[removed]

> (e.g. spiders,), which can continuously molt and never really stop growing.

No thanks.

[removed]

It's just how the wavefunction predicts it. We are unfortunately not able to directly observe the wavefunction, so most statements one is tempted to make about its "true" nature are conjecture.

The quantum bomb experiment is even wonkier and still doesn't prove any "spooky action at a distance".

[removed]

[removed]

The long answer is long, but in short: No.
Google "carbon dioxide capture via air filters" for instance, and you will see that the problem lies in efficiency: You need a huge amount of energy to make a dent into what has been released already, and that energy is likely carbon intensive in the first place.

The scale is insane too: see here how they talk about a hypothetic future plant capturing 1 million ton of CO2 per year. It would still take 32 000 of those hypothetic plants to cancel out the world's CO2 emissions for 2021 (32 billion tons), not accounting for CO2 produced by the construction of those plants and most importantly not accounting for the CO2 produced by the energy needed to capture and store this CO2.
Also, those plants requires chemicals which may be a problem in itself.

It takes about 10Giga joules per ton of CO2 to treat and store the CO2.
So, based on the 32 billion tons of CO2 figure, it would take 320 billion gigajoules to treat all the CO2 emitted by other sources.
That's about ~89 000 terawatt-hours, which is about 3 to 4 times the total consumption of electricity of the entire world in a year.

So... nope.

[removed]

But we're not talking about quantum fields here, right? I also think that's a wee bit too complicated for what he's asking about.

The eye actually evolved four separate occasions (at least). Because at every point in making an eye, you gain an advantage. And that is how the lens also evolves.

IIRC the book "Selfish Gene" goes into this. Great audio book that's worth listening to a few times.

I suppose a really robust windmill could do it but it’s just not really practical compared to more consistent energy sources

You can shield against electric fields by using a faraday Cage. This is above highschool level but the wuick answer is that, using maxwells equations, you find the the electric potential inside such a cage is exactly 0 no matter what charges there may be outside the cage. And since the electric field is the gradient of the potential (again, sorry if that's too advanced for you) it is also 0.

In principle there are ways to use the sun’s energy to create magnetic fields to lift away some material, but there are far easier ways to get helium

The distortion of spacetime in the black hole is such that it’s geometrically possible to move outwards (or even remain still). It would be like trying to go north from the north pole.

Also the thing about not having to reach escape velocity is only sort of true. If you start near a planet and start moving at less than your current escape velocity, you could indeed escape the planet, but escape velocity drops as you get further from the planet, so you would have to cross that escape velocity at some point.

[removed]

Without looking at the specific news, most activity we’ve seen at yellowstone so long as we’ve been monitoring indicate movement of hydrothermal fluids (superheated water mostly), not magma

About ultra-massive block holes like this one or TON 618 which is even bigger, at 66 billion solar masses:
Since there are so, so big and it would take ages to travel to their centers from the event horizon itself , would it be possible to be inside the event horizon in orbit?
For how long, in theory (I imagine that orbit wouldn't be stable)?
Last but not least, would you be able to see the singularity from there?

Considering the extreme temperatures, I'm having a hard time trying to conceive any way of getting even close to the Sun.

If the idea is mining helium from extraterrestrial sources, I'd rather point at the gas giants. You get manageable temperatures and much lower delta-vs (which translates directly into fuel requirements).

But still, this would be an extremely expensive (i.e. unrealistic) mission, not only in terms of money, but also in terms of resources such as materials and fuel. Consider that a round trip to an outer planet does not cost twice as much as sending a probe to stay there, it costs a lot more because fuel requirements grow exponentially with delta-v. This is in addition to the fuel required to lift off from a giant planet.

[removed]

You can entangle as many particles as you want -- however, there is a property of quantum entanglement called the monogamy of entanglement. This could be interpreted as a limit on the extent to which systems of many particles can be inter-entangled.

[removed]

[removed]

Why can’t anything escape from inside a black hole? I hear that it’s because “escape velocity is equal to the speed of light” but an object dosent have to exceed the escape velocity to escape the objects gravitational pull. I’m wondering if it’s a physics problem (in that some physical law is stopping us) or an engineering problem (in that it’s just difficult to imagine a system that could output enough energy to counteract the pull).

Does quantum entanglement and the apparent lack of time passing between cause and effect indicate the existence of something smaller than quarks (that facilitates a faster than quark speed of reaction)? If not how do theorists explain it?

True, perhaps finite is a better word.