swansont

No; they’re in the ground state, so energy has to be added to do that, which doesn’t happen spontaneously. No, the limit is practical, not theoretical. Since you know what state they’re in, entanglement isn’t involved between the atoms.

They’re all in the same state in a BEC (ground state of the atom, typically, and ground state of the potential well). That sounds like a minimum information condition - the entire BEC would be a single qubit. The atoms don’t have a memory of their prior state. They would end up in a state that depended on the interaction that caused the BEC to decohere and be disrupted. I had no part in it. My alleged infamy is for the baryon sweep.

I think so; as long as it’s a BEC you can’t distinguish individual constituents It never does. I don’t know about the unravel part; it would act like a cold gas

They can be, because we can create Bose-Einstein condensates and Fermi gases, which rely on the particles being identical, and do not behave like a mixture of gases under similar conditions. Whether they incorporate the embedding system would likely depend on how strong of an interaction there was between them; making these isolated systems is not easy to do, and they can be disrupted fairly easily Exactly needs to be well-defined here, but I’ve mentioned Bose-Einstein condensates which do that.

Atoms of the same isotope are. They obey Bose-Einstein or Fermi-Dirac statistics depending on their spin, which assumes identical particles; the formulation of e.g. the Pauli exclusion principle assumes identical particles. (Identical here refers to quantum states; you can’t apply a classical-physics-based notion of identical to the situation) Experimental replication carries with it the notion of statistics and uncertainty. You can’t ignore that, because any physical process has noise

Lighten up, Francis

Speculating on what we can’t measure based on what we can is in the context of behavior, which is what physics (and science in general) does. It’s about how nature behaves, not what it is. Any idea has to trace back to some way of confirming it experimentally. Otherwise it’s, at best, philosophy As far as this being speculations, we still have standards. Related to the “at best” caveat, because WAGs, utter nonsense and other bad faith efforts are other possibilities, and it’s site policy not to waste our bandwidth on that

There must be a fart frequency fast fourier transform (FFFFT) I am reminded that, some years ago, I realized there must be a lab that tested toilet paper, with an artificial backside, in order for the companies to advertise that their product was doing a better job. I later ran across an article showing I was right - the lab butt was a bladder that folded over to simulate the geography of the rear, and could then be unfolded to measure how clean it was after wiping whatever viscous test substance they used.

Microbiologist Brantley Hall of the University of Maryland in College Park and colleagues study the metabolism of gut microbes. They tried unsuccessfully to measure hydrogen production from gut microbes with a sensor in an oxygen-free chamber. Frustrated, “we took the sensor out of the chamber, and we were like, ‘Screw it. We’re going to try to measure a fart.’” So Hall stuck the device down his own pants and let rip. “And the signal was enormous.” https://www.sciencenews.org/article/smart-underwear-human-fart-frequency

The big thing about relativity is that it’s not that simple. So, metaphysics rather than physics and not really anything to do with relativity

Related to the emperor-has-no-clothes phenomenon; nobody wants to state (sometimes obvious) things for fear of being identified as a fool. It plays to peoples’ insecurity BS tasks are what a lot of management seems to create to justify their own jobs, or as a result of their own shortsightedness

On the contrary, it’s not that we don’t want to hear ideas, it’s that we don’t want to hear the same idea repeated over and over again with no regard for criticism of that idea.

We see a version of that here; people show up with their “groundbreaking” ideas which are just word salad. They might appear to be competent to the average person, but to folks here with expertise it works much less well. Plus, we don’t have a situation where speaking up and asking for clarification would be viewed negatively, while in a corporate setting, saying “I didn’t understand that at all” might not be career-enhancing.

Right are not without limits; there are types of speech that can be constrained by the government, your right to religion does not mean you can engage in human sacrifice, the inalienable rights of life and liberty (ones specifically named, connected with the event MigL referenced) are not limitless - you can be sent to prison and even executed if certain conditions are met. Even for voting, it can be limited to citizens of a country. To me it’s an issue of whether the right is (or should be) inherent, and not easily limited. It’s not something a government grants, it’s not merely a privilege that you have to earn or be deemed worthy of, because who gets to decide that?

Spacetime? You’re referencing a concept that did not exist in 1905. Perhaps you don’t struggle with concepts that you’re repeatedly exposed to and are accepted as valid, rather than having to confront a new concept. In the Newtonian universe that covered all of physics at that time, space and time were absolute.

But IMO the solution to some people being irrational is not to disenfranchise an entire group. Any age group has them. (In fact, I just ran across an article related to this; posted it in science news https://www.scienceforums.net/topic/140375-dunning-kruger-in-voters/ )

Unsurprisingly, D-K appears to happen there, because why wouldn’t it? https://www.psypost.org/people-with-the-least-political-knowledge-tend-to-be-the-most-overconfident-in-their-grasp-of-facts/ “New research published in the Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied suggests that people often overestimate their understanding of political facts. This tendency to be overconfident appears most common among individuals who actually know the least about politics and those who lean conservative. The findings provide evidence that psychological traits, like a desire for quick and definitive answers, help explain why some voters struggle to accurately judge their own political knowledge.”

Quantum 101 with Katie Mack. She’s an accomplished science communicator, so this looks quite promising

It’s not clear that these two categories are mutually exclusive. Anyway, there are a number of governmental constitutions or other documents that recognize voting as an inalienable right (the states of New York and California, for example) Parents generally want to protect their children (and other relatives) and leave a better world for them.

Ran across this, an article about three scientists who declined to get involved and why. Also a sidebar showing a few who have faced repercussions https://www.science.org/content/article/meet-three-scientists-who-said-no-epstein

If it’s new, why would there be a previous mention of it? A new phenomenon or technique has to be evaluated ; you can’t just let an algorithm allow all new stuff through - that’s quite contrary to the purpose of peer review. We have too many scam journals already; this would just add to the problem

I subscribe to the theory of inalienable rights, and as such, no justification is necessary. The question is: what is the authority the government has to justify removing those right? As I stated earlier, I’d be swayed by evidence that you no longer have the capacity to make an informed decision, but I don’t expect such evidence exists. Does age necessarily degrade one’s sense of responsibility for the younger generations, which presumably enters into the equation for parents?

“This month could be the best time to spot the northern lights for nearly a decade, as the combination of the "equinox effect" and supercharged solar activity will make auroras more likely. However, precisely where and when they will appear is still up in the air.” https://www.livescience.com/space/the-sun/march-could-be-the-best-month-for-the-northern-lights-for-nearly-a-decade-if-the-sun-stays-active I had not previously heard of the equinox effect (aka Russell–McPherron effect, as I learned) but it makes sense that there would be times where the alignment of the earth’s field made it easier for the solar wind to enter the atmosphere https://www.northernshotstours.com/equinox-effect/

I fail to see why this matters, other than having a misunderstanding of the structure means any criticism of it is likely flawed, as you would be attacking a strawman AI, specifically LLMs, are trained on existing information, so how are they going to evaluate an investigation into a new phenomenon or a new technique? How will you be sure the LLM didn’t just make up the evaluation of a paper, as they are prone to do?

Which are examples of abandoning the social contract.