MigL

Is it really anarchism if you try to implement change within an existing framework of societal rules ? Do you consider voting, to change a government, in a democracy, an act of anarchy, Seth ? Most people consider anarchy as forcing change by disregard of all rules; myself included. Changes in society are less painful when they proceed according to rules.

It appears, Bangstrom, that you still think quantum particles have an observable state, before they are actually observed. And that they need to communicate this state to their entangled partner. They don't. And they don't. Our model says they are, at best, a probability distribution. If you want to 'imagine' a different underlying 'reality', you need to come up with a different model.

I live in a riding which is Liberal federally, and Socialist ( NDP ) provincially. I always vote. And my vote does count. ( even if sometimes for a losing party )

My defnition of 'anarchism' comes from Alfred Pennywirth ( M Caine ) in "The Dark Knight" ...

Oh you Brits and your gin. When your neighbours make perfectly acceptable scotch ...

Bad attitude, Dim. Especially given the fact that you continuously complain about governments, but are not willing to do your duty to keep them honest. ( and made even worse by retreating to your mom's basement to burn weed all day; just kidding 😄 😄 . You know I love you )

Any 'state' defined by the wave function does not exist as what we would normally call 'real', before any collapse due to observation/interaction. The 'existence' is defined as a probability distribution ( a mathematical concept; is thet 'real' ? ) prior to collapse. Quantum mechanics is probabilistic in nature, not deterministic, like classical. Until you wrap your head around this paradigm shift in your ( Bangstrom's ) thinking, your understanding of QM will be mired in misconceptions. Well QED/QCD posit that these fields have always existed. ( but obviously at the earliest times, there had to be some 'evolution', as combined fields split to other fields through symmetry breaks ) These fields on fields is all that exists, and particles are quantum excitations of these fields, 'real' if exceeding a threshold value, and virtual, if below that threshold. A quantum field theory of gravity would have even space-time, the background 'stage' on which all other events take place, as a field ( currently in GR there is no background 'stage', it is already a geometric field ). LQG attempts to do just that. I recommend the pinned thread, "Matter is excitations in a field", in the Quantum Theory section of the Physics forum.

You are the only one claiming that since there are no hidden variables, the only remaining choice is non-local communication/interaction. It is NOT just one or the other. We are saying that there is no communication/interaction, local or non-local, sub-luminal or super-luminal, real or imaginary; of any kind. It is not just a lack of undestanding on your part, but a ( willful ? ) mischaracterization of other's positions on the matter. And frankly, it's getting annoying.

Perhaps he can give us an example of where this problem, of major consequences, actually arises ??? or is it simply an interesting geometric puzzle ?

WE are not considering particles, which exist in isolation, and must have something travel from one to the other in order to have an effect on each other. That is a CLASSICAL viewpoint. The mathematical model we are using considers quantum particles as manifestations of their global QED fields. These fields are not local to the manifested particle. According to a 'subset' of this mathematical model, we can describe the evolution of this quantum particle with a wave equation, which, among other things will give an indication of the probability of finding this particle anywhere in the universe. IOW, the wave equation is also global. If we now consider two quantum particles, which we have managed to entangle, we can describe their behaviour with the same wave function. This wave function 'contains' the correlation; the particles themselves are not in a state of flux, switching back and forth between possible states, as Bangstrom would like to believe. They are actually undefined ! Upon collapsing the wave function, both particles assume their observed states, and the correlation is evident, just as would happen for a single particle wave function. The wave function, being a mathematical construct, collapses globally; there is no need for communication/interaction of any kind, sub-luminal or super-luminal. Bell has proven the lack of 'hidden variables', and Einstein, of all people, would turn over in his grave at the thought of 'non-local information transfer'.

Of course it's not science. It is an interpretation of the science into 'common' deterministic ideas. ( which are more familiar to us than quantum paradigms ) Do you think the other popular interpretation, that a cat in a box can be dead and alive, simultaneously before wave function collapse, IS real science ????

There is nothing 'over the line' about the Many Worlds Interpretation; it is just as valid as the Copenhagen Interpretation. Quantum Mechanics is NOT classical, or macro, mechanics.

Yeah. A lot of dictatorships learned how to oppress their people from J Stalin ...

Why do you do that ... You don't know how to express an idea mathematically, so you reach into a bag of 'scientific verbage', and say "This represents what I'm trying to say". When actually, it refers to something totally unrelated.

I don't beleive I, or the link I provided, said that ... Read it again.

Is something 'real' if it can be explained away depending on interpretation ? On the question of local versus non-local decoherence ( because there is no non-local interactions ) Quantum nonlocality does not exist | PNAS "I show that quantum nonlocality is an artifact of the assumption that observers obey the laws of classical mechanics, whereas observed systems obey quantum mechanics. Locality is restored if observed and observer both obey quantum mechanics"

We're just giving him enough rope to hang himself ...

A light cone doesn't 'represent' anything physical. It is a plot of time vs distance, and if the units are seconds, on the time scale, and ct , on the distance scale, then light is constrained to travel on the 45o slope separating timelike and spacelike motion. See here Light cone - Wikipedia

you don't recognize sarcasm ? Why not ? You've already made up all sorts of stuff. And 'eigenstates' makes no sense. That would make dimensional analysis interesting, but extremely wrong, because the vertex of a cube are not a force in any way imaginable.

I have read about retribution for possible assassination attempts. V Putin may be getting worried/paranoid.

Before you go, can you at least explain what units a 'conservation of energy force' is measured in ?

So, since the metric is a function of time, then time itself has to be a function of time ??? I don't follow your reasoning.

They have all died under mysterious circumstances Assassination or strange coincidence? At least 11 high-ranking Russians have died suddenly (msn.com) but they keep missing the right one.

If you can't draw it, then you don't understand it !

Most continental European political parties have 'roots' in fascisim or communism, as a lot of them came into being 75 years ago. There was a large swing to the left, and communism, during the 50s and 60s in a lot of countries that were previously right wing fascist. Most major parties have 'evolved' and converged towards the center , but some fringe parties are still 'hard-core'. Interestingly, America, which helped control the 'swings' of European governments in the 50-60s, has seen its political parties diverge.