geordief

I dunno .I thought she played a belter.

Would a surgical truss do the job?

Was my guess at first too but iNow told me it was probably a server malfunction affecting many other forums(sciforums .com came back today as well) after a week offline)

Einstein is famously (not necessarily correctly or usefully) said to have wondered what it would be like to put oneself in the frame of a beam of light. Has anyone tried to do this wrt a quantum particle btw interactions? If we try to walk in the shoes of this "particle" is there anything in between the first interaction)its "birth" and its second interaction ,its "death"? If the particle can be seen to have a "timeline" passing through successive interactions can these be seen as metamorphosed in some way? My (philosophical?) bias is to a form of panpsychism ,which may be why I entertain these wacky ideas in the first place (but I do understand that panpsychism is ,while not necessarily semi respectable in a scientific context ,then perhaps not outside the pale entirely) Another question that occurs to me is whether there might be any connection btw the curvature of spacetime that is modeled for GR and the entanglement that is modeled for QM? Do both these models use tensor cross products to model their respective phenomena and does entanglement put one in mind of a kind of curvature(like the way that ivy grows into itself as it grows up a tree trunk)? I have only just noticed that QM uses tensors and I am unfamiliar with them but was a bit surprised as I didn't realise they were used outside GR (I assume they must also be used in all sorts of other environments that I would know nothing of)

Thanks.I think I am done with analogies but I have another question or 2 and I suppose I should start a new thread on those musings..

I think I understand. The term "ghostly presence" can ,I think be understood as a purely mathematical concept.(probabilities) Are you treating it to represent a physical reality ,or maybe just as a way to picture the model (a close analogy)** as something like a moving object surrounded by wraithy versions of itself that may or may not assume the position of king pin when an interaction is encountered? My initial feeling is that the passage btw interactions in completely empty and that the interval btw interactions may constitute something like a "unit of existence" for these simple systems but I don't understand the basics of the theory so that is just hot (or v cold) air. **after all ,an analogy is what I asked about in the OP.

What are you talking about when you say "composite system"? Is it a potentially macro system like a molecule of water? If so,how many properties could that water molecule have (if it is a good example)? And do all those properties have an "anti property" with which it is superpositioned on top of all the other property/antiproperty pairs so that ,when an interaction occurs only one of each property/antiproperty choices comes to the fore? Is it something like that you are suggesting? Edit: unless you are only talking about entangled systems.....

I am a bit hamstrung in that I feel that I am not in command of the experimental results (in order to judge how close any particular analogy approaches*) but can I ask you this? Einstein famously struggled against his notion of spooky action and looked for hidden variables but in my ,admittedly badly informed mind it seems very intuitive to me that two halves of an identical production will maintain the mutual relationship until such time as they have revealed their characteristics by interaction with another system What do you think I might be missing?It seems so simple to me**? (I can't see how ftl signals could be imagined to be a part of this -even though the practical uses of this phenomenon ho totally over my head) * but yes ,the coin analogy seems good.(but does it illustrate superposition?) **am I just whistling in the dark and believing whatever makes thinking easy for me?

Is this a good analogy? Take a word,any word. "Phantasy" will do. Suppose I use it. it has a meaning in my mind when I say it and another(indistinguishibly different) meaning if I say it the next day To the person I address it has another meaning and to a third person another meaning too (never exactly the same) If the intrinsic meanings of the words we use to represent ideas are built of of layers of context does that make them analagous to how superposition works on objects in the quantum world?

Success is defined in terms of context and whether progress is made in the intended direction( interesting that the ancient Greek word for " to sin" was , to an approximation "aparthein "** which also meant "to miss the mark" But more than one step can be considered and after a long period of developments one can reassess how "successful " one"'s actions have been. The criteria changes over time. We fought WW2 for democracy and now we have Putin,Trump et al. Should we have done better (been more successful) to have lost the war? ** a very wide approximation from ancient memory - perhaps it was "amartanein"

No histrionics either from where I was sitting, even though she was making the point that those ignorant and pitiable thugs had been incited by the (still then) "President" I think those Trumpists who can bear to watch may try to claim it was unfairly edited. If it was to any degree they only have themselves to blame. Fascinating also how we saw the tv screen as Pelosi et al tried to gather support from the National Guard (?)and how they were watching events unfold but we are supposed to give credence to the idea that Trump was not watching as well (several witnesses to the contrary )

Is that the most effective installment to date? Can anyone watch those fly on the wall scenes without being drawn in? I was fascinated by the interplay btw Schumer and Pelosi. Both under extreme pressure.

Thanks.I will have to do a little(a lot) more reading before I can ask any more questions.

So they are entirely separate ? (I hope so because I am more interested in the HUP than the OE at the moment) In the HUP what is it that makes ,eg position and momentum mutually dependent? Or is it self evident that they do and does the fact that they do share this mutual dependency mean that one cannot know the one in isolation from the other? And so the position/momentum state has to be described mathematically in a "two dimensional" way? Are there other pairs of attributes that apply to other systems that behave the same way?

I understand that the uncertainty principle is "baked into" the world as we know it whereas the observer effect describes the practical impossibility of an actual sentient observer from taking a simultaneous measurement of an object with attributes such as position and momentum to an idealised degree of complete accuracy What I am asking is how these two concepts relate to each other? Is ,perhaps the UP a generalization of the OE or is the OE a specific case of the UH (not sure if those are equivalent definitions or not) I understand that even Heisenberg thought (at first?) that the he was describing an OE so I don't feel bad about myself for having believed likewise for a very long time over the years.. So what is the relationship? Are they two separate concepts or are they joined at the hip? A quick google brought up discussions in a few philosophy forums .I hope that is not where this topic actually belongs

OK I can see that the maths involved in Bell's theorem is too hard for me to follow for now (even though I have come across the notation** used in the past) I see there are a few ways that entanglement can arise and learn now that it was considered by Evin Schodinger (sp?) to be absolutely central to QM. I will just keep at it and maybe it will become clearer eventually. ** I think it looked like a tensor or a cross product they were using before I gave up trying to follow.

Thanks,I will take a look tomorrow.

How did it come about that 2 particles were considered to be entangled? What were the preconditions for this to occur? I imagine (I am just guessing) that there was a theory and that this theory was confirmed when its predictions were observed. How was the theory arrived at?

I think chainsaws are dangerous (as are bowsaws-I have cut right through the nail once and my doc said he never got to see any injuries from professionals) but they also damage the nerves in the hands I think and are also unpleasant to use. And they are not that much faster than a bowsaw if you spend half your time sharpening the chain and refilling the petrol and the oil like I used to. If the trunks are too big I just leave them to grow on and go for smaller trees . If you know which way the tree is leaning you can take down quite big trees as the cut eventually opens and the tree goes under it's own weight. I don't know if you read "Where the Crawdads sing"(now a film) but ,listening to myself I sound to myself a bit like the protagonist in that story 😀 And yes ,the escape path is the first thing to organise.

From the latest description of the Russian army 's living quarters as revealed after their retreat we can say that part of the economy is based on pigs and porc production.

I had the idea because (and I just use a bowsaw) some trees are difficult to get a good place to start a cut and also they often just fall on their neighbour and I have to make a second or third attempt to bring them to ground.I thought I would do this and attend to them later when they might be lighter and easier to handle. I have noticed that standing dead trees in my field are often very dry and for me the dryer the better I have made quite a deep "girdle" so I will see how it works. What,even up past the cut I have all around the trunk?(about 3' off the ground) Would a deeper cut make a difference?

As I have trees in my field that I use as firewood,I have started a new technique of cutting through the bark a little above ground level so that they die standing up rather than by felling them as I normally do. Can I anticipate that they will dry more quickly than otherwise? Will the water already in the timber tend to sink under the action of gravity? I understand that it is capillary action that feeds the upper branches in the first place (when alive)but I do not know if there is anything like a reverse path for that water as the tree dies and slowly dries out.

A bit like time as we understand it "going into and exiting its own black hole"? Not sure if I am going off topic ,but I have heard the expression countless times that the photon in a vacuum is not a valid frame of reference. I can, I think see that the mathematical equations might not allow this (infinities involved?) but is there also a physical reality that this impossibility indicates?

Are photons "more quantum" than atoms ? If there were no atoms (which is supposed to have been the case at an earlier epoch) would it then be impossible to count any tocks?

The atomic clock involves an interaction btw quantum objects and a macro system ,doesn't it? Can the process of the passage of time be defined and quantified without recourse to a macro system and just by means of interactions within the quantum system itself?