Leaderboard

The "Climate has always been changing" argument actually has it backwards; like the vehicle with bad steering that is more likely to run off the road and crash, it is a climate system that is susceptible to change that is most at risk of change from things humans do. The planet is warming - multiple different measures and indicators all show it. And - " There are well-understood physical mechanisms by which changes in the amounts of greenhouse gases cause climate changes. " (The US National Academy of Sciences). The nasty bit of personal slander has no place in these discussions; if you have evidence of serious criminal behaviour, you should inform the police. If not, it is your behaviour that looks criminal. Fake accusations from behind the safety of internet anonymity - I'm surprised it hasn't been deleted by moderators. I recommend the Royal Society or National Academy of Sciences for non-partisan expert assessment; making sense of complex science for policy makers and public is their job. Their exemplary reputations are earned. The people they draw upon are not incompetent or biased. Or part of a conspiracy or driven by any political agenda apart from that of pursuing excellence in science for the benefit of humanity. I see the science getting it mostly right. I see real world consequences of climate change in the landscape around me - weeds that had previously been kept in check by heavy frosts becoming rampant because there are fewer frosts, bushfire hazard reduction made more difficult by warmer winters and the fire hazard 'season' coming earlier and finishing later - that's with about half a degree C of average warming (of personally experienced change in this location). 3 to 6 degrees is terrifying to contemplate. Sure, if your region is mostly cold, rarely hot, that might not seem so terrifying, but most of the world's (too large) population lives in places that get very hot, where a few degrees can make the barely bearable conditions unbearable. People ordinarily have a right to believe what they like, but if they hold positions of trust and responsibility ignoring or rejecting expert advice can be negligence. Should lives and fortunes be harmed, that can become criminal neglegence.

As Strange already noticed, there is no faster than light 'communication' involved. What is the case is that those experimenters showed you can derive which colour balls are at the remote side, by measuring the colour of the balls on their own side. Of course it is more complicated than that in this experiment, but it is the basic principle. But here is a thought for you: if those experimenters do not understand entanglement, why then were they able to do this? And also, there are already more technologies based on entanglement. How could these technologies be developed when nobody understands entanglement? No: the mathematics of entanglement is clear and unambiguous. The only problem for us is to picture how the correlation in QM can be stronger than classically possible. No. What you have in your pocketsess is a fact that I cannot derive from theory: it needs an observation. Obviously you do not understand the difference between simple observations and established (in the case of entanglement) scientific theories. And I don't know everything about the beginning of time. But I do know a little which cosmological theories are more or less established, and which ones are still (very) hypothetical. There is no problem that the time between the measurements can be infinitesimal small. Compare with the red/green balls: how short can the time be between me opening my box, and the alien opening his box, and we still see that the measurements are correlated? Again you suppose that there is causation between my measurement and that of the alien, but there isn't. There is only correlation. And this does not violate physics at all: that entanglement should exist was first derived theoretically (Bell's theorem). But in those days technology was not developed enough to really test this. Only one or two decades later, the experiments were done, and they succeeded: these experiments proved, that the understanding of the theoretical physicists was correct. And now you say that nobody understands entanglement? Entanglement is a very clear case where first there was the theoretical prediction, i.e. the understanding, and then the confirmation by experiment.

When the left gets extreme, people get healthcare. When the right gets extreme, people get shot. Claims of equivalence are absurd, as are those making them.

So if I change the charge of one plate, somebody can measure an instantaneous change at the other plate. Wouldn't that be a violation of special relativity? @Menan You show that you do not understand entanglement. Let's go one step at a time. First a classical example. I have a bag of balls, they are all red or green. Without looking I pick two balls, and I put them in separate boxes. I keep one, and send the other far away. Then I open my box, and see it is a green ball. What can I conclude about the colour of the ball in the remote box? Right, nothing. And why? Because there was nothing special with my picks. It could have been two reds, two greens, or one red and green. Now I pick, looking of course, one red and one green, and put them in two separate boxes. So what I did here is 'entangle' the balls. Now I shuffle the two boxes, so that I do not know which one is which. If I open one, and see that it is red, I immediately know that the ball in the other box is green. And of course, this is independent on the distance. If I send the second box lightyears away, and only then open my box, I still know immediately what some alien sees when he opens his box. I know it because the observations are correlated. And the correlation already happened at the moment of my picks. That is the moment of entanglement. It is not when the boxes are opened. Now in quantum physics, there are processes where two particles pop out, which have e.g in one aspect always opposite values. Say the direction of spin. So if I measure the spin e.g. in a vertical direction, say it is 'up', then I immediately know that the other one will measure spin 'down', when also measured in the vertical direction. But as with the balls, the 'moment of entanglement' is when these particles popped into existence. But in quantum physics a few things are different: first, it is impossible to say which particle has which spin without measuring (it is as if I created the green and red balls, including their boxes, without knowing which ball is in which box). But as the two particles are entangled, if I measure both, the measurements will always be correlated. And there is nothing special with correlation: if I send one particle far away, and then measure my particle in the vertical direction, and the alien measures his particle in the same direction, I will always know what he measures: the opposite of my measurement. The 'spooky' aspect comes in when we do not know from each other in which direction we measure the spin. It can be vertical, horizontal, 30o, 45o, 55.3977o. What we find is that the correlation is stronger than one would expect if we would assume that the particles already had a definite spin from the beginning. But it still is correlation, not causation. As with the red and green balls, there is no direct causal relationship between my and the alien's observation. The causal relationship goes back to the moment of 'entanglement'. Everything afterwards is just correlation, and therefore cannot be used to transfer information. And because there is no causal relationship between my measurement of the spin of my particle, and the alien's measurement, I cannot use entanglement for sending information. And all this is very well understood by all quantum physicists, and is no secret at all.

Whilst Eise might spot this and give a better answer (His posts are usually very well thought out) here is a quick answer. Eise's text was stated to be classical spin. Quantum 'spin' is not the same. However it has the same property of chirality in that there is no absolute measure of handedness or chirality so If A measures the spin of a quantum particle and a (very) remote B is told (at the speed of light) the spin of my particle was up, he is no wiser unless he also has a means of determining which way the up arrow was pointing.

Another thing this whole FOX News v Don Lemon discussion misses is how much local news has been absorbed and shaped by pro-Trump Sinclair group. Most tend to see local news as less partisan, but it’s simply not (for 72% plus US households). https://www.vox.com/2018/4/6/17202824/sinclair-tribune-map I’m perfectly fine with that. Appreciate the exchange. Hope one day to do it face to face alongwith a few brews.

This comes down to Bell's Theorem, which showed that the probabilities of certain correlations could not be explained by a classical theory. If you measure the polarisation of a photon at any angle, it will either be "up" or "down" with respect to that angle, and an entangled photon will have the opposite polarisation. Then the question is, what if you could measure the polarisation at two different angles? What are the probabilities of the first one being "up" or "down" and the second one being "up" or "down" (for all the combinations). Bell showed that for a quantum system you will get different results than for a classical system (e.g. the red and balls in Eise's example, or the pairs of socks often used in examples). What makes it tricky is that measuring the polarisation at any angle "destroys" the polarisation information at the other angle. This is where entanglement comes in: we generate a pair of entangled photons and measure one angle on the first photon and a different angle on the second photon. We do this lots of times and check the probability of these matching. What this comes down to is that in the classical examples of the coloured balls, the actual colour in each box is fixed ("real") as soon as we put them in the boxes. In the quantum case, the values are not determined until we actually measure them (in other words: there are no hidden variables). This is a much better (and probably more accurate) explanation; it is quite detailed but only uses simple math: http://drchinese.com/David/Bell_Theorem_Easy_Math.htm

I barely know Lemon we’ll emough to care. CNN and Fox News can both be bad. CNN can even be worse than it used to be. They’re still hardly equivalent.

If that was true you wouldn't be saying it's wrong. It predicted increasingly variable weather and a rise in temperature. Both predictions have come true. Ok, not a bad idea. But most of the CO2 emissions and energy/ resource consumption is due to people in the developed world where the birthrate is pretty much the same as the death rate. It's in the developing world where birth control could achieve most, but they are not the ones creating the problem. Unless you plan to cull rich Westerners, you still need to reduce consumption.

Yup. Socialism v capitalism (even fascism as you put it). Little do Americans realize they are one of the more socialist societies in the western world. Schools and libraries, fire fighting and police. Disaster relief. The courts and public defenders. The VA, medicare and medicaid. Welfare and food stamps. The Transportation Safety Board. The FAA and the FCC. Radio and TV stations, cellular networks and internet providers use public air waves. Stadiums for sporting events. Harbors for ports, rights of way for trains. Roads are a social construct. If socialism is so horrible, then every road should be a toll road, where land is purchased and controlled by private interests for profit. Commercial and recreational fishing are social constructs. As is game hunting, foraging or parks. Hydro electric power and drinking water depend on public lands, rivers and lakes. Even wells are a social offering apart from surface rights and land ownership. Mining depends on exclusive access by corporations to public resources. Forestry and agriculture are heavily subsidized as are many secondary industries. Ranching is a socialist thing, after all it's done (broadly) on public land by private interests. Land use fees, stumpage, taxation and pollution controls are supposed to balance profits with job creation and spin offs. Tax breaks and relaxed pollution/safety regulations are looked upon as entitlements or privileged exceptions rather than compensation for losses of opportunity by others. Yet many who's dependency stem from those things, deny socialism even exists, so long as it's in their self interest. When religions use politics to convey their messages, they should pay property taxes like anyone else. Let's not forget the trade war, where governments put a hand in everyone's pocket by applying tariffs. Then of course the biggest, baddest taboo of all, universal healthcare and the slippery slope to the gulags, even though the majority of the countries that have it are capitalistic. If those are not a false equivalences, nothing is.

Nice word salad...

" Does a large gas plant fire threaten nearby towns due to atmospheric oxygen depletion " No

The idea that you would collapse into black hole if you got too close to the speed of light is mistaken. You have to go by the the idea that any object "in motion" is at rest with respect to itself. Even if you go with the idea of Relativistic mass, this mass increase happens only according to the frame which measures the object as moving. The object doesn't measure itself as moving, thus the object doesn't measure any increase in Relativistic mass, and has no reason to collapse into a black hole. An event like the collapse into a black hole would have to be consistent for all reference frames. Thus, if it doesn't form a black hole in it own frame, it doesn't in any other frame either. I don't see what having black holes at their centers has to do with limiting the velocity of galaxies (especially when the mass of those black holes is only a small fraction of the total mass of the galaxy). What the expansion of space does is allow for very distant galaxies to have apparent velocities that exceed that of light. If you go the Relativistic mass route, it is the rate at which the mass increases as the object nears c that is the issue, not the starting initial mass. It increases without limit. It doesn't matter if you started with 1 kg or the mass of a galaxy. While physics is steering away from the use of Relativistic mass, it is more of a convention issue and not a matter of changing how they think Relativity works. "Relativistic mass" is just considered as part of the energy of the object, which increases towards infinity as the object approaches c relative to you.

No, you can't. Photons do not have a rest frame. SR fails to describe what is happening at that speed. It does not represent an inertial frame of reference.

I wanted to post this comic somewhere as it is insightful about both science communication and quantum theory. This thread will do! http://www.smbc-comics.com/comic/the-talk-3

I doubt they get "crushed", but if they do it is probably more from shooting themselves in the foot than Trump shooting his mouth off.

Good summary (with a neat diagram) here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spacetime#Privileged_character_of_3+1_spacetime

The climate doesn't normally do that at the end there... We're already seeing the effects. Islands are disappearing. Short/Late winters, regular droughts, more northern hurricanes and brutal summers. What kind of sign are you waiting for?

I agree this does not make sense, and I truly believe that the people working with this do not understand fully either. We do not understand DNA either but have been modifying it for tens of thousands of years

I have been reading about this and frankly it seems to me that experimentation and even crude developments are being made in this field. So is there evidence that entangled particles at a distance are entangled instantly, which would be faster then light travel? Because this would mean communication between the farthest satellite Voyager I think would take the same time as a thought before expression. No one doing these experiments will or can be truly forthcoming because of company rules. Thanks

LOL another genius who says it cant be done. Clue information has already been sent this way, so do try to keep up

How, well some 5 or so billion years ago, the primordial Earth had no climate, it went from a ball of gas and dust to a lifeless solidifying mass with no atmosphere. However (tell Al Gore) volcanoes began spewing gasses and gradually a climate emerged. Thus climate change is older than the Earths climate. 20,000 years ago half of NJ and everything above that was under thousands of feet of ice. Since this mostly melted by 10,000 years ago, the current rate of melt is well, babyshit. So climate change is very real, and totally normal, and there is no change in the last 150 years that comes anywhere the last 20,000 years. Which is why the pedophile from Penn State only looked at the last 1000 years Luv ya kids