Strange

Is particle physics different from quantum physics?

There are a large number of technologies based on quantum theory. Pretty much all of modern electronics, for a start. Flash memory, for example, depends on effects like tunnelling. And then we have And then there are things like this: http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/solids/squid.html And this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Positron_emission_tomography And understanding superconductors, semiconductors, graphene, quantum computing, etc. all depend on quantum theory.

It does NOT involve "minuscule [sic] point charges of electricity".

That is not evidence. That is not how electromagnetic radiation propagates.

Yes, that was why EPR thought it must be a flaw in the theory. The fact that quantum mechanics is non-local is the mechanism.

Migraine? Caused by tiredness or stress, perhaps. If it happens again and it bothers you, see a doctor.

It is complicated: https://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/0908/0908.1545.pdf It's fascinating that we have so little accurate information about something that happened just over a century ago.

That is the sort of "hidden variable" that is shown not to be possible. What Bell's inequality rules out is locally realistic variables: i.e. it cannot be limited to the speed of light (local) and it cannot be fixed, even if unknown (realistic).

Not really, after all that is what is predicted by quantum theory (non locality). A "local" [hidden] variable is one that is limited by the speed of light (that is what "local" means). So local hidden variables would be affected by distance.

No, it wasn't. Einstein, for example, wasn't aware of the Michelson-Morley experiment (and, if I recall correctly, later said that if he had been he wouldn't have paid it any attention). If anything, Maxwell's equations were the fork in the road. So it all depended on Faraday playing around with wires and magnets. Everything that Einstein, Poincare, Lorentz, et al. did was just derived from applying Maxwell's equations and reaching the obvious and inevitable conclusions. At which point, anyone looking at the results of the M-M experiment would have said, "well, obviously."

There are, it is true, degrees of "wrong" (Asimov wrote a great essay about this). The aether has no supporting evidence and several lines of evidence against it. Like phlogistion it is an ex-theory. It is no more. It is pushing up hypothetical daisies. It has shuffled off this mortal coil. (If you see what I mean.) Actually, unlike phlogistion, which was a plausible theory for a while, the aether never had any evidence for it. (So it was barely a model, more an assumption.) See also, Occam's Razor.

What GR describes, and LIGO measures, is the changes in distance and time caused the the presence of mass or energy (moving masses in this case). Do you consider the distance between London and New York to be made of "stuff"? Do you consider 5 seconds to be a medium?

I have spent hours (possibly hundreds of hours) trying to (a) get my head round tar's mental model of time and (b) trying to get hime to understand a more "normal" model. I have come to the conclusion that both these are impossible! But good luck. Maybe someone will learn something... (Tar was on my ignore list for a while because of this topic, but he is a smart guy with many interesting things to say so that didn't last long. I just ignore this subject now!)

That shows that we do NOT need a medium. But it does need to be detectable, to be considered to have any existence.

Absolutely not; I loved studying History of Science (I probably did better in that than I did in my science studies!). I just think it is fascinating that certain experiments capture the imagination far beyond there actual significance. But that's human nature, I guess.

Do you think that there are invisible pink unicorns that that have no detectable effect on the universe? If that is a possibility, then I suppose the aether is too. And Father Christmas. Of course, if there were any evidence of an aether or invisible pink unicorns, then I would change my answer.

No.

But we aren't talking about "practical purposes".

The whole point was that it acted like a medium for the transmission of light, and therefore it should have been easily detected by experiments like Michelson-Morley (if it were stationary, and others if it were not).

Well, some do. I would guess it is the mainstream view in most branches of Christianity, Judaism, Islam and Bahá'í.

I wonder why people still so fascinated by such an old and relatively inaccurate experiment... This page has one of the most detailed analyses I have seen: http://www.relativitycalculator.com/Albert_Michelson_Part_II.shtml Or this one: http://spiff.rit.edu/classes/phys150/lectures/mm_results/mm_results.html (The author of this one is, I think, very active on another science forum.) A copy of the original paper here: https://www.aip.org/history/exhibits/gap/Michelson/Michelson.html#michelson1

They are saying that the other people believe in something that is not god. Therefore the only god is the one they believe in. Of course, the others may say exactly the same thing. Or they may say that they are both worshipping the same god. Because the differences are in what people believe. Not in what is.

Because other experiments show it can't be moving with he Earth either. So: If it exists, it needs to have physically implausible properties It isn't required by any theory It can't be stationary It can't be moving with the Earth It can't be detected So what was the point, again?

I'm pretty sure that neither of these are new concepts. The fact that electric fields are infinite in extent is a classical concept - after all it follows an inverse square law and therefore the field extends forever. Similarly, my understanding is that entangled particles have always been described by a single wave function. That is what entangled mean. (But I'm sure one of the experts will correct me if I am wrong.) Indeed. And that was part of Einstein's objection to it.

It wasn't clear if that is what you meant, or if you were suggesting that the US constitution only protected monotheistic beliefs.