MigL

I have had many opinions borne of ignorance and faulty reasoning, which has been set straight by experts in their respective fields, on this very forum. We all come here to learn, and are all ignorant of one thing or another. Is your solution to call us all names, or educate us. Are we all bigots because we are ignorant of certain things ? I think calling someone a bigot is offensive; that is my opinion. And since, according to Zap, I'm ignorant of the definition ( even though I'm offended ), I must be, according to Dim, a bigot.

That is what I previously posted. I concede he is wrong in his reasoning, but believing people who, don't believe in God(s), think a certain way ( I'm one of them ) is not bigoted. That is my opinion; am I bigoted for thinking that group thinks that way ?

No problem whatsoever with Zap's thoughts and opinions; I have always valued them. Everyone's opinions should be ( ie. no thought police ), so we may discuss, and even attempt to change each other's minds about certain subjects. Labelling people with offensive terms, like 'bigot', makes them feel unsafe about sharing their ideas/opinions. Is that not the whole idea behind 'safe' spaces ? If you'd rather eliminate all views which don't agree with your own, you're not going to have much of a discussion. ( and I did give Zap a +1 for being respectful )

Because the probability distribution for the separated states was encoded in the common wave function shared by entangled particles. How many times does this probabilistic view have to be repeated, before you stop thinking classically ? In the mentioned experiment in Geneva, given a large enough separation, the question could arise as to which of the two particles' entangled states decoheres first ( SR considerations ). If the wave function does not encode states as probabilities, how do we know which particle is communicating/signalling/Qbitting ( or whatever you choose to call the interaction today ) with the other to ensure the observed anti-correlation ? Or are you fine with violating causality for macroscopic events ( observer experiments ) also ...

How are these 'fields' compactified, or localized to this 'central part' ? The QED fields, which manifest quantum particles, are not.

It is so hypocritical of Russia to blame western nations of supplying weapons to the Ukrainian resistance. The Russians themselves have apparently provided much more in terms of hastly abandoned tanks, artillery, etc. Let this be a lesson to all limp Dicktators. ( did you learn anything, Xi ? )

Response should be here, so we can discuss. Use PDFs as supporting evidence, please.

How is that relevant ? What if he had been carrying a paper, like NYT ? Or a doll ? Or walking a dog ? The only connection is in his ( deranged ) mind. You guys are trying to find sensical, causal structures in the thinking of a madman

Glad you showed some respect by calling me sir ...

Nice analysis by Markus on the previous page. On this off topic discussion ( I recommend splitting if possible ), energy, even rest energy, can be described as due to the configuration of the system, but not internal configuration ( as there is no internal aspect of elementary particles; if they had internal structure, they could be divided, and would not be fundamental ), rather the external configuration with respect to other fields, such as the Higgs, EM, color, and even space-time ( which gives rise to variable energies and masses in differing frames ). But back to the OP. I would appreciate a brief summary of your conjecture, Computer, so I don't have to slog through your lengthy post. Qed is best described as a perturbative theory of the quantized electrodynamic vacuum fields. And it does an excellent job of describing all phenomena involving charged particles. What does your theory add, or modify, to QED that is currently lacking, or in need of modification ? What new predictions does it make, and are any experimentally verified ( as is the case with current theory ) ?

You are straying dangerously close to 'conspiracy theories', INow. Sometimes we give China too much credit as to their capabilities and intentions. They seem to have their own problems. I don't know. Ask the people of Hong Kong.

To be fair, Doctor Derp said/implied that eople who think a certain way ... ( meaning atheist beliefs ) make zero effort ... Then proceeded to try and back up his assertions with faulty thinking. That makes him wrong, not a bigot against atheists. We are not the thought police here; make counter arguments, not 'labels' to stop discussion you don't agree with.

An interstellar spacecraft powered by ... chemical rockets ??? I guess that's what we know, so we make that association. now, if the description was a shiny metallic object falling out of a hole in the sky, I might think 'wormhole'. Which might be more plausible.

No wonder we have no more women on this forum. Everyone is less puerile when women are present. ( always wanted to use the word 'puerile' )

Thank goodness ! I thought I was gaining weight.

Do you have any reasoning to back up this imaginative conjecture ? Or is it just a WAG ?

I would think that if we draw a gravittional potential vs radial separation graph, we would get a curve asymptotic to the GP ( y axis ) and RS ( x axis ) of the 1/x type. Similarly, a dark energy plot on the same graph, would be a GP =CosmologicalConstant horizontal line ( y= Const ). Where the two plots cross, would be the radial separation where expansion becomes dominant and overwhelms gravity. ( disregarding any initial velocities/accelerations )

The 'model' facilitates calculations and predictions. Don't confuse the 'model' with 'reality'.

I remember 'Merchant of Venice' well. I was 'Antonio' in the stage play at my high school. Bet you didn't realize I was a Shakesperian actor ...

No, that Heisenberg ( Walter White ) cooked crystal meth. Werner Heisenberg went to Helgoland, with its sparse vegetation, because he had a bad case of 'hayfever' ( allergies ), and he used aspirin and cocaine as a remedy. He was also the head of nuclear weapon research for the NAZIS, and was close to being targeted for assassination, as a result. See here Werner Heisenberg - Wikipedia

Our local galaxy group, which includes the Milky Way and Andromeda ( M31 ), is part of the Virgo Supercluster. Another group that belongs to this Supercluster, is the M81 group, of which M81 is the brightest galaxy. Can you tell us whether the space between us and M31 is expanding ? Or rather, we are 'shrinking' with respect to that distance ? How about us and M81 ?

IIRC, W Heisenberg developed Matrix Mechanics based on spectral line emission experiments; then again, he was supposedly high on cocaine on Helgoland Island, in the North Sea. See here Matrix mechanics - Wikipedia

On the contrary, the only place we are dealing with actual physical experiments is at either end, where the observations are made; and the two observations are perfectly explainable by correlation. At any point in between we have a mathematical abstraction that says the states are undefined, until said observations are made; and that throws a wrench into the works. Where is the reality in that intervening space ? For all intents and purposes, there is no reality until those observations are made. If you want to argue that mathematical expresiions can be non-local, I could be persuaded to agree. Just as Eise's thinking can be non-local by thinking about war in the Ukraine and the Andromeda galaxy in the next instant, the probability of a coin flip showing heads is exactly the same in Ukraine as in Andromeda. Is that your definition of non-locality ? Is that what you would mean by the probabilities described by the mathematical wave function being non-local ?

I certainly haven't quoted Bell, Aspect, Einstein, et al. I'm not even sure of the timeline without researching it. I do have a problem with superluminal tranfer of information, and the definition Bangstrom has provided for 'non'locality' does just that. So that definition doesn't fly. Perhaps we are forgetting that we are dealing with models of the undelying reality, and while we can construct physical models of macroscopic processess and events, we are forever relegated to using only mathematical models of quantum processess and events. They cannot be described in terms of 'everyday', common physicality. We are, in effect, seeing something happen, mathematically, in one place, and again, in another place, at great separation, and concluding that something must be communicating between these two mathematical expressions. We are certainly not dealing with placing a weight on one end of a fulcrum and causing the other end to rise, even though that can also be explained with a ( classical ) mathematical model. We need a better understanding of what 'non-locality' means in a probabilistic mathematical model. And thanks for keeping us honest, Eise.

Personally, I have a problem with excessive nudity; it takes away the thrill of 'discovery'. In repressive Victorian times, seeing an ankle was a thrill; these days, a totally naked woman doesn't get a rise out of me. ( and it's not due to old age ) Further, I have a problem with so called 'born again' religious people, who seem to be trying to excuse their previous 'lives'. All the while passing moral judgement on pople who live their lives as they once did. ( like the anti-smoking Nazis who used to smoke three packs a day, before they quit ) And finally, I don't see what an allegorical book of parables has to do with any of this. ( are you looking for moral justification ? )