than ever before .
From the article : 'Such states , in which an object is effectively in two places at once , have until now only been accomplished with single particles , atoms and molecules .
In this experiment , published in the journal Nature , scientists produced a quantum state in an object billions of times larger than previous tests .
The team says the result could have significant implications in quantum computing .
' "</tokentext>
<sentencetext>SpuriousLogic writes "A team of researchers have created a 'quantum state' in an object billions of times larger than ever before.
From the article: 'Such states, in which an object is effectively in two places at once, have until now only been accomplished with single particles, atoms and molecules.
In this experiment, published in the journal Nature, scientists produced a quantum state in an object billions of times larger than previous tests.
The team says the result could have significant implications in quantum computing.
'"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1527203.31524762</id>
	<title>In Slashdotters Pants.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268936400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext>They are virgins and not virgins at the same time.</htmltext>
<tokenext>They are virgins and not virgins at the same time .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They are virgins and not virgins at the same time.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1527203.31524852</id>
	<title>Re:Of course when they went to look at the results</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268936820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Once we get into quantum computing, we're going to have to drop the whole binary "yes"-"no" thing for "yes", "no", "maybe", "uninitialized", "42"</p> </div><p>Possibly.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Once we get into quantum computing , we 're going to have to drop the whole binary " yes " - " no " thing for " yes " , " no " , " maybe " , " uninitialized " , " 42 " Possibly .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Once we get into quantum computing, we're going to have to drop the whole binary "yes"-"no" thing for "yes", "no", "maybe", "uninitialized", "42" Possibly.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1527203.31524818</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1527203.31532048</id>
	<title>Re:Screw Quantum computing, I want a TRANSPORTER!</title>
	<author>MichaelSmith</author>
	<datestamp>1268925660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>1. Upload your personality into software</p><p>2. Build robotic bodies for our personalities</p><p>Both of these things seem closer than the star trek transporter (or stepping disks for that matter).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>1 .
Upload your personality into software2 .
Build robotic bodies for our personalitiesBoth of these things seem closer than the star trek transporter ( or stepping disks for that matter ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>1.
Upload your personality into software2.
Build robotic bodies for our personalitiesBoth of these things seem closer than the star trek transporter (or stepping disks for that matter).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1527203.31524794</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1527203.31525320</id>
	<title>Re:so how big is it?</title>
	<author>waxigloo</author>
	<datestamp>1268938800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>According to the researchers' website the nano-mechanical resonator is a few micrometers in diameter:<br><a href="http://www.physics.ucsb.edu/~clelandgroup/research.html" title="ucsb.edu" rel="nofollow">http://www.physics.ucsb.edu/~clelandgroup/research.html</a> [ucsb.edu]</p><p>The previous record was a buckyball.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>According to the researchers ' website the nano-mechanical resonator is a few micrometers in diameter : http : //www.physics.ucsb.edu/ ~ clelandgroup/research.html [ ucsb.edu ] The previous record was a buckyball .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>According to the researchers' website the nano-mechanical resonator is a few micrometers in diameter:http://www.physics.ucsb.edu/~clelandgroup/research.html [ucsb.edu]The previous record was a buckyball.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1527203.31524792</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1527203.31524912</id>
	<title>Way to go!</title>
	<author>K. S. Kyosuke</author>
	<datestamp>1268937060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>"In this experiment, published in the journal Nature, scientists produced a quantum state in an object billions of times larger than previous tests."</p></div><p>Hmmm, if I count correctly, a cat is still many orders of magnitude heavier. I can only hope that they will make further progress in the decades to come.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>" In this experiment , published in the journal Nature , scientists produced a quantum state in an object billions of times larger than previous tests .
" Hmmm , if I count correctly , a cat is still many orders of magnitude heavier .
I can only hope that they will make further progress in the decades to come .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"In this experiment, published in the journal Nature, scientists produced a quantum state in an object billions of times larger than previous tests.
"Hmmm, if I count correctly, a cat is still many orders of magnitude heavier.
I can only hope that they will make further progress in the decades to come.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1527203.31525046</id>
	<title>Corps at it again</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268937600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So now we can make bigger quantum computers first and then "innovate" them ever smaller and charge people for new equipment every couple of years?<br>Thank goodness! This was one of my favourite revenue models.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So now we can make bigger quantum computers first and then " innovate " them ever smaller and charge people for new equipment every couple of years ? Thank goodness !
This was one of my favourite revenue models .
: )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So now we can make bigger quantum computers first and then "innovate" them ever smaller and charge people for new equipment every couple of years?Thank goodness!
This was one of my favourite revenue models.
:)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1527203.31526866</id>
	<title>Re:so how big is it?</title>
	<author>jeffmeden</author>
	<datestamp>1268943960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yes and no...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yes and no.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yes and no...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1527203.31525006</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1527203.31532136</id>
	<title>Re:so how big is it?</title>
	<author>jesset77</author>
	<datestamp>1268926560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Mod nleaf up, it's not often you get simple explanations of quantum experiments into this kind of an article instead of just penis jokes. 8I</p><p><div class="quote"><p>If it can be seen with the naked eye, then what does it look like when it's "in two places at once"? Or does the whole thing collapse if you look at it?</p></div><p>The latter: though an important misunderstanding while learning quantum physics is the idea that "looking at it" or "knowing the result" matters. The subject can't tell if you are "looking", but it's waveform is collapsed by interacting with the world outside of the subject <strong>at all</strong>. Put in the most practical terms, "information cannot leave the system" without collapsing the waveform. You can't "see" it without bouncing a photon off of it, and that act in turn would either collapse the waveform or (in some rare cases) include the photon within the eigenstate, which would still screw up the waveform beyond reasonable recognition.</p><p>How such a phenomenon could help in computing relates to the fact that while you cannot observe the state (remove information) directly, you can direct the system to perform certain "calculations" by adding input into the state. Such a system can perform exotic calculations which are the equivalent of astronomical numbers of certain kinds of "classical" calculations, but can only output a relatively small (but normally difficult to arrive at) value once you collapse the waveform. Such a quantum nodule of computing power is normally referred to as a "qubit", and this experiment is very similar to working with one, very "duplo" sized qubit.</p><p>In order to really flex the muscles of quantum computing and compete with, and quickly surpass the number crunching capabilities of classical computers, one must use many (perhaps several thousand) qubits all sharing the same tricky to isolate quantum ground state and interacting with one another in complicated ways. Because they are so small, and calculational error is inevitable for many many reasons, it is also helpful to mass produce such arrangements of qubit-groups as many times as you can to either corroborate results, or to perform a "classical" layer of parallel processing.</p><p>Ref: <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum\_computing" title="wikipedia.org">Wikipedia article on Quantum Computing</a> [wikipedia.org] </p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Mod nleaf up , it 's not often you get simple explanations of quantum experiments into this kind of an article instead of just penis jokes .
8IIf it can be seen with the naked eye , then what does it look like when it 's " in two places at once " ?
Or does the whole thing collapse if you look at it ? The latter : though an important misunderstanding while learning quantum physics is the idea that " looking at it " or " knowing the result " matters .
The subject ca n't tell if you are " looking " , but it 's waveform is collapsed by interacting with the world outside of the subject at all .
Put in the most practical terms , " information can not leave the system " without collapsing the waveform .
You ca n't " see " it without bouncing a photon off of it , and that act in turn would either collapse the waveform or ( in some rare cases ) include the photon within the eigenstate , which would still screw up the waveform beyond reasonable recognition.How such a phenomenon could help in computing relates to the fact that while you can not observe the state ( remove information ) directly , you can direct the system to perform certain " calculations " by adding input into the state .
Such a system can perform exotic calculations which are the equivalent of astronomical numbers of certain kinds of " classical " calculations , but can only output a relatively small ( but normally difficult to arrive at ) value once you collapse the waveform .
Such a quantum nodule of computing power is normally referred to as a " qubit " , and this experiment is very similar to working with one , very " duplo " sized qubit.In order to really flex the muscles of quantum computing and compete with , and quickly surpass the number crunching capabilities of classical computers , one must use many ( perhaps several thousand ) qubits all sharing the same tricky to isolate quantum ground state and interacting with one another in complicated ways .
Because they are so small , and calculational error is inevitable for many many reasons , it is also helpful to mass produce such arrangements of qubit-groups as many times as you can to either corroborate results , or to perform a " classical " layer of parallel processing.Ref : Wikipedia article on Quantum Computing [ wikipedia.org ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Mod nleaf up, it's not often you get simple explanations of quantum experiments into this kind of an article instead of just penis jokes.
8IIf it can be seen with the naked eye, then what does it look like when it's "in two places at once"?
Or does the whole thing collapse if you look at it?The latter: though an important misunderstanding while learning quantum physics is the idea that "looking at it" or "knowing the result" matters.
The subject can't tell if you are "looking", but it's waveform is collapsed by interacting with the world outside of the subject at all.
Put in the most practical terms, "information cannot leave the system" without collapsing the waveform.
You can't "see" it without bouncing a photon off of it, and that act in turn would either collapse the waveform or (in some rare cases) include the photon within the eigenstate, which would still screw up the waveform beyond reasonable recognition.How such a phenomenon could help in computing relates to the fact that while you cannot observe the state (remove information) directly, you can direct the system to perform certain "calculations" by adding input into the state.
Such a system can perform exotic calculations which are the equivalent of astronomical numbers of certain kinds of "classical" calculations, but can only output a relatively small (but normally difficult to arrive at) value once you collapse the waveform.
Such a quantum nodule of computing power is normally referred to as a "qubit", and this experiment is very similar to working with one, very "duplo" sized qubit.In order to really flex the muscles of quantum computing and compete with, and quickly surpass the number crunching capabilities of classical computers, one must use many (perhaps several thousand) qubits all sharing the same tricky to isolate quantum ground state and interacting with one another in complicated ways.
Because they are so small, and calculational error is inevitable for many many reasons, it is also helpful to mass produce such arrangements of qubit-groups as many times as you can to either corroborate results, or to perform a "classical" layer of parallel processing.Ref: Wikipedia article on Quantum Computing [wikipedia.org] 
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1527203.31528030</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1527203.31532050</id>
	<title>Re:wow</title>
	<author>Ozlanthos</author>
	<datestamp>1268925660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Or maybe an Orange!!!
<br>
<br>
-Oz</htmltext>
<tokenext>Or maybe an Orange ! ! !
-Oz</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Or maybe an Orange!!!
-Oz</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1527203.31524890</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1527203.31528258</id>
	<title>Call me when...</title>
	<author>mcneely.mike</author>
	<datestamp>1268904660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>When they can make my double oatmeal stout appear at two different places at once (my right hand and my left hand), then i'll say they have made some significant progress: 'cause then i'd just finish the one on the right, and before i start on the one on the left, they could just make it's quantum double back at my right hand....
<br>
mmmmmm.... double oatmeal stout forever....
<br> <br>
mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm!!!</htmltext>
<tokenext>When they can make my double oatmeal stout appear at two different places at once ( my right hand and my left hand ) , then i 'll say they have made some significant progress : 'cause then i 'd just finish the one on the right , and before i start on the one on the left , they could just make it 's quantum double back at my right hand... . mmmmmm.... double oatmeal stout forever... .
mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm ! ! !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>When they can make my double oatmeal stout appear at two different places at once (my right hand and my left hand), then i'll say they have made some significant progress: 'cause then i'd just finish the one on the right, and before i start on the one on the left, they could just make it's quantum double back at my right hand....

mmmmmm.... double oatmeal stout forever....
mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm!!!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1527203.31526776</id>
	<title>Re:so how big is it?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268943720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>UNDER THE SEA?!<br>But that is where water lives.  Paper hate water!<br>Water is a big smelly poo-poo.  *</p><p>&lt;serious&gt;<br>* Sadly that is a literal statement<br>We've pooped up the sea.<br>&lt;/serious&gt;</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>UNDER THE SEA ?
! But that is where water lives .
Paper hate water ! Water is a big smelly poo-poo .
* * Sadly that is a literal statementWe 've pooped up the sea .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>UNDER THE SEA?
!But that is where water lives.
Paper hate water!Water is a big smelly poo-poo.
** Sadly that is a literal statementWe've pooped up the sea.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1527203.31524870</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1527203.31525526</id>
	<title>Xzibit!!</title>
	<author>GPLDAN</author>
	<datestamp>1268939820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Yo Dawg, I heard you like quantum replication, so I put a you besides you, so you can duplicate while you duplicate!</htmltext>
<tokenext>Yo Dawg , I heard you like quantum replication , so I put a you besides you , so you can duplicate while you duplicate !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yo Dawg, I heard you like quantum replication, so I put a you besides you, so you can duplicate while you duplicate!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1527203.31524948</id>
	<title>Re:so how big is it?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268937180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Well, lets take a look at the biggest thing they say they've been able to create in a quantum state - a molecule. The smallest molecule is diatomic Hydrogen (Hsub2) at 1 picometer. 1 billion times a picometer is 1 millimeter. The largest molecule isn't clearly defined as you could argue that a diamond is a single molecule (largest was 621 grams). So, just for brevity's sake, lets assume the object they created is at least 1 millimeter.</p><p>-The Cyberlich</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Well , lets take a look at the biggest thing they say they 've been able to create in a quantum state - a molecule .
The smallest molecule is diatomic Hydrogen ( Hsub2 ) at 1 picometer .
1 billion times a picometer is 1 millimeter .
The largest molecule is n't clearly defined as you could argue that a diamond is a single molecule ( largest was 621 grams ) .
So , just for brevity 's sake , lets assume the object they created is at least 1 millimeter.-The Cyberlich</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well, lets take a look at the biggest thing they say they've been able to create in a quantum state - a molecule.
The smallest molecule is diatomic Hydrogen (Hsub2) at 1 picometer.
1 billion times a picometer is 1 millimeter.
The largest molecule isn't clearly defined as you could argue that a diamond is a single molecule (largest was 621 grams).
So, just for brevity's sake, lets assume the object they created is at least 1 millimeter.-The Cyberlich</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1527203.31524792</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1527203.31542984</id>
	<title>Re:so how big is it?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268989860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>About the size of a cat.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>About the size of a cat .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>About the size of a cat.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1527203.31524792</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1527203.31525000</id>
	<title>Honestly,</title>
	<author>Adaeniel</author>
	<datestamp>1268937300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>This doesn't seem to be that big of a deal.</htmltext>
<tokenext>This does n't seem to be that big of a deal .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This doesn't seem to be that big of a deal.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1527203.31524888</id>
	<title>Could have?</title>
	<author>zmollusc</author>
	<datestamp>1268936940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>They think it 'could have' significant implications?<br>Surely they mean it definitely has significant implications and also hasn't?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>They think it 'could have ' significant implications ? Surely they mean it definitely has significant implications and also has n't ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They think it 'could have' significant implications?Surely they mean it definitely has significant implications and also hasn't?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1527203.31524850</id>
	<title>Re:Screw Quantum computing, I want a TRANSPORTER!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268936820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I think the subject line says it all, but I want a transporter that puts me in two places at once, then destroys the first me leaving the copied me. That would be awesome.</p></div><p>No, that would suck.<br>Especially if the first version is the one with the girlfriend.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I think the subject line says it all , but I want a transporter that puts me in two places at once , then destroys the first me leaving the copied me .
That would be awesome.No , that would suck.Especially if the first version is the one with the girlfriend .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think the subject line says it all, but I want a transporter that puts me in two places at once, then destroys the first me leaving the copied me.
That would be awesome.No, that would suck.Especially if the first version is the one with the girlfriend.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1527203.31524794</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1527203.31525068</id>
	<title>But if you look closer...</title>
	<author>bobdotorg</author>
	<datestamp>1268937660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's barely visible to the naked eye, but if you look under light magnification you can read a caption:</p><p>"I can has quantum state?"</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's barely visible to the naked eye , but if you look under light magnification you can read a caption : " I can has quantum state ?
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's barely visible to the naked eye, but if you look under light magnification you can read a caption:"I can has quantum state?
"</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1527203.31525428</id>
	<title>Re:so how big is it?</title>
	<author>MMatessa</author>
	<datestamp>1268939340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>This <a href="http://arstechnica.com/science/news/2010/03/scientists-drag-quantum-mechanics-into-the-visible-realm.ars" title="arstechnica.com" rel="nofollow">ars technica article</a> [arstechnica.com] says it's about 50 micrometers long.</htmltext>
<tokenext>This ars technica article [ arstechnica.com ] says it 's about 50 micrometers long .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This ars technica article [arstechnica.com] says it's about 50 micrometers long.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1527203.31524792</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1527203.31525118</id>
	<title>Re:In Slashdotters Pants.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268937900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>How about...</p><p>'2 chicks at the same time'</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>How about...'2 chicks at the same time'</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How about...'2 chicks at the same time'</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1527203.31524762</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1527203.31526830</id>
	<title>You guys</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268943900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Seriously, has the collective community of Slashdot considered a career in comedy writing?</p><p>You guys are fucking funny.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Seriously , has the collective community of Slashdot considered a career in comedy writing ? You guys are fucking funny .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Seriously, has the collective community of Slashdot considered a career in comedy writing?You guys are fucking funny.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1527203.31532326</id>
	<title>Re:In Slashdotters Pants.</title>
	<author>FiloEleven</author>
	<datestamp>1268927940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I think you misunderstand the meaning of "double-slit experiment."</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I think you misunderstand the meaning of " double-slit experiment .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think you misunderstand the meaning of "double-slit experiment.
"</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1527203.31525118</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1527203.31525276</id>
	<title>Quntum Virus</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268938620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"Similar approaches could lead to the quantum ground state of a virus"</p><p>Quantum viruses? Sounds good to me, what could possibly go wrong?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" Similar approaches could lead to the quantum ground state of a virus " Quantum viruses ?
Sounds good to me , what could possibly go wrong ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Similar approaches could lead to the quantum ground state of a virus"Quantum viruses?
Sounds good to me, what could possibly go wrong?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1527203.31527786</id>
	<title>err? maybe I'm stoopid</title>
	<author>Touvan</author>
	<datestamp>1268903340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>When I read this, it seems to say that "one atom in a particular known state can give off two different readings when measured". But they keep saying it means that the object is in two places at once.</p><p>What am I missing?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>When I read this , it seems to say that " one atom in a particular known state can give off two different readings when measured " .
But they keep saying it means that the object is in two places at once.What am I missing ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>When I read this, it seems to say that "one atom in a particular known state can give off two different readings when measured".
But they keep saying it means that the object is in two places at once.What am I missing?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1527203.31529026</id>
	<title>Re:so how big is it?</title>
	<author>treeves</author>
	<datestamp>1268907360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>European or African cat?<br>I love mixing and morphing memes.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>European or African cat ? I love mixing and morphing memes .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>European or African cat?I love mixing and morphing memes.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1527203.31525178</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1527203.31524926</id>
	<title>Re:so how big is it?</title>
	<author>Dan East</author>
	<datestamp>1268937060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"With this experiment, we've shown that the dividing line can be pushed up all the way to about a trillion atoms."</p><p>"The "quantum resonator" can be seen with the naked eye."</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" With this experiment , we 've shown that the dividing line can be pushed up all the way to about a trillion atoms .
" " The " quantum resonator " can be seen with the naked eye .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"With this experiment, we've shown that the dividing line can be pushed up all the way to about a trillion atoms.
""The "quantum resonator" can be seen with the naked eye.
"</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1527203.31524792</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1527203.31530862</id>
	<title>Re:How do they confirm it's in a quantum state?</title>
	<author>ignavus</author>
	<datestamp>1268916480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p> but presumably they excite the system into a superposition </p></div><p>The last time I suggested exciting someone's system into a superposition, I got slapped.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>but presumably they excite the system into a superposition The last time I suggested exciting someone 's system into a superposition , I got slapped .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> but presumably they excite the system into a superposition The last time I suggested exciting someone's system into a superposition, I got slapped.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1527203.31525648</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1527203.31529718</id>
	<title>Re:so how big is it?</title>
	<author>severoon</author>
	<datestamp>1268910120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Well, in order to get a good look at it they had to make sure it wasn't moving (p=0)...as soon as they managed to stop it, figuring out the exact position of the edges for the purpose of measuring it became problematic.</p><p>(Get it? Man I'm clever.)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Well , in order to get a good look at it they had to make sure it was n't moving ( p = 0 ) ...as soon as they managed to stop it , figuring out the exact position of the edges for the purpose of measuring it became problematic .
( Get it ?
Man I 'm clever .
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well, in order to get a good look at it they had to make sure it wasn't moving (p=0)...as soon as they managed to stop it, figuring out the exact position of the edges for the purpose of measuring it became problematic.
(Get it?
Man I'm clever.
)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1527203.31524792</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1527203.31525188</id>
	<title>Why piezoelectric material?</title>
	<author>S77IM</author>
	<datestamp>1268938200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I thought they were supposed to do this to a cat?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I thought they were supposed to do this to a cat ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I thought they were supposed to do this to a cat?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1527203.31524994</id>
	<title>But there are bigger things in a quantum state..</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268937300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>..like a chessboard. When to people play, the pieces is possible to move in many positions, and before the move the player has considered a lot of different possible moves and outcomes.</p><p>Check mate.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>..like a chessboard .
When to people play , the pieces is possible to move in many positions , and before the move the player has considered a lot of different possible moves and outcomes.Check mate .
: )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>..like a chessboard.
When to people play, the pieces is possible to move in many positions, and before the move the player has considered a lot of different possible moves and outcomes.Check mate.
:)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1527203.31525846</id>
	<title>Re:How do they confirm it's in a quantum state?</title>
	<author>maxwell demon</author>
	<datestamp>1268940960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Well, since there was no link to the original article, I only can guess. But since they said that the circuit can also read out, I guess they just read out the quantum that "was and wasn't" in the oscillator, and then they examined the resulting current (maybe using some circuit QED stuff).</p><p>Which of course only shifts the question how you analyse a superposition in another system. Well, the trick is that there are certain operations which turn a specific superposition into a measurement basis state (and the corresponding definite state into a superposition). Then you just have to measure that you indeed have that measurement basis state. Alternatively you transfer it to a system where you can measure those states directly, e.g. for electron spin, a superposition of "up" and "down" just corresponds to a definitive state in another direction, e.g. "left" or "right". So if you prove that your electron is in a "left" state, you know for sure it is in a superposition of "up" and "down".</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Well , since there was no link to the original article , I only can guess .
But since they said that the circuit can also read out , I guess they just read out the quantum that " was and was n't " in the oscillator , and then they examined the resulting current ( maybe using some circuit QED stuff ) .Which of course only shifts the question how you analyse a superposition in another system .
Well , the trick is that there are certain operations which turn a specific superposition into a measurement basis state ( and the corresponding definite state into a superposition ) .
Then you just have to measure that you indeed have that measurement basis state .
Alternatively you transfer it to a system where you can measure those states directly , e.g .
for electron spin , a superposition of " up " and " down " just corresponds to a definitive state in another direction , e.g .
" left " or " right " .
So if you prove that your electron is in a " left " state , you know for sure it is in a superposition of " up " and " down " .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well, since there was no link to the original article, I only can guess.
But since they said that the circuit can also read out, I guess they just read out the quantum that "was and wasn't" in the oscillator, and then they examined the resulting current (maybe using some circuit QED stuff).Which of course only shifts the question how you analyse a superposition in another system.
Well, the trick is that there are certain operations which turn a specific superposition into a measurement basis state (and the corresponding definite state into a superposition).
Then you just have to measure that you indeed have that measurement basis state.
Alternatively you transfer it to a system where you can measure those states directly, e.g.
for electron spin, a superposition of "up" and "down" just corresponds to a definitive state in another direction, e.g.
"left" or "right".
So if you prove that your electron is in a "left" state, you know for sure it is in a superposition of "up" and "down".</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1527203.31524988</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1527203.31527982</id>
	<title>Shrodin-who?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268903940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If they go on like this we won't need poison anymore, or a box. The cat will suffice.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If they go on like this we wo n't need poison anymore , or a box .
The cat will suffice .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If they go on like this we won't need poison anymore, or a box.
The cat will suffice.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1527203.31526446</id>
	<title>Here's my phone number, give me a call...</title>
	<author>pandrijeczko</author>
	<datestamp>1268942760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>...when you've worked out how to make a middle-aged fat bloke simultaneously appear to be mowing his front lawn &amp; be drinking down the pub on a Sunday afternoon.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>...when you 've worked out how to make a middle-aged fat bloke simultaneously appear to be mowing his front lawn &amp; be drinking down the pub on a Sunday afternoon .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...when you've worked out how to make a middle-aged fat bloke simultaneously appear to be mowing his front lawn &amp; be drinking down the pub on a Sunday afternoon.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1527203.31528022</id>
	<title>Re:How do they confirm it's in a quantum state?</title>
	<author>autophile</author>
	<datestamp>1268904060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>No thanks is too much for asking that question.</htmltext>
<tokenext>No thanks is too much for asking that question .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No thanks is too much for asking that question.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1527203.31524988</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1527203.31526616</id>
	<title>Re:Of course when they went to look at the results</title>
	<author>c++0xFF</author>
	<datestamp>1268943300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Or the classic True, False, and <a href="http://thedailywtf.com/Articles/What\_Is\_Truth\_0x3f\_.aspx" title="thedailywtf.com">FileNotFound</a> [thedailywtf.com].</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Or the classic True , False , and FileNotFound [ thedailywtf.com ] .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Or the classic True, False, and FileNotFound [thedailywtf.com].</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1527203.31524818</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1527203.31525196</id>
	<title>fLailzeors</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268938260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><A HREF="http://goat.cx/" title="goat.cx" rel="nofollow">they learn from Our a8d exciting;</a> [goat.cx]</htmltext>
<tokenext>they learn from Our a8d exciting ; [ goat.cx ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>they learn from Our a8d exciting; [goat.cx]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1527203.31528030</id>
	<title>Re:so how big is it?</title>
	<author>nleaf</author>
	<datestamp>1268904060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>You wouldn't be able to look at it in this situation because they have to put it in a completely isolated the sample to get it cold enough. The article does sort of imply that it's in two places at once, but it's really just in two states at once. Since this is a piezo-electric material, it'd be two different sizes at the same time. If you could somehow look at it, it would always appear to be a single size. Which size it appears to be would be be random with some probability.</htmltext>
<tokenext>You would n't be able to look at it in this situation because they have to put it in a completely isolated the sample to get it cold enough .
The article does sort of imply that it 's in two places at once , but it 's really just in two states at once .
Since this is a piezo-electric material , it 'd be two different sizes at the same time .
If you could somehow look at it , it would always appear to be a single size .
Which size it appears to be would be be random with some probability .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You wouldn't be able to look at it in this situation because they have to put it in a completely isolated the sample to get it cold enough.
The article does sort of imply that it's in two places at once, but it's really just in two states at once.
Since this is a piezo-electric material, it'd be two different sizes at the same time.
If you could somehow look at it, it would always appear to be a single size.
Which size it appears to be would be be random with some probability.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1527203.31526754</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1527203.31525668</id>
	<title>I don't think this makes sense!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268940360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Quote: "This can be seen in a piece of coloured glass, which absorbs a certain colour of light.</p><p>That light is made up of photons - packets of light energy - and the glass atoms absorb only photons with the quanta (or amount) of energy that corresponds to that colour.</p><p>What we see through the glass is the light that has not been absorbed. "</p><p>Perhaps a better way of saying it is that the glass only transmits a certain color of light and absorbs or converts the rest?  Can someone rephrase this to our current understanding of physics?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Quote : " This can be seen in a piece of coloured glass , which absorbs a certain colour of light.That light is made up of photons - packets of light energy - and the glass atoms absorb only photons with the quanta ( or amount ) of energy that corresponds to that colour.What we see through the glass is the light that has not been absorbed .
" Perhaps a better way of saying it is that the glass only transmits a certain color of light and absorbs or converts the rest ?
Can someone rephrase this to our current understanding of physics ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Quote: "This can be seen in a piece of coloured glass, which absorbs a certain colour of light.That light is made up of photons - packets of light energy - and the glass atoms absorb only photons with the quanta (or amount) of energy that corresponds to that colour.What we see through the glass is the light that has not been absorbed.
"Perhaps a better way of saying it is that the glass only transmits a certain color of light and absorbs or converts the rest?
Can someone rephrase this to our current understanding of physics?
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1527203.31528946</id>
	<title>Shameless plug for funding</title>
	<author>DalDei</author>
	<datestamp>1268907060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The last sentance says all

"So the only reason that things could break down is that we run out of money."

You dont need to read the rest.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The last sentance says all " So the only reason that things could break down is that we run out of money .
" You dont need to read the rest .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The last sentance says all

"So the only reason that things could break down is that we run out of money.
"

You dont need to read the rest.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1527203.31525722</id>
	<title>Did someone say resonator?</title>
	<author>OopsIDied</author>
	<datestamp>1268940540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>They'd better be careful or we'll have to call in Doctor Freeman <a href="http://half-life.wikia.com/wiki/Resonance\_Cascade" title="wikia.com" rel="nofollow">http://half-life.wikia.com/wiki/Resonance\_Cascade</a> [wikia.com]</htmltext>
<tokenext>They 'd better be careful or we 'll have to call in Doctor Freeman http : //half-life.wikia.com/wiki/Resonance \ _Cascade [ wikia.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They'd better be careful or we'll have to call in Doctor Freeman http://half-life.wikia.com/wiki/Resonance\_Cascade [wikia.com]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1527203.31526114</id>
	<title>Re:Of course when they went to look at the results</title>
	<author>azmodean+1</author>
	<datestamp>1268941800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You might want to take a look at hardware-level signaling technology.</p><p>Hint: There is no binary "yes" or "no" in electronics either, just thresholds.  Quantum computing will do the same thing, when you program for it you will still be manipulating discrete logic levels for the most part, it's the people who make the quantum computers that have to do the work of translating "fuzzy entangled quantum soup" into those discrete logic levels.</p><p>Random tangent: back in the day there were "analog" computers with multiple logic levels per "bit", but that sort of dead-ended when binary hardware was able to scale frequency more rapidly.  I wonder if multi-level electronic logic will make a comeback when we finally do hit a miniaturization wall when producing/designing chips...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You might want to take a look at hardware-level signaling technology.Hint : There is no binary " yes " or " no " in electronics either , just thresholds .
Quantum computing will do the same thing , when you program for it you will still be manipulating discrete logic levels for the most part , it 's the people who make the quantum computers that have to do the work of translating " fuzzy entangled quantum soup " into those discrete logic levels.Random tangent : back in the day there were " analog " computers with multiple logic levels per " bit " , but that sort of dead-ended when binary hardware was able to scale frequency more rapidly .
I wonder if multi-level electronic logic will make a comeback when we finally do hit a miniaturization wall when producing/designing chips.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You might want to take a look at hardware-level signaling technology.Hint: There is no binary "yes" or "no" in electronics either, just thresholds.
Quantum computing will do the same thing, when you program for it you will still be manipulating discrete logic levels for the most part, it's the people who make the quantum computers that have to do the work of translating "fuzzy entangled quantum soup" into those discrete logic levels.Random tangent: back in the day there were "analog" computers with multiple logic levels per "bit", but that sort of dead-ended when binary hardware was able to scale frequency more rapidly.
I wonder if multi-level electronic logic will make a comeback when we finally do hit a miniaturization wall when producing/designing chips...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1527203.31524818</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1527203.31528866</id>
	<title>Disproof of Penrose, evidence for MWI</title>
	<author>SiliconEntity</author>
	<datestamp>1268906760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If it is true that '"I don't think there is a limit, that there will be a certain size where quantum mechanics starts to break down," Dr Aspelmeyer said,' then that means that even larger objects also go into superpositions of quantum states. That would go all the way up to human sized and larger. This is the fundamental principle of the Many-Worlds Interpretation (MWI), that when quantum measurements occur, even though we only see one outcome, actually we go into a superposition of multiple states, each of which sees a different outcome. Each state evolves independently. It is as though the world splits into parallel universes, where every possible outcome occurs in a different universe.</p><p>This follows strictly from the principle that QM applies at all sizes. And this new experiment certainly pushes us in that direction.</p><p>Some scientists, notably Roger Penrose, had speculated that QM would break down at macroscopic sizes. He specifically proposed that once sizes were large enough for gravitational forces to exceed some threshold, QM would break down. <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orch-OR" title="wikipedia.org">Wikipedia</a> [wikipedia.org] has this: "Tiny superpositions, e.g. an electron separated from itself, if isolated from environment, would require 10 million years to reach OR threshold. An isolated one kilogram object (e.g. Schr&#246;dinger's cat) would reach OR threshold in only 10^-37 seconds." Now here we have a trilliion atom object. That is about 10^13 amu, which is 10^-14 kg. Dividing 10^-37 seconds by 10^-14 we get 10^-23 seconds, which is far shorter than this experiment lasted. This means basically that this experiment disproves Penrose's theory! This is the first time this has happened, and I am (AFAIK) the first person to notice this.</p><p>In short it is becoming harder and harder to avoid accepting the reality of parallel worlds. What this should mean for our actions is up to the philosophers, but we should not bury our heads and pretend it isn't true.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If it is true that ' " I do n't think there is a limit , that there will be a certain size where quantum mechanics starts to break down , " Dr Aspelmeyer said, ' then that means that even larger objects also go into superpositions of quantum states .
That would go all the way up to human sized and larger .
This is the fundamental principle of the Many-Worlds Interpretation ( MWI ) , that when quantum measurements occur , even though we only see one outcome , actually we go into a superposition of multiple states , each of which sees a different outcome .
Each state evolves independently .
It is as though the world splits into parallel universes , where every possible outcome occurs in a different universe.This follows strictly from the principle that QM applies at all sizes .
And this new experiment certainly pushes us in that direction.Some scientists , notably Roger Penrose , had speculated that QM would break down at macroscopic sizes .
He specifically proposed that once sizes were large enough for gravitational forces to exceed some threshold , QM would break down .
Wikipedia [ wikipedia.org ] has this : " Tiny superpositions , e.g .
an electron separated from itself , if isolated from environment , would require 10 million years to reach OR threshold .
An isolated one kilogram object ( e.g .
Schr   dinger 's cat ) would reach OR threshold in only 10 ^ -37 seconds .
" Now here we have a trilliion atom object .
That is about 10 ^ 13 amu , which is 10 ^ -14 kg .
Dividing 10 ^ -37 seconds by 10 ^ -14 we get 10 ^ -23 seconds , which is far shorter than this experiment lasted .
This means basically that this experiment disproves Penrose 's theory !
This is the first time this has happened , and I am ( AFAIK ) the first person to notice this.In short it is becoming harder and harder to avoid accepting the reality of parallel worlds .
What this should mean for our actions is up to the philosophers , but we should not bury our heads and pretend it is n't true .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If it is true that '"I don't think there is a limit, that there will be a certain size where quantum mechanics starts to break down," Dr Aspelmeyer said,' then that means that even larger objects also go into superpositions of quantum states.
That would go all the way up to human sized and larger.
This is the fundamental principle of the Many-Worlds Interpretation (MWI), that when quantum measurements occur, even though we only see one outcome, actually we go into a superposition of multiple states, each of which sees a different outcome.
Each state evolves independently.
It is as though the world splits into parallel universes, where every possible outcome occurs in a different universe.This follows strictly from the principle that QM applies at all sizes.
And this new experiment certainly pushes us in that direction.Some scientists, notably Roger Penrose, had speculated that QM would break down at macroscopic sizes.
He specifically proposed that once sizes were large enough for gravitational forces to exceed some threshold, QM would break down.
Wikipedia [wikipedia.org] has this: "Tiny superpositions, e.g.
an electron separated from itself, if isolated from environment, would require 10 million years to reach OR threshold.
An isolated one kilogram object (e.g.
Schrödinger's cat) would reach OR threshold in only 10^-37 seconds.
" Now here we have a trilliion atom object.
That is about 10^13 amu, which is 10^-14 kg.
Dividing 10^-37 seconds by 10^-14 we get 10^-23 seconds, which is far shorter than this experiment lasted.
This means basically that this experiment disproves Penrose's theory!
This is the first time this has happened, and I am (AFAIK) the first person to notice this.In short it is becoming harder and harder to avoid accepting the reality of parallel worlds.
What this should mean for our actions is up to the philosophers, but we should not bury our heads and pretend it isn't true.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1527203.31532684</id>
	<title>Re:So when will Cisco's new 0ms WAN router be out?</title>
	<author>dreamer.redeemer</author>
	<datestamp>1268931060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I'm no physicist, but from what I gather this will happen when decades of experiments that successfully verify relativity are explained by some other theory that allows faster than light transportation of information (quantum mechanics doesn't). Personally I'm not inclined to think this is absolutely impossible for the general notion indicated by something such as Newtonian physics being described as a special case of, and therefore displaced by, relativistic physics. In other words, I think only small minded fools are willing to call a thing impossible (no offense to the small minded fools). There's also some rationally justifiable hope a further layer of physics is available to be found, indicated at least by the problematic rift between classical and quantum mechanics. Otherwise, according to our current understanding of reality, the latency is limited to distance times the speed of light in a vacuum. Given the mean equatorial circumference of Earth, that means either 66.8 ms around the surface or 42.6 ms straight through the middle. Even so, seeing how a blink of an eye is around 300-400 ms, 66.8 ms is pretty ok for going halfway around the planet.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm no physicist , but from what I gather this will happen when decades of experiments that successfully verify relativity are explained by some other theory that allows faster than light transportation of information ( quantum mechanics does n't ) .
Personally I 'm not inclined to think this is absolutely impossible for the general notion indicated by something such as Newtonian physics being described as a special case of , and therefore displaced by , relativistic physics .
In other words , I think only small minded fools are willing to call a thing impossible ( no offense to the small minded fools ) .
There 's also some rationally justifiable hope a further layer of physics is available to be found , indicated at least by the problematic rift between classical and quantum mechanics .
Otherwise , according to our current understanding of reality , the latency is limited to distance times the speed of light in a vacuum .
Given the mean equatorial circumference of Earth , that means either 66.8 ms around the surface or 42.6 ms straight through the middle .
Even so , seeing how a blink of an eye is around 300-400 ms , 66.8 ms is pretty ok for going halfway around the planet .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm no physicist, but from what I gather this will happen when decades of experiments that successfully verify relativity are explained by some other theory that allows faster than light transportation of information (quantum mechanics doesn't).
Personally I'm not inclined to think this is absolutely impossible for the general notion indicated by something such as Newtonian physics being described as a special case of, and therefore displaced by, relativistic physics.
In other words, I think only small minded fools are willing to call a thing impossible (no offense to the small minded fools).
There's also some rationally justifiable hope a further layer of physics is available to be found, indicated at least by the problematic rift between classical and quantum mechanics.
Otherwise, according to our current understanding of reality, the latency is limited to distance times the speed of light in a vacuum.
Given the mean equatorial circumference of Earth, that means either 66.8 ms around the surface or 42.6 ms straight through the middle.
Even so, seeing how a blink of an eye is around 300-400 ms, 66.8 ms is pretty ok for going halfway around the planet.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1527203.31529072</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1527203.31524870</id>
	<title>Re:so how big is it?</title>
	<author>Thanshin</author>
	<datestamp>1268936880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I don't need to be told that it's "billions of times than ever before", or to compare it to the library of congress, I can understand measurements. so how big is the object? 1 nanometer? 1 kilometer? what? the article doesn't seem to say either.</p></div><p>It's the Library of Congress.</p><p>It's now simultaneously at its usual place and two hundred miles under the sea.</p><p>Librarians are wetting themselves at least as much as physicists.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't need to be told that it 's " billions of times than ever before " , or to compare it to the library of congress , I can understand measurements .
so how big is the object ?
1 nanometer ?
1 kilometer ?
what ? the article does n't seem to say either.It 's the Library of Congress.It 's now simultaneously at its usual place and two hundred miles under the sea.Librarians are wetting themselves at least as much as physicists .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't need to be told that it's "billions of times than ever before", or to compare it to the library of congress, I can understand measurements.
so how big is the object?
1 nanometer?
1 kilometer?
what? the article doesn't seem to say either.It's the Library of Congress.It's now simultaneously at its usual place and two hundred miles under the sea.Librarians are wetting themselves at least as much as physicists.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1527203.31524792</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1527203.31524834</id>
	<title>First Post</title>
	<author>AP31R0N</author>
	<datestamp>1268936760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>In an alternate universe this is the first post of the thread.  By refreshing the page in *this* universe it's more like the 3rd.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>In an alternate universe this is the first post of the thread .
By refreshing the page in * this * universe it 's more like the 3rd .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In an alternate universe this is the first post of the thread.
By refreshing the page in *this* universe it's more like the 3rd.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1527203.31529072</id>
	<title>So when will Cisco's new 0ms WAN router be out?</title>
	<author>0x537461746943</author>
	<datestamp>1268907480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>That is all I want to know.  When can we reduce our latency between WAN links half way around the world down to 0ms?</htmltext>
<tokenext>That is all I want to know .
When can we reduce our latency between WAN links half way around the world down to 0ms ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That is all I want to know.
When can we reduce our latency between WAN links half way around the world down to 0ms?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1527203.31538062</id>
	<title>Re:so how big is it?</title>
	<author>BoothbyTCD</author>
	<datestamp>1269015060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>As ar as I can tell from the article the resonator is in a supersposition of energy states, not positional states. I don't blame you for being confused though, since the article is written in journalist-speak. The state will collapse upon measurement of the energy in the system.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>As ar as I can tell from the article the resonator is in a supersposition of energy states , not positional states .
I do n't blame you for being confused though , since the article is written in journalist-speak .
The state will collapse upon measurement of the energy in the system .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As ar as I can tell from the article the resonator is in a supersposition of energy states, not positional states.
I don't blame you for being confused though, since the article is written in journalist-speak.
The state will collapse upon measurement of the energy in the system.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1527203.31526754</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1527203.31525448</id>
	<title>How utterly cool</title>
	<author>vikingpower</author>
	<datestamp>1268939400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Surely we will soon have space-ship sized objects in two positions at once ??  *drool*</htmltext>
<tokenext>Surely we will soon have space-ship sized objects in two positions at once ? ?
* drool *</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Surely we will soon have space-ship sized objects in two positions at once ??
*drool*</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1527203.31524794</id>
	<title>Screw Quantum computing, I want a TRANSPORTER!</title>
	<author>erroneus</author>
	<datestamp>1268936580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I think the subject line says it all, but I want a transporter that puts me in two places at once, then destroys the first me leaving the copied me.  That would be awesome.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I think the subject line says it all , but I want a transporter that puts me in two places at once , then destroys the first me leaving the copied me .
That would be awesome .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think the subject line says it all, but I want a transporter that puts me in two places at once, then destroys the first me leaving the copied me.
That would be awesome.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1527203.31525648</id>
	<title>Re:How do they confirm it's in a quantum state?</title>
	<author>radtea</author>
	<datestamp>1268940300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Once they've placed this object in a quantum state, how do they verify that it's "occupying two states at once?"</p></div><p>Interference phenomena.  The article is light on detail, but presumably they excite the system into a superposition of (mechanical) normal modes and then observe the motion, or the position of some part of it, at a later time and find that it is in a classically forbidden region.</p><p>For example, suppose they excite it into two modes that interfere to produce a node at some point, so there is no motion there, but there would be if there it was in one mode or the other.  Then monitoring the motion at that point would allow you to determine if the system was in a superposition of two quantum states rather than one or the other.</p><p>With regard to the many-worlds interpretation:  it doesn't answer the really important question.  Neither does consistent histories or any of the decoherence-based approaches.  The really important question is, "Why is there a classical world at all?"  That is, these theories purport to show that we can get along just fine without the wavefunction ever undergoing "collapse", so in some sense all possible quantum outcomes of an experiment are permitted.  But they never answer (or even ask), "Why is it only via interference phenomena that we are aware of these effects?  Why aren't we aware of the other components of the wavefunction all the time?  Why is there a classical world at all?  Is it a feature of consciousness or the physics that permits beings like us to exist, that we are selected by a basically anthropic process to be able to experience only the narrowest subset of existence?  If so, how?"</p><p>Apart from that, the article is badly misleading:  it seems to suggest that anyone anywhere thinks there is anything interesting about the physical size or number of particles involved the detectability of quantum phenomena.  It has been known for decades that this is not the case:  the number of available modes is what matters, and any sufficiently cold object can become arbitarily large without exhibiting classical behaviour.  Furthermore, phenomena like the Mossbaure Effect told us something similar half a century or so ago.  It's probably time for the popular press to stop talking about the quantum equivalent of the luminiferous aether and get with the 21st century.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Once they 've placed this object in a quantum state , how do they verify that it 's " occupying two states at once ?
" Interference phenomena .
The article is light on detail , but presumably they excite the system into a superposition of ( mechanical ) normal modes and then observe the motion , or the position of some part of it , at a later time and find that it is in a classically forbidden region.For example , suppose they excite it into two modes that interfere to produce a node at some point , so there is no motion there , but there would be if there it was in one mode or the other .
Then monitoring the motion at that point would allow you to determine if the system was in a superposition of two quantum states rather than one or the other.With regard to the many-worlds interpretation : it does n't answer the really important question .
Neither does consistent histories or any of the decoherence-based approaches .
The really important question is , " Why is there a classical world at all ?
" That is , these theories purport to show that we can get along just fine without the wavefunction ever undergoing " collapse " , so in some sense all possible quantum outcomes of an experiment are permitted .
But they never answer ( or even ask ) , " Why is it only via interference phenomena that we are aware of these effects ?
Why are n't we aware of the other components of the wavefunction all the time ?
Why is there a classical world at all ?
Is it a feature of consciousness or the physics that permits beings like us to exist , that we are selected by a basically anthropic process to be able to experience only the narrowest subset of existence ?
If so , how ?
" Apart from that , the article is badly misleading : it seems to suggest that anyone anywhere thinks there is anything interesting about the physical size or number of particles involved the detectability of quantum phenomena .
It has been known for decades that this is not the case : the number of available modes is what matters , and any sufficiently cold object can become arbitarily large without exhibiting classical behaviour .
Furthermore , phenomena like the Mossbaure Effect told us something similar half a century or so ago .
It 's probably time for the popular press to stop talking about the quantum equivalent of the luminiferous aether and get with the 21st century .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Once they've placed this object in a quantum state, how do they verify that it's "occupying two states at once?
"Interference phenomena.
The article is light on detail, but presumably they excite the system into a superposition of (mechanical) normal modes and then observe the motion, or the position of some part of it, at a later time and find that it is in a classically forbidden region.For example, suppose they excite it into two modes that interfere to produce a node at some point, so there is no motion there, but there would be if there it was in one mode or the other.
Then monitoring the motion at that point would allow you to determine if the system was in a superposition of two quantum states rather than one or the other.With regard to the many-worlds interpretation:  it doesn't answer the really important question.
Neither does consistent histories or any of the decoherence-based approaches.
The really important question is, "Why is there a classical world at all?
"  That is, these theories purport to show that we can get along just fine without the wavefunction ever undergoing "collapse", so in some sense all possible quantum outcomes of an experiment are permitted.
But they never answer (or even ask), "Why is it only via interference phenomena that we are aware of these effects?
Why aren't we aware of the other components of the wavefunction all the time?
Why is there a classical world at all?
Is it a feature of consciousness or the physics that permits beings like us to exist, that we are selected by a basically anthropic process to be able to experience only the narrowest subset of existence?
If so, how?
"Apart from that, the article is badly misleading:  it seems to suggest that anyone anywhere thinks there is anything interesting about the physical size or number of particles involved the detectability of quantum phenomena.
It has been known for decades that this is not the case:  the number of available modes is what matters, and any sufficiently cold object can become arbitarily large without exhibiting classical behaviour.
Furthermore, phenomena like the Mossbaure Effect told us something similar half a century or so ago.
It's probably time for the popular press to stop talking about the quantum equivalent of the luminiferous aether and get with the 21st century.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1527203.31524988</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1527203.31528398</id>
	<title>Re:so how big is it?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268905020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Schr&#246;dinger: "about the size of a cat"</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Schr   dinger : " about the size of a cat "</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Schrödinger: "about the size of a cat"</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1527203.31524792</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1527203.31524930</id>
	<title>Re:so how big is it?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268937060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Billions of times bigger than the previous biggest state, which was 6 atoms? So on the order of 6x10^9 atoms... which is 14 orders of magnitude less than avogadro's number. So that's 10^-14 moles of something... which in the case of silicon is going to weigh about 0.00000000000028 grams. So something pretty small.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Billions of times bigger than the previous biggest state , which was 6 atoms ?
So on the order of 6x10 ^ 9 atoms... which is 14 orders of magnitude less than avogadro 's number .
So that 's 10 ^ -14 moles of something... which in the case of silicon is going to weigh about 0.00000000000028 grams .
So something pretty small .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Billions of times bigger than the previous biggest state, which was 6 atoms?
So on the order of 6x10^9 atoms... which is 14 orders of magnitude less than avogadro's number.
So that's 10^-14 moles of something... which in the case of silicon is going to weigh about 0.00000000000028 grams.
So something pretty small.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1527203.31524792</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1527203.31530388</id>
	<title>Re:Screw Quantum computing, I want a TRANSPORTER!</title>
	<author>earlymon</author>
	<datestamp>1268913540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I think the subject line says it all, but I want a transporter that puts me in two places at once, then destroys the first me leaving the copied me.</p></div><p>Spoiler alert, stop now if you haven't seen it:</p><p>The name of the movie is The Prestige - it was on the Sci-Fi or some such channel recently.  Trailer: <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bH6CoVlD5xc" title="youtube.com">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bH6CoVlD5xc</a> [youtube.com]</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I think the subject line says it all , but I want a transporter that puts me in two places at once , then destroys the first me leaving the copied me.Spoiler alert , stop now if you have n't seen it : The name of the movie is The Prestige - it was on the Sci-Fi or some such channel recently .
Trailer : http : //www.youtube.com/watch ? v = bH6CoVlD5xc [ youtube.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think the subject line says it all, but I want a transporter that puts me in two places at once, then destroys the first me leaving the copied me.Spoiler alert, stop now if you haven't seen it:The name of the movie is The Prestige - it was on the Sci-Fi or some such channel recently.
Trailer: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bH6CoVlD5xc [youtube.com]
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1527203.31524794</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1527203.31525424</id>
	<title>Re:so how big is it?</title>
	<author>Beorytis</author>
	<datestamp>1268939340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>It's 30 micrometers long, according to this article on the <a href="http://www.nature.com/news/2010/100317/full/news.2010.130.html" title="nature.com" rel="nofollow">Nature</a> [nature.com] website.</htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's 30 micrometers long , according to this article on the Nature [ nature.com ] website .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's 30 micrometers long, according to this article on the Nature [nature.com] website.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1527203.31524792</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1527203.31529344</id>
	<title>Re:In Slashdotters Pants.</title>
	<author>garvon</author>
	<datestamp>1268908500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It probably came from chica Spanish fro girl.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It probably came from chica Spanish fro girl .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It probably came from chica Spanish fro girl.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1527203.31526108</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1527203.31532178</id>
	<title>Re:How do they confirm it's in a quantum state?</title>
	<author>Ozlanthos</author>
	<datestamp>1268926920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Actually I think it means that they've managed to insert our universe into two separate universes simultaneously. One in which the object is both 'here" and "there" at the same "time".....I'd never be late for work again!
<br>
<br>
-Oz</htmltext>
<tokenext>Actually I think it means that they 've managed to insert our universe into two separate universes simultaneously .
One in which the object is both 'here " and " there " at the same " time " .....I 'd never be late for work again !
-Oz</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Actually I think it means that they've managed to insert our universe into two separate universes simultaneously.
One in which the object is both 'here" and "there" at the same "time".....I'd never be late for work again!
-Oz</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1527203.31524988</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1527203.31529608</id>
	<title>Quantum State???</title>
	<author>electricprof</author>
	<datestamp>1268909520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Is Rhode Island a Quantum State?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Is Rhode Island a Quantum State ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Is Rhode Island a Quantum State?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1527203.31525492</id>
	<title>Re:Of course when they went to look at the results</title>
	<author>JeanBaptiste</author>
	<datestamp>1268939580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>adding quantum computing wont mean that there is no more use for traditional computing.  binary math will still be binary math.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>adding quantum computing wont mean that there is no more use for traditional computing .
binary math will still be binary math .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>adding quantum computing wont mean that there is no more use for traditional computing.
binary math will still be binary math.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1527203.31524818</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1527203.31524988</id>
	<title>How do they confirm it's in a quantum state?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268937300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I have a question that I assume has a reasonable answer, just one I've never actually gotten confirmation on.</p><p>Once they've placed this object in a quantum state, how do they verify that it's "occupying two states at once?" Do they just measure it and repeat the process several times, and note that it's occasionally at 1 quanta, occasionally at 0, and from that infer that it was in a quantum state up until they measured it?</p><p>Second question, while I'm here - am I right in saying that according to the many-worlds interpretation, the universe branches when this object enters a quantum state, and we end up in one of two universes, one where the object has 1 quanta of energy and one where it has 0?</p><p>Trying to grok all this "quantum mechanics" stuff<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I have a question that I assume has a reasonable answer , just one I 've never actually gotten confirmation on.Once they 've placed this object in a quantum state , how do they verify that it 's " occupying two states at once ?
" Do they just measure it and repeat the process several times , and note that it 's occasionally at 1 quanta , occasionally at 0 , and from that infer that it was in a quantum state up until they measured it ? Second question , while I 'm here - am I right in saying that according to the many-worlds interpretation , the universe branches when this object enters a quantum state , and we end up in one of two universes , one where the object has 1 quanta of energy and one where it has 0 ? Trying to grok all this " quantum mechanics " stuff : )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I have a question that I assume has a reasonable answer, just one I've never actually gotten confirmation on.Once they've placed this object in a quantum state, how do they verify that it's "occupying two states at once?
" Do they just measure it and repeat the process several times, and note that it's occasionally at 1 quanta, occasionally at 0, and from that infer that it was in a quantum state up until they measured it?Second question, while I'm here - am I right in saying that according to the many-worlds interpretation, the universe branches when this object enters a quantum state, and we end up in one of two universes, one where the object has 1 quanta of energy and one where it has 0?Trying to grok all this "quantum mechanics" stuff :)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1527203.31534770</id>
	<title>Re:In Slashdotters Pants.</title>
	<author>duhjim</author>
	<datestamp>1269004200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Have you ever pondered about the origin of the word Chick, which derives from Chicken, and the analogy to depict a woman using the same concept?</p><p>I guess to some a chick is the same than a woman. Thus, all sexual desires can be aquired by the pound, at wallmart, although that sounds slightly necrofiliac.</p><p>Better go to a live chicken farm: for a hundred bucks youd get a very large harem.</p></div><p>The Pigeon sisters were once a pair of randy birds.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Have you ever pondered about the origin of the word Chick , which derives from Chicken , and the analogy to depict a woman using the same concept ? I guess to some a chick is the same than a woman .
Thus , all sexual desires can be aquired by the pound , at wallmart , although that sounds slightly necrofiliac.Better go to a live chicken farm : for a hundred bucks youd get a very large harem.The Pigeon sisters were once a pair of randy birds .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Have you ever pondered about the origin of the word Chick, which derives from Chicken, and the analogy to depict a woman using the same concept?I guess to some a chick is the same than a woman.
Thus, all sexual desires can be aquired by the pound, at wallmart, although that sounds slightly necrofiliac.Better go to a live chicken farm: for a hundred bucks youd get a very large harem.The Pigeon sisters were once a pair of randy birds.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1527203.31526108</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1527203.31525554</id>
	<title>Re:so how big is it?</title>
	<author>maxwell demon</author>
	<datestamp>1268939940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>My guess is that it's the size of a cat.</p></div><p>Mine is 42840 bytes.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>My guess is that it 's the size of a cat.Mine is 42840 bytes .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>My guess is that it's the size of a cat.Mine is 42840 bytes.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1527203.31525178</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1527203.31525952</id>
	<title>Re:Screw Quantum computing, I want a TRANSPORTER!</title>
	<author>10101001 10101001</author>
	<datestamp>1268941320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Perhaps you should watch <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pdxucpPq6Lc" title="youtube.com" rel="nofollow">"To Be"</a> [youtube.com].</htmltext>
<tokenext>Perhaps you should watch " To Be " [ youtube.com ] .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Perhaps you should watch "To Be" [youtube.com].</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1527203.31524794</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1527203.31525334</id>
	<title>Re:How do they confirm it's in a quantum state?</title>
	<author>Hurricane78</author>
	<datestamp>1268938860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Actually in an object of this size you could plainly see it with the naked eye. Because the whole object would start to act like one particle. Which in practice means that you can see waves moving over it in a weird fashion, where particles annihilate and amplify each other.<br>I once saw a video* of it, and it looks really cool. And veery creepy at the same time, when you realize what that means. (Imagine there being two cubes of steel matter in that state. You could not only shove them together to the exact same place. You could also make them annihilate each other and vanish completely. Not violently, but like sound or light waves. I meant that really feels like WTF?)</p><p>* I am really sorry that I can&rsquo;t find the video anymore.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:/ It was in the news when they captured it. I read about it in the German magazine Spektrum der Wissenschaft, a few years back. If someone remembers or find it, <em>please</em> add a link to it!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Actually in an object of this size you could plainly see it with the naked eye .
Because the whole object would start to act like one particle .
Which in practice means that you can see waves moving over it in a weird fashion , where particles annihilate and amplify each other.I once saw a video * of it , and it looks really cool .
And veery creepy at the same time , when you realize what that means .
( Imagine there being two cubes of steel matter in that state .
You could not only shove them together to the exact same place .
You could also make them annihilate each other and vanish completely .
Not violently , but like sound or light waves .
I meant that really feels like WTF ?
) * I am really sorry that I can    t find the video anymore .
: / It was in the news when they captured it .
I read about it in the German magazine Spektrum der Wissenschaft , a few years back .
If someone remembers or find it , please add a link to it !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Actually in an object of this size you could plainly see it with the naked eye.
Because the whole object would start to act like one particle.
Which in practice means that you can see waves moving over it in a weird fashion, where particles annihilate and amplify each other.I once saw a video* of it, and it looks really cool.
And veery creepy at the same time, when you realize what that means.
(Imagine there being two cubes of steel matter in that state.
You could not only shove them together to the exact same place.
You could also make them annihilate each other and vanish completely.
Not violently, but like sound or light waves.
I meant that really feels like WTF?
)* I am really sorry that I can’t find the video anymore.
:/ It was in the news when they captured it.
I read about it in the German magazine Spektrum der Wissenschaft, a few years back.
If someone remembers or find it, please add a link to it!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1527203.31524988</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1527203.31528646</id>
	<title>Re:so how big is it?</title>
	<author>kirill.s</author>
	<datestamp>1268905980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>It's the Library of Congress.</p></div><p>Really? I thought it was a cat.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's the Library of Congress.Really ?
I thought it was a cat .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's the Library of Congress.Really?
I thought it was a cat.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1527203.31524870</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1527203.31525006</id>
	<title>Re:so how big is it?</title>
	<author>shawnap</author>
	<datestamp>1268937360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>I don't need to be told that it's "billions of times than ever before", or to compare it to the library of congress, I can understand measurements. so how big is the object? 1 nanometer? 1 kilometer? what? the article doesn't seem to say either.</p></div></blockquote><p>
If the object, or objects, were observable, which it or they are not, then they, or it, would be visible; barely.<br>
Does that clear things up?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't need to be told that it 's " billions of times than ever before " , or to compare it to the library of congress , I can understand measurements .
so how big is the object ?
1 nanometer ?
1 kilometer ?
what ? the article does n't seem to say either .
If the object , or objects , were observable , which it or they are not , then they , or it , would be visible ; barely .
Does that clear things up ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't need to be told that it's "billions of times than ever before", or to compare it to the library of congress, I can understand measurements.
so how big is the object?
1 nanometer?
1 kilometer?
what? the article doesn't seem to say either.
If the object, or objects, were observable, which it or they are not, then they, or it, would be visible; barely.
Does that clear things up?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1527203.31524792</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1527203.31525744</id>
	<title>Re:How do they confirm it's in a quantum state?</title>
	<author>gestalt\_n\_pepper</author>
	<datestamp>1268940600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Well, it IS and ISN'T in a quantum state. Any more questions?</p><p>---<br>To understand recursion, one must first understand recursion.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Well , it IS and IS N'T in a quantum state .
Any more questions ? ---To understand recursion , one must first understand recursion .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well, it IS and ISN'T in a quantum state.
Any more questions?---To understand recursion, one must first understand recursion.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1527203.31524988</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1527203.31529728</id>
	<title>Re:so how big is it?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268910240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Rather concerningly, a nanometer is only a billionth of a meter... and I know we can make quantum states in objects with characteristic sizes ~nm... so that means meters or larger.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Rather concerningly , a nanometer is only a billionth of a meter... and I know we can make quantum states in objects with characteristic sizes ~ nm... so that means meters or larger .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Rather concerningly, a nanometer is only a billionth of a meter... and I know we can make quantum states in objects with characteristic sizes ~nm... so that means meters or larger.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1527203.31524792</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1527203.31532028</id>
	<title>Re:Screw Quantum computing, I want a TRANSPORTER!</title>
	<author>Ozlanthos</author>
	<datestamp>1268925480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>But would you be a "real" you? Would you know the difference?  And would it even really matter?
<br>
<br>
-Oz</htmltext>
<tokenext>But would you be a " real " you ?
Would you know the difference ?
And would it even really matter ?
-Oz</tokentext>
<sentencetext>But would you be a "real" you?
Would you know the difference?
And would it even really matter?
-Oz</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1527203.31524794</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1527203.31525300</id>
	<title>Noien</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268938740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Just one step closer to the macro-quantum existence in Noien.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Just one step closer to the macro-quantum existence in Noien .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Just one step closer to the macro-quantum existence in Noien.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1527203.31524792</id>
	<title>so how big is it?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268936580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I don't need to be told that it's "billions of times than ever before", or to compare it to the library of congress, I can understand measurements. so how big is the object? 1 nanometer? 1 kilometer? what? the article doesn't seem to say either.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't need to be told that it 's " billions of times than ever before " , or to compare it to the library of congress , I can understand measurements .
so how big is the object ?
1 nanometer ?
1 kilometer ?
what ? the article does n't seem to say either .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't need to be told that it's "billions of times than ever before", or to compare it to the library of congress, I can understand measurements.
so how big is the object?
1 nanometer?
1 kilometer?
what? the article doesn't seem to say either.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1527203.31524882</id>
	<title>Re:so how big is it?</title>
	<author>mrthoughtful</author>
	<datestamp>1268936940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>about a trillion atoms</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>about a trillion atoms</tokentext>
<sentencetext>about a trillion atoms</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1527203.31524792</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1527203.31525796</id>
	<title>Re:so how big is it?</title>
	<author>AmigaMMC</author>
	<datestamp>1268940780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I don't need to be told that it's "billions of times than ever before", or to compare it to the library of congress, I can understand measurements. so how big is the object?</p></div><p><nobr> <wbr></nobr>.</p><p>One Big-O-Meter</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't need to be told that it 's " billions of times than ever before " , or to compare it to the library of congress , I can understand measurements .
so how big is the object ?
.One Big-O-Meter</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't need to be told that it's "billions of times than ever before", or to compare it to the library of congress, I can understand measurements.
so how big is the object?
.One Big-O-Meter
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1527203.31524792</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1527203.31524890</id>
	<title>wow</title>
	<author>shadowrat</author>
	<datestamp>1268937000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>That's almost large enough to be a CAT!</htmltext>
<tokenext>That 's almost large enough to be a CAT !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That's almost large enough to be a CAT!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1527203.31525076</id>
	<title>Effectively?</title>
	<author>fahrbot-bot</author>
	<datestamp>1268937780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Redundant</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Such states, in which an object is effectively in two places at once...</p></div>
</blockquote><p>
Pffft.  Lots of things can be "effectively" in two places at once.  Ever heard of a  "conference call".  Get back to me when this object is "actually" in two places at once.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Such states , in which an object is effectively in two places at once.. . Pffft. Lots of things can be " effectively " in two places at once .
Ever heard of a " conference call " .
Get back to me when this object is " actually " in two places at once .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Such states, in which an object is effectively in two places at once...

Pffft.  Lots of things can be "effectively" in two places at once.
Ever heard of a  "conference call".
Get back to me when this object is "actually" in two places at once.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1527203.31525818</id>
	<title>Re:Effectively?</title>
	<author>pclminion</author>
	<datestamp>1268940840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The object is not in two places at once. The quantum wavefunction of the object has non-negligible probability in two places at once. This means that the object is equally likely to be found in two different locations.</p><p>The wording of the article is extremely sloppy. Remember that a wavefunction <i>is not the object</i>. The wavefunction is nothing more than a way to calculate the <i>probability</i> of finding the object in a particular place. A better description of where the object is when it is in superposition is "nowhere in particular, until measured, at which point it is highly likely to be found at point A or at point B." But that also goes for more run-of-the-mill quantum states.</p><p>The interesting thing here is not the wavefunction, but the fact that they have achieved a coherent quantum state between about a trillion atoms.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The object is not in two places at once .
The quantum wavefunction of the object has non-negligible probability in two places at once .
This means that the object is equally likely to be found in two different locations.The wording of the article is extremely sloppy .
Remember that a wavefunction is not the object .
The wavefunction is nothing more than a way to calculate the probability of finding the object in a particular place .
A better description of where the object is when it is in superposition is " nowhere in particular , until measured , at which point it is highly likely to be found at point A or at point B .
" But that also goes for more run-of-the-mill quantum states.The interesting thing here is not the wavefunction , but the fact that they have achieved a coherent quantum state between about a trillion atoms .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The object is not in two places at once.
The quantum wavefunction of the object has non-negligible probability in two places at once.
This means that the object is equally likely to be found in two different locations.The wording of the article is extremely sloppy.
Remember that a wavefunction is not the object.
The wavefunction is nothing more than a way to calculate the probability of finding the object in a particular place.
A better description of where the object is when it is in superposition is "nowhere in particular, until measured, at which point it is highly likely to be found at point A or at point B.
" But that also goes for more run-of-the-mill quantum states.The interesting thing here is not the wavefunction, but the fact that they have achieved a coherent quantum state between about a trillion atoms.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1527203.31525076</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1527203.31526276</id>
	<title>What I don't understand is......</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268942280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What really confuses me about this (Do not know much of anything about quantum states) is how do they KNOW that it is in 2 states at once? Measuring it and getting different states could just as easily mean that it is at the tipping point between the state changes and isn't actually both states but alternating between the two states as it keeps raising and lowering below that threshold of energy required to be in a given state, maybe in units of energy so small we have not yet learned to detect yet. What am I missing here?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What really confuses me about this ( Do not know much of anything about quantum states ) is how do they KNOW that it is in 2 states at once ?
Measuring it and getting different states could just as easily mean that it is at the tipping point between the state changes and is n't actually both states but alternating between the two states as it keeps raising and lowering below that threshold of energy required to be in a given state , maybe in units of energy so small we have not yet learned to detect yet .
What am I missing here ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What really confuses me about this (Do not know much of anything about quantum states) is how do they KNOW that it is in 2 states at once?
Measuring it and getting different states could just as easily mean that it is at the tipping point between the state changes and isn't actually both states but alternating between the two states as it keeps raising and lowering below that threshold of energy required to be in a given state, maybe in units of energy so small we have not yet learned to detect yet.
What am I missing here?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1527203.31525374</id>
	<title>There is no simultaneity</title>
	<author>srussia</author>
	<datestamp>1268939040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Just like energy, time is also discrete and no two things can exist in the same quantum of time.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Just like energy , time is also discrete and no two things can exist in the same quantum of time .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Just like energy, time is also discrete and no two things can exist in the same quantum of time.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1527203.31526108</id>
	<title>Re:In Slashdotters Pants.</title>
	<author>alexborges</author>
	<datestamp>1268941800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Have you ever pondered about the origin of the word Chick, which derives from Chicken, and the analogy to depict a woman using the same concept?</p><p>I guess to some a chick is the same than a woman. Thus, all sexual desires can be aquired by the pound, at wallmart, although that sounds slightly necrofiliac.</p><p>Better go to a live chicken farm: for a hundred bucks youd get a very large harem.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Have you ever pondered about the origin of the word Chick , which derives from Chicken , and the analogy to depict a woman using the same concept ? I guess to some a chick is the same than a woman .
Thus , all sexual desires can be aquired by the pound , at wallmart , although that sounds slightly necrofiliac.Better go to a live chicken farm : for a hundred bucks youd get a very large harem .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Have you ever pondered about the origin of the word Chick, which derives from Chicken, and the analogy to depict a woman using the same concept?I guess to some a chick is the same than a woman.
Thus, all sexual desires can be aquired by the pound, at wallmart, although that sounds slightly necrofiliac.Better go to a live chicken farm: for a hundred bucks youd get a very large harem.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1527203.31525118</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1527203.31525102</id>
	<title>G-man says</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268937840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Prepare for unforeseen consequences</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Prepare for unforeseen consequences</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Prepare for unforeseen consequences</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1527203.31525238</id>
	<title>Call me when you get a cat.</title>
	<author>Tom Boz</author>
	<datestamp>1268938500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Until then, keep working, dammit!</htmltext>
<tokenext>Until then , keep working , dammit !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Until then, keep working, dammit!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1527203.31527698</id>
	<title>Re:so how big is it?</title>
	<author>commisaro</author>
	<datestamp>1268903040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p> It's now simultaneously at its usual place and two hundred miles under the sea.</p> </div><p>Sorry, don't you mean 2 933 football fields under the sea?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's now simultaneously at its usual place and two hundred miles under the sea .
Sorry , do n't you mean 2 933 football fields under the sea ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext> It's now simultaneously at its usual place and two hundred miles under the sea.
Sorry, don't you mean 2 933 football fields under the sea?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1527203.31524870</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1527203.31531300</id>
	<title>Re:Of course when they went to look at the results</title>
	<author>tomhudson</author>
	<datestamp>1268919360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>And 42 is definitely not an option in systems modeled to recognize only two states.</p></div>
</blockquote><p>
42 is already valid in systems modeled to recognize only two states - it's in int with a value of TRUE.

</p><p>
Try it in c.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>And 42 is definitely not an option in systems modeled to recognize only two states .
42 is already valid in systems modeled to recognize only two states - it 's in int with a value of TRUE .
Try it in c .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And 42 is definitely not an option in systems modeled to recognize only two states.
42 is already valid in systems modeled to recognize only two states - it's in int with a value of TRUE.
Try it in c.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1527203.31525332</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1527203.31525332</id>
	<title>Re:Of course when they went to look at the results</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268938860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>While it requires some tricks, we can ultimately get yes / no, like so: 99.99999999\% yes, 0.00000001\% no. If that does not suffice, you'll be able to amplify the result to the point where it could be more likely the universe suddenly collapse than that you read a no instead of a yes.</p><p>"Uninitialized" may happen, but it could probably not be detectable as a condition, you'll simply be running calculations with the wrong input / transformations... And 42 is definitely not an option in systems modeled to recognize only two states. It will be either yes or no, with a probability.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>While it requires some tricks , we can ultimately get yes / no , like so : 99.99999999 \ % yes , 0.00000001 \ % no .
If that does not suffice , you 'll be able to amplify the result to the point where it could be more likely the universe suddenly collapse than that you read a no instead of a yes .
" Uninitialized " may happen , but it could probably not be detectable as a condition , you 'll simply be running calculations with the wrong input / transformations... And 42 is definitely not an option in systems modeled to recognize only two states .
It will be either yes or no , with a probability .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>While it requires some tricks, we can ultimately get yes / no, like so: 99.99999999\% yes, 0.00000001\% no.
If that does not suffice, you'll be able to amplify the result to the point where it could be more likely the universe suddenly collapse than that you read a no instead of a yes.
"Uninitialized" may happen, but it could probably not be detectable as a condition, you'll simply be running calculations with the wrong input / transformations... And 42 is definitely not an option in systems modeled to recognize only two states.
It will be either yes or no, with a probability.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1527203.31524818</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1527203.31524878</id>
	<title>like always</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268936940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>The team says the result could have significant implications in quantum computing.</p></div><p>

could, might, may, theoretically, possibly et al.<br> <br>

this is all i ever hear from the quantum field. people speculating about quantum ducks and eggs and how if you tweak multiple variables at the same time there might actually be parallel dimensions. it makes me want to cry when i pick up "scientific" journals that print such conjecture and speculation and dare to call it 'science' just because they have applied various tests that use the scientific method to it.<br> <br>

it sort of reminds me of this quote by E.A. Blair (Otherwise known far more popularly by something else), replacing 'fascism' with 'science'. Of course, most of it doesn't apply, but the idea of the word being used in so many ways outside of its immediately practical context does.<br> <br>

It will be seen that, as used, the word &lsquo;Fascism&rsquo; is almost entirely meaningless. In conversation, of course, it is used even more wildly than in print. I have heard it applied to farmers, shopkeepers, Social Credit, corporal punishment, fox-hunting, bull-fighting, the 1922 Committee, the 1941 Committee, Kipling, Gandhi, Chiang Kai-Shek, homosexuality, Priestley's broadcasts, Youth Hostels, astrology, women, dogs and I do not know what else. Except for the relatively small number of Fascist sympathizers, almost any English person would accept &lsquo;bully&rsquo; as a synonym for &lsquo;Fascist&rsquo;. That is about as near to a definition as this much-abused word has come.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The team says the result could have significant implications in quantum computing .
could , might , may , theoretically , possibly et al .
this is all i ever hear from the quantum field .
people speculating about quantum ducks and eggs and how if you tweak multiple variables at the same time there might actually be parallel dimensions .
it makes me want to cry when i pick up " scientific " journals that print such conjecture and speculation and dare to call it 'science ' just because they have applied various tests that use the scientific method to it .
it sort of reminds me of this quote by E.A .
Blair ( Otherwise known far more popularly by something else ) , replacing 'fascism ' with 'science' .
Of course , most of it does n't apply , but the idea of the word being used in so many ways outside of its immediately practical context does .
It will be seen that , as used , the word    Fascism    is almost entirely meaningless .
In conversation , of course , it is used even more wildly than in print .
I have heard it applied to farmers , shopkeepers , Social Credit , corporal punishment , fox-hunting , bull-fighting , the 1922 Committee , the 1941 Committee , Kipling , Gandhi , Chiang Kai-Shek , homosexuality , Priestley 's broadcasts , Youth Hostels , astrology , women , dogs and I do not know what else .
Except for the relatively small number of Fascist sympathizers , almost any English person would accept    bully    as a synonym for    Fascist    .
That is about as near to a definition as this much-abused word has come .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The team says the result could have significant implications in quantum computing.
could, might, may, theoretically, possibly et al.
this is all i ever hear from the quantum field.
people speculating about quantum ducks and eggs and how if you tweak multiple variables at the same time there might actually be parallel dimensions.
it makes me want to cry when i pick up "scientific" journals that print such conjecture and speculation and dare to call it 'science' just because they have applied various tests that use the scientific method to it.
it sort of reminds me of this quote by E.A.
Blair (Otherwise known far more popularly by something else), replacing 'fascism' with 'science'.
Of course, most of it doesn't apply, but the idea of the word being used in so many ways outside of its immediately practical context does.
It will be seen that, as used, the word ‘Fascism’ is almost entirely meaningless.
In conversation, of course, it is used even more wildly than in print.
I have heard it applied to farmers, shopkeepers, Social Credit, corporal punishment, fox-hunting, bull-fighting, the 1922 Committee, the 1941 Committee, Kipling, Gandhi, Chiang Kai-Shek, homosexuality, Priestley's broadcasts, Youth Hostels, astrology, women, dogs and I do not know what else.
Except for the relatively small number of Fascist sympathizers, almost any English person would accept ‘bully’ as a synonym for ‘Fascist’.
That is about as near to a definition as this much-abused word has come.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1527203.31526428</id>
	<title>Heisenberg</title>
	<author>flyingfsck</author>
	<datestamp>1268942700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Heisenberg killed Schrodinger's cat just by looking at it...</htmltext>
<tokenext>Heisenberg killed Schrodinger 's cat just by looking at it.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Heisenberg killed Schrodinger's cat just by looking at it...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1527203.31531614</id>
	<title>Re:so how big is it?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268921640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It only collapses when the you and not-you recohere. Glad I could clear that up.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It only collapses when the you and not-you recohere .
Glad I could clear that up .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It only collapses when the you and not-you recohere.
Glad I could clear that up.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1527203.31526754</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1527203.31524854</id>
	<title>An island of ignorance in the midst of black seas.</title>
	<author>Securityemo</author>
	<datestamp>1268936820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>We are all educated stupid! O\_O

*dissolves in a mass of n-dimensional tentacles, and gets eaten by a passing Mi-go*</htmltext>
<tokenext>We are all educated stupid !
O \ _O * dissolves in a mass of n-dimensional tentacles , and gets eaten by a passing Mi-go *</tokentext>
<sentencetext>We are all educated stupid!
O\_O

*dissolves in a mass of n-dimensional tentacles, and gets eaten by a passing Mi-go*</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1527203.31525878</id>
	<title>Re:so how big is it?</title>
	<author>DarkPixel</author>
	<datestamp>1268941020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>This was originally published in the Nature Journal: <a href="http://www.nature.com/news/2010/100317/full/news.2010.130.html" title="nature.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.nature.com/news/2010/100317/full/news.2010.130.html</a> [nature.com] <br>
Obviously there is much more useful information in this one...<p><div class="quote"><p> Cleland and his team took a more direct measure of quantum weirdness at the large scale. They began with a a tiny mechanical paddle, or 'quantum drum', <b>around 30 micrometres long</b> that vibrates when set in motion at a particular range of frequencies. Next they connected the paddle to a superconducting electrical circuit that obeyed the laws of quantum mechanics. They then cooled the system down to temperatures below one-tenth of a kelvin.<br>
<br>
At this temperature, the paddle slipped into its quantum mechanical ground state. Using the quantum circuit, Cleland and his team verified that the paddle had no vibrational energy whatsoever. They then used the circuit to give the paddle a push and saw it wiggle at a very specific energy.<br>
<br>
Next, the researchers put the quantum circuit into a superposition of 'push' and 'don't push', and connected it to the paddle. Through a series of careful measurements, they were able to show that the paddle was both vibrating and not vibrating simultaneously.</p></div></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>This was originally published in the Nature Journal : http : //www.nature.com/news/2010/100317/full/news.2010.130.html [ nature.com ] Obviously there is much more useful information in this one... Cleland and his team took a more direct measure of quantum weirdness at the large scale .
They began with a a tiny mechanical paddle , or 'quantum drum ' , around 30 micrometres long that vibrates when set in motion at a particular range of frequencies .
Next they connected the paddle to a superconducting electrical circuit that obeyed the laws of quantum mechanics .
They then cooled the system down to temperatures below one-tenth of a kelvin .
At this temperature , the paddle slipped into its quantum mechanical ground state .
Using the quantum circuit , Cleland and his team verified that the paddle had no vibrational energy whatsoever .
They then used the circuit to give the paddle a push and saw it wiggle at a very specific energy .
Next , the researchers put the quantum circuit into a superposition of 'push ' and 'do n't push ' , and connected it to the paddle .
Through a series of careful measurements , they were able to show that the paddle was both vibrating and not vibrating simultaneously .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This was originally published in the Nature Journal: http://www.nature.com/news/2010/100317/full/news.2010.130.html [nature.com] 
Obviously there is much more useful information in this one... Cleland and his team took a more direct measure of quantum weirdness at the large scale.
They began with a a tiny mechanical paddle, or 'quantum drum', around 30 micrometres long that vibrates when set in motion at a particular range of frequencies.
Next they connected the paddle to a superconducting electrical circuit that obeyed the laws of quantum mechanics.
They then cooled the system down to temperatures below one-tenth of a kelvin.
At this temperature, the paddle slipped into its quantum mechanical ground state.
Using the quantum circuit, Cleland and his team verified that the paddle had no vibrational energy whatsoever.
They then used the circuit to give the paddle a push and saw it wiggle at a very specific energy.
Next, the researchers put the quantum circuit into a superposition of 'push' and 'don't push', and connected it to the paddle.
Through a series of careful measurements, they were able to show that the paddle was both vibrating and not vibrating simultaneously.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1527203.31524792</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1527203.31524900</id>
	<title>This is awesome!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268937000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I am convinced that science is getting us closer and closer to God. Pretty soon we're going to understand how the universe works and He's going to say "you figured it out! Come up to My kingdom!" and we'll get to go to Heaven. Blessed be!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I am convinced that science is getting us closer and closer to God .
Pretty soon we 're going to understand how the universe works and He 's going to say " you figured it out !
Come up to My kingdom !
" and we 'll get to go to Heaven .
Blessed be !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I am convinced that science is getting us closer and closer to God.
Pretty soon we're going to understand how the universe works and He's going to say "you figured it out!
Come up to My kingdom!
" and we'll get to go to Heaven.
Blessed be!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1527203.31525168</id>
	<title>WHAT "object"?</title>
	<author>Hurricane78</author>
	<datestamp>1268938080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Why the beating around the bush?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Why the beating around the bush ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why the beating around the bush?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1527203.31529056</id>
	<title>Re:so how big is it?</title>
	<author>sonicmerlin</author>
	<datestamp>1268907420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>It's on arstechnica.  50 micrometers.</htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's on arstechnica .
50 micrometers .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's on arstechnica.
50 micrometers.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1527203.31524792</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1527203.31524868</id>
	<title>obligatory Futurama</title>
	<author>Drakkenmensch</author>
	<datestamp>1268936880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>You fool! You've altered the outcome by observing it!!!</htmltext>
<tokenext>You fool !
You 've altered the outcome by observing it ! !
!</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You fool!
You've altered the outcome by observing it!!
!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1527203.31525620</id>
	<title>Re:How do they confirm it's in a quantum state?</title>
	<author>roguegramma</author>
	<datestamp>1268940180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I don't know about this experiment, but in the double-slit experiment, you can confirm that the photons pass the slit unobserved(in wave form) when you get a peculiarly structured hit pattern on the wall with the photoreactive film that can only result from the adding and cancelling of two wave distributions.</p><p>According to the Everett interpretation, <a href="http://www.hedweb.com/manworld.htm" title="hedweb.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.hedweb.com/manworld.htm</a> [hedweb.com], the universe will split at the time of the observation, not at the time of being placed in wave state, at least that is what section "Q7 When do worlds split?" says.</p><p>IMO, the worlds split according to wave functions only to an uninformed observer, which we are most of the time; but we still got enough information to mess up measurements enough so that we can't prove the everett interpretation(At least my impression was that it hasn't been proven yet).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't know about this experiment , but in the double-slit experiment , you can confirm that the photons pass the slit unobserved ( in wave form ) when you get a peculiarly structured hit pattern on the wall with the photoreactive film that can only result from the adding and cancelling of two wave distributions.According to the Everett interpretation , http : //www.hedweb.com/manworld.htm [ hedweb.com ] , the universe will split at the time of the observation , not at the time of being placed in wave state , at least that is what section " Q7 When do worlds split ?
" says.IMO , the worlds split according to wave functions only to an uninformed observer , which we are most of the time ; but we still got enough information to mess up measurements enough so that we ca n't prove the everett interpretation ( At least my impression was that it has n't been proven yet ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't know about this experiment, but in the double-slit experiment, you can confirm that the photons pass the slit unobserved(in wave form) when you get a peculiarly structured hit pattern on the wall with the photoreactive film that can only result from the adding and cancelling of two wave distributions.According to the Everett interpretation, http://www.hedweb.com/manworld.htm [hedweb.com], the universe will split at the time of the observation, not at the time of being placed in wave state, at least that is what section "Q7 When do worlds split?
" says.IMO, the worlds split according to wave functions only to an uninformed observer, which we are most of the time; but we still got enough information to mess up measurements enough so that we can't prove the everett interpretation(At least my impression was that it hasn't been proven yet).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1527203.31524988</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1527203.31531992</id>
	<title>I got one word for you....</title>
	<author>Ozlanthos</author>
	<datestamp>1268925120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>TRON!!!
<p>
-Oz</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>TRON ! ! !
-Oz</tokentext>
<sentencetext>TRON!!!
-Oz</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1527203.31525396</id>
	<title>Link to naturenews story</title>
	<author>Adaeniel</author>
	<datestamp>1268939160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Here is the link to the naturenews article if anyone would like it:

<a href="http://www.nature.com/news/2010/100317/full/news.2010.130.html" title="nature.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.nature.com/news/2010/100317/full/news.2010.130.html</a> [nature.com]</htmltext>
<tokenext>Here is the link to the naturenews article if anyone would like it : http : //www.nature.com/news/2010/100317/full/news.2010.130.html [ nature.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Here is the link to the naturenews article if anyone would like it:

http://www.nature.com/news/2010/100317/full/news.2010.130.html [nature.com]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1527203.31525178</id>
	<title>Re:so how big is it?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268938140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>My guess is that it's the size of a cat.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>My guess is that it 's the size of a cat .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>My guess is that it's the size of a cat.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1527203.31524792</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1527203.31524906</id>
	<title>Oh no, poor kitty!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268937000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Oh noes! I iz in suprpuzishun!</htmltext>
<tokenext>Oh noes !
I iz in suprpuzishun !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Oh noes!
I iz in suprpuzishun!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1527203.31526198</id>
	<title>Not helpful.</title>
	<author>rickb928</author>
	<datestamp>1268942040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I have enough trouble keeping track of my data now.  So my quantum computer will have my data in multiple states?  I have to look in how many places?</p><p>Sheesh.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I have enough trouble keeping track of my data now .
So my quantum computer will have my data in multiple states ?
I have to look in how many places ? Sheesh .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I have enough trouble keeping track of my data now.
So my quantum computer will have my data in multiple states?
I have to look in how many places?Sheesh.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1527203.31526436</id>
	<title>Re:Could have?</title>
	<author>mcgrew</author>
	<datestamp>1268942700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Screw that, I want a <a href="http://www.angryflower.com/schrod.gif" title="angryflower.com">beer!</a> [angryflower.com]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Screw that , I want a beer !
[ angryflower.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Screw that, I want a beer!
[angryflower.com]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1527203.31524888</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1527203.31524818</id>
	<title>Of course when they went to look at the results...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268936700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><nobr> <wbr></nobr>... they disappeared.
</p><p>
Once we get into quantum computing, we're going to have to drop the whole binary "yes"-"no" thing for  "yes", "no", "maybe", "uninitialized", "42"
</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>... they disappeared .
Once we get into quantum computing , we 're going to have to drop the whole binary " yes " - " no " thing for " yes " , " no " , " maybe " , " uninitialized " , " 42 "</tokentext>
<sentencetext> ... they disappeared.
Once we get into quantum computing, we're going to have to drop the whole binary "yes"-"no" thing for  "yes", "no", "maybe", "uninitialized", "42"
</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1527203.31526754</id>
	<title>Re:so how big is it?</title>
	<author>nine-times</author>
	<datestamp>1268943660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>If it can be seen with the naked eye, then what does it look like when it's "in two places at once"?  Or does the whole thing collapse if you look at it?</htmltext>
<tokenext>If it can be seen with the naked eye , then what does it look like when it 's " in two places at once " ?
Or does the whole thing collapse if you look at it ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If it can be seen with the naked eye, then what does it look like when it's "in two places at once"?
Or does the whole thing collapse if you look at it?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1527203.31524926</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1527203.31525564</id>
	<title>Been done in superconductors</title>
	<author>climate\_control</author>
	<datestamp>1268940000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>Similarly macroscopic quantum states have been achieved in superconductors. So the significance of this work is that macroscopic superposition is accomplished with a mechanical system, not an electronic one.

The Nature article that the BBC is referring to:
<a href="http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/nature08967.html" title="nature.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/nature08967.html</a> [nature.com]

The BBC removed the scale bar, which shows that the resonator is about 70 microns long, with an "active region" 40 microns long. But the resonant frequency is still up in the GHz, so they only have to cool to 0.1K, which is not so hard these days.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Similarly macroscopic quantum states have been achieved in superconductors .
So the significance of this work is that macroscopic superposition is accomplished with a mechanical system , not an electronic one .
The Nature article that the BBC is referring to : http : //www.nature.com/nature/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/nature08967.html [ nature.com ] The BBC removed the scale bar , which shows that the resonator is about 70 microns long , with an " active region " 40 microns long .
But the resonant frequency is still up in the GHz , so they only have to cool to 0.1K , which is not so hard these days .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Similarly macroscopic quantum states have been achieved in superconductors.
So the significance of this work is that macroscopic superposition is accomplished with a mechanical system, not an electronic one.
The Nature article that the BBC is referring to:
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/nature08967.html [nature.com]

The BBC removed the scale bar, which shows that the resonator is about 70 microns long, with an "active region" 40 microns long.
But the resonant frequency is still up in the GHz, so they only have to cool to 0.1K, which is not so hard these days.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_18_1527203_36</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1527203.31524792
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1527203.31525878
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_18_1527203_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1527203.31524988
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1527203.31525620
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_18_1527203_30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1527203.31524818
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1527203.31524852
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_18_1527203_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1527203.31524988
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1527203.31525744
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_18_1527203_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1527203.31524792
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1527203.31529056
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_18_1527203_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1527203.31524792
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1527203.31525320
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_18_1527203_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1527203.31524792
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1527203.31524926
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1527203.31526754
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1527203.31531614
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_18_1527203_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1527203.31524792
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1527203.31525006
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1527203.31526866
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_18_1527203_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1527203.31524792
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1527203.31524870
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1527203.31527698
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_18_1527203_39</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1527203.31524794
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1527203.31524850
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_18_1527203_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1527203.31524818
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1527203.31525492
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_18_1527203_42</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1527203.31529072
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1527203.31532684
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_18_1527203_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1527203.31524794
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1527203.31525952
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_18_1527203_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1527203.31524988
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1527203.31528022
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_18_1527203_41</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1527203.31524792
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1527203.31524926
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1527203.31526754
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1527203.31528030
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1527203.31532136
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_18_1527203_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1527203.31524988
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1527203.31525846
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_18_1527203_37</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1527203.31524762
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1527203.31525118
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1527203.31532326
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_18_1527203_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1527203.31524888
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1527203.31526436
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_18_1527203_40</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1527203.31524792
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1527203.31524882
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_18_1527203_31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1527203.31524762
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1527203.31525118
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1527203.31526108
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1527203.31534770
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_18_1527203_29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1527203.31524818
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1527203.31526616
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_18_1527203_32</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1527203.31524792
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1527203.31524926
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1527203.31526754
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1527203.31538062
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_18_1527203_34</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1527203.31524792
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1527203.31542984
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_18_1527203_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1527203.31524792
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1527203.31529728
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_18_1527203_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1527203.31524890
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1527203.31532050
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_18_1527203_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1527203.31524988
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1527203.31525334
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_18_1527203_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1527203.31524794
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1527203.31532028
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_18_1527203_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1527203.31524792
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1527203.31524870
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1527203.31526776
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_18_1527203_45</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1527203.31524762
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1527203.31525118
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1527203.31526108
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1527203.31529344
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_18_1527203_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1527203.31524792
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1527203.31525796
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_18_1527203_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1527203.31524792
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1527203.31524930
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_18_1527203_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1527203.31524794
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1527203.31530388
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_18_1527203_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1527203.31524792
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1527203.31525178
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1527203.31525554
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_18_1527203_44</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1527203.31524988
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1527203.31525648
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1527203.31530862
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_18_1527203_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1527203.31524792
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1527203.31524948
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_18_1527203_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1527203.31524792
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1527203.31528398
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_18_1527203_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1527203.31524792
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1527203.31524870
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1527203.31528646
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_18_1527203_38</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1527203.31524794
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1527203.31532048
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_18_1527203_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1527203.31524988
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1527203.31532178
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_18_1527203_43</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1527203.31524792
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1527203.31525428
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_18_1527203_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1527203.31524818
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1527203.31526114
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_18_1527203_28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1527203.31524792
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1527203.31525178
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1527203.31529026
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_18_1527203_33</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1527203.31524818
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1527203.31525332
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1527203.31531300
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_18_1527203_35</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1527203.31524792
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1527203.31529718
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_18_1527203_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1527203.31524792
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1527203.31525424
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_18_1527203_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1527203.31525076
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1527203.31525818
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_18_1527203.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1527203.31524900
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_18_1527203.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1527203.31525000
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_18_1527203.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1527203.31525526
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_18_1527203.14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1527203.31524888
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1527203.31526436
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_18_1527203.18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1527203.31524988
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1527203.31525620
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1527203.31525744
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1527203.31528022
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1527203.31525648
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1527203.31530862
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1527203.31525846
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1527203.31525334
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1527203.31532178
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_18_1527203.12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1527203.31524890
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1527203.31532050
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_18_1527203.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1527203.31524792
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1527203.31525796
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1527203.31524926
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1527203.31526754
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1527203.31531614
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1527203.31528030
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1527203.31532136
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1527203.31538062
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1527203.31524882
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1527203.31525320
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1527203.31529056
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1527203.31542984
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1527203.31528398
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1527203.31529728
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1527203.31529718
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1527203.31524870
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1527203.31528646
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1527203.31526776
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1527203.31527698
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1527203.31525006
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1527203.31526866
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1527203.31525428
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1527203.31525178
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1527203.31529026
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1527203.31525554
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1527203.31525878
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1527203.31524930
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1527203.31524948
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1527203.31525424
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_18_1527203.15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1527203.31524868
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_18_1527203.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1527203.31524818
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1527203.31526114
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1527203.31526616
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1527203.31525332
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1527203.31531300
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1527203.31525492
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1527203.31524852
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_18_1527203.13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1527203.31524878
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_18_1527203.16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1527203.31524834
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_18_1527203.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1527203.31524794
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1527203.31524850
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1527203.31525952
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1527203.31530388
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1527203.31532048
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1527203.31532028
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_18_1527203.19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1527203.31529072
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1527203.31532684
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_18_1527203.17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1527203.31525668
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_18_1527203.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1527203.31524762
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1527203.31525118
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1527203.31526108
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1527203.31529344
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1527203.31534770
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1527203.31532326
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_18_1527203.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1527203.31524906
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_18_1527203.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1527203.31526276
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_18_1527203.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1527203.31525076
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1527203.31525818
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_18_1527203.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1527203.31524912
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_18_1527203.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1527203.31526446
</commentlist>
</conversation>
