OT: red meat is bad for you and bad for the planet...

[Bill Sloman]

Today's PNAS had one of those meta-studies

https://www.pnas.org/content/116/46/23357?cct=1815

It covers 15 food groups, five aspects of agriculturally driven environmental degradation and five health categories.

Much too complicated for those of our regular posters who need it most, so I high-lighted the red meat.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

[Local Favorite]

On 11/12/2019 05:14 PM, Bill Sloman wrote:

Today's PNAS had one of those meta-studies

https://www.pnas.org/content/116/46/23357?cct=1815

It covers 15 food groups, five aspects of agriculturally driven environmental degradation and five health categories.

Much too complicated for those of our regular posters who need it most, so I high-lighted the red meat.

They will be eating insects soon enough. We should be looking ahead, to
the environmental consequences there.

 

[bitrex]

On 11/12/19 8:14 PM, Bill Sloman wrote:

Today's PNAS had one of those meta-studies

https://www.pnas.org/content/116/46/23357?cct=1815

It covers 15 food groups, five aspects of agriculturally driven environmental degradation and five health categories.

Much too complicated for those of our regular posters who need it most, so I high-lighted the red meat.

Never has there been a time in history when more fat-assess of all types
have talked about a civil war than America at this juncture in time.

America needs to declare a civil war on cheeseburgers and twinkies

 

[Flyguy]

On Tuesday, November 12, 2019 at 8:10:17 PM UTC-8, bitrex wrote:

On 11/12/19 8:14 PM, Bill Sloman wrote:
Today's PNAS had one of those meta-studies

https://www.pnas.org/content/116/46/23357?cct=1815

It covers 15 food groups, five aspects of agriculturally driven environmental degradation and five health categories.

Much too complicated for those of our regular posters who need it most, so I high-lighted the red meat.


Never has there been a time in history when more fat-assess of all types
have talked about a civil war than America at this juncture in time.

America needs to declare a civil war on cheeseburgers and twinkies

The cancer issue with red meat is primarily how it is cooked, and not the meat itself:
https://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/326156.php#summary
Open flame seems to be a bad idea. Also, unprocessed meat is better than processed.

 

[bitrex]

On 11/13/19 12:50 AM, Flyguy wrote:

On Tuesday, November 12, 2019 at 8:10:17 PM UTC-8, bitrex wrote:
On 11/12/19 8:14 PM, Bill Sloman wrote:
Today's PNAS had one of those meta-studies

https://www.pnas.org/content/116/46/23357?cct=1815

It covers 15 food groups, five aspects of agriculturally driven environmental degradation and five health categories.

Much too complicated for those of our regular posters who need it most, so I high-lighted the red meat.


Never has there been a time in history when more fat-assess of all types
have talked about a civil war than America at this juncture in time.

America needs to declare a civil war on cheeseburgers and twinkies

The cancer issue with red meat is primarily how it is cooked, and not the meat itself:
https://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/326156.php#summary
Open flame seems to be a bad idea. Also, unprocessed meat is better than processed.

This "peasant food" with salmon and mashed pea sauce is just amazing,
trout for breakfast is awesome. I don't miss beef and pork that much.

<https://youtu.be/WeVcey0Ng-w?t=359>

 

[bitrex]

On 11/13/19 12:50 AM, Flyguy wrote:

On Tuesday, November 12, 2019 at 8:10:17 PM UTC-8, bitrex wrote:
On 11/12/19 8:14 PM, Bill Sloman wrote:
Today's PNAS had one of those meta-studies

https://www.pnas.org/content/116/46/23357?cct=1815

It covers 15 food groups, five aspects of agriculturally driven environmental degradation and five health categories.

Much too complicated for those of our regular posters who need it most, so I high-lighted the red meat.


Never has there been a time in history when more fat-assess of all types
have talked about a civil war than America at this juncture in time.

America needs to declare a civil war on cheeseburgers and twinkies

The cancer issue with red meat is primarily how it is cooked, and not the meat itself:
https://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/326156.php#summary
Open flame seems to be a bad idea. Also, unprocessed meat is better than processed.

Also that it's usually served as part of a Western-style diet;
everything else along with it is also high in calories, high in fat,
high in sodium and so on, see e.g. cheeseburger.

I eat red meat rarely but when I do have it I try to make it an event
it's not (or shouldn't be) disposable food.

_this_ is a steak: <https://youtu.be/sC5AWm9FAIw?t=668>

Look at the fat content in that. Prepared wonderfully. The "solution"
isn't lean hamburger (blech) it's eat excellent meat much less often. At
least for me...

 

[Robert Baer]

Bill Sloman wrote:

Today's PNAS had one of those meta-studies

https://www.pnas.org/content/116/46/23357?cct=1815

It covers 15 food groups, five aspects of agriculturally driven environmental degradation and five health categories.

Much too complicated for those of our regular posters who need it most, so I high-lighted the red meat.

"Measure the quantum properties of one of a pair of entangled
particles, and the other changes instantaneously."

Dew tell.
And how in the heck could one determine that?
Measure A to determine state of A and supposedly of B...but cannot
measure B at same time because measurement would "changes" A.
Wait a minute..if there is some reasonable separation between A and
B, it takes TIME for measurement signal to travel from one to the other.
The measurement of that time travel does have a limit in accuracy,
meaning the "instantaneous" cannot be determined - only approximated.

 

[Robert Baer]

Local Favorite wrote:

On 11/12/2019 05:14 PM, Bill Sloman wrote:
Today's PNAS had one of those meta-studies

https://www.pnas.org/content/116/46/23357?cct=1815

It covers 15 food groups, five aspects of agriculturally driven
environmental degradation and five health categories.

Much too complicated for those of our regular posters who need it
most, so I high-lighted the red meat.

They will be eating insects soon enough. We should be looking ahead, to
the environmental consequences there.

In africa mostly, they eat insects.
Kill enough, and all hell breaks loose..

 

[Jeff Layman]

On 13/11/19 01:14, Bill Sloman wrote:

Today's PNAS had one of those meta-studies

https://www.pnas.org/content/116/46/23357?cct=1815

It covers 15 food groups, five aspects of agriculturally driven environmental degradation and five health categories.

Much too complicated for those of our regular posters who need it most, so I high-lighted the red meat.

An interesting paper. But should it consider the "Reductio ad absurdum"?

What would happen if we all became vegetarians/vegans overnight? It's
true that the Earth can grow a lot more crops if we don't have to use
any of the land for growing "red meat". But, according to the article,
people would become healthier and so live for longer. Perhaps life
expectancy would increase to such an extent that the concern of "aging
populations" would become the greatest concern. What would we do if an
even greater proportion of the population suffered from dementia in
their later years as physical diseases are defeated through changes to
diet and advances in medicine? Eventually we will defeat dementia, too.
Illness won't be the problem; personal space will.

At some stage there would be a limit to how many humans the Earth could
support. What happens then?

Soylent Green, anyone?...

--

Jeff

 

[Bill Sloman]

On Wednesday, November 13, 2019 at 7:15:15 PM UTC+11, Jeff Layman wrote:

On 13/11/19 01:14, Bill Sloman wrote:
Today's PNAS had one of those meta-studies

https://www.pnas.org/content/116/46/23357?cct=1815

It covers 15 food groups, five aspects of agriculturally driven environmental degradation and five health categories.

Much too complicated for those of our regular posters who need it most, so I high-lighted the red meat.

An interesting paper. But should it consider the "Reductio ad absurdum"?

What would happen if we all became vegetarians/vegans overnight? It's
true that the Earth can grow a lot more crops if we don't have to use
any of the land for growing "red meat". But, according to the article,
people would become healthier and so live for longer. Perhaps life
expectancy would increase to such an extent that the concern of "aging
populations" would become the greatest concern. What would we do if an
even greater proportion of the population suffered from dementia in
their later years as physical diseases are defeated through changes to
diet and advances in medicine? Eventually we will defeat dementia, too.

From the same issue of PNAS

https://www.pnas.org/content/pnas/early/2019/10/22/1914831116.full.pdf

Illness won't be the problem; personal space will.

At some stage there would be a limit to how many humans the Earth could
support. What happens then?

Soylent Green, anyone?...

You haven't been paying attention.

Population growth rates in most advanced industrial countries are essentially zero - they've gone through the demographic transition.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographic_transition

Places like the US and Australia are unusual - the likeliest explanation is that they are less advanced than they seem (and like to think).

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

On Wed, 13 Nov 2019 16:23:45 +0000, Martin Brown
<'''newspam'''@nezumi.demon.co.uk> wrote:

On 13/11/2019 16:09, bitrex wrote:
On 11/13/19 3:28 AM, Robert Baer wrote:
Bill Sloman wrote:
Today's PNAS had one of those meta-studies

https://www.pnas.org/content/116/46/23357?cct=1815

It covers 15 food groups, five aspects of agriculturally driven
environmental degradation and five health categories.

Much too complicated for those of our regular posters who need it
most, so I high-lighted the red meat.

   "Measure the quantum properties of one of a pair of entangled
particles, and the other changes instantaneously."

   Dew tell.
   And how in the heck could one determine that?
   Measure A to determine state of A and supposedly of B...but cannot
measure B at same time because measurement would "changes" A.
   Wait a minute..if there is some reasonable separation between A and
B, it takes TIME for measurement signal to travel from one to the other.

But the whole point of quantum entanglement is that you can put A and B
significantly far apart record is something like 100km and then
correlate the photon measurements later (or alternatively compare the
correlation of photon detections using equal path delay lines).

You could put the polarization measurements in separate envelopes and
mail them to Australia to be opened and compared in 2050. Same
results.



--

John Larkin Highland Technology, Inc

lunatic fringe electronics

 

[Martin Brown]

On 13/11/2019 16:09, bitrex wrote:

On 11/13/19 3:28 AM, Robert Baer wrote:
Bill Sloman wrote:
Today's PNAS had one of those meta-studies

https://www.pnas.org/content/116/46/23357?cct=1815

It covers 15 food groups, five aspects of agriculturally driven
environmental degradation and five health categories.

Much too complicated for those of our regular posters who need it
most, so I high-lighted the red meat.

   "Measure the quantum properties of one of a pair of entangled
particles, and the other changes instantaneously."

   Dew tell.
   And how in the heck could one determine that?
   Measure A to determine state of A and supposedly of B...but cannot
measure B at same time because measurement would "changes" A.
   Wait a minute..if there is some reasonable separation between A and
B, it takes TIME for measurement signal to travel from one to the other.

But the whole point of quantum entanglement is that you can put A and B
significantly far apart record is something like 100km and then
correlate the photon measurements later (or alternatively compare the
correlation of photon detections using equal path delay lines).

   The measurement of that time travel does have a limit in accuracy,
meaning the "instantaneous" cannot be determined - only approximated.

Yes, the effect can't be used to transmit information superluminally,
which seems to be why it's able to occur in the first place.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No-cloning_theorem

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No-broadcast_theorem

You can't use it to transmit information but the measurement of one of
an entangled pair affects the other. A simple for slightly odd values of
that parameter explanation in words without too much maths is at:

https://www.quantamagazine.org/entanglement-made-simple-20160428

--
Regards,
Martin Brown

 

[bitrex]

On 11/13/19 11:09 AM, bitrex wrote:

On 11/13/19 3:28 AM, Robert Baer wrote:
Bill Sloman wrote:
Today's PNAS had one of those meta-studies

https://www.pnas.org/content/116/46/23357?cct=1815

It covers 15 food groups, five aspects of agriculturally driven
environmental degradation and five health categories.

Much too complicated for those of our regular posters who need it
most, so I high-lighted the red meat.

   "Measure the quantum properties of one of a pair of entangled
particles, and the other changes instantaneously."

   Dew tell.
   And how in the heck could one determine that?
   Measure A to determine state of A and supposedly of B...but cannot
measure B at same time because measurement would "changes" A.
   Wait a minute..if there is some reasonable separation between A and
B, it takes TIME for measurement signal to travel from one to the other.
   The measurement of that time travel does have a limit in accuracy,
meaning the "instantaneous" cannot be determined - only approximated.


Yes, the effect can't be used to transmit information superluminally,
which seems to be why it's able to occur in the first place.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No-cloning_theorem

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No-broadcast_theorem

That is to say the effect only works if you "ask" particle A what state
it's in at a given time, and someone else then "asks" particle B which
will then be the opposite of particle A.

To transmit information you have to "force" particle A to be in some
state according to your mutually-agreed on encoding scheme. There _must_
be a mutually-agreed encoding scheme between the transmitter or receiver
or you can't transmit any information. But doing that breaks the
entanglement

 

[bitrex]

On 11/13/19 3:28 AM, Robert Baer wrote:

Bill Sloman wrote:
Today's PNAS had one of those meta-studies

https://www.pnas.org/content/116/46/23357?cct=1815

It covers 15 food groups, five aspects of agriculturally driven
environmental degradation and five health categories.

Much too complicated for those of our regular posters who need it
most, so I high-lighted the red meat.

  "Measure the quantum properties of one of a pair of entangled
particles, and the other changes instantaneously."

  Dew tell.
  And how in the heck could one determine that?
  Measure A to determine state of A and supposedly of B...but cannot
measure B at same time because measurement would "changes" A.
  Wait a minute..if there is some reasonable separation between A and
B, it takes TIME for measurement signal to travel from one to the other.
  The measurement of that time travel does have a limit in accuracy,
meaning the "instantaneous" cannot be determined - only approximated.

Yes, the effect can't be used to transmit information superluminally,
which seems to be why it's able to occur in the first place.

<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No-cloning_theorem>

<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No-broadcast_theorem>

 

[bitrex]

On 11/13/19 11:23 AM, Martin Brown wrote:

On 13/11/2019 16:09, bitrex wrote:
On 11/13/19 3:28 AM, Robert Baer wrote:
Bill Sloman wrote:
Today's PNAS had one of those meta-studies

https://www.pnas.org/content/116/46/23357?cct=1815

It covers 15 food groups, five aspects of agriculturally driven
environmental degradation and five health categories.

Much too complicated for those of our regular posters who need it
most, so I high-lighted the red meat.

   "Measure the quantum properties of one of a pair of entangled
particles, and the other changes instantaneously."

   Dew tell.
   And how in the heck could one determine that?
   Measure A to determine state of A and supposedly of B...but cannot
measure B at same time because measurement would "changes" A.
   Wait a minute..if there is some reasonable separation between A
and B, it takes TIME for measurement signal to travel from one to the
other.

But the whole point of quantum entanglement is that you can put A and B
significantly far apart record is something like 100km and then
correlate the photon measurements later (or alternatively compare the
correlation of photon detections using equal path delay lines).

   The measurement of that time travel does have a limit in accuracy,
meaning the "instantaneous" cannot be determined - only approximated.

Yes, the effect can't be used to transmit information superluminally,
which seems to be why it's able to occur in the first place.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No-cloning_theorem

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No-broadcast_theorem

You can't use it to transmit information but the measurement of one of
an entangled pair affects the other. A simple for slightly odd values of
that parameter explanation in words without too much maths is at:

https://www.quantamagazine.org/entanglement-made-simple-20160428

I guess I'm not following the "objection" here or whatever that Robert
Baer seemed to have. Yes the measurement affects the outcome of the
other measurement instantaneously. So what?

Is the objection to the "instantaneously" part not being able to be
strictly experimentally verified because the no-cloning/no-broadcast
theorems themselves forbid the instantaneous transfer of information
about the experiment?

Any other way would be the equivalent of a hidden-variables theory and
hidden-variables interpretations of QM have been discredited as
inconsistent with other experiments

<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EPR_paradox>

 

[bitrex]

On 11/13/19 12:13 PM, jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:

On Wed, 13 Nov 2019 11:49:18 -0500, bitrex <user@example.net> wrote:

On 11/13/19 11:23 AM, Martin Brown wrote:
On 13/11/2019 16:09, bitrex wrote:
On 11/13/19 3:28 AM, Robert Baer wrote:
Bill Sloman wrote:
Today's PNAS had one of those meta-studies

https://www.pnas.org/content/116/46/23357?cct=1815

It covers 15 food groups, five aspects of agriculturally driven
environmental degradation and five health categories.

Much too complicated for those of our regular posters who need it
most, so I high-lighted the red meat.

   "Measure the quantum properties of one of a pair of entangled
particles, and the other changes instantaneously."

   Dew tell.
   And how in the heck could one determine that?
   Measure A to determine state of A and supposedly of B...but cannot
measure B at same time because measurement would "changes" A.
   Wait a minute..if there is some reasonable separation between A
and B, it takes TIME for measurement signal to travel from one to the
other.

But the whole point of quantum entanglement is that you can put A and B
significantly far apart record is something like 100km and then
correlate the photon measurements later (or alternatively compare the
correlation of photon detections using equal path delay lines).

   The measurement of that time travel does have a limit in accuracy,
meaning the "instantaneous" cannot be determined - only approximated.

Yes, the effect can't be used to transmit information superluminally,
which seems to be why it's able to occur in the first place.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No-cloning_theorem

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No-broadcast_theorem

You can't use it to transmit information but the measurement of one of
an entangled pair affects the other. A simple for slightly odd values of
that parameter explanation in words without too much maths is at:

https://www.quantamagazine.org/entanglement-made-simple-20160428


I guess I'm not following the "objection" here or whatever that Robert
Baer seemed to have. Yes the measurement affects the outcome of the
other measurement instantaneously. So what?

Not necessarily instantaneously. Opposite spin states need not, and
can't, be measured instantaneously, but they still measure as
opposite. The spins of an entangled pair could be measured at very
different times.

Yes but once the first measurement is made the outcome of the second is
certain; the probability function of the entangled system has collapsed
immediately upon the first measurement and there is only certainty.
regardless if the measurement of the second particle of the entangled
pair is made some time later.

Just because the second experimenter does not know what the outcome will
be local to their frame of reference doesn't mean it's not
pre-determined. There's no universal "standard time" to judge
simultaneity by anyway in general relativity, which on the macro scale
at least QM must at least be consistent with, whether two events occur
in the future, the same time, or the past of one frame of reference all
depends on the properties of the other frame of reference you are
comparing to.

 

On Wed, 13 Nov 2019 11:49:18 -0500, bitrex <user@example.net> wrote:

On 11/13/19 11:23 AM, Martin Brown wrote:
On 13/11/2019 16:09, bitrex wrote:
On 11/13/19 3:28 AM, Robert Baer wrote:
Bill Sloman wrote:
Today's PNAS had one of those meta-studies

https://www.pnas.org/content/116/46/23357?cct=1815

It covers 15 food groups, five aspects of agriculturally driven
environmental degradation and five health categories.

Much too complicated for those of our regular posters who need it
most, so I high-lighted the red meat.

   "Measure the quantum properties of one of a pair of entangled
particles, and the other changes instantaneously."

   Dew tell.
   And how in the heck could one determine that?
   Measure A to determine state of A and supposedly of B...but cannot
measure B at same time because measurement would "changes" A.
   Wait a minute..if there is some reasonable separation between A
and B, it takes TIME for measurement signal to travel from one to the
other.

But the whole point of quantum entanglement is that you can put A and B
significantly far apart record is something like 100km and then
correlate the photon measurements later (or alternatively compare the
correlation of photon detections using equal path delay lines).

   The measurement of that time travel does have a limit in accuracy,
meaning the "instantaneous" cannot be determined - only approximated.

Yes, the effect can't be used to transmit information superluminally,
which seems to be why it's able to occur in the first place.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No-cloning_theorem

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No-broadcast_theorem

You can't use it to transmit information but the measurement of one of
an entangled pair affects the other. A simple for slightly odd values of
that parameter explanation in words without too much maths is at:

https://www.quantamagazine.org/entanglement-made-simple-20160428


I guess I'm not following the "objection" here or whatever that Robert
Baer seemed to have. Yes the measurement affects the outcome of the
other measurement instantaneously. So what?

Not necessarily instantaneously. Opposite spin states need not, and
can't, be measured instantaneously, but they still measure as
opposite. The spins of an entangled pair could be measured at very
different times.

Is the objection to the "instantaneously" part not being able to be
strictly experimentally verified because the no-cloning/no-broadcast
theorems themselves forbid the instantaneous transfer of information
about the experiment?

Any other way would be the equivalent of a hidden-variables theory and
hidden-variables interpretations of QM have been discredited as
inconsistent with other experiments

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EPR_paradox

--

John Larkin Highland Technology, Inc

lunatic fringe electronics

 

On Wed, 13 Nov 2019 11:49:18 -0500, bitrex <user@example.net> wrote:

On 11/13/19 11:23 AM, Martin Brown wrote:
On 13/11/2019 16:09, bitrex wrote:
On 11/13/19 3:28 AM, Robert Baer wrote:
Bill Sloman wrote:
Today's PNAS had one of those meta-studies

https://www.pnas.org/content/116/46/23357?cct=1815

It covers 15 food groups, five aspects of agriculturally driven
environmental degradation and five health categories.

Much too complicated for those of our regular posters who need it
most, so I high-lighted the red meat.

   "Measure the quantum properties of one of a pair of entangled
particles, and the other changes instantaneously."

   Dew tell.
   And how in the heck could one determine that?
   Measure A to determine state of A and supposedly of B...but cannot
measure B at same time because measurement would "changes" A.
   Wait a minute..if there is some reasonable separation between A
and B, it takes TIME for measurement signal to travel from one to the
other.

But the whole point of quantum entanglement is that you can put A and B
significantly far apart record is something like 100km and then
correlate the photon measurements later (or alternatively compare the
correlation of photon detections using equal path delay lines).

   The measurement of that time travel does have a limit in accuracy,
meaning the "instantaneous" cannot be determined - only approximated.

Yes, the effect can't be used to transmit information superluminally,
which seems to be why it's able to occur in the first place.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No-cloning_theorem

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No-broadcast_theorem

You can't use it to transmit information but the measurement of one of
an entangled pair affects the other. A simple for slightly odd values of
that parameter explanation in words without too much maths is at:

https://www.quantamagazine.org/entanglement-made-simple-20160428


I guess I'm not following the "objection" here or whatever that Robert
Baer seemed to have. Yes the measurement affects the outcome of the
other measurement instantaneously. So what?

Not necessarily instantaneously. Opposite spin states need not, and
can't, be measured instantaneously, but they still measure as
opposite. The spins of an entangled pair could be measured at very
different times.



--

John Larkin Highland Technology, Inc

lunatic fringe electronics

 

On Wed, 13 Nov 2019 12:32:49 -0500, bitrex <user@example.net> wrote:

On 11/13/19 12:13 PM, jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
On Wed, 13 Nov 2019 11:49:18 -0500, bitrex <user@example.net> wrote:

On 11/13/19 11:23 AM, Martin Brown wrote:
On 13/11/2019 16:09, bitrex wrote:
On 11/13/19 3:28 AM, Robert Baer wrote:
Bill Sloman wrote:
Today's PNAS had one of those meta-studies

https://www.pnas.org/content/116/46/23357?cct=1815

It covers 15 food groups, five aspects of agriculturally driven
environmental degradation and five health categories.

Much too complicated for those of our regular posters who need it
most, so I high-lighted the red meat.

   "Measure the quantum properties of one of a pair of entangled
particles, and the other changes instantaneously."

   Dew tell.
   And how in the heck could one determine that?
   Measure A to determine state of A and supposedly of B...but cannot
measure B at same time because measurement would "changes" A.
   Wait a minute..if there is some reasonable separation between A
and B, it takes TIME for measurement signal to travel from one to the
other.

But the whole point of quantum entanglement is that you can put A and B
significantly far apart record is something like 100km and then
correlate the photon measurements later (or alternatively compare the
correlation of photon detections using equal path delay lines).

   The measurement of that time travel does have a limit in accuracy,
meaning the "instantaneous" cannot be determined - only approximated.

Yes, the effect can't be used to transmit information superluminally,
which seems to be why it's able to occur in the first place.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No-cloning_theorem

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No-broadcast_theorem

You can't use it to transmit information but the measurement of one of
an entangled pair affects the other. A simple for slightly odd values of
that parameter explanation in words without too much maths is at:

https://www.quantamagazine.org/entanglement-made-simple-20160428


I guess I'm not following the "objection" here or whatever that Robert
Baer seemed to have. Yes the measurement affects the outcome of the
other measurement instantaneously. So what?

Not necessarily instantaneously. Opposite spin states need not, and
can't, be measured instantaneously, but they still measure as
opposite. The spins of an entangled pair could be measured at very
different times.



Yes but once the first measurement is made the outcome of the second is
certain; the probability function of the entangled system has collapsed
immediately upon the first measurement and there is only certainty.
regardless if the measurement of the second particle of the entangled
pair is made some time later.

Just because the second experimenter does not know what the outcome will
be local to their frame of reference doesn't mean it's not
pre-determined. There's no universal "standard time" to judge
simultaneity by anyway in general relativity, which on the macro scale
at least QM must at least be consistent with, whether two events occur
in the future, the same time, or the past of one frame of reference all
depends on the properties of the other frame of reference you are
comparing to.

Suppose an atom emits entangled photon pair A and B.

Alice is close to the source and measures the polarization as UP. The
photon to Bob travels through a long polarization-maintaining optical
delay line. After Alice sees the UP photon, she can send a message to
Bob, "expect a photon at 14 nanoseconds after noon, GPS time, and it
will be DOWN."

That's cool.



--

John Larkin Highland Technology, Inc

lunatic fringe electronics

 

[bitrex]

On 11/13/19 3:30 AM, Robert Baer wrote:

Local Favorite wrote:
On 11/12/2019 05:14 PM, Bill Sloman wrote:
Today's PNAS had one of those meta-studies

https://www.pnas.org/content/116/46/23357?cct=1815

It covers 15 food groups, five aspects of agriculturally driven
environmental degradation and five health categories.

Much too complicated for those of our regular posters who need it
most, so I high-lighted the red meat.

They will be eating insects soon enough. We should be looking ahead,
to the environmental consequences there.
  In africa mostly, they eat insects.
  Kill enough, and all hell breaks loose..

In southern Africa, mopane worms (caterpillars) are a delicacy enjoyed
by rich and poor alike, lots of ways you can prepare them from $1 snack
food to $100 dinners made by professional chefs.

They're a very efficient protein source from a feed/water perspective
and rather like mussels and clams require not a lot in the way of active
ranching or maintenance.

<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gonimbrasia_belina#As_food>