swansont

The current tenets the parties might be a good proxy. If they support more than a couple of the MAGA favorites, they probably lean right, and if they like the so-called “woke” positions, they probably lean left. If they won’t shop at certain stores or use some products (owing to boycotts). How they feel about vaccines, education. Lots of topics have become political that aren’t inherently political.

Would a “quiz” (or other) disclaimer/tag in the title be appropriate/useful?

Moderator NoteThis (along with your previous thread on axioms) doesn’t appear to be in the brain teaser/puzzle category. Moved.

Moderator NoteThis content wouldn’t be appropriate in any section of this site, even if it included testing/perfection of forum features

I suspect it’s because of the way the atoms collapse into the ground state when it’s formed. It’s a condensation in the energy state view, analogous to condensation wherein a physical droplet forms from vapor.

Helium is a liquid, which makes it a different case owing to the stronger interactions between the atoms. The wikipedia article has a short discussion of this https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bose–Einstein_condensate “It was quickly believed that the superfluidity was due to partial Bose–Einstein condensation of the liquid. In fact, many properties of superfluid helium also appear in gaseous condensates created by Cornell, Wieman and Ketterle (see below). Superfluid helium-4 is a liquid rather than a gas, which means that the interactions between the atoms are relatively strong; the original theory of Bose–Einstein condensation must be heavily modified in order to describe it. Bose–Einstein condensation remains, however, fundamental to the superfluid properties of helium-4”

Why does it matter to physics if it’s emergent or not?

Possibly, but not on earth. It would have to be someplace very cold.

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.”