Except you can't tell me what the spin is without polarizers. This is like telling me I have to measure the orientation of a fidget spinner with a fitness club's treadmill set to the brisk pace of an uphill jog.
None of the experiments don't use polarizing lenses to make a determination of results on both sides. This is where the experiments are fundamentally flawed and propose weak evidence.
To simply read about the fundamentals of light polarization is to understand that quantum wave function collapse is much ado about nothing, and it becomes obvious that all this contention is total bullshit, and none of it is magic.
I've noticed this about HN's "substantive comment" policy, regarding always "adding to the conversation" somehow.
By and large, it mostly encourages reproaches, much in the same way that vote ranking often encourages baseless downvotes that the community uses to drive preferred opinions to the top of any thread, and onto the main page.
The result is a very dry humorless community, preserving all the downsides of an echo chamber, but deceptively without all the back slapping, inside jokes, voices of encouragement and memetic kidding around that other echo chambers demonstrate.
You'll see what success on HN looks like, if you look at the karma scores of some of the most active users, whose tone is most reinforced by the incentive system, and then browse their participation artifacts, and reflect on what kind of a person might naturally play into this feedback system.
Is that the kind of person you would have this site transform you into?
Because "troops on the ground" is also an outdated concept, and so are mortars and indirect fire, and tanks, and naval cannons and so on...
There's an old adage: "Wars are not fought in the past."
But really, with nuclear statehood, wars, kind of, aren't fought at all. There's a similar sentiment, that every since nuclear explosions were first realized, war, and technology in general has become a game of filling in the "gradient of destructive power" for everything possible, in between the enormous gulf of differential annihilation that contrasts fissile material and ordinary Victorian era gun powder, and how to deliver it.
Truthfully, though. We do need to continue to explore continued advancements in high performance manned air craft, and the natural place for things like that to happen is within military and law enforcement institutions. They need to be able to respond with a sane ratio of force to smaller actors and upstarts, without being out gunned.
There will always be smugglers, there will always be pirates, there will always be weirdos, even in outer space. There will always be race cars, there will always be speed boats, there will always be thoroughbred race horses, even on the moon.
Countries will spend money on this stuff, and fold it into civilian applications. We'll see better passenger jets, space trucks and lunar excursion modules. We'll be people in the sky, and some people will take that, and do stuff that lands them in jail for it.
The future will not be robots over head, and people in dungeons. Or at least I fucking hope not.
None of the experiments don't use polarizing lenses to make a determination of results on both sides. This is where the experiments are fundamentally flawed and propose weak evidence.
To simply read about the fundamentals of light polarization is to understand that quantum wave function collapse is much ado about nothing, and it becomes obvious that all this contention is total bullshit, and none of it is magic.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polarizer
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polarizing_filter_(photography...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photon_polarization