swansont

Justifiable implies you have a model, making testable predictions. Evidence to back up your claims. Without that, it’s not justifiable.

Which has nothing to do with the topic. Focus, please. In the appropriate thread, please

You speak only for yourself, of course. MWI isn’t meant to apply to what “we commonly experience” if you aren’t a physicist

This is both a) not physics and b) a false dichotomy You really think there have been nothing new in understanding physics since 1920? You exclude much of QM, for starters. The approach we have has led to plenty of new experiments that haven’t been tried before.

But we’re discussing interpretations, which is not “doing” physics. It’s making sense of QM. And what does this have to do with MWI?

No. No way to build up enough charge, and neutral would not exert any force.

Please don’t report posts to point out that someone is wrong. That’s not (by itself) a rules violation. Correction of errors or gaps in knowledge can and should be addressed in the course of a discussion

Not everybody understands things the same way. There is no one “right way” when it comes to interpretations. Put differently, the right way is the one that works for you.

You aren’t the first to make this appeal (“open your mind” or “think outside the box”) but it’s misguided. You own the burden of proof. Such appeals are typically used as a smokescreen to cover gaps in whatever is being proposed. More science, less hand-waving.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_locality The concept is that for an action at one point to have an influence at another point, something in the space between those points such as a field must mediate the action. To exert an influence, something, such as a wave or particle, must travel through the space between the two points, carrying the influence. The special theory of relativity limits the speed at which all such influences can travel to the speed of light, c

Because it’s science fiction, and concepts are chosen based on plot considerations rather than technical validity.

Against a particular state would be a state matter, and up to the governor of that state. Against an individual would be a civil matter. Courts make mistakes. AFAIK most heads of state (or some other high-ranking official) have such authority.

SCOTUS is the source of that finding. But this is where the legal difference between a pardon, clemency and immunity would matter. I suspect false imprisonment would be a case where you would grant clemency (edit: i.e. commute a sentence). If you accept a pardon, you are admitting guilt.

If Nixon had been impeached, then there would be something to this. And we knew, by and large, what Nixon’s crimes were. We don’t know all Trump’s crimes, and we are owed an accounting of them, one way or another.

Article II says “he shall have Power to grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offenses against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment.” To me that says he can’t pardon someone for crimes for which they were impeached, and he can’t undo an impeachment. I’m not sure what the court would say it means.

That would seem to be immunity, but I don’t know if there’s a legal distinction. However there is legal precedent, in that Ford pardoned Nixon, who had not been convicted. I don’t know if anyone tried to challenge it on those grounds. The Constitution makes an exception to the pardon power for impeachment, so it may be that any crimes associated with his impeachment are not subject to pardon, even though he was not convicted. Pardons carry with them the implication of guilt, according to SCOTUS https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burdick_v._United_States The Supreme Court ruled that, as a pardon carries an imputation of guilt and acceptance carries a confession, Burdick had the right to reject the pardon and did not have to testify due to his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination. The Court declined at the time to answer the question of whether the pardoning power may be exercised before conviction You might have the curious situation where Trump might be forced to list his crimes. What if he refuses to admit to them? Would that count as refusing his own pardon?

motlan has been suspended for ignoring the rules and moderators subsequently pointing out the rules.

The quantum states are orthogonal to each other. You don’t have to “put” them anywhere. The causality is the issue for me. I’ve heard similar objections to Copenhagen with instantaneous wave function collapse, but MWI suffers from this same issue, just in a different firm But it’s an interpretation, not a theory unto itself.

I imagine that once the first plant takes hold the process accelerates, as the root structures will physically break down the rock, which makes it easier for the next ones.

! Moderator Note Posting in mainstream physics to advertise your speculations threads is against the rules. (2.5) Plus, there’s no physics here.

! Moderator Note Could you please include some science in your posts?

To first order, yes, but in most cases the two spin orientations of the electron have different energy, so the states are not degenerate. The determination of that orbital doesn’t include the magnetic interaction that causes the energy shift.

deBroglie wavelength is h/p, and waves follow v=lambda*f; it’s just that the waves are traveling at c.

Fluid behavior is probably an apt description; there would be little or no viscosity, or surface tension, for the same reasons.

1. I didn’t use the term first; I used the same terminology as was used in the question I answered 2. I don’t think there’s any suggestion that this isn’t amazing 3. This is semantics and “clumps together” is perfectly cromulent. Perhaps you have a suggestion of a better word? 4. Is there any objection to the veracity of the science being discussed?