Recent content by Nugatory

To evaluate that we have to look at the detailed construct of the real non-idealized experiment This would be an example of the fair selection loophole, which as I said above has been decisively closed. This experiment might be a good start: https://arxiv.org/pdf/1508.05949

It is clearly valid to assign values to unmeasured properties of large objects and it was something of a surprise that unmeasured properties of much smaller ones did not work that way. One larger object example that I’ve seen (and borrowed): There is a room full of heterosexual couples. We...

It’s a proof by contradiction argument. The calculation is correct if the realism and locality assumptions hold; we do the experiment and find that the result of the calculation is wrong; therefore at least one of those assumptions must be wrong. The realism assumption is what justifies...

#1: if we expose ashes (or anything else, for that matter) to sufficiently high heat it will boil away into hot gas - but that’s still matter. Apply enough more energy and we’ll get an ionized plasma - but that’s still matter. To really destroy matter we would have to combine it with a...

I cannot prove that that claim is wrong, but that doesn’t mean that I have to accept it. Causality is such a useful organizing principle and so essential to my understanding of the world around us that I’m not giving it up so easily. Cause and effect relationships are by definition...

There's a fair amount of historical and biological accident in how we label the various ranges of the electromagnetic spectrum: for example, "infrared" and "ultraviolet" are only named categories because of how the human eye works, x-rays are their own category only because Roentgen observed...

The claim that quantum mechanics requires any ontology is a philosophical claim, not a physical one. All the physics is in the probabilities of measurement results following an initial state preparation, and that comes from the mathematical statement of the theory without assuming anything...

The quickest way to get someone to take a look is to report the thread, but now that I've seen this post from you I can take care of it.

Yes. Just about any system of multiple interacting particles will be entangled in some way. It’s more than “generally accepted”, it is true by definition: the meter is defined to be the distance that light travels in 1/299792458 seconds. Right, electrons do not move in orbits around the...

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.