Leaderboard

I've found that the following seems to work pretty well for me: - Read, understand and apply the forum rules when contributing to discussions. - Try to understand and act according to the spirit of the forum.

Ok thank you :)

I will have to read this conversation at least a dozen more times to comprehend it further, however I always thought that 1) decoherence was globally instantaneous 2) no usable information could be forwarded through this mecanism 3) there is no hidden variables. I'am struggling to sort that out because I quite not understand decoherence any more. Is it instantaneous or not ?

You are free to make a compelling argument as to what this incorrect physics is, and why this is the case. But given your track record, I'm skeptical that you will do so. (I expect we will get more vague drawings) Science is also self-correcting, in the long run which is one reason why scientists have jobs.

None taken. If nothing else, you've proven to be respectful to others, and I appreciate that and would like to answer you in kind. Swansont has just given you an impeccable reasoning why your idea is probably very much misguided. Appealing to mathematics is absolutely essential. That doesn't mean you have to use the most powerful mathematical tools at hand. Many times it's good enough to do some sanity checks that go in the mathematical direction. Those are well known, and invaluable tools. Check for: Units Orders of magnitude Simple arguments about symmetry, what depends on what, what shouldn't depend on what, etc. Approximations: this is small in comparison to that, etc. Please keep in mind that, even though criticism from people who know more than you can be hard to swallow, it is a necessary step in building up to bigger things. They're actually doing you a favour.

! Moderator Note You need to be more explicit in step 2 (those of you familiar with Sidney Harris will get the reference)

You have an opportunity to present mathematical models of how nature might behave, and present ideas for experiments that would test the model. Or to present results of novel experiments, and discuss how they might imply new science. Just like anybody else doing science. Science isn't done with poorly-explained drawings (which are not experiments, BTW) and terminology that is unexplained, unnecessary or misappropriated from established science. You might notice that your first speculative thread was not shut down immediately. It was after you ignored questions that were put to you. Complaining about not having a discussion has to include your refusal to participate; it seems your "discussion" is just you lecturing, and that's not our idea of discussion. You can go get a blog somewhere for that. I'm an actual physicist and I do not agree with your assessment. Using terminology from physics is a necessary but insufficient condition for doing actual physics. Actual physics requires equations (derived from physics principles, not pulled out of one's ass)

Found this: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7469218/

But on this forum you need to express yourself in words, unfortunately, or at any rate without sending us off-site to click on on links of unknown provenance. It's been ages since we had a perpetual motion machine, so if you an explain it without sending us off-site to a link, it would be fun to identify the flaw.

no but in a thread with a total of about 40 posts, damned near 20 of them are from you so… it would be nice if you could maybe let others offer their thoughts, or at the very least stop stymying the conversation in the 50% of the thread where you’re offering your own 🙏

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" ...

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.

You still have to Submit Reply to post what you've written. During your writing, other replies will be announced, but that's so you can read them if you wish, not because anything has changed. I don't think you get a notice even if you've quoted something that gets changed while you're writing; as soon as you hit Quote, it quotes what was written at that time.

Thanks - yes, it's both denaturation and then dehydration. I should have mentioned both, with denaturation leading to dehydration. Here's a snip from Healthline: Alcohol kills germs through a simple chemical process known as denaturation. Denaturation occurs when alcohol molecules break down the proteins present in the structure of germs. When the proteins break down and lose their structure, the cells can’t function properly. They lose their membrane protection, dehydrate, and quickly die.

BOSTON (AP) — The sex lives of constipated scorpions, cute ducklings with an innate sense of physics, and a life-size rubber moose may not appear to have much in common, but they all inspired the winners of this year’s Ig Nobels, the prize for comical scientific achievement. Held less than a month before the actual Nobel Prizes are announced, Thursday’s 32nd annual Ig Nobel prize ceremony was for the third year in a row a prerecorded affair webcast on the Annals of Improbable Research magazine’s website. The winners, honored in 10 categories, also included scientists who found that when people on a blind date are attracted to each other, their heart rates synchronize, and researchers who looked at why legal documents can be so utterly baffling, even to lawyers themselves. Even though the ceremony was prerecorded, it retained much of the fun of the live event usually held at Harvard University. As has been an Ig Nobel tradition, real Nobel laureates handed out the prizes, using a bit of video trickery: The Nobel laureates handed the prize off screen, while the winners reached out and brought a prize they had been sent and self-assembled into view. Winners also received a virtually worthless Zimbabwean $10 trillion bill. https://apnews.com/article/science-oddities-education-bb270f4a962f89811eb3ca2b02e3e8f4

Well, Sweden Democrats are a bit different, though. They were formed in the late 80s and were the successor party of an actual neo-Nazi group. They have softened their stance since the mid 2000s and are mostly keeping Euro-skepticism and anti-immigrant sentiments. In my mind they are fairly similar to the German AfD whose program is mostly populist and anti-(visible) foreigners. While outwardly they try to present themselves as respectable, looking at their leadership and members paint a more problematic pictures where folks (often on social media) have anti-semitic/muslim/foreigners rants, have or had ties with Neo-Nazi groups and are uncomfortably close with Russia. The biggest failure of many European countries is a somewhat segregating worldview. Ethnicity is a anchoring concept and for example in Germany there is common distinction between being German (i.e. holding a German passport) and being biologically German (ethnic). This ingrained societal model makes it very difficult for others to find a niche that fits and integrates with the majority. As a result sub-communities are formed which are deemed foreign and then are used to point out the impossibility to integrate (visible) foreigners. Compare that to immigration nations such as Canada and US, where there is more tolerance toward visible and even superficial cultural differences. It makes for a more welcoming situation for integration. In a way the Nordic model kind of demands a full assimilation with no wrinkles (which is difficult even with extreme effort because at the end of the day some folks will keep looking different) whereas in immigration societies kink and wrinkles are accepted, especially as the result is often better food. That is of course only a very superficial view and regionally there are huge differences. But living in those countries as an immigrant is hugely different experience. For a few decades the displacement theory is the thing that get folks riled up. I.e. the fear of not being the majority in all spaces anymore. It was actually fairly mainstream (when I was in school even kids complained that they heard foreign languages in public spaces) but now has coalesced into a specific political force. That has gone on for as long i can remember and while I do see temporary advances, they often slide back to zero once a crisis hit (war in former Yugoslavia, Syrian war, to a lesser degree Ukraine etc.). Well, some do, but has little impact politically. Fear wins out as we can see in Sweden.

This is a quote from Wiki, “Physicists such as Alain Aspect and Paul Kwiat have performed experiments that have found violations of these inequalities up to 242 standard deviations.[20] This rules out local hidden-variable theories, but does not rule out non-local ones.” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hidden-variable_theory As I said earlier, ruling out “hidden variables” leaves non-locality as the default explanation. It also rules out and the determinate nature of entangled particles prior to observation. The quantum identities of entangled particles are random and indeterminate prior to their first observation. 'God roles the dice.' Einstein et al. rejected the idea of “Spooky action at a distance” so they proposed the hypothesis of “hidden variables” to explain the apparent non-locality as a local interaction due to a "something" common to all local environments that affects the outcome of experiments in remote locations. Now you and “joigus” appear to be saying that the absence of hidden variables rules out non-locality which is the opposite of the historical conclusion. How bizarre, how bizarre.

Math :

I wasn't explicitly excluded. Does this mean that henceforth, I am? All right. This was directed at me. It was not clear, no. Now I know. And, yes, some citizens do desire revolution, and they have a definite goal in mind, so it's no use trying to convince them of the stabilizing influence of democracy.

Religious people beleive in subjective stories of a God , you don't have to be religious to believe in a God if you apply science 𝚿/V Any form of God would require wavefunction to think , here is what God looks like . Fear not , physics created God , God created us .