Would it be useful if it were the scientist who hid in the box whilst sub-atomic events determine what key events occur in the real world, e.g. what grants are assigned to which research.

Let's flesh out an example.  As a Psychologist, I often ponder about getting more 'bang for buck' from the participants I test. In a simple experiment many participants each take part in one of two experimental conditions - some may watch a funny movie whilst others watch a more serious one - after which, both groups then are assessed for mood. In the inverse Schrödinger's cat scenario though, whether or not a sub-atomic particle decays or not determines what conditions are undertaken by which participants, whilst the experimenter hides in a box cut off from the rest of the universe. Assumably now, all my participants would to some degree have undertaken each instead of only one of my research conditions.  

I take it that there is no way at all for me to access this uber participant dataset?!

I was watching a lecture on quantum mechanics by Prof. Leonard Susskind, and one of the audience asked about colour charge.  Susskind said something like it is not really coloured, it is just a label applied (I think) by Nambu, and he said spin was similair.

Is spin just a confusing name, or do quanta actually spin?  And what is the meaning of the spin states, how can an electron have 1/2 spin or a nucleus 7/2 spin etc.?

If spin is just an operation, then by some method of rotation we obtain a spin quantum number, but surely there are many symmetry operators that give rise to the same change in the spin state.  And if we imagine spin like a sphere moving about a certain axis, then what happens if we look from the point of view of another axis?

This seems too ambiguous a label considering that (from what I understand!) the best description we have of any fundamental particle is just an energy density probability function.  And if we can only think of particles as energies (or vibrating strings), how is it that energy composes matter in this way?

It's occurred to me that quantum entanglement's so-called "spooky action at a distance" could be explained if the entangled particles are actually not "at a distance". That is, that there is a "0th dimension" - possibly the size of the whole universe - in which all matter is at a single point.

Has anyone explored this concept?

I was wondering about the plausibility of a "joke theory" I saw in an online web comic (www.qwantz.com not sure where it is anymore though). Essentially it suggested that all electrons are the same electron except it just travels through time - explaining their being identical.

Originally I almost dismissed the idea pretty quickly. However, since reading the most recent New Scientist in which the main article said that quantum particles such as electrons and photons have no place on the arrow of time (or something like that). It seems that this theory is more plausible if not just for me.

At least in the case that the electron has "failed to kill itself" (/will fail to kill itself / is currently failing to kill itself).

Thanks for your views and help in advance!

If you define an arbitrary plane in free space, then the mass, momentum, and energy of virtual particles crossing the surface will balance (statistically over a given time period). If this plane is parallel to and very close to an event horizon, then an imbalance occurs as some of the virtual particles are lost to the event horizon, making re-combination impossible and thus creating a surplus. The net surplus at the other side of the surface in terms of the mass, momentum and energy of the orphaned particles is then balanced by the mass, momentum and energy of the particles that strayed far enough from the original plane to cross the nearby event horizon. This implies that if an event horizon occurs, it will leak energy (mass and momentum from orphaned virtual particles) into the "real particle" universe.

My problem is that this model leaks from the "vacuum energy", and creates Hawking Radiation in equal, statistically interchangeable, forms on both sides of the gap between the arbitrary plane, and the event horizon. Everything you loose on one side, you have therefore gained, as an orphan, on the other. You get opposite charge, but still the same individual mass and overall momentum. So the total vacuum energy erodes (very slowly) but the black hole expands (also very slowly).

Even if you invoke negative energy particles, they are either repelled by the gravitational field (making things much worse) or at best they cancel the in-falling Hawking Radiation, and produce some very strange external emissions, but no net loss of mass from the black hole. I can’t create a bias, as it implies a bias in free space. Besides, I can’t tell in advance which virtual pairs will become separated, or which individuals orphaned, so there is no biasing mechanism available.

If this was the case then black holes would remain stable. Can someone please explain what is missing from this model? How does it differ from the accepted model of Hawking Radiation and the decay of Black Holes?

Specifically would an object with said increased electromagnetic bonds etc. exhibit appearances of being colder than they actually were due to the increased energy required to excite them?

The Schrodingers cat experiment says the cat is still dead and alive at the same time because whether or not the cat is dead or alive has not been measured. I may have misunderstood the experiment- but why doesn't the cat seeing whether or not the vial has broken count as a measurement, even if it is only the cat who knows. The experiment implies a difference between the cat's consciousness and that of the human, which of course there is, but what is this difference and how do we know about the cat's consciousness?

An electron is both a particle and a wave, and we cannot define exactly where a subatomic particle/wave is because it is spread out across time and space - we can only define it through probabilities. Wouldn't there need to be infinite precision and no uncertainty in nature for nature to be deterministic? Considering that infinite precision and certainty don't appear to exist - because experiments show randomness and uncertainty exists at the heart of nature, then would it be correct to assume that both atomic and subatomic particles/waves do not always interact with one another with infinite precision and if so then is it correct to conclude that nature cannot be deterministic - i.e. by having exact knowledge of the starting conditions of the universe and infinite computing power it would still be impossible to calculate exactly how the universe would evolve?

I'm probably way in over my head with this question, but as I understand it a neutrino particle can disappear from point A and appear at, say for arguements sake, point B. Now is there a trackable path or have I got it right that quantum physics can't it en-route between these points. If this is so then does that mean that sub-atomic particles able to do this might be traveling faster than light, because I thought that was the pinnacle of speed in the universe? Young of Japan suggests that (by my understanding) they possibly change form and can't be detected in their new form by the lab's equipment. Does anyone have a theory on any of this?

A proton is ment to have two (2) up quarks and one (1) down quark right? Up quarks spin clockwise so down quarks spin anti-clockwise, so if we flipped the proton around 180 degree's it becomes a neutron. what is a clear definition between a neutron and a proton?

If you continuously move your hand in a clockwise circle (representing a up quark) infront of another person. He/she would say you would be moving your hand in an anti-clockwise direction.