swansont

Entanglement means the particles can’t be described by separate wave functions. There is a wave function that describes the composite system.

Name-calling with an agenda. It's a dog-whistle to others to insult and categorize you, and also, by doing so, the implication is that nobody needs to engage you on the substance of any topic. It is or at least is a close cousin to an ad hominem argument - "you are wrong because you are <belittling description>"

Where did you get your data? No, it didn't. But also, it's not necessarily by personal, individual choice.

Another thing from the military (though not exclusively military, of course) was called "attention to detail"

Perhaps it takes on a different air when you consider that these are likely not one-off events. People are being denigrated on a daily basis, perhaps multiple times a day. I'd imagine I'd get sick of it, too, and here I only have to put up with being called e.g. swansnot on occasion. I typically let it slide. When it keeps happening I have to wonder if it's deliberate, and I say something. If that was my continual existence, though? I imagine it would have a greater impact and wear me down. I can't truly fathom what it would like to be belittled for whatever characteristics of what I look like or how I am. The reality is likely far, far worse than what I can imagine. So maybe characterizing this as petty political correctness is underselling the problem, and perhaps we can recognize that there are issues within this class of problem that are very real and need solving (bullying and harming people because they're different, keeping them from exercising their rights, etc.) so that (as with iNow's examples above) brushing this off is doing a disservice to the effect it has on people.

! Moderator Note It is a yes or no question, which is a problem because of factors that you have highlighted (and others), i.e. it should not be asked in a binary way. The OP might return and clarify this, but until they do, I'm erring on the side of caution, because this isn't my first theological rodeo.

In the US there are lots of things that require cars. It's how the country was built up over the last century, and that can't be undone, and also it's hard to change course. I can easily see why a family of sufficient means might have 3 cars. One might be a minivan or similar, for when you need to bring the kids with you someplace, and the other two might be smaller, more fuel-efficient cars for e.g. commuting. That way, you don't drive the less fuel-efficient vehicle when only one or two people are going somewhere. You can't look at such a situation and validly conclude that having 3 cars means you don't care about the environment. That requires a lot of assumptions that you are making. Without infrastructure to charge the batteries, this won't do much. Utilities in the US generally have to get approval to raise rates. Lower gasoline usage last year did not result in higher prices. https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=46356

! Moderator Note Without a model we can't do much in showing where this idea is wrong.

It's not a classical oscillation, similar to how the orbitals of an atom are not defined orbits and thus do not radiate. The electron is shared but there is no defined trajectory, per quantum mechanics.

! Moderator Note Similar topics merged

I have to say, in reading that text, that the author and I differ in our understanding of entanglement. Entanglement is not an interaction between two particles. It is, rather, an indication of a past interaction, either with each other or with a common entity (such as parametric downconversion where two photons come from the same atom, or in a decay) The difference in an entangled system is that observing one particle allows you to know the state of the other particle, which is not possible in a classical case. They are right, however, in saying that measuring the particles does not tell you if they were entangled. That correlation requires statistics, which means many measurements. This explanation does nothing to change my view that they've put the cart before the horse. They have not shown that the counterfactual leads to an understanding of entanglement.

! Moderator Note The thread starter asked a yes or no question. All discussion beyond that is off-topic at this time. Such posts will be hidden.

I literally can’t watch the movie, and this kind of thing happens a lot. here’s what I see: Posting videos isn’t forbidden. What is forbidden is basing a thread solely or mostly on an outside link, rather than discussion posted here.

Flattery will get you nowhere You told people ”read the article” and we have a rule against such laziness. ! Moderator Note Don’t bring the topic up again. On the one hand that’s too bad because it seems interesting, but on the other hand you weren’t engaging, so nothing lost except the trolling

The rules say the discussion takes place here, without requiring anyone click links. (see 2.7 in the guidelines) If you aren’t going to defend the idea or otherwise engage in discussion, this will be closed. Last chance.

It’s literally the situation without immigration skewing the numbers. Immigration is a zero-sum game. You’re talking about the what happens after immigration. But you can’t claim country X is doing a great job because its population is going down, when all that’s happening is that people are leaving in droves. Those people will still impact the environment. It’s just happening somewhere else. My fellow Americans will be relieved to know they have no more of a climate change impact than anyone else in the world. We were being told different.

! Moderator Note From rule 2.7 Links, pictures and videos in posts should be relevant to the discussion, and members should be able to participate in the discussion without clicking any links or watching any videos. Videos and pictures should be accompanied by enough text to set the tone for the discussion, and should not be posted alone.

Seconded. An abstract is second on the list of the guidelines for posting here https://www.scienceforums.net/topic/86720-guidelines-for-participating-in-speculations-discussions/

Pretty sure. That’s something like evidence or data, right? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_natural_increase UK is positive, Germany is negative. Europe is negative, but it’s eastern Europe doing the heavy lifting.

Not if we continued to do too little about it, as we collectively have. The impact is still there, and as iNow said, it would just be slower. They include emigration as part of the discussion, which doesn’t fix anything. The overall population hasn’t gone down just because some people moved around. Do you have stats for the population growth/decline, ignoring emigration and immigration? (I believe this is called organic/natural population growth) No, some would have to be removed because of medical advances that extended lifespans. You reduce/eliminate smallpox, tuberculosis and polio, for example, and the population must go up, because you’ve reduced the death rate. Medical advances have to be eliminated for your scenario to work.

That's hardly a rigorous or objective explanation.

1. How is that not measurable? 2. How does that actually equate to complexity? Where is the energy flow? Atoms have less energy than the constituent particles, and molecules have less energy than the constituent atoms, so that suggests complexity decreases. If they're just sitting there, there is no energy flow, so by your definition they have equal complexity. An atom that absorbs and then re-emits a photon has energy flow, and somehow that atom is more complex than an atom not absorbing a photon. But the atoms are identical. How does that work? A photon not being absorbed by an atom has a greater energy flow than a photon being absorbed by an atom. So not having the interaction results in a more complex system than having the interaction. That seems backwards. If I have a device that converts gravitational potential energy to other forms and I move it to a new location where g is greater, the energy flow rate density will increase. Yet the device is identical. How did it become more complex?

If you don’t have an accepted definition and way to measure it, it can’t be an established fact. Asserting that it’s a fact so you don’t have to deal with this problem isn’t going to fly.

! Moderator Note The article proposes a definition of complexity, it does not establish it as a fact. Our rules require speculation being backed by more than further speculation. Pick one.

! Moderator Note You were asked for a science discussion, not credentials You need to start addressing the points raised, and in a substantive way. Immediately.