Recent content by forcefield

Yes, "Se on tammea" means that it is made of oak. I wondered because all your other Finnish sentences were correct. My main point though was related to the usage of the words "mikä" and "mitä".

Not completely. In your context, yes. Was that a typo? "Tämä on tammi" could be answer to "Mikä tämä on?" One can also say "Se on kahvia mikä maistuu hyvältä" ( "It's coffee which tastes good" ). One would not say "Se on kahvia mitä maistuu hyvältä". Right.

Why is there no Coulomb's constant in (1.3)? Btw, AFAIK this is all classical physics.

Note that Feynman is there not talking about Bell's hidden variables but about (electron's) inner variables. It's not the same thing.

No, IMHO the perfect correlation in the Bell experiment is a kind of superdeterminism. One can always try to explain the weird correlation away, for example through FTL influence (without free will).

Reflection/refraction happens at all frequencies while absorption/emission only happens at certain discrete frequencies.

I can only guess what he means by the "quantum laws" and even then only vaguely. Could you please elaborate on my question then ?

From the Feynman Lectures here: "As we apply quantum mechanics to larger and larger things, the laws about the behavior of many atoms together do not reproduce themselves, but produce new laws, which are Newton’s laws, which then continue to reproduce themselves from, say, micro-microgram size...

How does that relate to saying that there is a nearly infinite number of laws that change when the scale (or size/complexity) changes until Newton's laws ?

I hesitate to contribute to an advanced thread but their definition of "realism" in the context of what Bell proved does not seem to be right. This is what they say: "A theory obeys realism if measurement outcomes can be interpreted as revealing a property of the system that exists independent...

I think Feynman's "the Hamiltonian matrix" in chapter 8 is about Heisenberg's matrix mechanics.

No, I can start with nothing, add 3 x times until I arrive at 15. Then I just have to remember how many times I added 3. This is very fundamental starting from definitions. x = 15/3 follows from the definition of division. Of course you can just divide both sides by 3.

Only if one wants e^{i0} \equiv 1

Why does it always matter whether a small error is systematic or not?

But if the errors are not significant, then I don't see a reason to dismiss the results.