More Than One Reality Exists (in Quantum Physics)

originally posted by: PhyllidaDavenport
Surely this is just another wave/particle observer effect carried out years ago? Sounds exactly the same regurgitated

but what does it mean? i am still having some trouble understanding how a dress being black and blue, or white and gold has any impact. its a brain teaser and nothing more.

originally posted by: PhyllidaDavenport
Surely this is just another wave/particle observer effect carried out years ago? Sounds exactly the same regurgitated

Let me explain the difference.

First, wave/particle duality is just saying a quantum system can behave like a wave or a particle. Some people say it's always a wave and the particle aspect is just a local measurement.

So if you look at a deck of cards, a local measurement would be that you're only able to measure 1 card at a time put when it's not being observed it's a probability wave of 52 cards. The measurement of one card just means locally a classical observer can only observe on card and not the entire deck if you look at the deck as a quantum system.

The difference:

Ringbauer and his colleagues tested Wigner's original idea with an even more rigorous experiment which doubled the scenario. They designated two "laboratories" where the experiments would take place and introduced two pairs of entangled photons, meaning that their fates were linked, so that knowing the state of one automatically tells you the state of the other. (The photons in the setup were real. Four "people" in the scenario — "Alice," "Bob" and a "friend" of each — were not real, but instead represented observers of the experiment).

This starts with entanglement. part of the paper:

Consider a single photon in a superposition of horizontal |hi and vertical polarization |vi, measured in the h, v basis by an observer—Wigner’s friend—in an isolated lab, see Figs. 1a and b. According to quantum theory, the friend randomly observes one of the two possible outcomes in every run of the experiment. The friend’s record, h or v, can be stored in one of two possible orthogonal states of some physical memory, labeled either |“photon is h”i or |“photon is v”i, and constitutes a “fact” from the friend’s point of view. Wigner observes from outside the isolated laboratory and has no information about his friend’s measurement outcome. According to quantum theory Wigner must describe the friend’s measurement as a unitary interaction that leaves the photon and friend’s record in the entangled state (with implicit tensor products):

Wigner can now perform an interference experiment in this entangled basis to verify that the photon and his friend’s record are indeed in superposition—a “fact” from his point of view, from which he concludes that his friend cannot have recorded a definite outcome. Concurrently however, the friend does always record a definite outcome, which suggests that the original superposition was destroyed and Wigner should not observe any interference. The friend can even tell Wigner that she recorded a definite outcome (without revealing the result), yet Wigner and his friend’s respective descriptions remain unchanged [6]. This calls into question the objective status of the facts established by the two observers. Can one reconcile their different records, or are they fundamentally incompatible—so that they cannot be considered objective, observer-independent “facts of the world”

arxiv.org...

Wow!

What this says in laymen's terms is Wigner measures the entangled system and always gets a definite outcome. Wigner's friend should not be able to see an interference pattern and he can always tell that Wigner has carried out a measurement. In this case, Wigner's friend performs an interference experiment and he comes to the conclusion that Wigner couldn't have recorded a definite outcome.

So you have two facts that shouldn't co exist.

One, Wigner measured and recorded a definite outcome.

Two, Wigner's friend saw an interference pattern that said his friend didn't carry out a measurement therefore he didn't record a definite outcome.

So if all is Quantum, then some things we call strange coincidences could be just two observers observing two different facts for a singular event.

When you think about it, this result makes sense because if Wigner's friend could always tell whether Wigner measured a particle or not you would be able to use this for FTL communication.

a reply to: neoholographic

The universe is not quantum though. Quantum is a specific scale of observation. It is a scale where regular physics does not apply. The scale that you and I can observe from has been shown to react in a way that could be described by what we would call general physics.

a reply to: neoholographic

This seems like a very questionable study, or at the least the way it was reported is very questionable. The article states the following:

Once the person in the lab measures the photon, the particle assumes a fixed polarization. But for someone outside that closed laboratory who doesn't know the result of the measurements, the unmeasured photon is still in a state of superposition.
-
Alice and Bob could arrive at conclusions about the photons that were correct and provable and that yet still differed from the observations of their friends — which were also correct and provable, according to the study.

If this were true it would be a fundamental violation of quantum mechanics as we understand it. The entangled particles being measured will always have opposite polarization and if that were not the case energy wouldn't be conserved, and quantum cryptography wouldn't work because it relies on the behavior of entanglement obeying logic, and even quantum logic obeys conservation principles. So I'd be fairly confident in assuming there's some sort of flaw in their methodology.

That's not to say other time lines don't exist, the many worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics stands a good chance of being correct, but those parallel universes would be completely separate from us. It makes no sense to claim reality is tangibly different for different people on the same time line, the closest thing to that is the observer dependence of relativity imo, but that's still only a difference in perspective, not a different reality for each observer.

Also the problem becomes harder to solve by introducing entanglement because it can produce retro-causal phenomena. If an observer measures something and collapses the wave function, it will always be the same when measured in the future by other observers. Therefore it stands to reason the same thing applies to a pair of entangled photons which must have opposite polarization for very fundamental reasons, by measuring one photon you must collapse the wave function of both.

But since future events can determine what occurs in the past when dealing with entanglement, there may be some weird side effect of that which is messing with the perceived results. I don't really see any other way they could possibly get these results besides completely faking it. When I get more time I'll try to look into this in more detail because it seems something interesting is going on regardless.

originally posted by: Woodcarver
a reply to: neoholographic

The universe is not quantum though. Quantum is a specific scale of observation. It is a scale where regular physics does not apply. The scale that you and I can observe from has been shown to react in a way that could be described by what we would call general physics.

Why wouldn't the universe be quantum if all is quantum? Like I said, I don't think you know what that means. This is why you haven't answered any questions I've asked you 3 times now.

a reply to: ChaoticOrder

You said:

If this were true it would be a fundamental violation of quantum mechanics as we understand it. The entangled particles being measured will always have opposite polarization

This is just wrong. Wigner's friend never measured his particle. Let me break it down.

In the lab, a single photon is entangled in the h, v basis and when Wigner measures it he gets the photon is h or the photon is v. Wigner's friend does an interference experiment in the entangled basis to verify that the photon and Wigner's record are in superposition.

What happens is Wigner's friend sees the original superposition that says Wigner didn't carry out a measurement WHEN HE DID. You're only dealing with opposite polarization if Wigner's friend carries out a measurement in the h, v basis.

On a classical level, it would be like some people living in a reality where Muhammad Ali died (a measurement) and others living in a reality where Muhammad Ali didn't die (interference). When Ali dies, for those living in an interference reality where Ali finally dies, then the wave collapses between both realities and they now share a singular "reality."

If all is Quantum we should see different examples of things like this and we do.

originally posted by: neoholographic
Why wouldn't the universe be quantum if all is quantum? Like I said, I don't think you know what that means. This is why you haven't answered any questions I've asked you 3 times now.

Everything is quantum, however the reason quantum behaviors are not typically observed on everyday human scales is because decoherence causes the quantum system to effectively behave like a classical system. The idea is in one sentence from this abstract proposing an advancement in the theory:

Autonomous quantum to classical transitions

Now, the quantum to classical transition is considered to occur via decoherence caused by stochastic interaction with an environment.

For some examples, look at a quantum computer where the temperature must be maintained close to absolute zero to prevent interaction with the environment, and not just quantum computers; read the details on many quantum experiments which are done near absolute zero which is needed to preserve the "fragile" quantum states which are easily lost when interactions with an environment at higher temperatures through decoherence make the system more classical in behavior.

So this is why "everything is quantum", but it's really not in the sense that not everything is close to absolute zero, and at higher temperatures what we think of as quantum effects quickly exhibit more classical behavior.

Also as I tried to explain to you in one of your previous threads, the whole idea of the Schrodinger cat thought experiment is to illustrate how everything is not really quantum. If it was, then the thought experiment suggests the cat would be in a superposition of the dead state and the alive state at the same time, and the whole point was that anybody with half a brain can tell this is not what happens in the real world. The cat is either dead or alive, not in a superposition of dead and alive states. The reason, again, is stated in the paper abstract, repeated for emphasis:

"the quantum to classical transition is considered to occur via decoherence caused by stochastic interaction with an environment."

And that is why the cat is not in a superposition of dead and alive states, and why even though "everything is quantum", it doesn't behave that way.

a reply to: Arbitrageur

Everything is Quantum doesn't mean we will never see quantum behavior in the classical world wee see this in Quantum Biology.

Like I said in another thread, this would be a small but noticeable effect.

If it was a large effect, then a person could come home one day and then the next day come home and be in another reality where they didn't buy the house and a different family is living there. You said:

Everything is quantum, however the reason quantum behaviors are not typically observed on everyday human scales is because decoherence

Yes they are, there just not usually large enough to disrupt the classical world so we don't think we're living in Wonderland.

originally posted by: neoholographic
Like I said in another thread, this would be a small but noticeable effect.

Do you have calculations or experimental measurements to back that up?

I can find exceptions sure, but they are also in contrived laboratory settings, and even the researchers who conducted the research would admit the quantum effects are not normally going to be observed by humans in everyday situations at room temperature.

If two particles become entangled and then lose that entanglement a trillionth of a second later at room temperature, yes it happens but no it's not noticeable. It's not going to have any measurable impact on anything; effectively the system will appear to behave classically.

a reply to: Arbitrageur

But if four particles, if four particles get together. Why, that would be a movement.

Alice's Restaurant popped into my head. Sorry. Quantum effect.

a reply to: Arbitrageur

Physicists See Quantum Effects in Photosynthesis

In particular, according to a study released Monday in Nature Chemistry, an international team of scientists showed that molecules involved in photosynthesis display quantum mechanical behavior. Even though we’d suspected as much before, this is the first time we’ve seen quantum effects in living systems. Not only will it help us better understand plants, sunlight and everything in between, but it could also mean cool new tech in the future.

You might have heard of Schrödinger’s Cat, which is both alive and dead at the same time thanks to quantum weirdness — in particular, because electrons can be in two states at the same time. It’s only when we observe the system that the weirdness collapses and reality “picks” one state: the cat’s actually alive (or dead), the electron’s actually at this end of the room (or that end).

But quantum effects are typically limited to the very small, and only really observable in perfect, laboratory conditions. A living being, with its wet, messy systems, would be a tough place to find some quantum weirdness lurking — and yet we have.

Scientists zoomed in on the Fenna-Matthews-Olson (FMO) complex, a key component of green sulfur bacteria’s machinery for photosynthesis. It’s been a historical favorite for such research because we’ve long known its structure and it’s fairly easy to work with.

And observe it they did! With a technique called two-dimensional electronic spectroscopy, researchers saw molecules in simultaneous excited states — quantum weirdness akin to a cat being alive and dead at the same time. What’s more, the effect lasted exactly as long as theories predicted it, suggesting this evidence of quantum biology will last. As the authors succinctly put it, “Thus, our measurements provide an unambiguous experimental observation of excited-state vibronic coherence in the FMO complex.”

blogs.discovermagazine.com...

Here's another one:

Quantum Biology: Spooky, Mysterious, and Fundamental to Life Itself

As little as a decade ago, scientists were sure that the chemistry of life and the weird chemistry of the quantum world were completely separate things. Quantum effects were usually observed only on the nanometer scale, surrounded by hard vacuum, ultra-low temperatures, and a tightly controlled laboratory environment. Biology, however, is a macroscopic world that is warm, messy, and anything but controlled. It seemed elementary that a quantum phenomenon such as 'coherence', in which the wave patterns of every part of a system stay in step, wouldn't last a microsecond in the tumultuous realm of the cell. It would be simply unthinkable.

Or so we thought…

Recent years have seen scientists finding coherent quantum processes all across the natural world. And it’s not just in some exotic halobacteria or flying marsupial, it turns out quantum biology is pretty much ubiquitous. In fact, it appears to be a central part in the most important chemical reactions on Earth: photosynthesis and cellular respiration.

interestingengineering.com...

One for the road

"Schrödinger's Bacterium" Could Be a Quantum Biology Milestone

A recent experiment may have placed living organisms in a state of quantum entanglement

www.scientificamerican.com...

At the end of the day, when you say:

Everything is quantum, however the reason quantum behaviors are not typically observed on everyday human scales is because decoherence

It just doesn't add up.

a reply to: neoholographic
I only had time to review your first link, but it makes my point and argues against your point when you dig into the details, you even bolded the part that says almost the same thing I said, which supports my point:

"But quantum effects are typically limited to the very small, and only really observable in perfect, laboratory conditions. A living being, with its wet, messy systems, would be a tough place to find some quantum weirdness lurking — and yet we have."

The temperature they used to observe that was 77K which is minus 321 degrees F. It also fits what I was saying, to repeat my comment above:

"I can find exceptions sure, but they are also in contrived laboratory settings, and even the researchers who conducted the research would admit the quantum effects are not normally going to be observed by humans in everyday situations at room temperature. "

-321F is certainly not room temperature and the laboratory test is quite contrived as I said, so this is the type of exception I said I could find that doesn't refute my point. These are hardly natural conditions and it meets my idea of "contrived laboratory conditions", just look at all the manipulations applied trying to obtain these observations, notably the nitrogen flow cryostat at 77K/-321F:

arxiv.org...

The cells were harvested after 3 days of cultivation, by centrifugation at 6000 g, resuspended and broken using EmulsiFlex C5 (Avestin Inc., Canada) at 20000 psi. Unbroken cells were removed by low speed centrifugation and the membrane fragments present in the resulting supernatant were collected by ultracentrifugation at 200000 g for 2 hours and then resuspended in isolation buffer. FMO was released from membranes by 0.4 M Na2CO3 added in two steps over the course of 2 days (at 4 ◦ C in the dark) to release FMO. The soluble protein fraction was cleared of debris by ultracentrifugation, dialysed against the isolation buffer for 72 hours, concentrated and purified using size exclusion and anion exchange chromatography until OD271 / OD371 ratio decreased below 0.6. Prior 2DES experiments the sample was dissolved in a 2:1 glycerol:buffer solution, and was held at 77K in a nitrogen flow cryostat during the entire experiment.

I really don't think you understand the sources you cite most of the time, especially in this case where your source agrees with what I said, and refutes your claim.

a reply to: Phage
2, 4, there are probably millions of entanglements occurring in living systems but they don't last too long at room temperature. Closer to absolute zero the chances are a lot better of quantum effects not experiencing decoherence so quickly, but I'm not volunteering to be the subject of any tests at 77K.

a reply to: Arbitrageur

I don't know if you're joking or being serious with that last post. Did you actually read the quote? It says.

"But quantum effects are typically limited to the very small, and only really observable in perfect, laboratory conditions. A living being, with its wet, messy systems, would be a tough place to find some quantum weirdness lurking — and yet we have."

Let me repeat that last part.

A living being, with its wet, messy systems, would be a tough place to find some quantum weirdness lurking — and yet we have."

YET WE HAVE

The lab was used for a specific purpose. To isolate vibrational coherences to compare them to the length of electronic coherences. They explain this in the abstract.

We show that the long-lived quantum beats originate exclusively from vibrational coherences, whereas electronic coherences dephase entirely within 240 fs even at 77 K – a timescale too short to play a significant role in light harvesting

arxiv.org...

All you had to do was read the abstract and you would know your post doesn't make any sense.

I'm surprised because I've debated you before and I thought you were smarter than that. Did you even read the abstract or did you just speed read through the paper looking for something to cherry pick?

In order to measure coherence dynamics of the Fenna-Matthews-Olson complex, specifically vibrational coherence, it had to be reduced to 77k. They found that quantum beats from vibrational coherence were long enough to play a role in photosynthesis.

Does it need to be 77k for photosynthesis to occur?

Again, all you had to do was ask yourself this simple question before you hit the reply button. Here's the last line from the abstract.

The detection of vibronic coupling indicates the relevance of this phenomenon for photosynthetic energy transfer.

Does Photosynthetic energy transfer happen at 77k?

You said:

I only had time to review your first link

Translation is:

I couldn't find anything to cherry pick from the other links but I saw 77k in the first link and blindly made a post that doesn't make any sense.

Is QE a relationship between particles?

Or.

Is it a relationship between charges from "particles"?

originally posted by: neoholographic
They found that quantum beats from vibrational coherence were long enough to play a role in photosynthesis.

Does it need to be 77k for photosynthesis to occur?

They did not show how much of a role it plays at 77K because they didn't measure any photosynthesis at 77K nor did they calculate or measure or otherwise show how much it contributes to photosynthesis.

I'm not an expert in this field and neither are you so we are not the ones to settle any disagreements between the experts but there are some things we should note here. First, the beginning of the abstract starts with an admission that claims were made roughly a decade ago of quantum effects on photosynthesis, which were later shown to be misattributed (false) claims. That is not in dispute since everyone seems to agree the previous research reached incorrect conclusions.

Given that history it's not unreasonable to ask if history could be repeating itself. I could see you 10 years ago quoting the older research as if it was true, and now that we know it's not you would have been proven wrong, so don't get too cocky. Are your claims about the current research true and is photosynthesis a quantum effect? To be fair, and unbiased I'd have to say that at best, the jury is still out on this question, but even before the jury returns its verdict, there is a semantic problem with the claim:

Is photosynthesis quantum-ish?

So then, is photosynthesis “quantum” or not? “The observations show that there is correlation between the wavefunctions of the states involved in energy or electron transfer,” says Romero. “But these effects are not considered by some scientists as truly quantum coherence in the sense that entangled states of quantum computing are understood.” And Engel agrees that to compare the two is to invoke “the wrong language”.

Also, where in the paper does it measure or calculate how much what they found in their research affects photosynthesis? The didn't measure any photosynthesis at 77K and I didn't see where they calculated how much of a contribution to photosynthesis is predicted, they made a vague claim about some relationship which I have not seen clearly characterized anywhere including your ramblings:

Miller argues that the strength of the vibrational coupling is far too low to enhance energy transport. He sees an imprint of evolved optimality in the very absence of quantum coherence – in the fact that it is very rapidly lost after photo absorption through decoherence. “It turns out that nature has evolved to not beat decoherence but exploit it,” he says. It’s precisely because decoherence causes the dissipation of energy that the energy transfer can find its way gradually downhill along the most energy-efficient path, guided by how electronic properties vary from place to place in the molecular environment...

maybe these correlations and coherences, mediated by vibrations, are in any case too weak to have any biological relevance, and we still have to think of exciton states in the photosystem as being more or less localized to particular molecular groups, with incoherent transfer of energy between them. That’s what Miller and Thorwart think. “We have come full circle,” Miller says, “and it seems that the early picture of energy transport as a largely incoherent process has withstood the challenge.”

So this topic is far more nuanced than you seem to realize. If you really want to stretch a point you could say that every chemical reaction that occurs everywhere is a quantum effect, because quantum chemistry could be invoked to explain the chemical reactions, but I don't think you really want to go there because chemical processes tend to be stochastic and not that weird, and you seem to be after quantum weirdness to promote your biased belief that some kind of quantum spookiness must be responsible for psi etc.

So all that research aside, yes photosynthesis is at the very least a chemical process which involves quantum mechanics to the extent that any chemical process does, but this doesn't really lend itself to explaining what you're really trying to explain, things like psi.

You have a bad habit of citing any quantum research and then imposing your particular bias on it rather than trying to understand what it really tells us.

originally posted by: blackcrowe
Is QE a relationship between particles?

Or.

Is it a relationship between charges from "particles"?

Photons can have quantum entanglement but they have never been measured to have any charge so it's generally presumed they don't, or if they do, it's too small to measure.

a reply to: Arbitrageur

Thanks Arbitrageur.

My idea being.

A photon (particle) is what we think of as a particle when charges are at their closest point.

Upon propagation of the photon. The charges that make the photon spread out as waveform.

This way. In the interference pattern. (On a graph chart). A neg charge from one photon can be shared with a pos charge from another photon at any distance. Their connection being made by points central to their distance apart. And plotted as a parabola from that central point to become a connecting wave.

The connection would be instant at any scale. As long as it can be implied that the connection can be made.

a reply to: Woodcarver

Oh my #ing god!!!

I guess this tells me a lot about your thought process, I take exception to this way of supposed discussing.

These places like LiveScience translating science for the common people always give their sources if you look.
here PDF
arxiv.org...

a reply to: blackcrowe
I think you're creating some thread drift here, so this is my last response in this thread on this tangent, though you can make your own thread proposing your ideas, or ask more in the ask any question thread if you want.

We think we understand electromagnetism better than we understand entanglement. Electromagnetism, which relates to the movement of charges, propagates at the speed of light, not instantaneously. We don't know the exact speed of entanglement correlations, if they even have a speed. Under the Copenhagen interpretation the entanglement correlation speed would be at least 10,000 times faster than the speed of light, while under the Everett interpretation there is not really any speed to entanglement correlations; the correlation is just that, a correlation and not the result of any kind of superluminal "communication" between particles. Of course nobody knows which interpretation is correct, and there are other possible interpretations too.

a reply to: Arbitrageur

Why do you do this to yourself? You made a statement that was just false. You said:

Everything is quantum, however the reason quantum behaviors are not typically observed on everyday human scales is because decoherence

You now say:

I'm not an expert in this field and neither are you so we are not the ones to settle any disagreements between the experts but there are some things we should note here.

Again, a tactic that doesn't work. It's obvious you're not an expert in this field because you made a blatantly false statement about decoherence.

Decoherence has become like Natural Selection to Pseudoskeptics. It's a catchphrase when they can't debate the issue. So you say decoherence and think it means something.

First off, with decoherence, probabilities still exists after decoherence has occurred.

Decoherence has been used to understand the collapse of the wave function in quantum mechanics. Decoherence does not generate actual wave-function collapse. It only provides an explanation for the observation of wave-function collapse, as the quantum nature of the system "leaks" into the environment. That is, components of the wave function are decoupled from a coherent system and acquire phases from their immediate surroundings. A total superposition of the global or universal wavefunction still exists (and remains coherent at the global level), but its ultimate fate remains an interpretational issue. Specifically, decoherence does not attempt to explain the measurement problem. Rather, decoherence provides an explanation for the transition of the system to a mixture of states that seem to correspond to those states observers perceive. Moreover, our observation tells us that this mixture looks like a proper quantum ensemble in a measurement situation, as we observe that measurements lead to the "realization" of precisely one state in the "ensemble".

en.wikipedia.org...

There's nothing that says 2 observers have to observe the same components of the wavefunction that leaks into the environment.

Tell me something, how can the state of Schrodinger's cat leak into the environment prior to a measurement occurring?

Secondly, did you even read the paper you linked to or did you do more speed reading to find something to cherry pick?

The link actually supports what I'm saying. First, here's a video to explain to people why you need Quantum Coherence to transport energy efficiently during Photosynthesis.



Now, look at the article you posted. First let's look at the papers it links to.

2013

Electronic resonance with anticorrelated pigment vibrations drives photosynthetic energy transfer outside the adiabatic framework

2013

Engineering Coherence Among Excited States in Synthetic Heterodimer Systems

2014

Two-dimensional spectroscopy of a molecular dimer unveils the effects of vibronic coupling on exciton coherences

This one is very important because it's your main source. It says in the abstract.

We find that although calculations predict a prolongation of this coherence due to vibronic coupling, the combination of dynamic disorder and vibrational relaxation leads to a coherence decay on a timescale comparable to the electronic dephasing time.

www.nature.com...

Calculations predict prolonged coherence due to vibronic coupling. This was in 2014 and he admits that the calculations predict longer vibrational coherence than electronical but he says their the same. Was this refuted by later papers in the LINK YOU POSTED?

This is why I say you cherry pick. You didn't quote the numerous things that disagree with you.

2018

Coherent wavepackets in the Fenna–Matthews–Olson complex are robust to excitonic-structure perturbations caused by mutagenesis

This is from your link!!! Of course you didn't post this because it refutes what you're saying. SO DISHONEST In the abstract it says:

Our experiments detect two oscillation frequencies with dephasing on a picosecond timescale—both at 77 K and at room temperature.

Let me repeat that:

Our experiments detect two oscillation frequencies with dephasing on a picosecond timescale—both at 77 K and at room temperature.

BOTH AT 77 K AND ROOM TEMPERATURE!

www.nature.com...

This is also from the article you just linked:

Yet Scholes concedes that his new results do support the original contention that “the molecules in the FMO protein are coupled in a special way and this may aid energy transport by directing it or making it quicker”. According to Romero, this tuning of molecular vibrations to the right frequencies for transferring energy makes the photosystem what she calls a “quantum-designed light trap”. When you look at photosynthetic reaction centres for a range of organisms, she says, “there is only one design that is conserved, which suggests that nature has found a design able to perform efficient charge separation and has maintained it”. In other words, she says, natural selection seems to have favoured this quantum-optimized process.

Sadly, you cherry pick and probably don't read the papers sourced to find out if it's older or newer research.

a reply to: Arbitrageur

a reply to: blackcrowe
I think you're creating some thread drift here, so this is my last response in this thread on this tangent, though you can make your own thread proposing your ideas, or ask more in the ask any question thread if you want.

Point taken.



Sorry for the drift neoholographic.