It is the eyes, when it's love at first sight.

IT is bad, leave that it!

Happiness has no formula, but acting depressed doesn't help.

It is misery that pehaps is at the root of hatred. Also the mean to express it. So we need happier people around the world, who can spread that around.

Is my life great? I can't say that, but it is better than I thought it would be if I go back in time. That is where the physics of time can be practical. I can help, just don't hate me.

In and out hatred?

Any help out there.

Jewish Scientists were a cause of Nazi activity. It seems like nothing has changed. Jews can not succeed with out hell coming their way.

That is so weird.

The blob thought is how the Bay Area is getting it's shiny hot tub, then turning it into new age teck.

What would he say about the current situation He would not treat this as a revolution. He would treat it as a small bookkeeping dispute that leaves the real problem untouched.Einstein used mathematics as a tool for a complete physical picture. He accepted strange math when it had a clear meaning in experience—non-Euclidean geometry for gravity, four-vectors for spacetime. He disliked symbols that looked fundamental but only encoded a calculation. Imaginary time (ict) was already that kind of trick in his era. A 2026 paper saying “we can write quantum mechanics with real numbers if we change how systems combine” would sound, to him, like another change of clothing.He would likely say two things.First: of course you can hide (i). A complex number is two reals and a rule. If the new theory still needs an operator that squares to minus the identity and still reproduces every quantum probability, then you have not removed the structure. You have renamed it. That matches how he talked about formal elegance that does not change what can be measured.Second: this does not answer EPR. His objection was not “the Schrödinger equation contains −1\sqrt{-1}\sqrt{-1} .” It was that the theory gives only probabilities, treats distant systems as if a measurement here instantly completes a description there, and offers no account of the individual system. A real Hilbert space with the same predictions still has entanglement, still has irreducible chance, still has no local hidden elements of reality of the kind he wanted. He would call the debate a side issue.He might add a third, dryer remark. Schrödinger already wanted a real wave function in 1926 and still ended up with the same quantum theory. Changing the field of the scalars does not make the theory complete. If someone claimed this “settles whether reality is imaginary,” Einstein would say the question is badly posed. Reality, for him, was what a complete theory would describe independently of our formalism—not whether we print (i) on the page.So his verdict, in his own style, would be something like: useful clarification that complex numbers are not a new kind of substance; no progress on whether quantum mechanics is a complete description of nature.