Well Charlton have sold out

All advertisments are hidden for logged in members, why not log in/register?

I understand the transport problems/start time and such BUT a chance to reach the FA Cup Semi's for the first time in ages (I can't ever remember seeing them in one going back to early sixties) against 3rd Division opposition, I would have been astonished if they hadn't sold out.

In my 50+ years of watching us I reckon this is only the 6th QF I've seen us in and all the previous 5 have been against top flight teams, so I'll be, likewise, bemused if we don't sell nearly all our tickets as well when we've got such a good chance of another SF.

Roll on Sunday.

They reached the FA cup quarters in 2005/6 and had a home tie against Boro.
I understand the transport problems/start time and such BUT a chance to reach the FA Cup Semi's for the first time in ages (I can't ever remember seeing them in one going back to early sixties) against 3rd Division opposition, I would have been astonished if they hadn't sold out.

In my 50+ years of watching us I reckon this is only the 6th QF I've seen us in and all the previous 5 have been against top flight teams, so I'll be, likewise, bemused if we don't sell nearly all our tickets as well when we've got such a good chance of another SF.

Roll on Sunday.

They got to a quarter final in 2006 andd had a reasonable home draw. I agree with your sentiment in a way, but still think it is good work shiftingttickets so quickly in the circumstances.
 



Nah, come on lads, Sunday, 12 o clock and no trains...that's a great effort..especially considering the season they're having.

I know they'll be thinking they've got a great chance of progressing...let's help make it a great atmosphere!

UTB!
 
we use both, we do play in red, the way we have been playing in the league haven't been saying it to often,will be on sunday hopefully when we are winning

Way your performing in the league I'd have thought you'd be requesting a move to the twats thread :D
 
When I started following football in 1970, Charlton's nickname was the Valiants

At one point, especially during the 60's and 70's, we were the valiants, robins and addicks! I think it was in the 90's the fans voted to just use our original nickname the addicks and drop the other two.

Regarding sunday, I am driving over from stockport but need to park near the station, can any blades advise if there is any street parking available near by?

Really looking forward to this one and should be a cracking atmosphere!
 
South Stand sold out for sure.

KOP not many decent seats left to get and there is only the Family Stand left.

We should beat the attendance for the Forest game.
 
I understand the transport problems/start time and such BUT a chance to reach the FA Cup Semi's for the first time in ages (I can't ever remember seeing them in one going back to early sixties) against 3rd Division opposition, I would have been astonished if they hadn't sold out.

Charlton haven't been in a Cup semi final since they won it in 1947.

They are just about as bad at Cups as we are - though they have at least won it in living memory...
 
At one point, especially during the 60's and 70's, we were the valiants, robins and addicks! I think it was in the 90's the fans voted to just use our original nickname the addicks and drop the other two.

Regarding sunday, I am driving over from stockport but need to park near the station, can any blades advise if there is any street parking available near by?

Really looking forward to this one and should be a cracking atmosphere!
None whatsoever but there is a pay and display one adjacent.

If free parking is your thing and you actually need to go to the station, park up at Meadowhall and get train in and back. Easier away afterwards and chances of you having to pay on train less than 30%
 
Charlton haven't been in a Cup semi final since they won it in 1947.

They are just about as bad at Cups as we are - though they have at least won it in living memory...

That's not fair.

There must be a United fan in his 90's who remembers our win in 1925 :-)
 
Your point being?!

<------ Look here

My point being that at the macroscopic scale we are used to two broad types of phenomena: waves and particles. Briefly, particles are localised phenomena which transport both mass and energy as they move, while waves are de-localised phenomena (that is they are spread-out in space) which carry energy but no mass as they move. Physical objects that one can touch are particle-like phenomena (e.g. cricket balls), while ripples on a lake (for example) are waves (note that there is no net transport of water: hence no net transport of mass).

If we were to follow the approach suggested by Schrodinger, which was to postulate a function which would vary in both time and space in a wave-like manner (the so-called wavefunction) and which would carry within it information about a particle or system. The time-dependent Schrodinger equation allows us to deterministically predict the behaviour of the wavefunction over time, once we know its environment. The information concerning environment is in the form of the potential which would be experienced by the particle according to classical mechanics.

Whenever we make a measurement on a Quantum system, the results are dictated by the wavefunction at the time at which the measurement is made. It turns out that for each possible quantity we might want to measure (an observable) there is a set of special wavefunctions (known as eigenfunctions) which will always return the same value (an eigenvalue) for the observable. e.g.....

EIGENFUNCTION always returns EIGENVALUE

psi_1(x,t) a_1

psi_2(x,t) a_2

psi_3(x,t) a_3

psi_4(x,t) a_4

etc.... etc....

where (x,t) is standard notation to remind us that the eigenfunctions psi_n(x,t)

are dependent upon position (x) and time (t).

Even if the wavefunction happens not to be one of these eigenfunctions, it is always possible to think of it as a unique superposition of two or more of the eigenfunctions, e.g....

psi(x,t) = c_1*psi_1(x,t) + c_2*psi_2(x,t) + c_3*psi_3(x,t) + ....

where c_1, c_2,.... are coefficients which define the composition of the state.

If a measurement is made on such a state, then the following two things will happen:

The wavefunction will suddenly change into one or other of the eigenfunctions making it up. This is known as the collapse of the wavefunction and the probability of the wavefunction collapsing into a particular eigenfunction depends on how much that eigenfunction contributed to the original superposition. More precisely, the probability that a given eigenfunction will be chosen is proportional to the square of the coefficient of that eigenfunction in the superposition, normalised so that the overall probability of collapse is unity (i.e. the sum of the squares of all the coefficients is 1).

The measurement will return the eigenvalue associated with the eigenfunction into which the wavefunction has collapsed. Clearly therefore the measurement can only ever yield an eigenvalue (even though the original state was not an eigenfunction), and it will do so with a probability determined by the composition of the original superposition. There are clearly only a limited number of discrete values which the observable can take. We say that the system is quantised (which means essentially the same as discretised).

Once the wavefunction has collapsed into one particular eigenfunction it will stay in that state until it is perturbed by the outside world. The fundamental limitation of Quantum Mechanics lies in the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle which tells us that certain quantum measurements disturb the system and push the wavefunction back into a superposed state once again.

For example, consider a measurement of the position of a particle. Before the measurement is made the particle wavefunction is a superposition of several position eigenfunctions, each corresponding to a different possible position for the particle. When the measurement is made the wavefunction collapses into one of these eigenfunctions, with a probability determined by the composition of the original superposition. One particular position will be recorded by the measurement: the one corresponding to the eigenfunction chosen by the particle.

If a further position measurement is made shortly afterwards the wavefunction will still be the same as when the first measurement was made (because nothing has happened to change it), and so the same position will be recorded. However, if a measurement of the momentum of the particle is now made, the particle wavefunction will change to one of the momentum eigenfunctions (which are not the same as the position eigenfunctions). Thus, if a still later measurement of the position is made, the particle will once again be in a superposition of possible position eigenfunctions, so the position recorded by the measurement will once again come down to probability.

What all this means is that one cannot know both the position and the momentum of a particle at the same time because when you measure one quantity you randomise the value of the other, henceforth while a pound might be too much for tight Yorkshire folk to pay, in affluent areas like Richmond upon Thames and to cash rich folk like your good self, it may be perfectly acceptable. Hope that’s much clearer now. :)
 
Last edited:
Why couldn't you just say that first time round, Jon Bon ?!

Although quite what effect the chaos introduction of a Yorkshireman to Richmond Upon Thames has on your quantum theory remains to be seen.*

*The answer lies in the 0114 number I have acquired for the Blades switchboard, where a polite operator normally puts me through to the ticket office. Either that or I manage to get one of them to call me.
 



My point being that at the macroscopic scale we are used to two broad types of phenomena: waves and particles. Briefly, particles are localised phenomena which transport both mass and energy as they move, while waves are de-localised phenomena (that is they are spread-out in space) which carry energy but no mass as they move. Physical objects that one can touch are particle-like phenomena (e.g. cricket balls), while ripples on a lake (for example) are waves (note that there is no net transport of water: hence no net transport of mass).

If we were to follow the approach suggested by Schrodinger, which was to postulate a function which would vary in both time and space in a wave-like manner (the so-called wavefunction) and which would carry within it information about a particle or system. The time-dependent Schrodinger equation allows us to deterministically predict the behaviour of the wavefunction over time, once we know its environment. The information concerning environment is in the form of the potential which would be experienced by the particle according to classical mechanics.

Whenever we make a measurement on a Quantum system, the results are dictated by the wavefunction at the time at which the measurement is made. It turns out that for each possible quantity we might want to measure (an observable) there is a set of special wavefunctions (known as eigenfunctions) which will always return the same value (an eigenvalue) for the observable. e.g.....

EIGENFUNCTION always returns EIGENVALUE

psi_1(x,t) a_1

psi_2(x,t) a_2

psi_3(x,t) a_3

psi_4(x,t) a_4

etc.... etc....

where (x,t) is standard notation to remind us that the eigenfunctions psi_n(x,t)

are dependent upon position (x) and time (t).

Even if the wavefunction happens not to be one of these eigenfunctions, it is always possible to think of it as a unique superposition of two or more of the eigenfunctions, e.g....

psi(x,t) = c_1*psi_1(x,t) + c_2*psi_2(x,t) + c_3*psi_3(x,t) + ....

where c_1, c_2,.... are coefficients which define the composition of the state.

If a measurement is made on such a state, then the following two things will happen:

The wavefunction will suddenly change into one or other of the eigenfunctions making it up. This is known as the collapse of the wavefunction and the probability of the wavefunction collapsing into a particular eigenfunction depends on how much that eigenfunction contributed to the original superposition. More precisely, the probability that a given eigenfunction will be chosen is proportional to the square of the coefficient of that eigenfunction in the superposition, normalised so that the overall probability of collapse is unity (i.e. the sum of the squares of all the coefficients is 1).

The measurement will return the eigenvalue associated with the eigenfunction into which the wavefunction has collapsed. Clearly therefore the measurement can only ever yield an eigenvalue (even though the original state was not an eigenfunction), and it will do so with a probability determined by the composition of the original superposition. There are clearly only a limited number of discrete values which the observable can take. We say that the system is quantised (which means essentially the same as discretised).

Once the wavefunction has collapsed into one particular eigenfunction it will stay in that state until it is perturbed by the outside world. The fundamental limitation of Quantum Mechanics lies in the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle which tells us that certain quantum measurements disturb the system and push the wavefunction back into a superposed state once again.

For example, consider a measurement of the position of a particle. Before the measurement is made the particle wavefunction is a superposition of several position eigenfunctions, each corresponding to a different possible position for the particle. When the measurement is made the wavefunction collapses into one of these eigenfunctions, with a probability determined by the composition of the original superposition. One particular position will be recorded by the measurement: the one corresponding to the eigenfunction chosen by the particle.

If a further position measurement is made shortly afterwards the wavefunction will still be the same as when the first measurement was made (because nothing has happened to change it), and so the same position will be recorded. However, if a measurement of the momentum of the particle is now made, the particle wavefunction will change to one of the momentum eigenfunctions (which are not the same as the position eigenfunctions). Thus, if a still later measurement of the position is made, the particle will once again be in a superposition of possible position eigenfunctions, so the position recorded by the measurement will once again come down to probability.

What all this means is that one cannot know both the position and the momentum of a particle at the same time because when you measure one quantity you randomise the value of the other, henceforth while a pound might be too much for tight Yorkshire folk to pay, in affluent areas like Richmond upon Thames and to cash rich folk like your good self, it may be perfectly acceptable. Hope that’s much clearer now. :)

Applying the same theory to Sundays game, i think we'll win 1-0. Jackson 89' minute free kick ;)
 
Applying the same theory to Sundays game, i think we'll win 1-0. Jackson 89' minute free kick ;)

If I may? I believe that you have failed to take into account position and momentum and the corroborative effects of the wave function after action.

One quick glance at the following......

notation: x=position, p=momentum

action | wavefunction after action
-------------------------|-----------------------------------------------------
start | superposition of x and/or p eigenfunctions
measure x | x eigenfunction = superposition of p eigenfunctions
measure x again | same x eigenfunction
measure p | p eigenfunction = superposition of x eigenfunctions
measure x again | x eigenfunction (not necessarily same one as before)


Should tell you that Jackson will be subbed in the 78th minute following Scougall's 67th minute, 18 yard drive into the bottom corner, giving us the 1-0 win. Easy mistake to make CG so no shame there.

(Big thanks to Warnock's Box Blade for pointing that out to me... :))
 
At one point, especially during the 60's and 70's, we were the valiants, robins and addicks! I think it was in the 90's the fans voted to just use our original nickname the addicks and drop the other two.

Regarding sunday, I am driving over from stockport but need to park near the station, can any blades advise if there is any street parking available near by?

Really looking forward to this one and should be a cracking atmosphere!

Whenever I drive to the Lane, I always park on Eyre Lane (when you see a Decathlon sports shop just off St Mary's Roundabout, your close!). It is a pay & display, but the machines haven't worked for a while now & I've never gotten a ticket on match day (especially Sundays). Easy enough to get away after the match & as long as you aren't wearing your colours (or at least covering them up... unfortunately we do have some knobheads) you should be fine! Its only a 5 - 10 minute walk from the stadium too.

Safe journeys.
 
My point being that at the macroscopic scale we are used to two broad types of phenomena: waves and particles. Briefly, particles are localised phenomena which transport both mass and energy as they move, while waves are de-localised phenomena (that is they are spread-out in space) which carry energy but no mass as they move. Physical objects that one can touch are particle-like phenomena (e.g. cricket balls), while ripples on a lake (for example) are waves (note that there is no net transport of water: hence no net transport of mass).

If we were to follow the approach suggested by Schrodinger, which was to postulate a function which would vary in both time and space in a wave-like manner (the so-called wavefunction) and which would carry within it information about a particle or system. The time-dependent Schrodinger equation allows us to deterministically predict the behaviour of the wavefunction over time, once we know its environment. The information concerning environment is in the form of the potential which would be experienced by the particle according to classical mechanics.

Whenever we make a measurement on a Quantum system, the results are dictated by the wavefunction at the time at which the measurement is made. It turns out that for each possible quantity we might want to measure (an observable) there is a set of special wavefunctions (known as eigenfunctions) which will always return the same value (an eigenvalue) for the observable. e.g.....

EIGENFUNCTION always returns EIGENVALUE

psi_1(x,t) a_1

psi_2(x,t) a_2

psi_3(x,t) a_3

psi_4(x,t) a_4

etc.... etc....

where (x,t) is standard notation to remind us that the eigenfunctions psi_n(x,t)

are dependent upon position (x) and time (t).

Even if the wavefunction happens not to be one of these eigenfunctions, it is always possible to think of it as a unique superposition of two or more of the eigenfunctions, e.g....

psi(x,t) = c_1*psi_1(x,t) + c_2*psi_2(x,t) + c_3*psi_3(x,t) + ....

where c_1, c_2,.... are coefficients which define the composition of the state.

If a measurement is made on such a state, then the following two things will happen:

The wavefunction will suddenly change into one or other of the eigenfunctions making it up. This is known as the collapse of the wavefunction and the probability of the wavefunction collapsing into a particular eigenfunction depends on how much that eigenfunction contributed to the original superposition. More precisely, the probability that a given eigenfunction will be chosen is proportional to the square of the coefficient of that eigenfunction in the superposition, normalised so that the overall probability of collapse is unity (i.e. the sum of the squares of all the coefficients is 1).

The measurement will return the eigenvalue associated with the eigenfunction into which the wavefunction has collapsed. Clearly therefore the measurement can only ever yield an eigenvalue (even though the original state was not an eigenfunction), and it will do so with a probability determined by the composition of the original superposition. There are clearly only a limited number of discrete values which the observable can take. We say that the system is quantised (which means essentially the same as discretised).

Once the wavefunction has collapsed into one particular eigenfunction it will stay in that state until it is perturbed by the outside world. The fundamental limitation of Quantum Mechanics lies in the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle which tells us that certain quantum measurements disturb the system and push the wavefunction back into a superposed state once again.

For example, consider a measurement of the position of a particle. Before the measurement is made the particle wavefunction is a superposition of several position eigenfunctions, each corresponding to a different possible position for the particle. When the measurement is made the wavefunction collapses into one of these eigenfunctions, with a probability determined by the composition of the original superposition. One particular position will be recorded by the measurement: the one corresponding to the eigenfunction chosen by the particle.

If a further position measurement is made shortly afterwards the wavefunction will still be the same as when the first measurement was made (because nothing has happened to change it), and so the same position will be recorded. However, if a measurement of the momentum of the particle is now made, the particle wavefunction will change to one of the momentum eigenfunctions (which are not the same as the position eigenfunctions). Thus, if a still later measurement of the position is made, the particle will once again be in a superposition of possible position eigenfunctions, so the position recorded by the measurement will once again come down to probability.

What all this means is that one cannot know both the position and the momentum of a particle at the same time because when you measure one quantity you randomise the value of the other, henceforth while a pound might be too much for tight Yorkshire folk to pay, in affluent areas like Richmond upon Thames and to cash rich folk like your good self, it may be perfectly acceptable. Hope that’s much clearer now. :)
Remind me, how do I do long division without a calculator?
 
Whenever I drive to the Lane, I always park on Eyre Lane (when you see a Decathlon sports shop just off St Mary's Roundabout, your close!). It is a pay & display, but the machines haven't worked for a while now & I've never gotten a ticket on match day (especially Sundays). Easy enough to get away after the match & as long as you aren't wearing your colours (or at least covering them up... unfortunately we do have some knobheads) you should be fine! Its only a 5 - 10 minute walk from the stadium too.

Safe journeys.

Cheers raul and switchblade for the info. Not bothered if its a pay and display, I just need to be parked somewhere near the station so I can put my son on a train after the match, so Eyre lane sounds fine. Thanks again :)
 
The best bit about this segregation is, how on earth is anyone from H block supposed to get into the westfield corner without scaling an 8 foot fence. Completely bonkers.
 
Cheers raul and switchblade for the info. Not bothered if its a pay and display, I just need to be parked somewhere near the station so I can put my son on a train after the match, so Eyre lane sounds fine. Thanks again :)
Still think you might be better parking your car at Meadowhall, right next to Junction 34 of the M1 plently of free parking, get the supertram to Sheffield Station, takes about 10 mins, then 10 mins walk to the ground, then you can leave you son at the station, and get the supertram back to Meadowhall
 
Still think you might be better parking your car at Meadowhall, right next to Junction 34 of the M1 plently of free parking, get the supertram to Sheffield Station, takes about 10 mins, then 10 mins walk to the ground, then you can leave you son at the station, and get the supertram back to Meadowhall

Big Q Park next at the train station 10-15 mins walk from The Lane, not bad prices in there either
 



All advertisments are hidden for logged in members, why not log in/register?

All advertisments are hidden for logged in members, why not log in/register?

Back
Top Bottom