swansont

I like how they say “the magnetic moment, often measured in Bohr magnetons or nuclear magnetons” and then proceed to not do that, LOL

! Moderator Note You have asked this multiple times. One thread per topic, please.

Or show where the formula indicates a signal between the particles.

Once you postulate violating physical law, you can’t draw any valid conclusions about what happens. You’ve decided physics doesn’t apply.

It can be a regular toss but with no information about the mechanics of the flip itself. You don’t know how high or anything about the rotation.

Yes, and I questioned the relevance of the example. Perhaps you could actually answer the questions put to you. Or perhaps the reason you don’t is that you can’t. You should provide a citation when you post a quote And I asked for QM, not an article about QM (which, as Eise points out, says that there is no signal) The QM says that if I have 1/sqrt2 |12> - 1/sqrt2 |21> and I make a measurement, I will get either |12> or |21>. IOW I will know the states of both. There’s nothing about a signal between the particles. It’s simply not part of the theory.

Currently not viable. Whether it is by 2040 is questionable. There’s still quite a ways to go before energy generation can occur. We have a couple of recent threads on the topic.

If they are co-located, everyone agrees that the events are simultaneous. This is a poor example to use, since the issue at hand involves measurements that are not co-located. Firecrackers that go off simultaneously according to an observer in one frame will not be seen as going off simultaneously in other frames if the firecrackers are separated. If they are separated, “both firecrackers go off [at] the same time” is not a blanket statement you can make. It is always frame-dependent.

Success is subjective, though some try to make it objective. The question is insufficiently defined. As iNow had described.

If you aren’t ignoring it, please show me where QM requires the signal you insist is present. Not your personal unsupported opinion, mind you. You really have no clue about relativity and simultaneity, too.

! Moderator Note No, in YOUR OWN thread about entanglement. Responses to speculations need to be mainstream science, not other speculation.

! Moderator Note Such speculation should go in its own thread

The kinetic energy of the inner state electrons is a reasonable fraction of the mass energy. p^2/2m is no longer a reasonable approximation. The energy level (where KE = 1/2 |PE|) depends on Z^2

As I said, it's a relativistic correction to the energy levels. That's it. There's no Bohr-atom extrapolation to the speed (which is an overused crutch, common in undergrad explanations), or relativistic mass invocation.

You keep explaining these details as if the people in the thread are not aware of them. The part you keep ignoring is that this "suggestion" does not come from QM, but from notions being applied from other parts of physics. Much like the conventional wisdom that all waves require a medium, and thus an aether must exist. But that idea was abandoned because the data did not support it, and we had a theory that did not require it. QM has other examples of phenomena that exist that do not require an explicit interaction. The Pauli exclusion principle, for example, which e.g. leads to degeneracy pressure. That fermions can't occupy the same quantum state and bosons can doesn't arise from some interaction, but the allowable behavior for identical particles and the details of their wave function (symmetric vs antisymmetric). And yet this allows atoms to exist and prevents them from collapsing under gravitational pressure, up to a point. But there is no interaction in play.

Tiny umbrella

! Moderator Note The rules require that anything being discussed must be posted. Attachments can be used for supporting material only

And we’ve come full circle again. Same claim, no physics to back it up.

Do they have one? Can you cite any evidence? Most treatments of this that I’ve seen are careful to note that this is a relativistic correction to the energy level, and make no claim regarding either the speed or mass.

Blended scotch instead of single-malt

This is a view of the situation, but isn’t actually part of the QM. As has been pointed out, this is a classical interpretation, and it isn’t classical physics. Only if you insist that a signal is sent. But you insist that it works a particular way, and there’s no substance to that argument.

“Peace be upon him”

! Moderator Note This is a discussion site, not your blog. Soapboxing is not permitted. What do you wish to discuss?

Yes, I can, but as you quoted from the Nobel description, “in quantum mechanics, there does not seem to be any need for a signal to connect the different parts of an extended system.” Your position is the opposite of that. What this signal of yours is, only you can say. But you don’t.

They are conjugate variables. Each is a fourier transform of the other. In QM it means the operators don’t commute, i.e. the order matters.