geordief

Thanks.I will have to do a little(a lot) more reading before I can ask any more questions.

So they are entirely separate ? (I hope so because I am more interested in the HUP than the OE at the moment) In the HUP what is it that makes ,eg position and momentum mutually dependent? Or is it self evident that they do and does the fact that they do share this mutual dependency mean that one cannot know the one in isolation from the other? And so the position/momentum state has to be described mathematically in a "two dimensional" way? Are there other pairs of attributes that apply to other systems that behave the same way?

I understand that the uncertainty principle is "baked into" the world as we know it whereas the observer effect describes the practical impossibility of an actual sentient observer from taking a simultaneous measurement of an object with attributes such as position and momentum to an idealised degree of complete accuracy What I am asking is how these two concepts relate to each other? Is ,perhaps the UP a generalization of the OE or is the OE a specific case of the UH (not sure if those are equivalent definitions or not) I understand that even Heisenberg thought (at first?) that the he was describing an OE so I don't feel bad about myself for having believed likewise for a very long time over the years.. So what is the relationship? Are they two separate concepts or are they joined at the hip? A quick google brought up discussions in a few philosophy forums .I hope that is not where this topic actually belongs

OK I can see that the maths involved in Bell's theorem is too hard for me to follow for now (even though I have come across the notation** used in the past) I see there are a few ways that entanglement can arise and learn now that it was considered by Evin Schodinger (sp?) to be absolutely central to QM. I will just keep at it and maybe it will become clearer eventually. ** I think it looked like a tensor or a cross product they were using before I gave up trying to follow.

Thanks,I will take a look tomorrow.

How did it come about that 2 particles were considered to be entangled? What were the preconditions for this to occur? I imagine (I am just guessing) that there was a theory and that this theory was confirmed when its predictions were observed. How was the theory arrived at?

I think chainsaws are dangerous (as are bowsaws-I have cut right through the nail once and my doc said he never got to see any injuries from professionals) but they also damage the nerves in the hands I think and are also unpleasant to use. And they are not that much faster than a bowsaw if you spend half your time sharpening the chain and refilling the petrol and the oil like I used to. If the trunks are too big I just leave them to grow on and go for smaller trees . If you know which way the tree is leaning you can take down quite big trees as the cut eventually opens and the tree goes under it's own weight. I don't know if you read "Where the Crawdads sing"(now a film) but ,listening to myself I sound to myself a bit like the protagonist in that story 😀 And yes ,the escape path is the first thing to organise.

From the latest description of the Russian army 's living quarters as revealed after their retreat we can say that part of the economy is based on pigs and porc production.

I had the idea because (and I just use a bowsaw) some trees are difficult to get a good place to start a cut and also they often just fall on their neighbour and I have to make a second or third attempt to bring them to ground.I thought I would do this and attend to them later when they might be lighter and easier to handle. I have noticed that standing dead trees in my field are often very dry and for me the dryer the better I have made quite a deep "girdle" so I will see how it works. What,even up past the cut I have all around the trunk?(about 3' off the ground) Would a deeper cut make a difference?

As I have trees in my field that I use as firewood,I have started a new technique of cutting through the bark a little above ground level so that they die standing up rather than by felling them as I normally do. Can I anticipate that they will dry more quickly than otherwise? Will the water already in the timber tend to sink under the action of gravity? I understand that it is capillary action that feeds the upper branches in the first place (when alive)but I do not know if there is anything like a reverse path for that water as the tree dies and slowly dries out.

A bit like time as we understand it "going into and exiting its own black hole"? Not sure if I am going off topic ,but I have heard the expression countless times that the photon in a vacuum is not a valid frame of reference. I can, I think see that the mathematical equations might not allow this (infinities involved?) but is there also a physical reality that this impossibility indicates?

Are photons "more quantum" than atoms ? If there were no atoms (which is supposed to have been the case at an earlier epoch) would it then be impossible to count any tocks?

The atomic clock involves an interaction btw quantum objects and a macro system ,doesn't it? Can the process of the passage of time be defined and quantified without recourse to a macro system and just by means of interactions within the quantum system itself?

I just had the quantum interactions (or any interaction involving a quantum particle if a quantum particle can interact with a macro system ) I was wondering whether ,within the quantum system it was possible to define the tocks of time by the interactions that occur. Is there any way ,within that system to distinguish btw a "long" interval between interactions and a small interval? Can the interval ,whether long or short be considered in any way as a unit of "quantum time" (in any useful way)?

Thanks So ,if we know the spin attribute of a photon as it leaves a measuring device on the Earth do we know what a similar device on the Moon will measure provided there are no interactions along its path? And if there is an interaction along the path will that measurement be the same as it would have been on the Moon?

A particle (which in QFT is a wave travelling through a field) can only be measured at the beginning and the end of its journey. In between ,if it is measured then the journey is different .(shorter) If ,for a test particle where the initial conditions are identical(can that be guaranteed, I wonder?) and the particle is then measured at different times from its starting point do we get identical measurements? I mean ,if we have an observer on the Moon and we ,on the Earth** fire a particle with known attributes at them do we know precisely what their measurements will be ? And ,suppose an observer half way between Earth and Moon intercepts the same ( or an "identical") particle will they be guaranteed to make the same measurement as the measures on the Moon? Or do the potential measurements along the line of the particle's line of transit vary with distance from the source? **if the source on the Earth and the receiver on the Moon can be imagined as being at rest wrt each (which they aren't of course but let's just suppose they are -or find other places that are,if that is a problem)

What would be the maximum number of these eigenfunctions for any particular system?

Biden is saying that USA will never recognize Russia's annexation of ( those that parts of)Ukraine. If Trump is reelected is that what he will do?

Well I only have a sketchy understanding of parts of the quantum model itself .Perhaps I was wondering whether the model was treating these "dimensions " in more or less the same way as we treat dimensions in the macro world or at least in a very similar way. (Dimensions in the macro world are also a model,aren't they?The macro world and the micro world are ,in reality the same place-there is only one universe**) **unless that can be disputed😀

Well I have only just gained any understanding of this area at all and so any new knowledge of the model is quite a boost. I think I may have already gleaned from the little I have read that even the ,4 spatiotemporal dimensions can be modeled in this Hilbert phase space . Maybe this use of Hilbert space to model reality gives another sense of what dimensions are,but would I be right to feel that the 4 spatiotemporal dimensions are a different beast to the other eigenstates(if that is the term) even if the Hilbert space model treats them the same?

I am learning that Hilbert space is .very central to QM. Does that mean that every aspect (,or attribute?) of a quantum system (I think one has to use the term "system" rather than "object") exists in something like it's own dimension?

A Russian faction trying to force Putin's hand?

Yes it helps. Next stop I will be a particle physicist

Am I right to understand that these correlations only occur when thousands of measurements of entangled particles are taken? It is a statistical outcome? Or has this measurement been made with just 2 entangled particles and the outcome is predictable on each occasion?

Maybe it was someone else (or my memory has wind blowing through the attic) No matter. Is there a "father" of the maths in QM? (like Minkowski for GR I think)