Thread: "soul" mates and quantum entanglement

just a dumb idea i conjured up a few days ago.
could there be a connection between being "soul" mates, and quantum entangled particles?

as in, say some particles have become quantum entangled, and then separated,
then ended up in two different people. and when they meet they feel this immediate familiarity with eachother.

or cases where something terrible has happened to someone, and their mother feels it when it happened.
i don't have any scientific studies, i don't know how to search for entangled particles in people, which is probably pretty damn near impossible anyways.

the idea is basically, that the more entangled particles two people share, the more they are "soul" mates.

hmmm... Nice theory, but there is no evidence, nor is there a way to even measure it. From a physics stand point, it's relatively absurd though.

Dejawolf - I think you may be working from some misconceptions about what entanglement really is. You should read posts from people knowledgeable like this:

http://blogs.scienceforums.net/swansont/archives/2410
http://www.sciencedaily.com/articles...tanglement.htm

Not so absurd. Not dumb. At the sub-atomic level particles resonate. Because we don't have sophisticated enough tools to measure the resonance doesn't mean it isn't there. Electron attraction is possible over all 11 dimensions if we accept Super M premises on weak gravitational influence across the spectrum and account for Bosian. As well, except for simple states (simple single electron) observation would require complex conditions, and they would not lend themselves to equation.

Science provides that an idea generates inquiry. That the state of recognition and attraction that we call "soul mates" is pervasive enough to warrant investigation leaves the floor open to hypotheses. First disprove it. Unless observed, it exists and doesn't exist at the same time.

That the state of recognition and attraction that we call "soul mates" is pervasive enough to warrant investigation leaves the floor open to hypotheses. First disprove it. Unless observed, it exists and doesn't exist at the same time.

You've defined the opposite of science.

Specify. First review the body of data. You are free to disagree, but must offer more than an erroneous understanding of science. Science is first and foremost curiosity.

Data currently exists to substantiate the ability of the human neural system to communicate without use of simple mechanics.