What have you learnt today?

[SwordsMaster]

The question is - why did it die, and can you prevent it from happening in the future?

[Hooahguy]

Well the mechanic said that he thinks its because the fuel line got disconnected but hes going to do a thorough check today so Ill know for sure. Its an old car, about 16 years old, but I really cant afford a new car now.

[drone]

The air filter is probably clogged with pollen.

[Hooahguy]

Mechanic says it was the timing belt. Well I guess it was a matter of time anyways, at least the car isnt totally broken.

[drone]

Mechanic says it was the timing belt. Well I guess it was a matter of time anyways, at least the car isnt totally broken.

Is it a Honda?

[Hooahguy]

Nope, 1999 Toyota Camry. Old girl has seen quite a lot, including someone making off with her driver side view mirror.

[Andres]

I was going to be a smartass by saying that it should be "learned" instead of "learnt", but I googled it first.

I learnt that you can use both "learnt" and "learned" as the past tense of the verb to learn.

[Ibrahim]

OK, something pleasant for once.

I learned that Kraftwerk might possibly be the most awesome nerdy band in history:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5DBc5NpyEoo

discovered them while on a short break from work. Been hooked ever since. And this song is not even the most awesome they have.

The one thing about them is that some of their electrical mixes have a weird effect on me. For some reason my brain just kind of goes blank...and I get a weird giddy or dizzy feeling.

[SwordsMaster]

Today I learnt that you can, in fact, sleep faster.

[Husar]

Today I learnt that you can, in fact, sleep faster.

Do you mean fall asleep faster or have an 8 hour sleep in 6 hours?

[SwordsMaster]

Functioning on 5-6 hours a night for weeks. It's all about light management. Keep it very dark at night, and very bright during the day.

[Gilrandir]

I've learned that if you ask random Americans on the street, a lot of them will not be able to tell you who Edward Snowden is or what he did.

This one is misplaced. You should put it in the thread "What others learnt from you".

[Gilrandir]

OK, something pleasant for once.

I learned that Kraftwerk might possibly be the most awesome nerdy band in history:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5DBc5NpyEoo

discovered them while on a short break from work. Been hooked ever since. And this song is not even the most awesome they have.

The one thing about them is that some of their electrical mixes have a weird effect on me. For some reason my brain just kind of goes blank...and I get a weird giddy or dizzy feeling.

There was a Soviet band called Zodiac (Зодиак) who played similar music. The band was from some Baltic republic, which explains it sounded more like a European one.

[Husar]

This one is misplaced. You should put it in the thread "What others learnt from you".

I didn't ask random Americans because I can't afford to fly there, I merely watched John Oliver report on it.

[Gilrandir]

I didn't ask random Americans because I can't afford to fly there, I merely watched John Oliver report on it.

Again misplaced. This one should go to "What others learnt from John Oliver" thread.

[SwordsMaster]

There is nothing that will earn you a man's enmity faster than removing the excuse he was using for his failures.

[Montmorency]

Einstein was correct to criticize non-locality and superposition. Quantum entanglement seems like hooey.

I am ever-more-deeply suspicious of quantum theory, if not the whole edifice of quantum physics as a whole, that such notions retain their dominance.

Who the is John Bell?

[Montmorency]

For example...

[Husar]

But Einstein was proven wrong just last month!
http://www.livescience.com/50262-spo...n-is-real.html

As for your link, too many formulas, I can deal with explanations but formulas freak me out, I do not always find the transformation from model to formula easily understandable either, it could be wrong for all I know.

[Montmorency]

It's the same problem of erroneous assumptions or fallacies leading to the only interpretation that can be generated - based on those erroneous assumptions and fallacies.

Basically similar to:

a = 1
b = 1

a = b
a2 = b2
a2 - b2 = 0
(a-b)(a+b) = 0
(a-b)(a+b)/(a-b) = 0/(a-b)
1(a+b) = 0
(a+b) = 0
1 + 1 = 0
2 = 0
1 = 0
1 + 1 = 1

Obviously, that's just the mathematical equivalent of sophistry. The problems with backers of entanglement as real is that they do not realize that Bell's Inequalities:

1. Are predicated on some sense of "freedom".
2. Where is "space-time"? What does Bell's universe have to do with Einstein's universe? See the previously-linked article, as well as:

Hess, K., De Raedt, H. A., and Michielsen, K. (2012). Hidden assumptions in the derivation of the theorem of Bell.

[Montmorency]

And some physicists will try to BS their way out of this by ignoring it entirely or by claiming that they don't like to treat with philosophy, or something along those lines, even though such a claim is self-contradictory at every step - by such reasoning they would have to discard all of their own precious work...

[Montmorency]

I'll make this even stronger judgement:

Contemporary quantum theory of superposition, entanglement, etc. is well-supported by decades of evidence in the same way that Ptolemy's model of epicycles in the geocentric universe was.

Accumulate all the mathematical derivations you like; if they're based on incorrect fundamentals, then they're garbage in the end.

A massive ball of duct tape with a cavity at its center is still hollow, a shell.

We need to fall back and reorganize. There's still been a lot of good work done, particularly with particles and field theory. The Standard Model is sound.

[Ibrahim]

OK, I just learned that cutting edge physics are way beyond my ability to understand quickly

[Montmorency]

Interesting.

To recap, violations of Bell's Inequalities by local hidden-variable statistical models as opposed to Copenhagen entanglement concepts have led to a flawed consensus view that quantum non-localities are ultimately entailed given most sets of assumptions.

Now, though, I've found a paper that throws a wedge between both positions.

As argued at the end of subsection II B and subsection III C, since action is evaluated in
configuration space instead of in ordinary space, then the random fluctuation of infinitesimal
stationary action with respect to the whole ‘system+apparatus’ is not separable into the
fluctuation pertaining to the system and that pertaining to the apparatus. This is explicitly
reflected in the inseparability of wave function of Eqs. (48) or (60). Like the corresponding
classical model, here the atomic degree of freedom plays the role as the apparatus. The
total wave function becomes entangled due to interaction. The whole system+apparatus
must then be regarded as a single unanalyzable whole, both fluctuates together inseparably.
Hence, unlike measurement in classical mechanics discussed in the previous section in which
the interaction Hamiltonian conserves the relevant component of the angular momentum of
the particle being measured, in the statistical model, the same component of the angular
momentum prior to measurement is inevitably disturbed.

Hence, since entanglement and Born’s rule are responsible for the quantum mechanical
violation of Bell’s inequalities and the former are emergent within the local-causal statistical
model satisfying Bell’s locality assumption, then nonlocality must not be blamed as the
source of violation. Moreover, since the predictions of quantum mechanics is confirmed
very accurately by numerous experiments, neglecting all the complexities that might arise
due various potential experimental loopholes, one may conclude that Nature does not use
nonlocality to violate the Bell’s inequalities.

The basic idea seems to be:

Local hidden-variable models actually predict entanglement, but not non-local entanglement, so the violation of Bell's Inequalities by hidden-variable models cannot be used to argue for the existence of quantum non-localities.


My confusion is that, I can't understand how the concept of "emergent" entanglement in the paper relates to the standard descriptions of entanglement I've read about and seen argued against.



But either this way (this post) or that (posts above), it seems the idea of non-local causation is completely unfounded.

[Husar]

There are a number of problems I have with this:

1) Who is Bell?
1b) Who is Born?
1c) Who is Hamilton?
2) statistics
2b) mathematics
3) what's an entanglement in this context?
4) can time bend space if it pulls really hard?
5) not much time to read up on it in English (what I learnt in school was in German of course and I was always bad at expressing the phenomenon in numbers/mathematics even then)

[SwordsMaster]

Thanks Montmorency, that was actually quite interesting. I remembered very little physics, and that made me go back and do a bit of reading. Still don't understand much of it.

Another - not so much a learning as an experience: I found somehow that many 2nd/3rd world countries on the tropical belt smell very similarly. Not sure why, but Lagos airport, and Guatemala airport, for example, smell the same. Also have no aircon, which they could definitely use. Anyone else noticed this?

As an exercise in self-improvement have been doing stuff with my weak hand: showering, brushing teeth, writing, eating, etc.

[Gilrandir]

As for your link, too many formulas, I can deal with explanations but formulas freak me out, I do not always find the transformation from model to formula easily understandable either, it could be wrong for all I know.

There is a joke: One student is reading a book. Another comes and asks: "What are you reading?" The first replies: "This is quantum physics and I have an exam in it tomorrow". The second says: "But you are holding the book upside down". The first goes: "It doesn't really matter".

[SwordsMaster]

Sunlight is the best remedy against jet-lag. Go to sleep in darkness and you will wake up naturally once the sun is up.

[Visor]

a = 1
b = 1

a = b
a2 = b2
a2 - b2 = 0
(a-b)(a+b) = 0
(a-b)(a+b)/(a-b) = 0/(a-b)
this should equal (a-b) = 0/(a-b)
which equals (a-b)(a-b)=0
not 1(a+b)=0

?

monty?

[Husar]

But isn't 0/(a-b) with a=b=1 effectively 0/0 and therefore not defined? (same for the other side of the equation of course)
It's just changed to be 0 here, but a division through(by?) zero is not defined.
You have to stick with:
(a-b)(a+b) = 0, which is a true statement since it is effectively (1-1)(1+1) = 0 or 0 * 2 = 0.