Physicists demonstrate new way to violate local causality

Post by computerex » Sun, Apr 23, 2017, 10:45 AM UTC

roywiggins wrote: post #67

computerex wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Maybe I don't understand this thought experiment. Say you are on a plane cruising at 500 mph. The plane is applying constant thrust to counteract atmospheric drag in order to maintain steady 500 mph. At this point your horizontal speed is 500 mph and your vertical speed is zero, as the plane is maintaining level flight. When you decide to jump, you start accelerating towards the ground at roughly 9.8 m/s^2. Your hori…

I may have been imprecise: I'm talking about jumping inside the plane, not wingwalking. There's no drag inside the plane. If you've ever taken a pee standing up on a plane, you'll notice that your pee doesn't veer rearward. You can juggle balls without losing them (you can try this in the back of a car). If you throw a ball forwards on a plane, it doesn't come back to you, and those carts that are rolled up and down…

Post by kwhitefoot » Mon, Apr 24, 2017, 2:44 PM UTC

roywiggins wrote: post #52

21 wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> what does "Bell inequality" really mean Some stuff is just hard to understand. You can make analogies, like talking about two people hiding a colored ball in their hand and one of them showing it later, but these are not truly helpful in really understanding the issue. For that you need a bit of math. One physicist explained this really nicely, saying that because we live in the macroscopic world we have a certain…

Our intuitions about macro stuff is really bad, or at least the intuition of people not steeped in Newtonian mechanics is really bad. Gallilean relativity is deeply unintuitive to many physics-naive people, let alone Newtonian mechanics. There's a reason Aristotelian mechanics lasted so long (okay, also the lack of a real scientific method, but still). To demonstrate, ask a random person these questions: If I stand o…