Spooky Cheese action at a Distance

[Graybeard]

What if it's a chicken and egg thing?

1.. Suppose that the spin changes first and then the electron moves in space due to spin?

2.. 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?

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

4.. What happens when electrons with opposite spins meet?

5.. Can anyone point me to the main mathematics of spin

lololol ........ it was only two or three posts back that you were laying down the law regarding a particle's properties.

• DihydrogenMonoxide
• First of all every particle in the universe is imprinted with the following Emergent properties:
• Conservation of energy
• Conservation of properties which are opposites such as clockwise or counterclockwise spin
• And of course the speed limit c.

Dave is the Scientist, and he can answer your question much better than me.

The answer to question 5 is here. This is the HyperPhysics site and is a good site to bookmark.

The answer to question 4 is that electrons with opposite spin are allowed to occupy the same nuclear 'orbit' ... I think.

Because, as Dave says, we can create singlet pairs .... it then seems obvious that they are 'endowed' with their properties at the moment of creation. This is 'classical' reasoning. Quantum Entanglement shows that this is a false notion. Bell's Theorem supplies the answer to your 'Spooky Cheese' analogy. But it appears that we are moving on from there ... lol

I think the problem with trying to understand Entanglement is that we try to visualise a classic solution to a quantum explanation. This doesn't really work.

These are my opinions only.

cool bananas ... and am enjoying your thread... greg

[Dihydrogen Monoxide]

lololol ........ it was only two or three posts back that you were laying down the law regarding a particle's properties.

• DihydrogenMonoxide
• First of all every particle in the universe is imprinted with the following Emergent properties:
• Conservation of energy
• Conservation of properties which are opposites such as clockwise or counterclockwise spin
• And of course the speed limit c.

conservation is imprinted, i'm not splitting hairs. i should have made it clearer.

i've had this relative spin idea in the back of my mind for a while.

Dave is the Scientist, and he can answer your question much better than me.

The answer to question 5 is here. This is the HyperPhysics site and is a good site to bookmark.

I wish it had Dirac's spinors or whatever it was he was working with

The answer to question 4 is that electrons with opposite spin are allowed to occupy the same nuclear 'orbit' ... I think.

i mean when they "collide". here's a question: is there a minute possibility of a miss? that is to say is it possible that electrons of opposite spins may pass through each other?

Because, as Dave says, we can create singlet pairs .... it then seems obvious that they are 'endowed' with their properties at the moment of creation. This is 'classical' reasoning. Quantum Entanglement shows that this is a false notion. Bell's Theorem supplies the answer to your 'Spooky Cheese' analogy. But it appears that we are moving on from there ... lol

I think the problem with trying to understand Entanglement is that we try to visualise a classic solution to a quantum explanation. This doesn't really work.

QM gives us the constraints of the box. CM tries to tell us what happens in the box. CM has one advantage: It can force you to require multiple indivisible components whereas QM would just say it's the quantum soup smudging the results.

If smudging predicts nothing but pluralist classical mechanics requires additional components, that should be testable.

These are my opinions only.

cool bananas ... and am enjoying your thread... greg

too bad nobody uses the chat room

[Graybeard]

i mean when they "collide". here's a question: is there a minute possibility of a miss? that is to say is it possible that electrons of opposite spins may pass through each other?

Hmmmm...... no phuc**ng idea. Once again, we need Dave to answer this. As there is no difference in charge between them, I guess there would be no interaction.

If smudging predicts nothing but pluralist classical mechanics requires additional components, that should be testable.

I don't know that 'smudging' is the correct term. I think 'smudging' is our explanation or logic that we use to rationalise the results. Until the two theories are unified it probably won't be possible to 'explain' results, only possible to 'obtain' results. ... One admits of no gravity, the other, no nuclear force.

Something is missing, or misinterpreted .... A GUT will provide the explanation. It will allow us to see inside the box. There was a time in the Universe when all leptons were identical, indistinguishable, acted on by a single force (gravity had already separated) ... it may be that the answer lies here. Quarks and leptons may all spring from the one fundamental substance.

cool bananas ... greg

[Dihydrogen Monoxide]

actually it turns out that the effect does exist only it's for electrons and the holes they leave behind.

the odd thing is that they form a spin 1 particle together and can do things bosons do.

this makes spin utterly bizarre

[austintorn@aol.com]

Spin is like two pennies each rolling around the other, or something like that, needing 720 degrees to get back as they started.

Don't ask me any more, for either I remember it from somewhere or I made it up.

[vergon]

Spin is like two pennies each rolling around the other, or something like that, needing 720 degrees to get back as they started.

Don't ask me any more, for either I remember it from somewhere or I made it up.

I think you made it up.

A roulette wheel spins -- where is the other wheel?

Spin is an interesting subject. I wrote a paper called "On the Quantum as a Physical Entity". In it I describe the quantum as a physical entity that has spin -- plain ordinary spin* -- that sets up a vortex force which explains the strong force and gravity. The description is quantitative as well as qualitative.

*The standard equations of angular momentum apply.

Incidentally, this theory replaces the TOE.

[austintorn@aol.com]

Personally, I take spin literally, for I'm not sure what else to do, but then how a 1/2 spin. It remains a mystery. Maybe the electron is some sloshy stuff around the more 'solid' core that can't quite keep up, but that's another made up idea.

[Dihydrogen Monoxide]

Personally, I take spin literally, for I'm not sure what else to do, but then how a 1/2 spin. It remains a mystery. Maybe the electron is some sloshy stuff around the more 'solid' core that can't quite keep up, but that's another made up idea.

That's why I say it's the relative rotation between two rotating systems. Or maybe it's two rotations.

There's orbital spin and intrinsic spin. This is classic Prussian superficial teaching. You can pull the lever but you're not allowed to learn what it's for.

[austintorn@aol.com]

There are two roulette wheels, but if we pull the lever, one of the wheels falls off because the Prussians perhaps don't really know all.

[dleviwing]

Dave is the Scientist, and he can answer your question much better than me.

Thanks for the promotion Greg but I’m still just an engineer that used to design the instruments that performed the tests that gave our scientist data. If the scientist gave me the right information, then the numbers are good. Tell me what you want to measure and I’ll tell you what you need to measure it; sometimes what you may need is a miracle.