>So no way for instant info exchange?

Reddit was being reddit, so while I could see your reply in my replies, I couldn't find it to reply to. Reply.

I've added a bit at the bottom of my post to explain why. This isn't just aimed at you, I don't know your understanding of quantum mechanics, but I notice that entanglement is a pretty misunderstood topic. And to be honest, actual quantum researchers talking calling their incredibly cutting edge cool research "quantum teleportation" isn't exactly helping this.

Not accepting or even understanding information at a macro level is perfectly understandable. I'm a physicist and I can't marry my knowledge of quantum with the macro world, I don't understand "information" as a quantum concept in macro scale either. (to be honest, I don't think I fully accept "energy" on the various scales)

I think the most simple way to accept "the speed of information" is to just imagine someone transmitting "Hello world", with laser beams through the vacuum of outer space. Since we know that the speed of light is finite, and furthermore light is the fastest thing in the world, no message can get to us faster than a message sent with light. There are lots of caveats to this of course (there always are), but this conceptually at least made sense to me when I first started to learn about this. Once you start to trust this concept, just flip it on its head: the speed of information is 3.00e8 m/s, so there is no way light is faster than information.

(this is a way to get to grips with the concept, this is in no way a proof nor meant as such)

The earthquake comes from an entire contential plate ramming into each other. ‘Sealing’ that fault (which is already mostly rock to rock) would do exactly nothing.

>100 heritability implies variation in trait amongst a population is wholly accounted for by variation in genetics of population

Correct.

>and there is no correlation between variation in environment causing additional variation in traits.

I would phrase it as "environmental variation does not cause additional variation in the trait".

Ah sweet! My guess was on the right track. Thanks!

This made sense to me, a non mathematician and non physicist. So basically the entangled particles will behave identically when observed. So there is no information linking the particles across spacetime.

So like if I had two cans and two six sided die and I “entangled” the die and closed the lid. I could then send one can to the moon and keep the other and when opened, both die will show the same result because of entanglement when normally there would be a 1/6 probability of what is observed for a single die.

This is truly amazing, thanks for your time explaining it.

That light is traveling towards us at the speed of light. Always. Eventually the distance between us will be expanding faster than the speed of light. That light will never reach us. You could say it’s in a limbo of some type.

[removed]

[removed]

What you’re asking is kind of a weird question, you can use anything you want as your reference frame. The CMB is often used as the reference frame because it has some convenient qualities that make it more a “fair” reference in cosmology, but there isn’t anything inherent about it that makes it more absolute than any other frame of reference.

And keep in mind that the reference frame matters within the context of the subject. Using CMB as a reference in regards to the orbit of the planets in our solar system makes way less sense than using the sun as the frame of reference. The frame of reference should be whatever makes the model clearer to accurately understand. The CMB works great when looking at the movement or rotation of galaxies, because otherwise those values are very difficult to describe in a clear way.

No. The age of the universe is the same everywhere it is only how we can see it due to the speed of light and our position in the universe. If you were standing 10 billion light years from the Sun on a planet you would be seeing the space from before the Sun or Earth even existed.

I'll first note that when thinking about the possible trajectories that reach a given spacetime point (e.g. earth in 2023), there is a trajectory that maximizes the elapsed time since the beginning of the universe.

Does that trajectory correspond to the CMB frame? If the universe is homogeneous, then yes. In the presence of peculiar gravitational fields, like those of our galaxy, that doesn't generally remain true, although I think you could pick a "time threading" such that it does. That's another gauge freedom I didn't mention. Along with the freedom to pick the "different positions at the same time" surfaces in spacetime, there's also freedom to pick the "same position at different time" lines.

I like the energy response. A lot of things make more sense when you look at them from that perspective. Quite simply put: things move through the universe on a path of constant energy. A moving object has a certain amount of kinetic energy and will continue moving in a way that exactly preserves that energy, unless some force is applied to it.

You know how the path of light can bend in the presence of a black hole or other massive object. I’ve heard a lot of explanations for why this happens, and one is that the light follows the path of zero change in energy. Like contour lines on a map showing elevation.

Hope this helps!

Probability of a qualitative (categorical) trait, no? Or what was the probability you asked, did I miss something? Now if you think of quantitative genetic trait... such as height... one could have probability of being above a given height or such. Disease traits are sometimes polygenic in one way (risk) while the trait can be categorical (sick or not).

Wait, you can really use the cosmic microwave background as a sort of "absolute" reference frame? (Since it is certainly more universal than the Sun or even galactic core). Wow, that is interesting.

Birds have bone marrow, just not in all of their bones.

They've some pneumatic bones which are hollow and filled with air, and actually connected to their respiratory system, through air sacs in their abdomen, giving them extremely efficient respiration which is likely an adaptation for dealing with low oxygen in flight and fluctuating air pressure etc.

Obviously the hollow bones give birds a weight advantage and their bones are also made form a tougher material than ours, so despite being light they're also extremely strong and springier - all of which is about adaptions to flight.

[removed]

[removed]

[removed]

[removed]

Here on earth, things are continuously affected by the force of gravity and friction (air resistance, water resistance, rubbing against a solid surface, etc.) To keep something moving here in earth, therefore, you have to continuously apply force to counteract those ever-present forces. That’s why it seems so natural for things to be that way.

In the absence of gravity, friction, and any other forces, however, an object will continue to move in the same direction and at the same speed until a force is applied. In fact, it would actually require some sort of force to make it slow down to a stop.

I don’t know how much science fiction you may have read, but there’s a fairly standard theme with sub-lightspeed spacecraft voyaging from earth to nearby stars. They constantly accelerate and build up speed until they’re at the halfway point, then they flip around and accelerate in the opposite direction in order to slow down enough to stop when they arrive. If they simply accelerated in the same direction the entire time, they would overshoot their destination with no way to stop.

Hope this helps!

>It means 100% of the phenotypic variation depends on genes, which is quite different.

I think this is what I was trying to say, but let me restate it to make sure I am on the right track. 100 heritability implies variation in trait amongst a population is wholly accounted for by variation in genetics of population and there is no correlation between variation in environment causing additional variation in traits.

This is a good way to think of entanglement, as long as you also keep in mind that not every configuration of entangled particles corresponds to a set of local hidden variables in this way (those would be the spooky outcomes you're referring to). But most entanglement scenarios people think of are indeed equivalent to local hidden variables.

[removed]

It's something of a misnomer: it's not the rest frame of the radiation itself, but the rest frame in which the CMB appears the same in all directions: in most rest frames, you'll see it redshifted in one direction, and blueshifted in the other (this is what this looks like for us, for example: the overall hot/cold spots (NB: on this diagram, red is blue-shifted and blue is red-shifted, because humans like red to be hot, even though blue is hotter) are due to our velocity reshifting it, the funky lumps are local effects. If you adjust that to account for shifting the velocity of the observer, you can get it to the point at which that looks almost exactly flat (this famous image scales up the differences by orders of magnitude in comparison to the previous one - actual differences are on the order of one part in 100,000). The reference frame where that image is flattest (modulo a few adjustments for local effects) is the CMB reference frame.