Recent content by pines-demon

I know this is a typo but lambs do emit photons (even in vacuum).

What do you actually get from QFT in terms of entanglement? You can use relativistic QM (without going into field theory) and you still add nothing to the issue. So it is not relativity that is doing the work here. Is it the idea that you can replace two particles by a single space-encompassing...

Is there a way to obtain RQM from QFT? If yes, then you can get NRQM from RQM.

Sorry if I have not followed the whole discussion. But from RQM you can get also two (particle-antiparticles) equations in QM. What is then the issue between QFT and NRQM?

Snowflakes are water crystals that grow while falling. Is there a limit of how large can a snowflake be? Aggregate snowflakes can be tens of cm big :https://news.ncsu.edu/2018/12/how-big-can-snowflakes-be/ The 2003 World Guinness of the largest single snowflake is about 1 cm big...

If I had made a text dense poster like that when I was an undergrad my advisor would have killed me. :oldbiggrin:

Sure but your original post does not tell me why would that be the case. It is like asking if ##e^2## is related to rotation somehow.

Can you provide more specific formulas? I feel that you can shove ##\alpha## anywhere where ##e^2## is found and get any interpretation you want. For example, Larmor power formula can be written using ##\alpha## but that introduces a ##\hbar## that was not there making it look like if its a...

I'm happier now. What is the other one? Copenhagen, Montevideo, (Växjö,) and?

We should have more interpretations named after cities, having just two is unfortunate.

To be fair I was asking for definition of "realistic" which I would say is more about the interpretation being pragmatic than adhering to whatever "realism" means.

While I like this, it is not like if I can picture it better, because even with a classical field in mind I cannot get a sense of how it violates Bell inequalities.

Any definition will do. All interpretations are physically valid (in the sense that predict the same phenomena). So at this point one just needs to indicate what kind of criteria they want more and we can argue which interpretation approximates that criteria better.

Define realistic.

As interpretations are mostly "what feels right" philosophically, I can argue that it does not help much in understanding the concept of entanglement. It "feels as weird" as Bohmian mechanics or superdeterminism in that regard. Mathematically it is much interesting as it provides a duality...