# Thread: Laws of Nature... emergent property of matter or immaterial rules imposed upon matter?

1. Take a penny and cut it in half. Take one half to Florida and the other half to Australia. Put the penny halfs on very sensitive scales. The half penny that weighs more than half the weight of a penny will have an effect that is different than the half penny that weighs less than half the weight of a penny.

There is no force or communication between the two. The deciding factor of the future consequences is made at the time of separation yielding only the appearance there is a force.

In other words, I have absolutely no idea. So, am I wrong? Eh, let's just say my being absolute by saying "every..." is scientifically premature.

2. Originally Posted by fast
Take a penny and cut it in half. Take one half to Florida and the other half to Australia. Put the penny halfs on very sensitive scales. The half penny that weighs more than half the weight of a penny will have an effect that is different than the half penny that weighs less than half the weight of a penny.

There is no force or communication between the two. The deciding factor of the future consequences is made at the time of separation yielding only the appearance there is a force.

(And no, I'm actually not being sarcastic. We're reliving an argument between the top physicists of the 1930s. You're Einstein; I'm Bohr.)

In other words, I have absolutely no idea. So, am I wrong? Eh, let's just say my being absolute by saying "every..." is scientifically premature.
According to the current consensus among physicists, yes, you're wrong. The end product of the Bohr-Einstein debate was that Einstein figured out a way to settle the question experimentally instead of by debate. The experiment is difficult; the technology to do it didn't exist until the 1980s, long after both men were dead. But by now it's been carried out many times. Bohr always wins.

Here are the gory details.

Or if you want, I can try my hand at explaining why the consensus is for Bohr, if you're up for a little trigonometry.

3. Originally Posted by fast
Oh the insanity of language! I can no more (literally) write Boyle's law on paper than I can write the moon on paper. The term, "moon" refers to the moon. The term, "Boyle's law" doesn't refer to the description, "the relationship between temperature and pressure"; rather, it refers to the relationship between temperature and pressure.
Really. So you were one of those students who left the exam question blank when it said "please write Boyle's law". You must have been a lot of fun. Almost every Google result for Boyle's law starts with "Boyle's law states..." Things that exist in nature, like the moon, cannot be stated. STATEMENTS are stated, and a description is a kind of statement.

4. Originally Posted by Bomb#20

(And no, I'm actually not being sarcastic. We're reliving an argument between the top physicists of the 1930s. You're Einstein; I'm Bohr.)

In other words, I have absolutely no idea. So, am I wrong? Eh, let's just say my being absolute by saying "every..." is scientifically premature.
According to the current consensus among physicists, yes, you're wrong. The end product of the Bohr-Einstein debate was that Einstein figured out a way to settle the question experimentally instead of by debate. The experiment is difficult; the technology to do it didn't exist until the 1980s, long after both men were dead. But by now it's been carried out many times. Bohr always wins.

Here are the gory details.

Or if you want, I can try my hand at explaining why the consensus is for Bohr, if you're up for a little trigonometry.
Can you explain how Bell's theorem rules out originating points in spacetime as local variables for entanglement?

In other words, if 2 particles are entangled does Bell's theorem define the originating spacetime point (where the entanglement began) as a local variable?

Is spacetime considered to be a non-local variable if a whole new "spacetime branch" (MWI) comes into existence at every entanglement?