Itoero

Thermalisation refers to the process of physical bodies reaching thermal equilibrium...by exchanging energy trough diffusion. This paper investigates thermalisation of entanglement entropy.https://arxiv.org/pdf/1501.01315.pdf

That's true but if wave collapse is a physical process according to our reality then extra knowledge and improved measuring devices will (hopefully) show that. The same goes for when its not a physical process.

I said: "In Physics".In hard sciences it's important that people's idea of what is 'real' is adjusted due to scientific evidence. That's necessary for the evolution of science.

So until observed otherwise(possibly by improved measuring devices), we can't know if it's real or not? Like Schrodinger's cat. In Physics, I consider something 'real' when there is sufficient or indisputable scientific evidence.

Is the collapse of the wave function a real physical process or an epiphenomenon due to the Uncertainty principle?

I love myself

Keep trying! I will lighten up my supporting candle! Is it possible to make sure you can't buy them? Turmeric is an Indian healthy herb which might give you the extra boost(energy) you need to stop smoking. Curry often contains Turmeric.

Can't you use thermalization? Photons contain kinetic energy so the wave energy is formed by kinetic energy (conservation of energy) and kinetic Energy is proportional to the temperature. (gas: Ek=3/2 RT) So if you lower the temperature via thermalization to nearly absolute zero and the photons remain entangled, then that would show that the entangled kinetic energy no longer has the properties of kinetic energy.

If you bring a system with entangled photons to nearly absolute zero, what happens with the entanglement? Electrons have a rest energy, photons do not. So does this mean that entangled electrons are more prone to survive cooling down to almost absolute zero? paper studies relation entanglement--temperaturehttps://arxiv.org/pdf/quant-ph/0505161.pdf

I think the opposite of loving a person is not knowing of a person's existence.

You do understand that words can have different meanings dependent on the context? He points to the 'fact' that science deals with what we call reality, not ultimate reality. Ultimate reality I call reality which is present regardless whether it's observed or not. Our senses/understanding/measuring devices decide what we can observe, which forms our reality. For a pantheist, Ultimate reality is divinity. For example: When we observe nothing then we observe nothing in our (idea of) reality but the observation is submissive to our senses/understanding/measuring devices. So can some thing come from no thing? It depends how you define nothing and something. Follow 2

This sums everything up. Do you people know and understand what an event horizon is? I'm posting science, you people post misinterpretations based on science yet you seem to think I'm posting subjective beliefs This discussion is not fair.

Q: Do you think the noise of playing children is nuisance? A: No, I sound proved my basement pretty well.

You can't use logic to define what's after an event horizon, especially not the black hole event horizon. That's not what I said. A lot of things can be information: mass, energy, particles...(quantum states can also be information)it depends on the context they are in. And GR talks about the formation of black holes. There are many assumptions but there is zero evidence for what happens after the event horizon

And is the quitting working?

It doesn't matter if he jumped from the table and the table fell with him or not. It's about that he jumped from the table before impact which is impossible since jumping also gives an impact...by jumping you increase the total impact. in a haystack? so Assassin's Creed -style?

It's not me that's miss interprating that's what written If your idea is correct the OP would have said: "He jumps off a table, on top of a building". So you deny that you can absorb the impact with a roll?

That's true. I just think he would say it differently if the table also fell from the building.

Why is the table ice? And the material of the table doesn't matter since he jumped of the table before impact.

I think he means you jump on a table which is on the floor, the table doesn't fall. If he did jump of a table on a building then the table would remain on the building.

I don't understand your point. People do a roll to survive jumps from high heights.

This means he jumps from a building on a table which is on the floor.

huh? I didn't say it's floating.

The table is not in freefall, he jumps of a building, on a table and jumps of the table before impact(from jumping). Where did you read the table is in freefall? Why do people think the table is in freefall?

Why do you think the table is in free-fall?