Bond777

Could squeezed microwave states be somehow useful for wireless energy or data transfer?

1601.06697.pdf (arxiv.org)

10 hours ago, swansont said:

I can’t tell if this is an attempt at agreement or an attempt at rebuttal.

Rather an attempt of farther research and investigation.

On 6/7/2021 at 3:35 AM, swansont said:

EM waves (and other classical phenomena) are limited to c, making everything local. 

In pure vacuum EM waves can travel indefinite distance. But they cannot tunnel between two remotely located points without attenuation and will spread to all the sides. Not only between two points like quantum entanglement does.

Is there some explanation why non-locality is purely quantum phenomena and there could never be a classical analogy? For example, something related to EM waves?

8 minutes ago, swansont said:

It’s quite likely that a contaminant in a quantum fluid messes everything up, since the fluid can interact with it, and those would not be the interaction that make a quantum fluid act as a quantum fluid.

Could we make some solid quantum sponge then?

52 minutes ago, swansont said:

No, that’s not how it works. Quantum fluids have specific properties (typically the spin), which aren’t going to change with an additive.

What if we have droplets of a regular cryogenic liquid which are embedded in a thing layers of a quantum fluid like a bubbles? If some quantum fluids won't take any heat, shouldn't they serve as an ultimate and absolute heat insulators? And prevent to take any heat to the liquids they embed within themselves?

2 hours ago, swansont said:

Yes, there is, but you didn't specify this in your OP. You simply said cryogenic liquids, and gave examples that are not quantum liquids, so this is irrelevant.

Possibly some additives could convert regular cryogenic liquids into liquids with quantum properties?

1 hour ago, swansont said:

It’s a huge leap from a quantum object behaving a certain way to having a liquid behave that way

There is such thing as a "quantum liquids".

Quantum fluid - Wikipedia

Some claim even at room temperature.

Quote

The results of the work suggest that superfluid quantum liquid may arise at room temperature as a result of the functioning of many-particle quantum superposition.

room temperature quantum liquid - Google Search

Which principle may permit to store cryogenic liquids such as methane, hydrogen or nitrogen for almost indefinitely long time in liquid state without energy losses? For example there is such an effect:

Quote

A less widely known quantum behavior is dynamical localization, a phenomenon in which a quantum object stays at the same temperature despite a steady supply of energy—bucking the assumption that a cold object will always steal heat from a warmer object.

Quantum gases won't take the heat (phys.org)

Could we create a dynamic localization in cryogenic liquids somehow?

2 minutes ago, Bufofrog said:

I cannot explain why it is true, because unfortunately it isn't true.  I have seen the profits rise in my old factory as workers were replaced by robots.

At the beginning yes. Someone who increases the automation to a certain level faster than the competitors gains a temporary advantage by lowering the good's prices before the competitors do it and has a chance to gain the larger market share. However once all the competitors are forced to increase automation to the same level, they got a chance to win their lost market share back again and the total profits of all the manufacturers combined may fall below the level which preceded the start of the  automation race. 

18 minutes ago, swansont said:

If automation didn’t save money, why do it?

Competition forces business owners to increase automation in order to increase productivity and lower prices. But lower prices doesn't necessarily mean higher profits.

Quote

But I thought it might be worthwhile to share my response. The short answer is no, robots, like all machines,  cannot create surplus value (remembering that surplus value is expressed through the processes of circulation and sale as profit.)

En Passant » Can robots create profit?

1 hour ago, swansont said:

enabling more sales in less time”

But this theory, in my understanding, claims that more sales is NOT = more profits. Even contrary, if sales are increased due to automation rather than human labor intensification. There are claims that the average US companies profit rate steadily fell during the second half of 20-th century. Mostly due to competition which forced companies to lower prices and increase automation. However in 2000-s the profits started to grow again as US companies increased manufacturing outsourcing to the countries with less automation and cheaper labor force.

The US rate of profit 1948-2015 – Michael Roberts Blog (wordpress.com)

However there also could be some attempts to hide profits for tax evasion. 

Thus according to this theory the most profitable enterprise is the most labor intensive and least automated.

Here is no "economics" section on this forum and therefore I've decided to post it in "politics".

There are some speculative claims that robots and machines cannot create profit to their owner by themselves. Only human labor can. An owner cannot exploit his robots and machines and make them create more values than they cost themselves + their maintenance. Could someone explain it in details and for dummies why is it so if it is true?

Quote

Now, assuming value is tied to the amount of labor necessary, the value of the physical output would decrease relative to the value of production capital invested. In response, the average rate of industrial profit would therefore tend to decline in the longer term.

Tendency of the rate of profit to fall - Wikipedia

Does it mean, for example, that if I would an owner of a fully automated factory with zero workers it would be able to bring zero profit to me unless I would do some labor myself related to this factory and then my earnings will be no more than my own labor output and my personal labor value?

My question was rather a philosophical one. The feelings and emotions are about subjective experience. But is subjective experience really necessary for a creature to react to surrounding environment in order to survive in it? 

17 minutes ago, iNow said:

Animals also have emotions so this fails no matter how you view it 

Even fish and insects?

1 hour ago, Bond777 said:

Why feelings and emotions are better for survival (if they are) than instincts (like in lower animals)?

If not, then how the Darvinists explain evolution from instincts to emotions? If advanced A. I. will be developed someday, will it need the feelings for survival and self-protection necessarily?

Why feelings and emotions are better for survival than instincts (like in lower animals)?

What are the "secret classical correlations"?

[quant-ph/0107082] A classical analogue of entanglement (arxiv.org)

12 hours ago, joigus said:

Also, quantum tunneling happens just next to the barrier, not far away. It's a completely different effect.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_tunnelling

It depends on De Broglie wavelength, which could be quite large in radio waves.

10 hours ago, joigus said:

I was referring to the usual, i.e., speaking over the phone. Correlations at a distance are not magical, or anything new. But these correlations have to travel from Alice to Bob.

Theoretically, EM waves could travel from transmitter to receiver by means of quantum tunneling, avoiding any attenuation in the environment. We need to have some long distance correlation between the both. Another possibility is to use magnetic induction or resonance between the two circuits. But again in order to make it work it efficiently over long distances we need to have magnetic field lines closed between the two over long distances. This effect suppose to resemble self-focusing magnetic lens.

4 hours ago, joigus said:

Correlations at a distance is not synonymous with "entanglement". We experience correlations at a distance every day.

What correlations at distance could exist between transmitter and receiver?

Quote

 

Classical systems can be entangled. Entanglement is defined by coincidence correlations.

It is the purpose of this paper is to discuss lossy classical systems and show that such systems can mimic quantum correlations.

 

0112019.pdf (arxiv.org)

Could we imagine the way in which two remote antennas (transmitter and receiver) could be classically entangled? Could someone shed more light on the classical entanglement? For example, one related to electromagnetic circuits?

On 7/21/2020 at 11:23 AM, HallsofIvy said:

  This isn't really relevant to the main point here, but most people don't die because of "events".  They die because their body wears out.  And that would happen in any universe.

Unless in one of the universes some genetic mutation will happen to you which will prevent aging or elixir of youth will be invented or you will become an immortal cyborg. 

23 hours ago, swansont said:

Entanglement is a quantum effect, but not all quantum effects are entanglement 

Obviously. I didn't insist it has to be entanglement only.