The book “Quantum field theory for the gifted amateur” is really good. It’s helped me understand quantum fields a lot better, and I work with quantum mechanics every day.
The book “Quantum field theory for the gifted amateur” is really good. It’s helped me understand quantum fields a lot better, and I work with quantum mechanics every day.
I don’t think we are - the previous comment is talking about the total genocide of all domesticated animals, which seems beyond sheep under solar panels.
Sounds nice. Possibly while not killing them or milking them, while also trying to breed them back to a more naturally viable state?
Surely there exists a space between us breeding, mass murdering and torturing domestic animals with cruel factory farming on the one hand, and wiping them off the face of the earth on the other.
Wouldn’t you say that both extremes constitute disastrous consequences for huge parts of the entire world’s biosphere?
What a horrifying disaster.
They also said it about potatoes, fresh water, indoor plants, cotton clothes, thinking about the moon and wooden stools.
Canada is not a Euro-zone country.
And also, Ireland is south of Denmark.
Not sure I understand, who is being called names?
And sure, laws like these are always a compromise, with no objectively true answer.
The point of having an age of consent (in this case 16 in the UK) is not popularity, and not just parental awareness or protection from people in positions of power.
It’s a decision by society that kids below this age are incapable of grasping the full consequences of their consent.
Of course the limit is going to be somewhat arbitrary, and you can definitely argue that age of consent laws are bad without being a creep, but you’d have to argue that a 15 year old understands the ramifications of consent.
The UN is more a place to talk with your enemies than with your friends, and getting the chance to sit at a table with people you disagree with rather than fighting each other is great.
If there are any Palestinians left to disagree with.
Sorry about your issues, I never meant to diminish them. I was genuinely curious about how one can become so limited in ones protein intake, but clearly worded my question poorly.
Thanks, I’ll try to be mindful of that! English isn’t my first language, so there is surely some nuance to be learned.
Thanks, hadn’t heard about that before.
Sorry, I was trying to ask a genuine question, I didn’t mean to come across in a negative way.
I’d still be very interested in the answer.
I’m not able to obtain enough protein without meat
How does that work? Isn’t egg white pure protein? Surely eating a pile of boiled eggs would give you the same amount of protein as a steak, not counting stuff like cheese and legumes.
That’s only “longtermism”. EA as introduced by Peter Singer in “the life you can save” is an incredibly sincere and well founded philosophy of charity.
Original from Perry Bible Fellowship: https://pbfcomics.com/comics/one-more-day/
Weird that the text was re-written, I wonder if the comic was somehow translated and translated back to English?
The “message” does not have any local effect on reality - when you measure your particle, you have no way of figuring out if its partner was already measured elsewhere. The effect it does have is on the global state, maintaining the correlation that was encoded from the start.
If you write up the density matrix for the system before and after measurement of one of the particles, you can see that while the density matrix changes, it does not change in a way one can measure.
What I will concede is that before the first measurement the global state is |00>+|11>, afterwards it is |00> or |11>. This projection appears to happen instantaneously, no matter the distance, which is indeed faster than light.
But calling the wave function collapse a signal or a message or a transfer of information is misleading, I would say. In your example, we know that the initial state is |00>+|11>, and that the result of the first measurement is then, say, 1. Then no further information is required to know that the other measurement will result in 1. No messages required, no hidden variables, simply the process of elimination.
I would like to say that this is indeed a confusing subject, but that the math is clear, and that I am arguing what is my impression of the mainstream view in the field.
From its own cover,
This might sound pretty casual, but it gets into all the math of it, with an aim at practical use.