geordief

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.

What would be the limit of the amount of information that can be stored on an object? Alternatively for a given amount of information what is the smallest system that can hold this information? Does Planck length come into play or are there other considerations? Pardoning my ignorance but do virtual particles "carry information"?

Is that the "rest mass" question? Do photons have (relativistic) mass because they are in relative motion? And is that where they get their energy from? (if I am not diverting the thread)

Certainly not.(I am not saying that information is physical....) But can information about things be classified in the "direct" vs "grow like topsy" way I asked? Could there be information that can be used to reconstruct a system or a part of a system entirely which might differ from information that might be called "virtual" ? Do I just seem to be speculating for the sake of speculating or is there an actual problem in physics connecting objects with the "information" about them?

I only meant as an analogy. It would be really sexy if information was somehow "physical" .... Perhaps the answer lies in redefining the question...Might "Is the physical informational ?" be a better ask? After all ,all attempts to define "reality" meet the turtle response and are "physicality" and "reality" fairly synonymous ?

Perhaps spacetime will be described eventually as globally based rather than locally? Can information have more "informational mass" depending on the "closeness" of its description to the phenomenon or physical object being described? So we say 15000 people attended a sporting event and the calculation of that number is directly descriptive but the fact that it was calculated in binary form has less "weight"... Is

Perhaps we can distinguish between unique information that can be mapped to a particular component (including the overarching state) of a system and redundant descriptions? Like the dimensional analysis you showed me in another thread , the LHS and the RHS of the equation can be rejigged in different combinations but the core information is unchanged if you dig down. Also do we distinguish between physical information regarding a physical system and the kind of information regarding .....human history althgugh you have adduced a science based example.? Hope I am not too convoluted ....or off piste.

No I wasn't suggesting that "information has some kind of physical form" just that ,as someone else said it was a property of the system and not ,as you implied by your "Information is a human term" (my bold) somehow dependent on its measurement or gathering.(maybe you didn't mean that either). As for my entropy observation ,I know very little about it ,it just struck me as possibly relevant.(are you sure it doesn't apply much more generally than just to the BH scenario?I had the idea that entropy was a really fundamental idea -which I struggle badly with)

Is it? If there are two systems ,one inside the other then does the "sub system" not contain intrinsically less information that the system containing it? Is this question related to entropy? Does entropy destroy information?