geordief

Thanks.I also deduce from your answer that one can indeed produce identifiable pairs** of entangled particles "to order" ** ie we know they are an entangled pair

It is not possible to produce pairs of entangled particles "to order"? The same time and location of source does not guarantee that?

It has always been my understanding(very likely ignorant or flawed) .Do you want to explain under what circumstances a "pacifist" might take up arms against an "enemy"? Perhaps in another thread as I think pacifism ,at least as I have understood it is the last thing that Ukraine needs just now.

How more specific?I don't see immediately how to be more specific. I assume you don't mean I should specify the type of particle and the particular state do you?(I had photon ×spin in mind even if I can"t claim to understand that phenomenon)

Who is saying "keep fighting"? It is "keep supporting" (Obviously a grey area but the idea that we are fighting to the last drop of Ukrainian blood is very misleading) You have already told us you are a pacifist ...good luck with that.

Suppose we have such a pair(A and B) and place detectors (not sure if more than one detector is possible or of use) along the path of particle A but do not do so along the path of particle B Is there any way to determine at which point (or between which points) particle B has any interaction? Alternatively, is there any way at all it is possible to state that there has not been any interaction (and so the particles are still entangled)? As a related (perhaps almost identical) question , is there anything at all we can say(or infer?) about the state of a particle in between observations? (I assume the answer must be "No")

Are the statistical correlations what result when the individual observations are fed into the Bell's inequality equations? And do the individual observations give a 100% accurate as predicted outcome? ie each matched pair of entangled particles exhibits inverse properties for ,for example spin? (So I quite wrong in my assumption in my previous post?)

Is this true ?Have there only been statistical observations and never a one to one observation? (I only ask to fill in this gap in my knowledge and not to buttress any pov I might have....)

You have a very good point but appeasement is a very different animal in the era of mutually assured destruction. Were it not for Ukraine's noble resistance from day one of this latest phase of Russia's aggression the West would have acquiesced in Russia's theft of nearly all if Ukraine. That would have been a policy I would have supported since the alternative was a possible nuclear exchange btw Russia and Nato. Ukraine's resistance and self assertion has reshuffled the cards but Russia is still a nuclear power led by a madman and we still have to navigate dangerous waters.

Yes,thanks. I didn't think of that.

So the sender cannot ensure the the particles are what he or she intends without breaking the entanglement? Is that the crux? They must be random for him to send them and so the best that can be arrived at is a mirror image of a random stream? But what about spacing the time intervals btw the pulses? Would that be information that the sender could control which would not be random but intended?

I was imagining that the time intervals btw particles could be encoded.(or similar methods) It would be enough to know that a stream of entangled particles was "incoming" and that something about the stream was ordered in some way. If there was a way of knowing that a group of particles had been entangled then we might be able to read off the order in which they had been entangled. The individual readouts could be irrelevant.

If there was an encoded message in the (stream of) particles that said anything at all (esp "hi,my name is hjuigr. I am your entanglement partner .How can I help you?") it might be an indication that there was a (stream of) particles out there with an encoder tapping away. I mean the message could be anything but it could be some kind of a language primer ) Quite apart from the specific nature of this OP I am trying to understand the topic of entanglement on the round. I wonder whether what I understand to be the random nature of the result of any interaction would act to prevent any such "stream" or encoding to be established in the first place? I mean ,yes, I imagine anyone could encode a message using a stream of entangled particles but would the message be irredemably lost because of the random nature of the phenomenon (I am fishing for replies.Even as OP I am not qualified to suggest an opinion

(wasn't sure in which sub forum to put this one) I have been trying to follow (some of) the ongoing entanglement topic and this has occurred to me. Suppose there was a way to look for entangled particles (coming from deep space) that showed a pattern indicating that they were created deliberately ,could that be an indication someone was sending a message from the location of the "twins" of the particles we had just encountered ? Could we answer by locating the source of the signalling and then finding a source of entangled particles midway between us and them and encoding them?(they would reach us and our interlocutors at the same time) .......In theory (if the technology advanced to make it a practical proposition) We would be effectively setting up a walkie talkie system between the past and the present ,so we might have to stand well clear!!! Have there been other attempts(in theory) to do this? (I know that no signal can be sent directly from one location to the other by "conventional" means. Even if this worked for a distance of 1 light milli milli milli milli second it would show the potential for inter civilization communication....so has it been definitively shown that this cannot happen (obviously we can never prove a negative -if I got that right)

Hobbs. Did he write Leviathon? btw a well written piece in one of Murdoch's papers I just came upon https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119882422/#Comment_119882422

You can't upvote an erroneous Latin construction just to own the elites (it's "omnium" not "omnia"-gen.plural) Actually completely unfamiliar with Hobbs and Leviathon.Is he a kind of a Jonathan Swift type author?

Quite possibly they are hoping (even aiming) for Ukraine's defences to land in a Nato country. Not much anyone can do about that since they(Russia) should not be sending missiles in the first place. As a one off (or very infrequent) event I expect Poland will "suck it up" or perhaps seek compensation from Russia or Belarus.

Don't they add up the electrons inside the voting machines. I wonder how many electrons are missing this time. Maybe some got superimposed? Or was it just destructive interference from Venn Aswalia?

I was in America some 45 years ago.I only spent some 3 months there but I was directly threatened with a gun on one occasion ,witnessed a landlord threaten his tenants with a firearm on another occasion ,was physically threatened with a rubber hose when collecting my wages and was picked up in a car whose owner was driving to his ex-wife's house to put a bullet in his/hers horse which he did not want her to have. I also witnessed first hand an example of a white person calling the police on a black person and the police simply took the former's word and dragged the black man away with no ceremony. I was amazed to be told by friends that we stayed with in Washington that the sounds we could hear at night were gunshots. The advice at the time (worse then than now I think) was to avoid eye contact with strangers in the street.

Is Minkowski spacetime not just basically (ignoring the c) plotting x against dx/dt? A bit like plotting a quantity against a property of itself Are there other examples where a function can be plotted against it's own derivative wrt time in a precise way? I don't have the physics or the maths to judge but it feels to me like there could be some kind of self reference in the two quantities being plotted against each other where they should be independent. Edit:apologies. I see I am quite wrong(confusion** set in ) about x being plotted against it's own derivative wrt time in the Minkowski diagram Feel free to disregard this contribution (can't see the "embarrassed" emoticon) **I must have confused c ,which is a speed with dx/dt which is also a speed but which is not being plotted on the Minkowski diagram)

I wonder if this emission spotter tool will be as important and powerful as the reporter in this article is saying "Emissions data a powerful tool in climate change fight" issions data a powerful tool in climate change fighttps://www.rte.ie/news/analysis-and-comment/2022/1109/1335215-cop27/ Can they no longer run and hide from the sies in the sky and the sensors on the ground? Is it a duck shoot now?

If any point in the spacetime model is specified wrt any reference point is it inevitably the case that that point can only ever be an approximation to any physical activity that actually takes place there? If so is this because of theories like the Uncertainty Principle or does it simply follow from the spacetime model itself, because it models both position and time ,as well as (I imagine) that at the most detailed level that all things are in relative motion no matter how we try to set up any scenario that might illustrate processes at rest to each other?** **Not completely sure if that is completely accurate and I think Studiot recently disagreed with Joigus as to whether "Panta Rhei" was as fundamental a proposition as I have always taken it to be.

It is different now with many countries fully supplied with arsenals and overkill just a couple of clicks away. You are not seriously asking us to use the end of www2 as a template for how we should approach this subject? Address the current situation.Things have moved right along.

No I think he is right.Unless we all accept that we will all be losers (and painfully mutilated and sickly losers in the event of a full scale -or less than full scale nuclear war) then the likelihood of that happening increases. Those who stock up and invest in their bunkers are indirectly dooming those who do not. Politicians and generals in charge of these decisions have to prepare for their own survival or the credibility of their threat will be diminished but they really have as much prospects as Hitler in his bunker if such a war is fought. Those investing in post apocalyptic survival are really just taking a random Hobson's choice Far better to invest in politicians who will not lead us down this path in the first place.

Deterrence (in the eyes of the holder of the weapons) Since a nuclear exchange can destroy nearly all life on the planet we have to find an alternative way for people to co exist without that recurring nightmare.** What does "scientifically senseless" mean ,anyway.? **all contributions and proposals welcome