It's not possible to label a photon, but not all photons are indistinguishable. So can we rephrase the question as, are the photon properties, such as spin, conserved? If the photon that enters is entangled with another, is the photon that emerges also entangled?

It actually might. It is currently thought that they could slow or prevent some types of deterioration, but past studies failed due mainly to failure of the study methodology itself.

It seems intuitively right and I'm curious why it doesn't play out in reality.

here's essentially how it did play out in reality:

Researchers expected the drug to have a specific effect on the brain

Experimental studies were conducted. The hypothetical effect did in fact happen, and the brain did respond to the drug in a way that would delay disease progression.

Clinical studies on non-human primates were conducted, with the intent to see whether or not experimental findings translate to clinical study findings. The studies failed. The method in which the studies were conducted, especially in terms of the way researchers attempted to measure results, was not good and did not use very accurate measures that would reflect the potential impacts of the drug. There are many non-motor functions affected by Parkinson's that cannot be accurately measured in monkeys and apes(and were therefore not studied), like apathy, because they can't talk. These would have been the most important functions to study due to how the disease works.

​

Current understanding is generally accepted as follows:

"Dopamine reuptake inhibition extends the stay of dopamine in the synaptic left. This pharmacologic principle may improve dopamine substitution in patients with Parkinson’s disease (PD). Experimental researchers described promising positive outcomes on the efficacy of inhibition of dopamine-, respectively monoamine reuptake (MRT). The translation of these findings into corresponding clinical study results for the treatment of patients with PD failed in the past. Further clinical development of MRT inhibition was suspended. One of several reasons was the missing clinical research focus on the effects of MRT inhibition on non-motor symptoms, like fatigue or apathy. Mandatory inhibition of glial inhibition of monoamine metabolism is a hypothetical but essential precondition for the efficacy of MRT inhibitors. Aforementioned reflections shall be considered, if the efficacy of the MRT inhibitor is again investigated in patients with PD. Resurgence of clinical research is warranted on the efficacy of MRT inhibition as a promising therapy approach for patients with PD."

[removed]

[removed]

what about hydrothermal vents?

To put that into context, something that was 1mm apart is now 10.57 million light years apart after a 10^26 x expansion.

[removed]

>So then do we know for sure photons actually move and don't just vibrate or something causing the next one in the chain to vibrate or something like that? Kind of how AC current works except with photons?

Does it matter if individual photons move?

All that matters is the end result.

>Nope, and this is actually what leads to some of the weirdnesses of entanglement. Since in terms of information, if you have two particles A and B, that are identical, AB and BA are the same states.

💡That makes a ton of sense. I should have thought of that sooner.

[removed]

[removed]

[removed]

[removed]

First of all, Light doesn’t “slow down” because of absorption and re-emission. This is fairly easy to prove by simply choosing a wavelength of light that isn’t absorbed by that particular medium. It will still slow down or appear to do so. Interestingly you can in fact shoot single photons through a medium and they will do the same thing that millions of them do: change direction and appear to slow down. But what’s actually happening is that the photon is interacting with the electric fields of the atoms in the medium. A photon is still a wave and the wave is altered as it adds and subtracts with the electric fields around it. You can’t label a wave since it’s not a thing. Is the photon that comes out the other end the same photon? Sort of. But not really because light is really more imo a wave with some peculiar particle like properties. And it’s wave like properties are subject to addition and subtraction

There is a region in Venus' atmosphere where the pressure and temperature is roughly equivalent to Earth, which some argue make it "the most hospitable place in the soar system".

Unfortunately the makeup of the atmosphere is very different from earth with huge amounts of CO2 and clouds of sulphuric acid.

You wouldn't need a full space suit to live in a Venusian cloud city, but you would need to use a gas mask and a full bodysuit made of Teflon or something similar to keep those acidic clouds from dissolving your skin and/or lungs.

This guy has written some articles about this, but doesn't really imply humans are able to survive there. He is an legit doctoral researcher, but not in anything relating about space. He just writes random articles for fun and isn't an actual authority figure on space.

A region of the layer of atmosphere 50-60km above the surface of Venus is thought to be the the most similar atmospheric conditions to Earth in our solar system. The atmospheric pressure and temperature of the air in this region is similar to ours, but the composition of gases is not exactly breathable.

So no, this layer would not be sustainable for human life.

Isn't there one theory that basically all photos are 1 photon?

[removed]

False. There is a high altitude layer (somewhere around 50 km above the surface) that is cool enough and at the right pressure, but none of it is breathable. The scifi about a floating city likely comes from the proposals that have been made to build a floating laboratory around this depth... but that still doesn't mean the atmosphere would be breathable (think of the Venusian atmosphere as an ocean, and the lab would be a submarine floating in it).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmosphere_of_Venus

Yah, when you mix methanol and water the solution gets noticeable warmer while acetonitrile and water cools substantially.

[removed]

Yeah but if you built a house that was on stilts that reached the breathable layer then you would be good. You would need to order pizza a lot because you couldnt really leave.

I'm this smart and I don't even gotta try.

Dosage compensation. Autosomes are always at two copies, the X chromosome can be one or two. "Bad" recessive genes on an autosome can be masked to varying degrees by good copies. It makes more sense to have two copies rather than one for the most part for everything with paired chromosomes apparently.

The "dosage" for a XY chromsome carrier and XX chromosome carrier is kept even by an X chromosome inactivation.

There are other ways around this that could have evolved, but this is what we have.

Bacteria often have multiple copies of their genome, which can vary wildly depending on growth state and other things, so they have other compensatory systems.

​

To be nit picky, there is a pseudo-autosomal portion of the Y chromosome, and there are a small amount of genes that aren't inactivated on the "inactive" X.

The other objects themselves move much, much slower than light. So in general, no, we don't see anything weird. There's no way for one object to be in two places over time such that the light from both places reaches us simultaneously, under normal conditions. You'll always see a single image.

There are some exceptions; gravitational lensing can make two images of one object because the light takes two paths, sometimes offset by time. (A supernova we see from one image of a galaxy can appear in another image of it years later.)

Also, the spirals of galaxies that we see nearly edge-on, like Andromeda, are distorted because the light from the far side is delayed by a few hundred thousand years compared to the front. Not exactly smeared, but, that's getting closer to the speeds and scales you'd need to have.

[removed]