Leaderboard

Objective collapse of individual particle wave functions. With the same caveat that it's possible but not proven. Non-locality is needed if one wants to retain realism. Non-realism is needed if one wants to retain locality.

No I cannot think of any other example of non-locality. As far as I know, no other effects require that the outcome of an event at a specific point is determined explicitly on what happens at another point, unless there is a transfer of information. And relativity explicitly states that information is constrained to transfer at speeds not exceeding c . So non-locality is not just unproven yet, it is actually not needed; not even for entanglement.

Reverse-image search produced this: https://www.cam.ac.uk/research/news/black-hole-powered-jets-fuel-star-formation It seems to be the result of a super-massive BH swallowing a region of star formation and producing as a result a pair of powerful jets of ejected material. The central bright region is probably the accretion disk of said BH. Not every spot of light is the BH. Black holes can't be seen directly. You can infer their position from gravitational lensing or from behaviour of matter around them.

The bead would fall down immediately if the bird weren't attached to it. The torque from the bird's weight pushes two points on the inner face of the bead against the pole: the upper edge on the far side and the lower edge on the near side. The only thing holding the bead up is static friction from that contact. When the bird is bouncing, it gets upward momentum (and inward rotation) from the spring and goes into free-fall every time its beak about to hit the pole. Then its weight and the resulting torque are temporarily removed from the bead, so the bead loses contact with the pole and falls until the bird stops rising. It should fall even faster when the spring gets curved the other way (concave up) and pushes it down, although that may also limit how far it moves on each swing by pushing it against the pole the other way. EDIT: You can see the bead alternately leaning both ways in the slow-motion section toward the end of the video. The guy says the impact of the beak pushes the pole away from the bead, but I think that's just an entertaining effect. It speeds up the oscillation, but I don't see why it would affect the bead in any other way. Now they just need to make a bird that goes up the pole. 😁

First of all, what is "residual" herd immunity? Second, individuals don't develop 'herd' immunity. Herds develop herd immunity.

No. The vaccines for Covid do not have dead viruses, but regardless the answer is no.

And I explained that nobody was even saying this. So you were beating a dead horse. So let's try to explain it once again. As a starting point we take a Bell experiment, that closes the communication loophole. This means: the measurements cannot influence each other with a light signal, or any slower signal the decision which spin direction will be measured is taken after the particles left the entanglement source So there can't be any causal connection between measurement device A, B, and the entanglement source. Said otherwise, no communication is possible between these 3 components. To make the example as simple as possible we also assume that detectors and entanglement source do not move relative to each other, and the entanglement source is exactly in the middle, so the measurements are exactly at the same time in the rest frame of the experiment. Are you with me so far? Maybe Joigus' drawing helps: Just take Alice and Bob as other names for the detectors. So now we ask ourselves what Carla and Daniel will see. Well, it is in the drawing: in Carla's frame of reference the measurement at Bob's side is first, for Daniel's FoR it was Alice's side. It is just a question of perspective, not of changing anything with the experiment of course. Got that too? Now according SR observers can disagree on the timely order of events, when these events are space-like separated. But that is exactly what the closing of the communication loophole means. But SR also states that Carla and Daniel should at least agree on the physical process. But they don't: according to Carla, Bob's measurement determined the outcome of Alice's according to Daniel, Alice's measurement determined the outcome of Bob's But these cannot both be true. So the conclusion is that there is no 'determination relation' between the measurements. So no signal, FTL or not. For Alice and Bob of course nothing changes. In their FoR the measurements are simultaneous, just as before. So Carla or Daniel have no influence at all on the experiment. But they should agree at least on the physics.

No, it does not follow. The paradox does not say 1 ball = 2 balls any more than chopping a ball in half to give you 2 pieces says that 1 = 2.

I wonder, if it’s that diffuse, then how is it better than just putting the solar panels on the ground?

Is it a PC or is it a laptop? Laptops usually have a built-in touch pad that acts as a mouse. If not disabled, your thumbs can run across it and cause the cursor to move.

Psychology is, at the end of the day, a soft science, a very, very soft science. Some say much of its findings can't be replicated which is a serious setback to any field wanting to claim the IS A SCIENCE badge. If I'm way off the mark, please someone do kindly educate me!