I just saw this thread: Parallel tangents and curves and there were discussions in it on whether or not it was appropriate to downvote an answer which was fully worked out for a questioner who seemed to do no more than post a homework question without thought/etc.
I'm new here and don't have a h...
Hello void! Talk about a delayed response (to the chat 3 days ago), here I go...
@Danu said near the end of the last chat: "Really? You don't believe in things like Hawking radiation, etc?"
Yes, I most certainly do believe in Hawking radiation, though I think his last almost-paper puts some pretty weird twists on exactly how it works.
But why would you think Hawking radiation to be a long-range quantum effect anyway?
The whole point of Hawking's mass-temperature relationship is that the event horizon has to be very, very thin for the radiation event to take place.
Dirac's point was something else entirely, which I'll presume to summarize this absurdly oversimplified way: The more curved the space, the more compact the wave function.
So, what I was asserting is this: Entanglement in practice, as it plays out in real experiments using real classical events as the bookmarkers that make it detectable and subject to analysis, is a phenomenon of flat space.
Entanglement of course still exists in curved space, but the probability of decoherence versus the interval increases dramatically as the space becomes more highly curved.
Hi @Omen... I'm busy talking to the past here... :)
Heh! Well, apart from sudden unexpected images of advertisers as rabid mongrel dogs (been there, thought that, especially when marketeers won't let me do obvious things like delete something just so they can plug their wares), I'm fine!
Well, to be honest I think that classical is just an interestingly simplified limit of an underlying reality that is entirely quantum. So as long as you recognize classical as inherently an oversimplification of reality, I'm fine with mixing.
Sort of from the other direction: I've been tracking the extreme UV debate in semiconductor lithography for years, and the challenges there both in generating and handling the EUV are... interesting to say the least. The current mantra is "this really is the end of Moore's Law (of semiconductor density going up exponentially).
I have a different computer at home and at work (like most people). The one at work it's always open on, so that not a problem
It's the one at home. I'll try to keep the browser open to it, but power outages, updates, etc are terrible. All it takes is one busy Saturday or one weekend away from home and all those days are wasted
Sure, I also have one really close to getting populist
Well, six votes off. But all I need to do is get the question re-opened. It was closed as a duplicate (pretty close to being one too), but it differed in a key way that I only care about because it's so close to populist.
We all know that mostly stars are at the center of planetary systems, but is it possible that instead of star there was a rocky planet in the center with stars (and other planets and moons) orbiting it?
To be more concrete: Is it possible for a star to have the same mass and radius as e.g. the M...
This guy on twitch is going to stream for about 32 hours straight. He's in the middle of Final Fantasy 7 100% (runs it in about 15 hours, currently at 4.5 hour mark) and then will play Final Fantasy 8 100%
One of the problems with homework questions is that they often get an answer before the question can be closed. So the vile perpetrator gets the answer they want, and the subsequent downvotes don't hurt them because their rep is probably already just 1 and they may not be planning to come back an...
@Omen, yes, let's talk more later. Real stretch of physics, EUV for lithography, the method is more than a bit like sort of like surfing a very prickly wave to get max height. I think everyone's sort of given up on soft X-ray, though, so there are not many options left to keep those cell phones on their path to become smarter than their users... :)
@ACuriousMind, back on the Wed chat you said: "Why would you say such a thing? Entanglement is a direct consequence of the fact that the Cartesian product embeds into the tensor product, but that this embedding is not surjective, i.e. that there are states in the product space that do not come from a tuple of one-particle states."
I absolutely love that one! It is so precise and well-stated, and resolves the issue in such a firm and clear fashion.