Ghideon

I think the correct answer is "I do not know", it depends on many unknown factors. Can we be sure there will be corrosion on the PCB after many years? -No. Can we rule out the possibility of corrosion? -No Why not remove the battery during storage if it is a concern?

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.

English is not my first language but I see a possible misunderstanding; I'll give it a quick try. A: If the above means "Theory of relativity does not allow for entanglement. Entanglement is a speculative concept." or similar then @swansont is correct. B: If the above means "OP in the other thread speculates about using entanglement as a method for faster than light communication. Faster than light communication is not possible according to special relativity" then that seems correct but probably ambiguously formulated. Comments?

Alice and Bob scenarios are very crucial to entanglement experiments. Alice and Bob are referenced (many times) in the 2022 nobel prize motivation, for instance in the section about Aspect** Note, when reading the above, that special relativity is of course correct according to current consensus / established theories. Source: advanced-physicsprize2022-2.pdf (nobelprize.org) **) For instance mentioned a few pages ago by @Eise

Thanks for your support, it helps my learning. This is an example where I need to do some more studying before commenting; I do not have enough knowledge about incompatible observables in QM yet. But rest assured that I'll try to gain some insight and try to offer an opinion!

How does a solar system "contain" light? Where is this light? How does the solar system "collect"/"store"/"hide" lots of light from distant stars? Why is not the light from sun also "contained" in massive amounts? Why is the night sky black instead of full of these "contained" photons? What novel physical mechanisms do you propose? (There are many inconsistencies in your arguments, I can't adress all of them; I use the above as one isolated example.)

In SR and in my analogy, there is no global first or second observation. I did think about SR but did not want to complicate my analogy by introducing comments on SR; there may be participands in the thread that may miss the point due to limited knowledge about relativity. It could be interesting to probe the limits of the analogy and where it breaks down due to relativity and properties of QM if anyone is interested, but that may be a separate thread.

That seems incompatible with Special Relativity. Clarification: I'm sure the actual experiment is consistent with Special Relativity, your explanation is not.

This is your speculative thread; you need to show why there is an implementation and a requirement for a computer. (Had this been raised as a question instead as part of a speculative claim I could present valid alternatives)

Then please do so, using established theories. Note: adding new speculations does not support a falsified idea. Now you have moved the problem; if your variant of tired light requires a new periodic system I think you need to establish the new periodic system first.

Maybe not intended but I see this as yet an analogy for entanglement. Assume a couple is married and then separated by some (great) distance. When one (random) individual of the married couple dies we immediately know that the other party has become a widower or a widow. The immediate change from wife to widow (or husband to widower) does not need a signal.

Ok. As a consequence of your idea fusion of nuclei should result in a great reduction of mass. Please provide an explanation why this is not observed. (Hint: Read @swansont's post above and think of it in microscopic terms if that helps. The output from the sun is the sum of reactions on particle level. Mass differences between nuclei can be observed on microscopic levels and the result scaled up, applying established models/mathematics to stellar proportions.)

The food smells of Occam's razor.

Does the light, per your idea, originate from stars? For instance the light we see from the moon originates from the sun. I need to know where you think the vast majority of the light comes from to further comment on your idea.

What computation? What makes you think there is a computation?

Yes. The limited quality adds artefacts to the video. Above is a circle added as reference to a still image from the video you posted.

You missed the important part: How is your idea falsified? Please describe an observation and an outcome that would show your idea to be wrong.

How is your idea falsified*? Please describe an observation and an outcome that would show your idea to be wrong. *) The idea is obviously already falsified; just check answers above. I'm interested in OP's view on the matter.

Why did you tell me in writing instead of showing me? Ok. I don't think I need telepathic skills to see that you misunderstood the video.

Instantaneous telepathic contact does not, and cannot, exist according to established theories of relativity. Relativity of time makes sense, instantaneous telepathic contact does not*. What you describe is not relativity, at least not a prediction of any established scientific theory about relativity ( for instance Special Relativity). *) In science that is. In science fiction my opinion may be different.

Is this a response in the context of my post above? (I suspect you have misunderstood what encoding is)

The explanation is in clear text in your screen shot. Below it is highlighted for you. So the links does not work; I do not know if they goes to a page displaying anything meaningful. (Note: I have pointed out this several times in the past) Note 2:Some links may give other errors such as this.

Source: [math]\begin{displaymath} T=\sum_{ \mathclap{\substack{i_1,\ldots,i_n=1 \\ j_1,\ldots,j_m=1}}}^d T_{j_1,\ldots,j_m}^{i_1,\ldots,i_n} E_{i_1,\ldots,i_n}^{j_1,\ldots,j_m} \end{displaymath}[/math] [math]\begin{displaymath} T=\sum_{ i_1,\ldots,i_n,j_1,\ldots,j_m=1}^d \; T_{j_1,\ldots,j_m}^{i_1,\ldots,i_n} E_{i_1,\ldots,i_n}^{j_1,\ldots,j_m} \end{displaymath[/math] Source: \begin{displaymath} T=\sum_{ i_1,\ldots,i_n,j_1,\ldots,j_m=1}^d \; T_{j_1,\ldots,j_m}^{i_1,\ldots,i_n} E_{i_1,\ldots,i_n}^{j_1,\ldots,j_m} \end{displaymath} Test result: [math]\begin{displaymath} T=\sum_{ i_1,\ldots,i_n,j_1,\ldots,j_m=1}^d \; T_{j_1,\ldots,j_m}^{i_1,\ldots,i_n} E_{i_1,\ldots,i_n}^{j_1,\ldots,j_m} \end{displaymath}[/math] Expected result: (I got curious about @joigus test... wanted to learn)

That seems a very counter intuitive claim from an information perspective. In addition to other arguments here is an example (based on John Cuthbert's comment) Origo in a three dimensional coordinate system is one point identified by 0,0,0 0,0,0 can be represented as a ascii string in binary form, note that this is one number: 0011000000101100001100000010110000110000. Convert the one binary number to decimal, obviously resulting in one number: 206899784752. One number, several numbers or other information is a matter of choosing a suitable encoding. Hope this helps.

That is a reasonable conclusion when a conjecture, an idea or similar is a failure. (Note, you are probably wasting time posting the links, all of them have errors or needs additional efforts.)