sethoflagos

Just to clarify this last bit. We're not descended from dinosaurs. About 320 million years ago the ancestors of both humans and dinosaurs were to be found among a group of related small lizard-like creatures. One of these had made a few readjustments to its skull to improve the efficiency of its bite. It may have been a creature called Archaeothyris found in Nova Scotia, or a species very closely akin to this, and we (along with all other mammals) are their descendents. Dinosaurs and all other modern reptiles are descended from one of the species that had not developed this advanced bite.

I don't think it works quite like that. Firstly for an ideal liquid mixture (methanol-ethanol mix is close to ideal) the partial pressures of each at any given temperature follow the simplest form of Raoult's Law (at pressures below 10 x atmospheric at least) partial pressure of i (Pi) = partial pressure of pure i (Pi*) x mole fraction of i (xi) So if xi is small, the partial pressure is small even at the boiling point of the pure substance (in the case of the most volatile component). If you boil a methanol-ethanol mix, yes, there will be a significantly higher mole fraction of methanol in the vapour phase and xi will fall a bit but for a single stage operation, the idea that what's left behind has a safe methanol level has made many, many people "mad, blind and dead - or was it blind, mad and dead" as my school chemistry teacher put it. When you add water to the mix, things get a little more complicated. For both the methanol-water and ethanol-water systems, the alcohols are more attracted to themselves than to the water molecules. So these are non-ideal mixes and follow a modified version of Raoult's law that includes an activity coefficient ai. Pi = xi ai Pi* For these 'positive deviation' mixtures the activity coefficient >1.0 and offsets the effects of low mole fraction by increasing the alcohol's volatility. ai for methanol in its aqueous mix is typically around 2 but rises steeply in low concentrations to about 3.5. So a 50-50 methanol-water mix (xi = 0.5) will actually boil close to the boiling point of pure methanol. ai for ethanol in its aqueous mix is actually a bit higher, ~4 in low concentrations, which pushes its volatility even closer to that of methanol, making the separation even more challenging. Now obviously I have no practical experience of distilling strong spirits for personal consumption and strongly advise against anyone even considering such a reckless practice. But if say I was in urgent need of quality surgical spirit for medical purposes, I think I'd consider starting off the separation with a very slow simmer, well below boiling point and let the vapour rich air currents rise by thermal convection into my condenser.

For a more complete descrption of the above, refer to: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BsNoiFj3wlw&ab_channel=NurdRage

Couldn't the inherent conservatism of the design calculations be intentional? Particularly given the potential for multiple fatalities if the structure failed, a safety factor of 10x would not be unusual (as with elevators etc.)

Eat That Question - The Grand Wazoo - Zappa

No idea why, but Laurence Kuhn seems to have decided to feed me a bunch of backup material The meat in this one is possibly best summarised in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wheeler–Feynman_absorber_theory (basis of Davies' PhD studies)

Such vitriol.

£10,000 per year a 'marginally tiny amount' compared to the £3,000 per person per year spent by the Department of Health and Social Care in England? You didn't check the sums before that post, did you.

I thought non-locality prevented local realism. So doesn't 'no local realism' imply non-locality?

Apparently they're charging over £150 ($180+) for 200 Benson & Hedges in the UK. In Lagos they've gone up recently to £10 per 200 (same brand, same quality) It does have a bearing on which country I choose to spend my time in. So the UK isn't just losing the cigarette duty, it's not getting any tax at all from me. But what do I know - they're the infallible masters of economic management, not me.

Find one that's both reliable and easy to live with. Same as any other partnership in life.

I've given you the links to Jeff Tollaksen's paper. Perhaps you could find the time to study it and then you'll have a better explanation than any I could give you.

What I'd like better is not having this thread derailed quite so much by off-topic soapboxing.

Based on my limited knowledge, I see no 'explanations' in quantum mechanics. Only (startlingly accurate) predictions of certain experimental observations. I think the only 'necessity' as far as the various interpretations are concerned is in being able to match those predictions..

To put some meat on the bones of the video I posted, most of the material Tollaksen refers to can be found in a paper 'New Insights on Emergence from the Perspective of Weak Values and Dynamical Non-locality', Journal of Physics: Conference Series 504 (2014) It's available for download at https://www.fetzer-franklin-fund.org/media/emqm13-time-symmetric-formulation-quantum-mechanics-weak-values-classical-limit-quantum-mechanics-2/ ... or via my attached copy (hope this not against the rules) Much of it is a little opaque for my level of comprehension, but I did find a few aha! moments. 1742-6596_504_1_0120292.pdf

Coincidently, a new video in the 'Closer to Truth' series that is highly relevant to many issues discussed above showed up on Youtube today. Key notes: Causality; Dynamic non-locality; Future impacts Present.

All is clear. Thanks!

Important dietary component for the African Openbill (though they tend to take freshwater snails first). They're the only Ciconiid I get to see on a regular basis so I'd certainly miss them if they disappeared.

I'm finding it a bit difficult to extract that information. At least, I can't correlate your symbology with that presented on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CHSH_inequality. When I posed the OP I was quite happy to proceed on a 'no hidden variables' assumption (local or non-local), and was actually focussed on the variation of 'now' across some region to observers in different inertial reference frames. The spread of those 'nows' resulting in some observers seeing Alice 'pull the trigger' and others, Bob in the EPR experiment. (@Markus Hanke says it was Charlie who dunnit.) The QM implications were really for later after the SR stuff had been sorted out.

Thanks Markus. So at some point, my line of reasoning has become simply a personal preference over other quite valid viewpoints. I'm okay with that. I watched a Youtube video recently on superdeterminism by Sabine Hossenfelder. She's clearly very expert in her field, and I'm sure that this interpretation fits the data too. I just don't like it as much. Many, many years ago I had a vision of an ancient transistor radio (see how long ago it was), floating in the vast emptiness of deep space long after humanity had been and gone. With its final flicker of power it sent a 'request for clarification' back to the dawn of time, which responded in the only way it could - by creating a universe that one day in the far, far future would see an ancient transistor radio floating in the vast emptiness of deep space. I've lived with that picture for a very long time and whether it's true or false I've grown comfortable with it.

Surely this is no more than a temporary common property of the pair? An entire description would include a mapping of their kinetic timeline for example, wouldn't it?

I don't have quite enough hubris to imagine that I can advance physics, but I would like to have at least a consistent picture in my head of what might be going on. Isn't there an 'advanced wave' available in the wave equation that might assist with the time reversed signalling?

I'm seeing the initial correlation created as the point exp(i * pi / 4) on a unit circle. (That's not so much of an issue). Then I'm seeing a local observation as this correlation being multiplied globally by exp(+/- i * pi / 4), thus selecting |0 1> or |1 0> at random. It's this second global transformation that is problematic. Parsimony would suggest to me some mechanism whereby a 'request for clarification' is sent (yes, ok, backwards in time) to the source which then applies the requisite 45 degree twist one way or the other to its correlation initiating the collapse. This would seem to solve a couple of issues: 1) It removes any possibility of simultaneous measurement by Alice or Bob yielding uncorrelated results that might result if either of them initiated the collapse. If the collapse is executed back at the source, it can only occur once and the correlation must hold. 2) Having two distinct timelines, one overwriting the other would appear to cover all possibilities of observations made from other reference frames where the apparent order of events may vary. 3) No 'spooky action at a distance', just a brief time reversal. Nothing is exceeding c.

I'm familiar with the basics of these in as much as they apply to acoustics and process control theory amongst other fields, so fire away.

The poles would be in permanent twilight which would I guess tend to stabilise the Antarctic ice sheet and see the northern ice sheets extend over northern Eurasia and North America. The ITCZ would stabilise over the equator giving permanent cloud cover to the tropics, and reducing seasonal rains in the subtropics. Subtropical deserts would therefore extend towards the temperate latitudes, which would enjoy an 'interesting' climate given the intensification of the north-south temperature gradient. Most of these processes would markedly increase the earth's albedo and perhaps even reverse the current warming trend. Sounds like a good attempt at restablishing snowball earth. So no noticeable seasons. Not much of anything really.