swansont

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.

Because 1) they could not trade the tokens for cash and 2) only poor people abuse drugs and alcohol?

How is a|1> + b|2> a consequence of the HUP? You need to provide a link to an actual experiment where this has been demonstrated

Hyperbole There isn’t going to be a dangerous amount of antimatter on the truck, which the article points out. ”the quantities of antimatter carried will be insufficient to make an explosion of any recognisable nature.” The truck is needed because of the bulky nature of the containment vessel, not because there’s a macroscopic amount of antimatter

The subsidies and contracts ensure profitability. The money is made by the appreciation of the stocks in publicly-traded companies, or selling his stake in the profitable companies. The government has to follow the rules. SpaceX has been known to cut certain regulatory corners Not 10x, but likely more. Plus you need to have the expertise in-house. Once you stop building rockets (or anything in tech, really) and people leave, it’s hard to reassemble the expertise.

arctanh, not arctan

We’re discussing posts, i.e. things posted here, not papers. Papers have a lot more citations, but they are generally much longer and narrower in scope and in greater depth. As to the quoted bit, I think the prior knowledge we assume is heavily dependent on the question being asked. If it’s on an introductory topic, very little should be assumed. Advanced topics suggest more prior knowledge can be assumed. And the OP can always clarify.

You admit that the speed of light has been tested numerous times, so to say it hasn’t been tested is either just gross ignorance, stupidity, or a lie. Ignorance again, since the speed of light was measured numerous times before the value was defined. That’s how they decided on the defined value! There’s nuance and some history here that you are ignoring. I’m not sure why you have this fetish for measuring over the distance of a light year. Scientists do measurements, often quite clever in implementation, constrained by what they can actually measure. Restricting science by demanding that they do something that’s not possible is bad faith. Interpretations of QM are meant to provide a framework for understanding QM, i.e. it aids in intuition. But all interpretations use the same theory and arrive at the same result. I can’t go by your say-so, given the misconceptions you’ve presented elsewhere. You need to provide citations/links

You don’t see the contradiction here? You say you can’t get a different value for c, but then point out how people got a different value for c.

You can put phrases into a search engine and see if there are credible sources for them (not just people repeating them, or worse, anything a LLM spits out, but actual sources)