geordief

I am learning the coherence of a quantum system can be maintained over very great distances and this leads me to ask the question in the Title of the thread. In that example distance is less important than the number of potential or actual interactions with an entangled system? Could that be considered as a kind of "distance" in quantum physics? If not ,what is the concept of distance in quantum physics ? Just the same as in classical physics?

Thanks,I think I get it now.My (OP) question implied a distinction that isn't really there.

Yes. a behaviour that could be classed as quantum that would be solely responsible for (or would metamorphose into) a behaviour that could only be classed as classical. I don't think entanglement would do that. There seems no limit ,outside practicalities to how extensive it can be made to behave. I expect it would be possible to find classical behaviour that would be analagous to quantum behaviour but that would likely mean very little.

Just what I can't do.It feels to me that I may be "arguing" from the general rather than to advance from anything specific. As @studiot says ,there could be different ways in which the macro operates differently from the micro. At present my feeling is that the macro could be the statistical outcome of the micro but that seems to be just a part of the picture,if correct. If entanglement can operate on millions of particles then that might argue against my "statistical" idea.

Could it be said that there is a causal relationship between the way things work at the quantum level and the way they work at the macro level? Would it be something of a one way street?(ie is the quantum more fundamental and the classical more derivative?) Is causal the wrong word, might "emerge from" be closer? I am fishing here, but are there any (maybe many?) phenomena that could be described as both quantum and classical or is that just a bad way to look at it in the first place?

Are we saying the same thing here? (from a recent post of mine on another forum) https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=83313.0 I asked there whether the global gravity field may have originated around the time of the BB and has been gradually metamorphosing ever since.

Are you saying that ,far from any mass it is possible for there to be an object with the independent means to rotate about itself and to create an artificial gravity? (I have not read very much about Mach's Principle or the significance attached by Einstein to Mach's ideas.)

Thanks. Words (=ideas) are hard for me (but yes I did read it and will try again) The question ,though I am asking is whether ,if Einstein had not existed would a physicist have found it a lot easier to understand the Equivalence Principle once he or she became familiar with the concept of weightlessness ,as was the general public once astronauts started floating around in their cabins a la Gagarin. I know Einstein's mind's eye showed him the workman falling off his ladder and so being weightless for a very short time.... (I wasn't sure whether to post this thread in the hard science section as my question was maybe as much historical as involving the nitty gritty of the theory) Edit:top of page 376 is that a misprint: "mb=K superscript1"? Does "mk=K superscript1" make more sense?

Einstein describes how an accelerating sealed chamber is indistinguishable from a gravitational field to an observer in the chamber. I have learned and read a little about this in the past 5 years or so and also that Einstein described this as his happiest idea. It seems to be possibly the kernel of General Relativity and yet I wonder whether his appreciation was any different or more profound than the appreciation of weightlessness and artificial gravity that became common knowledge as soon as astronauts went into space in the 60s. True ,Einstein realized this without seeing astronauts floating around the spacecraft but what I want to ask is whether the common or garden appreciation of weightlessness and artificial gravity that is really second nature to most people (well I hope so) is equally enlightening as Einstein's Equivalence Principle or is there more to it than that(I appreciate that astronauts do not accelerate to the extent of causing light rays to bend in front of their eyes😀 )

Reported for non-attribution of quotation😇

Well philosophers can be objects of ridicule (think Python) https://youtu.be/l9SqQNgDrgg and Socrates himself was dismissive of them in his Apologia ,not wishing to be associated with them and their seeming reputation for speciousness (was it?) -he was being accused of not respecting the gods ,if I recall correctly) Imagine how insufferable they would be as a profession if they agreed on a position

I don't need any app on my phone as it came included in one of the android upgrades. I just have to turn on the camera ,point it at the QR code and the website connected to the QR code pops up on the screen. I have no idea if this procedure works differently with non android phones.

Oh,peas.

Currantly

It's a squishy slope that comes to no gourd.

Are we allowed ad hominyms now ?

You cannot fight the Man from Del Monte

Thanks,plenty there.

They were preserved in aspic.

Cream whipped?

I can't edit it now.

What are the conditions that favour the set of ,eg blackcurrant jelly? I assume the proportion of pectin to fluid volume is one of them. What about temperature....is that fixed? And does continuing the boil after the liquid is starting to set cause the set to deteriorate?(how fine is that judgement?) Any other parameters?

Thanks. Yes ,I thought of writing "Euclidean geometry" but was a bit uncertain as to the correct terminology "Natively" an auto misspelling for "naturally" I am guessing.(my bold)

Is the geometry of spacetime universally applicable because the old geometry of space and time as measured from any one point has proved incapable of modeling events in other places and times to a sufficient degree of accuracy under high speeds of relative motion? (which spacetime can do except under extreme conditions)

Is this discussion beating around the bush of the simple question "Does a leaf in the forest still fall when we are not looking"? Does our looking represent the scientific endeavour and the question as to whether the ship sails on regardless ,the philosophical endeavour? I feel that the scientific endeavour and the philosophical endeavour are complimentary but clearly are different paths to an ever progressing regressing ** end. There are other paths too,and some point in the other direction. ** damn that autocorrect facility