StringJunky

OK. Ta.

The WF describes the probability distribution of finding quanta/field excitations in a particular position. If you want more detail quantumphysicslady breaks it down quite simplistically. https://quantumphysicslady.org/glossary/wave-function/

It might give an edge in close range urban type warfare where radars are not practical and sight prevails as the primary mode of detection.

QFT. This is the essence of why the scientific method works; independent rebuttal or verification.

If LED media can be made flexible, I visualized it could be used as reactive camouflage material. If one put led screen material on the underside of the plane and a camera pointing upwards towards the sky, it could relay the camera scene to the underside of the plane, more closely matching the sky in real-time. Plausible? Drones would be an easier first application, I think.

Thank you Mordred. the way some sites talk, it's on the verge of application.

Yeah, I was going to ask how long to filter down to consumers... LOL!

Compensation is equivalent to putting plasters on the problem and systemic change is the surgery.

That is clever stuff. It's new to me.

Is it to act as an alarm trigger when data is breached? In this scenario no information is transmitted. The wavefunction acts as the trigger.

Is quantum cryptology where the entanglement is used as a trigger to notify of a breach; an attacker collapses the wavefunction? e2a I'll make it a question

Regarding China, it appears they are trying to procure spying space in Cuba. The arms companies are going to be busy for another few years. Another load of petrol waiting for a match to light it. Do any here think Ukraine will try to do a military takeover on Crimea eventually?

We don't know the level of mutual operational familiarity regarding Ukraine intent. I'm guessing we've given them the red lines with our equipment and the rest is up to them.

As much as I like iNow, his style is not rhetorical.

Just like Russia did in a week...eh... they talk BS. Let's get real. China is so 'advanced' and sophisticated it put a ramp on a ship and calls it an 'aircraft carrier'!

There is no other way to interpret what you said. If he doesn't agree with you, he's a fool. You created a false dichotomy for him... maybe unwittingly.

Try taking a photo of the experiment. You will likely find the paper tinged blue... this is because our brain is tuned to represent things as it thinks the way they should be, and so it filters out the blue*. Make sure the camera doesn't automatically white balance as that will nullify the blue. This is a quirk of brains rather than a physics issue. iirc the wavelengths add up to a more purple sky than we see. * Our visual system has evolved to maximize contrast for the better detection of threats. In this case it's colour contrast rather than light-dark contrast.

So, the result of the Hafele-Keating experiment is just rubbish. Why must nature conform to our commonsense?

Nature doesn't have to be rational. This is well-known. Like I said: it defies your commonsense. Leave it at home when thinking about stuff that resides outside of the macro-world, commonsense and intuition. They are useless in this environment. As Mordred has already said: verbal descriptions are inadequate. If you really want to have a leg to stand on, you need to learn and understand the maths.

"You are jumping the gun don't you think? Before you rush of with interpreting the results of some experiment, you must justify the validity of the hypothesis." - I thought that was the experiment's job.

Can you expand on that? I don't understand.

It insults your commonsense, but Nature does that all the time.

At the end of the day, and said explicitly by military chief Milley, they make their own operational decisions. It's their fight.

As pointed out to me, the Constitutional principle of redress for grievances is already written. It's working, people have the political arena to air them... and they do. What is taking time is the solution. The First Amendment provides that Congress make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting its free exercise. It protects freedom of speech, the press, assembly, and the right to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.