Leaderboard

! Moderator Note The topic is SCOTUS leaks, not the details of the cases.

No need to apologise. I haven't found you at fault at any point. We respectfully disagree, that's all. I'm very passionate about interpretations of QM. I'm very emphatic about points I've thought about, and read about, for many years. Sometimes, when I see what I perceive as a fundamental misunderstanding of both the facts and the theory, I take issue with it, but in no way it should be understood as hostility. I've seen people's careers destroyed for valiently going down this particular rabbit hole, never to be seen again. It's no joke to me.

Sorry about the last couple posts; I went a little overboard. I'm an unreconstructed realist in the 19th-century mold, for whatever that's worth, so I find a lot of the modern ideas horrifying. But I can't disprove anything you've said, so I'll try to keep my mouth shut for a while. Thanks for chatting.

The madman is probably Aleksandr Dugin, whose book Foundations of Geopolitics had a powerful influence on Putin and Russian leadership generally. If you read a summary, it makes clear that US/NATO ceding any sovereign territory to Putin is a bad path to get on. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foundations_of_Geopolitics The book expresses an ideology called Neo-Eurasianism. The ideology of the Eurasianism was partially incorporated into a new Neo-Eurasianism movement after the 1991 fall of the Soviet Union. It considers Russia to be culturally closer to Asia than to Western Europe. This ideology was influenced by political theorist Aleksandr Dugin to publish in 1997 a magnum opus by the name of Foundations of Geopolitics. He later founded the Eurasia Party on the Russian political scene.[12] Political scientist Anton Shekhovtsov defines Dugin's version of Neo-Eurasianism as "a form of a fascist ideology centred on the idea of revolutionising the Russian society and building a totalitarian, Russia-dominated Eurasian Empire that would challenge and eventually defeat its eternal adversary represented by the United States and its Atlanticist allies, thus bringing about a new ‘golden age’ of global political and cultural illiberalism". In a sense. Though maybe sleepy indifference would be a better term than appeasement. I think maybe US and NATO lulled themselves into believing that giving Russia a seaport would pacify it and, hey, the Crimea peninsula was mostly ethnic Russians anyway so why fuss. Not sure if there was much awareness that Crimea was a domino falling.

They are the same, because rotation around a single bond is possible - unless there are specific steric hindrances from very large substituents, which a methyl group is not. Don't forget that the bonds in an sp3 hybridised C atom project in 3D, towards the corners of a tetrahedron. They don't stick out at 90 degrees in a plane, as shown in typical 2D representations like those in your example. If there were a double bond between C2 and C3 then rotation would not be possible and you could then speak of cis and trans isomers, depending on whether the substituents were on the same side or on opposite sides. In an sp2 hybridised C. atom, there are 3 bonds at 120degrees to each other in a plane, one or more of the bonds having some double bond character.

+1 You are moving into the territory that I meant when I said Every entanglement is different and depends partly upon the conditions of the entanglement. Ghideon's example is classical. But with the wife, socks, gloves and so on you need at least the information that they are married, there is a pair of socks of gloves. Otherwise when the box of gloves is opened the discovery that it contains a right hand glove is of no extra meaning. QM is no differnt in this respect, but obviously infomation required is different. For instance in the example Bangstom wants to avoid you know that two electrons in a hydrogen molecule are entangled, form Physics theory. But how do you move one away from the other without interacting (observing) with one or both and destroying the entanglement ?

I think it's interesting to try and find analogies that reproduce some of the peculiarities of QM. What I usually feel is that some analogies manage to reproduce one aspect of it, while others are good at reproducing another. But all of them generally fail at reproducing all features completely. Incompatible questions are questions you can't ask at the same time (impossibility of simultaneous interacting measurements) and for which you cannot prepare states perfectly defined in both answers (impossibility of filtering measurements that produce definite values for both.) After you introduced your husband and wife analogy, I started thinking of a similar extension for the analogy corresponding to another, incompatible observable. I was thinking along the terms of: When both of them got married they signed a pre-nup contract, and one of them owns a house. But for some reason the contract was ambiguous as to the ownership of real estate. So until the question is legally settled, it is not defined whether the house belongs to the family of the deceased, or to the surviving one. Something like that. I will take more than one look at your version of the analogy, but for the time being I'll tell you that I was thinking in similar terms. Only with the undefined property being ownership over one object --or the right to use it, if you prefer. I think it gets close to the idea somehow, although the analogy becomes more and more complicated as you try to fit more aspects of actual QM.

I agree that your example shows compatible observables. I’ll see if I understand compatible and incompatible by modifying your example slightly by using an observable “owner of exactly two pets” instead of the observable “homeless”: Alice and Bob are married and together they own two pets, a cat Charlie and a dog Dave. Alice and Charlie travel together to a remote location. Bob and Dave stay together at home. Assume we are observers staying with Bob and Dave and we are allowed to observe one random event; the death of Bob or Dave. We have two possible outcomes: Bob dies: This means the marriage ends; if Alice is alive she is now a widow and not married. But we do not know, and can’t know, if Alice owns exactly two pets. The observable “owner of exactly two pets” is “in superposition”* since we do not know if Charlie the cat is alive. Dave dies: This means that Bob’s marriage is in “superposition”; we do not know if he is a widower or a husband since we do not know if Alice is alive. But we know for sure that he does not own exactly two pets at this time. He can own one or zero, but not exactly two. If Alice is alive and well she is also is also affected she is now not "owner of exactly two pets". Some notes: There is no faster than light communication or signals. Special relativity seems to hold; Dave and Bob are close together in the same frame of reference. All observers, moving or not relative to Dave and Bob, will agree on who died first. This is not necessarily a good analogy; main purpose if to test my understanding of compatible / incompatible observables. There are loopholes and limitations, feel free to reject or improve the analogy or my understating of incompatible observers. (I think I require some reading of the mathematics to understand this further.) *) Not sure of the "superposition" is correct term here. Using "" since it is an analogy and not QM.

I'm sorry Have you come across reaction-diffusion dynamics ? https://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/acsomega.1c04269 However thank you for the other worthwhile contributions to the discussion +1 Welcome to SF Please note you have 1 hour to edit any posting. Additionally new members have a limit of 5 posts in thier first 24 hour, which is a seriously good spam limiting precaution. If by editing equations you actually mean writing them, this is the only website (since the demise of the old all-about-circuits) that offers direct super and subscript. This is really useful. You can also use Charmap.exe (Arial) to get greek and other alphabets and quite a few maths characters such as pi, square root and arrows. The site also parses MATHML quite well enclose your code in "[math} and [/math]" tags. You can use commercial or some free online equation editors such as and copy/paste them into SF. https://latex.codecogs.com/eqneditor/editor.php or http://www.sciweavers.org/free-online-latex-equation-editor The equation editor in MS Word does not work here.