swansont

The abstraction is in how we understand how particles behave.

The predictable reaction is a correlation that was already present. That’s all that the experiment demonstrates. Where is the demonstration of a signal that does not rely on this correlation?

You claim to have the answer. But how can you demonstrate that there is a signal?

If you claim there is a signal, the burden of proof is yours - you must provide independent evidence of it. QM doesn’t require it. QM doesn’t have an interaction you can point to. So what’s your independent evidence? Without it this is just circular reasoning They can be the same, as well. For example, type I parametric down-conversion gives photons of the same polarization.

In science we can’t just assume this, though. And you need independent verification of the signal - the measured correlation isn’t evidence of it. Argument from incredulity is a fallacy, though, and carries no weight. Co-opting terminology is just bad form. “signal” has to mean the same thing for everyone. There is no signal- no interaction - between the entangled particles. Indeed. So dispense with the “undeserved reality” of a signal.

Yes. Why do you think this is a problem? If fields weren’t abstract you couldn’t design a television.

You said “the idea that a field is numbers assigned to space points. How these numbers are written into space points is left up to magic” Take an electric field. It’s the force per unit charge a charge would experience at any given point. One can calculate it - it’s math, not magic. “Since a particle has many properties just one number at a space point won't specify the particle completely” joigus already addressed this. There are more than scalar fields, and there can be more than one field. Fields aren’t made of anything. It’s mathematical modeling. Arthur C. Clarke’s three laws. The third is “Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic”

That you don’t understand doesn’t make it magic. It just seems like it (a corollary to Clarke’s Third Law)

No, it’s not. It’s assumed by you, but it’s not a falsifiable assumption. Much like EM waves were not evidence of an aether. Science requires evidence to back up such claims. There is no interaction in the theory. It’s assumed because of classical physics preconceptions Nobody has disagreed that the states are undetermined. Everyone has confirmed it.

The correlations are confirmed, but you have presented no evidence of a signal. You just assume it’s there. But repetition of the claim is not evidence.

Electrical tape isn’t conductive, it’s an insulator. It doesn’t do much to attenuate the wave. To attenuate an EM wave through a gap, the conductor needs to have a minimum length. You can think of a wave that hits the gap when the wave amplitude is at its minimum; the conductor has a minimal effect, so the wave can still get through it. This is why penetrations of a Faraday cage/EMP enclosure have diameter and length specifications

EM waves can leak through small gaps. True EM protection requires a certain length for it to act as a waveguide below cutoff.

Permits for making fuel or registering as a distiller, but not in a residential building Fortunately Phi shared a link elsewhere to a summary of areas of the US code that apply https://www.ttb.gov/distilled-spirits/penalties-for-illegal-distilling#:~:text=TTB Glossary-,Home Distilling,26 United States Code (U.S.C.) But 100% of the OP’s posted from there

! Moderator Note It’s illegal in the US to make moonshine for personal consumption.

! Moderator Note And I moved it to the trash. Post in your existing thread. Don't just upload documents.

Note that, as MigL stated, it’s the square of the wave that has this property.

What would be the point? Confirming that time seemed to pass quickly or slowly? Sounds like a product for people with money to waste.

The sensor is smaller than that. The “whole button” would also include the light source and the housing.

You are preventing light from reaching the sensor.

Yes. (one can use a search engine to possibly find more) https://www.sciencealert.com/jwsts-first-glimpse-of-mars-reveals-the-red-planet-in-a-new-light

David Stefan has been banned as a sockpuppet of John Stefan and Johnny Stefan

That’s not the argument, though. Does it require energy, or not? The answer is yes. Now you can move on to quantifying how much energy it takes to do this. Then you can show how you get energy out of your device. Don’t be sloppy in your claims. The burden of proof is on you to show that this works. No, it’s not, since this isn’t a religious belief. If you want to challenge science, you need evidence. And, as the saying goes, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

But you just said it can be used “here” which I assume is on earth. Where on earth is the ambient temperature 2K? I wasn’t Not within the physics community Bull. We don’t need to be open-minded to obvious nonsense offered with no supporting evidence. Evidence and viable models are what opens physicists’ minds. “I have a proposal that violates the second law of thermodynamics” is a quick way to signal that your idea isn’t to be taken seriously

Nature doesn’t care whether you can imagine it or not. It still happens. You need to present a model, i.e. have the ability too make specific predictions. An all-but unreadable image? That’s not going to work.

If you have a time-varying magnetic field, you can be realigning domains of a ferromagnetic material. The domains take up a different amount of space depending on their alignment. It’s called magnetostriction, and it’s responsible for the humming you can hear in transformers http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/Solids/magstrict.html