swansont

Depends on the experiment, but you know where the photons are coming from and the wavelengths, so it’s not difficult to do. It’s a cube, 1/2” or 1” on a side. Exactly. And that’s why you need statistics of several photons, as you pointed out.

You’d probably send the light through an optical fiber, which can be coiled up, and the measurement takes much less than a second. Because you entangled the photons. As you’ve been told, if it’s just a random photon there’s no way to tell if it’s entangled Again, as you’ve been told, you need multiple photons to do this. You really need to read the replies in the thread.

Because that’s trivially known, if you’re familiar with atomic physics. Your tone suggests that you think it hasn’t been done. I’ve done it. One way is to send it through a polarizing beam-splitter cube. If the polarization is in one direction it goes straight through. If it’s orthogonal it gets reflected. Knowing which way it goes tells you the polarization I have no idea of the context of this question, but spacetime means you’re talking about relativity, and entanglement is a quantum effect. So you need to explain the connection.

The issue that’s all to common is that interested amateurs watch a video but it’s not saying what they think it’s saying. Saying that the whole lecture is fascination isn’t the issue here - what is in the video that pertains to this particular discussion. It’s unlikely that all 50 minutes are.

It’s unreasonable for you to expect anyone to watch a 50 min video and sort through the arguments, which is why we have a rule against it to add to this: measuring one photon doesn’t even tell you it’s entangled It could possibly rule out entanglement, since the correlation could come out wrong. But that’s it

You can ask questions of the original poster as long as it’s on-topic

Entanglement can’t be used for faster than light communication, which is the usual proposal

The first two responses gave some details of what cosmology says on the matter

! Moderator Note And you have a thread for that, so we won’t be discussing it here

That’s just silly Source: me, who worked for ~25 years at the US Naval Observatory in the precise time department

But why would they stay in orbit if there is no longer a black hole? They tend to go in straight lines. LOL no. There have been experiments that yield a much smaller value

I prefer Rb-87, but that’s a personal bias. Some former colleagues like calcium and strontium How does this differ from length?

it’s a possibility that some want to explore. They want to find evidence for it, though Something has to have written and be running the simulation, if the hypothesis is true

You introduced it as somehow being a consequence of the notion of dark matter - you suggested it’s a clear connection. If it’s not your position, why bring it up?

How does this reveal anything about time? You can have static forces If you are doing work on an object (which requires exerting a force) the energy can increase or decrease in time

Radiation is heat if it’s coming from a thermal source, e.g. the sun’s blackbody radiation has a fair amount in the visible. Something cooler radiates in the IR ”yields are low” is a key phrase in the above description

To add to what exchemist said - at each step of using waste heat the medium is at a lower temperature, so you quickly lose the ability to extract work.

…and ? a dynamic field changes in time. What’s the connection?

I don’t know what “time is applicable on energy” means Energy is a property, not a thing

So no matter is more believable than some matter? But the simulation is making you think this makes sense, so it’s all good, I guess

I’m not sure what the connection is to the point under discussion A photon is not “pure energy” (it has linear momentum and spin)

time doesn’t pass without changes in matter? No. Definitions or descriptions generally don’t. You have to study to gain understanding of physics

Grade-school algebra and cosmology are not really on equal footing. Do you have a substantive argument to make? I’m not going to watch; what is the connection between dark matter and living in a simulation?

What you think doesn’t matter much. This is science, so it’s what you can demonstrate. Science is a shared endeavor; there are no “personal truths”

Do you have any examples of this? Where it was the logic, and not a faulty premise, that is the problem?