Sure—just like every particle in every embryo is entangled with every particle of the mother’s uterus and every other thing they’ve ever interacted with.
In order for entanglement to be useful, the particles in question need to be isolated from everything else.
I think it’s probably more than confirmation bias in this case. Twins generally have a lot of shared experiences and environment. It’s not surprising that they would more dialed in to how their sibling thinks/responds.
But quantum entanglement has nothing to do with it.
A Dyson swarm is basically just a huge number solar collectors orbiting the sun. Humanity could put some individual collectors in space if we wanted to, but we don’t have anywhere near enough resources to make a full swarm.
Near-relativistic spacecraft are conceivably possible and are not too far beyond what’s possible with current technology (though would still require significant advancements). The catch is that they would be very tiny and we would have to send a stream of them to their destination.
Retinal projectors are currently under development, and advanced ones could in principle be higher quality than current VR headsets while having a very small form-factor. Optical metamaterials such as metalenses would be very useful for this, particularly if they could be designed to work at all three RGB wavelengths simultaneously (not easy).
The nuclear pulse propulsion ship from the novel Footfall.
The technology to produce a spaceship powered by exploding nuclear bombs is fairly basic. It needs to be heavy, and it needs to have massive springs to damper the shock, and thats about it.
That’s not really how quantum entanglement works. When particles are entangled, their quantum mechanical states cannot be described independently. So you couldn’t write down a waveform for just one particle and have it correctly describe reality, you would need the waveform of the entire state and therefore all entangled particles.
As a consequence, certain physical observables can be highly correlated between the particles. For example, if the spin of the overall entangled state of 2 particles is 0, then the spin of 1 particle will be exactly opposite the spin of the other. But these spins are only defined upon measurement (interaction with a system that is deterministic), and at that point the entangled state is collapsed. There’s no mechanism for transporting information while maintaining an entangled state.
Ignoring this fundamental issue, it still wouldn’t be possible to maintain an entangled state between particles in a pair of twins for any practical amount of time. Maintaining coherence in qubits (entailed bits) is one of the big challenges in quantum computing. If the qubits interact with the environment it breaks their entanglement. Even just thermal vibrations will destroy the state. So typically qubits are held at near absolute 0 in a dilution refrigerator. Even still, the longest a qubit has been kept coherent is 5 seconds.
Thanks, been studying a bit about entanglement, super determinism and all that. I thought it was an interesting thought about the twins but I realized it wasn’t likely for the reasons you gave. It’s almost like distance between objects is the weird part about our universe, not it’s quantum material, thus why the entanglement seems strange at a distance. The more I study about it, the more that our 3 dimensions isn’t fundamental, but only a result of wave collapse - this is why the photon doesn’t seem to care how much we try and passively manipulate it, only how it’s finally collapsed. Like how qubits can only exist in their uncertain phase for 5 secs - it’s hard to keep it from interacting/collapsing. Perhaps antimatter annihilates with our matter because of how differently the two matter types collapse their particles from each other?  It’s all so interesting…
Your null hypothesis is the thing you’re trying to disprove. For example, if I wanted to run a study to asses the effect of adding a certain growth hormone to a cell culture, my null hypothesis would be “there is no effect”. In your case, it would be “there is no difference in how much different things are liked”. From there, you’d run your study, and do your statistical analysis, for which there are different methods based on the type of data, number of groups your comparing, sample size, etc., and I’m not a statistician so I can’t say which methods are best for what you’re planning.
When it comes to p-value, to really simplify it, you can think of your p-value as the likelihood your null hypothesis is true. That’s not exactly what it means, but it’s an easy way to remember it.
You could use a few different null hypotheses here. One with minimal assumptions would be that the medians are equal. This can be tested using the Mann-Whitney U test. en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mann–Whitney_U_test
Your situation reminded me of the way IMDB sorts movies by rating, even though different movies may receive vastly different total number of votes. They use something called a credibility formula which is apparently a Bayesian statistics way of doing it, unlike the frequentist statistics with p-values and null hypotheses that you are looking for atm.
Your oversimplifying. No offense, but your calculation is a bit of a spherical cow in vacuum.
I am not gonna do the math, but the concept is simple: to cool a small amount of air you must heat a larger amount of air somewhere else. A/C is basically a heater overall, that consumes more “fuel” (whatever is your fuel) than normal, winter heating per identical volume of heated air.
That is why they say it is not great. Regarding the calculations, all co2 based calculations are not really accurate. It depends on the energy source, on the efficiency of energy production, on location of production, of supply chain… CO2 measures for a given product are extreme, inaccurate approximations not really meaningful on large scales. I won’t worry too much. I’d use A/C only when needed, with target temperature between 25 and 28, and you’ve done your part
A/C for cooling is one of those things that highly correlates with the availability of solar power.
So your assumption that they are running on coal is suspect.
Heatpumps running in the winter are a more pressing concern, since those are highly correlated with the unavailability of solar and therefore often run on coal or gas (unless wind or hydro is available)
Even so, burning gas in a power plant and then running a heat pump is more efficient than burning gas to warm a house.
You are probably talking about US. For instance, in Europe, places where A/C is more needed and used have also lower share of energy produced from renewable sources.
Yes, ideally all AC will be running off solar, but that’s not the case at the moment. My state has thankfully closed its last coal powerplant, but also shut down one of its nuclear plants, using gas to replace both. We are now running at 50% gas 20% nuclear 20% hydro and 10% wind/solar. Which is why I wanted to focus on methane in this specific calculation: when deciding “is it OK for me to run the AC now, or is the longterm global heating side-effect too great?” natural gas is what is relevant to me.
How “great” that is is precisely the question here, and apparently it’s 2.2x. If you are really a stickler for exact real-life electricity production piechart distribution, multiply that by 50% gas and call it 1.1x. That is, for every year that I run my 1kW AC, that’s as if I am airdropping a 1.1kW heater to a random location on Earth that will heat it up at 1.1kW forever. 10 years = 11 random heaters. 8 billion people = 88 billion random heaters. Is that “too great”? I dunno.
Winter heating is its own problem, but at least cold can always be dealt with by more insulation and clothing. Heat can literally make whole areas of Earth unsurvivable without electrical cooling. Would I rather feel more comfortable now or choose to be able to survive without mechanical aids later?
An A/C consumes more energy when the temperature difference is higher, which is when it’s sunny outside. At those points in time, the grid is receiving a lot of solar power.
So just saying a grid has 10% solar is too simplistic. That grid probably has 30% solar during summer noon and 0% solar on a winter morning.
If your goal is to save emissions, your best bet is to get some solar panels if you can, run the A/C when the sun is shining. Have a well insulated house that acts as a thermal battery and turn the A/C off during the peaks of the duck curve.
askscience
Oldest
This magazine is from a federated server and may be incomplete. Browse more on the original instance.