geordief

What does govern these"virtual particle/quantum fluctuations" ?Are they a property of the vacuum or of the matter in the environment? (perhaps SJ suggested the latter....?)

Is that French tarragon or Russian?

Robitty ,would you say? (an enigma ,of course)

I imagine the Steel industry it is far less labour intensive than it was. I wonder if those in the industry are realistic to expect many new jobs to return if these new tarifs take effect (I realise that other related industries will actually be losers on that score)

Will his blatant rhetoric undermine the case that steel is a strategic commodity and not subject to WTO rules?

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-43257712 according to the President of the USA and he expects to "come out on top"(him or the USA ,I wonder?) Discounting the madness (and badness) behind the remark has this actually kicked off a proper trade war and will any side actually benefit from it? And in any trade war does the USA have any upper hand any more? Is USA's economic hegemony a thing of the past (Trump or no Trump)?

The context (which made me wonder) was whether we could assign an overall rotation to the universe by "adding up" ** all the individual "sub rotations". If at the time around BB there was such a rotation of the material at that time ,would that rotation have continued as the universe expended? A possibly similar question is asked as to whether there were initial assymmetries of different kinds (eg matter v antimatter) that had effects later on in the evolution of the Universe. **"combining?

What if the rotations have different centres? (it is what I was thinking of) Very difficult and pointless?

Can (distinct) rotations be summed? What if rotations overlap? Can the interaction be calculated purely in a "rotational way" or does the interaction simply destroy the rotation?

Are the big players going to be forced to address this now? Can algorithms and teams of moderators weed out the disinformation in real time? Should those "big players" be held legally responsible for the content posted if they ignore the above approaches? Should social media be taxed (the time we spend on it) to pay for regulation? (is it a bad thing to use it too much anyway and so this can be sold as a mental health issue)

"Physicists create new form of light" http://news.mit.edu/2018/physicists-create-new-form-light-0215 Is light "seeing" light here? And can we thus "see" light with light now? Probably h. arsed but is there any relevance to the OP?

Interesting.I have been going through those old posts, blogs ,pdf books and articles (am a very slow mover). Has Brian Cox's new book (or any since 2012) gone over that ground or addressed that point again? Obviously above my head but still interesting.

Good question.Hopefully out of his hands.

OK .Is this attack designed to feed what he might see as "his faction " in the FBI? Is he ,in his mind preparing the ground for more purges and discrediting those as he see as his enemies in their ranks if push comes to shove and he feels he has to have a "night of the long knives" down the road? He just doesn't realize that decency should warn him not to conflate such a terrible event and what passes for normal day to day politics in his head? A rat in a trap? What politicians will actively or passively support him on this subject?

How does Trump's "hiding in plain sight" speech factor in ? You know , the one where he said "if the Russians are listening" (Hilary's emails) He was using the Russian alleged activity as a tool. Did that amount to de facto collusion on a personal level? Agree that his latest tweet is nauseating and transparent.

So what did Marx have to say about mental illness? Was there also a Soviet ideology that had a line on this area (apart from using it as an excuse to imprison opponents)?

I am clearly a pop science victim.(sarcasm not intended) In fact I may have traced back my half baked idea to a Professor Brian Cox program some 5 years ago. https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/a-night-with-the-stars-brian-cox-on-telly.561511/page-5 My posts start at #81 and the thread developed from then It does seem to show a kind of "action at a distance" if only to a negligible degree (according to one or two of the participants and ,I think disputed by others) Anyway it was and still is above my head. I still cannot work out what is or was the quantum mechanism supposedly at play Perhaps some connection to the Pauli exclusion Principle..

Does it help to view the two particles as part of a wider system? Can their connectedness (if they are connected ) only be seen in this wider context? If two particles interact (="share information"?) does this exchange propagate across the system they are part of and alter the composition of the system? Does the system define the connectedness between the two particles? (completely out of my depth so my reply may be a case of "not waving but drowning" )

(first time I have come across the decoherence concept ) Can this loss (I see now you said " altering or destroying" ) of connectedness within a small system be seen as a sharing of connectedness with a wider system (or two or more systems exhibiting their interconnectedness) ? Is it common (and useful) to understand objects as components of a system and can systems themselves be treated as (dynamic) objects?

If we go back ** in time ,though can we say that all objects occurring subsequent to any particular event are connected subject to the restriction that these connections are mediated by processes which are subject to a maximum speed of transmission? So objects that are not connected owing to the restrictions you gave could still be connected to other objects with earlier histories a bit like we are all related to the first forms of life that arose but not directly to ,say Ken Dodd. If objects are not interconnected in that way does that allow for the possibility that objects can be entirely isolated from their environment? (which seems absurd to me) **Obviously not "go back" literally ,I just mean to situate the observer at the point of the initial series of events and that this point could be anywhere including as far back in the history of the Universe as wanted

But a field is not a description (whether or not it is called "physical" or not)? Does the wave "describe" an aspect of the field and are all fields dynamic by their very nature?

Do these changes always propagate in the form of waves? Is it correct (or a reasonable interpretation) to view all objects as manifestations of changes in fields? (unless that sentence is just word salad)

Are objects(or can they be) manifestations of fields and are not fields connected in the way I have wondered about? Do observable fields extend into unobservable regions? (thinking of the expansion you mentioned)

Are all objects connected so that ,for example clock,when viewed as a physical object is actually part of a physical network and cannot (except for practical reasons) be viewed in isolation? When ,for instance a neutron is measured as spatially contracted ,might this also imply that the physical clock is also correspondingly so ? Does this physical interconnection of objects show up only at the quantum level where extremely small "particles" which previously seemed to be isolated bodies turn out to be waves and all the waves add/superimpose as if they were part of one network. Perhaps I have made a few bad missteps here.Are there any obvious misunderstandings or might it be at least a decent first appreciation of the scenario? I placed this in speculations as I feel I may have misunderstood the mainstream present understanding although I hope that I am not too far off.

Indeed ad homunculums are applicable in his case (although overuse and misapplication can be counter productive) His "authoritative" dismissal of climate change concerns is justification enough for me to feel personal hate for the man and his coterie. That is damage that can't be undone. B.Dylan's "Masters of War" runs through my head.