Recent content by zonde

Of course, it's stress energy tensor. Agreed Sum of the invariant masses of the parts of the system is not the same as invariant mass of the system as a whole. Agreed, there is no place for scalar potential in relativistic theory of gravity. With that out of the way I would like to point out...

Experimentalists can't prove what you are asking for. Proving is for mathematicians. But there certainly are things that experimentalists have to consider especially when testing a no-go theorem. I would suggest reading about actual loopholes that experimentalist try to work around: locality...

Let's say ##a## is rest mass of 2 protons and 2 neutrons, ##b## is negative binding energy of ## ^4 He## nucleus and ##a+b## is rest mass of ## ^4 He## nucleus.

Look, if ##(a+b)## is scalar and ##a## is scalar how could ##b## be anything else but scalar?

No I don't. Look, mass equivalent of nuclear binding energy is a factor in rest mass of the atom. If rest mass of the atom is Lorentz scalar so is nuclear binding energy. Surely you can see this, right? It's so obvious I'm not sure anybody would bother to make a statement about it.

My answer would be that QM predictions are statistics based while real world observations are event based. Considering (at least for me) event is more primitive concept than statistics, it should be possible to have an event based model that reproduces statistical QM predictions.

Rest mass and binding energy are Lorentz scalars. You see, you can look at binding energy from two different sides: from one side you can look at it as a radiation (usually EM but in some specific cases gravitational) that is radiated out of the system or from the other side you can look at it...

Yes, it seems so. Okay, even if I would like to look at similarities between the two cases it would be stupid to say there are no reasons to think they are quite different. And term "by nature" is too lose to use it in strong statements about something.

You won't be able to get away with this. Newtonian potential is literally a tool for calculating gravitational binding energy. So you are basically saying there is nothing like gravitational binding energy in GR, right?

Good points. I gave an argument why I believe sources are the same. If you disagree with me please address the argument or give your argument for the opposite statement not just bare opposite statement.

I see no reason to believe that gravitational radiation and EM radiation are different by nature. Look you can reach the same state of gravitationally bound body by means of radiating out only EM waves or combination of EM waves and gravitational waves. If the there is absolutely no difference...

Fair point. I guess it's not correct that there are two PDC processes in type II phase matching as two possible downconversion options are produced by the same process. But still the process is producing plenty of polarization unentangled photons and only small part are polarization entangled...

Electron has an abstract vector in a 2D complex Hilbert Space? What is an electron in your book of things then?

Josephson junction can consist of ##10^{10}## atoms. I don't see principal difference between ##10^{10}## and ##10^{30}## atoms. Cats can replicate their state, qubits can't. A system in the ground state can't emit photons. And even large systems can be in the ground state.

Yes, asking to suppose that cat is qubit is wrong, but I don't think that number of atoms can be a factor in this distinction. The difference between qubit and cat is sharp like difference between conductor and superconductor but number of atoms above 1 won't make sharp difference. It is...