Quantum Entanglement ?

[interested]

On 9/30/2017 at 4:26 PM, Itoero said:

You can create entangled electrons by splitting a cooper pair. The electrons in a pair are not necessarily close together; because the interaction is long range, paired electrons may still be many hundreds of nanometers apart. This distance is usually greater than the average interelectron distance, so many Cooper pairs can occupy the same space. Electrons have spin 1/2, so they are fermions, but the total spin of a Cooper pair is integer (0 or 1) so it is a composite boson. Many hundreds of nanometers is not a large distance tough  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cooper_pair  https://arxiv.org/pdf/1205.2455.pdf

Thanks for the response.

Do a particle/antiparticle pair also have 0 or 1 spin being the result of a positron and electron with 1/2 spin?

Would a particle pair in space be detectable and interact in any way, could entangled particle pairs be dark matter?

Edited October 2, 2017 by interested

[swansont]

18 minutes ago, interested said:

Do a particle/antiparticle pair also have 0 or 1 spin being the result of a positron and electron with 1/2 spin?

Their spin would depend on how they are created.

18 minutes ago, interested said:

Would a particle pair in space be detectable and interact in any way, could entangled particle pairs be dark matter?

No particles we've detected are dark matter.  

[interested]

3 hours ago, swansont said:

Their spin would depend on how they are created.

No particles we've detected are dark matter.  

So spin could be 0 or 1 depending on how they are created. 

Is dark matter predicted in any theory

[swansont]

12 minutes ago, interested said:

So spin could be 0 or 1 depending on how they are created. 

Yes.

12 minutes ago, interested said:

Is dark matter predicted in any theory

Not as far as I am aware. It's not in the standard model.

[Itoero]

4 hours ago, interested said:

So spin could be 0 or 1 depending on how they are created

This implies that a positron and electron are paired and form a composite boson...is that possible?

[Strange]

9 minutes ago, Itoero said:

This implies that a positron and electron are paired and form a composite boson...is that possible?

If they are paired to form a positronium "atom" then it will be a boson (like a hydrogen atom).

I don't know if an entangled pair that are spatially separated would be considered a boson or not.

Edited October 2, 2017 by Strange

[interested]

Would a composite stationery boson be detectable in outer space. ?

How stable would it be, in a almost zero gravity environment at near absolute zero?

Edited October 3, 2017 by interested
extra question

[Strange]

A single one wouldn't be. And it depends on the type of boson. We can detect clouds of hydrogen, for example (it absorbs light).

[interested]

2 minutes ago, Strange said:

A single one wouldn't be. And it depends on the type of boson. We can detect clouds of hydrogen, for example (it absorbs light).

I was thinking more along the lines of a huge cloud of it, as a possible form of dark matter.

Having no atomic structure or definable energy levels, would it absorb light like a normal hydrogen atom. ?

[Strange]

4 minutes ago, interested said:

I was thinking more along the lines of a huge cloud of it, as a possible form of dark matter.

What is "it"?

[interested]

2 minutes ago, Strange said:

What is "it"?

I was referring to my previous questions. It - in this case would be composite stationery bosons

Would a composite stationery boson be detectable in outer space. ?

I think Beecee answered the question on the dark matter thread page "You can not only measure the amount of total matter, with weak lensing, but you can compare it with where the hot gas is in the X-ray. This combination is a big part of how we know dark matter doesn’t collide with either itself or with normal, atomic matter." 

If composite stationery bosons of entangled matter and antimatter particles are dark matter. How stable would it be, in a almost zero gravity environment at near absolute zero?

 

[Strange]

6 minutes ago, interested said:

I was referring to my previous questions. It - in this case would be composite stationery bosons

In the simplest case (hydrogen) then yes we can detect it.

Expecting it to be stationary is a bit unrealistic. Clouds of gas are normally moving under the effects of radiation pressure, gravity, inertia, etc. And dark matter is moving. So it also seems irrelevant.

8 minutes ago, interested said:

If composite stationery bosons of entangled matter and antimatter particles are dark matter.

These are not stablehand we would see the characteristic radiation as they decay.

[swansont]

15 hours ago, Itoero said:

This implies that a positron and electron are paired and form a composite boson...is that possible?

As Strange notes it would have to be a bound system, and positronium doesn't last very long. (mean lifetime is 0.125 ns)

25 minutes ago, interested said:

I was referring to my previous questions. It - in this case would be composite stationery bosons

Why would they not have any structure?

25 minutes ago, interested said:

 If composite stationery bosons of entangled matter and antimatter particles are dark matter. How stable would it be, in a almost zero gravity environment at near absolute zero?

Stability would not be temperature dependent. And composite bosons of known particles are not dark matter.

[Itoero]

I found  a very interesting paper concerning entanglement and composite bosons.

" In a 2005 paper, C. K. Law presented evidence that the question can be answered in general in terms of entanglement: two fermions can be treated as an elementary boson if they are sufficiently entangled . Consider, for example, a single hydrogen atom in a harmonic trap. Within the atom, the proton and electron are strongly entangled with respect to their position variables; for example, wherever the proton might be found—it could be anywhere in the trap—the electron is sure to be nearby. Law suggests that this entanglement is the essential property underlying the (approximate) bosonic behavior of the composite particle, allowing, for example, a collection of many hydrogen atoms to form a Bose-Einstein condensate. " https://arxiv.org/pdf/0908.1096.pdf

[swansont]

28 minutes ago, Itoero said:

I found  a very interesting paper concerning entanglement and composite bosons.

" In a 2005 paper, C. K. Law presented evidence that the question can be answered in general in terms of entanglement: two fermions can be treated as an elementary boson if they are sufficiently entangled . Consider, for example, a single hydrogen atom in a harmonic trap. Within the atom, the proton and electron are strongly entangled with respect to their position variables; for example, wherever the proton might be found—it could be anywhere in the trap—the electron is sure to be nearby. Law suggests that this entanglement is the essential property underlying the (approximate) bosonic behavior of the composite particle, allowing, for example, a collection of many hydrogen atoms to form a Bose-Einstein condensate. " https://arxiv.org/pdf/0908.1096.pdf

...which has nothing to do with any other concept under discussion. There's no antiparticle involved, and this is not dark matter.

[interested]

5 hours ago, swansont said:

...which has nothing to do with any other concept under discussion. There's no antiparticle involved, and this is not dark matter.

Can you cast some light on what dark matter may be since you know what dark matter is not? 

[Roger Dynamic Motion]

Talking about entangled particles,,let say 2 superposed photons on the z axis one at the base and the other at the top and they both have  information  the distance of separation  on the z axis is (zero  time) infinite and constant..so to send out information on the x or y axis  perpendicular  to the data from the z axis any where  along the z axis is the worm hole that make it possible 

[Strange]

46 minutes ago, Roger Dynamic Motion said:

Talking about entangled particles,,let say 2 superposed photons on the z axis one at the base and the other at the top and they both have  information  the distance of separation  on the z axis is (zero  time) infinite and constant..so to send out information on the x or y axis  perpendicular  to the data from the z axis any where  along the z axis is the worm hole that make it possible 

Impossible green sheep dream furiously in crumbly plinkle.

[Roger Dynamic Motion]

35 minutes ago, Strange said:

Impossible green sheep dream furiously in crumbly plinkle.

So what is your understanding? Lay it out please !

[Strange]

9 hours ago, Roger Dynamic Motion said:

So what is your understanding? Lay it out please !

I didn't understand a word of your post. That was the point.

[interested]

11 hours ago, Roger Dynamic Motion said:

So what is your understanding? Lay it out please !

My current understanding, for what it is worth and is based on speculation is that there is a 4th dimension, connecting the entangled points directly as if they were directly adjacent to each other in 3 dimensional space. no wormhole required with the extra dimension

Edited October 4, 2017 by interested

[swansont]

13 hours ago, interested said:

Can you cast some light on what dark matter may be since you know what dark matter is not? 

No. We don't know what it is. But we know it's not something we've already discovered.

13 hours ago, Roger Dynamic Motion said:

Talking about entangled particles,,let say 2 superposed photons on the z axis one at the base and the other at the top and they both have  information  the distance of separation  on the z axis is (zero  time) infinite and constant..so to send out information on the x or y axis  perpendicular  to the data from the z axis any where  along the z axis is the worm hole that make it possible 

A wormhole is an unsubtsantiated hypothesis. There's no evidence that this is the case. 

[Strange]

1 hour ago, interested said:

My current understanding, for what it is worth and is based on speculation is that there is a 4th dimension, connecting the entangled points directly as if they were directly adjacent to each other in 3 dimensional space. no wormhole required with the extra dimension

That IS a wormhole.

Except the curvature that allows wormholes to exist (hypothetically) is already in 4 dimensional space-time. So you would mean a 5th dimension, presumably. But no 5th dimension is required as the curvature is intrinsic.

[interested]

9 hours ago, Strange said:

That IS a wormhole.

Except the curvature that allows wormholes to exist (hypothetically) is already in 4 dimensional space-time. So you would mean a 5th dimension, presumably. But no 5th dimension is required as the curvature is intrinsic.

I will not argue this point, but do disagree with your speculation ref worm holes. A 4th dimension does not imply wormholes, it just implies forces or points in space can be connected. The entanglement connection we know is extremely weak, and any disturbance can break the connection. This disturbance could be a locomotive or a quantum fluctuation in space. The entanglement of virtual particles for instance, could be decohered by other virtual particles appearing in the vicinity of the first virtual particle. 

Simplifying and Zooming in, all of space is a quantum cafe with at least a 4th dimension. It is not a smooth set of 3 dimensional x y z coordinates as you would like to believe. Gravitational waves as detected by ligo momentarily stretch space as they also do flowing into black holes.

I wont argue with you but do consider your views to be dated ref the smoothness of space and space being fixed x,y,z coordinates.  

[Strange]

11 minutes ago, interested said:

I will not argue this point, but do disagree with your speculation ref worm holes. A 4th dimension does not imply wormholes, it just implies forces or points in space can be connected.

It is not my speculation: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wormhole

Quote

 Simplifying and Zooming in, all of space is a quantum cafe with at least a 4th dimension.

Citation needed. Space has 3 dimensions. The 4th dimension is time.

Quote

It is not a smooth set of 3 dimensional x y z coordinates as you would like to believe.

Citation needed. 

There is no evidence that space is not smooth. Experiments have been done to test if space is quantised. So far, these have not shown that to be the case.

Quote

I wont argue with you but do consider your views to be dated ref the smoothness of space and space being fixed x,y,z coordinates.  

Do you have evidence that space is not smooth? This would be headline news, I think, because it would mean that GR no longer works.

And there are no fixed x,y,z coordinates.