Recent content by Nugatory

This works as an analogy, sort of. QM does indeed say that we have one quantum system here. It just so happens that our measuring devices are in different physical locations. But... does not work at all. When we push or pull one end of a rod, the other end does not move at the exact same...

Of course, and that's always been how we view it: the entangled pair is not two distinct particles, it is a single quantum system described by a single wave function. This is baked into the math of quantum mechanics, and one of the things that surprised classically trained physicists in the...

Further posts in this thread should be pointers to other level-appropriate sources of accurate information.

That's easy - the answer is "No". But why? You are conflating two unrelated concepts. The observed rotation of some galaxies leads to the hypothesis of dark matter, the observed increase of expansion is a completely different thing that leads to the completely unrelated dark energy hypothesis...

Something similar happens with waves in classical physics: the phase is determined by our choice of where we choose ##t=0##. I'm not sure how illuminating this correspondence is.

This thread has reached and passed the point of diminishing returns and will remain closed.

Who needs gravity? Check out "The Integral Trees" by Larry Niven.

It is Newsweek doing their best to describe what is going on in to a non-technical audience using non-technical math-free language.

That might be true if you're considering only the intro-level study of general relativity, but there's an enormous amount of active work in the astrophysics community. Searching for "neutron star" on arXiv just now brings up 22,638 papers, many/most in the astrophyics-HE (high energy) section.

You are conflating a bunch of different things here. Much of what you mention above (probability as squared amplitudes, role of decoherence, indifference to single outcome question, interaction with the measuring apparatus) is part of ordinary non-relativistic QM as well - although often...

you can, but you’re using the time dilation formula in the calculation…. and the derivation of that formula includes the assumption that the one-way speed of light is equal to the observed two-way speed. So the logic is unfixably circular.

Of course not. You’re trying to apply non-relativistic quantum mechanics to a problem in which relativistic effects matter.

If we take the math strictly at face value, which means ruthlessly resisting the temptation to indulge even very plausible interpretational claims: ##p## is an observable so ##p/m## is also an observable that we might reasonably call velocity. And if we're considering non-relativistic QM (not...

You have a calculated a quantity that has the dimensions of distance over time, and you can interpret it as a speed (it's an interpretation because it is not observable even in principle and because there's no position that is changing with time) if that interpretation is helpful. But it's a...

You have overlooked the relatively of simultaneity. Say that observer A is located on earth, B on the ship, and both agree that the ship leaves earth at 12:00 noon. One hour later A looks at their clock and sees that it reads 1:00 PM, as we expect. A uses the Lorentz transformation to...