joigus

https://thelanguagenerds.com/

Uh, uh. Somebody didn't like your text formatting.

Only Aldrin left from the crew. Really an amazing guy. All these years passed have only made the feat look more and more impressive, not less. May he rest in peace.

Very subtle, and I'm not sure to what extent consequential. See, e.g., https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/334478/mathematical-definition-of-classical-entanglement (My emphasis.) This, of course, can only mean that in those cases classical fields can be used as a workable approximation. Classical field theory cannot give you any phenomenology that's not already contained in quantum field theory, as QFT is the fundamental theory as we know it.

There is no such a thing. I had a series of conversations with a friend who was refereeing for PRL on submitted papers that were using such a misnomer. It was decided that it had nothing to do with entanglement, and all the effects could be understood with the superposition principle. Classical field theory doesn't deal with photons (as particles), so there can be no entanglement from the point of view of classical fields. It doesn't even start to make sense.

Not all radiation is harmful. Long wavelengths are much less harmful than short ones. Yes, that's true. But that's why we have antennas. They exploit interference. No. Not all matter is a good absorber of radiation. Some matter reflects radiation, other matter diffracts it or transmits it. Most interstellar space is quite transparent to radiation. Air scatters radiation, rather than absorb it, for the most part. The point is quantum teleportation has particular features that are in no way like "sending something from A to B instantly".

Long-distance energy transfer is possible. It's called radiation. It's constrained to transfer speeds equal to the speed of light in vacuum, at most. I don't see how entanglement could achieve anything better than c-propagation for energy. As to claims that quantum entanglements play a part in photosynthesis, I wouldn't be terribly surprised if that happened. There have been claims that quantum entanglement participates in birds finding their bearings in long migrations. There are many claims of that sort. I would tend to be cautions about those claims, but it's possible. My sceptic half says that entanglement, in the usual meaning, is normally associated with cold, non thermal, conditions. But here's what I've found: https://mappingignorance.org/2020/05/21/high-temperatures-and-strong-random-interactions-need-not-destroy-many-body-quantum-entanglement/ https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-020-15899-1 I would think that there must be a conceptual bridge between claims of entanglement playing a part in biological systems and study of entanglement in strongly interacting systems. But I would have to read this material more carefully. In the meantime, I'd be very interested in what other users have to say.

If Watson isn't the most famous doctor ever, then Who is. ------------------------- Meanwhile in Salzburg...

The nature of so-called "quantum teleportation" is very widely, very deeply misunderstood. Nothing is travelling "instantly", so nothing is teleported. Energy, of course, cannot be teleported either. What these experiments do is build highly correlated pairs of particles, and keep quantum coherence for incredibly long distances. They can then "switch off" coherence, so to speak, and can select sub-states completely correlated to each other. That's very impressive in and of itself, but no teleportation AFAIK. I wouldn't call this "teleportation", and I don't know who introduced that term, but it's a misnomer and it causes confusion to no end. I for one would prefer that scientists used a more understated vocabulary. But it seems to be the case that the more sci-fi it sounds the more hype it's going to stir. I think that's unfortunate. No, Star Trek is not around the corner. I wish it would.

LOL

"Imaginary" is just a word. Don't read too much into it. "Real" is just a word, don't read too much into it. "Exist" is just a word..., and so on. If a circle really exists, then complex numbers really exist. If a circle doesn't really exist, then complex numbers don't really exist. Can things kind of exist to you, instead of really exist? "Use" is a far nobler verb than "exist." You can use complex numbers and understand many things with them as a tool.

I wish I were in Tonga now. I'm waiting for the mods to say "nothing to see here, go to Tonga."

Let me get the full import of that... OK, special requires special. OK. (I'm a little obtuse, you know.) I don't know, but it just so happens that whenever you don't quote a paper, you sound pretty dumb. No, I just expected you not to make such sweeping statements as, That, if taken seriously, can put people's lives at risk. You've just crossed the line between being just dumb and being dumb and dangerous. Some people may even think that you know what you're talking about.

So immunosuppressed people who've been subject to an organ transplant and loaded with cyclosporine have nothing to fear. Thank you!!! That's a relief. It's good to have experts like you telling us all what's right and wrong. After all, you can link to a paper!!!

I think @studiot brought up this very interesting question, which I will paraphrase as "what are the limits then?". Whether Pi is the accepted value is good enough for the sake of argument. But suppose conspiratorial thinking is addressed to set up an (economic) internet scheme to deprive people of their life's savings. Or with consequences for public health. Or with consequences for national security. Or... The possibilities are almost limitless, and we should be concerned. That's why I gave a positive point to @exchemist for trying to draft a set of criteria --that should be made available to people who don't know better-- even though I liked many other arguments exposed here.

I will only add: Be careful, the BS is out there.

I've always been more of a top-and-bottom kind of guy. Quarkwise.

Two wonderful books whose titles, translated to English, read Tell me what it is, and Tell Me why. There were simple explanations of apparently magical phenomena, like will o' the wisps, based on methane from organic-matter decay. Now we know phosphine may be involved too. Then I toyed with the idea of becoming a doctor. Then I got into biking, and thought of becoming an engineer. Then I did coursework on interactions for Physics course and fell in love with Physics. I share much common ground with most users here, except @iNow. To me, sex has always been a distraction from physics. It's only helped me reckon my chances of getting laid as a consequence of talking about physics as nearly zero.

I would give him a break, @MigL, although I see your point. The word "truth" is perhaps not the best choice --sociologically--, granted. But, Number of times Feynman uses the noun "truth" in the Feynman Lectures on Physics: Volume I: 5 Volume II: 6 Volume III: 9 Number of times the adjective "true" appears in the Feynman Lectures on Physics: Volume I: 128 (one of them in the composite word "untrue") (at this point I stopped counting) The difference is these were not tweets. If you think about it, there are two ways in which you can present scientific "truths": 1) Inertial mass and gravitational mass are equal 2) Inertial mass and gravitational mass are equal to within 1 part in 5 billion Now, I don't know about you, but I don't mind calling the second one "true." The Feynman Lectures on Physics Vol. I 18-1 (My Italics emphasis.)

Yes, wonderful illustration of patterns emerging from collective behaviour. Taken one by one these starlings seem quite "vulgar" as compared to other, more beautiful, birds. But when they team up to do this in the sky, they truly are a wonder of Nature.

Starlings, a new state of matter? (lots of minutes, I've cut the last video.) How do they do that? Remind me of cellular automata. But far more amazing.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tom_Cheney_(cartoonist)

Please, @porton, do not embed your own words in a quote by other user. It's very confusing.

My two cents: What for? So that we can have Donald T**** still around 3000 years from now? Einstein still working on the unification of EM and gravity? The genius of Chaplin in a Tarantino movie? Highly proficient old geezers taking up all the god jobs so that young people never get their hands on the task? What about overpopulation? Those aren't questions. They're assertions. None of them remotely related to immortality. Stem cells, telomerase, hello...? And guess what types would be first in line to achieve immortality. A world full of moguls, fighting with each other for a piece of eternal time. I don't think so.