Are entanglements the most fundamental existences in the universe?

  • Context: Graduate 
  • Thread starter Thread starter AustinM
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Fundamental Universe
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the nature of entanglement in quantum mechanics, specifically questioning whether entanglement is a fundamental aspect of particles and their spins. Participants explore the implications of entanglement on the conservation of spin and momentum, as well as the existence of particles independent of entangled pairs.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Debate/contested
  • Conceptual clarification

Main Points Raised

  • One participant questions if a particle with a specific spin can exist without being entangled with another particle of opposite spin, suggesting that the net spin of all such pairs might always equal zero.
  • Another participant acknowledges the complexity of entanglement, noting that there may be non-obvious entanglements in systems and that conservation laws could support this idea.
  • A later reply references quantum field theory, asserting that the spin of all particles does not necessarily need to sum to zero.
  • One participant speculates on the concept of "shifting/swapping entanglements" in relation to quantum experiments and the entanglement of apparatus with photons.
  • Another participant raises a question about the entanglement of photons, specifically whether a photon emitted alone would still be entangled with another photon and what happens to entanglement if one photon is absorbed.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the nature of entanglement and its implications for particle existence and spin conservation. There is no consensus on whether entanglement is a fundamental constant or how it operates in various scenarios.

Contextual Notes

The discussion includes assumptions about entanglement and conservation laws that are not fully explored or resolved. The implications of quantum field theory on the nature of spin and entanglement are also not definitively established.

AustinM
Messages
1
Reaction score
0
Is entanglement a fundamental constant? That is, can a particle with a spin in one direction exist, without being paired by entanglement with some other similar particle with a spin in the opposite direction, somewhere in the universe -- so that the net spin of all such entangled pairs always equals zero? That is, if one adds up all the spins in opposite directions for a given type of subatomic particle, is the sum of the spins always zero? That is, if a pair of particles A and B are entangled, can they decohere *unless* particle A decoheres with particle B by entangling itself with some other particle C somewhere, while particle B similarly decoheres with particle A by entangling itself with some other particle D somewhere?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Welcome to PhysicsForums, AustinM!

That is a very good question. I don't know the answer, because it is possible that there is entanglement at work that we are not aware of in a system (a system being some set of particles). There is plenty of evidence that would support the idea that a system of remote particles might be entangled in non-obvious ways. Certainly, the underlying conservation laws would give some support to that idea too.

Sorry I can't add any more, would anyone else care to chime in?
 
AustinM said:
That is, can a particle with a spin in one direction exist, without being paired by entanglement with some other similar particle with a spin in the opposite direction, somewhere in the universe -- so that the net spin of all such entangled pairs always equals zero? That is, if one adds up all the spins in opposite directions for a given type of subatomic particle, is the sum of the spins always zero?
According to the most fundamental theory known (quantum field theory), the spin of all particles certainly does not need to be zero.
 
AustinM said:
Is entanglement a fundamental constant? That is, can a particle with a spin in one direction exist, without being paired by entanglement with some other similar particle with a spin in the opposite direction, somewhere in the universe -- so that the net spin of all such entangled pairs always equals zero? That is, if one adds up all the spins in opposite directions for a given type of subatomic particle, is the sum of the spins always zero? That is, if a pair of particles A and B are entangled, can they decohere *unless* particle A decoheres with particle B by entangling itself with some other particle C somewhere, while particle B similarly decoheres with particle A by entangling itself with some other particle D somewhere?


since momentum has to be conserved...i would guess that you propose is correct to an extent

infact the results of quantum experiments... could be explained by (parts of) the whole apparatus entangling and "de-entangling" with the photons

maybe a new term like "shifting/swapping entanglements" could be used...
 
Last edited:
AustinM said:
Is entanglement a fundamental constant? That is, can a particle with a spin in one direction exist, without being paired by entanglement with some other similar particle with a spin in the opposite direction, somewhere in the universe -- so that the net spin of all such entangled pairs always equals zero? That is, if one adds up all the spins in opposite directions for a given type of subatomic particle, is the sum of the spins always zero? That is, if a pair of particles A and B are entangled, can they decohere *unless* particle A decoheres with particle B by entangling itself with some other particle C somewhere, while particle B similarly decoheres with particle A by entangling itself with some other particle D somewhere?

If a photon is emitted by itself, why would it be entangled with another photon? And if two entangled photons are emitted and one gets absorbed, then the other one has no partner anymore, correct?
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 27 ·
Replies
27
Views
2K
  • · Replies 59 ·
2
Replies
59
Views
8K
  • · Replies 58 ·
2
Replies
58
Views
5K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
1K
  • · Replies 24 ·
Replies
24
Views
2K
  • · Replies 18 ·
Replies
18
Views
3K