swansont

Yes. Each particle in some collection attracts in proportion to its mass, and the total force is the sum of these individual forces. It’s always attractive, so there is no cancellation

Markus is correct; there is nothing about this inherently tied to photons. You would use different equipment if you were investigating e.g. electron spin effects. You can entangle spin states and manipulate them to get the same results as with photons. People use photons because it’s convenient, not because it’s required. It sounds like you need to establish what this new physics is. If that’s all you’ve done, then you aren’t doing a which-path measurement, because circularly polarized light doesn’t discriminate between the photons the way linearly polarized light will.

Or the effects are too small to notice. People diffract walking through a door, but the reason we don’t notice is not solely decoherence.

The distance variable is part of the Schrödinger equation and solution for e.g. hydrogen; the radial wave function has “r” in it. While position isn’t well-defined owing to the wave nature on this scale, distance still matters.

! Moderator Note This seems to be the opposite of what was presented in the original post. Let’s get back on topic.

Agree. There are “semi-classical” models for some phenomena https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semiclassical_physics One needs to keep in mind that the approach is to use the best model that applies to the problem. e.g. if QM works best, you use QM. If you’re in between, then you use the hybrid approach

Fixed (cut, paste as plain text)

I agree. This is true classically - e.g. thermodynamics. The things that pop to mind are the ways QM differs from classical, even though underlying concepts are similar. If you look at bound states, the energies are quantized. But in macroscopic examples, the energy states can’t be distinguished so it looks like a continuum, which is our classical experience. But you seem to be asking for cases where quantum actually causes the classical behavior.

Can you give an example? There is an argument that QM is more fundamental; classical is what you get in the limit as you move from small scales to large.

How is this identifying which path, and how do are you then obscuring this information?

Spin is kind of an add-on; the spatial wave function is what you get by solving the Schrödinger equation. Those quantum numbers don’t represent the entangled state, so you’re free to do linear combinations. But not so with the spin states.

Where is the spin state in that equation?

Right. That's where the entanglement is. Not the other quantum numbers. If you can do a linear combination, you aren't describing an entangled system. But IIRC this method is describing the non-entangled states, and generally doesn't include spin.

I'm confused. Are you saying your equation is not derived using the Coulomb force equation?

You already have examples of both attitudes and government policy enacted while TFG was in office that you can look at to inform you.

For spin projection; one is up the other down. By identifying the orbital that's involved in the bonding you've already determined the principal and azimuthal quantum numbers (n and l). The magnetic levels (m) would not be determined if l ≠ 0 It's a trivial case, and they became entangled when the atom formed. There is no continued interaction that causes this; the entanglement of the spins arises from the Pauli exclusion principle, not the electromagnetic interaction of the bond.

Entanglement means the particles can’t be described by separate wave functions. There is a wave function that describes the composite system.

Name-calling with an agenda. It's a dog-whistle to others to insult and categorize you, and also, by doing so, the implication is that nobody needs to engage you on the substance of any topic. It is or at least is a close cousin to an ad hominem argument - "you are wrong because you are <belittling description>"

Where did you get your data? No, it didn't. But also, it's not necessarily by personal, individual choice.

Another thing from the military (though not exclusively military, of course) was called "attention to detail"

Perhaps it takes on a different air when you consider that these are likely not one-off events. People are being denigrated on a daily basis, perhaps multiple times a day. I'd imagine I'd get sick of it, too, and here I only have to put up with being called e.g. swansnot on occasion. I typically let it slide. When it keeps happening I have to wonder if it's deliberate, and I say something. If that was my continual existence, though? I imagine it would have a greater impact and wear me down. I can't truly fathom what it would like to be belittled for whatever characteristics of what I look like or how I am. The reality is likely far, far worse than what I can imagine. So maybe characterizing this as petty political correctness is underselling the problem, and perhaps we can recognize that there are issues within this class of problem that are very real and need solving (bullying and harming people because they're different, keeping them from exercising their rights, etc.) so that (as with iNow's examples above) brushing this off is doing a disservice to the effect it has on people.

! Moderator Note It is a yes or no question, which is a problem because of factors that you have highlighted (and others), i.e. it should not be asked in a binary way. The OP might return and clarify this, but until they do, I'm erring on the side of caution, because this isn't my first theological rodeo.

In the US there are lots of things that require cars. It's how the country was built up over the last century, and that can't be undone, and also it's hard to change course. I can easily see why a family of sufficient means might have 3 cars. One might be a minivan or similar, for when you need to bring the kids with you someplace, and the other two might be smaller, more fuel-efficient cars for e.g. commuting. That way, you don't drive the less fuel-efficient vehicle when only one or two people are going somewhere. You can't look at such a situation and validly conclude that having 3 cars means you don't care about the environment. That requires a lot of assumptions that you are making. Without infrastructure to charge the batteries, this won't do much. Utilities in the US generally have to get approval to raise rates. Lower gasoline usage last year did not result in higher prices. https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=46356

! Moderator Note Without a model we can't do much in showing where this idea is wrong.

It's not a classical oscillation, similar to how the orbitals of an atom are not defined orbits and thus do not radiate. The electron is shared but there is no defined trajectory, per quantum mechanics.