MigL

That may apply when dealing strictly with entanglement. But how does non-locality deal with 'Schroedinger's cat in a box' ? Absence of local realism seems to handle it just fine. Are you suggesting we should use non-locality for one aspect of QM, and absence of local realism for other aspects ?

The absence of local realism is evident in many, if not all, aspects of QM. Non-locality is not needed for entanglement; nor anything else. Relegate it to the dust-bin of history, along with the aether.

No I cannot think of any other example of non-locality. As far as I know, no other effects require that the outcome of an event at a specific point is determined explicitly on what happens at another point, unless there is a transfer of information. And relativity explicitly states that information is constrained to transfer at speeds not exceeding c . So non-locality is not just unproven yet, it is actually not needed; not even for entanglement.

A partial annex this year so we can have peace. In a couple of years V Putin tries again, and Ukraine lets him have another piece to keep the peace. Then a couple of years later ... ( there is no Ukraine left and V Putin moves on to the next country ) I wonder if he would have tried this stunt if Ukraine and the West had stood up to him in 2014 when he annexed Crimea ?

If Studiot and I each pull a coin out of our pockets and palm them, there is a possibility that we pull out heads and tails. That doesn't mean there is an'entanglement' or anti correlation; but if you repeat the process many many times, with the same result, there could be an anti-correlation. Similarly with any two random quantum particles; the two particles may show opposing states, but that doesn't mean there is an entanglement correlation. Further, you have no idea whether the entanglement was lost along the way to your observations, due to some interaction. And particles are indistinguishable, so there is no way to tell if a single particle has an entangled partner, or not. The only way to be sure is to produce the entangled pairs yourself.

It helps those of us who wish to understand entanglement more clearly.

Any one particle does not set a flag, or any other indicator, to let an observer know it is entangled with some other distant partner. You have no way of knowing if any particle you choose to observe/interact with is part of an entangled group, or not. You can only be sure if you produce the entangled pair. I'm not sure if that answers your question; like Studiot, I'm unsure what exactly you are asking.

I remember watching the PBS Space-time video about the Quantum Eraser experiment, and not being particularly thrilled about the conclusions drawn in that video. It would have pleased Bangstrom, I'm sure, because it suggested non-locality lead to the causality violations. Glad to know Sabine and Sean Carroll are not thrilled with it either.

In over 40 years of dealing with computer hardware that use CR2032 batteries to 'hold' set-up information in NVRAM, I have seen many go dead, but have never seen one leak. That doesn't mean it absolutely cannot happen.

You 'look for' particles by detecting, or interacting with, them. You have, then, detrmined the state of its entangled partner; wherever it might be. ( although momentum conservation laws would give an indication of directio of travel ) But, once detectedd, how would you even know you are dealing with a member of an entangled pair ?

The example Bangstrom presents is a non-starter in support of his claims ... If the experimenter can see ( or receive information from ) both right and left detectors, they are not space-like separated. And neither is the experimenter from either detector. So there is no need for superluminal information transfer or signal. Hence, no causality violations, and most importantly, no non-local effects are demonstrated. Let us consider space-like separated events; experiments which would support your claims of non-locality. Answer the question previously asked ... You seem to be avoiding quite a few questions put to you, and just repeating the same things over and over again.

By all accounts it seems to have been Ukrainian AD system that went off course. The argument could be made for giving Ukraine mor emodern AD, like the Patriot or ( Israeli ) Iron Dome AD systems, so similar incidents are not repeated.

I would think that you don't, because you say this ... How exactly do they decide, or synchronize if you will, without super-luminal communication ? Please explain the process for space-like separated experiments/observations. A frame of reference is a frame of reference. All are equally valid, and the term has a specific meaning. That is obvious to all, as is your confusion. Again, 'first' depends on your FoR. No. Different observers 'seeing' signals at different times ( ordering " is well understood phenomenon of SR. But the actual signal ( if there was one ) could only go one way. You cannot have different physical outcomes from frame dependent observations. The common wave function is a mathematical relation of probability amplitudes. Just as 2 +2 = 4 everywhere in the universe, the wave function is equally valid, and the correlation is inherent to itsformulation.. Nothing has to be 'maintained'; it is, or it isn't.

And you just found out that we don't care about your foolish opinion ...

I cannot wait for the announcements of nominations for 2024. It won't be a 'family squabble' for the Republicans; it'll be a bloodbath.

I would not rule out an errant Ukrainian S-300, but it would have to be nearly 180o off course to hit areas of Poland. Russia fired more than 100 missiles, also S-300, yesterday, mostly targetting power generation infrastructure. The S-300 is not very modern to begin with, and as most have been 're-commissioned' with washing machine parts, I don't imagine they are very reliable. I still believe it originated from one of the Russian firing positions, until evidence proves otherwise. This might give NATO the excuse needed to establish a 'no-fly' zone over areas of western Ukraine that border NATO countries, so as to prevent further incidents. Just as Russia needs to protect itself from those Nazi Ukrainians by invading them, so should NATO be able to protect itself from the Russian 'special operation'

I have to agree with INow; this is just going around in circles. It is an established fact, that Quantum Mechanics does not display any indication of a 'reality' before a measurement is made. ( Sometimes even after. Is it a particle or a wave ? Depends on the measurement made ) This is true for solitary particles, let alone entangled pairs. It is not a matter of states switching back and forth between possibilities; there are no actual states defined. But while the states themselves are not realized, the correlation between them is, and is defined by the common wave function. A correlation does not have to be 'maintained' in any way, it simply is, or isn't; no 'signalling' required. All this points to 'non-relity' being the root cause of the behaviour of entangled pairs, certainly not 'non-locality', as there is no need for it after 'non-reality' is taken into consideration. And I have to agree; Bangstrom should stop trying to understand entanglement until he has a better understanding of SR.

Oh, I don't know ... If the LHC had created a Black Hole it could have potentially killed everyone 😄 😄.

Shortly before the inflationary period ( !0-35 sec ), the universe was in causal contact, which means that equilibrium could be established. After The inflationary period ( 10-32 sec ), parts of the universe started moving out of causal separation, due to expansion, and more and more structures move out of the observable universe as time progresses. Inflation was first proposed by A Guth in the 80s, to explain many problems with the Big Bang Theory, and has had many modifications, and supporters, since. One problem was how isotropy and homogeneity of the universe could be accounted for if the universe had never been in causal contact. ( By causal contact I mean that all parts of the universe are close enough to allow for information transfer )

That is equivalent to the unit cost of four B-2 bombers; not including operational costs. The US SAC has a fleet of about 20. Shouldn't Thewowsignal be bitchin' about the cost of something else ?

It's a 'play' on the word 'they'. Your perception is that it is an attack on other people's personal pronouns. It's a good thing Koti wasn't on stage, or you'd have gone up and slapped him.

Oh, now we have arbitrators of humor on SFn ? Welcome back.

No model describes anything in its true form. To make it really simple ... Studiot and Bufofrog each give me an apple. I decide to mathematically model the interaction with the relation 1 + 1 = 2 Yet I can't eat any part of the model.

Biggest complaint I hear from Canadian Trump fans, is that Biden hasn't done enough in the last two years, and they see the mid-terms as a 'referendum' on the Presidency. But given the concern over the economy, this view will turn out to be self-defeating, as a Republican controlled Congress and/or Senate will effectively 'hamstring' the President's administration, and keep him from doing anything that might help. The checks and balances in your political system are being used as obstacles to opponents so that they can later point to their failures. Not a sustainable, or productive, situation.

There are such things as 'rotons' and 'maxons', so I don't thinkhe's missing the 'P'. They are theoretical constructs, useful in Bose-Einstein Condensate theory. See here Roton - Wikipedia