MigL

Surely Russian Generals must realize that if Russia uses nukes, even tactical battlefield low yield types, that would be the worst thing that could happen to Russia ( although not as bad as what would happen to Ukraine ). So they have a choice to make. Do they try to prop up V Putin's ego, or do they relegate Russia to be shunned by the rest of the World, and become even more of a 'shit-hole' country ( in the words of a former President ).

I bet your hourly wage went up when you showed up to your next job with a gun ... I'm not against kids helping out around the house and doing a few chores, but I do think their first responsibility is their school work. Also, keep in mind that I'm ( was ) a son, but I've never been a parent, although I treat my two nephews and neice as my own kids, and even helped each of them buy their first house. Even their friends call me Uncle Lui.

10 year olds already have a job. It's called school.

No. Not 'Road Warrior', or its sequels. The original 1979 'Mad Max', where the bikers kill his wife/family. Count me as another of G Dyer fan.

Try this Bell's Theorem (utoronto.ca) also includes some history and insights into 'reality separate from observation', and non-locality.

Mad Max ? Is that you ?

While Bangstrom continues to assume some sort of magical 'interaction' that does not involve any interaction, Eise has neatly summed up exactly what happens ... It is almost like there is no reality between measurements ( only probability amplitudes ). IOW, No ( ocal ) reality =/=> Non-local reality.

As far as I know, entanglement is a fundamental aspect of Quantum Mechanics, where the quantum state of each particle affected cannot be described independently of the state of the others in the grouping. IOW, the states ( such as position, momentum, spin, polarization ) of theaffected particles in the 'entangled' grouping are represented by a single mathematical wave function, until 'decoherence' occurs due to an interaction. It was 'accepted' theory, until A Einstein, B Podolsky and N Rosen proposed the EPR paradox which violated local realism and/or causality; the original "spooky action at a distance", and Einstein's ( and Shroedinger's ) belief that unknown 'hidden' variables were involved. J Bell put the 'nail in the coffin' to hidden variable theories, and this year's Nobel Prize winners, J Clauser, A Aspect and A Zeilinger, have been recognized for estabilishing that there is no local reality. See here Quantum entanglement - Wikipedia

Clauser, Aspect and Zeilinger were this year's recipients of the Nobel. ( see 'Science News' thread ) For their work in estabilishing that there is no local reality.

This news may be of interest to the participants in the "Crowded quantum information" thread. The 2022 Nobel has been awarded to J Clauser, A Aspect, and A Zeilinger, for their work in estabilishing that there is no 'local reality'. ( which is not indicative of real non-locality ) The Universe Is Not Locally Real, and the Physics Nobel Prize Winners Proved It - Scientific American

There is a big difference between 'shrinking' and gravitational collapse. There is no 'shrunken' star inside a Black Hole. Maybe you should rethink this whole idea ...

Depends what kind of interactions you are considering. Classical interactions have clearly defined and determined trajectories, and classical ( macroscopic ) particles can be tracked all along that trajectory. Quantum particles have no clearly defined trajectory, and, in QED, the 'in-between' is a summation of the probability amplitudes of all possible trajectories. This then leads to infinite probability amplitudes, and must be remedied by renormalization.

Why are religious people always so angry ? Calm down; you know God loves you.

What do you think might be shrinking inside a Black Hole ? almost all of the things you mention, DO NOT happen.

Melting ice that is 'floating' ( Arctic ) does not cause sea-level rise, but melting ice over land masses ( Antarctic and other glaciers ) will. IOW, it will not be linear.

So Black Holes, and even neutron stars, objects with extreme gravitational fields, would shrink the most. Would this effect be evident for the massive Black Holes central to galaxies ? Would this affect the rotation rate of pulsars ?

As if the lizard people, mole people, and extraterrestrial aliens weren't bad enough ...

Apparently it even extends to face coverings, to this day, in Iran.

I don't recall any John Wayne movie where he said that. ( I believe it was Red Foreman ) Is that another misquote like the A Einstein one ?

Other than the 5 senses, any other kind of 'sensing' is usually a delusion of your own mind. Sometimes, delusions are a defensive mechanism that the mind uses to cope with harsh circumstances.

Except that relativity tells us you cannot always know which came first, as there is no preferred frame.

I have had many opinions borne of ignorance and faulty reasoning, which has been set straight by experts in their respective fields, on this very forum. We all come here to learn, and are all ignorant of one thing or another. Is your solution to call us all names, or educate us. Are we all bigots because we are ignorant of certain things ? I think calling someone a bigot is offensive; that is my opinion. And since, according to Zap, I'm ignorant of the definition ( even though I'm offended ), I must be, according to Dim, a bigot.

That is what I previously posted. I concede he is wrong in his reasoning, but believing people who, don't believe in God(s), think a certain way ( I'm one of them ) is not bigoted. That is my opinion; am I bigoted for thinking that group thinks that way ?

No problem whatsoever with Zap's thoughts and opinions; I have always valued them. Everyone's opinions should be ( ie. no thought police ), so we may discuss, and even attempt to change each other's minds about certain subjects. Labelling people with offensive terms, like 'bigot', makes them feel unsafe about sharing their ideas/opinions. Is that not the whole idea behind 'safe' spaces ? If you'd rather eliminate all views which don't agree with your own, you're not going to have much of a discussion. ( and I did give Zap a +1 for being respectful )

Because the probability distribution for the separated states was encoded in the common wave function shared by entangled particles. How many times does this probabilistic view have to be repeated, before you stop thinking classically ? In the mentioned experiment in Geneva, given a large enough separation, the question could arise as to which of the two particles' entangled states decoheres first ( SR considerations ). If the wave function does not encode states as probabilities, how do we know which particle is communicating/signalling/Qbitting ( or whatever you choose to call the interaction today ) with the other to ensure the observed anti-correlation ? Or are you fine with violating causality for macroscopic events ( observer experiments ) also ...