swansont

That's the measurement effect, and is distinct from other phenomena.

How do you perceive a number differently?

That's still consistent with the force being strong but not having specific training by someone who knew what they were doing. Raw talent with amateur guidance vs proper coaching with an experienced professional. With no Jedi around, how much dueling would he have done with his lightsaber, so how much skill would he have? All we see him do is trash a room and impale an unarmed man. Not very much skill needed for that.

! Moderator Note No. No no no no no. We've asked several times for you to improve your rigor, but to no avail, so this is closed. You may re-open it if you were to give supporting citations for the twp claims in the OP, but that's the only way. This is what's going to happen in any other thread with assertions of a similarly unsupported nature.

That's not an intrinsic property, and I never used the word intrinsic. Spin is an intrinsic property. The value of the spin projection is not (other than spin zero). It can be changed, so how can it be? Because we can do the experiments to confirm this. It's always spin down in that basis. If measured in another basis, the statistics are consistent with it being spin down in the original basis. Plus, angular momentum is conserved. Do you have any scientific reasoning to buttress your position? Bald assertion (even repeated bald assertion) doesn't count for anything.

The movie follows the trend established earlier, with the people able to effectively exploit the force dwindling in number. Ren was seemingly self-taught in terms of the dark side, which would be consistent with him being relatively weak. Snoke is his master, as supreme leader of the First Order, but was he trained?

The classical and quantum treatments do not give the same results. The theory of superposition is tested experimentally, and experiment agrees with theory. So no, it is not a circular argument. And the Lorenzo paper linked earlier does go through a quantum mechanical treatment of the problem. (Who said it didn't? The comment was that you had not done this)

Yes.

Statistically I can tell if you had measured particles to give them a definite spin. I never claimed it was an intrinsic property of the particle. You have to measure it somehow. Of course it depends on experimental setup. Because you can do experiments where you test this. That you choose to a different experiment doesn't change that. And you can do that measurement arbitrarily soon after that of particle 1. You can't with a single pair. You need to do multiple measurements. We've been over this before. That's rather presumptuous. Who are you to say what the point of an EPR-like situation is? If one were doing a test of this, multiple measurements would be exactly the point of the experiment.

Your link is to a correction to a paper (which is paywalled), which mentions the Søylegrotta Cave record. Is that what we're looking at? The temperature of a cave? Hardly a representation of global climate.

! Moderator Note This is for science news, not funding drives. That constitutes advertising, and is not allowed here.

Some of it, sure. Scientists already know this. As Strange has pointed out, what gets trapped is the stuff outside of the IR, that gets re-radiated in the IR. The solar spectrum is pretty much that of a blackbody at ~6000 K. The earth's is at ~300 K. Their spectra are not the same.

The negative of the angle isn't the opposite condition. What's the angle between the plate and the light beam that maximizes the shadow?

Maybe it's unicorns.

So what is this relationship? Let's have an equation that determines the charge that's a function of mass.

If all you have is "we haven't seen this in Great Britain" then surely you can see you haven't refuted anything. There's been a severe drought in the western part of the US, for example. That sounds like re-hashed "if we don't know everything we know nothing" nonsense.

Climate models aren't predicated on the change being caused by CO2. Climate models simply take all of the effects that we measure and combine them. CO2 being the cause is the conclusion, not the assumption. If it's not CO2, then what's causing it? Science doesn't shrug its collective shoulders at "it's natural". The various energy sources and sinks can be (and are) studied.

In the case of entanglement, though, you only need to measure once to know both spin states, so that distinction is not necessary. But we can tell if it was spin down before the measurement if we do a series of experiments and look at the statistics. We will get different results than if there was no defined spin before the measurement. If the particle was spin up with a vertical detector, we will get spin up 100% of the time with that measurement basis. If we place the detector in some other orientation, the probability of getting up will vary as cos^2(theta/2). If the particle does not have a defined spin, we will get up only half the time. An independent observer will not get results consistent with the spin being undetermined. These experiments have been done — measuring entangled particles at nearly the same time, at a distance great enough so there can be no communication between the people. A particle whose spin was measured but is unknown, for example, has a definite spin. http://www.gizmag.com/quantum-entanglement-speed-10000-faster-light/26587/ Explained above

But it's moving at 20 mph forward. That won't change, since there's no force in the horizontal direction.

Spin states are orthogonal at 180 degrees, while for photons it's 90 degrees. That's why you use the half-angle in the spin calculation.

I liked Fin, and your point about Kylo Ren being young and having no scars is perfectly consistent. He can't hold his own because he has no real experience other than bullying the weak. He's never had to go against anyone with any real power of the force.

You missed the point. The ball would leave you at a speed of c/2 in your frame. But in a frame where the rocket was moving at c/2, the ball would be moving at 4/5 c (and not c; the point was that the speeds don't add linearly), as per the velocity addition formula given earlier in the thread. There's also no reason for the ball to lose velocity while the rocket maintains its velocity.

Perhaps because when you say "No idea what you mean.", it implies you don't understand. Then this really has nothing to do with the Bell experiment, or even QM. It's the premise underlying all science that what we measure is the actual behavior, i.e. that nature is not tricking us. Since you're so conversant with the Bell test, perhaps you can figure it out. What happens to your results if the particle has a definite spin at the time of measurement? You know that, and yet you persist in asking a question that suggests you do not. One could do an experiment where you try and measure the two at the same time, separated by a large distance. You could put an upper bound on the delay, and confirm if it's not instantaneous. And people have done such experiments.

If the gravitational interaction caused the particles to decohere, it would break the entanglement. But I don't see why gravity would do that for spin or polarization.

Superconductors reject the field, so they could be used. http://van.physics.illinois.edu/QA/listing.php?id=407