swansont

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

No, not really Context is important. If all you do is post links, it looks like soapboxing. Further inquiry along these lines really should be in Support

I don't see how "the only thing you can say according to Bell's theorem is that the measurements are correlated, not the particle themselves." is a defense of "Some physicists see them (Eise: i.e. results of experiments with entangled particles) as evidence that there is no hidden information in quantum particles, and it only makes sense to talk about spin once they are measured." As to the former, I addressed that several posts back. As I stated before, I don't see a difference. So I'm the wrong one to ask. If the particles have a definite state you get one set of results. If they don't, you get different results. The experiments exclude the former case. If you want more details, perhaps you should peruse a thread on Bell tests, or start a new one, since this thread is about the purported communication of entangled particles, and we have been straying from that. But it's explained in the video I linked to.

No, they aren't.

Why should I waste two hours of my life watching this video, given that it is likely just a re-hash of the denialism that is already rampant? (and the person in it is not a climatologist, but a geographer) As long as they are fairly short compared to the piece you are quoting, yes.

The inverse square law of the sun's output. If you are going to put fueling depots along the path of a rocket, some are going to be far from earth. But again, you will have to accelerate to dock with them, and then accelerate to continue on your way, so I wonder how much fuel this wastes and how much that reduces your proposed cost savings.

I responded to something you have (repeatedly) written, so it seems that we are discussing it. The order doesn't matter. You will still have the correlation. I will repeat: I do not see where you have defended that point. I see where you have quoted the video, but the dialog that follows has not been you defending that point, even in this response. Both spins are known with the one measurement, so I don't see that the statements are different. I have NEVER "defended" the hidden variable scenario. Why do you keep saying this in various forms? I have repeatedly pointed out that it is wrong. However, the proposal exists, and one may analyze it and show that it is in fact wrong. Much like one might mention the purported properties of phlogiston without defending it as a valid theory, or acknowledge that a few people think there is a flat earth and discuss their reasoning. Analysis is not a defense of their position. Yes, precisely. The discussion of hidden variables in the Bell experiment does not address non-locality, i.e. faster-than-light communication. That is a separate issue. If the particles are entangled, then both spins are known as soon as either is measured. And yes, you can determine when this happens, because you can eliminate the particles having a definite spin before the measurement. That's the whole point of the Bell experiment.

Yes, the same measurement basis is assumed in that statement. If you choose another basis, you will get a distribution of results that depend on the orientation. However, it is the distribution for a particle of determined spin being measured in another orientation, because probabilities are involved. So you would have to do the experiment multiple times to see this. All of that is discussed in the video. I can only find instances of that statement where you subsequently told me (incorrectly) what I believe. I don't see where you have defended that position. Because angular momentum is conserved. Even in the hidden variable scenario, the spins have to have their anti-correlation. Also, please not that there are more than these two scenarios: the QM picture and hidden variables are the two that Bell's inequality discusses whether the particles' spins are undetermined prior to measurement or if they have a determined value before measurement. The issue of communication is not that same issue.

Fuel depots (i.e. plural) won't all be at that orbit, and insulation isn't magic. It impedes heat output, but it also impedes heat input. Maintaining a certain orientation implies fuel use. Watts per hour?

It's not a matter of justfying it. The classical probability is different from the quantum one. It looks like you have yet to analyze the quantum problem for the coins.

No, actually, it doesn't. When I said a particles spin is undetermined before the measurement, that means it is undetermined before the measurement and has no definite spin. I only discussed entangled pairs in one specific place, and specifically named them as particle 1 and particle 2. So I never said what you claim above. That's you misunderstanding the situation. No, I am not. Once you have determined the spin, it has that spin in the measurement basis you have used. No. I have repeatedly said that the spin is undetermined before measurement, unless you have a way of knowing the spin already. How many times must I repeat this before you accept that I have said it? If the other person measured it first, then you particle was spin down at the moment of that other measurement. If you measure first, then it was undetermined. Maybe you have to stop insisting that things are wrong if you don't understand them. Maybe you need to study quantum mechanics some more so that you can meet me halfway. It's possible my explanation is lacking, but it's not only me you have misunderstood, it's the video. At some point you have to stop blaming the people explaining it to you. If you jump into the deep end of QM, it's not my fault if you can't swim.

We know that now, but that had not been applied to kinematics before special relativity was proposed. So one cannot lean on that in a critique of relativity. You haven't been criticizing Einstein. You've been criticizing someone else's awkward explanation of relativity. How about going back to the source, and analyzing that?

Indeed. But it's not unreasonable to think that light would behave the same way, if you didn't know it was invariant. That's where the naive assumption about linearly adding speeds comes from. The fact that it is invariant is why we have length contraction and time dilation. And, of course, we must acknowledge that Gavrilov Miroslav did not present a good explanation. The point here is that you will not win a Nobel for finding a flaw in some layperson's explanation of relativity. I will not be winning any awards for pointing out the flaws in your critique, either. That's not how it works.

You need to keep reading, of course. He then explains why that doesn't end up being the case. But, again, he isn't really doing it right.

So what angle is that with respect to the vertical line? And what condition will maximize a shadow?

That's true of a ball thrown from a moving platform, too, so I wonder why you think this is any sort of "gotchya". If you throw a ball at 20 m/s (relative to you) from a moving vehicle that's going 20 m/s, the ball will be going 40 m/s relative to the ground. The thing is, if we could measure the speeds to a much higher precision, we would find that they don't actually add linearly. If the vehicle were a rocket moving at half the speed of light and the ball was launched at half the speed of light from the rocket, it would not move at the speed of light. Gavrilov Miroslav's explanation is awkward, and ultimately wrong. Time dilation occurs, but applying to light isn't correct. The main problem, as has been pointed out, is that you are quoting Gavrilov Miroslav, not Einstein. You are not using a reliable source.

What is so laughable that someone's watered-down explanation of the theory could be wrong (I said "at best"), or that you have misunderstood it? My acceptance of the theory is stolid; I see no reason for it to not be, but that's because it's based on understanding the derivation of it and the mounds of experimental evidence that it's correct.

At best, you have shown that "Gavrilov Miroslav, Programmer" misunderstands relativity. Perhaps you should take on the actual theory, and not someone else's representation of it. Certainly not "a layman's view" of it - you aren't getting very far with that.

No, the problem here is that you did not just step in and see a major flaw (much less two) that thousands upon thousands of scientists have missed for more than 100 years. The most likely answer is that you misunderstood something.

Without reading the post, I will say: no, you haven't Where does he say that? You need to point us to the source with citations, so that we can be sure you haven't just misunderstood. As you most likely have. I can't find any mention of a car in his 1905 paper (why would he use a car as an example, in 1905?)

! Moderator Note One should be able to participate without watching videos. This is a discussion forum, not a place for people to advertise their youtube channel (see rule 7) . Since you had some discussion in the OP the video can stay (for now, at least), but your responses need to more than variants of "watch the video" No need to respond to this modnote

Please don't tell me what I believe, and please don't insinuate that I am lying. When I said the state is undetermined before measurement and there is no hidden information, I did not mean the opposite. When I say that we are measuring the actual/real behavior and the spin is undetermined before the measurement, I meant that, too. Not the opposite. That means what we measure represents the actual state of the particle. A particle measured to be e.g. spin down is, in fact, spin down in that measurement bases, at the moment of the measurement and afterwards, until something interacts with the particle. Meaning the measurement is not "lying" to us. If we measure again, it will again be spin down and not spin up. The simplest explanation here is that you have misunderstood the video. I have no desire to go through and transcribe the video, but I assure you, the QM view is not that particles have a hidden state. It's been tested and shown to not be true. It's inherently quantum behavior and not going to be deduced from non-quantum analysis. The behavior I don't understand is asking people to "correct me when I am wrong" and then proceeding to argue when corrected.

No, the cooling of the CMB refers to the photons in the universe, which behave like a gas. Sort of.

Since we're discussing climate change in a science section of the forums, then yes, actually, it is.