Recent content by Leureka

So the position of charges is relevant, but those of masses aren't? What about other forms of potential energy, like elastic potential energy?

Hi there, I looked around on the net but I didn't quite find the answer to my question. I preface that I don't have training in GR, even though I know about the basics (like what tensors are, geodesics, a bit about topology and differential geometry...). So I wasn't sure if to put this question...

Very interesting, thank you. I'm not surprised you get a correct answer using four vectors... But it's simply not what the original video was saying, which is only using a very basic special relativity approach. This paper is actually stating clearly that the wire is uncharged in the electron...

And how would that happen? And why doesn't this also apply to protons, when they are "set in motion" by switching to the electron rest frame? Yes, except that you should replace "current", which makes it sound I always refer to electrons, with "motion". What a preposterous statement. Length...

But the logical consequences lead you to treat different charges inconsistently, as I just explained above. If you think that I used faulty logic you're welcome to point where. Wow, and you got that conclusion from a whole 1 post in my history? You contributed 0 to the discussion, and yet felt...

See, the problem I have with that is that the wire is uncharged both with and without a current. Which means, going by that assumption, the spacing between electrons and between protons , in the lab frame, is the same, regardless of the motion of the electrons (this MUST be so, otherwise the...

Hi all, Recently I've tried to wrap my head around a common explanation of magnetic fields that you see online, especially among science educators like veritasium or minute physics. The setup is as follows: there is a wire, composed of the same number of negative charges (electrons) and...

3 properties: - is male - is redheaded - is smoker Male + redhead <= (redhead + smoker) + (male + nonsmoker). Is this right? I think you meant "is less or equal to", but I might misrepresenting your example.But what happens if everytime you ask a question, the people in the room change? You...

It might be that my model is indeed nonlocal (I just haven't got a clear answer one way or another); but the point I'm trying to get across is that if that's true, then the source of non-locality is not mysterious at all. It really boils down to how we compare measurements of a phenomenon in...

I'm not trying to achieve any miracle. As I said, I'm trying to understand why some things are the way they are. No the numbers are not important. It's a visual way to say that (in my mind) if your measurement can only output two values, there's no reason to introduce a third that can't be...

Bear with me here. I understood your math, as you said it’s very simple. What I did not understand are your premises. I don’t see why you need a single variable for all three angles, when the most you can ever do is sample two angles. In this model the hidden variable is an area overlap which...

One thing that is still not clear to me: why do you group up the different measurements? (In the following D1 stands for detector 1 and D2 for detector2, while a b c are the angles) We measure D1A and D2B, we get a probability distribution P1 (for example, getting both +); Similarly we do D1A...

I'm not really arguing one way or another, and i'm definitely not willfully contrary. I'm basing all this on popular explanations i found online, and basically all of them used explanations with two angles. I'm curious though, how do you create three angle correlations with pairs of polarized...

1) i did not know this. I thought entangled photon pairs were created on demand. I'm not exactly sure how this affects my idea though, since you can freely change what the blue area stands for. 3a) correct. 3b) yes I'm aware they're off a factor of two, but it is just for ease of presentation...

Alright. If that's the case I don't understand all the fuss about the theorem then. I tried reading the paper but I found it hard to follow, that's why I always tried to look for visualizations.