There are several features that you need to detect supernovae with neutrinos: good direction resolution, large enough mass to detect multiple neutrinos from the supernova and low enough energy sensitivity. Detectors like IceCube have a huge mass (1 km^3 of ice) and good directional accuracy but they cannot detect the low energy neutrinos from a supernova. Other detectors in the list use chemical methods (neutrinos will cause inverse beta decay) but these have the mass and energy sensitivity but give no directional information. This is the first experiment to have the right mix of all the parameters.
What do you mean "indirectly"? We detect them via their direct interaction with matter. This is the same as it is for every other particle that we can detect. The only difference is that neutrinos do it far less often than most others.
Sure - it's a very safe prediction to make if you had his job. There were basically three possible outcomes: the USSR lost, the US lost or there was a nuclear war and we all lost. In two of these outcomes he's probably out of a job or dead regardless of whether he was right or wrong but predicting that the USSR will lose is the one scenario where he gets to keep his job and so the only scenario where he has to worry about being correct. So what would you predict?
Cynicism aside what we would really need to know to see whether he is good at predictions is how many other "yodas" the Pentagon had making predictions and getting it wrong. If you toss enough coins you are likely to find one which comes up heads 10 times in a row.
I'm not a GR guy but I'm reasonably certain he would not live long enough to notice any appreciable time dilation since you can get significant tidal forces with neutron stars. What would probably happen is that he will feel like he is being pulled apart feeling something probably akin to what victims of the medieval rack felt. So I imagine it will seem excruciatingly painful for the astronaut until he dies and that will very likely be a long time before any time dilation effects are observable.
Fact 1: You said "Quantum Entanglement is at the core of all Quantum Physics"
Fact 2: I replied refuting this claim and eventually having to stoop to giving page numbers to a book which I'm certain you have never bothered to check.
Fact 3: Immediately after this you suddenly switched to talking about quantum computers instead of quantum physics and insisting we talk about that.
Sorry but I'm not interested and despite your insistence I certainly don't have to engage in such a debate (indeed the fact that you believe you can insist on it is rather strange). If you can't agree with simple facts then there is no point because the evidence is there in front of you in black and white and if that can't convince you I honestly have no clue what will. Furthermore since the entire point of science is to put evidence above your own belief I see no way to debate a scientific topic with someone who can't do that.
Correct - but if we had a black hole that massive nearby we would know about it because of the gravitational effects. So the only nearby ones (if there are any) must be small.
Assuming you could get to a black hole before dying of old age.....
That was my point - there might be one close enough that you might imagine getting to it within your lifetime because we can't see it. Such a BH would not emit gamma radiation because there is no matter falling into it which is where the gamma emission comes from. Indeed if it was emitting gamma radiation we would see it because of that.
Gamma Radiation would kill you long before a quantum firewall or tidal forces.
The only radiation a BH in the absence of matter emits is Hawking radiation and, while I'm not an astrophysicist and don't have the precise numbers to hand, I believe that is incredibly little and almost certainly enough that it would be easy to shield against although I don't think you would even need to.
Quantum computers by their very nature employ quantum physics so I'm at a loss to see how a discussion on the nature of quantum physics can be considered "off-topic". I'm sorry but, other than curiosity to see how far Slashdot can nest comments, I really don't see that there is much point in continuing this.
Any sensible discussion requires two rational people. However it appears that having conceded the claim on quantum physics you are now determined to believe that we were having a conversation about something else entirely. Since facts and reality don't seem to be an obstacle for your belief there is not much to discuss because you are clearly capable of inventing and living in your own version of reality. At this point there is not much I can do because any facts I point out contrary to your imagined series of events are just ignored or denied. All I can suggest is that you seek some professional help.
That's the nearest one that we can see. However we only detect them by seeing emissions from the matter which falls into them. There could easily be one nearer that is nowhere near any matter. The only way we would then be able to detect it is by its gravitational influence on the solar system.
However, regardless of this, if you actually made it to a Black Hole the tidal forces would rip you apart well before you close enough to worry about massive time dilation effects. The closer you get to the black hole the stronger the field which means that, assuming you went in head first, the gravitational pull on your head would be a lot greater than the pull on your feet...you can imagine what the result will be when this force difference becomes large enough.
Was the claim I quoted and showed was wrong "Quantum Entanglement is at the core of all Quantum Physics"? Are you capable of conceiving that someone can respond to a claim in a post which is related to the topic being discussed?
no you didn't...you responded to selected sections
So in one sentence you say that I did not respond to a specific claim and then in the next sentence you say that I did since the selection I responded to contained a specific claim? I'm not trying to avoid a debate there simply isn't one going on because I can neither agree nor disagree with you since your statements are not logically consistent. Worse, having finally resolved what we were talking about you somehow can't accept that and are now inventing something else. At the risk of repeating myself this is not normal, rational behaviour.
Probably true - the key difference here is that the US is spying on their friends and, worse, spying not just on those in power but on the mass citizenry of those friendly states. I'm far less convinced that this is normal since it's hard to be friends if it is very clear that there is no trust and so by spying you put in extreme jeopardy your friendship. The US may be powerful but part of that power comes from, and in return is shared with, its allies. It's clear now that the US does not really quite trust us as allies and that will undoubtedly have consequences.
I responded to a specific claim in your post which I quoted and you replied in kind to that. Only in the last few posts have you suddenly decided that we were discussing something else. This is not normal, rational behaviour.
1. we did have a direct clash on ideas, 2. you knew you were wrong and tried to use rhetoric to "win", 3. I forced you to actually engage the topic, and 4. have proven you wrong
Wow - just wow. This whole discussion was your claim that "Quantum Entanglement is at the core of all Quantum Physics" which is just plain wrong. You've tried to claim that this was just semantics, then claimed that your references supported this (when they did not), then demanded detailed references and finally when everything failed as a last act of desperation you are now trying to claim that the discussion was about something else.
you are wrong...true non-local, quantum teleportation exists...as you admit
Errr...what? I say true non-local, quantum teleportation exists and then you say I am wrong because true non-local, quantum teleportation exists. Do you see the logic problem there?
Look I realize you probably can't take this from me but if you really believe what you wrote is right then show this discussion to a friend you trust and ask them whether you should seek professional mental help because you appear to have a tenuous grip on reality and are making illogical and irrational arguments.
...because I thought you were intelligent enough to (a) read and understand your own references and (b) follow simple arguments and do a little looking up on your own without having to be told precise page numbers in specific books. My mistake, I know better now.
I don't want to hear any shit about 'at the core' vs 'fundamental' b/c that shit...
That is what we were talking about. It's what I commented on and what you replied to!
non-local, quantum teleportation-style, fully 'entangled' particles can theoretically exist
They actually exist - check the journals but I seem to remember reading relatively recently that it has been experimentally confirmed.
They are not bitching about spying. They are bitching about America has too much power to do spying.
Personally what I finding hard to deal with is the amazing level of hypocrisy. The US tries to project a picture that it is a beacon of democracy, high moral values and an all round "good-guy"...and then spends its time going around behind all its friends and allies backs spying on them. It is probably correct to assume that other countries do this too and there may even be good arguments for it in some cases (although I have trouble understanding the motivation for bugging European leaders' phones) but nobody else tries to claim that their country is some amazing paragon of virtue that everyone else should follow.
So while I might agree that if I'm going to be spied on I'd rather it be by the US than by others the rest of the world would really appreciate it if you could lay off the hypocritical good-guy act. The US may come off looking very good compared to some of the more troubled nations on this planet but compared to some of the better ones they are beginning to look rather dodgy.
why did you refer me to a source that doesn't support your claim?
It does but you have to read through and understand a quantum phenomenon in order to know that you can explain it without any reference to entanglement. Here's a fun fact, I checked and I do actually have the second edition (although certainly an earlier reprinting) and if you go to page 421 it describes the EPR paradox as a theoretical exercise which attempted to prove the realist position. Happy? Of course if you had actually read Einstein's paper directly (the one you keep indirectly citing) you would have learnt that as well but hey why would you want to read your own references?;-)
There is more information on p 427 to support my claim that the EPR paradox is a feature of the fundamental nature of QM where, when discussing Bell's inequality, the author states that the EPR paradox is a result of the nonlocal nature of QM. So there you go in back and white - the EPR paradox is a result of the nature of QM applied to a particular situation. Really this is just a phase velocity effect though like the transmission of a wave in a waveguide where the phase velocity can become anything up to infinite.
By the way if you are interested the hydrogen atom description starts on page 131 (Solving the Schrodinger equation in 3D) so now you don't even have to read the table of contents to find the page. Good luck!
just make sure to note the **page number** of course...and I still need you to **identify where your and my ideas of the EPR Paradox diverge...**
Explained above. Since there is no need to use entanglement to explain phenomena like electron orbitals (which is my point) there is no page number where it says "we do not use entanglement here because it is a feature of QM" just like they don't say "we do not use the infinite square well potential here". There are lots of things they don't use and it would be a VERY long chapter if they stated each and every one. So you have to read through and understand the chapter to see that there are phenomena which QM can explain without any hint of entanglement.
the wiki i linked to used Einstein as a source for the claim quoted.
Umm...try reading that link again because that is completely wrong. The claim that it is a feature of QM came from the wiki page and has all the authority of the random internet person who wrote it. The paper which is cited on that page was written by Einstein as a way to convince people that QM was wrong. Einstein himself never believed in QM and applied the laws of QM to the entangled two photon system to try and show that this was a crazy feature of QM and so QM had to be wrong. It was later experimentally proven to actually be the case.
just make sure to note the **page number** of course
Why? Are you incapable of using the contents in the front of a book and finding the page on the derivation of the hydrogen atom orbitals? As I indicated there is no single page number where the claim is made because it is a negative claim. You are the one making the positive claim and, in science, that means you have to provide the evidence. All I can do is point you to a QM textbook and tell you to read it because it will then become very clear that entanglement is just one feature that comes from the fundamental nature of QM.
If it is a help here is a link to the book in question. The copy I have is an older version so my page number of the hydrogen orbital chapter would not help you in any case - you would still have to look it up in the contents at the front. If that's too much effort then you might as well give up because looking up the page number of the chapter is nothing compared to the effort that will be required to read and understand the chapter.
Sorry - I did not realize that you did not possess any QM text book. If you are going to comment on QM you really ought to get one and read it - you might learn something. If the problem is that I dared to suggest a textbook as a reference instead of Wikipedia then you really ought to think things through a little deeper. I can easily write, or edit, a Wikipedia article to support my point of view, post a link to it. If you really want me to go to that trouble I suppose I could but honestly a text book is a far better reference source.
No, you offered one link to Wikipedia where there was a comment mentioning that the EPR paradox is a feature of QM. You then completely misinterpret that and come to the conclusion that it is at the core of QM which means that it is related to the explanation of al quantum phenomena. Worse you seem to think that Wikipedia is a better reference source than arXiv. This would be laughable if it were not so sad.
As for me providing evidence you are the one making the claim so the onus is on you to prove what you are claiming. In addition it is very hard to prove a negative, especially one that everyone (well apart from you) thinks is wrong. You will note that there are no papers claiming that there are no flying giraffes but I hope that does not lead you to believe that they exist!
However I can try so If you want a reference then just pick up practically any QM textbook (I'd recommend Griffiths) and read the chapter on the hydrogen atom orbital derivation. This will require understanding basic differential equations but this is needed to understand QM so if you can't do this that alone should tell you that you don't know what you are talking about. Now point to the part related to entanglement and get back to me.
No the problem is that you believe that you are correct and nothing and nobody will persuade you that you are wrong. In your previous post you literally said so. You keep coming back to the same argument again and again which basically boils down to "I am right and you are wrong". Anyone who is older than 5 and not mentally unbalanced should not need to be told that this is massively unconvincing because, whether you can conceive of it or not, there is always the chance that you might be wrong.
I have repeatedly explained that the EPR paradox is a result of the fundamental nature of QM being applied to a particular situation and not a core principle of QM. You have offered not one jot of evidence against this - indeed the one wikipedia comment on a reference that you keep pointing to literally says it is a feature and not a core principle which supports my view. Indeed far from addressing my correction to your original post you have switched between arguing it was just a point of language rather then scientific understanding, that I had to be wrong because you were right and ad hominem attacks.
Far from "demonstrating a grasp of the concepts" you have repeatedly shown that you do not really understand them and that you are incapable of making any sort of rational, scientific conversation. Any sensible discussion starts from the premise that there is a chance that you may be wrong and if you believe that there is zero possibility of this then, not only are you delusional, but nobody will learn much from the conversation. Rather than angry at you I was more curious to see whether there was any way to reach you and perhaps, if not educate you, then at least make you see that there is the slightest possibility you might be wrong. I've met people like you and always had trouble getting them to accept basic scientific concepts which contradict their beliefs so I like to take the practice when I can get it.
Such thinking requires you to think logically and predict the outcome of your actions. These are probably not traits you want in the person with their finger on the button because they are also likely to reason:
1) If I press this button millions of people will die.
2) This will probably include myself and my family.
3) Ergo, never push the button.
It's not often I get to see such a well reasoned, evidence based scientific argument. Might I suggest you publish this in a journal? The scientific world clearly needs to see the article "You are perturbed I am ****right****" by G. Justin (I hope you don't mind the addition of asterisks but I think that really adds a little more credibility and you do use them to such good effect almost everywhere else).
the EPR Paradox was a criticism of a **factual inaccuracy** which was proven right via the sources cited...
I also apologize for clearly completely misunderstanding the EPR paradox. I, like the rest of the scientific community, understood it to be a gedanken experiment (that was what Einstein called a thought experiment) which is understandable since Einstein was renowned as a theorist. I had no idea that he did experiment too and had actually proven a factual inaccuracy, apologies I mean a "**factual inaccuracy**" (wow those asterisks really make a difference!). This is a major revelation and you clearly need to write up the details in another paper. In keeping with Einstein's german naming might I suggest "Ich bin ein Dummkopf" by G. Justin would be an excellent and accurate title for it?
deal with it...i know my shit...
I am sure that studying your own faeces is something that you find really fascinating and clearly pervades your thinking and reasoning. However I'd strongly suggest that you refrain from announcing it in public. This tends to be the sort of thing that crazy people do and I'm sure you would hate for all your erudite and valuable arguments to be dismissed as the ravings of some internet lunatic.
No, if I am being pedantic it is about the science. "Fundamental feature" and "at the core" do not mean exactly the same thing in a physics context. One means a behaviour that occurs under certain circumstances and the other means central to the explanation of the physical laws. For example the electron-positron annihilation a (fundamental) feature of QED but the fermion-photon vertex is at the core of QED. The first is a result of QED that occurs under the right circumstances the latter is something that pretty much any QED calculation will require.
Since we are using a written language to describe precise scientific concepts you have to be careful. Brushing this off as some minor language disagreement results in sloppy, inaccurate and incorrect scientific understanding. You may be quite happy with that but if you are going to start posting to a scientifically literate audience expect to get corrected and educated. There is a big difference between saying that entanglement is just one phenomenon that results from the laws of quantum mechanics under certain circumstances and saying that it is "at the core" of QM.
Finally I should point out that if I were to be pedantic I would point out that the paper you cite does not actually support your point at all. In fact Einstein was an opponent of QM and the EPR paradox paper was designed to poke a hole in it and that actually you should be citing the experimental paper that verified it and not some random comment from Wikipedia that was written by some random internet person and is hardly a reliable source.
Slashdot Mirror
There are several features that you need to detect supernovae with neutrinos: good direction resolution, large enough mass to detect multiple neutrinos from the supernova and low enough energy sensitivity. Detectors like IceCube have a huge mass (1 km^3 of ice) and good directional accuracy but they cannot detect the low energy neutrinos from a supernova. Other detectors in the list use chemical methods (neutrinos will cause inverse beta decay) but these have the mass and energy sensitivity but give no directional information. This is the first experiment to have the right mix of all the parameters.
What do you mean "indirectly"? We detect them via their direct interaction with matter. This is the same as it is for every other particle that we can detect. The only difference is that neutrinos do it far less often than most others.
Back in the 70s?
Sure - it's a very safe prediction to make if you had his job. There were basically three possible outcomes: the USSR lost, the US lost or there was a nuclear war and we all lost. In two of these outcomes he's probably out of a job or dead regardless of whether he was right or wrong but predicting that the USSR will lose is the one scenario where he gets to keep his job and so the only scenario where he has to worry about being correct. So what would you predict?
Cynicism aside what we would really need to know to see whether he is good at predictions is how many other "yodas" the Pentagon had making predictions and getting it wrong. If you toss enough coins you are likely to find one which comes up heads 10 times in a row.
I'm not a GR guy but I'm reasonably certain he would not live long enough to notice any appreciable time dilation since you can get significant tidal forces with neutron stars. What would probably happen is that he will feel like he is being pulled apart feeling something probably akin to what victims of the medieval rack felt. So I imagine it will seem excruciatingly painful for the astronaut until he dies and that will very likely be a long time before any time dilation effects are observable.
Fact 1: You said "Quantum Entanglement is at the core of all Quantum Physics"
Fact 2: I replied refuting this claim and eventually having to stoop to giving page numbers to a book which I'm certain you have never bothered to check.
Fact 3: Immediately after this you suddenly switched to talking about quantum computers instead of quantum physics and insisting we talk about that.
Sorry but I'm not interested and despite your insistence I certainly don't have to engage in such a debate (indeed the fact that you believe you can insist on it is rather strange). If you can't agree with simple facts then there is no point because the evidence is there in front of you in black and white and if that can't convince you I honestly have no clue what will. Furthermore since the entire point of science is to put evidence above your own belief I see no way to debate a scientific topic with someone who can't do that.
Correct - but if we had a black hole that massive nearby we would know about it because of the gravitational effects. So the only nearby ones (if there are any) must be small.
Assuming you could get to a black hole before dying of old age.....
That was my point - there might be one close enough that you might imagine getting to it within your lifetime because we can't see it. Such a BH would not emit gamma radiation because there is no matter falling into it which is where the gamma emission comes from. Indeed if it was emitting gamma radiation we would see it because of that.
Gamma Radiation would kill you long before a quantum firewall or tidal forces.
The only radiation a BH in the absence of matter emits is Hawking radiation and, while I'm not an astrophysicist and don't have the precise numbers to hand, I believe that is incredibly little and almost certainly enough that it would be easy to shield against although I don't think you would even need to.
Quantum computers by their very nature employ quantum physics so I'm at a loss to see how a discussion on the nature of quantum physics can be considered "off-topic". I'm sorry but, other than curiosity to see how far Slashdot can nest comments, I really don't see that there is much point in continuing this.
Any sensible discussion requires two rational people. However it appears that having conceded the claim on quantum physics you are now determined to believe that we were having a conversation about something else entirely. Since facts and reality don't seem to be an obstacle for your belief there is not much to discuss because you are clearly capable of inventing and living in your own version of reality. At this point there is not much I can do because any facts I point out contrary to your imagined series of events are just ignored or denied. All I can suggest is that you seek some professional help.
The nearest black hole is 1600 light-years away
That's the nearest one that we can see. However we only detect them by seeing emissions from the matter which falls into them. There could easily be one nearer that is nowhere near any matter. The only way we would then be able to detect it is by its gravitational influence on the solar system.
However, regardless of this, if you actually made it to a Black Hole the tidal forces would rip you apart well before you close enough to worry about massive time dilation effects. The closer you get to the black hole the stronger the field which means that, assuming you went in head first, the gravitational pull on your head would be a lot greater than the pull on your feet...you can imagine what the result will be when this force difference becomes large enough.
Was the claim I quoted and showed was wrong "Quantum Entanglement is at the core of all Quantum Physics"? Are you capable of conceiving that someone can respond to a claim in a post which is related to the topic being discussed?
I responded to a specific claim
no you didn't...you responded to selected sections
So in one sentence you say that I did not respond to a specific claim and then in the next sentence you say that I did since the selection I responded to contained a specific claim? I'm not trying to avoid a debate there simply isn't one going on because I can neither agree nor disagree with you since your statements are not logically consistent. Worse, having finally resolved what we were talking about you somehow can't accept that and are now inventing something else. At the risk of repeating myself this is not normal, rational behaviour.
Everyone spies and everyone will continue to spy.
Probably true - the key difference here is that the US is spying on their friends and, worse, spying not just on those in power but on the mass citizenry of those friendly states. I'm far less convinced that this is normal since it's hard to be friends if it is very clear that there is no trust and so by spying you put in extreme jeopardy your friendship. The US may be powerful but part of that power comes from, and in return is shared with, its allies. It's clear now that the US does not really quite trust us as allies and that will undoubtedly have consequences.
I responded to a specific claim in your post which I quoted and you replied in kind to that. Only in the last few posts have you suddenly decided that we were discussing something else. This is not normal, rational behaviour.
1. we did have a direct clash on ideas, 2. you knew you were wrong and tried to use rhetoric to "win", 3. I forced you to actually engage the topic, and 4. have proven you wrong
Wow - just wow. This whole discussion was your claim that "Quantum Entanglement is at the core of all Quantum Physics" which is just plain wrong. You've tried to claim that this was just semantics, then claimed that your references supported this (when they did not), then demanded detailed references and finally when everything failed as a last act of desperation you are now trying to claim that the discussion was about something else.
you are wrong...true non-local, quantum teleportation exists...as you admit
Errr...what? I say true non-local, quantum teleportation exists and then you say I am wrong because true non-local, quantum teleportation exists. Do you see the logic problem there?
Look I realize you probably can't take this from me but if you really believe what you wrote is right then show this discussion to a friend you trust and ask them whether you should seek professional mental help because you appear to have a tenuous grip on reality and are making illogical and irrational arguments.
why didn't you respond this way before?
I don't want to hear any shit about 'at the core' vs 'fundamental' b/c that shit...
That is what we were talking about. It's what I commented on and what you replied to!
non-local, quantum teleportation-style, fully 'entangled' particles can theoretically exist
They actually exist - check the journals but I seem to remember reading relatively recently that it has been experimentally confirmed.
They are not bitching about spying. They are bitching about America has too much power to do spying.
Personally what I finding hard to deal with is the amazing level of hypocrisy. The US tries to project a picture that it is a beacon of democracy, high moral values and an all round "good-guy"...and then spends its time going around behind all its friends and allies backs spying on them. It is probably correct to assume that other countries do this too and there may even be good arguments for it in some cases (although I have trouble understanding the motivation for bugging European leaders' phones) but nobody else tries to claim that their country is some amazing paragon of virtue that everyone else should follow.
So while I might agree that if I'm going to be spied on I'd rather it be by the US than by others the rest of the world would really appreciate it if you could lay off the hypocritical good-guy act. The US may come off looking very good compared to some of the more troubled nations on this planet but compared to some of the better ones they are beginning to look rather dodgy.
why did you refer me to a source that doesn't support your claim?
It does but you have to read through and understand a quantum phenomenon in order to know that you can explain it without any reference to entanglement. Here's a fun fact, I checked and I do actually have the second edition (although certainly an earlier reprinting) and if you go to page 421 it describes the EPR paradox as a theoretical exercise which attempted to prove the realist position. Happy? Of course if you had actually read Einstein's paper directly (the one you keep indirectly citing) you would have learnt that as well but hey why would you want to read your own references? ;-)
There is more information on p 427 to support my claim that the EPR paradox is a feature of the fundamental nature of QM where, when discussing Bell's inequality, the author states that the EPR paradox is a result of the nonlocal nature of QM. So there you go in back and white - the EPR paradox is a result of the nature of QM applied to a particular situation. Really this is just a phase velocity effect though like the transmission of a wave in a waveguide where the phase velocity can become anything up to infinite.
By the way if you are interested the hydrogen atom description starts on page 131 (Solving the Schrodinger equation in 3D) so now you don't even have to read the table of contents to find the page. Good luck!
just make sure to note the **page number** of course...and I still need you to **identify where your and my ideas of the EPR Paradox diverge...**
Explained above. Since there is no need to use entanglement to explain phenomena like electron orbitals (which is my point) there is no page number where it says "we do not use entanglement here because it is a feature of QM" just like they don't say "we do not use the infinite square well potential here". There are lots of things they don't use and it would be a VERY long chapter if they stated each and every one. So you have to read through and understand the chapter to see that there are phenomena which QM can explain without any hint of entanglement.
the wiki i linked to used Einstein as a source for the claim quoted.
Umm...try reading that link again because that is completely wrong. The claim that it is a feature of QM came from the wiki page and has all the authority of the random internet person who wrote it. The paper which is cited on that page was written by Einstein as a way to convince people that QM was wrong. Einstein himself never believed in QM and applied the laws of QM to the entangled two photon system to try and show that this was a crazy feature of QM and so QM had to be wrong. It was later experimentally proven to actually be the case.
just make sure to note the **page number** of course
Why? Are you incapable of using the contents in the front of a book and finding the page on the derivation of the hydrogen atom orbitals? As I indicated there is no single page number where the claim is made because it is a negative claim. You are the one making the positive claim and, in science, that means you have to provide the evidence. All I can do is point you to a QM textbook and tell you to read it because it will then become very clear that entanglement is just one feature that comes from the fundamental nature of QM.
If it is a help here is a link to the book in question. The copy I have is an older version so my page number of the hydrogen orbital chapter would not help you in any case - you would still have to look it up in the contents at the front. If that's too much effort then you might as well give up because looking up the page number of the chapter is nothing compared to the effort that will be required to read and understand the chapter.
Sorry - I did not realize that you did not possess any QM text book. If you are going to comment on QM you really ought to get one and read it - you might learn something. If the problem is that I dared to suggest a textbook as a reference instead of Wikipedia then you really ought to think things through a little deeper. I can easily write, or edit, a Wikipedia article to support my point of view, post a link to it. If you really want me to go to that trouble I suppose I could but honestly a text book is a far better reference source.
No, you offered one link to Wikipedia where there was a comment mentioning that the EPR paradox is a feature of QM. You then completely misinterpret that and come to the conclusion that it is at the core of QM which means that it is related to the explanation of al quantum phenomena. Worse you seem to think that Wikipedia is a better reference source than arXiv. This would be laughable if it were not so sad.
As for me providing evidence you are the one making the claim so the onus is on you to prove what you are claiming. In addition it is very hard to prove a negative, especially one that everyone (well apart from you) thinks is wrong. You will note that there are no papers claiming that there are no flying giraffes but I hope that does not lead you to believe that they exist!
However I can try so If you want a reference then just pick up practically any QM textbook (I'd recommend Griffiths) and read the chapter on the hydrogen atom orbital derivation. This will require understanding basic differential equations but this is needed to understand QM so if you can't do this that alone should tell you that you don't know what you are talking about. Now point to the part related to entanglement and get back to me.
No the problem is that you believe that you are correct and nothing and nobody will persuade you that you are wrong. In your previous post you literally said so. You keep coming back to the same argument again and again which basically boils down to "I am right and you are wrong". Anyone who is older than 5 and not mentally unbalanced should not need to be told that this is massively unconvincing because, whether you can conceive of it or not, there is always the chance that you might be wrong.
I have repeatedly explained that the EPR paradox is a result of the fundamental nature of QM being applied to a particular situation and not a core principle of QM. You have offered not one jot of evidence against this - indeed the one wikipedia comment on a reference that you keep pointing to literally says it is a feature and not a core principle which supports my view. Indeed far from addressing my correction to your original post you have switched between arguing it was just a point of language rather then scientific understanding, that I had to be wrong because you were right and ad hominem attacks.
Far from "demonstrating a grasp of the concepts" you have repeatedly shown that you do not really understand them and that you are incapable of making any sort of rational, scientific conversation. Any sensible discussion starts from the premise that there is a chance that you may be wrong and if you believe that there is zero possibility of this then, not only are you delusional, but nobody will learn much from the conversation. Rather than angry at you I was more curious to see whether there was any way to reach you and perhaps, if not educate you, then at least make you see that there is the slightest possibility you might be wrong. I've met people like you and always had trouble getting them to accept basic scientific concepts which contradict their beliefs so I like to take the practice when I can get it.
Such thinking requires you to think logically and predict the outcome of your actions. These are probably not traits you want in the person with their finger on the button because they are also likely to reason:
1) If I press this button millions of people will die.
2) This will probably include myself and my family.
3) Ergo, never push the button.
you are simply perturbed i am right
It's not often I get to see such a well reasoned, evidence based scientific argument. Might I suggest you publish this in a journal? The scientific world clearly needs to see the article "You are perturbed I am ****right****" by G. Justin (I hope you don't mind the addition of asterisks but I think that really adds a little more credibility and you do use them to such good effect almost everywhere else).
the EPR Paradox was a criticism of a **factual inaccuracy** which was proven right via the sources cited...
I also apologize for clearly completely misunderstanding the EPR paradox. I, like the rest of the scientific community, understood it to be a gedanken experiment (that was what Einstein called a thought experiment) which is understandable since Einstein was renowned as a theorist. I had no idea that he did experiment too and had actually proven a factual inaccuracy, apologies I mean a "**factual inaccuracy**" (wow those asterisks really make a difference!). This is a major revelation and you clearly need to write up the details in another paper. In keeping with Einstein's german naming might I suggest "Ich bin ein Dummkopf" by G. Justin would be an excellent and accurate title for it?
deal with it...i know my shit...
I am sure that studying your own faeces is something that you find really fascinating and clearly pervades your thinking and reasoning. However I'd strongly suggest that you refrain from announcing it in public. This tends to be the sort of thing that crazy people do and I'm sure you would hate for all your erudite and valuable arguments to be dismissed as the ravings of some internet lunatic.
you are just being pedantic w/ language
No, if I am being pedantic it is about the science. "Fundamental feature" and "at the core" do not mean exactly the same thing in a physics context. One means a behaviour that occurs under certain circumstances and the other means central to the explanation of the physical laws. For example the electron-positron annihilation a (fundamental) feature of QED but the fermion-photon vertex is at the core of QED. The first is a result of QED that occurs under the right circumstances the latter is something that pretty much any QED calculation will require.
Since we are using a written language to describe precise scientific concepts you have to be careful. Brushing this off as some minor language disagreement results in sloppy, inaccurate and incorrect scientific understanding. You may be quite happy with that but if you are going to start posting to a scientifically literate audience expect to get corrected and educated. There is a big difference between saying that entanglement is just one phenomenon that results from the laws of quantum mechanics under certain circumstances and saying that it is "at the core" of QM.
Finally I should point out that if I were to be pedantic I would point out that the paper you cite does not actually support your point at all. In fact Einstein was an opponent of QM and the EPR paradox paper was designed to poke a hole in it and that actually you should be citing the experimental paper that verified it and not some random comment from Wikipedia that was written by some random internet person and is hardly a reliable source.