swansont

Where’s the entanglement?

The electromagnetic signal you claim is present. One should be able to break entanglement simply by shielding one if the psrticles. You are, in effect, claiming that neutrinos could not be entangled. The Hanbury-Brown-Twiss effect is not due to entanglement. Neither is Einstein’s bubble.

So why isn’t it blocked the way EM signals are blocked? How would neutrinos become entangled, since they don’t interact this way? The one you linked to, by Cramer and Mead

Especially if one always tells the truth and the other always lies

Yes, thanks, that was a typo. Fixed.

That’s the topic of this thread and you’re expected to provide evidence of this. We know of the electromagnetic, gravitational, strong and weak interactions. Which one is responsible? It’s also pretty clear in the paper that the discussion of this interaction is not the discussion of entanglement, which cites the Freedman-Clauser experiment (entangled photons)

Not sure what spacetime has to do with this, but if you have a delta function as an eigenstate for position, you don’t have a delta function for momentum (and vice-versa). There’s no path to superposition via this argument. The position and momentum states will have the width necessary for a one-to-one correlation, because they are fourier transforms of each other, which why there’s a HUP

No qualification necessary to ask questions and learn

Well, this is a discussion forum. If you just want to pontificate, you can start a blog.

Name a system with Dirac delta function position and momentum states. Superposition is a straightforward consequence of the existence of multiple eigenstates and the fact that you can use different bases. There’n no need to invoke the HUP, which certainly doesn’t come into play in many circumstances.

Are there position and momentum eigenstates, which have no uncertainty? I can’t think of any systems like this off the top of my head. (Energy eigenstates, for example, can have an uncertainty, so knowing the lifetime does not put them in a superposition.) In any event, a contrived example will not imply that this is generally true, i.e. a “necessary consequence”

How do you assess whether someone is sufficiently intelligent and/or compassionate in an unbiased way? A reason why utopian systems fail is that they are idealized and never account for human failings.

Because 1) they could not trade the tokens for cash and 2) only poor people abuse drugs and alcohol?

How is a|1> + b|2> a consequence of the HUP? You need to provide a link to an actual experiment where this has been demonstrated

Hyperbole There isn’t going to be a dangerous amount of antimatter on the truck, which the article points out. ”the quantities of antimatter carried will be insufficient to make an explosion of any recognisable nature.” The truck is needed because of the bulky nature of the containment vessel, not because there’s a macroscopic amount of antimatter

The subsidies and contracts ensure profitability. The money is made by the appreciation of the stocks in publicly-traded companies, or selling his stake in the profitable companies. The government has to follow the rules. SpaceX has been known to cut certain regulatory corners Not 10x, but likely more. Plus you need to have the expertise in-house. Once you stop building rockets (or anything in tech, really) and people leave, it’s hard to reassemble the expertise.

arctanh, not arctan

We’re discussing posts, i.e. things posted here, not papers. Papers have a lot more citations, but they are generally much longer and narrower in scope and in greater depth. As to the quoted bit, I think the prior knowledge we assume is heavily dependent on the question being asked. If it’s on an introductory topic, very little should be assumed. Advanced topics suggest more prior knowledge can be assumed. And the OP can always clarify.

You admit that the speed of light has been tested numerous times, so to say it hasn’t been tested is either just gross ignorance, stupidity, or a lie. Ignorance again, since the speed of light was measured numerous times before the value was defined. That’s how they decided on the defined value! There’s nuance and some history here that you are ignoring. I’m not sure why you have this fetish for measuring over the distance of a light year. Scientists do measurements, often quite clever in implementation, constrained by what they can actually measure. Restricting science by demanding that they do something that’s not possible is bad faith. Interpretations of QM are meant to provide a framework for understanding QM, i.e. it aids in intuition. But all interpretations use the same theory and arrive at the same result. I can’t go by your say-so, given the misconceptions you’ve presented elsewhere. You need to provide citations/links

You don’t see the contradiction here? You say you can’t get a different value for c, but then point out how people got a different value for c.

You can put phrases into a search engine and see if there are credible sources for them (not just people repeating them, or worse, anything a LLM spits out, but actual sources)

Playing “what if?” is a useless game. What if we discovered magnetic monopoles all over the place? What if we saw things spontaneously starting to rotate? It would force us to rethink a lot of physics. But until there’s empirical evidence, it means nothing. Einstein didn’t exactly embrace quantum mechanics. He was wrong, so why does it matter what he called it? If the value of c actually changed, then the length of the meter and duration of the second would also have to change to give us the same answer. i.e. things would have to actually get bigger or smaller. But we also have dimensionless constants (like the fine structure constant) that are actually constant, too. This isn’t the problem you seem to think it is. When you have a testable model of how this can happen, be sure to present it. Until you do, though, this is just bollocks. Science goes with the best theory it has for any particular phenomenon, and that means having a model and evidence to support it. Any notion of what light does or does not experience is fiction; we don’t have any physics that describes what happens from light’s point of view - it doesn’t have a reference frame. And again, when you have a testable model, present it. Anything else is just noise without a signal.

So? The point was they said “we atheists” which, as I was pointing out, implies a totality, not a majority. If they had said a majority, or many, it wouldn’t have been an issue.

It’s happened before (adopting the Gregorian calendar), and lots of people didn’t like losing 10-11 days. That shift was caused by not having the solstices on the right days, so Easter wasn’t on the right day, and the Christians might object to mucking it up all over again

If you added a day, the subsequent solstices and equinoxes would happen a calendar day earlier. (something that should be happening Mar 1 shifts to Feb 29) If you added a day to one month but subtracted it to a later month, there’s no net effect afterwards. We do this with daylight saving. Noon has not moved over the years. You could simply not observe leap years for a while, but why?