swansont

In this case, yes, but you can have quadrupole moments, sextupole and octupole moments (and so on for any multipole, but always an even number) for more complex systems.

It’s a measure of how strong a magnet is.

Yes.

Sometimes they will insist you publish in a different journal (e.g. Physical Review Letters has a length limit; longer articles have to be submitted to the appropriate Physical Review journal, such as Phys Rev A for atomic/molecular/optical physics)

Spin with a charged particle gives them a magnetic moment, so “spin up” and “spin down” (the two possible values of the spin orientation) will have a different energy in a magnetic field, which you have in an atom.

Langley’s in Jersey now? When did that happen? “the reported drones have been up to 6 feet (1.8 meters) in diameter and sometimes travel with their lights switched off. This is much larger than those typically flown by drone hobbyists and she said they appear to avoid detection by traditional methods such as helicopter and radio. Officials and experts say some witnesses may actually be seeing planes or helicopters rather than drones, or perhaps are confused about the size of the devices they’re seeing.” I want to know how they determined the objects were 6 feet or smaller, especially if they are actually planes or helicopters. Or if they meant to say the drones have been reported to be that size.

They weren’t a problem before Trump was elected. Just sayin’

The Archduke has been banned as a sockpuppet of Guille Yacante and Guillermo Yacante Afonso

Evidence, please.

When you strip off the preceding sentence (Light energy is lost and gained in discrete amounts limited by the energy differentials between electron orbits within the atoms), yes, it said that. But in the context of the paragraph, no. You refer to a gas, but the ongoing discussion was not about a gas. Nobody else mentioned a gas, or a bar, or any of that. Again, you are ignoring the context of the discussion. In an excitation involving a single atom, the transitions are discrete. Once you have a solid, you can have interactions involving more than one atom. So it’s not possible that the mention of the discrete energy levels and light energy in one sentence implied the same context applied in the next sentence. Fine. Whatever. Moving on.

The context was EM radiation and isolated atoms, so I don’t think it’s fair to say these were forgotten. They’re simply not the topic of discussion.

They don’t claim that this is entanglement (which is good, because it’s not). They state that it’s a description of a “quantum jump”

You are getting the word out to the audience that can understand and possibly use your work. Work that’s often on the cutting edge. Not really any overlap here with traditional print media. The work is published in specialized journals.

Where’s the entanglement?

The electromagnetic signal you claim is present. One should be able to break entanglement simply by shielding one if the psrticles. You are, in effect, claiming that neutrinos could not be entangled. The Hanbury-Brown-Twiss effect is not due to entanglement. Neither is Einstein’s bubble.

So why isn’t it blocked the way EM signals are blocked? How would neutrinos become entangled, since they don’t interact this way? The one you linked to, by Cramer and Mead

Especially if one always tells the truth and the other always lies

Yes, thanks, that was a typo. Fixed.

That’s the topic of this thread and you’re expected to provide evidence of this. We know of the electromagnetic, gravitational, strong and weak interactions. Which one is responsible? It’s also pretty clear in the paper that the discussion of this interaction is not the discussion of entanglement, which cites the Freedman-Clauser experiment (entangled photons)

Not sure what spacetime has to do with this, but if you have a delta function as an eigenstate for position, you don’t have a delta function for momentum (and vice-versa). There’s no path to superposition via this argument. The position and momentum states will have the width necessary for a one-to-one correlation, because they are fourier transforms of each other, which why there’s a HUP

No qualification necessary to ask questions and learn

Well, this is a discussion forum. If you just want to pontificate, you can start a blog.

Name a system with Dirac delta function position and momentum states. Superposition is a straightforward consequence of the existence of multiple eigenstates and the fact that you can use different bases. There’n no need to invoke the HUP, which certainly doesn’t come into play in many circumstances.

Are there position and momentum eigenstates, which have no uncertainty? I can’t think of any systems like this off the top of my head. (Energy eigenstates, for example, can have an uncertainty, so knowing the lifetime does not put them in a superposition.) In any event, a contrived example will not imply that this is generally true, i.e. a “necessary consequence”

How do you assess whether someone is sufficiently intelligent and/or compassionate in an unbiased way? A reason why utopian systems fail is that they are idealized and never account for human failings.