swansont

But you would be wrong within currently understood physics, so that would be a bad idea.

Most anything that requires blowing, I would suspect. Blowing up a balloon, for instance, probably doesn't work well without inhaling beforehand. Blowing a bubble with bubble gum, too. Soap bubbles.

"Biofield treatment" sounds like snake oil. Reiki, etc. Studies suggest they can reduce pain, but are there any that show that this is anything but the placebo effect? A small study suggests "no" http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10328637 "none of the final participants in round 4 (4 breast cancer patients and 4 observers) could differentiate between the identity of placebo and Reiki practitioners." IOW, as long as the patients believed they were being treated, they felt better. Anything that shows that diseases have been cured at a rate above placebo?

! Moderator Note You don't have a theory, you have a vague idea. And coming up with the math is not the trivial part. This falls well short of what we expect for speculations

Uh, no, there is no hidden variable talk here. The particle's spin is undetermined until you measure it. Once you measure it, the particle has that spin. If you measure it again, it will always have that same spin. I don't see how saying the spin is undetermined until measurement, which makes it have a certain spin, could possibly suggest a hidden variable scenario. Further, the entanglement means once we measure the spin of the first particle, we instantly know the spin of the second one — all of the information about the spins is in that one measurement. If you want more detail on this, see http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/87347-why-hidden-variables-dont-work/ Also, the assumption in science is that what we measure is the real behavior. So measuring the particle to be spin down means the particle is spin down.

If you have a hidden variable, i.e. the spin is already determined before it hits the detector, then half of your choices are not possible for detector A. You cannot detect a particle as spin down if it really is spin up. That makes any further critique moot. Did you even watch the whole video?

A ball revolving around you in circular motion is accelerating. It must be accelerating, or else it would move in a straight line, as studiot has pointed out. Since there must be a net force, you can't have a force balancing it.

1. Do you have a link? 2. Why would anyone want to pot trains?

6 possibilities? What happened to 36? (with 18 matches) You said "If both detectors have number 1, that is a match. if one detector has a 1 and the other has a 4, that is a mismatch." But here, you have omitted the possibility of both having the same spin, i.e. what you called a match. You don't seem to be making a consistent argument. You also haven't addressed any of the other possibilities discussed in the video, such as measuring the A1 and B2 correlation, or any of the others where the detector orientations differ. You don't seem to be analyzing the same experiment as is described in the video.

! Moderator Note It would be helpful if you did not name your threads in an identical manner.

There are experiments that show that the states can be measured to have their correlation such that D/∆t is much larger than c. (D is separation distance, ∆t is the time difference of the measurement). However, this is not considered a communication link.

The statement is stronger than that. There is 100% correlation of the spins, which are undetermined before the measurement. If the particles had a pre-determined spin before the measurement, you would get different results. So in essence, the particle does become spin down when the other particle is measured to be spin up, because we know the specific spins could not have been in place before the measurement.

! Moderator Note Please stick to the topic. This is about the physics of time travel, not the ontology of time.

To say he "started heads" up means you are discussing the hidden variable approach (or this points to your misunderstanding of the situation). In standard QM, his state is undetermined. But if he is heads up, then he cannot be detected heads down. The probability of state 4 is zero. In the case being analyzed, we are looking at the correlation of detector B. So if we look at the 0º orientation of detector A, we get heads up. We want to know the three possibilities of the three orientations of detector B. When we look at the 120º case, there is again only one possible answer — that's the whole meaning of having a hidden variable. If the hidden variable says he is heads up, then he will never be detected heads down, and vice-versa. So there is only one possible answer for detector A at 120º, and three answers for detector B. Same for 240º. That's where the nine results come from. If you do the analysis for getting spin down at detector A, you will get nine more results, but the answer will be the same (5/9, or 1, depending on the hidden variable correlation) You aren't analyzing the problem that was given to you. You are analyzing something else. (I'm not sure what, but it's not the Bell test) The particle at A and particle at B must always be anti-correlated if detected in the same orientation, in the example in the video. The angular momentum (spin) is conserved. So some of your 36 possibilities don't actually exist. It is not possible to detect the same orientation of the particle for detectors with the same orientation. You will never see both detectors giving you state 1. It's physically impossible, so you can't call it a possible result.

Acceleration is F/m. You have zero energy when you are stationary and begin the acceleration and lots of energy later on when you are moving quickly. According to general relativity, acceleration and gravity are not distinguishable. If you were in a sealed room, you could not tell the difference between a 1g acceleration and being stationary on the earth's surface. IOW, acceleration is acceleration. Gravity is not special in that regard. But the only reason you feel the effects of gravity when standing on the earth is that you are being held stationary — you feel the earth pushing up on you. In free-fall, you feel nothing.

Since acceleration and gravity are indistinguishable, free fall and zero g should be as well

And if the particle at detector A is down, you get the same set of correlation results as if it was up, so the math is the same. 10/18 is the same as 5/9. But you somehow got 18/36, which is what I asked about (and I think I was quite clear on this) and you still haven't addressed that calculation. If it was a calculation.

What have you done already to try and solve the problem?

The standard assumption is that it rolls without sliding. So there's friction to get it rolling but none that robs the system of energy.

! Moderator Note For future reference I will ONCE AGAIN remind you of the relevant part of rule 2.7: "members should be able to participate in the discussion without clicking any links or watching any videos." Do not respond to this in the thread

Because that's how you do a conditional probability calculation. The question being asked is what is the probability of a result in detector B given a particular result in detector A. The probability of what happens at detector A is 1. So, given that detector A gives the result at that location, the calculation is what happens at detector B. WHERE DO YOU GET 18? You have shown no calculation, or given any explanation, at all. There is no possible result with the head pointing in. Your only choices are up and down. The video goes through two iterations of the hidden variable case, with defined spins for the 3 orientations in detector A. For each one, there are 3 cases to check in detector B. That's nine. Any other iteration for detector A is going to give the same result: 5/9, or higher. He does not claim there are only 3 possibilities. Apparently you missed the part where he says that all other combinations are mathematically equivalent. That's why he only investigates the two cases. The rest will give the same result.

! Moderator Note Sorry. We don't dispense medical advice here, other than to say you should consult a medical professional.

Yes. You gave the moment of inertia in your first post. It has both values in it, and they will both show up in the answer. Is the problem in deriving the moment of inertia?

That's not the calculation he's doing, but I'm not sure what the objection is. 9 combinations is what he looks at. There is no rotation of the whole system 180 degrees — that's not the problem he's solving. I don't see where you get 18/36 instead of 4/9. You still haven't explained that.

Being a black hole does not affect the gravitational pull of an object of the same mass, so it's rather easy to see, IMO, ways in which this would not matter at all.