bosonic behavior of entangled particles

[Itoero]

When you entangle photons, you entangle bosons. In order to entangle electrons, you need to split a cooper pair which is a composite boson.

-A photon has no mass and electrons in a superconductor behave like they have no mass.

What causes the bosonic behavior of entangled particles? Have they ever made or found true entangled fermions?

[Strange]

3 hours ago, Itoero said:

In order to entangle electrons, you need to split a cooper pair which is a composite boson.

Do you have a reference for that?

3 hours ago, Itoero said:

Have they ever made or found true entangled fermions?

There have been lots of experiments done on entangled electrons; for example: https://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/22/science/quantum-theory-experiment-said-to-prove-spooky-interactions.html

 

[swansont]

5 hours ago, Itoero said:

 What causes the bosonic behavior of entangled particles? 

Two fermions will always have a net integer spin. 

[Itoero]

14 hours ago, Strange said:

Do you have a reference for that?

There have been lots of experiments done on entangled electrons; for example: https://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/22/science/quantum-theory-experiment-said-to-prove-spooky-interactions.html

 

reference: https://arxiv.org/abs/1205.2455

Photons have no rest mass and can get entangled. In order to entangle electrons you need to remove the rest mass.(in a superconductor electrons go without resistance so without rest mass) It seems that the absence of rest mass enables subatomic particleentanglement.

[swansont]

1 hour ago, Itoero said:

reference: https://arxiv.org/abs/1205.2455

Photons have no rest mass and can get entangled. In order to entangle electrons you need to remove the rest mass.(in a superconductor electrons go without resistance so without rest mass) It seems that the absence of rest mass enables subatomic particleentanglement.

The article does not claim that you must use Cooper pairs, only that it is a convenient source. It makes no claim about rest mass being removed.

[Eise]

1 hour ago, Itoero said:

In order to entangle electrons you need to remove the rest mass.

Huh? Why would you need that? To have the 'distance-loophole' closed you must assure that you measure the spins of the electrons in a way that what your first measurement is, cannot reach the other measurement with light speed. That is easier with photons, of course, but that can be done with electrons too. 

1 hour ago, Itoero said:

in a superconductor electrons go without resistance so without rest mass

Huh? They go without resistance because they behave as bosons. But bosons must not be massless.

And how could one remove rest mass from an electron' Or from any particle that has rest mass? This sounds all pretty nonsensical to me.

The article you refer to, just shows another way of creating entangled electrons.

[Itoero]

4 hours ago, swansont said:

The article does not claim that you must use Cooper pairs, only that it is a convenient source. It makes no claim about rest mass being removed.

 

4 hours ago, Eise said:

Huh? Why would you need that? To have the 'distance-loophole' closed you must assure that you measure the spins of the electrons in a way that what your first measurement is, cannot reach the other measurement with light speed. That is easier with photons, of course, but that can be done with electrons too. 

Huh? They go without resistance because they behave as bosons. But bosons must not be massless.

And how could one remove rest mass from an electron' Or from any particle that has rest mass? This sounds all pretty nonsensical to me.

The article you refer to, just shows another way of creating entangled electrons.

Can you entangle 2 electrons other then by splitting a cooper pair?

I can't back this up but imo when a particle travels without resistance, it has no rest mass or measurable mass.

[swansont]

14 minutes ago, Itoero said:

Can you entangle 2 electrons other then by splitting a cooper pair?

Yes. Other fermion pairs, too (pair production could give you entangled pairs, fermionic atoms can be entangled, etc.) But why do it a harder way, or a way that is not experimentally useful?

Quote

I can't back this up but imo when a particle travels without resistance, it has no rest mass or measurable mass.

Uninformed opinion is worthless.

https://journals.aps.org/prb/abstract/10.1103/PhysRevB.39.6425

the equation for effective mass is given. It's not zero.

[Itoero]

These are the reasons I think a cooper pair or electrons in superconductor don't have(measurable) rest mass.

-They travel without resistance (like a photon in vacuum) which imo means they travel in a wave and have only kinetic energy. This change in energy also explains why  they form cooper pairs in a superconductor and not in a 'normal' conductor. You need a form of resistance to behave/travel like a particle….or to be measured like a particle

-Rest mass is  calculated via the rest energy. The relativistic mass is calculated via the total energy. We know bodies gain energy when velocity is increased. Then what's the meaning of rest mass at a point where a lot of energy is added through its velocity and it forms a composite boson while we know 'restmass' is problematic concept in bosons.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_in_special_relativityhttps://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/31374/how-does-higgs-boson-get-the-rest-mass

[swansont]

Things without rest mass move at c. The speed of Cooper pairs is nowhere near c
https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/36053/relativistic-drift-velocity-of-electrons-in-a-superconductor

 

On September 27, 2018 at 5:00 PM, Itoero said:

-Rest mass is  calculated via the rest energy. The relativistic mass is calculated via the total energy. We know bodies gain energy when velocity is increased. Then what's the meaning of rest mass at a point where a lot of energy is added through its velocity and it forms a composite boson while we know 'restmass' is problematic concept in bosons.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_in_special_relativityhttps://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/31374/how-does-higgs-boson-get-the-rest-mass

What, exactly, is "problematic" about the rest mass concept, applied to bosons? (I don't see the relevance of your links)

[Itoero]

4 hours ago, swansont said:

Things without rest mass move at c.

Why do you think that?

[swansont]

11 minutes ago, Itoero said:

Why do you think that?

Because that's what the theory of relativity tells us. You've probably heard of it.

[Strange]

But not necessarily understood it. 

[Itoero]

On ‎28‎/‎09‎/‎2018 at 5:32 PM, Strange said:

But not necessarily understood it. 

That's true, I'm too uneducated to understand those things.

 

On ‎28‎/‎09‎/‎2018 at 5:19 PM, swansont said:

Because that's what the theory of relativity tells us. You've probably heard of it.

Can you quote it? Relativity is a theory which seems to be incompatible with quantum mechanics. Yet you use a concept from relativity to 'disprove' my concept concerning quantum mechanics….that points to a serious lack of understanding.

[Strange]

6 minutes ago, Itoero said:

Relativity is a theory which seems to be incompatible with quantum mechanics.

Quantum field theory is based on special relativity (which is what swansont was referring to). 

But, yeah, you understand it perfectly. 

[swansont]

22 minutes ago, Itoero said:

Can you quote it? Relativity is a theory which seems to be incompatible with quantum mechanics. Yet you use a concept from relativity to 'disprove' my concept concerning quantum mechanics….that points to a serious lack of understanding.

QM and general relativity have issues, at the scale where the classical theory fails (similarly, classical mechanics fails and QM is needed under certain conditions) As Strange has noted, special relativity and QM have been successfully combined.

[Itoero]

On ‎29‎/‎09‎/‎2018 at 10:46 PM, Strange said:

Quantum field theory is based on special relativity (which is what swansont was referring to). 

But, yeah, you understand it perfectly. 

 

On ‎29‎/‎09‎/‎2018 at 11:01 PM, swansont said:

QM and general relativity have issues, at the scale where the classical theory fails (similarly, classical mechanics fails and QM is needed under certain conditions) As Strange has noted, special relativity and QM have been successfully combined.

Quantum field theory is a theoretical frame work...

Uncertainty is a main concept  in QM, Einstein tried to debunk H U. The absence of hidden variables(bell's theorem) is also a main concept in QM. Einstein created a hidden variable theory but did not publish it. Relativity is created from a completely different point of view then QT.

 

 

[Strange]

What is your point?

[swansont]

1 hour ago, Itoero said:

Quantum field theory is a theoretical frame work...

Uncertainty is a main concept  in QM, Einstein tried to debunk H U. The absence of hidden variables(bell's theorem) is also a main concept in QM. Einstein created a hidden variable theory but did not publish it. Relativity is created from a completely different point of view then QT.

So? It remains a fact that QM incorporates special relativity.

And no, I'm not watching a 10 minute video hoping there is a relavant point in it.

[Itoero]

So you refuse to spend 10 minutes on a video that might debunk your belief system?

You do know that the holographic principle combines the two?

[StringJunky]

7 minutes ago, Itoero said:

So you refuse to spend 10 minutes on a video that might debunk your belief system?

You do know that the holographic principle combines the two?

When did you transmogrify from neophyte to know all?

[Strange]

37 minutes ago, Itoero said:

So you refuse to spend 10 minutes on a video that might debunk your belief system?

You do know that the holographic principle combines the two?

Combines the two what?

[Itoero]

General relativity and quantum mechanics.

 

52 minutes ago, StringJunky said:

When did you transmogrify from neophyte to know all?

When I was neophyte, I was a wannabe know all.

[Strange]

5 hours ago, Itoero said:

General relativity and quantum mechanics.

Because it is a result of string theory. Several other useful results come from (ad hoc) combinations of GR and QM. Hawking radiation, for example. 

What is your point. 

[swansont]

7 hours ago, Itoero said:

So you refuse to spend 10 minutes on a video that might debunk your belief system?

Not when history tells me it will be a waste of my time. In this thread alone you've made a few outlandish claims about rest mass and given irrelevant links, which have done nothing to give me confidence that you know what you're talking about, at anything but a superficial level.