Quantum-level uncertainty is literally a very small amount of uncertainty, as I'm sure you're aware.
Not even close.
At quantum levels, causality breaks down and definitive states can be indeterminate and unknowable.
That and making sense of that isn't so different from posts hereabouts.
I assure you, causality does not break down at quantum levels. Can you clarify what you mean by definitive states (in terms of solutions to the Schrodinger equation)? What do you mean by indeterminate? As in, we can't solve the eigenvalue problem exactly for the particular system of interest or are you referring to something along the lines of "the wavefunction represents a probability distribution over the entirety of space"? What do you mean by unknowable? I know with great certainty that my refrigerator is going to be exactly where I left it when I come home from work because its wavefunction is very localized in my kitchen.
I assume this all stems from your confusion about the Heisenberg uncertainty principle, which states that the uncertainty in an object's position multiplied by the uncertainty in its momentum is greater than or equal to hbar / 2. Here, hbar is the Planck constant divided by (2 * pi). hbar is on the order 10^(-34) J * s. That's a VERY small number, which is why quantum uncertainty doesn't manifest at macroscopic levels. So, quantum-level uncertainty is literally a very small amount of uncertainty.
When you're in a hole, the first thing you should do is stop digging.
I assume Ernest was the captain of his high school debate team, pre-law at someplace mediocre, then law school at a middling state school (University of Oklahoma perhaps). When he didn't pass the bar he became a new writer, probably at RT. That's why he gets so defensive about it not being banned, despite losing his job.
Refuting an observation that your posts lack maturity and logic - by posting an immature response devoid of fact and logic ?
Pick up the mic you dropped.
I guess my post hit a little too close to home, huh.
I can go to RT.com and read RT's latest news as I speak.
Only boomers watch broadcast TV.
RT is absolutely not blocked but very much appreciate your wild attempts to make Russia appear the victim here. The surest sign that Ukraine is winning.
RT is banned on multiple media platforms. In dozens of countries. Affecting hundreds of millions of people and devices.
But it is not banned? Because you can visit a website?
You cannot understand the difference between widespread ban and total ban?
How is stating plain facts a "wild attempt to make Russia appear the victim"?
And how would that be the "surest sign that Ukraine is winning"?
There's quantum-level uncertainty in that reasoning.
By this "logic", Donald Trump is also banned in America.
By this "logic", Donald Trump is also banned in America.
He's literally banned from Twitter while Putin and the Taliban aren't...
So, you're saying that it is difficult to impossible to find anything that Trump is doing or saying at this time? Or you are saying that you are an idiot.
He's literally banned from Twitter while Putin and the Taliban aren't...
So, you're saying that it is difficult to impossible to find anything that Trump is doing or saying at this time? Or you are saying that you are an idiot.
Which is it?
If you idiots had the power he would be dead. That's how you always behave when left unchecked.
Nation with nuclear weapon can't lose a war in traditional terms.
If for example Russian conventional forces are so weak they can't defend Crimea then Russia can just make nuclear strike on Kiev and if needed other places and winning war in 10 second.
It's pointless loss of life from Ukrainians they can't win
I generally agree that the US could have taken relations with Russia in an entirely different direction following the end of the Soviet Union. Just compare the US treatment of Germany and Japan following WWII to US relations with Russia following the end of the cold war. For the former, there was the Marshall Plan, which included both grants and loans and allowed Germany and Japan to rapidly rebuild both the private economy and public institutions. For Russia, it was shock therapy. Russia was forced to auction off its public industries in fire sales to Russian oligarchs who quickly moved their wealth offshore. Russia immediately went into a deep depression due to the shock therapy imposed by the West. Had the West provided aid and not conditioned loans on the complete privatization of all state run industries (or at least a gradual privatization that allowed state run industries to benefit from capital investment instead of being auctioned off), Russia would have emerged from communism as a country that could readily be integrated into Europe and pacified to the point of nuclear disarmament.
The big question surrounding Russia back in the 1990s was whether it would emerge as a democracy or would revert back to being a communist country. Following the first Chechen war, much of Eastern Europe became afraid that Russia was going to try to reconstitute the Soviet Union as a new Russian republic. From that point on, it has been a chicken and the egg problem of whether Russian aggression spurred further NATO expansion or vice a versa.
But Russia's intervention in Syria made it clear that Russia's main concern about NATO wasn't that it was a threat to Russia's sovereignty. It was because NATO was a threat to Russia's desire to project its power in the region, especially in Ukraine where Russia had already annexed Crimea.
Russia could have a thousand missiles pointed at it from the Ukraine border and 500,000 NATO troops amassed on the Ukraine border and not a single shot would be fired because any military action would be met with a nuclear response. Even in Syria, the US and its allies had no choice but to let Putin prop up Assad because of the threat of direct conflict with Russia and a nuclear confrontation.
So we are left with another chicken and the egg problem. Ukraine wants to join NATO because it is afraid of a Russian invasion and Russia wants to invade Ukraine because it is afraid of NATO expansion. But Russia's real fear is that it would not be able to invade Ukraine once it became a NATO member.
In regard to use of nuclear weapons, you have stated your hopes and desires, but facts on the ground would be altered if U.S./N.A.T.O. had mid-range nuclear weapons in Ukraine. U.S./N.A.T.O. would have a significant 1st strike advantage if U.S./N.A.T.O. possessed nuclear weapons in Ukraine. U.S./N.A.T.O. could eliminate Russia's I.C.B.M.s while Russia's nuclear weapons would be fueling. If U.S./N.A.T.O. were in Ukraine, we are are no longer in the realm of Mutually Assured Destruction. Putin and his admirals and generals know this. This is why U.S. went bananas when then Soviet Union brought over nuclear weapons onto Island of Cuba, 1962.
Russia is a huge Gaslighting operation. An endless drum beat of loyalty to beloved homeland by the leaders and the need to make sacrifice personally to remain united against Western Imperialistic forces. Yet the leaders are all mobbed up thieves that park their money and their lives in the West. The citizens especially outside of Moscow and St Pete live in poverty because the nations resources have been fleeced by Oligarchs and sent to foreign bank accounts. What leader can be caught openly poisoning his political opposition yet be welcomed in the international community?
Nation with nuclear weapon can't lose a war in traditional terms.
If for example Russian conventional forces are so weak they can't defend Crimea then Russia can just make nuclear strike on Kiev and if needed other places and winning war in 10 second.
It's pointless loss of life from Ukrainians they can't win
And what's to then stop the US / NATO from just making a nuclear strike on Moscow and if needed a few other places and "winning" in 10 seconds?
I generally agree that the US could have taken relations with Russia in an entirely different direction following the end of the Soviet Union. Just compare the US treatment of Germany and Japan following WWII to US relations with Russia following the end of the cold war. For the former, there was the Marshall Plan, which included both grants and loans and allowed Germany and Japan to rapidly rebuild both the private economy and public institutions. For Russia, it was shock therapy. Russia was forced to auction off its public industries in fire sales to Russian oligarchs who quickly moved their wealth offshore. Russia immediately went into a deep depression due to the shock therapy imposed by the West. Had the West provided aid and not conditioned loans on the complete privatization of all state run industries (or at least a gradual privatization that allowed state run industries to benefit from capital investment instead of being auctioned off), Russia would have emerged from communism as a country that could readily be integrated into Europe and pacified to the point of nuclear disarmament.
The big question surrounding Russia back in the 1990s was whether it would emerge as a democracy or would revert back to being a communist country. Following the first Chechen war, much of Eastern Europe became afraid that Russia was going to try to reconstitute the Soviet Union as a new Russian republic. From that point on, it has been a chicken and the egg problem of whether Russian aggression spurred further NATO expansion or vice a versa.
But Russia's intervention in Syria made it clear that Russia's main concern about NATO wasn't that it was a threat to Russia's sovereignty. It was because NATO was a threat to Russia's desire to project its power in the region, especially in Ukraine where Russia had already annexed Crimea.
Russia could have a thousand missiles pointed at it from the Ukraine border and 500,000 NATO troops amassed on the Ukraine border and not a single shot would be fired because any military action would be met with a nuclear response. Even in Syria, the US and its allies had no choice but to let Putin prop up Assad because of the threat of direct conflict with Russia and a nuclear confrontation.
So we are left with another chicken and the egg problem. Ukraine wants to join NATO because it is afraid of a Russian invasion and Russia wants to invade Ukraine because it is afraid of NATO expansion. But Russia's real fear is that it would not be able to invade Ukraine once it became a NATO member.
In regard to use of nuclear weapons, you have stated your hopes and desires, but facts on the ground would be altered if U.S./N.A.T.O. had mid-range nuclear weapons in Ukraine. U.S./N.A.T.O. would have a significant 1st strike advantage if U.S./N.A.T.O. possessed nuclear weapons in Ukraine. U.S./N.A.T.O. could eliminate Russia's I.C.B.M.s while Russia's nuclear weapons would be fueling. If U.S./N.A.T.O. were in Ukraine, we are are no longer in the realm of Mutually Assured Destruction. Putin and his admirals and generals know this. This is why U.S. went bananas when then Soviet Union brought over nuclear weapons onto Island of Cuba, 1962.
Why are nuclear weapons in Ukraine any different from the possibility of nuclear weapons in Estonia or Latvia, which are also in NATO and border Russia? What will happen when Finland joins NATO?
Doesn't Russia have submarine launched ballistic missiles? How does Ukraine joining NATO impact their effectiveness?
At quantum levels, causality breaks down and definitive states can be indeterminate and unknowable.
That and making sense of that isn't so different from posts hereabouts.
I assure you, causality does not break down at quantum levels. Can you clarify what you mean by definitive states (in terms of solutions to the Schrodinger equation)? What do you mean by indeterminate? As in, we can't solve the eigenvalue problem exactly for the particular system of interest or are you referring to something along the lines of "the wavefunction represents a probability distribution over the entirety of space"? What do you mean by unknowable? I know with great certainty that my refrigerator is going to be exactly where I left it when I come home from work because its wavefunction is very localized in my kitchen.
I assume this all stems from your confusion about the Heisenberg uncertainty principle, which states that the uncertainty in an object's position multiplied by the uncertainty in its momentum is greater than or equal to hbar / 2. Here, hbar is the Planck constant divided by (2 * pi). hbar is on the order 10^(-34) J * s. That's a VERY small number, which is why quantum uncertainty doesn't manifest at macroscopic levels. So, quantum-level uncertainty is literally a very small amount of uncertainty.
When you're in a hole, the first thing you should do is stop digging.
Causality does not exist at the sub-atomic level.
You misstate Heisenberg.
In the field of quantum mechanics, Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle is a fundamental theory that explains why it is impossible to measure more than one quantum variable simultaneously. Another implication of the uncertainty principle is that it is impossible to accurately measure the energy of a system in some finite amount of time.
Russia is a huge Gaslighting operation. An endless drum beat of loyalty to beloved homeland by the leaders and the need to make sacrifice personally to remain united against Western Imperialistic forces. Yet the leaders are all mobbed up thieves that park their money and their lives in the West. The citizens especially outside of Moscow and St Pete live in poverty because the nations resources have been fleeced by Oligarchs and sent to foreign bank accounts. What leader can be caught openly poisoning his political opposition yet be welcomed in the international community?
Formula to determine if Russia is lying:
1. Step #1: Russia Speaks
2 Step #2 Russia is Lying
Does this mean the US pols and media is not lying?
