swansont

Watch a baseball game sometime. Especially if the pitcher throws a knuckleball.

It's sin or cos depending on which axis you reference. Because that's how trig works.

Trigonometry

A viewpoint, which was irrelevant to the claim.

I'm a little of both, but what I'm not is clairvoyant, so I can't tell what you're doing in the video. I see twiddling of something on a panel and pan/tilt adjustments, but it's less informative than an unlabeled graph.

But that is a correlation. So it's a bad example of having no correlation. Go after criminals? Gosh, why didn't anyone think of that before? Still waiting for actual evidence that "criminals are poor because they have a problem with working for a living."

What's that now? According to me? I don't think so.

! Moderator Note There is no scientific discussion in the video, so there's really no basis for discussion. The "effects" seem to be screen grabs of unexplained computer manipulation. The topic can be discussed, and if there are issues where you have some technical information to present, you can bring those up.

You've repeatedly cited an example that's measuring a spin, and you've been critiquing the analysis. To all of the sudden claim that spin isn't involved is preposterous.

Because you're measuring the projection of the spin.

I don't even know what that means. A state of a particle will correlate to that state. A spin up particle is spin up. That seems like a tautology. That refers specifically to parametric down-conversion, so no, many photons can't become entangled, since their sources is not parametric down-conversion

Right. It's not horizontal or vertical that's the issue. It's the actual angle vs a poorly measured angle from a flawed detector. If the bowling pin is at 10º to some axis, your detector won't measure this. The theory only cares that the angle is 10º, not that you measure it to be some other value. The details of how the detector works can't be included in the discussion. A measurement that depends on cos (the bowling pin) will not vary the same as one that depends on cos^2 (polarization). Notice that the construction details of the detector are completely absent from that statement.

I think you have massively misunderstood my objection to your claim. The details of the detector CANNOT matter. There is no horizontal vs vertical distinction. What exchange made you think that this was an issue?

Sure they are. I don't know how you get to that from what I said. Claiming that every particle is entangled with every other particle is very different from saying that some small group of particles can become entangled.

No, it's not.

No, actually, it wouldn't. First of all, energy is conserved. The minimum energy required to take apart the nucleus is exactly the same as you get when you assemble it. From that standpoint it would take no extra energy at all. The minimum energy to take apart the nucleus is given by the binding energy. This being science (you should try it sometime) we can calculate the binding energy of U-238. It's about 1.8 GeV. (The difference between the mass of the constituent particles and the mass of the U-238, multiplied by c^2). Since some of the hydrogen would have to be deuterium and tritium, owing to all the extra neutrons, it would take even less energy than this to break the Uranium up into hydrogen. That means you're off by at least 44 orders of magnitude . (there are 6.24 x 10^9 GeV/Joule) That's not typically considered "approximately correct"

Baloney. What you've done is shown that if you build a really crappy detector, you can get results that don't have good agreement with the theory. Because the detector is crappy. I can do a similar thing by leaving the lens cap on a telescope. But that doesn't disprove astronomical observations.

If we're talking about science, visceral knowledge can go pound sand. We want empirical knowledge. Not making sweeping generalizations (which you actually did, twice, in the passage under discussion) would seem to be at odds with making absolute statements.

Wanted to update this with the note that installed solar PV in the US has passed 20 GW (up from ~1 GW in 2008), and about an equal amount to that is expected to be installed by the end of 2016. 40 GW would be around a 4000% increase since just before the economic collapse and the stimulus, which kick-started solar. Such failure. http://www.greentechmedia.com/articles/read/us-solar-market-prepares-for-biggest-quarter-in-history

The temperature drops because the wavelength increases, in proportion to the expansion of the universe. Wien's law connects the wavelength with a temperature. http://www.phy.duke.edu/~kolena/cmb.htm http://www.cv.nrao.edu/course/astr534/CMB.html

A 1 kg ball moving with a speed of 1 m/s has half a Joule of translational KE. But it doesn't have a temperature based on that rolling. kT for that energy is about 10^22 K. Temperature assumes an ensemble of particles that have reached a steady state and exhibit a Maxwell-Boltzmann distribution of speeds. The description of colliders assumes that you had such an ensemble, because in the early universe you did. You would need to assume you had billions of 1 kg balls, elastically colliding , with an average speed of 1 m/s to assign a temperature to that.

Nope. There are arguments on this very discussion board that refute your naive contention.

No, not really. Temperature tells you something about energy - average vibrational KE - but the reverse isn't true.

It's not obvious to me.

Even if that were true (you might note it's one hypothesis among many in that link), I don't see how it supports your claim that "criminals are poor because they have a problem with working for a living"