>>10877427>do not know enough to say if I am correct or notExcellent. Thank you OP.
>>10877654Your reasoning is correct. You're thinking in terms of energy systems, while
>>10877606 is thinking in terms of particles, as if entanglement is only a secondary property. Gravity is precisely the phenomenon that is known to act regardless of distance, so it's an ideal test of the field manipulation resulting from a nucleus contortion.
>>10877666>By what mechanism?>>10878303Your reasoning is entirely precise. The thing that's upsetting anon is that they want gravity to work how we've intuitively observed it to always work, but we've never had a mechanism to discretely form an intuition about it. With things like this we can't just rely on intuition to get the result because we quite literally have no intuition. The control for the experiment is "every particle that has never undergone decay."
>>10879220Don't be afraid to form intuitions on your idea. It's a (potentially) relevant question and if there's a way to predict the result then the knowledge is already out there. What I watch for in quantum science is people who actually grasp that it's all waves of energy rippling according to information. A lot of people still cling to the notion of particles.
>>10883082>not really known how well that framework corresponds to realityThose are the things to throw out. If your intuition is correct then it gives us a window into the actual mechanics of the system. We won't need to guess but we will need to be able to understand what's happening. The goal of theoretical physics is to figure out how to design an experiment, but if an experiment changes the model, they have a duty to throw out everything they can and start over.
