@DanielSank A pair-of-black-boxes at-but-just-below the 'signalling top' would be one for which any increase in the correlations would make it signalling.
i.e. under special relativity it would break causality.
One of the contentious issues on today's Stack Exchange is the Hot Network Questions sidebar, which can drive a lot of traffic to junk-food questions that can be very poor fits to the sites that host them (and, because of that, it can land a ton of rep on askers and answerers that by normal site ...
The Hot Network Questions sidebar is a bit of a contentious issue, because it tends to promote questions that are often perceived as 'cheap', of relatively low quality, or on the fringes of topicality for the site that hosts them.
One reason for this is that they're subject to a feedback loop: t...
> In 1994 two physicists, Sandu Popescu and Daniel Rohrlich, formulated an explicit set of correlated measurements that respect the "non-signalling" principle, yet give $S_\mathrm{CHSH}=4$: the algebraic maximum.
In theoretical physics, quantum nonlocality most commonly refers to the phenomenon by which measurements made at a microscopic level contradict a collection of notions known as local realism that are regarded as intuitively true in classical mechanics. Rigorously, quantum nonlocality refers to quantum mechanical predictions of many-system measurement correlations that cannot be simulated by any local hidden variable theory. Many entangled quantum states exhibit such correlations, as demonstrated by Bell's theorem, and as verified by experiment.
Experiments have generally favoured quantum mechanics...
@DanielSank, That will work. Question/discussion about my post [here](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/307808/probability-of-two-vibrating-beams-touching) when you have the time:
One of your concerns on my problem formulation was on using the Gaussian distribution for the amplitude. It admittedly was pretty ad-hoc. All I could find in literature on using the Equipartition Theorem to determine the deflection due to thermal noise gave me the mean square deflection. Whether that mean square is of the amplitude of the vibration or of all its points in time as it's vibrating back …
@DanielSank Hm, OK. But if I know that the position of the beams in time follows a Gaussian distribution, I should be able to work out what the probability of any amplitude is, right? And if I know the probability of the amplitude of both adjacent cantilevers and their phase angles, then I can work out a collision probability, right?
@DanielSank That's a good question. I would think a weak damping limit. This problem is based partly off of AFM cantilevers that vibrate due to thermal motion, and tend to vibrate quite freely. In fact the vibration is critical for how the AFM works, because they interpret the interruptions of those vibrations to understand what the cantilever tip is touching.
@EmilioPisanty interesting thx for sharing. (PR box named after the authors Popescu-Rohrlich). also as pointed out by various authors the bell threshhold seems to have a natural connection to quantum cryptography suggesting something fundamental about it. etc
@DanielSank Q value? The spring constant? I.e. the distance the tip deflects for a known perpendicular force on the tip, in the limit as the force goes to zero?
In physics and engineering the quality factor or Q factor is a dimensionless parameter that describes how under-damped an oscillator or resonator is, and characterizes a resonator's bandwidth relative to its center frequency. Higher Q indicates a lower rate of energy loss relative to the stored energy of the resonator; the oscillations die out more slowly. A pendulum suspended from a high-quality bearing, oscillating in air, has a high Q, while a pendulum immersed in oil has a low one. Resonators with high quality factors have low damping so that they ring or vibrate longer.
== Explanatio...
The way to think about your problem is very different depending on whether Q is high or low.
I have to go to work. We can discuss more later :-)
@EmilioPisanty you can rest assured I'll go, i really want to. Im kinda busy for the next few weeks bc of my master's thesis, but when things have calmed down I'll go, it'll be fun :-)
@DanielSank OK, I see what you mean by Q factor. That wasn't a term I'm familiar with (I come from a chemical engineering background). My case is definitely under-damped, in fact for all practical purposes the Q factor could be considered to be infinite, or in equivalent terms the damping coefficient %D% would be vanishingly small.
@DanielSank think you have good pts but think (poppers) falsifiability is more of an abstraction for new theories, a bit too stringent at beginning, and also "simpler theory" criteria may be incompatible with falsification. (eg) it is not obvious to begin with that copernican ellipses are simpler than epicycles. also relativity is not simpler than the newtonian universe. etc. as for EPR, yes now aged and dusty at over 8 decades old. but still think they will "eventually have the last laugh"...
Ah, it's Normal Human. Yes, I believe some actions from that account are automated, or at least they find what they want to flag/vote on with some scripts. [this is not moderator knowledge, I simply recall some of their meta posts on another site]
@vzn hi. To be honest, Im not really sure what my thesis is about :-P something about the symmetries of asymptotically flat spaces (BMS symmetry). Right now, all Im doing is playing around with the spherical harmonics in 4d
kinda boring
i didnt choose the topic, my adviser did
about the AMA, i fear that I have absolutely nothing to offer
@AccidentalFourierTransform invitations are mainly based on affinity to physics & showing up in the chat room...
@AccidentalFourierTransform exactly so it wouldnt be any big deal to schedule an hour sometime then right? :P can assure you will for (1) ask you questions... dont think getting into a Msc program is "average student"... also practice in public speaking etc...
@vzn sorry but ill have to decline your offer. I like the idea of having AMA's here, and if I did one the whole thing would lose credibility. I want serious AMA's. Mine would be a joke.
@AccidentalFourierTransform (sigh) self-deprecation, somewhat surprisingly, one of our biggest obstacles wrt the prj/ effort. am sure it would be no more a joke than your Msc...! youd be in excellent company... its your choice, no need to respond immediately, plz consider it
@AccidentalFourierTransform you seem to like chat. youve got great site rep. think youre qualified. there is very strong community support for the project. however we have no other volunteers/ suggestions right now. :( meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/9068/… let me know if theres anything that might change your mind. think of it as practice for your defense, wink... & plz upvote the meta posts at least if you like the idea in general...
@AccidentalFourierTransform ok. thx for considering it. admittedly it seems to bring out a lot of mixed emotions in invitees, youre certainly not the 1st on that. to me it can be low key. not much different than regular chat. hanging out with supportive cohorts in the hbar. "show and tell". hey, if nobody else does it am gonna have to ask 0----7 next, 1st chance! everyones hereby been warned! :P
@AccidentalFourierTransform btw need favor, do you have a little )( time to edit the meta post on the subj? to add secrets talk? think it reqs 2k rep, dont have it, have asked repeatedly, nobody else around to do it, can dig up info if youll do it :|
the new Physics SE guest chat sessions have gone generally well this summer (some brief summary/ history); we now have 3 basically successful events with talented/ qualified speakers and am personally pleased/ happy with the outcome so far which for me is mostly "better than expected" overall. it...
@AccidentalFourierTransform no this meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/7783/… ... can you edit it? need to add a talk by secret that was carried out but never added yet, same fmt as others
@AccidentalFourierTransform ok just need to add his name & 2 links, 1 to his meta post announcing talk, 2nd to the chat transcript. ok w you? if so let me dig up links
@AccidentalFourierTransform plz put it in the current fmt of the post. name, meta annoucement link, final chat. heres his meta intro. let me dig up link to transcript next meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/9056/…
@AccidentalFourierTransform ok perfect thx much man! looks great! (ok yeah oops closer look latest guest goes at top like you did it) :) ... ps if you do a session it wont be much harder wink :P
@BernardoMeurer hi, if you like big speakers... are you in lisbon? do you ever go to clubs around there? it can be fun, some of the best equipment around, esp base-thumping :) o_O
@DanielSank anyway it shows that mere simplicity (aka occams razor) is not a very great/ general criteria in physics for new theories etc ... has some )( validity but needs some nuance... just got into a argument on that on reddit with someone so have a great link on that handy :) :P scienceblogs.com/developingintelligence/2007/05/14/…
@AccidentalFourierTransform Iff I did a surgery on it it could get better, but $$$. If I chop it off and get a robot one it would be more likely for it to work fully normal again
@BernardoMeurer you dont have to dance, they are fun places, just hang out by the bar & look cool, wink ... did you go to clubs before you got injured? they are for "young ppl"... :)
@BernardoMeurer think you should (encourage you) just go to hear the music/ sound systems occasionally. it seems like clubs have some of the best. sometimes sounds/ feels even better than amphitheatres with more $$$ because its small/ enclosed.
@vzn I "snif" at the paper because you were using it as evidence that "quantum mechanics" is wrong, while the paper's description of quantum mechanics is out of date.
@DanielSank their (prescient!) concerns are not out of date and not (fully) resolved 80 yrs later. there are cases in science history of very long scientific debate that take long to resolve. it took 2K YEARS to validate the atomic hypothesis by greeks. etc!
Your entire argument that QM is wrong is based on the fact that you're using a notion of quantum mechanics that is wrong, but that's not interesting because physicists already know that it wrong and have updated it.
@vzn You're going to have to give detailed, specific evidence to support that claim.
@vzn Dude, don't you understand that I can't? It literally makes me unable to walk the next day if I stand up too long. It gives me an inexplicable panic to be in a place that is small and enclosed. I would love to go clubbing with my friends. I can't.
@BernardoMeurer fyi there are chairs in clubs :) ... didnt go to clubs much when younger, think they are cool, think it was something of a waste! up to you man
@AccidentalFourierTransform Meh, that depends on the bar and the club you're comparing ;) I also think it's more about the people you're with than the location you're at
@ACuriousMind sure, it is always about the people youre with. But in a bar you can get to actually enjoy with them. In a club most people get lost, you cannot talk, etc
@AccidentalFourierTransform You're...worryingly inclined to talk to Bernardo about sex :P If this goes any further I'll request that you take your cybering to some non-SE channel.