Quantum entanglement thread go!
1. What is the easiest way to prove that?
2. How to understand time with that theory?
3. Is this a good way to understand "paranormal"?
>>7642569
fuck off
>does not rotate
>has spin
If that's the case then physicists must have some crazy definition of spin.
It has it's spin in an "abstract" coordinate system. Just next dims.
So maybe something easier. If you fail here do as pepe /sci.
What do you think about String's theory?
What does the 'spin' state even mean? Ive heard it doesnt denote normal physical spin like that, but what does it actually denote? is it just an arbitrary name for a property?
>>7642581
Yes... That's exactly the case.
>>7642581
>he doesn't realize that rotating and spinning are two different physical actions
>>7642645
Well you know how angular momentum is a conserved quantity? The name spin isn't arbitrary since the real rule is that the sum of angular momentum plus spin is what's conserved.
>>7642645
>What does the 'spin' state even mean? Ive heard it doesnt denote normal physical spin like that, but what does it actually denote? is it just an arbitrary name for a property?
In a classic it's just an angular momentum of the particle and in qunatum it's the same but besides that, every particle has own angular momentum in an abstract spinal space and it is a consequence of it's quantum nature.
>>7642678
>Yeah it's pretty weird.
I would say it's one of the easiest part of understanding quantum issues.
>I tell U you
>Bososns
>still has it is spin
fckn QM, how duzzit werk?
>>7642569
Uhm this is is pretty rediculously easy to under stand
spin is weight (the finer or overlapping the integral the denser it is)
rotation is density (the slower is rotates the denser it is)
s is momentum (the variable being what's it's being thrown at)
>>7642720
more it weighs*
I have a philosophy of science professor that has a bastardized understanding of the observer effect.
How do I approach this subject? Should I approach it in the first place?
>entangle two particles together and send one to another planet
>nudge one of them around in morse code
Did I just solve FTL communication?
>>7642569
Not really sure what you're asking here.
We know entanglement is a real thing I mean there is a physical phenomenon we observe and we call it entanglement. Everything else about it is still up for debate.
I think what you're trying to get at is, is it "spooky action at a distance" and really all we can say is maybe. If it is though that's still not that exciting since it seems to be fundamentally random, we can't control which particle will be spin up and which will be spin down, so we can't really use it to do anything useful.
This stuff has nothing to do with anything paranormal.
>>7642569
>1. What is the easiest way to prove that?
experiments
>2. How to understand time with that theory?
Understanding time does not require an understanding of quantum entanglement.
>3. Is this a good way to understand "paranormal"?
No, fuck off.
>>7642630
Mathematically beautiful, potentially great, but so far nothing.
>>7642777
Explain that an observer has nothing to do with intelligence its just interaction between systems that collapses the waves, and the whole concept may be wrong really but even if you embrace the random quantum view of things the observer effect still has nothing to do with intelligence.
>>7642788
No because they won't stay entangled after the first measurement and you can't control which will be up and which will be down they'll just be opposites.
>>7642581
It is better to think of spin like you think of charge, except that spin operates like angular momentum
Isn't spin the angular momentum of a particle? So if something has zero spin has can it rotate?
Is there such thing as negative spin?
