ReinyDays
Gold Member
Not to distract from the current more topical thrust, but
I think bowling balls still easily fit any definition of "particle" aside from them obviously not being "subatomic" which the proponent simply tacks on to prevent being accurately labeled hopelessly "atomistic." Given all is relative, one might consider the balls to be the tiniest parts or fraction of bowling alleys. In any case, moving or not seems to have nothing to do with it. A bowling ball remains such a "particle" regardless. To the contrary, speed them up 'enough and they get "fuzzy" or something'.
Again, I think you're confused. Entanglement has reportedly occurred at virtually any speed, distance, and/or temperature.
I see no connection. Material things obviously slow down and become more dense at lower temperatures. By extension, they become more "conductive" and magnetically cooperative. That's quite sufficient to explain "the Bose-Einstein condensate" in my book. K.I.S.S. / Occam's razor.
Should you be forced into a court-of-law to defend that post? ... or should the person who explain to me what I posted? ...
You and you strawman, you two make a cute couple ...