MigL

Ceramic matrix composites are an active area of materials research. I have solid top stoves in the house, so the SiO2 containing glass tops came to mind. "A glass-ceramic stove uses radiant heating coils or infrared halogen lamps as the heating elements. The surface of the glass-ceramic cooktop above the burner heats up, but the adjacent surface remains cool because of the low heat conduction coefficient of the material. An induction stove heats a metal pot's bottom directly through electromagnetic induction." From Glass-ceramic - Wikipedia

At 200 mAh, this is too small for a cell phone battery, and that is the only familiarity I have with USB-C fast charging. I'm fairly certain that, for cell phones at least, the charging rate is determined by the phone's electronic battery controller, and simply switching to a higher rated charger won't make any difference. ( I think my Samsung gets 50 % chrge in half hour )

Damn ! I was just about to snack down on some choccolate coated ants. ( all this time, I thought my optic nerve problems were due to Glaucoma )

Hi-purity Silicon is generally found in integrated circuit chips. Silicon dioxide is also found in IC chip insulating layers, but a low purity version is found on the beach, as sand. It is also found in larger crystalline structures, known as quartz, and is often used in just such extreme heat applications, such as electrical stove tops. Is that 'kitchen' enough ?

Liquid water and ice, moving through the air, tend to build charge. An example you may be familiar with ( if you were an industrial chemist ) ... You never have a liquid like IPA, or Toluene, etc., free falling into a tank. You should always have a dip-leg to prevent charge build-up

Russians can't even hit military positions, without taking out the school or hospital 5 miles down the road. Now they want us to believe they can take out satellites ? In a well controlled test ... maybe.

Joigus post above, reminds us of the many interpretations of QM. All equally valid, and all equally nonsensical from our classical macro perspective. Maybe if Bangstrom can manage to clean up the 'loose bits' around a non-local theory, we might have yet another interpretation. I'm not an aether fan-boy; I see it as a useless ( and incredible ) add-on, much like I view non-local 'interactions'. I do hope to some day meet Eise for a drink. There is a 4 level department store in downtown Zurich, where the lowest level is liquor/wine/beer, and they have a bar, with drinks/snacks ( canapes ) right in the middle. If my aunt is still alive, I'll mail him Aug 1/25.

Charge separation between the upper and lower parts of the cloud would indicate that the eventual discharge ( lightning ) would occurr within the cloud itself. Most all lightning I've seen discharges between the earth and cloud, indicating that is where charge separation occurrs, and the mechanism would be similar to rubbing a balloon on your hair, or rubbing an amber rod with fur, or ... The mechanism discussed in your link, may contribute, but it doesn't explain the lightning or its path.

Nice '"Ah-Ha"

You do understand that entangled systems of quantum particles are solely represented by one common wave function, don't you ? That is what non-realism means. They are simply a probability distribution, until the entanglement is broken by observation/interaction. No signal is required; the quantum particles simply take the states predicted by the collapsed wave function. That is where the correlation 'resides; no need to transmit anything. Statements like the one you made above, lead me to believe you don't really have a grasp of QM. And you certainly don't have a grasp of SR. Stop re-posting the same quotes over and over, and repeating the same assertions. Present some evidence.

Sorry, but that doesn't cut it, and I have to agree with Joigus ( and Eise and Swansont ). A single quantum particle is neither here nor there, nor anything at all 'realistic' until a measurement/interaction is made. Where is the 'realism' ? But more importantly, in regards to your assertion, where is the non-locality for that single quantum particle, which you claim produces the non-realism ????

Non-realism and non-locality achieve the same results in explaining QM effects like entanglement. Yet you agree that we have no realism. So why do we need non-locality, if we already have non realism to explain the behavior ? If you wish to pursue the non-locality idea, you had better come up with a solid theory as to what this non-local signaling' entails. How it is transmitted superluminally. How it violates relativity, especially SR, in deciding which interaction comes first to cause the other. And many more. ( haven't heard these kinds of arguments since discussing the aether ) I await your explanations and evidence, not just repeats of your previous posts.

The Liquor Store sells it pretty cheap, and it's available when you want it. No mess, no fuss. And it tastes better ...

Depending on the distance to the nuclear detonation that produces the EMP, conduction and 'free' electrons are easily driven out of wiring/conductors, batteries/capacitors, integrated circuits, etc. Why would anyone think a Faraday cage of lesser thickness would suffice ? And if a Faraday cage is composed of pieces that are not electrically connected to each other ( like two cookie sheets ), the pieces act as antenna/re-radiators, not a shield. Keep your baking sheets and biscuit tins for cookies.

No, they can NOT ! They do not have a state to 'swap' from.

I would think that you need a character to represent the root of -1. The character i doesn't seem like a bad choice, but j would hace done just as well. And calling such numbers complex is aso practical, although 'strange' or 'unreal' would have also been fine. But you do need to represent the root of -1 somehow ...

Transistors are very simple, they are basically just on/off switches. However, if you put a bunch of them together, you can form gates. And a bunch of gates together, with multiple inputs, and multiple outputs, does begin to resemble cellular structures.

Furthermore ( since you actually seem interested in this ), this common wave-function, describing the system of entangled particles, is not a wave of anything "real', like a water wave, or pressure waves, or even EM waves. The best we can say about it, is that it is an indication of probability; the mod of the probability amplitude, squared, is a representation of the probability density. Does not seem 'real' to me, yet some argue that it is all 'real', and facilitated by faster than light, non-local signalling.

Said like a person who will be warm this winter. A lot of Europe will not. I perfectly understand the reasons for looking at all types of energy sources to get through difficult times, but they need to be brought quickly online, and Methane extraction from the North Sea coal beds seems too 'long term' to be of any use this winter , or the next decade's winters. Those kinds of investments are better made into non-fossil energy sources and renewables

Information, according to Relativity is constrained to stransfers equal to, or less than, the speed of light. Are you saying Relativity is wrong ? No, they did not demonstrate the 'reality of non-locality'. They demonstrated the absence of local realism. You can twist and bend that as much as you like, but they are NOT equivalent.

Modern 'flash' memory would probably be more easily corrupted. An EMP pulse will force electrons from the conduction and semi-conduction bands, and since SSDs store electrons in a silicon gate after being deposited there by a MOSFET, they will easily lose the charge that indicates '1' or '0'. Old style rotating platter drives, that store data in magnetic domains, especially low-density ones with larger magnetic domains, may be mor resistant.

In addition, whereas a classical particle 'sees' a well defined trajectory, governed by space-time curvature in GR, a quantum particle 'sees' an infinite number of probable trajectories, governed by 'probability amplitudes' derived from its wave function in QM. One is 'externally' constrained, the other, 'internally' constrained by its probability distribution. Very different models.

But observations and experiments are ...

Over 2000 nuclear explosions since 1945. A large number above ground. The Earth is still habitable. I don't mean to make light of the situation or possibility, but quit being such a pessimist 🙂 . ( I'll take my chances; I don't want to be at ground 0 )

At the same instant in time ? You mean imultaneously ? "According to the special theory of relativity, it is impossible to say in an absolute sense that two distinct events occur at the same time if those events are separated in space." From Relativity of simultaneity - Wikipedia