Itoero

You have to explain that...

What's the real difference between a purpose and no purpose?

True but quantum non locality, second law of thermodynamics and quantum error correction are also linked with uncertainty. It seems that uncertainty induces non locality. It seems logic that quantum uncertainty is all over quantum mechanics.. This is a ' continuation' on that paper on wave particle duality:https://arxiv.org/pdf/1512.09081.pdf quantum error correction:https://arxiv.org/pdf/1605.01420.pdf quantum nonlocality: https://arxiv.org/pdf/1312.0080.pdf https://arxiv.org/pdf/1004.2507.pdf second law of thermodynamics: https://arxiv.org/pdf/1205.6894.pdf "It's possible to write equations that capture how much can be learned about pairs of properties that are affected by the uncertainty principle. Coles, Kaniewski and Wehner are experts in a form of such equations known as 'entropic uncertainty relations', and they discovered that all the maths previously used to describe wave-particle duality could be reformulated in terms of these relations."https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/12/141219085153.htm It doesn't matter which particle, you just greatly increase your understanding of F=m.a. The fact that massless particles have a speedlimit (c) makes sense if you understand the relation 'relativistic mass' <=> 'F=m.a'. What is really the rest mass? It is impossible to "weigh" a stationary electron, and so all practical measurements must be carried out on moving electrons. The same is true with any other sub-atomic particle. For particles like photons or gluons the situation is even more problematic since the very concept of a stationary or "at rest" massless particle lacks meaning...you can't detect massless particles. Not really. Without relativistic mass, waves have no mass... you can't describe all properties of a wave without relativistic mass. The reason for this devaluation is because there is no red line in physics. Then how does it confuse people? The fact that it can cause confusion should not be a valid argument. No. Like I said before, you measure the mass of a particle through motion. Every mass you measure is in a sense relativistic. This implies an uncertainty. They created a multidimensional entangled state of a single photon and a trillion hot rubidium atoms....such entangled states are necessary for quantum computing. Yet if you don't calculate the relativistic mass then you can't calculate the mass of that system...

Correct but then what about the Bell's theorem? Doesn't it mathematically disprove hidden variable solutions?

I heard the science told in 'The Big Bang Theory' is +/- correct.

That's true but math is used in nearly all sciences. The M-theory is in a sense a mathematical description. For people that believe in M-theory then math with a physical meaning is their evidence for the existence of strings.

It can be the same, I suppose it's about whether the mathematical concepts which are used have a physical meaning or not.(Isn't this a direct answer on your question?) I don't understand why you make such a distinction between math and science.

I suppose it's about whether the mathematical concepts which are used have a physical meaning or not. When you proof a mathematical concept with a physical meaning then proof in math and science are the same thing. You have the density matrices, metrics...

I don't think you can make a real distinction between math and science, they are too intertwined...every science uses mathematical concepts. Take E=mc² for example. The logical interpretation of this concerns physics yet you use Math to make a derivation from this equation. *You can not say that you're good in Science if you don't know how to use its Language which is Math *

I found a very interesting paper concerning entanglement and composite bosons. " In a 2005 paper, C. K. Law presented evidence that the question can be answered in general in terms of entanglement: two fermions can be treated as an elementary boson if they are sufficiently entangled . Consider, for example, a single hydrogen atom in a harmonic trap. Within the atom, the proton and electron are strongly entangled with respect to their position variables; for example, wherever the proton might be found—it could be anywhere in the trap—the electron is sure to be nearby. Law suggests that this entanglement is the essential property underlying the (approximate) bosonic behavior of the composite particle, allowing, for example, a collection of many hydrogen atoms to form a Bose-Einstein condensate. " https://arxiv.org/pdf/0908.1096.pdf

I tried to put 'penis' as password but it's too short.

This implies that a positron and electron are paired and form a composite boson...is that possible?

I agree!

You can create entangled electrons by splitting a cooper pair. The electrons in a pair are not necessarily close together; because the interaction is long range, paired electrons may still be many hundreds of nanometers apart. This distance is usually greater than the average interelectron distance, so many Cooper pairs can occupy the same space. Electrons have spin 1/2, so they are fermions, but the total spin of a Cooper pair is integer (0 or 1) so it is a composite boson. Many hundreds of nanometers is not a large distance tough https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cooper_pair https://arxiv.org/pdf/1205.2455.pdf

In the Kondo effect, the resistivity of a metal with a magnetic impurity rises when it reaches 0K. You can reach nearly 0K via thermalization and the kondo effect starts with many body entanglement. You can also form superconductive materials via thermalization, to form a cooper pair. So you can create electron (not photon) entanglement via thermalization. In the kondo effect resistivity rises (so kinetic energy of conducting electrons lowers) while entanglement (correlation energy) rises. Simple conservation of energy states that kinetic energy forms the correlation energy. Superconductivity can also create entanglement. (cooper pair)In Superconductivity, electrons behave like they have no invariant mass( behaves like boson), so a cooper pair is connected with there kinetic energy. When you entangle photons then kinetic energy forms the entanglement since photons can only have kinetic energy. It seems that entanglement is speed dependent.

huh? I see. I think I didn't think about those things as a kid.

Perhaps, but there is more that shows for example how quantum non-locality is due to quantum uncertainty. It seems that uncertainty induces nonlocality. This is a ' continuation' on that paper on wave particle duality:https://arxiv.org/pdf/1512.09081.pdf quantum error correction:https://arxiv.org/pdf/1605.01420.pdf quantum nonlocality: https://arxiv.org/pdf/1312.0080.pdf https://arxiv.org/pdf/1004.2507.pdf second law of thermodynamics: https://arxiv.org/pdf/1205.6894.pdf Something I read "It's possible to write equations that capture how much can be learned about pairs of properties that are affected by the uncertainty principle. Coles, Kaniewski and Wehner are experts in a form of such equations known as 'entropic uncertainty relations', and they discovered that all the maths previously used to describe wave-particle duality could be reformulated in terms of these relations."https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/12/141219085153.htm

The presence of the table doesn't add anything to the 'story' since you jump from the table before impact. He might as well have asked: "What's the chance of surviving a (10 story)building jump?" I don't think it was his intent to add things like a hedge. If you can add things then I would add a deep swimming pool.

So you think that makes more sense? According to the OP you jump from the table before impact, this implies that you and the table just fall from a high building. This is not a brain teaser...

he answers his own question...

Time is imo a property of space.

I don't make things up. This paper shows how wave-particle duality is quantum uncertainty. https://arxiv.org/pdf/1403.4687.pdf I'll explain it in a different way. F=m.a. Acceleration(a) increases the speed and speed increases speed-dependent/relativistic mass(m) which increases the (F)force necessary. The (F)force decides the speedlimit.(like c) The speedlimit depends on the invariant mass. c is the speedlimit for particles without rest mass or rest energy. This can be explained without relativistic mass though, just using the relativistic formula for acceleration. Yes, Energy is proportional to mass(E=mc²) but why would you not use 'relativistic mass'? It increases your understanding. The devaluation of 'relativistic mass' concerns a downgrade in physical knowledge. Confusion....really??? Those masses in general relativity are a lot more complex. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_in_general_relativity#Types_of_mass_in_general_relativityBut you don't think they should be used because it confuses people? It's to complicated???? You can't measure the exact mass of open systems without relativistic mass.

Can't you interact with photons without breaking entanglement?

Wave particle duality is about wave function collapse. The wave behavior disappears/collapses when one tries to determine the particle's path. This paper shows how wave particle duality is quantum uncertainty.https://arxiv.org/pdf/1403.4687.pdf "The connection between uncertainty and wave-particle duality comes out very naturally when you consider them as questions about what information you can gain about a system. Our result highlights the power of thinking about physics from the perspective of information,"