Re: Layman's Guide to Quantum Entanglement
From: Dave Jarvis (dave_at_nospam.net)
Date: 08/01/04
- Next message: k: "Re: Rank Taylor Hobson Varotal ??"
- Previous message: Spudley: "Re: I think it is time..."
- In reply to: Brent: "Re: Layman's Guide to Quantum Entanglement"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: Sun, 01 Aug 2004 03:05:37 GMT
Hi, Brent.
> I have read your article thoroughly, and I am afraid that this will be
> a rather lengthy reply. Overall, I think you did a good job. But
Wonderful! Thank you.
> Electrons in an atom DO NOT orbit the nucleus like planets around the
Corrected.
> orbits) can be defined only in terms of probability, and there is even
> a finite probability of the electon being hundreds of miles away at
Added.
> any given time. Of course, this puts a twist in your simple
> explanation.
A bit. But it doesn't make it that much more complicated (fortunately).
> In the third paragraph of section 5, you seem to confuse photon spin
> and polarization. Left-handed and right-handed is spin and has
Not surprising. I excel at confusing concepts. :-)
> through or not. But if it does, then (by nature of the entanglement)
> its entangled photon will not because the moment photon 1 decides it
> is polarized vertically, photon 2 becomes polarized horizontally.
> THIS is the very heart of entanglement.
Thank you very much! I really appreciate you taking the time to explain
this properly.
> I assume the sub-section on quantum teleportation is yet to be written
> since there is only a heading.
Yes. Looking for some good meat.
> FAQ #2 about particles moving in a magnetic field: I'm not sure why
> you say they do not move when your own figure 4.2 shows that they do.
Fixed.
> FAQ #3 implies that all spin-1 particles travel at the speed of light,
> which of course is not true. What you said about the orientation of
Fixed.
> In section 8, in your definition of quanta, you mention that "quantum"
> is plural. Actually, "quantum" is singular and "quanta" is plural.
Fixed.
> common sense into nonsense. But nonetheless, I hope that I have been
> of at least a little bit of help.
More than a little bit.
Again, thank you very much.
Dave
- Next message: k: "Re: Rank Taylor Hobson Varotal ??"
- Previous message: Spudley: "Re: I think it is time..."
- In reply to: Brent: "Re: Layman's Guide to Quantum Entanglement"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|
