That's one mofo of a planet killer sized asteroid.

Their poor policy and the public's perception of that company. The more people hear about PayPal's poor internal decision making the better off everyone is about avoiding their biggest vulnerabilities.

So probably he turning in his grave with a spin 1/2 :-)

... would feel about the fact that his cat became a household name to illustrate quantum weirdness.

After all he created that thought experiment to mock the Copenhagen Interpretation. He was severely unhappy with the latter, and argued against it in his article on the meaning of wave mechanics.

Fair enough.

... whatever the thing really is, comes across as one of the oddest, math challenged inventors imaginable.

Ever so often not being a native English speaker catches up with me, while "constance" is a nice town, it actually isn't an English word. I guess "constancy" would do, and it'll give the none physicist more of a hint towards the meaning, than the technical word "invariance".

Should have made clearer that I referred to the "instant" in the /. summary.

Sorry, should have made more clear that I referred to the "instant" in the /. summary.

Regard the FLT paths as having as much physical reality as the infinite electron mass before renormalization.

ST is like making sausage, the end result is pretty good, but what goes in it can be rather stomach turning.

Isn't it :-)

Felt the same way when I first came across it, and ever since kept wondering why SR is still taught most of the time following the initial cumbersome path - not that the latter isn't interesting as well, and certainly historically very relevant, yet this approach creates so much more clarity.

Yes, I am aware of that, but the additional principle that you have to introduce is not the constance of c in all inertial reference frames, but the less strict condition that the universe doesn't allow instantaneous transfer (velocities are bounded by an upper limit). Then the fact that c has to be constant in all frames of motion follows from there.

This is essentially another new first principle - and if I have any criticism of the paper than it is that this isn't more explicitly stated.

We already knew that.

Whatever "we" you mean count me out.

According to GR gravity is facilitated via a retarded potential, and of course GR survived so far every conceivable test and has been shown to make correct predictions were Newtonian gravity failed.

So no, gravity does not operate faster than light.

It's a common misconception that QM as a theory of the microcosm is somehow more general and accurate than SR. Yet, the derivation of SR does not even require the constance of light speed (although that's the route that Einstein oribinally followed), but can be derived from very obvious first principles.

And this is a key difference to QM where this still hasn't been accomplished (despite the theory being such a fantastic empirical success story). Of course as far as empirical evidence goes SR also has a spotless record (which is why the CERN faster than light brewhaha was pretty much a forgone conclusion).

.

Special Relativity makes quite clear that if two particles are spacelike separated when measured, that the concept of "instantaneous" is devoid of meaning.

If you have this kind of distance than you will have just one special reference frame where this is true, and infinite more where the events are arbitrarily separated in time. This is already at the core of the EPR paradox.

I.e. that you can have entanglement across time follows trivially from SR and the EPR paradox.

It's just astounding how many times the very same insight can get repackaged and sold as new.