Spooky Cheese action at a Distance

[Graybeard]

Hmmmm .... what I mean is, that spin is always clockwise/counterclockwise.

If you could 'see' a particle from the side, you could say its spin is left to right or right to left. This is just an analogy, not literal. Its as tho your detection of the particle causes it to de-cohere, but always with its axis towards you.

Is that a bit clearer ?

cool bananas ... greg

[Dihydrogen Monoxide]

Hmmmm .... what I mean is, that spin is always clockwise/counterclockwise.

If you could 'see' a particle from the side, you could say its spin is left to right or right to left. This is just an analogy, not literal. Its as tho your detection of the particle causes it to de-cohere, but always with its axis towards you.

Is that a bit clearer ?

cool bananas ... greg

Suppose that instead of spin, it's a revolution around a center. And that the revolution we measure is in fact an ellipse and even a line depending on the angle. We have no experiments testing this because the period of revolution remains the same, therefore we take the axis to always be pointing at us.

Also, I've been wondering whether spin/revolution isn't a relative measurement rather than an absolute one.

[Graybeard]

Suppose that instead of spin, it's a revolution around a center. And that the revolution we measure is in fact an ellipse and even a line depending on the angle. We have no experiments testing this because the period of revolution remains the same, therefore we take the axis to always be pointing at us.

Also, I've been wondering whether spin/revolution isn't a relative measurement rather than an absolute one.

I don't have an answer to this. Spin is not an easily definable term. If you like to say that both a particle's location and direction of travel cannot be known with certainty, then Bell's contribution was that its spin is subject to the same uncertainty as well.

cool bananas ... greg

[Dihydrogen Monoxide]

I don't have an answer to this. Spin is not an easily definable term. If you like to say that both a particle's location and direction of travel cannot be known with certainty, then Bell's contribution was that its spin is subject to the same uncertainty as well.

cool bananas ... greg

Well the notion of 1/2 spin makes sense if you consider it to mean that the particle in question spins 2x as fast as its binding partner (electron to proton). It takes to revolutions of the electron for both the electron and proton to be in their original configuration.

E e E e E
P * p * P

Alternatively, it could + 1/2 or 1/2 the rate.

[Graybeard]

Well the notion of 1/2 spin makes sense if you consider it to mean that the particle in question spins 2x as fast as its binding partner (electron to proton). It takes to revolutions of the electron for both the electron and proton to be in their original configuration.

E e E e E
P * p * P

Alternatively, it could + 1/2 or 1/2 the rate.

DM ..... you've lost me a bit. Are we still talking about singlet pair particles ?

I don't think its that important how you visualise spin. I think the thing to keep at the forefront is that if ............

......The final properties are applied at the time of the split not before.......

.... then the Math shows (and its really easy) that you must have 55% or greater corellation of the results over all angles of detection. You can't have less!!

Whereas .... If the final properties are not determined until detected, then you should get a 50% correllation, give or take a flyshit. (once again this is really easy math and if you want I can send it PM, whatever)

Ultimately, what it says is that if the correllation is less than 55% then the singlet pair had no predetermined properties. Every test shows the results at 50%


cool bananas ... greg

[Graybeard]

Well the notion of 1/2 spin makes sense if you consider it to mean that the particle in question spins 2x as fast as its binding partner (electron to proton). It takes to revolutions of the electron for both the electron and proton to be in their original configuration.

E e E e E
P * p * P

Alternatively, it could + 1/2 or 1/2 the rate.

I think I see what your saying .... is the bold to a typo for two (2) ?

[Dihydrogen Monoxide]

DM ..... you've lost me a bit. Are we still talking about singlet pair particles ?

Nah that's just my visualization. The usual explanation of spin stops at the gotta-turn-it-twice to get it back in place conundrum. Yeah, and maybe Ptolemy was right. /sarcasm.

I believe that since it requires a non-sensical rotation, the best explanation is that you are measuring a relative property not an intrinsic one. Of course this means the particles have an orientation but as qm even suggests: No spin until measured. Perhaps this is what makes spin a conjugate property. It doesn't exist without a reference (namely the spin of the mechanism that is measuring).

Suppose a proton spins at a rate of 1 hz. Let's say the electron spins at 1.5 hz. Suppose however the second electron in that orbital spins at .5hz. It takes two spins of the proton for it to be in the same configuration with first electron. Similarly it takes exactly two spins of the second electron for it to be in the same configuration with the proton. The result is that relative to the proton one electron is +.5hz or ahead of the proton while the other electron is -.5hz or lagging behind the proton. That's our spin left and spin right.

I don't think its that important how you visualise spin. I think the thing to keep at the forefront is that if ............

.... then the Math shows (and its really easy) that you must have 55% or greater corellation of the results over all angles of detection. You can't have less!!

Whereas .... If the final properties are not determined until detected, then you should get a 50% correllation, give or take a flyshit. (once again this is really easy math and if you want I can send it PM, whatever)

I know it's a square thingie. I would love to know where spin came from.

Ultimately, what it says is that if the correllation is less than 55% then the singlet pair had no predetermined properties. Every test shows the results at 50%

cool bananas ... greg

[Graybeard]

Suppose a proton spins at a rate of 1 hz. Let's say the electron spins at 1.5 hz. Suppose however the second electron in that orbital spins at .5hz. It takes two spins of the proton for it to be in the same configuration with first electron. Similarly it takes exactly two spins of the second electron for it to be in the same configuration with the proton. The result is that relative to the proton one electron is +.5hz or ahead of the proton while the other electron is -.5hz or lagging behind the proton. That's our spin left and spin right.

Yes ... I get this ... its a good visualisation.

I don't really rely on visualisations too much. They just confuse me. I try to understand the math as much as I can. Once you try to picture it it just becomes mysterious and confusing.

good post

cool bananas ... greg

[dleviwing]

I would love to know where spin came from.

Hi Mr. H2O; (Dihydrogen=H2, Monoxide= O or water for short)
If I remember right, spin came about in regards to the magnetic moment of an accelerated particle. Accelerated electrons in a vacuum for example will orient their magnetic moment perpendicular to the direction of travel and their axis of momentum parallel to the travel. Unlike electrons traveling in a wire, free electrons can flip their magnetic moment to the opposite direction and thus producing electron pairs. This also occurs within quantum fields of atoms. It is sometimes called spin-up and spin-down.

[Dihydrogen Monoxide]

Hi Mr. H2O; (Dihydrogen=H2, Monoxide= O or water for short)
If I remember right, spin came about in regards to the magnetic moment of an accelerated particle. Accelerated electrons in a vacuum for example will orient their magnetic moment perpendicular to the direction of travel and their axis of momentum parallel to the travel. Unlike electrons traveling in a wire, free electrons can flip their magnetic moment to the opposite direction and thus producing electron pairs. This also occurs within quantum fields of atoms. It is sometimes called spin-up and spin-down.

what if it's a chicken and egg thing?

suppose that the spin changes first and then the electron moves in space due to spin?

on the flip side is it possible that spin as measured is a rotation relative to a nearby particle's rotation and not a property of the electron itself?

that is to say that the laws regarding spin do not actually involve measuring the rotation of the electron but instead the relative spin.

this would explain why photons have integer spin, the up spin electron spins 1.5x the rate of the proton while the down spin electron spins at .5x.

1.5 - .5 = 1

what happens when electrons with opposite spins meet?

can anyone point me to the main mathematics of spin