swansont

Multiple particles have been entangled. IIRC both photons and ions. You need some property that is conserved and not uniquely determined in the interaction. Most interactions don't qualify, e.g. scattering conserves momentum, but doesn't allow for multiple final states (given identical initial states).

The concept is consistent with hidden variables. That's why physicists had to devise experiments that would rule hidden variables out, or not. The Aspect experiment was not simply demonstrating entanglement. You have to do it manually, with copy & paste "Not have any state whatsoever" is still part of the analogy. If the states are red and blue, and you detect red, then this means the ball isn't red the whole time. Analogies have shortcomings, and there is no real classical analogy for superposition. If my choices are red or blue, and the answer is "neither," then I'm going to say it doesn't have one of the allowed states. In QM, we'd say that it's in a superposition of red and blue. Further, the red and blue states of the two particles are entangled. How can this be? I don't know — that's not really what physics is trying to answer. But that's the way nature behaves, which is the question physics is trying to answer.

If you could have mass just pop into existence, then yes. But you can't, so it's moot. This is just the reverse of the "what if the sun disappeared?" problem.

The difference is knowing how to set up your polarizer to make the measurement. If the superposition is between 0º and 90º states (Up and Right), you will get a different answer if you measure at any other angle: if you put your polarizer at 1º, some of the Up photons will be detected as being at 91º. If the eavesdropper then recreates a photon at 91º, most of the time that will be detected as a Right photon, rather than UP. That's how you can detect eavesdropping. "Already been observed" means the transmitted photon has been observed by an eavesdropper, rather than the partner photon having been observed.

Electron capture also depends on pressure, but both of these are known effects due to the mechanism.

Does decay depend on temperature?

That's because you've changed the conditions — you're looking at a different experiment. The reason an eavesdropper can be detected is that they will not know what measurement to make; in this case, the polarization axis to use for the detection. That's not true in the previous example, where there were just the two scientists, who had already agreed on the measurement basis.

Since it's not a topic I've pursued, nobody comes to mind.

No, because you would require violating conservation of energy to make a mass just pop into existence.

And what of the implications for stellar aberration? Shouldn't that change with the seasons as well, if ether-dragging is correct?

Why would you assume this? No.

Why would they fight? It's more likely they will get along and have a musical connection. "Obama, Lama Sing Song." Or, if an accident occurs with the ceremony honoring their meeting, which involves them damaging a percussion instrument "Obama, Lama Ding Gong."

Google on terms like 'schrodinger cat consciousness' or 'schrodinger cat observer.' But be warned — there is a lot of chaff and little wheat, i.e. there is often little physics in he discussion.

[math]\Delta KE = -\Delta PE[/math] [math]PE = \frac{-GMm}{r}[/math] the terms tend to zero for large r

That's a topic of discussion by some, but it goes well beyond the scope of the original thought experiment.

Please don't shout

Both rolling on the floor and laughing are part of the prior art, and the combination of the two is an obvious and trivial act. ——— Note that an invention usually is an actual device, or a detailed schematic for building it. Having an idea for an invention is a little different.

V=IR gives you the characteristics of the circuit. P=IV tells you the power you will dissipate. You can estimate the temperature using the Stefan-Boltzmann law, assuming the heat loss is in the form of radiation. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stefan–Boltzmann_law EDIT: S-B law won't work for a a liquid, since there will be significant conductive losses

Light follows a geodesic, so to change the direction (in a vacuum) requires you bend the coordinate system, i.e. what general relativity discusses.

If people are having trouble understanding your post, then consider the possibility you have not made your point clearly enough. Telling people that they aren't thinking and demanding they understand your post is not going to achieve anything.

One might think that in times of high gasoline prices, this might place the US companies under some economic duress.

A fuller treatment of my hypothesis is up http://blogs.scienceforums.net/swansont/archives/3411

I think ridicule is what happens after a certain amount of evidence and argument has been ignored. Patience in the face of anti-science is a finite resource. Argument from incredulity is a logical fallacy, though. Which means the failure to accept a scientific finding or fact is not occurring because of a scientifically valid reason.

There is no free energy. In this house we obey the laws of thermodynamics. The ususal problem with the "makes more than it produces" claims is incorrect measurement — they never seem to plug it into itself to show that it works; it always has an external input. Why? I predict that the sales of these units will never come to pass. (And the reporter talks about producing 24 kW per day. Ugh. Unit fail.) The video ad is a scam to separate you from $100

Yes, the dangers of unprotected socks are quite real.