## Talk about correlation of entangled particles! Boy...

How does science work? And what's all this about quantum mechanics?

Moderators: AMod, iMod

-1-
Posts: 2887
Joined: Thu Sep 07, 2017 1:08 am

### Talk about correlation of entangled particles! Boy...

To my understaning, if an electron is entangled (in the quantum mechanism sense) with another one, then if one changes the direction of spin, the other one changes it immediately as well.

In fact, there is left-to-right and right-to-left spins. That is, some electrons are spinning one way, and some electrons are spinning the other way, and that is that. Entanglement occurs between two electrons that spin in opposite ways, and the opposite ways are not in random planes or around randomly angled axes, but around either one way or another way around a bipolar axis, all of which axes are "angled" the same way.

This is my understanding. Is this right? Or wrong?

And is there a way for an electron to be entangled with more than one other electron? I mean, is there a historical path of electrons, which entangle with each other, never to get disentangled, despite both of them gaining new tango partners?

These are the two question areas for which I need to get an intelligent answer. This is not a trap. I genuinely seek information.

Philosophy Explorer
Posts: 5621
Joined: Sun Aug 31, 2014 7:39 am

### Re: Talk about correlation of entangled particles! Boy...

-1- wrote:
Fri Apr 06, 2018 7:56 pm
To my understaning, if an electron is entangled (in the quantum mechanism sense) with another one, then if one changes the direction of spin, the other one changes it immediately as well.

In fact, there is left-to-right and right-to-left spins. That is, some electrons are spinning one way, and some electrons are spinning the other way, and that is that. Entanglement occurs between two electrons that spin in opposite ways, and the opposite ways are not in random planes or around randomly angled axes, but around either one way or another way around a bipolar axis, all of which axes are "angled" the same way.

This is my understanding. Is this right? Or wrong?

And is there a way for an electron to be entangled with more than one other electron? I mean, is there a historical path of electrons, which entangle with each other, never to get disentangled, despite both of them gaining new tango partners?

These are the two question areas for which I need to get an intelligent answer. This is not a trap. I genuinely seek information.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_entanglement

PhilX

-1-
Posts: 2887
Joined: Thu Sep 07, 2017 1:08 am

### Re: Talk about correlation of entangled particles! Boy...

Philosophy Explorer wrote:
Fri Apr 06, 2018 8:13 pm

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_entanglement

PhilX
Thanks, PHX.

A_Seagull
Posts: 895
Joined: Thu Jun 05, 2014 11:09 pm

### Re: Talk about correlation of entangled particles! Boy...

-1- wrote:
Fri Apr 06, 2018 7:56 pm
To my understaning, if an electron is entangled (in the quantum mechanism sense) with another one, then if one changes the direction of spin, the other one changes it immediately as well.
Not quite .. in my understanding anyway.

Two electrons can have entangled spins. So that when one is measured as one way the other one immediately adopts the other. So it is not so much as one changing in synch with the other as that they are entangled and when they become disentangled.-. through the measurement process of one of them - then they will adopt opposite spins.

The experimental evidence to show that they did not have distinct spins prior to the measurement is rather subtle.

Noax
Posts: 670
Joined: Wed Aug 10, 2016 3:25 am

### Re: Talk about correlation of entangled particles! Boy...

-1- wrote:
Fri Apr 06, 2018 7:56 pm
To my understaning, if an electron is entangled (in the quantum mechanism sense) with another one, then if one changes the direction of spin, the other one changes it immediately as well.
No. A change to one does not change the other.

PhilX's link is good, but you could have looked there first anyway.
A_Seagull wrote:
Fri Apr 06, 2018 9:39 pm
Two electrons can have entangled spins. So that when one is measured as one way the other one immediately adopts the other.
This is closer, but still interpretive. QM says that if both are measured, their spins will be found to be correlated when compared. There is no mention of 'immediately' or other non-local action. Such descriptions are part of certain interpretations, which becomes a problem that needs to be dealt with by that interpretation.

-1-
Posts: 2887
Joined: Thu Sep 07, 2017 1:08 am

### Re: Talk about correlation of entangled particles! Boy...

Noax wrote:
Fri Apr 06, 2018 10:34 pm
QM says that if both (entangled particles) are measured, their spins will be found to be correlated when compared.
Hm. Absolutely all electrons when compared to any other electron are correlated, whether compared or not. Because correlation is a numerical value of sameness of occurrance. Positive correlation is a way of saying they are similar at the same time and in the same respect; negative correlation means they are different at the same time and in the same respect; zero correlation means there is no observed sameness or similarness other than by random chance. Finding electron's correlated means absolutely nothing, zilch. Because correlation always exists, but it may be positive, negative, or zero or near-zero. It's a truism, nothing less, nothing more.

-1-
Posts: 2887
Joined: Thu Sep 07, 2017 1:08 am

### Re: Talk about correlation of entangled particles! Boy...

Noax wrote:
Fri Apr 06, 2018 10:34 pm
PhilX's link is good, but you could have looked there first anyway.
I have a confession to make: I never looked there at any time. I don't look at links. If someone is too lazy to write in their own words things that they want to say, and they have to refer the reader to some outside place, I ignore them.

There are some exceptions, like when they refer to their OWN work.

I have my reasons. If I wanted to look at a Wiki or other explanation, I would go and do it. There is a level of human effort in interaction that is missing when someone refers me to an outside text by a link, and I hugely resent that. We belong to a forum because we have things we want to say. Therefore saying it with a link is a futile effort to communicate on a site where self-expression is what I look for. I refuse to do it. I can do it on my own, thank you very much, I don't need anyone to refer me. Tell it in your own words, or else I don't read it.
Last edited by -1- on Sat Apr 07, 2018 3:34 am, edited 1 time in total.

-1-
Posts: 2887
Joined: Thu Sep 07, 2017 1:08 am

### Re: Talk about correlation of entangled particles! Boy...

A_Seagull wrote:
Fri Apr 06, 2018 9:39 pm
Two electrons can have entangled spins. So that when one is measured as one way the other one immediately adopts the other.
.. adopts the other... what? other electron? Or other way? The semantic is entirely unclear from the syntax as presented. I must now understand that electrons have legal process to adopt each other, and until such event, they just live in unrelated foster homes for electrons.

-1-
Posts: 2887
Joined: Thu Sep 07, 2017 1:08 am

### Re: Talk about correlation of entangled particles! Boy...

I mean to say, I am NOT ungrateful to the two of you, Seagull and Noix, but you have to admit that you both left out the most keyfully important element in your explanations.

This is your right as a non-teacher. This is not a teaching situation, and I realize that I don't have the right to complain about your illy worded explanations. You just have to realize that I am asking things about things I don't know, and you can leave your explanations meaningless as such, as long as you realize that your explantions were meaningless to a guy who really is in a need of literal explanations that pay attention to every detail.

I have no hard feelings, I am just saying you two would never cut the mustard as teachers, but that's actually entirely okay because teaching is not expected of you, because I am not paying fees for your tuition.

In other words, I am a literal person, I can't substitute words and ideas and concepts in concepts I am freshly learning, and if you omit the key elements in the explanation, that's entirely okay, I just simply don't learn from your posts, that's all, to me it has almost been a complete waste of time, except for the tirade in this post, for I get to live out my paradise: self-expression.

A_Seagull
Posts: 895
Joined: Thu Jun 05, 2014 11:09 pm

### Re: Talk about correlation of entangled particles! Boy...

-1- wrote:
Sat Apr 07, 2018 3:33 am
A_Seagull wrote:
Fri Apr 06, 2018 9:39 pm
Two electrons can have entangled spins. So that when one is measured as one way the other one immediately adopts the other.
.. adopts the other... what? other electron? Or other way? The semantic is entirely unclear from the syntax as presented. I must now understand that electrons have legal process to adopt each other, and until such event, they just live in unrelated foster homes for electrons.
Sorry for the ambiguity. I was referring to the spin. So that when the spin of one is measured the other adopts the opposite spin.

-1-
Posts: 2887
Joined: Thu Sep 07, 2017 1:08 am

### Re: Talk about correlation of entangled particles! Boy...

A_Seagull wrote:
Sat Apr 07, 2018 4:12 am
-1- wrote:
Sat Apr 07, 2018 3:33 am
A_Seagull wrote:
Fri Apr 06, 2018 9:39 pm
Two electrons can have entangled spins. So that when one is measured as one way the other one immediately adopts the other.
.. adopts the other... what? other electron? Or other way? The semantic is entirely unclear from the syntax as presented. I must now understand that electrons have legal process to adopt each other, and until such event, they just live in unrelated foster homes for electrons.
Sorry for the ambiguity. I was referring to the spin. So that when the spin of one is measured the other adopts the opposite spin.
Thanks, that's great. No harm done, and thanks for following up.

Serendipper
Posts: 201
Joined: Sun Apr 01, 2018 1:05 am

### Re: Talk about correlation of entangled particles! Boy...

-1- wrote:
Fri Apr 06, 2018 7:56 pm
These are the two question areas for which I need to get an intelligent answer. This is not a trap. I genuinely seek information.
-1- wrote:
Sat Apr 07, 2018 3:29 am
I don't look at links. If someone is too lazy to write in their own words things that they want to say, and they have to refer the reader to some outside place, I ignore them.
Those quotations cannot be by the same person because someone who is genuinely seeking information would not ignore information.
There is a level of human effort in interaction that is missing when someone refers me to an outside text by a link, and I hugely resent that.
How can it be moral that you insist others expend glucose needlessly to indulge your eccentricities? Further, how can you resent their refusal to, essentially, kiss your butt?
We belong to a forum because we have things we want to say.
If you want conversation, then request to shoot the shit, but don't lead people into believing you want to learn when you really just want to talk; it's false advertising and inconsiderate.

-1-
Posts: 2887
Joined: Thu Sep 07, 2017 1:08 am

### Re: Talk about correlation of entangled particles! Boy...

You put me on the defensive, Serendipper.

I seek information BUT at the same time I enjoy and request, nay, require personal input.

The two are not mutually incompatible, as you seem to have claimed.

My eccentricities are my follies... and vice versa. I cling to them, and I see no moral turpitude in doing that. If a man walks westward all his life, do you condemn him for that?

I am not misleading people when I say I want to learn and want to talk. I can do these two things alternatingly. There is no harm in that, is there? Why do you say I must stop doing that? Do you have some moral or intellectual reason to back up your anger against my folly to learn AND to express myself in the way I feel most comfortable?

Yes, I do learn from things said in the threads... and others do too, and I say things in the threads, and others do, too... you are rebelling against this system? Why?

You seem to see some hypocritical action perhaps in my deeds. Believe me, I preach what I believe, and say only things I mean to say. I did not condemn the person who was lazy enough to straight quote an outside text; I simply refuse to read it. This refusal may go against my wish to learn, but it does not go against my wish to engage others in conversation. In my world, the two could be done, and mostly are done, together. It is my folly to conduct myself this way, and I won't change it only because you put me on the defensive. Sorry.

Serendipper
Posts: 201
Joined: Sun Apr 01, 2018 1:05 am

### Re: Talk about correlation of entangled particles! Boy...

-1- wrote:
Sun Apr 08, 2018 12:24 pm
You put me on the defensive, Serendipper.

I seek information BUT at the same time I enjoy and request, nay, require personal input.

The two are not mutually incompatible, as you seem to have claimed.

My eccentricities are my follies... and vice versa. I cling to them, and I see no moral turpitude in doing that. If a man walks westward all his life, do you condemn him for that?

I am not misleading people when I say I want to learn and want to talk. I can do these two things alternatingly. There is no harm in that, is there? Why do you say I must stop doing that? Do you have some moral or intellectual reason to back up your anger against my folly to learn AND to express myself in the way I feel most comfortable?
Because people are trying to help you learn, as you said you merely wanted, but then you reject their knowledge because it wasn't presented properly.
Yes, I do learn from things said in the threads... and others do too, and I say things in the threads, and others do, too... you are rebelling against this system? Why?
If a man were drowning and you throw him a flotation device which he flings back at you because you didn't throw it right or perhaps he wanted a different style or color, what would you do? I don't know about you, but I'd throw him a brick.
You seem to see some hypocritical action perhaps in my deeds. Believe me, I preach what I believe, and say only things I mean to say. I did not condemn the person who was lazy enough to straight quote an outside text; I simply refuse to read it. This refusal may go against my wish to learn, but it does not go against my wish to engage others in conversation. In my world, the two could be done, and mostly are done, together. It is my folly to conduct myself this way, and I won't change it only because you put me on the defensive. Sorry.
Why not start a thread for conversation and one for learning? Or merge the two. I post a LOT of links and if you intend to ignore them, then all we can do is shoot the shit and not much learning because I refuse to paraphrase everything to spoon feed you because you're too lazy to click a link and read.

I don't mean to be mean, but you're being bossy, finicky. You don't agree?

-1-
Posts: 2887
Joined: Thu Sep 07, 2017 1:08 am

### Re: Talk about correlation of entangled particles! Boy...

Serendipper wrote:
Tue Apr 10, 2018 2:38 am
I don't mean to be mean, but you're being bossy, finicky. You don't agree?
Bossy? Maybe. I am not a judge of that. Finicky? BIG TIME. My girlfriend is going nuts because of that. She calls me a Giant Tiger. (I'm 5'4".) She never realized before she got me, that finick grows exponentially with the size of the cat.

I am sure that if she eventually leaves me, that will be the reason. But you know how it is... a tiger can't change its stripes.

### Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests