swansont

Not enough information to proceed. "Relative velocity" can simply mean a difference in direction. You need to clarify.

! Moderator Note What you're presenting does not rise to what we call speculation, as outlined here. If you aren't up to a discussion at that level, then this will be closed.

Not from a classical perspective — you have a field with a spatial extent, so it can't not interact with the medium, which has a different permittivity and permeability (which affect electric and magnetic fields). From a QM perspective you could say it's possible, but the odds are vanishingly small. There are a lot of atoms with which it might interact, even for a small amount of matter (which would then have a correspondingly small effect on the light) A microgram of material is still going to be somewhere of order 10^15 atoms.

Different definition of determine. You neglected to italicize the sentence following that clarifies the details. To determine: to ascertain or establish as opposed to to cause (def 2 vs def 1 in my dictionary) I can determine that a coin is heads up by looking at it, but I did not cause it to be heads up by looking at it. The measurement in QM only removes the superposition. No, as I pointed out above. Precisely. And that precludes a claim that we don't know when it had a definite spin, it only limits the precision with which we can make it, but that's true of all experimental physics. And the theory, of course, removes that issue.

! Moderator Note You have no knowledge upon which to base any speculation at all. Whatever they are doing is undoubtedly secured by NDAs, so all you have is guesswork and argument from personal incredulity. And on top of that, you throw conspiracy into the mix. (along with absolutely no links to anything) Sorry, that's not going to fly. You need to back up your argument.

The two statements do not address the same issue, and don't even have the same context. Classical and quantum are not trying to solve the same problem — classical has determined states while QM doesn't. However, that does not mean that we can't show this, and doesn't mean the paper in question omits the QM analysis — it goes through both a classical and QM treatment. They are shown to disagree. Direct? Probably, but it's early and nothing pops into mind at the moment. But science does not always rely on direct tests. Insisting on a narrow scope of results is to categorically reject certain scientific evidence without justification or inspection. The results that immediately come to mind are interferometric results that depend on superposition of states. You can compare them, but they won't agree.

! Moderator Note Wonderful. However, posting just to show videos or other forms of blog-like advertising are against the rules. You are free to discuss things here, though.

Yes, you did suggest something else. You suggested that we can't tell if a particle has a definite spin before detection. This experiment contradicts that claim. The correlations predicted by QM are that there are no local hidden variables. That there is no definite spin before detection. i.e. the opposite of what you had suggested. Oh, bullshit. You keep saying there is no way to tell when the particle attains the spin it was measured to have. Since it has to have that spin once we've measured it, the only other option is that it already had that spin. And if it's an entangled pair, we can measure the second particle to confirm its spin (though we know it already)with an arbitrarily short delay between measurements, so we can confirm that it has its spin at that time. So again, the only other option is that it already had that spin before the measurement. Which is excluded by the Bell test. So if you agree with that, why is it you have insisted that we can't tell when a particle attains the spin we measure it to have? What is the other option here? It doesn't matter which one is measured first. That's the whole crux of the weirdness of entanglement. We already know that the results are acausal — any purported signal that might have been sent between particles would have to exceed c. From what I can tell, what this experiment shows is that same effect but in a different way. The experiment is cast in terms of the particles' frames. The observer is in only one frame, and once the observer measures one spin, s/he has determined both spins. This experiment is demonstrating a separate effect, as I just explained.

How does that experiment contradict what I said? Not confirming is not the same as contradicting — a physics experiment is designed to test specific aspects of physics, not all of them. The experiment is consistent with what I was saying. Well, yes it is. You don't appear to recognize it, though. Stop moving the goalposts around. You asked several things. It's disingenuous to take an answer to one question and complain that it's not the answer to another one. Bell tests are all about whether the particle has a definite spin, and further, you asked me to provide experiments in response to "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." Several (if not all) of those experiments show precisely this. And it's how we know entangled spins were not determined before the measurement. That they are correlated, and the way they are correlated, tells us a lot. Does the article claim to violate the Bell test (such that there are hidden variables)? No, it doesn't. So, in summary: Bell experiments tell us that the spins are not determined before measurement. Conservation of angular momentum and experimental confirmation tell us that the spins are determined when any particle is measured.

So, that's a "no" for my question? Citations are in the references https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bell_test_experiments

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.