juanrga

Then you have another serious problem here, because you write below:

Does this statement also apply to the rest of your 'empirical evidence' against science: aka angels, phantasms, and Elfs? And how easy is that "easy"? From a scale 1-10: [math]\sqrt{2}[/math]? 3.1416? 9.9999999999?

Yes, I hear rumours that some zombies are 'living' in Dead Walley, but it is not confirmed at the time of writing this .

Yes, this expansion speed is not the ordinary speed of an object moving in space but the speed of expansion of space itself. Being essentially a metric speed it is not constrained by the c limit as an ordinary speed is.

Excellent advice . I used the term "quantum particle" in above posts (e.g. day 5), but I forgot to use the term in my first post.

Before we had zombies, now angels and phantasms. What will be your next 'empirical evidence'? Elfs?

Both the momentum and spin cases were compared in the sense that none of them involves faster than light signals. This was emphasized. In fact absolutely no signal is sent between the particles. Spin has a more natural framework in a relativistic quantum theory, which in agreement with relativity prohibits sending any signal faster than light. The modern interpretation of quantum mechanics (exposed in Ballentine textbook and with more detail in this Rev Mod Phys) states that the spin superposition state associated to the Schrödinger equation does not describe the pair of electrons, but a virtual ensemble of pairs of electrons each one with a given probability of being in a spin eigenstate. If the value of the spin for each electron is set or is not in the initial condition is today debated (hidden-variable people say "yes" others say "no"). Unlike the old Copenhagen interpretation, the modern interpretation is rather agnostic about this. You are right on that the expansion of space does not obey the speed of light limit, but this is so because this speed is not an ordinary speed. Those faster-than-light speeds are not the speeds of travelling objects, but the speed of expansion of space. Moreover, this expansion speed does not apply to bound states. It does not apply to our galaxy but only to the space between galaxies.

I think that I was clear when said that electrons are particles. Klein site is clear when says that electrons are a particular class of elementary particles. Ballentine is clear when says that an electron is a particle. I think that it was clearly stated that wave-particle duality is a misnomer that arose from a misconception. But in Klein site you can find a more expressive quote: "The fact that true wave-particle duality does not exist may also be read off directly from the structure of QT" (QT means Quantum Theory). Yes, the electron is always a particle, but you misread the quote, because nowhere it says that "a purely technological limitation is responsible for the statistical pattern". It says something completely different. Let me add that "particle" in QM does not mean Newtonian particle. The motion of a quantum particle as the electron is very different from the motion of a billiard ball. Both the book cited and the Klein site explain very-well how the observed 'wave-like' behaviour is perfectly compatible with the fact that an electron is always a particle and never a wave. I think that the central misconception of the concept of "wave-particle duality" is perfectly reflected in Klein note #40. Ballentine textbook is rather modern and rigorous. It avoids the mistakes found in other textbooks. The level of rigour is light-years that of the Wikipedia page. This textbook contains lot of modern results which you cannot find in Feynman lectures.

No they/you don't.

As stated just above entangled electrons are not independent electrons that need to send/receive information from the other. The information is contained in the correlation for the pair. Spin is a purely quantum property and difficult to visualize but velocity is much more simple to do. Consider two electrons with known velocities [math]v_1[/math] and [math]v_2[/math] that enter in a chamber, collide and abandon the chamber moving in opposite ways. You do not know the final velocities. After a time someone measures the velocity of particle 1 when the particle is 2 km away the chamber. Automatically you know the velocity of the other particle (by the law of conservation of momentum). No signal has been sent between particles 1 and 2. Both particles got correlated when collide in the chamber so what the velocity of one (independently of its value) was correlated with the velocity of the other particle. The situation with spin is somehow similar, but the whole analysis is more complex. Entanglement implies correlation, not sending of 'signals' between independent particles.

Happy Birthday and my desire that SFN can double all its figures: years, posts, members...

Yes the entangled particles are entangled with each other. Entanglement is neither a result of instantaneous transfer of information nor requires a hidden variable theory. Entanglement is a quantum correlation, therefore the entangled particles are not independent and no "spooky action" needs to be invented to correlate both. Spacetime has nothing to do with entanglement, because entanglement is possible in more fundamental theories where spacetime does not exist (spacetime is recovered as an approximation).

They are known for their attempt to blur the sharp distinction between science and religion as a first step for pursuing their hidden (or not to hidden) religious agendas. Discovery is well-known for intellectual dishonesty, rhetoric, intentional ambiguity, and misrepresented evidence, and for repetitive misquoting of scientists and other experts, ad hominem of critics, blatant lying... The governing goals of Discovery are: To defeat scientific materialism and its destructive moral, cultural and political legacies To replace materialistic explanations with the theistic understanding that nature and human beings are created by God To reverse the materialistic worldview and replace it with a science connosant with Christian and theistic convictions Your tactics and goals are pretty similar although your religions are different.

An electron is always a particle both inside and outside an atom. I did not even mention QFT. I was discussing this from the quantum mechanical point of view because I assumed this was the OP goal. According to QM an electron is a particle, a quantum particle. Ballentine's recent book on quantum mechanics points out how electrons are always particles and never waves: The idea that electrons behave as waves or are waves is a misconception of quantum theory that "continues to flourish in popular texts and elementary text books" but not in more rigorous literature. A more complete discussion of the wave-particle misconception is available in the Klein site including several references.

I studied both, and this sounds to me as who do you love more - mom or dad? Why to choose? Why not both? The main problem with your question is that you do not define what do you exactly mean by "beneficial" and how you score each benefit... And chemists, who also have a sense of humour, have their own collection: And also with elements of truth in them: Not even close.

Quantum mechanical laws are not deduced from others.

No they aren't, electrons are particles. No. Orbitals are only hydrogen-like wavefunctions [*]. Those orbitals only partially represent the state of an electron in an atom. They lack spin, electron-electron correlation and more quantum stuff... [*] Some authors use a different definition of orbital as the region of volume that contains a certain amount of probability e.g. 90% of finding the electron.

404 error, but http://www.metanexus...titute/projects shows that this is another American non-profit institute associated to Templeton, just as the Discovery Institute

Both GR and Einstein-Cartan theory use stress-energy-momentum tensors, which only describe matter macroscopically. Einstein-Cartan theory considers classical spin (rotation), not the quantum spin of particles. There is nothing special about torqued spacetimes. In fact, teleparallel gravity is a geometric formulation alternative to GR, where gravitational effects are described by torsion instead of curvature. Einstein-Cartan is a controversial subject. In my opinion (take this with a grain of salt) it is unneeded because general relativity can deal with spin as well (spin-orbit coupling has been tested in general relativity).

http://www.acronymgeek.com/LPS/Large_Poincare_System Here you have a typical paper from the Nobel laureate http://www.pnas.org/content/90/20/9393.full.pdf

This is also true for a kind of classical systems named LPSs.

Using a plane? Both. I do not think it was a mystery. I think that it is just the quantum version of classical correlations.