swansont

! Moderator Note Rules require the material for discussion be posted, rather than just linked to (be it a file or url)

If they don’t know, their options are to say so, or lie, which means making something up. If they say it’s drones being flown by Hell’s Angels, then they have to say they’re powerless to stop them, because they can’t go and arrest anyone. And if/when they do find out what’s going on and it’s not Hell’s Angels, they look even more foolish. Sounds like a plan, right? If they don’t say there’s no danger then they have to say there is. I’m sure that wouldn’t cause a panic. “Be afraid” is so very reassuring. News collection is often slow, while dissemination is now fast. The early portion of any story is often filled with conjecture and filler. Think of active shooter stories, or natural disasters, and how much they get wrong in the initial reports. Investigation takes time.

cheeshe has been banned as a sockpuppet of Gan5

In that video I saw a couple of objects with flashing lights (one clearly had red in it) just like you’d expect with a plane. Not flying with lights off, as I saw claimed somewhere (how would you see it at night if it has no lights?) The only weird thing to me was the bluish triangle lights. What was not weird was a bunch of people spouting nonsense, like “Iranian mothership” because some people do like getting on TV, and taking ten minutes to present thirty seconds of information with the rest filler opinion and BS, because that’s the curse of 24/7 cable news programming We don’t know until we do, but nothing presented has ruled out a couple of drones + regular plane traffic + mass hysteria because it’s in the news. Or Aqua Teen Hunger Force has a new viral marketing campaign. I saw a post on social media recently about someone in East Germany before the wall fell. They painted small rocks purple and left them around town on occasion, and it drove the Stasi/police nuts trying to figure out what the meaning was because it HAD to mean SOMETHING because that’s how their minds were wired. Once you’ve decided on a conclusion, if you aren’t careful, everything you see will point toward it.

And neither is quantum physics, apparently (“I'm still at GCSE level maths and physics and quantum theory doesn't seem to come into it at this stage.”) so it appears this isn’t about GCSE exams

Then it’s irresponsible to report a size. It might look small, but a jet flying at 10 km looks small.

Yes. As long as the water is above freezing it will tend to melt the ice, but could itself freeze if the ice and pipe are very cold.

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.