Comments by "Lepi Doptera" (@lepidoptera9337) on "Cool Worlds" channel.

  1. Because nothing in Cherenkov radiation is going faster than the speed of light. The charged quanta are merely going faster than the group velocity in the Cherenkov medium, which is always slower than c.
    3
  2. You are absolutely free to believe that you don't die, but what gets erased is your memory, so the "reborn you" is simply not "you" any longer. If that gives you some form of emotional satisfaction, then go for it.
    2
  3. The earliest texts in the bible are from around 600BC. It's not very old.
    2
  4. The Fermi paradox is a social phenomenon, not a physical one. That somebody doesn't want to talk to you because you are not attractive to them has nothing to do with the speed limit on your local highway. You are just not their type. ;-)
    2
  5. There is no evidence of our technological civilization in terms of radio emissions, either. People simply don't understand that a radio station that was meant to broadcast a couple hundred miles, at most, doesn't reach very far against the background noise of the solar system (emissions from the sun and plasma). It doesn't matter how big the antennas are. The signal to noise ratio is just not there. We have gone ever more radio-silent since the invention of the internet, anyway. Almost all of our RF communications are now low power directional links that barely reach beyond ten miles. The only way to communicate to another star system is by actively building the necessary transmitter and receiver infrastructure, which we haven't done, yet.
    2
  6.  @Lia-zw1ls7tz7o  Yes, the signals will reach the entire accessible universe, eventually, but they are too weak compared to the radio emissions of the sun and the plasma surrounding us. That's a lot of background noise. Imagine you want to talk from one end of a football stadium to the other with tens of thousands of people shouting. That won't work, either. The only way to achieve communication is by building strongly directional transmitter and receiver antennas.
    2
  7. The problem with these explanations is that they are focusing on the wrong scenario. There is no non-causal behavior in the rest system of the two endpoints A and B or the ship S that traverses the distance between them at v>c. The problem occurs when an external observer tries to establish causality from a rest system that moves at a non-zero velocity relative to A and B. FTL brakes the causal consistency conditions, i.e. an outside observer could see you being alive before your grandfather was and they could see the timeline between the two of you running backwards.
    2
  8. Yes, you can do that, but it will, at most not send a message at the speed of light. ;-)
    2
  9. They are here, already, and probably have been for many millions of years. Are they flying around in UFOs? Of course not.
    2
  10.  @scottbullock3045  I don't know what you are seeing in your mirror, but I am seeing a native. I am just not seeing a very interesting native, as of now. We won't be of any real interest to "them" until we try to leave whatever space has been assigned to us. If we know one thing, then it's that "property rights" are an extremely sensitive matter. We don't have any reason to believe that this changes at the galactic scale. Right now we are living in the nursery. Eventually we will move into the children's bedroom. We will even leave the house. The neighbor won't make himself known, though, until we try to enter his lot... and that's when "they" will tell us that we are overstepping our boundaries. It will, hopefully, come in form of a diplomatic invitation rather than a warning... but it will come.
    2
  11.  @experttact  You can't detect locally if a quantum was entangled or not. All you ever get is a random spin projection. Entanglement only shows up as a correlation with a second measurement which has to be communicated over a classical channel.
    2
  12. Humans won't, but what comes after us might. Not in the same form, of course. There will be constant change.
    2
  13. The problem does not occur in Earth's reference frame. It occurs in SOME reference frame moving relative to Earth. As long as all causality is restricted to speed <c, all observers will agree that event A happened before event B if A happens before B in the reference frame of A and B. If the causality is connecting these events at >c, however, there is a reference frame in which B will come before A, i.e. in case of the grandfather paradox some observer will see you being born before your grandfather. I didn't think this through entirely, but intuitively one might expect time to flow in the opposite direction on the FTL ship itself (apart from the fact that it acquires an imaginary component which makes the system unstable). I Might be wrong about the last part, but the general lore about tachyonic systems is that they are always unstable. Now, all of this only holds if nature is actually relative. If it is not, then one can construct systems which have different energy bands, just like phonons and charge carriers in semiconductors. We would be in one of these bands and tachyons in another. There would be a gap between the two. By supplying enough energy one can "jump" the gap and then the new state would be in the higher band. We have accelerated protons to roughly 7TeV so far without observing this energy gap and "jump". We have been able to observe much, much higher energy cosmic rays (I believe by a factor of a million) and they still didn't become tachyonic, so if such a band exists, then it's at energies above the highest energy cosmic ray that has been observed. It would be completely useless for either communication or travel.
    2
  14.  @bryansjodin  What about ALL observers vs. SOME observers did you not understand just now? I the distinction too subtle? :-)
    2
  15. What for? ;-)
    2
  16. Weak measurement still obeys special relativity.
    2
  17. The quantum state does NOT take on a defined value due to the measurement. We can't get all "spin up" on one end. We will always get 50% up and down on both ends. If the two measurement systems are aligned, however, there will be perfect anticorrelation between the two results. If they two measurement systems are 90 degrees misaligned, then there will be zero correlation.
    2
  18. No because there is no such thing as collapse and the outcomes at the both ends are always random, no matter what happens (or does not happen) at the other end.
    2
  19. Yes, that's not how quantum mechanics works. ;-)
    2
  20.  @citizen127at  Dude, let me repeat this: you don't need a lot of energy. All you need is patience, which you clearly don't have. ;-)
    2
  21.  @petermacfie8038  How is your open minded research into perpetual motion machines going? ;-)
    2
  22. Time is that which the clocks show. So, no, time does not "contort". Clocks are always running at the same rate.
    1
  23. It is not in the past from the viewpoint of the ship. It is in the past from the viewpoint of Earth. In relativity the finite speed of light is simply a consistency criterion that assures that causality is guaranteed for ALL observers and not just for some. Of course you can always pick observers even in the FTL scenario that won't see a causality violation, but that's not the case for ALL observers. There will always be some who will see unphysical effects that simply do not happen in nature.
    1
  24. There is no information in the timing of things that do not happen.
    1
  25. The wave function doesn't collapse. It's a mathematical abstract that always stays the same.
    1
  26. Why in the world would a colonizing AGI destroy a living planet? There is no material gain in that. You are simply desperate to avoid the zoo hypothesis, which is far more likely.
    1
  27.  @barneyhall2753  The same as we do. Nature doesn't change just because somebody else is looking at it. If somebody wants a balmy place in the solar system, Mercury would be it. Plenty of solar energy and heavy elements through the roof. The lower surface gravity makes spaceflight way, way easier. Anybody who wants water will go to the icy moons of Jupiter or Saturn or directly to Pluto. 11km/s escape velocity is a giant pain in the bum, at any level of technological development. Super-earths with two or three times the escape velocity are far worse, still, but are likely to have plenty of water and dense atmospheres for life... while being outright hostile to a space fairing civilization. Earth is close to the limits for spaceflight. Any more mass and getting in and out of the gravity well is getting enormously expensive. So why would AGIs go through all that pain when they can live better almost anywhere else?
    1
  28. Of course they know how to talk to us. Physics tells you exactly how. They might even be talking to us right now, we just haven't built the correct receiver, yet. But to be honest, I think we are probably surrounded by aliens living in the Oort cloud. They are very comfortable there. Why seek conflict when they don't have to?
    1
  29. Imagine you scramble Morse code with a coin toss for every single dot and dash: heads, dot stays dot and dash stays dash but tails and dot becomes dash and vice versa. Is that still going to be Morse code?
    1
  30. We aren't just looking for Earthlike planets. We are looking for all kinds of planets. The second potential habitat, icy moons with inner oceans, will be very hard to find outside of the solar system and even if we find them, there is no chance to test them for life remotely. That can not even be done within the solar system. We will have to go there and drill into the ice until we reach the ocean.
    1
  31. It's not black magic. It's just a necessary consistency condition that has been violated. The universe is keeping its laws for all observers at all time, not just for some observers some of the time.
    1
  32. Why are you telling us that you weren't paying attention in science class? We don't care. ;-)
    1
  33.  @jonnybaird.youtube  Yes, listening in science class would be helpful in this case. We never told anybody about wave function collapse in science class (because it doesn't exist outside of the internet). We told everybody that "Quanta are small amounts of energy.". I bet you can't remember that one. :-)
    1
  34.  @jonnybaird.youtube  See, you are not listening. Not even when a physics PhD tells you how it really works. ;-) )
    1
  35.  @jonnybaird.youtube  I didn't have to pay anything. I got my higher education for free, kid. More precisely, I was paid while working on my PhD thesis. ;-)
    1
  36.  @jonnybaird.youtube  Not to the government. They had to pay me. ;-)
    1
  37. You mean Genesis 3? Genesis 3 is an allegory for the process of growing up. :-)
    1
  38. Entanglement is always between two or more quanta. A single quantum measurement never shows entanglement.
    1
  39. Yes, as far as you know. It's just not the way you think you know.
    1
  40. Because people make it sound like that. Entanglement is essentially just momentum and angular momentum conservation. You have seen mechanical examples of it in school, you were just not told that some people would call the same boring thing "entanglement" when you got a bit older. ;-)
    1
  41. It makes an acoustic wave. Would you like me to do the chicken and the egg for you next? ;-)
    1
  42. In the 19th century there was a cottage industry that made perpetual motion arguments just like this one. Before that there was a cottage industry for the rectification of the circle. There is another cottage industry that tries to disprove special relativity. They are all run by people similar to those in the flat earth cottage industry. :-)
    1
  43. Nothing happens instantly in these experiments.
    1
  44.  @avijitsinha  Dude, you are living in a relativistic universe. Please read up what that means for "simultaneity". And please stop showing off your physics DK. It's ugly.
    1
  45.  @wesjohnson6833  Time-energy uncertainty proves that that is simply not true. If you only allow for a very short collapse time, then you lose the energy information. This can be easily tested in femtosecond laser experiments these days.
    1
  46.  @wesjohnson6833  The problem with quantum mechanics is that it does not obey the point-in-space-point-in-time-rinse-repeat event ontology of classical mechanics in several different ways. For one thing we can't do a rinse-repeat. Once we make a quantum measurement we have changed the system irreversibly. More troubling is that "a measurement" is not actually an event but a process of at least finite length for the mentioned reason. Even worse, in my opinion is that we teach QM ontology exclusively in the non-relativistic case where "A makes a measurement before B" seems to have a unique well defined meaning. Except, of course, that we live in a relativistic universe and "Who's first?" in general becomes an observer dependent question. The relativistic version of QM only has to keep the causality of relativistic spacetime alive, which is different from that of Galilean spacetime. So, yeah... combine all of that and try to form a really solid intuition for the phenomenology. I have not been able to achieve that in four decades of thinking about it. I am not saying it can't be done... but I still can't do it myself.
    1
  47.  @wesjohnson6833  Exactly. In some respect we are worse off than they are, though. Experimental data and observations that were made during that period eventually allowed the next generation to break the seals of nature wide open. Today we lack the next series of key observations and they seem nearly impossible to make in areas like high energy physics (if there is really a great energy desert to the GUT level) and quantum gravity. There is bewildering stuff, of course, like dark matter. Now, it may turn out to be very weakly interacting fields, after all... but if we can't find those, oh boy, then we are in real trouble.
    1
  48.  @wesjohnson6833  It probably is, but I have only seen one example, so maybe others are better. ;-)
    1
  49. Neither of the two measurements has any causal influence on the other.
    1
  50. You don't understand. There is a universe in which the immortal you writes an equally stupid post in which he argues that immortality is perfectly normal. :-)
    1
  51. Makes no difference whatsoever.
    1
  52. Why is everybody afraid of AI? Are you afraid of people who are smarter than you? They are not the ones who are threating you. It's the stupid ones that you have to be afraid of. They are the ones starting bar brawls and wars.
    1
  53. Why are you telling us that you have trouble with women? ;-)
    1
  54. That is correct. One can not derive from either these diagrams or the math of special relativity what would happen in situations that simply can't happen. ;-)
    1
  55. Of course entanglement can be observed. ;-)
    1
  56. What causes the split is a lack of education of people who believe in this nonsense. ;-)
    1
  57. There was no such assumption. What we didn't expect were the gas giants in very close orbits.
    1
  58. Yes! All opposable thumbs up!
    1
  59. Why are you telling us that you don't understand physics? ;-)
    1
  60. A) There are no particles. There are only quanta of energy. B) There is no such thing as a collapse. A quantum measurement is the absorption of a quantum of energy by the measurement system. C) We teach all of that in high school. D) Absolutely nobody seems to listen to anything we teach in high school. ;-)
    1
  61. @ They have been teaching the photoelectric effect in Germany for over 40, if not over 50 years. That is exactly how quantum mechanics works. It simply a specialized example of the general scheme. It tells you that photons are quanta of energy. Where in that experiment do you see particles? Nowhere. It's a macroscopic experiment which is usually carried out with photon numbers on the order of 10^12-10^15 or so. Where else have you seen something infinitely small? And how did you do that? I am an experimental high energy physicist and I have never seen a single particle in my life. What I have seen by the trillions were irreversible energy exchanges between the physical vacuum and the matter of my detectors. The difference between an atom and a quantum is fairly trivial: an atom is a persistent object that can be observed many times. A quantum only "exists" exactly once: as the amount of energy that flows between two systems during an emission or an absorption event. Easy, right? I would almost call the difference between "many times" and "exactly once" kindergarten level physics. No, not so easy at all, actually. It is this seemingly trivial difference that makes it so hard to get used to quantum mechanics because it has enormous consequences. It does, for instance, not allow us to assign "paths" to quanta. Yes, you will have to start over with everything you believe you know because NONE of it is as you think. That is not my problem. It's yours. You have to forget everything about atomism because quantum mechanics is NOT atomism. It's pretty much the opposite of atomism. Oh, and you will have to learn special relativity, because quantum mechanics is a direct consequence of it. If you have never heard that before, then you are in for quite a shock. There is no version of quantum mechanics that can be understood without it. ;-)
    1
  62. You can tell a time difference between two random numbers vs. two other random numbers? You and who else?
    1
  63. The quantum state is a description of the ensemble. It's not a description of the individual system. The individual system doesn't have a state. Only the ensemble can be in superposition. The individual system never is.
    1
  64. Bob's measurement has zero consequences for Alice outcome. So, no, you can't do that.
    1
  65. The finite speed of light is a necessary consistency condition for causality. There is no way around it. If we break this consistency condition even once, then we break causality in an infinite number of ways. Nobody can put that Humpty Dumpty back together, again.
    1
  66. Entanglement is simply the consequence of conservation laws for multi-quantum states. It is, if you want, the quantum equivalent of Newton's third law. It doesn't matter how you do these measurements. They always result in random looking sequences. The only thing entanglement does is to give us a non-trivial correlation between these sequences... but to find that correlation both have to be compared with each other, which can't be done any faster than with ordinary speed of light communication.
    1
  67. But you can't. :-)
    1
  68. One can't observe when the other side is measuring. That's simply a misunderstanding on your part.
    1
  69.  @aarongoodwin4845  Yes, you are measuring the opposite of a random outcome. The opposite of a random outcome is always... a random outcome. It doesn't tell you anything.
    1
  70.  @aarongoodwin4845  It doesn't matter what you do. You always get a random outcome on both ends.
    1
  71.  @aarongoodwin4845  I can tell that you don't get it. Most people are completely lost when it comes to trivial relativistic phenomena. ;-)
    1
  72.  @aarongoodwin4845  What's up with he physics envy, anyway? It's not my fault that you weren't paying attention in school while I was. :-)
    1
  73. Not everybody is a gamer. Serious people are mountain climbers and astronauts.
    1
  74. No, you can't. You will just get random looking sequences at both ends. A random sequence is a random sequence, no matter how long.
    1
  75. Of course. None of this requires any consciousness. You can play the entire game with high energy scattering processes involving tachyons. If you do, then there will be a flood of tachyons coming at you before you even turn on the accelerator. If you just think about building a really high energy accelerator there will be a flood of tachyons coming at you. And boy, if you are thinking about building a really, really high energy accelerator, then the Neanderthals will see a bright light in the sky that will completely wipe out all life on Earth. So don't you dare thinking about accelerators for tachyon research! You don't want to hurt the Neanderthals. ;-)
    1
  76. Awh, you are so cute when you are coping with your failure in science class. ;-)
    1
  77. You have clearly never been to the Arctic. ;-)
    1
  78. Wouldn't make he slightest difference to Alice. She would still see a random sequence. ;-)
    1
  79. Why would it be short lived. The coal age was short lived and so will the oil/gas age be. The solar age can go on for as long as the stars shine (which is hundreds of billions of years) and the gravitational energy source age could go on for even longer than that.
    1
  80. There were no rational expectations to find earth-like planets with current equipment. We need better observatories for that.
    1
  81. Yes, and most planets will start with reducing atmospheres. Earth's oxygen atmosphere is an afterthought that was created by life, which almost killed itself when it did that. There is no hard step there. Neither is prebiotic chemistry a hard step if we go by evidence from Earth's development timeline. The hardest step may have been from single to multicellular life, after that evolution was extremely rapid. Brains took a while but the development of human intelligence happened in the blink of an evolutionary eye. The transition to artificial life and intelligence which is happening now will take less than a century.
    1
  82.  @scottbullock3045  I have heard a lot of bullshit in my life. ;-)
    1
  83. Quite the contrary. It was capitalism that created the necessary GDP to do any of this.
    1
  84. I am giving you a random series of short and long Morse code signals. What do they mean? ;-)
    1
  85.  @experttact  What about many random characters? They are many random characters. ;-)
    1
  86.  @experttact  That sounds great, except that nature won't let you. All you will ever get are random characters. ;-)
    1
  87. Two random numbers are still random numbers.
    1
  88.  @Mr-wv1tu  I am just having fun. I know that most will never get it. Most people can't even remember the high school definition of energy... and small amounts of energy is what we are talking about here, after all.
    1
  89. Particles don't exist. You can't observe something that doesn't exist. What exists are quanta of energy. A quantum of energy can only be observed exactly once.
    1
  90. All planets, moons and planetoids in the solar system are rocky with the exception of Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus and Neptune. I have no idea what you mean by the extreme rarity of rocky planets. Three of these planets are or at least were in the habitable zone: Venus, Earth and Mars. Also not rare. There are up to ten moons with inner oceans that are at least theoretically habitable. Finally even Pluto may have an inner ocean. Absolutely nothing in our solar system points to rarity of potential habitats for life.
    1
  91. It for sure didn't hurt not to be alive. :-)
    1
  92. Of course Pele did. :-)
    1
  93. CERN is not a thought experiment. It's rather real. :-)
    1
  94. There is no difference for either receiver between an entangled and a non-entangled quantum. They all produce a random spin projection.
    1
  95. By sending its blueprints to other civilizations over radio.
    1
  96.  @bryansjodin  This has nothing to do with ONE observer. Relativity makes a statement about ALL observers. If relativity holds AND causality holds, then nothing causal can happen beyond the speed of light. You can let go of relativity, causality or both and then these algebraic restrictions fall away. So either your grandfather is not responsible for bringing one of your parents in this world (and you just randomly appeared with your grandfather being correlated to some observers) or physics is not relative. We do not have any evidence for either of these conditions being violated. That makes FTL fiction at this moment.
    1
  97. Well, if you would have said the same thing about perpetual motion in 1860, then you would have been equally wrong, but we would already be 124 years past your failed prediction. ;-)
    1
  98.  @sixtysixstyx  I never underestimate Dunning-Kruger. :-)
    1
  99. So how comes you asked but you didn't receive? ;-)
    1
  100. Your iPhone has a logo, trademark and country of manufacture notice, serial number etc.. Where do I find those on you? :-)
    1
  101. Time is not a dimension. Time is that which the clocks show. The diagram basically relates clocks on Earth to clocks on Vega to clocks on the STL ship. The problem is that clocks order causal events by assigning time stamps to them. The only way you can have FTL is by allowing these time stamps to change almost randomly. So what is a causal event for one observer is not one for the other. If you make a movie out of this then you would actually see the frames in the opposite order, i.e. FTL could make it look like somebody on Earth could predict a supernova that hasn't happened, yet. Or predict next week's lottery numbers... which would make all kinds of games of luck completely irrelevant in an FTL universe.
    1
  102. There isn't. ;-)
    1
  103. How is the talking donkey thing better? :-)
    1
  104. The universe itself is sending you a signal from 300,000 years after the first second of the big bang. That signal can be detected with little more than a slightly larger tv antenna, despite the fact that it came form across 45 billion light years or so. The universe doesn't set any limits on communication within at least the local group of galaxies. If somebody wants to talk to you, they can.
    1
  105. That explanation is wrong. Particles don't even exist and quantum systems are in no state until measured.
    1
  106. No thing moves away faster than the speed of light. Things that leave the observable universe stop being things.
    1
  107. That was a load of bullshit.
    1
  108. No. In physics all information transfer necessarily requires a transfer of energy. The trivial explanation here is exactly the same as in case of perpetual motion. Energy conservation rules out any chance for perpetual motion. In this case relativity rules out any chance for either energy or information transfer.
    1
  109. There is no such thing as a collapse. That's just nonsensical language that keeps going around on the internet. Nobody in physics who knows anything of value about quantum theory uses that language.
    1
  110. What's up with the gibberish?
    1
  111. Relativity is not violated by this. It is, instead, relativity that prescribes the structure of quantum mechanics that makes sure that relativity is not violated. ;-)
    1
  112.  @benk79  Yes, that's because it is spot on. Quantum systems can not work any other way because they all live on a relativistic background. I don't know why this is not mentioned in textbooks. I never understood that part.
    1
  113.  @benk79  The EPR paper is nonsense. Three relativists can't tell that entanglement is a trivial consequence of relativity. That's a low point of theoretical physics, at most. It certainly isn't anything to get your panties in a bunch over. ;-)
    1
  114.  @benk79  I have contributed to the field of experimental physics, but even I can tell when a theorist misses a trivial consequence of his own theory. This question is so simple that it can be answered in an oral exam by an undergrad student. ;-)
    1
  115.  @benk79  Dude, it's not my problem that you wouldn't pass a second year oral exam. That's your problem. ;-)
    1
  116. It's both. It's an immediate consequence of relativity (and thus no worth thinking about any further) and it has been measured plenty in the lab (where it behaves exactly as the theory predicts... which means it's not worth thinking about any further because there is nothing new to be learned).
    1
  117. Measuring one quantum doesn't change the outcome of the measurement of the second. The measurement adds an uncertainty to the spin state that depends on the relative angle between the source and the measurement device but it does NOT set the spin state. That's a common misunderstanding.
    1
  118.  @Epiphone1964  Choosing the axis of measurement (polarizer or Stern-Gerlach) simply changes the uncertainty about the local spin state. If the axis is parallel to the spin state, then we get zero additional uncertainty. If it's orthogonal, then we get maximum additional uncertainty. The measurement is simply not angular momentum conserving if it's not parallel to the spin state. The additional angular momentum comes from the measurement system.
    1
  119. Yes, but his criticism was wrong. He simply didn't understand how quantum mechanics actually works.
    1
  120. There is no such thing as a collapse of the wave function. That's just a nonsensical term that you keep hearing on the internet. ;-)
    1
  121. Yes, that's what tachyons do. They step out... and as a result they are immediately gone. :-)
    1
  122. Or, you could pay better attention, instead. ;-)
    1
  123. Also completely wrong. ;-)
    1
  124. As soon as you observe a quantum computer the computation is over.
    1
  125. It does when you are on an FTL ship, but that's because the diagram is actually wrong for that case. The light cone gets narrower as we approach the speed of light and it contracts to the diagonal as we reach it. That's the famous "light does not experience time" case. However, if we evaluate it past that speed, then the cone doesn't start opening up, again, instead if flips 90 degrees out of the diagram. Time becomes imaginary. That's tachyons. Tachyons are not experiencing time because they are constantly decaying. There simply is no FTL coordinate system in which stable matter can exist.
    1
  126. There is no such thing as a collapse. There is an entangled quantum state with two potential quanta, one of which is the outcome of the measurement at A, the other is the outcome of the measurement at B. Whether we perform a measurement at A or not does absolutely nothing to the measurement at B. We can decide to perform that measurement of we can decide not to. The result of the other measurement will not be changed.
    1
  127. No, of course not. Many UFOs are simply cockpit canopy reflections. Others are meteorites or falling space debris. Even more are simply campfire stories. ;-)
    1
  128. We can control meteorite impacts. We have already proven experimentally that we can alter the trajectories of these bodies.
    1
  129. Quanta don't make "choices beforehand" any more than dice do.
    1
  130. The spins are determined by both, the initial emission of the entangled pair and the individual measurements. They do not exist before the measurements.
    1
  131. The speed of light is always the same for all observers.
    1
  132. Yes, the real thing is extremely simple. It follows trivially from special relativity. This is simply not the real thing. It's the physics equivalent of Trump being a stable genius. ;-)
    1
  133. Why are you telling us that you weren't paying any attention in school? How is that supposed to make us feel better around the holidays? ;-)
    1
  134. Most men and woman are falling very short on either count. ;-)
    1
  135. Superposition is a mathematical property of the theory. It's not a physical property of individual quanta and one can not "check superposition".
    1
  136. Nothing... except for the fact that "A quantum is a small amount of energy.". Energy can only be measured once.
    1
  137.  @rodm8113  What you call "collapse of the wave function" doesn't exist. What happens instead is that a measurement takes all of the energy out of the system. After the measurement the system is literally gone. It doesn't have any more energy to give. You want to measure an empty battery periodically? What does that give you? Always an empty battery.
    1
  138.  @rodm8113  No matter what A does, B always sees a random outcome. Same for B. What does a series of random outcomes mean? How are you extracting information from it?
    1
  139.  @rodm8113  Your previous response simply makes an incorrect assumption about the system. A measurement at A does not change B. Neither does a measurement at B change A.
    1
  140.  @rodm8113  Quantum computers can't beat relativity, either. If you can show me one article that says they can, then I will show you an article that's 100% wrong. :-)
    1
  141. No, you can't.
    1
  142. That sounds cool until you realize that you will have to branch the universe an infinite number of times because the causality violations happen differently for an infinite number of different observers. Just where is the energy coming from to create all those branch universes? :-)
    1
  143. Where does it probe? In the rear? ;-)
    1
  144. The universe does not have an FTL transmitter. It does everything at or slower than light speed. But since the universe has actual consequences, you can't avoid paradoxes. You need to pay more attention in school, kid. ;-)
    1
  145. @ Yes, you are correct about that. My attention span was just about enough to earn a PhD in physics, but I never even came close to mastering your job as a parking attendant. ;-)
    1
  146. Entanglement simply means that the physical vacuum does not change the total energy, momentum, angular momentum or charge of a multi-quantum system. And because it doesn't do that there is no information in it about anything. We knew at the beginning what those physical properties were and we still know at the end what they are.
    1
  147. Me reading Genesis won't make you smarter, I am afraid. :-)
    1
  148. It's not a theory. It's a trivial mistake. If you read Everett's thesis, then you can find it in the second sentence of that document. ;-)
    1
  149. Quantum entanglement is the equivalent of Newton's third law. It's simply momentum/angular momentum conservation. Conservation laws aren't effects at a distance. They are the absence of conservation law breaking mechanisms.
    1
  150. Stanislav Lem's last book is about just that. What do you do with an intelligence that doesn't want to talk to you?
    1
  151.  @bradtem  The book ends on a rather sad note. Lem came to the same conclusion. He had similar story lines in other books, where "first contact" turned into a completely futile exercise in human wishful thinking.
    1
  152. Yes, theoretically a random sequence always looks like a random sequence. Can you assign an action to the value of a random sequence? Sure. It will be a completely random action. ;-)
    1
  153. No, we can't. The measurement on one end changes absolutely nothing about the measurement on the other, so you can't tell if it's been 3 seconds or 6.
    1
  154. Yes, if I could get a horse that flies, then I would not have to fly with United. Just too bad that there are no flying horses. ;-)
    1
  155. Well, you died a little bit while wasting time on watching this bullshit. :-)
    1
  156. Why not? It's not like a civilization can hide.
    1
  157.  @almightybunny3320  Yeah, that's scifi bullshit. Anybody who wants to visit your system can and once they are up close you can't hide.
    1
  158. A galactic civilization doesn't need FTL. One can populate an entire galaxy within less than one galactic rotation with chemical rockets and in ten million years with nuclear rockets, which are very, very easy to build for anybody who has the taste for them. We have built successful fission engines in the 1960s.
    1
  159. The hypothesis that life has a hard time to get started is not really covered by facts, though. If we happen to find life in the inner oceans of the moons of our gas giants, then it will be gone entirely. Life probably doesn't mind frozen surfaces, as long as there is water on the inside.
    1
  160. There isn't. ;-)
    1
  161. The process is that there is no process. We fully understand all of this. :-)
    1
  162.  @Amathylar  The "determining factors" are relativity and Noether's theorem. You have simply been over-trained by our school system to think exclusively in causal "if A then B" relationships, whereas modern physicists are dealing with the physical vacuum, which works based on a "if not A then B, C, D, E, F...." kind of logic. The physical vacuum is completely empty. This has profound consequences for the universe. It literally creates everything you see around you and we can actually mathematically enumerate all the effects that can follow from emptiness. :-)
    1
  163. And entangled system looks exactly like a non-entangled one. No difference.
    1
  164. You are not in a quantum state. You are in a state of ignorance about basic science. ;-)
    1
  165. One can't watch a quantum system all the time. One can make exactly one measurement on it, then it's destroyed.
    1
  166. The cosmological constant is one of an infinite number of mathematically allowed terms in extensions of general relativity. There is no theoretical argument that can rule out that any of these terms are not zero, so we have to rely on observations to set limits for them. These observations happen to be quite hard. I honestly don't expect to see reliable tight limits on the cosmological constant and some of the higher order terms in my lifetime. Some things in life are difficult and take a long time. That's the nature of the scientific beast.
    1
  167. The "Three Body Problem" is a case of really poor scifi writing. Nothing to see there. The science is as wrong as it comes. ;-)
    1
  168. That's because there is nothing fundamental about the speed of sound.
    1
  169. It doesn't. Distances are to the right and the left. Time is towards the top.
    1
  170. Because if you can have everything, then you have nothing.
    1
  171. No.
    1
  172. So you were drunk when you talked to a physicist? :-)
    1
  173. Nobody can show you "how quantum entanglement works" because quantum entanglement doesn't "work" at all. It's not an effect. It's the absence of an effect.
    1
  174. Why are you telling us that you failed in high school? :-)
    1
  175. When did you start feeling like an animal that is going to be slaughtered?
    1
  176. Awh, you are so cute when you are coping. ;-)
    1
  177. One can't influence the wave function any more than one can influence a probability distribution. They are both ontologically the same and they actually derive mathematically from the exact same axioms.
    1
  178. Dudes, if they are there, they know that we are here. They just don't give a frell. We don't have anything they need and they don't eat ants. ;-)
    1
  179. Nobody asked you to "accept it". We asked you to understand it by studying hard in school. Apples and oranges.
    1
  180. You won't see a difference at the other end. It will always be a random outcome, no matter whether anybody did a measurement or not. This follows trivially from relativity.
    1
  181. Time is that which the clocks show. Clocks are not illusions. They are local energy reservoirs that are distributing their energy in equal amounts towards infinity.
    1