Klaynos

They don't but the statements tension true if you considered I was talking about some other planet and we're trying to detect them. But it all takes time you need time for life to evolve and develop technology. The signals then take time to travel. Whilst there has beena lot of time the distances are huge. And we don't know how long they were broadcasting for. There has to be an overlap of us looking and the signal getting here. If you were asked to find a blue grain of sand on a beach when there was only 0.000001% of the beach being blue sand and you stopped after 30 seconds would you still be asking why the time of looking matters? You need to increase the probability of getting a hit with more time. What about it? If we've not intercepted or how can we discuss it?

I'd suggest you read my post again. The distances are huge.

That's an easy one. Because the universe is so immense. If life is even somewhat rare, you need life to be at s point where it can be detected in some way. An often put idea is that they'll be broadcasting. Now if we take the earth as an example we have been broadcasting for around 100 years. There are around 500 stars within 100 light years of the earth. So to detect us you need to have life at a point that is developed enough to be looking for other life within those solar systems. The probability of that is pretty small if you must consider how long life has been around on earth and how long we've been looking for life relative to that. It gets harder the further away you are as well because the signal strength decreases. Out would be more surprising if we had detected life by this point outside our solar system. Within the solar system it's difficult because the experiments are hard and we're the only planet in the goldilocks zone.

Then how can you make the statement? If you cannot show even the classical maths for predicting the positions of the planets of the solar system in a geocentric way which is consistent with what we know about gravity how van you possibly state that it works? It's significantly more complicated just to get the positions in the night shy before you even try SBD make it consistent. Which is why is easier when doing it to treat the sun as stationary.

Quantum computers using photons as qbits. Data links using fiber optics. Photovoltaic cells. I don't know how much info you want add some point you'll need to find some resources (a skill in itself so I'm not doing it for you) and do some serious reading.

Care to show the maths that prices this?

I would guess that they're old stop lines in case of invasion. But that is a complete guess.

I'd be interested in seeing efficiency comparisons to other energy storage mechanisms, e.g. water storage, hydrogen from electrolysis, etc...

It is better, but then the mail is a very low bar.

I run lubuntu. You might want to mint it's easier to have nice desktop environments than modern Ubuntu. Don't like the new desktops...

Processing, data transfer, energy generation... ...

Google scholar is a good place to look. How many papers do you currently reference in your paper?

How mathematical is it?

Phonons are quite likely. They of course do interact using the EM force. But that's probably just going to confuse the discussion somewhat.

The two objects would be separated by some medium, even space counts, what is the relative temp of that medium? The objects would always emit their blackbody spectrum. If the system is in equilibrium then energy out equals energy in. You're still using the term "heat energy". Heat is energy transfer not a type of energy.

I'd quite like to be able to see.

A simple answer is that to interact on that way you must confine the particle to either slit a or b. The double slit experiment requires particles to travel through both slits simultaneously. Your interaction collapses the wave function.

I think he's trying to align all the spins through a given slit. So slit a will all be spin up and all through b will be spin down. By adding a "magnetic field to ensure spin up" (or down) you are interacting therefore destroying interference pattern and entanglement. On measuring the entangled particle in apparatus 3 you destroy the entanglement. You will not get an interference pattern out of your experiment as described. I think you are making a common misconception about entangled particles. You entangled a single characteristic (e.g. spin). This entanglement lasts until measurement/observation/an interaction of that characteristic. In the frame of the interaction both wave functions collapse on interaction.

If it is possible at some point to find out which slit you will not get an interference pattern. In this case the interaction (magnetic field at the slits) will destroy the pattern. The same interaction breaks the entanglement.

If they're not coupled the effect will probably be indistinguishable.

You could measure at the wall but I'm not sure what information you'd hope to get from that. As I said you can't influence the spin at the slits add that destroys the interference pattern.

What you want to look at is phonon polaritons. You can couple the two together.

I haven't gotten past here yet as assuming you have entangled the spin the first time you measure it you'll break the entanglement. Your spin fixing at the slits will break the interference pattern (and the entanglement if it hadn't already been broken).

I think there is an important distinction to make here: Temperature is a measure of the average kinetic energy of an ensemble. Heat is an energy transfer due to a temperature difference. It is not a type of energy itself.

We were once at the same stage as the other great apes in terms of civerlisation, how well do we treat them? Or any other member of the animal kingdom.