swansont

Don't forget gerunds (verbs used as nouns), and verbs being used as adjectives

And none of that has to do with the wave-particle nature, which is the source of my comment. The experiment is, as you confirm here, about which-path. Which is an issue for philosophy and not physics. Yes. If you can't know which path, you get interference. I wouldn't say that detectors interfering is an obvious solution, because that makes no sense. Fixed

A squeeze could potentially still have a striking mechanism internal to the workings, but the bottom line is generating a voltage from pressure, so it could be you are able to generate that with a squeeze. Perhaps the piezo geometry is somewhat different - several of them stacked, and/or a different material that generates a higher voltage, but is brittle and you don't want the physical shock to it.

Much like GR encompasses Newtonian gravity. Quantum gravity might take us back a tiny slice of time earlier in describing the hot dense state. But probably without addressing the origin.

! Moderator Note None of this recent discussion seems relevant to the topic of the OP; I suggest if you have continued thoughts along these lines you start a new thread. Seeing as the thread starter has been banned and the dubious nature of the OP, I am closing this.

The characterization that "the wave becomes a particle" lacks the nuance of the physics; it's a shorthand that tries to keep us grounded in classical physics (and there are multiple examples of this lazy description), but QM is not classical physics. Waves don't become particles nor do particles become waves. Quantum objects have characteristics of both, and we observe those characteristics depending on what kind of observation we do. Particle characteristics include being detected (interacting) in a localized region (and also possibly in time) so if you are detecting photons in a double slit experiment you have evidence of light behaving as a particle. A visible-light photon is of order half a micron in wavelength and an atom is much, much smaller than this (e.g. Si lattice constant is about half a nanometer) meaning the absorption of that photon by a single atom is a localization inconsistent with its wave nature. The point of a which-path experiment is not to confirm the wave/particle nature of light; that's already done. So the observation that we see a diffraction pattern isn't a revelation here. The salient detail is whether or not you observe an interference pattern, indicating you have which-path information.

Again, it would be so much easier to discuss specific examples.

This lies outside of the scope of the theory.

Since iNow made no such claim, this is pointless.

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.