If the particles produced as a pair have the same orientation of magnetic moment and are then exposed to the same orientation of magnetic field , the same response can be expected from each member of the pair. They remain correlated- shown as 1/2 and 1/2 of the same orientation possibilities. if anticorrelated they remain anticorrelated.)
If instead a pair is exposed to different orientations of field they will respond to the field they individually experience. As only 'spin up" and 'spin down" results are "measured" 1/4 of each kind of pairing is what should be expected for lost correlation-as if random.
Rather than there being two types of the particle with different spin characteristic there is one. Orientation producing the resulting bit is nurtured during exposure to the magnetic field. There is no equivalent isolated bit prior to the execution of the "measurement" protocol.
The Bell's statistics assume the spins to be inherent characteristics, measured not generated by the apparatus.
Georgina Woodward replied on Oct. 26, 2020 @ 22:39 GMT
Hi Stefan. I think we are talking about different experiments.
Just to clarify as I can't edit -I should have said - Though by probability still giving
each same/matched state outcome 1/4 of the time.
You ask why just spin up or spin down particles are produced. I don't think thy are oriented as such but spin up , spin down are outcomes from the Stern Gerlach analyzer. I think the magnetic moment is a dipole . So if one end is given a designation ,say N. Then the pole opposite will be S. Which is up or down does not make two different kinds of particle. If electrons vibrate along the magnetic moment (speculation) then according to orientation it can be in phase with a magnet, leading to attraction .Or out of phase, giving repulsion.
Treating a pair of particles in the same way after production maintains their relation to each other. Treat them differently, the relation is broken and the outcome appears to be random. Given enough runs there should by probability be 1/4 of each of the 4 possible outcomes. Showing that spin up and spin down are not fived types like blue or green socks. But can change according to the environment encountered. Bell's inequalities apply to fixed characteristics, like sock colour. The magnetic moment is a fixed characteristic of the particle alone but orientation of it, giving the interaction producing the outcome isn't.
I only know about 3 different orientation of the SG apparatus, X,Y and Z being used. When you talk about a full circle of rotation relative to the source, I think that is something completely different. Maybe to do with whether or not the particles are intercepted.
report post as inappropriate
Georgina Woodward replied on Oct. 27, 2020 @ 00:58 GMT
Let me clarify what I meant by "The magnetic moment is a fixed characteristic of the particle alone but orientation of it, giving the interaction producing the outcome isn't."
Having a magnetic moment is a part of the nature of the particle. Interaction of that nature with the environmental exposure gives the orientation, which will lead to the output state (bit) from the SG apparatus.
The apparatus us not measuring the orientation of the particles on production from the source. That does not need to be known. If the correlated (or anticorrelated) pair are treated the same the outcome states (bits) will be correlated (or anticorrelated); whatever same orientation of apparatus is chosen.
report post as inappropriate
Stefan Weckbach replied on Oct. 27, 2020 @ 08:39 GMT
Hi Georgina,
I am talking about the SG entanglement experiment. I strongly assume you too refer to that experiment so I take that as a given.
“Just to clarify as I can't edit -I should have said - Though by probability still giving each same/matched state outcome 1/4 of the time. “
At a relative angle of 90 degree between the two SG magnets, the chance to find the possible...
view entire post
Hi Georgina,
I am talking about the SG entanglement experiment. I strongly assume you too refer to that experiment so I take that as a given.
“Just to clarify as I can't edit -I should have said - Though by probability still giving each same/matched state outcome 1/4 of the time. “
At a relative angle of 90 degree between the two SG magnets, the chance to find the possible combinations up/up, down/down, up/down, down/up are each ¼. So if you define “same/matched” as up/up or down/down, the chances to find such correlated pairs are ½. ½ is then equal to a random coin tossing with a chance of 50:50 to obtain a matched pair. So at 90 degrees it seems to be a matter of coin tossing to obtain what in the case of 0 degrees was guaranteed, namely a correlation that could be a hint that both particles initially had been given opposite orientations by the source.
The picture I attached is a plot of the experimental results of the SG entanglement experiment. It shows the degree of correlations, starting with a relative angle of the two magnets of 0 degrees. Since the two “spins” are always generated by the source such that one is up and the other is down (we just do not know in advance which one is up or down), at a relative magnet angle of 0 degrees, there is always “anti-correlation” (not a good term because it suggests that there is nothing correlated here. But as you may know, that anti-correlation is such stable that one concludes due to energy-conservation of spin that the source only can produce up/down pairs, no up/up or down/down pairs).
So at a relative angle of 0 degrees, this correlation doesn't appear randomly, but regularly. At 90 degrees it appears to be random. At 180 degrees there is again always the correlation, either the results are up/up or they are down/down. Only the signs here have a 50:50 chance to change and could be labelled random, but that could be explained by not knowing in advance the initial orientations for each particle. Up to this point all this is pretty local.
Now, apart form these special angles, in an SG experiment other angles are measured as well. The results are also depicted in the plot. The angles form 0 to 360 are depicted horizontally from left to right. The orange line depicts the experimental results whereas the red line depicts the predictions of Bell's inequality.
The question now is how the orange line comes about for a hidden variable theory (or more generally speaking, how it comes about in any theory that aims to explain the orange line). In your scheme the magnetic moment is changed by interaction with the measurement apparatus. More precise, the magnetic moment's orientation is changed. For different relative angles of the two magnets, the chance to find an up/up or down/down pair increases from 0 to 180 degrees. Further it decreases from beyond 180 degrees to 360 degrees. But it does not increase or decrease linearly. Obviously, the probabilities (frequencies) of producing up/up and down/down pairs at the magnets is a function of the relative angles of these magnets. That's a perfectly rational explanation since we assume that the produced (by the source) and pre-measured pairs are always strongly correlated (up/down or down/up) until the correlation is eventually altered by some measurement settings.
Now the question for me (in my first long reply to explain what I consider an explanatory problem) was why at an angle of, say, 0 degrees, the results are always “anti-correlated” and not in the area of the orange line that differs from the red line. If I imagine a particle pair being produced by the source, according to your scheme there must be a certain relative angle of the initial magnetic moments relative to the orientation of the two magnets in space. The magnets are both perfectly aligned (0 degrees of relative angle between them), so whatever happens to both particles at their respective magnets, the result will always be “anti-correlation” (means up/down or down/up). BUT, since in your scheme all the measurement results are a function of the relative angle between the initial magnetic moment and magnets, for obtaining the results depicted in the plot the source must create the initial magnetic moments such that the up-down axis is a fixed parameter in the laboratory space for all particle pairs – or equivalently, it should be a fixed feature for the pair production at the source. Because otherwise the initial orientations relative to the magnets would be randomly distributed over 360 degrees (for the whole experimental series) and this would counteract the function of magnetic angle(s) relative to the incoming particle's orientations of magnetic moment. Because of that I wrote in my first long reply
“For the case that the source only has two options to align the perfectly correlated pairs in space (relative to itself, the source), changing the whole measurement settings angle relative to the source (as just described) should result in dramatic differences compared to the well known bell curve. “
Do you see the paradox? If the source produces the pair's up/down features always along the same axis in space relative to itself and during flight these orientations remain fixed in space, why should measurements at a relative angle of 0 degrees at the magnets always result in perfect “anti-correlation” if these two magnets aren't deliberately oriented such that they fully match the pair's initial orientations? You may say that this is irrelevant since both magnets are perfectly aligned. But on the other hand you explain any deviation from perfect “correlation” (or likewise “anti-correlation”) by a deviation of the relative angle between particle's magnetic moment and magnet. Why should this angle initially be such that for the case of our 0 degrees, no deviations are measured?
Hope to have clarified my rather long first reply. Sorry for that rather longer reply :-) - I tried to explain my case as detailed as possible.
I would be happy if you would again reply to see if I understood your scheme correctly.
Greetings
Stefan
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
Georgina Woodward replied on Oct. 27, 2020 @ 09:55 GMT
Stefan, I'm addressing Mermin's experiment puzzle written about at the start of the article. It doesn't mention angles of 0, 90,and 180 degrees. Are these difference between angles of rotation of the SG devices- like x,y,z but different angles?
RE. "Though by probability still giving each same/matched state outcome 1/4 of the time. “ I added 'each' to make clear for up/up and for down/ down. As you say 1/2 for both. I don't know where the red and orange lines you mention come into it. However no hidden variable accounts for the violation of Bell's inequalities. The inequalities only apply to fixed characteristics, like sock colours. Orientation of magnetic moment is variable.
I think it is important that the bits output are not the same as orientation of particles. There could be /is a selection of orientations giving up result for example-lets say some variation in up-ness. We can not know if the output bit term matches the orientation of the particles magnetic moment at production.
report post as inappropriate
Stefan Weckbach replied on Oct. 27, 2020 @ 12:02 GMT
Hi Georgina,
Mermins puzzle is a description of the SG entanglement experiment, so we are talking about the same experiment. Only that Mermin handles the whole experiment as a kind of black box and invites us to figure out what the inner workings of the box are to produce the reported results. Moreover, he challenges us with his suggestion that there is no way to classically, mechanically...
view entire post
Hi Georgina,
Mermins puzzle is a description of the SG entanglement experiment, so we are talking about the same experiment. Only that Mermin handles the whole experiment as a kind of black box and invites us to figure out what the inner workings of the box are to produce the reported results. Moreover, he challenges us with his suggestion that there is no way to classically, mechanically explain the results.
The angles 0, 90 and 180 degrees always refer to the magnets' orientations relative to each other. As you can imagine, one can turn one magnet around its axis by 90 degrees, leaving the other magnet unchanged. This then would result in a relative angle of 90 degree between these two magnets.
"RE. "Though by probability still giving each same/matched state outcome 1/4 of the time. “ I added 'each' to make clear for up/up and for down/ down. As you say 1/2 for both."
The 1/4 are exactly the case when the relative angle is 90 degrees.
But this is not the same as Mermin's case b) - read Mermin's paper here:
https://www.informationphilosopher.com/solutions/scient
ists/mermin/Mermin_short.pdf
Mermin's case b) is for the case of a relative angle of 45 degrees (or alternatively 315 degrees).
Mermin's puzzle confronts us with the assumption that each particle has a set of instructions that tells the particle how to react when switch 1, 2 or 3 is on. The switches symbolize the 3 possible measurements axis' x, y and z in the SG experiment.
His case a) is equivalent to the 180 degree case of the SG experiment: both spins either are up/up or down/down.
Mermin's conundrum is (although he doesn't mention a Bell curve or orange or red lines) that fixed instruction sets should produce the red line depicted in the plot i gave you (or the blue line of the plot here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bell%27s_theorem#/media/File:B
ell.svg).
But Mermin's devices produce the orange line (or blue line for the wikipedia picture) - and that is not compatible with a fixed set of instructions.
You are right that Mermin's conundrum - at first sight - only applies to the assumption that there are fixed instruction set in play. Take the wording "instruction set" as equivalent with "physical law". The particle has a magnetic moment with a certain orientation. the physical law is how this orientation is altered when a well defined influence acts on that magnetic moment directly (or alternatively on some other property indirectly which in turn again acts directly on the magnetic moment). So your scheme aims to explain the Mermin-cases a) and b) by instruction sets (means physical laws that dictate how the magnetic moment should be altered when influenced by a certain amount of force from the magnet).
The essence of Bell's considerations is that a theory without fixed instruction sets is physically impossible - except for the strange world of quantum mechanics. Whatever mechanical, physical forces along the chain of events produce the Bell curve, it must be instructions how to react when a particle's property x in a state of orientation y relative to a magnet encounters a force z of some environment (the magnet). I think you would agree on that, otherwise we are left with randomness in your scheme.
Since your scheme explains things by a pre-existing magnetic moment that can be changed via a measurement, it is in conflict with the assumption that the particle does *not* have a definite orientation prior to the mesurement.
What is this conflict? the conflict arises about whether or not particles have well defined spin states (up or down) in all 3 directions prior to a measurement. It is possible to *imagine* a scheme like yours where these spin states aren't detected but altered via measurement. But nonetheless your scheme says that until altered via such a measurement, the spin orientations remain unaltered. This does mean that they are unaltered between their production at the source until they are "measured" for the first time.
The question now is in which direction around the axis of flight these spin orientations leave the source. If these orientations are evenly distributed around 360 degrees in a statistical sense (but surely pairwise always correlated), how can a fixed set of two magnets in a row (means they are oriented identically in space) always give anti-correlated results (means up/down or down/up, but never up/up or down/down)? To assume that the source prefers only one direction around the axis of flight is evenly absurd. So both possibilities are likewise absurd and that is another reason why the orthodox interpretation of QM says that the particle's spin orientations aren't predetermined by the source until measured for the first time.
Hope that clears some misunderstandings.
Greetings,
Stefan
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
John R. Cox replied on Oct. 27, 2020 @ 15:21 GMT
Stefan and Georgina,
It's fun to go back to the source and browse the many video presentations of 'what is spin'. It is entirely observer dependent, yet at the same time deemed an intrinsic property. What seems to be missing is the distinction that while it is true enough that a moving charge produces a magnetic field, what is actually being observed is a differentiated magnetic field similar to the shape of a bar magnet. That does not mean that a magnetic field is dependent on the charge moving, only that a measurable dipole moment is differentiated by that motion of a charge. A point charge, will have an accompanying magnetic field, moving or not. So given the uniform negative charge of an electron, the vectors would all be pointing either inwardly towards the center of mass, or outwardly away from the center of mass (we really don't know which) until it is measured with an external dipole magnetic field and then it exhibits an orthogonal differentiation. Remove that dipole and apply one at a different angle of incidence, and the electron forgets the first measurement, and aligns orthogonally with the second. Given an unpaired electron in the outer shell of a silver atom, I think it shouldn't be surprising that ALL the results of any Stern-Gerlach type experiment, would be averaged and equi-partitioned in probability. The magnetic field is already there, the act of applying a dipolar observing system induces a differentiated dipole moment. jrc
report post as inappropriate
Stefan Weckbach replied on Oct. 27, 2020 @ 18:34 GMT
John,
"Remove that dipole and apply one at a different angle of incidence, and the electron forgets the first measurement, and aligns orthogonally with the second."
If that dipole sits in the outer shell of the silver atom at a definite place, the problem i spoke of in my last reply remains. If that dipole's vectors are smeared out somewhat uniformly over the whole silver atom, how can the well known deviations (violations of the Bell inequality) from equi-partitioned probabilities then come about?
report post as inappropriate
Georgina Woodward replied on Oct. 28, 2020 @ 00:35 GMT
Stefan, thanks for clarifying that we are talking about the same experiment. "Mermin's puzzle confronts us with the assumption that each particle has a set of instructions that tells the particle how to react when switch 1, 2 or 3 is on. The switches symbolize the 3 possible measurements axis' x, y and z in the SG experiment." Stefan.
"I don't think I'm arguing for instruction sets. The particle does not have the capacity to carry them. The apparatus encounters the particles however they are oriented relative to it. The orientation of the magnetic moment does not change unless it encounters an environment that makes it do so. That can be known from experiments where particles are collected after a fist run through the apparatus and retested with the same orientation of analyzer.. Which produces same spin outcome as previous test. A different orientation of analyzer-random spin outcome. The field encountered in the SG apparatus is inhomogeneous and so each individual particle will have its unique experience according to its orientation and position of entry and trajectory though the apparatus. There are not set instructions as to how it must behave but ad hoc (not generalizable, as it happens) response. This fits with an 'open' unwritten material future rather than the outcomes already within space-time. What is generalizable is- treat the 'entangled' particles to the same environmental influence, they will respond in the same way. Treat them differently correlation is lost,
report post as inappropriate
Stefan Weckbach replied on Oct. 28, 2020 @ 08:52 GMT
Hi Georgina,
thanks for your reply.
The term "instruction sets" is just an alternative shorthand to say that all what happens physically in those experiments is governed by some classical laws of physics - known or unknown. So in this view, all the components of those experiments and all their laws of motion and interaction *are* the complete "instruction set" that determines every...
view entire post
Hi Georgina,
thanks for your reply.
The term "instruction sets" is just an alternative shorthand to say that all what happens physically in those experiments is governed by some classical laws of physics - known or unknown. So in this view, all the components of those experiments and all their laws of motion and interaction *are* the complete "instruction set" that determines every outcome. Of course no particle or other component of these experiments has some kind of list to look at for how to react to specific encounters.
"The apparatus encounters the particles however they are oriented relative to it."
Yes, this would be the view of classical physics.
"There are not set instructions as to how it must behave but ad hoc (not generalizable, as it happens) response. This fits with an 'open' unwritten material future rather than the outcomes already within space-time."
This is of course an ad hoc explanation. I think it falls under the category about Bell said it would be local, but unrealistic. You know Einstein insisted on a theory where all elements of the physical mechanics that lead to the results have a counterpart in the theory. Remember "God does not play dice". Surely Einstein's view was a deterministic one, all outcomes then had to be predetermined in space-time.
If there are no "set instructions" (aka physical laws) as to how it must behave, then we are left with bottomless randomness that somewhat manages to be generalizable, because it follows the Bell curve. Even without explicitely naming that kind of randomness as generically non-local, implicitely it seems to be just that - because how can some local random events (by random i mean here events out of the blue, ad hoc and without classical or other laws dictating the events) produce the regularity of the Bell curve?
The term "realistic", in my opinion, is always used to characterize a physical system as behaving classically, means mechanically, with the ususal pictures like forces, properties, interactions. Boiled down i think "realistic" and "classical" are another shorthand for "cause and effect" as we as humans are used to. The question for me is then, is it possible that there could be unphysical (immaterial) causes that can have physical (material) effects?
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
Georgina Woodward replied on Oct. 28, 2020 @ 09:44 GMT
Stefan, I think it is not quite right to think of the laws of physics as instructions that must be obeyed. Instead I think they are a distillation of what happens, from observation. Like Kepler's laws. There are no instructions telling the planets what to do. But from observation of what they do a pattern can be found.
The results are not what would be expected for a fixed property which seems to be the classical assumption. If change of orientation. potentially altering output state, can happen that is like blue socks turning pink- and Bell's inequalities don't apply
report post as inappropriate
Stefan Weckbach replied on Oct. 28, 2020 @ 10:23 GMT
Hi Georgina,
thanks again for the reply. I agree sofar as blue socks can turn pink. Mermin's challenge is to explain how and why they do it. Or in other words, what goes on in Mermin's boxes to produce the results. Classically, blue socks *must* turn pink under some specific influences. Your attempt seems to be that they can, but they must not. What decides then that it nonetheless happens, that is the question nobody could answer me yet.
report post as inappropriate
Georgina Woodward replied on Oct. 28, 2020 @ 20:25 GMT
Stefan, classically socks are either blue or pink they can not change.[ that of course is an analogy for any fixed classical characteristic; excluding laundry accidents!]. I'm proposing the idea that the orientation of thee magnetic moment is not like that but responds to the environment encountered. What the outcome will be is not preordained or pre-written but develops as the relationship of particle and magnets evolves. A pair can either undergo the same environmental 'journey' or undergo different 'journeys'. Same journey they produce same state outcomes. Different journeys-different or same state outcome, ie, not necessarily the same.
report post as inappropriate
Georgina Woodward replied on Oct. 29, 2020 @ 01:09 GMT
Why 0 degrees and 180 degrees give matched outcome all the time.
lets call the phase of the particles vibration and that of the magnets electrons I for in and O for out. (Into the magnet/out of the magnet. Imagine too the magnetic moment as a magnet.
Lets have output ports that divide the electrons exiting the machine. Instead off calling them up and down lets call them R and G ,R taking those closest to N pole facing in to center of apparatus magnet and G those closest to S pole facing center of apparatus magnet. When the device is inverted relative to the other, of course, the ports are too. Which is why the names up and down would be confusing. The following lines refer to phases of; top magnet (first), test particle, and bottom magnet.
Alice's apparatus, attraction to top, repulsion by bottom R outcome
1 0 1 0 1
0 1 0 1 0
0 1 0 1 0
Bob's apparatus (160 degrees cf. Alice's) Repulsed by top attracted by bottom. Also R outcome as ports inverted with apparatus. This is for correlated particles
0 1 0 1 0
0 1 0 1 0
1 0 1 0 1
If anti correlated ( meaning a pair of opposite orientation of phase) particles is used the anticorrelation is preserved as can be seen by drawing out more phase interaction diagrams, and thinking carefully about what I and O mean on each line.
The particles are responding to their local environment-relationship of the apparatus to Earth's gravity doesn't matter.
report post as inappropriate
John R. Cox replied on Oct. 29, 2020 @ 01:25 GMT
Pink and Blue,
socks don't change themselves.
Neither do the poles of a magnet. It is purely a matter of convention that North and South are platted from the archaic traditions of early civilization and the mysterious 'lodestone' before the earth's magnetic field was known. So in practice a compass needle points N but that's the south end of the magnetized needle and customarily...
view entire post
Pink and Blue,
socks don't change themselves.
Neither do the poles of a magnet. It is purely a matter of convention that North and South are platted from the archaic traditions of early civilization and the mysterious 'lodestone' before the earth's magnetic field was known. So in practice a compass needle points N but that's the south end of the magnetized needle and customarily painted red, though Blue is commonly attributed to N. And, by convention, the direction of magnetic field lines of flux (really arbitrary isobars of the same level of intensity) are commonly shown with arrows as 'moving' from the North pole and looping around (usually diagrammed as upwardly) past parallel to loop again around to the south pole. Still, you'll find many diagrams that label a magnet end 'N' colored red. And there is no detectable direction other than that isobaric shape. Also by convention if you look 'down' onto the north pole, rotation is Clockwise and is really due to the fact that most people are right-handed and twisting a screwdriver that direction has greater strength than CCW. So in diagrams with N Up, the direction of the horizontal arrow showing is pointing leftward, and UP is Negative torque. Two common bar magnets oriented on a plane at right angles will display an attraction of the S end of one magnet from the right angle plane of the S end of the other, all the way to the N loop, and vice-versa. Equilibrium is 'superposition' made physically evident in the macroscopic realm. Nothing mystical about it, no spooky action. Just real easy to get confused, Like the same equilibrium displayed by opposite electric charge.
So Mermin's device holds not hidden variables. An electron is like a 2sphere, there is no cowlick, the hairs on that coconut all stand on end! The orthogonal relationship is freely gimballed, it doesn't matter if the electron is rotating or any surface discrete region is circling an equatorial plane. There are an infinite possible number of possible equatorial planes. It is the shape of the external magnet group producing a non homogenous field that becomes less intense towards one element which influences the flight of the electron. And ON AVERAGE the electron's freely gimballed propensity to be oriented either UP or DOWN will be equally distributed. Superposition of both electric charge and magnetic moment has no preference and persists throughout. Half of 'em will go one way, and the other half will just as likely go the other, they need not be all uniform, just basically the same. But the electron does not need change at all. jrc
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
John R. Cox replied on Oct. 29, 2020 @ 01:33 GMT
The simplest electric motor has no preferred direction of rotation that isn't designed into it.
report post as inappropriate
Georgina Woodward replied on Oct. 29, 2020 @ 02:22 GMT
Can't edit at the moment - bother I think the diagrams are wrong
. There's more to take account of. 1. that the vibration is two sided, a dipole -out one side is in the other. 2, The two apparatus magnets have opposite poles facing each other.
Try again
To differentiate magnets and particles: A and I for away and into magnet body
Alice's
1 0 1 0 1 ( 1 into magnet body) I A I A I
0 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 Two phases for each end of
1 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 the dipole magnetic moment
1 0 1 0 1 I A I A I
(I into magnet body) So I's moving in the opposite direction to other magnet.
To differentiate A and I for away and into magnet body
Bob's
0 1 0 1 0 A I A I A
0 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 0
1 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1
0 1 0 1 0 A I A I A Opposite direction of first line
If anti correlated ( meaning a pair of opposite orientation of phase) particles is used the anticorrelation is preserved as can be seen by drawing out more phase interaction diagrams, and thinking carefully about what I and O mean on each line.
I think that's right now. I'll leave it there as it's' doing my head in'. -You have to picture what the magnets and particles are doing. '
report post as inappropriate
Georgina Woodward replied on Oct. 29, 2020 @ 02:36 GMT
John, I agree. Blue socks do not classically change into pink socks. A magnetic pole labelled North does not turn into a South .But orientation of the magnet (or a magnetic moment) can change. I'm associating the phase of vibration of particle with the poles to try and explain what is happening. It may be out of the box, but will also explain why magnets come as dipoles. A single electron being the smallest.
report post as inappropriate
Georgina Woodward replied on Oct. 29, 2020 @ 02:49 GMT
Bother again . I didn't check how my post would appear on screen.
Again
Alice's
1 0 1 0 1 ( 1 into magnet body) ..I A I A I
0 1 0 1 0 ..................................0 1 0 1 0
1 0 1 0 1,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,1 0 1 0 1
1 0 1 0 1 ...............................I A I A I
Two middle lines phases for particle magnetic moment ends
(I into magnet body) So I's moving in the opposite direction to other magnet.
To differentiate A and I for away and into magnet body
Bob's
0 1 0 1 0........................... A I A I A
0 1 0 1 0........................... 0 1 0 1 0
1 0 1 0 1........................... 1 0 1 0 1
0 1 0 1 0............................ A I A I A Opposite direction of first line
report post as inappropriate
Georgina Woodward replied on Oct. 29, 2020 @ 02:51 GMT
Should line up but you can see what I meant now.
report post as inappropriate
Stefan Weckbach replied on Oct. 29, 2020 @ 12:58 GMT
John,
"An electron is like a 2sphere, there is no cowlick, the hairs on that coconut all stand on end! The orthogonal relationship is freely gimballed, it doesn't matter if the electron is rotating or any surface discrete region is circling an equatorial plane. There are an infinite possible number of possible equatorial planes."
I am not sure if i understood this correctly.
Quantum theory says that there is a 100% anti-correlation for our entanglement experiment when both the magnets have the same field-orientation in space (of course also with the same field forces).
Means, if the spin of the electron referring to magnet A is "down", then the spin of the electron referring to magnet B is "up" - and vice versa. That's the anti-correlation i spoke of. How does this anti-correlation come about if each of the two electrons are
"a 2sphere, there is no cowlick, the hairs on that coconut all stand on end! The orthogonal relationship is freely gimballed, it doesn't matter if the electron is rotating or any surface discrete region is circling an equatorial plane."???
If the measurement devices (magnets) at each side are identical in orientation and strength, the cause for the anti-correlation at a relative angle of 0 degrees must be found in a difference between electron A and electron B. What difference is that???
report post as inappropriate
Georgina Woodward replied on Oct. 29, 2020 @ 19:18 GMT
Sorry, what a pigs ear I've made of that attempt to elucidate. Got muddled with inversion of Alice and Bob's apparatus and the orientation of the magnets in each. The two in each are of course the same orientation and would if able attract. I thought it might have more explanatory power but I end up with just a exceedingly tiny magnet passing through a magnetic field. The inhomogeneity of that field could play a part in selecting which polarity the particle moves towards. In Bob's apparatus the same inhomogeneity is encountered but inverted leading to the same output port, though spatially inverted too.
.I A I A I Alice's............. A I A I A Bob's
A I A I A....................... I A I A I
What would happen if the orientation of the source was altered?
report post as inappropriate
Georgina Woodward replied on Oct. 30, 2020 @ 01:39 GMT
John. maybe they need to be different from your description, if the characteristics and behaviour can not account for experimental results. Reimagining the electron is less of a big deal compared to faster than light communication. Is the idea that something has a definite state or value even if not measured even classically realistic? (Rhetorical). A heads or tails bit cannot be associated with a coin
until the measurement protocol has been decided. Read by opening the palm and calling it? Or is the coin to be flipped -giving opposite state? The outcome state associated with a second particle of correlated or anticorrelated pair can only be accurately predicted if the same test x. y or z is selected. The isolated outcome bit is not a particle, or condition of it, pre -testing. The outcome only happens when it happens.
report post as inappropriate
John R. Cox replied on Oct. 30, 2020 @ 14:36 GMT
Georgina,
I can follow what you are saying, it's just that there is always that loop-hole of a coin not being associated with a heads or tails bit outcome until a measurement protocol is chosen. From a technical experimentalist perspective, the assumption that two, and only two, individual electrons are selectively prepared as a singlet pair, is itself a theoretical probability. It's a choice to accept that just such a micro-managed sequence of events has been accomplished. In short; we choose to accept that anti-correlation is observed in the initial detection, thence forward.
In refreshing as this discussion has progressed, I realized I was thinking in terms that had simply followed from the usual accepted norms. In particular the induction of a dipolar magnetic moment. And the more I puzzled, the more it became apparent that there are reasons why not only is it not necessary, but there are problems if spin is physically what QM theoretically assumes. To whit; Up and Down are both CCW rotations, yet if that is what physically happens that orients an electron then we have to accept that there is a preferred physical direction for rotation. Shouldn't anti-correlation be CCW, UP, North and CW, UP, North, and CCW, DN, North, and CW, DN, North? (;- jrc
report post as inappropriate
Stefan Weckbach replied on Oct. 30, 2020 @ 18:59 GMT
Dear Georgina and John,
it's not a shame that both of you haven't "cracked the puzzle". To the contrary, it is honorable that both of you just confessed to be in error.
I assume that many more anonymous persons, physicists or not, tried to explain things by the same arguments, but neither succeeded. Surely no papers will be published about these failures and i think this is the reason why many proponents for local-realism think that the other camp hasn't thought long and intensive enough about the various issues.
Stefan
report post as inappropriate
Steve Dufourny replied on Oct. 30, 2020 @ 19:12 GMT
Hi dear fqxi friends, john, Stefan, Georgina, I liked a lot your discussions , friendly
report post as inappropriate
Georgina Woodward replied on Oct. 31, 2020 @ 05:51 GMT
John, Stefan, Steve. The dipole magnetic moment idea doesn't seem helpful here. John you said the electron is perfectly gimballed- but it doesn't need gimbals if it is like gyroscope but unsupported. Like a gyroscope in space.
There are some useful behaviours.
1. In the absence of twisting forces, a gyroscope 's axis will always point in whatever direction it was pointing when you started it spinning. Relevant to temporary maintenance of output state if frame test orientation is repeated. And maintenance of 'entangled pair' orientation correlation or anticorrelation. Ie. they do not spontaneously loose their relation when treated the same. This can be demonstrated with pairs of gyroscopes floating freely in space craft.
2. The separation of the pair gyroscopes does not affect their relationship- (so long as they do not collide!)Cf. particle pair members given huge separation, maintaining 'entanglement'.
Push it unsupported in space it maintains its orientation and moves across the cabin. ( It does not show 'circling' precession as it would if on a support of any kind on Earth.)
3. A twist is needed for it to change orientation. Cf. a gyroscopic ion or electron in SG apparatus, exposed to different field orientations. X, y, z.
Assumptions.
a. the particle is produced with a gyroscopic spin orientation.
b. That orientation is either aligned with the magnetic field OR experiences the magnetic field as a local environment exerting a twist. So its orientation adjusts accordingly.
c. the resulting orientation depends on starting orientation AND twists acting on it from the local environment.
report post as inappropriate
Georgina Woodward replied on Oct. 31, 2020 @ 05:54 GMT
TYpo. Should say-Relevant to temporary maintenance of output state if same test orientation is repeated.
report post as inappropriate
Stefan Weckbach replied on Oct. 31, 2020 @ 11:25 GMT
Dear Georgina,
“b. That orientation is either aligned with the magnetic field OR experiences the magnetic field as a local environment exerting a twist. So its orientation adjusts accordingly.“
Not sure if I understood this correctly. Could you please give a description for how in the case of a relative magnet angle of 0 degrees (perfect anti-correlation) the measurement results do come about with the two gyroscopes?
report post as inappropriate
John R. Cox replied on Oct. 31, 2020 @ 16:24 GMT
Georgina,
If the assumption that 'the particle is produced with a gyroscopic spin orientation' is true, and UP and DN are a thumbs up or thumbs down representation of the right-hand rule of thumb (revolving field at right angle to direction of current in a conductor), then there must be universally a physically preferred direction of rotation. If its "turtles all the way down" then we are searching for the last turtle.
The orthogonal relationship is presented a every point in the electromagnetic field, not just the particle(s) central to it. Likewise in the non homogenous region of the magnet group actually between the two shaped magnets, that orthogonal relationship permeates the field. The uniformity of negative charge of an electron will present an alignment of orthogonality whether it is rotating, wobbling, gyrating, tumbling or whatever. Nor would it matter if the unpaired electron of a silver atom is located any particular place on the outermost shell. The electron needn't exhibit a polarity to respond as if it did because there are only two opposite and equal possible physical orientations relative to the orthogonality of the non-homogenous field remaining relative to the direction of the atom's trajectory. On average, half will deflect upward, half downward.
report post as inappropriate
Stefan Weckbach replied on Oct. 31, 2020 @ 16:47 GMT
John,
i read your last post and have a question:
If the measurement devices (magnets) at each side are identical in orientation and strength, the cause for the anti-correlation (up/down or down/up, but never up/up or down/down) at a relative angle of 0 degrees must be found in a difference between electron A and electron B. What difference is that???
report post as inappropriate
John R. Cox replied on Oct. 31, 2020 @ 18:00 GMT
Stefan,
Find any lab, business, NGO or govt agency that can produce any sort of detection system that can register the incidence of a single atom, electron, proton or photon. There are technologically none. Events are registered as least observable aggregates. And its only when things in aggregate move in unison with each other that we can detect differentiated polarity, whether be it charge or magnetism. ON AVERAGE then, given that an electron with its omnidirectional uniform charge will have its accompanying undifferentiated magnetic field which nonetheless will present an orthogonal relationship in any aspect relative to and aligned with the predominant orthogonality of the manufactured non-homogenous field, half of the registered detections will be UP or DN. It is really that simple, and statistical,
If you register only the DN detections and pass the UP projections through yet another magnet group same as the one they just exited, That projected batch that would register as UP will itself become split in two with half UP and half DN when registered. Resulting in the same 1/4 probability as what is observed by the Mermin 120* detection angle. It's a Bit, not a coin. jrc
report post as inappropriate
Stefan Weckbach replied on Oct. 31, 2020 @ 20:20 GMT
John,
you have not answered my question. What is the difference between electron A and B that leads to what Mermin writes in his appendix as
"This probability is unity when phi = 0 [case (a)]"
Phi is the relative angle between the magnets A and B. So what causes the results at a relative angle of 0 degrees?
You can find Mermin's paper - and especially its appendix - at
https://www.informationphilosopher.com/solutions/scientist
s/mermin/Mermin_short.pdf
If you think you know the answer - write the explanation. If you do not know - write that you do not know. And if you are dishonest - write as if you know something, for example what you wrote in your last post,
"If you register only the DN detections and pass the UP projections through yet another magnet group same as the one they just exited, That projected batch that would register as UP will itself become split in two with half UP and half DN when registered. Resulting in the same 1/4 probability as what is observed by the Mermin 120* detection angle."
what obviously isn't Bohm's version of the Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen experiment and neither is the constellation i asked for to be explained.
report post as inappropriate
Georgina Woodward replied on Oct. 31, 2020 @ 21:03 GMT
"If you register only the DN detections and pass the UP projections through yet another magnet group same as the one they just exited, That projected batch that would register as UP will itself become split in two with half UP and half DN when registered. Resulting in the same 1/4 probability as what is observed by the Mermin 120* detection angle. It's a Bit, not a coin." jrc
Not so John, the spin outcome is temporarily preserved. So unless subjected to a different field orientation between outcomes it will not be changed. All still up.
report post as inappropriate
Georgina Woodward replied on Oct. 31, 2020 @ 21:18 GMT
Stefan,
"Not sure if I understood this correctly. Could you please give a description for how in the case of a relative magnet angle of 0 degrees (perfect anti-correlation) the measurement results do come about with the two gyroscopes?" Stefan
The pair is produced with anti correlated spins and that is preserved unless one or both experience a twist or series of twists that cause them to become out of alignment with each other. 0 and 180 degrees are the same alignment of field though at 180 they have reversed polarity of field compared to each other.
report post as inappropriate
Georgina Woodward replied on Oct. 31, 2020 @ 21:33 GMT
I think the 'sppoky'* correlation of the gyroscopes can be demonstrated either by using big magnets and tiny macroscopic gyroscopes in a weightless environment. Or maybe set up so the gyroscopes have neural buoyancy in a liquid-
* The gyroscopes don't need to communicate to co-ordinate keeping their correlation or too loose it. This un-spokifies spooky action at a distance.
report post as inappropriate
John R. Cox replied on Nov. 1, 2020 @ 00:08 GMT
Yes is so, Georgina,
usually in the various presentations and literature it is said that the subject atom 'forgets' its orientation. And in the better produced video presentations on Spin, the explanation is that the electron behaves "as if" there was a rotating charge. The Mermin Challenge is "why does" that non-orthogonal detection angle on one side of the source, produce results "as if" the Up and Dn detections were projected through a second asymmetric magnet element.
report post as inappropriate
Georgina Woodward replied on Nov. 1, 2020 @ 00:12 GMT
Re.John R. Cox replied on Oct. 31, 2020. I think your talk of fields, thumbs, turtles and tumbling etc. is a lot of obfuscations. What matters to an unsupported gyroscope is whether or not it experiences a twist. No twist no change in orientation.
Silver ions not atoms are used in the SG experiments; Ag+. The outer shell electron of a silver atom is missing g, so doesn't unbalance the ion.
report post as inappropriate
Georgina Woodward replied on Nov. 1, 2020 @ 00:32 GMT
I don't think that is the challenge John. With an entangled' particle or gyroscope only one different exposure is needed to break the relationship, so that the outcome becomes random; not 100% correlated, Once the relationship is broken putting the output through a second apparatus of the same as last test orientation produces the same outcome as the previous test. The orientation is temporarily preserved; given same conditions. Once aligned to the new field orientation it remains in that alignment. Only a change providing a twist will change the orientation.
report post as inappropriate
Stefan Weckbach replied on Nov. 1, 2020 @ 00:54 GMT
Accidentally posted this as a "new post", but here it is:
Georgina,
"All still up."
Correct.
"The pair is produced with anti correlated spins and that is preserved unless one or both experience a twist or series of twists that cause them to become out of alignment with each other. 0 and 180 degrees are the same alignment of field though at 180 they have reversed polarity of field compared to each other."
It is clear that your gyroscopes had to be anti-correlated for the relative angle of 0 degrees, experimental results as well as QM say so. The question was and is what this means: in which angles are the spin axis - in the first picture you find on wiki - oriented when sent out from the source???
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gyroscope
In a local-realistic scheme one also has to explain what happens with these spin axis when they encounter the orientation of the magnetic fields. If that remains mysterious, then it is not a local-realistic explanation and i could as well claim that some tiny "anti-correlated" pink elephants - with trunks up or down (anti-correlated) - are responsible for the results at the relative angle of 0 degrees.
Only when you have clarity about the angle of 0 degrees, you can proceed to the other angles and see whether or not your scheme is consistent with the other angles. Up to now it is not clear whether or not your scheme is at all feasible for 0, 90 and 180 degrees.
report post as inappropriate
Georgina Woodward replied on Nov. 1, 2020 @ 02:28 GMT
Stefan, imagine a gyroscope. It has two important characteristics. Mass that spins and axis of rotation. Imagine the gyroscopes weightless in space. The gyroscopes can have aligned axes of rotation, whether same way up or one is inverted compared to the other; so that they are spinning in opposite directions compared to each other. Relative spins are the difference between correlated or anti correlated .Spin axes relative to each other are the difference between 100% same outcomes and random outcomes.
After production the individuals of an entangled pair meet their own test apparatus. The axes of rotation will either be aligned with the fields so no change of orientation happens, or both experience twisting that aligns the axes to the fields. Same fields act the same on the axes of rotation. The axes of rotation are the same, remember. It's only spin direction that is different. So the relationship is preserved.
report post as inappropriate
Stefan Weckbach replied on Nov. 1, 2020 @ 04:50 GMT
Georgina,
i am really not convinced - to the contrary.
I know what a gyroscope is. Your gyroscopes seem to be sensible to inhomogenous magnetic fields.
If you want to explain the experiment in question by a local-realistic theory, you should start by explaining what it is that is sensible to inhomogenous magnetic fields. Are there dipole magnets at the gyroscopes?
Further you must specify the different cases. You write that "the gyroscopes can have aligned axes of rotation", but you don't write whether or not they MUST have aligned axis to produce the known results.
Furthermore you write "whether same way up or one is inverted compared to the other". Please specify whether that means that only "same way up" is allowed to arrive at the magnets and no "same way down"?. "Same way up" should be the shorthand for a certain spinning direction, i guess?
If all this is clear you should write with which frequencies of occurrence your different pairings are generated by the source. One needs the complete set of all possible pairings and their frequencies of occurrence. Otherwise a serious evaluation of your scheme is utterly pointless.
Only then one can begin to discuss what physical mechanism(s) in your scheme lead to the well known Bell curve.
So it would be helpful if you would answer all these questions first.
After that it is necessary to explain your scheme for a certain angle.
So please explain the PHYSICAL (means CAUSAL) mechanism why for a relative angle of 60 degrees between the two magnets the measurement results are such that in 3/4 of all measured pairs under that 60 degree angle there is anti-correlation - and in 1/4 of all these measured pairs under that 60 degree angle there is correlation.
report post as inappropriate
Georgina Woodward replied on Nov. 1, 2020 @ 06:01 GMT
Stefan, sorry if I'm pedantic.
You ask a lot- I'll try.
Re. the particle gyroscope, there is just spinning mass with axis of rotation. That mass in your words is sensible to the environment produced by the test apparatus. I think it is a real disturbance of the base substance of existence. I don't think thinking about magnetic moments is helpful here after all.
Yes the axes of rotation must be pointing in the same direction in each pair to get 100 % correlated or anti correlated depending on how the 'entangled' pairs are produced, For 'random results the individuals of the pair have undergone different forces. Not knowing the orientation starting with and produced by the twists of the non-homogenous field the final outcome can't be predicted (looks random).
By 'same way up' I man same up pairs, same down pairs, and any other angle of same pairs. For anti correlation one must be inverted 180 degrees from the other. That's about axis of rotation . if a spinning mass is inverted, it spins in the opposite direction viewed from the same reference frame.
Results will be as are found experimentally. Bell's inequalities are violated because of the effects of changeable axis of rotation . The inequalities apply to fixed properties.
report post as inappropriate
Stefan Weckbach replied on Nov. 1, 2020 @ 18:38 GMT
Georgina, never mind, i am as pedantic as you are :-)
So axis of rotation must be pointing in the same direction for each pair to get 100% (anti-) correlation.
No matter in which direction that axis is pointing before measurement, they will be aligned with the respective magnet fields by some forces.
"By 'same way up' I man same up pairs, same down pairs, and any other angle...
view entire post
Georgina, never mind, i am as pedantic as you are :-)
So axis of rotation must be pointing in the same direction for each pair to get 100% (anti-) correlation.
No matter in which direction that axis is pointing before measurement, they will be aligned with the respective magnet fields by some forces.
"By 'same way up' I man same up pairs, same down pairs, and any other angle of same pairs."
Further you wrote at 1. Nov. @ 2:28 GMT
"The gyroscopes can have aligned axes of rotation, whether same way up or one is inverted compared to the other; so that they are spinning in opposite directions compared to each other."
So, we have 4 different kinds of pairings send off from the source:
up/up
down/down
up/down
down/up
By assuming all these pairs orrcur with equal frequencies at the source, it is obvious that for the cases of 0 degrees as well as 180 degrees, you can't neither have 100% correlation nor 100% anti-correlation. Sorry for being pedantic but you wrote that exactly so. Therefore i wondered why you wrote
"Results will be as are found experimentally."
So for the sake of further discussion let's assume that your theory has only 2 kinds of pairings:
down/up
up/down
This would give 100% anti-correlation at 0 degrees relative angle and 100% correlation at 180 degrees of relative angle. Since the axis of rotations can be inverted by the magnet fields, it doesn't matter if both members of a pair have the opposite directions of the magnet's fields they will encounter, they simply get "flipped" (or inverted as your terminology says).
Consequently it also doesn't matter whether or not the axis of rotation (spin axis) is oriented such that it is in line with the horizontal plane (means it lies in the plane of the tabletop-experiment, in the plane of the board of your desktop). What matters is the same alignment of the spin axis for both pairs and that the pairs differ concerning the direction of their rotations.
The interesting case of 90 degrees relative angle between the magnets is explained by you such that the equal frequencies of the pairings
up/down
down/up
down/down
up/up
comes about by
"the individuals of the pair have undergone different forces. Not knowing the orientation starting with and produced by the twists of the non-homogenous field the final outcome can't be predicted (looks random)."
So if you assume that only up/down or down/up pairs are send off the source, it comes as a surprise that we now should also have down/down and up/up measurement results.
You only have to imagine that case:
Both spin axis are oriented in the horizontal plane. The left magnet is turned 90 degrees relative to the other. What happens at that turned magnet? For obtaining the known result (50% correlation, 50% anti-correlation), the "different forces" that act on this left side must act randomly, so are no forces in the classical sense.
This is easy to see if you make the gedankenexperiment:
Assume that the left magnet is turned 90 degrees relative to the other. The other magnet remains unchanced.
Now assume that a particle pair comes in whose left member rotates anti-correlated compared to the other.
Lets examine what happens to the right. The particle to the right can have two measurement outcomes. This depends only on its original direction of rotation. It is *determined* whether the outcome will be "up" or "down".
For the left particle the same should be valid. Since we do not know the particles' original spin directions, we could say that whenever the right particle is measured "up", the left particle should be measured "down" and vice versa - because they are entangled and the 90 degrees (the environment) does not change. This then would result in 50% "up/down" and 50% "down/up".
But the experimental results are very different as you know.
For obtaining each 1/4 of up/down, down/up, down/down and up/up mesurement results the left side cannot act deterministically according to some locally-realistic physical forces. Because, as you know, at the left side the particle can only have 2 alternatives, either "up" or "down" with equal frequencies according to your theory. This would result in 50% "up/down" and 50% "down/up".
And NO, that does NOT mean that the cases "up/up" and "down/down" can also occur - because you anti-correlated all the pairs per assumption AND you assume that same physical LOCAL forces on same physical LOCAL properties results in same measurement results. So if the right particle is measured "up" - then the left particle CANNOT be measured either "up" or "down" according to local realism. The same is also true for the case that the right particle is measured "down". Then the left particle cannot be measured either "up" or "down" but must remain correlated to the right particle.
"Not knowing the orientation starting with and produced by the twists of the non-homogenous field the final outcome can't be predicted (looks random)."
This is not consistent. Why should the magnet and the particle to the right suddenly have changed behaviour only because the left magnet was turned 90 degrees? If it wouldn't have turned (and the magnets remain 0 degrees relative to each other), you wouldn't either expect results like "down/down" and "up/up".
You can't smuggle in these measurement pairings for the case of 0 degrees by assuming that the source does send them out. Because as i have noted above, this would disturb the experimental results for that angle.
You also cannot smuggle in these pairings for the case of 90 degrees to obtain the correct measurement results - since the source cannot know whether or not there is a relative angle of 90 degrees involved (but who knows, maybe the source knows "non-locally" :-).
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
Georgina Woodward replied on Nov. 1, 2020 @ 21:34 GMT
Stefan, "So, we have 4 different kinds of pairings send off from the source:
up/up
down/down
up/down
down/up
By assuming all these pairs orrcur with equal frequencies at the source, it is obvious that for the cases of 0 degrees as well as 180 degrees, you can't neither have 100% correlation nor 100% anti-correlation. Sorry for being pedantic but you wrote that exactly so." SW
Here I don't agree. The source isn't producing final result outcomes but a mixture of orientations within and between pairs. Some of those pairs are truly anticorrelated, others which might be given the same up/ down or vice versa name are only approximately of the same orientation. The two kinds are called entangled pairs and product pairs. It is only the proportion of the mixture of pairs that are entangled that give 100% anticorrelated results. The rest of the anticorrelated results are (as if) random.. The entangled results skew the outcome from the expected random distribution of each kind of result. If entanglement is lost by treating the individuals of the entangled pair differently -the results are (as if) random.
report post as inappropriate
Georgina Woodward replied on Nov. 1, 2020 @ 22:14 GMT
Stefan, "So for the sake of further discussion let's assume that your theory has only 2 kinds of pairings: down/up up/down This would give 100% anti-correlation at 0 degrees relative angle and 100% correlation at 180 degrees of relative angle..."SW. I refer you to my previous reply in regard to entangled and product pairs.
"Since the axis of rotations can be inverted by the magnet fields, it doesn't matter if both members of a pair have the opposite directions of the magnet's fields they will encounter, they simply get "flipped" (or inverted as your terminology says). I did not mention or intend to imply flipping , though it might occur. Imagine an axis or rotation vertical in a field, field lines vertical between the poles above and below. In regard to twisting forces, it doesn't matter if the gyroscope is upside-down or not. Or the field is 0 or 180 degrees. Change of orientation of the gyroscope depends on twisting forces.
"Consequently it also doesn't matter whether or not the axis of rotation (spin axis) is oriented such that it is in line with the horizontal plane (means it lies in the plane of the tabletop-experiment, in the plane of the board of your desktop). What matters is the same alignment of the spin axis for both pairs ...SW. (yes that is entanglement if precisely the same GW) and that the pairs differ concerning the direction of their rotations." SW (that is the anti-correlation GW)
report post as inappropriate
Georgina Woodward replied on Nov. 1, 2020 @ 22:34 GMT
Stefan , in regard to the final part of your reply.
For 90 degrees.
The individuals of a pair of entangled anti correlated particles enter their own test apparatus. Each aligns to the field it encounters if it needs to. As the field orientations are different the orientation of the axes of rotation of each particle will be different. They each experience the in-homogenous magnetic field and exit. Entanglement has been lost and they exit, as if never entangled -random result.
report post as inappropriate
Stefan Weckbach replied on Nov. 1, 2020 @ 23:22 GMT
Georgina,
"It is only the proportion of the mixture of pairs that are entangled that give 100% anticorrelated results."
"Entangled" in your terminology means truly anti-correlated (via some property).
Now look again at the case with relative angle of 0 degrees:
Let's assume in 50% of all the emissions the source emits the kind of pairs you call "truly...
view entire post
Georgina,
"It is only the proportion of the mixture of pairs that are entangled that give 100% anticorrelated results."
"Entangled" in your terminology means truly anti-correlated (via some property).
Now look again at the case with relative angle of 0 degrees:
Let's assume in 50% of all the emissions the source emits the kind of pairs you call "truly anticorrelated".
At 0 degrees the measurement results are such that ONLY "up/down" OR "down/up" results have been registered ("anti-correlation").
Now, if your product pairs should not counteract the final result of a 100% anti-correlation, then these product pairs aren't allowed to produce the paired results "down/down" and "up/up".
Consequently your product pairs CANNOT act (as if) random (random means giving the 4 possible pairings with equal probability), but also had to be truly anti-correlated for the relative angle of 0 degrees, otherwise your theory does predict something different from QM.
"The entangled results skew the outcome from the expected random distribution of each kind of result."
This does not make any sense. Either your product pairs react totally random every time OR they are just as "entangled" as your truly entangled pairs are. Mixing these product pairs into the mixture of all pairs to somehow explain the violations of the Bell inequality (and hence to explain the deviations of the Bell curve from the linear graphs) does only make sense when one can give a physical explanation how these product pairs skew the linear curve (at different angles). Since there is only the alternative for these product pairs to act totally random or to obey some physical laws to achieve the mentioned skewing, you neither can explain why a totally random process should lead to a non-linear and symmetric violation of Bell's inequalities nor can you give physical mechanisms for your as-if randomness.
To resume, smuggling in "product pairs" that in the 0 degree case MUST react just like your "truly anti-correlated" pairs is nonsense. Likewise nonsense is to introduce these product pairs to later explain the 90 degree case where the product pairs then should be allowed to be measured in all 4 possible pairings to explain the 90 degree results. You can't built a locally-realistic theory by skipping local-realistic thinking or you arrive at an oxymoron.
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
Stefan Weckbach replied on Nov. 1, 2020 @ 23:54 GMT
Georgina,
"The individuals of a pair of entangled anti correlated particles enter their own test apparatus. Each aligns to the field it encounters if it needs to. As the field orientations are different the orientation of the axes of rotation of each particle will be different. They each experience the in-homogenous magnetic field and exit."
Are you serious??? Pardon me, but you wrote that now for several times. I have understood this. But this does not explain how the Bell curve comes about - it doesn't explain anything. In almost every post of you you add or substract from what you wrote before. Compared to what you claim ("Results will be as are found experimentally.") your writings are - pardon me - meaningless since you have no clue how a locally-realistic theory could physically work. This is dishonest, since "Results will be as are found experimentally." suggests it is worth discussing your ideas and you may tell the debater (and reader) how you arrived at all to the conclusion "Results will be as are found experimentally.".
report post as inappropriate
Georgina Woodward replied on Nov. 2, 2020 @ 01:30 GMT
OK Stefan, I'm sorry you think this has been meaningless. I have been trying to clarify what I mean, to deal with ambiguities as you point them out to me. Sorry it is not to your liking but no dishonesty is intended. I'm not presenting finished work but tying to elucidate what is going on myself.
"Bell carried the analysis of quantum entanglement much further. He deduced that if measurements are performed independently on the two separated halves of a pair, then the assumption that the outcomes depend upon hidden variables within each half implies a constraint on how the outcomes on the two halves are correlated. This constraint would later be named the Bell inequality. Bell then showed that quantum physics predicts correlations that violate this inequality." Wikipedia.
Assuming there is something within each particle, a fixed characteristic causing the outcome gives Bell's inequalities. But that is not what I'm proposing. It is the environment acting upon a temporarily preserve-able orientation, That is not the kind of situation that could be expected to fit the inequalities. What exactly the results would be I can not be certain. However I predict the outcome of testing tiny gyroscopes with very big magnets; in a weightless environment or with neutral buoyancy- (SG experiments simulations)will give the same statistical results as particles and SG apparatus.
report post as inappropriate
Georgina Woodward replied on Nov. 2, 2020 @ 02:03 GMT
Stefan, re. product pairs vs. entangled pairs. This is new to me but I thought it was something that might be useful to incorporate. In real life the 100% anti-correlation is really just there about. The entanglement process is not exact. I think you are right after exposure to a particular field orientation many not previously entangled particles will take up same alignment and by results be indistinguishable from those emitted entangled. The propensity to give a certain state outcome is temporarily retained.
Entanglement is by correlation of axes of rotation and relative to each other directions of rotation. We could think about those spins and how they compare to the spins of the electrons of the magnet faces- giving north and south seeking behaviour- but that is another matter. Direction changes with viewpoint , so it isn't as straightforward as one might think.
report post as inappropriate
Georgina Woodward replied on Nov. 2, 2020 @ 05:19 GMT
Stefan, the Bell shaped curve seems very important to you."... if the pairs of outcomes are always the same, the correlation is +1; if the pairs of outcomes are always opposite, the correlation is −1; and if the pairs of outcomes agree 50% of the time, then the correlation is 0." Bell's theorem Wikipedia
I think the closer the angle gets to 0 the more likely to have anti correlation ( closer to-1 ) Experimental line sags below what would be expected for a fixed characteristic. Less angle less torque difference altering partners differently. At 90 degrees there is max torque difference, giving least similarity of outcomes of all angles. Approaching 180 there is increasing similarity of torques again, but inversion of field polarity acting on one partner compared to the other. This I think will effect behavior re north/couth seeking behavior. The slope rises above expectation for a fixed characteristic because of the changing difference in torque, increasing alignment more so than if orientation was a fixed property. [By torque I mean twisting force acting upon the axis of rotation]
Re. gyroscope experiments it is probably be necessary to have magnetized mass to simulate magnetic effects happening to the test particles.
report post as inappropriate
Georgina Woodward replied on Nov. 2, 2020 @ 05:24 GMT
Stefan Weckbach replied on Nov. 2, 2020 @ 09:55 GMT
Georgina,
"Stefan, the Bell shaped curve seems very important to you."
Yes, self-evidently, since every local-realistic account must match with that curve. This is totally independent of what Bell wrote or not wrote.
"Sorry it is not to your liking but no dishonesty is intended. I'm not presenting finished work but tying to elucidate what is going on myself."
It's not...
view entire post
Georgina,
"Stefan, the Bell shaped curve seems very important to you."
Yes, self-evidently, since every local-realistic account must match with that curve. This is totally independent of what Bell wrote or not wrote.
"Sorry it is not to your liking but no dishonesty is intended. I'm not presenting finished work but tying to elucidate what is going on myself."
It's not about liking, it's that claiming things that aren't the case isn't scientifically meaningful. Claiming "Results will be as are found experimentally." when that isn't the case is like i would refuse any account for local-realistic explanations by just saying to you "Your account is inconsistent" - without ever proving that inconsistency. I think you wouldn't like that if i or something other would act this way.
"Assuming there is something within each particle, a fixed characteristic causing the outcome gives Bell's inequalities. But that is not what I'm proposing."
I know. But nonetheless your proposals must reproduce QM probabilities. Up to now your scheme hasn't consistently reproduced a single angle. If something works for 0 degrees, it fails at 90 degrees and vice versa.
"I think the closer the angle gets to 0 the more likely to have anti correlation ( closer to-1 )."
That's not a matter of "i think" but a matter of fact.
"Experimental line sags below what would be expected for a fixed characteristic. Less angle less torque difference altering partners differently."
This only works if the 0 degree case together with the source's orientation relative to the magnets is somewhat a preferred reference frame. Since you assume that it is the relative angle of the magnet's field with an incoming particle's orientation that dictates the outcomes, a preferred reference frame makes it necessary that ALL particle pairs send out from the source have identical orientations relative to the 0 degree case. Otherwise you again do not arrive at the correct probabilities.
This "preferred frame" assumption can easily be tested by subsequently turning both magnets the same amount in the same direction to preserve the 0 degree case but to counteract the "synchronization" with the source. I think these experiments have already been done since it is highly unlikely that there was not a single scientist that tried to falsify QM. In fact there have been many scientists who originally started their work with the assumption that QM must be flawed in some way. The assumption always was that the source sends off the different orientations of all particle pairs with equal frequencies and i think that must have been tested in the past - since it is a vital ingredient of Bell's assumptions.
"At 90 degrees there is max torque difference, giving least similarity of outcomes of all angles."
Although it is true that at 90 degrees there is "least similarity of outcomes of all angles", your explanation with torque isn't locally-realistic. Let's assume for the moment that the left magnet is turned 90 degrees apart from the 0 degree case, the right magnet remains unchanged.
Whatever mechanics (torque etc. this can be generalized to ANY kind of local mechanics) is responsible for the torque on the left side to produce the probabilities you want - for symmetry reasons the same must also be the case for the right side when this side is also turned 90 degrees (in the same direction as the left magnet had been turned).
Having turned both magnets in this manner we then arrive again at the 0 degree case but with the difference that now the outcome should be what we would expect for the 90 degree case!
You may say that due to the anti-correlated features of the particle pair, the right particle will not show this behaviour when we turn the right magnet the way i just decribed but somewhat will preserve the behaviour it had before turning the magnet.
But for "anti-symmetric" and locally-realistic reasons then it should show the same behaviour as the left particle (remember, we have assumed that the left particle is somewhat "randomized" when confronted with a 90 degree change of field) when we turn the right magnet 90 degrees in the opposite direction (means not in the same direction as the left magnet has been turned) to somehow avoid the logical conclusion above.
But by turning the right magnet just as described, we then arrive at a relative angle of 180 degrees for the magnets and our scheme says that we now should expect outcomes that are identical to the original 90 degree case! Again that's not what has been measured.
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
Georgina Woodward replied on Nov. 2, 2020 @ 09:58 GMT
Stefan, what I have proposed is not local realism, as it does not assume the states output exist s properties of the test particles prior to measurement. That is what has to go.
report post as inappropriate
Stefan Weckbach replied on Nov. 2, 2020 @ 10:05 GMT
Georgina, name your proposal as you wish and assume what you want to assume, that is not the issue. The issue is that your proposal does not reproduce experimental and QM results.
report post as inappropriate
Georgina Woodward replied on Nov. 2, 2020 @ 10:27 GMT
Stefan, your list of objections is too long for me to deal with in one go. And honestly I'm feeling it is not worth my time right now. I do not like being told my efforts are time wasting, I'm ignorant, dishonest and now unscientific.
I re-worded my " the results will be....etc. to something like- I predict the results of the experiment I'm proposing will be the same...etc Making clear I am not claiming to know with certainty but am making a reasonable assumption that needs testing. I wonder if you actually read all of my replies. Your assumption that it can not be so seems to be due to your mistaken characterization of the proposal as a local realistic theory.
report post as inappropriate
Georgina Woodward replied on Nov. 2, 2020 @ 10:33 GMT
Have you carried out my experiments!! (rhetorical)
report post as inappropriate
Stefan Weckbach replied on Nov. 2, 2020 @ 11:11 GMT
Georgina,
"Your assumption that it can not be so seems to be due to your mistaken characterization of the proposal as a local realistic theory."
No. Since every theory about what happens in those experiments - be it "locally-realistic" or not - must reproduce the experimental and QM results. So the term "local-realistic" is irrelevant here although i used it.
"I predict the results of the experiment I'm proposing will be the same...etc Making clear I am not claiming to know with certainty but am making a reasonable assumption that needs testing."
The "reasonable assumption" you made seems to be that if you assume something different then local realism does (aka Bell and his work), then this is sufficient to deduce from this that the probability of your scheme meeting the experimental results must be very high. I do not find that reasonable since - as i described in my latest longer post - in my opinion this is flawed.
Sorry, but i do find no reasonable assumptions in your proposal that could reproduce what already experimentally has been tested. You may think that one should test your scheme for whether or not these SG entanglement experiments have a preferred reference frame. But i think if tested (maybe already tested) it will not confirm your scheme. So let's end with these different points of view.
report post as inappropriate
Stefan Weckbach replied on Nov. 2, 2020 @ 11:21 GMT
Georgina,
"Have you carried out my experiments!! (rhetorical)"
No. But the minimal requirement for an explanation scheme is to be consistent. Since in my latest long post i explained why i think your scheme isn't consistent, i conclude from this that nature isn't inconsistent either and your experiments will not prove what you want to prove.
In that above mentioned long and time consuming post i explained why your "reasonable assumptions" do not work in my opinion. If you think my lines of reasoning in that post are somewhat flawed or illogical, you can show me that and i will think differently about your experiments.
But until now i see no reason to think different about your experiments.
report post as inappropriate
John R. Cox replied on Nov. 2, 2020 @ 18:39 GMT
Georgina, regarding your Ag+ assumption
https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/33021/
why-silver-atoms-were-used-in-stern-gerlach-experiment
Stepha
n,
I don't have a sophisticated search engine, do you know of any reference to an actual produced Mermin Device? I haven't found any, and his brief paper is extremely vague and loads a LOT on any experimenter to figure out. And he includes a fictitious element, suggesting a detector between the source and the magnet group (presumably to check that source angle was sustained) which would not alter the state of the particle, in violation of a prime axiom of QM. And of principle note: what kind of particle would be that! It's like finding Elmo. jrc
report post as inappropriate
Stefan Weckbach replied on Nov. 2, 2020 @ 20:25 GMT
John,
Mermin's paper rests on the predictions of QM. As you may know, QM predicts all the results we discussed so far. Mermin, as he wrote in his appendix, refers to the Bohm version of the Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen experiment. Although he writes that his paper is without any reference to the conceptual apparatus of quantum theory, the predictions he makes (cases a and b) surely refers to...
view entire post
John,
Mermin's paper rests on the predictions of QM. As you may know, QM predicts all the results we discussed so far. Mermin, as he wrote in his appendix, refers to the Bohm version of the Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen experiment. Although he writes that his paper is without any reference to the conceptual apparatus of quantum theory, the predictions he makes (cases a and b) surely refers to what QM predicts.
I understand what you want to intend, namely that maybe the experiment we discussed at length never has been carried out until now - and therefore we cannot know whether or not the results match the predictions of QM.
So let's assume that it never has been carried out.
The first alternative is that it does not produce what is predicted by QM. For that case it would be understandable that there is so much difficulty to explain the results predicted by QM and attributed to that experiment - because then one tries to formalize something that has no physical counterpart.
Besides this it is well known that the difficulties we would have with the just mentioned first alternative, re-emerges with spin-1 particles - and the experiments with these spin-1 particles have already been carried out in multiple tests. The results show the same conceptual problems for explaining these results as it would be the case if the original Bohm's experiment would have been carried out and would confirm the predictions of quantum theory.
That alone may not convince, since it could be a coincidence of some kind. But we also know that experiments have been carried out that at least suggest that even atoms can exhibit the strange behaviour you and Georgina want to explain.
I don't mind the fictitous element you mentioned, since in my opinion, they are not needed at all, because in my opinion Mermin intended (justifiable or not) to control with these additional detectors that the pairings that arrive at the magnets are the original pairings send off from the source. This does make sense, but if that experiment never has been carried out, the only alternative left is to assume that IF it had been carried out and IF the pairings had been collected correctly and IF after all of that the predicted results are obtained - what could be the explanation for these results.
In some of the experiments that have been carried out with spin-1 particles, the passage of the particles are thought to be controlled by idle-particles. Surely, anyone that does not subscribe to entanglement would say that until we do not know the "real" mechanisms for the particles to behave like they do, we cannot conclude from an idle particle to its paired partner. This argument then is also valid for all techniques that might controll the passage of a particle: you simply can doubt that this technique is understood well enough to justify the conclusions that are drawn with the help of that technique.
So to adress these issues without uncertainty of actually being carried out (as in the Bohm case some people may argue) one had to discuss equivalent experiments with spin-1 particles.
I have done this several times with other debaters not only here on fqxi and found the same inconsistencies i found within the proposals that have been made here on that page. Concerning the prime axiom of QM, i do not know how Mermin planned to observe the passages of the particles and i have no clue why he thinks that such an observation does not alter the particle's state. Maybe you want to contact and ask him.
These are the reasons why i think the second alternative for the Bohm experiment is that if carried out, it will deliver the results predicted by QM. If it nonetheless wouldn't, in my opinion our discussions would be nonetheless a good exercise to tackle those spin-1 experiments that already had been carried out and confirmed the predictions of QM.
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
Georgina Woodward replied on Nov. 2, 2020 @ 22:38 GMT
Stefan,
Positives: I have identified a feature that is able to demonstrate temporary preservation of outcome if the environmental challenge is not altered. Once correlation or anti-correlation is lost its lost.
Sorry Stefan I've taken a look at your long list of objections and can not fathom how they apply. Maybe one piece at a time would have been OK. I've lost the will to try and bend my head around it. Thank you for our conversation it has made me think.
I realize that the test particles are affected by inversion of the field, Which seems to be magnetic effect. How exactly that can work is still "work in progress."
Kind regards, Georgina
report post as inappropriate
John R. Cox replied on Nov. 2, 2020 @ 23:17 GMT
Stefan,
sorry, I know a guy named Stephan. People call him Steve.
Actually, an experimental physicist would look at what might be wrong with the apparatus or protocols, if the expected results were not at least approximated. It's engineering. Like a 'group' of magnets is more than one magnet that are not all exactly alike, such as an S-G group. A 'set' is one or more of the same thing whether individual magnets or groups. And a 'pair' is two individual magnets or groups that are exactly alike. Mermin proposes essentially two S-G apparatuses in tandem.
So, yes I would agree that atoms and isotopes thereof would have to be culled to find possible attributes that would meet the specs of three distinct properties. One problem is that 'charge' is always deflected by a directed magnetic field and is always in the same direction in the lateral plane relative to the sign of the charge and the polar sign. The spin flip would only throw that 180*. So maybe a light simple molecule such as water could be a candidate in vacuo. The offset of the two hydrogens have a angle of separation of 104.5* producing the weak hydrogen bond that gives water its unique fluid properties. And while it is a polar molecule, its net charge is zero. jrc
report post as inappropriate
Stefan Weckbach replied on Nov. 2, 2020 @ 23:25 GMT
Georgina,
thank you also for your conversation and the time you invested into it. I understand that one cannot bend one's head around those very filigree details more than a certain amount of time without loosing the will to go on. This is also the case for me. All the more i have some general respect towards professional scientists that are full-time concerned with these issues.
The difficulty in the kind of conversation we had (and scientists surely also have) is regularily the proper and complete description of what one wants to say. At least in my opinion. One thing is to use the same terminology, the other thing is what meaning one attaches to that terminology and the problem that the other debater has attached something other to the same terminology. Or one has compressed a thought incompletely into a sentence etc.
At the end a short note about entanglement, since you wrote
"Once correlation or anti-correlation is lost its lost."
It is believed that entanglement is lost in the moment one member of an entangled pair has been registered. Besides this, your claim can be tested for spin-1 as well as for spin-half particles. For the latter one at least as a gedankenexperiment by simply re-measuring both particles at a different angle of 120 degrees with magnet fields pointing in the same direction. If the known QM results are obtained, then a "detector bias" at the detectors may be involved in our puzzle. If the results are according to Bell's predictions then i think one can exclude such a detector bias. For spin-1 particles an equivalent test is possible.
Be it as it will, great that you found temporary preservation of outcome that can be visualized classically as a gyroscope.
Best wishes for your further investigations,
Sincere greetings
Stefan
report post as inappropriate
Stefan Weckbach replied on Nov. 2, 2020 @ 23:44 GMT
John,
never mind, i know that you adressed me.
"
Actually, an experimental physicist would look at what might be wrong with the apparatus or protocols, if the expected results were not at least approximated. It's engineering. Like a 'group' of magnets is more than one magnet that are not all exactly alike, such as an S-G group. A 'set' is one or more of the same thing whether individual magnets or groups. And a 'pair' is two individual magnets or groups that are exactly alike. Mermin proposes essentially two S-G apparatuses in tandem."
I don't think that these are valid arguments. I do not know what the experimental physicists expected, but the results matched the predictions of QM. If it would be true that there is a bias due to SG magnets not being identical (what surely is true), then it would be astonishing that all devices used to operate all the entanglement experiments do not totally mess the expected results (QM results). Especially when many devices for one experiment are used. But be it as it may, you are free to investigate the role of not-so-identical magnets etc. For now, i take that suspicion only with a shrug.
"So, yes I would agree that atoms and isotopes thereof would have to be culled to find possible attributes that would meet the specs of three distinct properties. One problem is that 'charge' is always deflected by a directed magnetic field and is always in the same direction in the lateral plane relative to the sign of the charge and the polar sign. The spin flip would only throw that 180*. So maybe a light simple molecule such as water could be a candidate in vacuo. The offset of the two hydrogens have a angle of separation of 104.5* producing the weak hydrogen bond that gives water its unique fluid properties. And while it is a polar molecule, its net charge is zero."
I can't say anything to that. Maybe you are right, maybe not, i do not know.
report post as inappropriate
Stefan Weckbach replied on Nov. 3, 2020 @ 00:12 GMT
Georgina,
i messed up the last passage i wrote to you.
To not confuse you with inconsistent logic, i re-write it correctly:
One at least can make a gedankenexperiment by simply re-measuring both particles at an angle of 180 degrees with magnet fields pointing in the same direction (the former direction of these fields was 0 degrees in the same direction). With that strategy one could test your assumption that
"Entanglement is by correlation of axes of rotation and relative to each other directions of rotation."
since all your correlations should be preserved by that re-measurement.
Biased detectors could also be tested with this procedure, but only for different conceptual schemes than yours.
report post as inappropriate
John R. Cox replied on Nov. 3, 2020 @ 00:15 GMT
Stefan,
No, no... you missed the point. The QM predictions would be expected. By 'not the same' I'm referring to the distinctive shaped magnets that make up an S-G group. Technologically they can be very closely balanced in strength and still produce the 'dovetail' cross-section of flux density. If the QM predictions aren't at least approximated, a practical experimentalist would look at the bench-top not the theory. jrc
report post as inappropriate
Georgina Woodward replied on Nov. 3, 2020 @ 01:23 GMT
Stefan, At 0 degrees angle of difference between magnets of each apparatus; ie. the same for both tests; The anti correlated entangled pair can be imagined with same alignment of axes of rotation and opposite spin directions relative to each other. The alignment of the axes preserving the relationship of the particles to each other, so long as the forces encountered by each that would twist the axis of rotation are the same (to the particles). And the spin 'enabling' the relationship with the magnetic field polarity. So experiencing same field orientation, the anti-correlation is preserved.
If one of the SG apparatus is inverted, so the magnet pairs of the two apparatus are 180 degrees to each other. For a new anti-correlated entangled pair ( or retest of pair as you suggest), one experiences an opposite environmental polarity to the other, interacting with their opposite spins.. What exactly the particles do in this situation I don't know. The gyroscopic effect I imagine resisting flip of the particle but reversal of spin without flip also seems unlikely. Predicted outcome: The relationship between the axes of rotation is preserved as the orientation of the fields in space is the same if polarity is ignored. But the change of polarity in this test affects the particles (just one if just one of the apparatus is rotated, such that the pair go from anti-correlated to correlated. Due to spin and magnetic field polarity interaction.
What exactly is going on might be ascertainable using the suggested gyroscope experiments.
report post as inappropriate
John R. Cox replied on Nov. 3, 2020 @ 01:43 GMT
I have often wondered in all the arguments about spin if people were abstracting +'s and -'s, or if they had spent much time familiarizing the long established experimentally defined rules of behavior of magnetic influence. If we are going to discus any Stern-Gerlach type device, the characteristics of RH and LH induction should be essential. And there are a bunch of really terrific videos of charged particles in a magnetic field that are fun to watch. Lot's of SfX, like in the movies, there. And that's what all those expensive magnets in the detectors at CERN are for. Just keep in mind that for the sake of continuity, and by happy historical accident, when you look at a diagram of a magnetic field with rows and columns of X's you are looking at the south end of a magnet, like the fletching (fins) at the back end of an arrow. By convention, magnetic field direction is from N(orth) to S(outh).
report post as inappropriate
John R. Cox replied on Nov. 3, 2020 @ 03:12 GMT
Also keep in mind as per Maxwell, the induced motion on an electric charge is a magnitude greater than that induced on its attendant magnetic moment. If you are looking at the south face of an S-G magnet, the trajectory of a positively charged silver ion would be on the plane parallel to that south face and would deflect in a CCW arc, not on the plane perpendicular to the south face as does the magnetic vector. Hence, Stern and Gerlach settled on the electrically neutral Silver atom with its lone electron in its outer shell. An ion would likely exit the air gap sideways before getting very far.
report post as inappropriate
Georgina Woodward replied on Nov. 3, 2020 @ 04:46 GMT
John, I apologize, I was wrong about silver ions being generally used rather than atoms. I don't know why that idea got stuck in my head.
Re. change of axis of rotation of an unsupported weightless gyroscopes (or a particle acting as an an unsupported weightless gyroscope); it resists turning so that its orientation is un-altered unless it experiences forces that exert a twisting to the axis. A push will give a translation with out alteration of orientation. Picture a gyroscope floating across the cabin of the space station, without altering its orientation. I don't see how the right hand rule helps as it won't give a twisting that alters the orientation of the axis of rotation.
report post as inappropriate
Georgina Woodward replied on Nov. 3, 2020 @ 08:47 GMT
John, you mention deflection of the magnetic vector. If that corresponds to the gyroscopic axis of rotation that is useful. It could provide the difference in outcomes; difficult to account for using magnetic attraction and repulsion,
report post as inappropriate
Stefan Weckbach replied on Nov. 3, 2020 @ 13:07 GMT
Georgina,
Reply to your post on Nov. 3, 2020 @ 01:23 GMT
Thanks for evaluating what i wrote.
You are right with your objections. According to your scheme, my test does not make any difference to the statistics.
Nonetheless i think that your scheme suffers from a contradiction in the assumptions that have to be made to cover at least the 0 degree and the 90 degree cases. Let's resume this again:
On the one hand (for the 0 degree case) it is irrelevant in which directions the pairs' shared axis points - as long as it points in the same direction for each pair and the rotation of each pair ("polarity") is opposite. So it doesn't matter what relative angle each pair's initially shared axis has with the magnet's fields before they are measured. Both pairs simply become "latched" in an anti-correlated manner.
But in the case of 90 degrees that relative angle seems to matter since in your scheme the outcomes in that case are suddenly a function of the angles between the pairs' shared axis and the orientation of the fields. For the 0 degree case such a function was not at work and it was as if the particle pair had no spin properties at all until getting "latched". Therefore, in my opinion there is a contradiction between "latching" and the function that dictates the outcomes for the 90 degree case. I think this could only be circumvented when the source produces only pairs with the same shared orientation relative to the magnets, but that would be a nonsensical coincidence and i think has already been ruled out experimentally.
report post as inappropriate
John R. Cox replied on Nov. 3, 2020 @ 14:22 GMT
Georgina,
I can understand your captivation with gyroscopic effects, they are fascinating and teasingly suggestive of gravitation in a closed system. How that is coupled with the magnetic and electric fields I haven't a clue. I suspect that it would be yet another order of magnitude (c) lesser than magnetic induction, and might only become effective at relativistic velocities. But that is purely speculative and conjectural on my part. Pay no mind, pay no mind, as a Monty Python character would say.
Every time I return to puzzling over incidence of electro-magnetic induction I have to go back to school! It gets so blasted convoluted. This direction is that way in one frame and the obverse in the reverse frame. I have to refresh the basics and internalize them to visualize, but then there comes a few glimpses of "oh! Okay!" now I see it, type of thing.
But how the gyro stabilization of the attitude of a particle or atom might effect how its dipole magnetic moment presents to an external field direction, I can only hypothesize. If there has been definitive authoritative determination I have not run across any. So its yours to run with, and good luck. :-) jrc
report post as inappropriate
John R. Cox replied on Nov. 3, 2020 @ 15:42 GMT
Georgi and Stefan,
Here is a tid bit that I always come back to in Electro-magnetic induction a-la Maxwell, because at first it seems implausible that such a huge factor of difference in field strengths could ever make the reversible motor/generator possible. But to get a 'feel' for the magnitude, there was an old 'shade-tree mechanic's' trick if you had the loosen the nut holding the pulley onto the rotor shaft of a car's alternator. These days you shouldn't leave the key on in the 'Run' position without the engine running because the voltage regulator is electronic and built into the internal circuitry of the alternator and a uninterrupted current for more than 10 to 15 seconds can burn it out (there are modern circuitries that protect it if the engine is running off the battery).
But in the old days of voltage regulators bolted to the firewall, you could take that lead off and switch on the system to 'Run' and energize the field windings and it would lock the rotor. So without an air impact wrench you could put a boxend wrench on the nut and whail on it with a hammer til it broke loose. You couldn't turn it with a 18 inch pipe wrench on the pulley. Put a four foot cheater pipe on the handle and you could do chin-ups! And that's with only 12 Volts of potential difference, 1/10th of what you plug your toaster into.
So how could 'charge' induce that high a magnetic strength yet that proportionately lower magnetic potential turn around and propel 'charge' in an electric current. The reason is that the energy compressed into the charge radius is really dense (in cgs ergs, a non dimensional factor of 3 followed by 10 zeroes) compared to the magnetic density, so its reactance to induction of motive force is of an equal proportion. In electrical circuits its called 'inductance reactance' and constitutes one of the components of resistance in a conductor as a backwards potential contributing to the overall heat loss of power in a circuit.
report post as inappropriate
Stefan Weckbach replied on Nov. 3, 2020 @ 19:45 GMT
Georgina and John,
John, you are a man of practice, i am only a theoretician - with very poor knowledge in physics other than the bits i am interested in. Your knowledge about electro-motors/generators is impressive and maybe relevant for Georgina, i don't know. Since i am not familiar with all these electro-magnetic details and moreover had to heavily use leo.org to translate your...
view entire post
Georgina and John,
John, you are a man of practice, i am only a theoretician - with very poor knowledge in physics other than the bits i am interested in. Your knowledge about electro-motors/generators is impressive and maybe relevant for Georgina, i don't know. Since i am not familiar with all these electro-magnetic details and moreover had to heavily use leo.org to translate your technical terms.
My general problem with all attempts to explain all these entanglement experiments by physical forces and effects is how to reconcile randomness that did not came about by causes and effects (but by *no* forces) with causes and effects that should govern the enhancements and sags of the Bell curve. It does not matter whether or not something is violated with that Bell curve if one thinks that there is a classical explanation for its shape.
If i compare the case of 0 degrees relative angle with the case of 90 degrees relative angle, i can safely say for Georgina's entanglement concept that the magnet that has been turned 90 degrees must act randomly to contribute to the known result. The known result for 90 degrees is that *each* of the 4 possible pairings occur with equal frequency ( 1/4 each for up/up, down/down, up/down, down/up).
According to Georgina's theory, the magnet that hasn't been turned will not only produce the same results as it did when we looked at the 0 degrees case, but it also will do so according to the same rules of cause and effect, just as it was the case for the 0 degrees. This magnet will have an output of 50% "up" and 50% "down".
The question now is how the magnet that has been turned can complete the set of pairings i mentioned above. Since this magnet has only two output states, namely "up" and "down", both states surely had to occur with equal frequencies (50/50) to complete distribute the set of pairings equally (with 1/4 probability).
Does this happen randomly, without causes and effects? If yes, why does it happen at 90 degrees and not at 145 degrees or else? And if not, then in my opinion this question cannot be answered by a local physical mechanism that acts such that for the same cause the same effect will follow.
I deduce this from 4 possible cases:
1) the local physical mechanism outputs "up" when the other particle was in the state "up" before its measurement (result is "up/up")
2) the local physical mechanism outputs "down" when the other particle was in the state "up" before its measurement (result is "down/up")
3) the local physical mechanism outputs "up" when the other particle was in the state "down" before its measurement (result is "up/down")
4) the local physical mechanism outputs "down" when the other particle was in the state "down" before its measurement (result is "down/down")
Since one hopefully can see, two of the 4 cases are inconsistent with "same causes always giving same effects". One of two possible explanations in the context of Georgina's entanglement framwork is that the particle's "spin" (or "polarity") is randomly generated without a cause or that there is a physical disturbance at work that regularly occurs with a 50/50 chance and tampers the "original cause and effect relationship". If true, we would have a new "cause and effect relationship", a tampering effect whereof we would like to know how it works.
But if we assume that this tampering process works according to "same causes always giving same effects", then we arrive at where we started. If it does not work according to "same causes always giving same effects" then it is at least non-linear. But if it is non-linear, how then could it regularly occur with a 50/50 chance? And how many non-linear events can one imagine to "explain" the 90 degree case (and moreover all the rest of the relative angles, except 0 and 180 degrees).
Well, that are my concerns with all attempts to explain entanglement "more rationally" than orthodox QM can or does. And last but not least my concerns from the beginning and something more to puzzle about:
Why does that tampering process only occur at 90 degrees and not at 145 degrees or else? If one wouldn't knew which of the two magnets has been turned from 0 degrees to 90 degrees, one could reason that the one of which "we know that it had been turned" is the one that wasn't turned - and the tampering process would occur on the other magnet. Or maybe it could occur on both magnets... and not only for the 90 degrees...
And now i need a rest. In the meantime, solutions are always welcome!
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
Georgina Woodward replied on Nov. 3, 2020 @ 21:59 GMT
Stefan,
at 0 degrees both particles experience the same field orientation but with opposite polarity. They may experience adjustment of alignment but it happens to both such that anti-correlation is preserved.
90 degrees the particles have experiences
as different as can be. They respond individually to the different orientations of field and that means the former anti-correlation certainty is lost.
180 degrees; I think I have clear now. Inversion of one particle or change of spin direction is not necessary.
What matters (in regard to the individual response) is the relationship of particle to field. Thinking about it that way; the particles themselves retain their relationship to each other-that was giving anticorrelation at 0 degrees. Now though the changed relationship to the external field's polarity is giving an outcome, as if the particles responsible were correlated.
report post as inappropriate
Georgina Woodward replied on Nov. 3, 2020 @ 22:17 GMT
Correction.
At 0 degrees both particles experience the same field orientation but with
their own opposite polarity,
due to their opposite spins.
report post as inappropriate
John R. Cox replied on Nov. 3, 2020 @ 23:28 GMT
Stefan,
I need a break too! I've been getting nowhere. jrc Hey, its election night! maybe I'll just relax and watch the returns
report post as inappropriate
Georgina Woodward replied on Nov. 4, 2020 @ 03:36 GMT
Stefan, John, Steve,
unsupported weightless gyroscopes are different from supported weighted gyroscopes. Not only do they not precess, I think less force will bee needed to alter orientation as there will be less energy loss due to not having to work against gravity, and no region/point of friction where gyroscope meets support. There will still be air resistance or liquids resistance, which can be removed from the simulation by having the tests conducted in vacuum instead of air or liquid.
There are some calculations that can be done that would add evidence for or against the prediction made.
report post as inappropriate
Georgina Woodward replied on Nov. 4, 2020 @ 07:21 GMT
Only by experiencing the same spatial orientation of field are the forces on the particles such that correlation or anticorrelation (depending on how the pairs are produced for this experiment) is preserved and reflected by the state outcomes.
By keeping the orientations of the field the same but inverting one of the apparatus- the relationship is altered in the same way as if the particle rotations was reversed and the environmental field orientation of polarity was kept the same. In these two cases the two particles of a pair are experiencing the inhomogeneous field in same, or similar ways.
At 90 degrees they are experiencing the field very differently and the difference/similarity of orientation and spatial position evolves as each particle passes through the inhomogeneous field according to the forces acting upon it. Not being acted upon in same or similar ways as their partner particle
report post as inappropriate
Stefan Weckbach replied on Nov. 4, 2020 @ 08:35 GMT
Georgina,
thanks for your replies and your efforts. Sorry that the discussion is that exhaustive, i think that is hard to avoid since communication misunderstandings can't be avoided.
I understand how you want to explain the 0 degree and 180 degree cases, otherwise i hadn't written that my test does not work, since it does not alter the probabilities.
Maybe you misunderstood...
view entire post
Georgina,
thanks for your replies and your efforts. Sorry that the discussion is that exhaustive, i think that is hard to avoid since communication misunderstandings can't be avoided.
I understand how you want to explain the 0 degree and 180 degree cases, otherwise i hadn't written that my test does not work, since it does not alter the probabilities.
Maybe you misunderstood that sentence form me in one of my recent posts
"Nonetheless i think that your scheme suffers from a contradiction in the assumptions that have to be made to cover at least the 0 degree and the 90 degree cases."
Surely your scheme would explain the 0 degree and the 180 degree cases WHEN one presupposes that "They may experience adjustment of alignment but it happens to both such that anti-correlation is preserved."
Consequently, whatever the relative angle between the spinning axis of both particles (as you mentioned that axis has the same orientation in space for each particle pair but is distributed evenly over 360 degrees for all pairs send out from the source and hence, the relative angle of that orientation WITH the spatial orientation of the magnets is different for almost every pair) and the spatial orientation of field of the magnets is (in the 0 or 180 degree cases), "They may experience adjustment of alignment but it happens to both such that anti-correlation is preserved."
I think they not only "may" experience that adjustment, but they MUST, because for the overwhelming majority of incoming pairs the environmental conditions aren't such that no alignment would be necessary.
My point is that whatever rules that alignment, it cannot also rule the outcomes in the 90 degree case. In that case it can rule the particle whose magnet was not turned, but not the particle whose magnet was turned.
I know that as it stands up to now, you haven't really mentioned the physical details that is responsible for the experience of adjustment of alignment. But my point is that whatever that will be, it is incompatible with the 90 degree case and also incompatible with the rest of the angles.
Sorry that i claim that although it is not even clear how the physical details look like. But on the other side, if it is not even clear how the physical details look like, it is hard to decide what we are talking about and that may have caused some heavy misunderstandings.
Be it as it is, in any way, i apologize for having been so grumpy to you in some of my posts, hope that you forgive me and are able to clear misunderstandings, since if not cleared, they mess up all conclusions.
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
Stefan Weckbach replied on Nov. 4, 2020 @ 12:10 GMT
For avoiding probable misunderstandings. I wrote
and the spatial orientation of field of the magnets is (in the 0 or 180 degree cases), "They may experience adjustment of alignment but it happens to both such that anti-correlation is preserved."
This does not mean that for the 180 degree case i would think that anti-correlation is the result. I know that the result for 180 degrees would be correlation.
I write that only because it could be misunderstood.
report post as inappropriate
Stefan Weckbach replied on Nov. 4, 2020 @ 17:37 GMT
Again, for avoiding probable misunderstandings. I further wrote
"Surely your scheme would explain the 0 degree and the 180 degree cases WHEN one presupposes that "They may experience adjustment of alignment but it happens to both such that anti-correlation is preserved."
This does not mean that for the 180 degree case i would think that anti-correlation is the result. I know that the result for 180 degrees would be correlation.
report post as inappropriate
John R. Cox replied on Nov. 4, 2020 @ 17:58 GMT
Georgina and Stefan,
I've befuddled myself, and am worrying myself with questions, so I want to dig into what I can find on open source references about the historical details of Stern and Gerlach's research and experiments before making more of a fool of myself.
Part of the reason for this is that apart from Mermin, S-G used the 'neutral' Silver atom, but that doesn't mean that the positive and negative charges of protons and electrons in any way neutralize each other. The electrostatic field still pervades the atomic volume and maintains separation of atomic centers. They can only be said to equalize. But that means that in the orthogonal reference frame in the air gap of S-G magnets, both the magnetic and electrostatic axial directions would be expected to flip. And right now, I can't see how in a strict causal account, that there would be expected anything accept a 50/50 probability no matter what the angle of magnet groups would be relative to the source.
Georgi, your point about earth bound versus weightless gyros is well taken, and given the axiom of inertia there is a good argument that a (generic) particle would preserve its relative spatial orientation prepared in the source. But size also matters and that orientation might well become lost as the particle enters the concentrated magnetic field region. This then goes to a question for Stefan.
I am quite okay with your focus on the theoretical and statistics, so in Mermin's scheme of 1, 2, 3, positions of detector angles, does it matter if the detector angle progresses CW or CCW? A magnetic reaction will take the path of least rotation. An oriented particle at 0* will tumble one direction to align with position 2, and the other direction for position 3. Does Mermin's matrix of results take that into account or does it not matter?
Bye for a while, we are entering a rare November spell of dry, cool weather and I'll feel better after a few days of meaningful outdoor work. Thanks All, jrc
report post as inappropriate
Georgina Woodward replied on Nov. 4, 2020 @ 20:51 GMT
Stefan, it is important to remember that the output bits are not the same as particles themselves. One could say they represent behavior when field and particle interact. This is a break away from the idea that the particle has the state that will be found or has instructions that allow it to carry the outcome prior to the measurement process.
Reversing the spin of a particle can be achieved either by (1.) stopping it and restarting it in the opposite direction , or (2.) by inverting it; ie. turning it over. If either of those were to happen and the extremal field polarity stay the same-then the relation between particle and external field has changed. It can be changed in the same way if instead (3.) the field is inverted and the particle left alone. If the external field is ignored the anticorrelation remains .the changed relation to the field produces results
as if there is correlation of particles. ie. 1. or 2. -remember as far as relationship between particle and external field polarity is concerned 1, 2. or 3. are all the same.
report post as inappropriate
Stefan Weckbach replied on Nov. 5, 2020 @ 10:11 GMT
Georgina,
"Stefan, it is important to remember that the output bits are not the same as particles themselves. One could say they represent behavior when field and particle interact. This is a break away from the idea that the particle has the state that will be found or has instructions that allow it to carry the outcome prior to the measurement process."
If you wouldn't think that...
view entire post
Georgina,
"Stefan, it is important to remember that the output bits are not the same as particles themselves. One could say they represent behavior when field and particle interact. This is a break away from the idea that the particle has the state that will be found or has instructions that allow it to carry the outcome prior to the measurement process."
If you wouldn't think that one can conclude from the output bits to the outputs of the magnets (at least in the 0 degree and 180 degree cases), you would not have constructed your entanglement scheme in the first place. But i agree that thinking one can conclude something from something other is one story, another story is whether or not the physics that is concluded by you to exist - and is concluded by you to be responsible for the experimental results - follows these conclusions. If that physics does not follow your conclusions, your entanglement scheme is simply wrong.
So what should we do now, stop thinking about your entanglement scheme, since we concluded we do not know most of the details that lead to the experimental results? If yes, then your explanations how spin might react to some environment is not different from any other attempt to explain what is going on at the magnets and with the particles. In fact, as you surely know there have been proposed other schemes here on fqxi and elsewhere to account for the physics of such experiments.
Consequently, if there is indeed some well defined physics behind the experimental results, then the challenge is to find the one and only scheme which explains all the hitherto unknown details of what is physically going on. Surely and theoretically, there may "exist" more than one scheme, each of them telling a different story about what is going on physically. But that is not what you wanted in the first place.
According to the citation above, it is not even clear that finding "the one and only scheme" is at all a logical possibility. My point here is that it simply is logically impossible, but not because one cannot test the candidates for such schemes, but because if each of them, when checked for its internal logical consistency, will reveal its logical inconsistency. The point here is that the main assumption of that falsifying-scheme is that there does not exist such a scheme.
That's the reason why i wrote my long posts, trying to explain what i consider logical inconsistencies in your scheme. I am really not sure whether or not you understood what i wrote about your 90 degree case. Or what i wrote about the source and how it should distribute the angles of each pair's axis in your scheme to be consistent not only with the 0 and 180 degree cases, but also with your 90 degree case.
You didn't take a stand yet to these objections and i think it's a pity that i took my time to write them and constantly reply to your own objections without getting a feedback whether or not you grasped the inconsistencies i described.
I think there are reasons for that absend feedback, namely that my arguments prove that the falsifying-scheme i just mentioned has done its job. If you don't think so, please explain to me why you conclude that it didn't the job. So i would like you to consider my arguments already made - before advancing to another issue of the experiments we discuss here.
Thanks and have a recreative break from heavy discussions! If you need some longer time to reply and i do not check that discussion page ever day, simply write me a message on my latest essay-contest page and i get informed per Mail that you replied.
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
Georgina Woodward replied on Nov. 5, 2020 @ 20:57 GMT
Local realism assumes that the output states pertain to the kind of particle. It assumes there are two kinds of particle in the SG experiments, that only need separating by 'measurement'; like red and blue socks. Using coins for analogy, this is like saying there are heads only and tails only coins. However to ascertain heads or tails state of a normal two sided coin, the protocol used to call it has to be decided. Palm open upon catching or flipping onto opposite hand. Likewise there can not be a definite state of the particles (even if unknown) prior to deciding how each will be 'measured'. It is particle and environmental field interaction that is producing the output states. Not the inherent nature of the particles alone. This is no longer like sock colours and so Bell's inequalities do not apply. Violation of the inequalities is expected.
report post as inappropriate
Georgina Woodward replied on Nov. 5, 2020 @ 21:42 GMT
Re. entanglement: This is where there is a correlated or anticorrelated relation between the particles produced during formation of the pair, at the source. If both are treated the same, from then on, that relation of particle orientations to each other is preserved. If treated the same but for inversion of one particles external field exposure, output states are correlated rather than anticorrelated. Because of the equivalence of that change of environmental exposure with particle spin reversal and environment unchanged. In these 0 and 180 degree cases each individual particle is acted upon by its local environment; the similarity of experience maintaining the relation of particle orientations to each other. At 90 degrees each particle will be effected by its local environment, according to such things as where it entered the field and its orientation on doing so. That experience of field is
not necessarily but could be by chance matched by the partner
report post as inappropriate
Stefan Weckbach replied on Nov. 6, 2020 @ 13:37 GMT
Georgina,
thanks for your reply. Let's now make the consistency-test.
Let's label the axis of flight of the particles with "y". Let's label the vertical axis with "z" and the remaining axis with "x".
Let us first look at the case where both magnets have a relative angle of 0 degree around the y axis so that they are oriented in space like depicted in figure 6.2 of that paper...
view entire post
Georgina,
thanks for your reply. Let's now make the consistency-test.
Let's label the axis of flight of the particles with "y". Let's label the vertical axis with "z" and the remaining axis with "x".
Let us first look at the case where both magnets have a relative angle of 0 degree around the y axis so that they are oriented in space like depicted in figure 6.2 of that paper (although there is just one magnet scribbled)
https://physics.mq.edu.au/~jcresser/Phys301/Chapte
rs/Chapter6.pdf .
Let us now analyse one particle pair. According to your scheme, every pair send out from the source has a shared orientation of their (gyroscopic) axis. So for each of the two particles of that pair its axis points in the same direction in our coordinate system as the partner's axis does.
Let us now assume that our particle pair's both axis' are in alignment with the z axis when sent out from the source (oriented vertically).
Since in your scheme the particles coming form the source have opposite spin direction, the test series will give anti-correlated results. As you wrote, each individual particle is acted upon by its local environment.
Let us now assume that for this test series the magnets hadn't been oriented as we have defined it above (called SCENARIO A), but both had been oriented 90 degrees relative to what we defined above (called SCENARIO B) whereby maintaining their relationship of field orientation. So in scenario B, the magnets are in alignment with the x axis, and hence have a 90 degree angle to the z axis - although we always assume that the particle pair's orientation and spin direction is left unchanged.
Now according to your scheme, that difference between the original angle of 0 degree and the alternative angle of 90 degree for both magnets does not alter your statement that "each individual particle is acted upon by its local environment.". So the local conditions for each particle in this alternative case are
"At 90 degrees each particle will be effected by its local environment, according to such things as where it entered the field and its orientation on doing so. That experience of field is not necessarily but could be by chance matched by the partner"
Consequently, according to your introduction of chance when one locally changes a 0 degree angle situation to a 90 degree angle situation at one magnet, the local outputs at that magnet now should come about by chance. Since in scenario B both sides have been altered by 90 degree, consequently your rule of chance is realized for both sides and that alternative scenario should give 50% anti-correlation and 50% correlation. But that is a contradiction to what you predicted when both magnets have the same orientation - what is exactly the case in my alternative scenario. Don't bother about me ignoring your rule of anti-correlation or your rule that only one magnet is allowed to be turned 90 degree for "activating" your rule of chance, i will soon come to that issue.
I now have to cite myself as i wrote above
"Consequently, according to your introduction of chance when one locally changes a 0 degree angle situation to a 90 degree angle situation"
Take care of what is meant here by me: DON'T CONFUSE the angles in my citation (0 and 90 degree) with the relative angles between the two magnets. The angles in my citation are the angles when ONE magnet's LOCAL output for 0 degree RELATIVE to the source IS COMPARED to its output if that one magnet's angle RELATIVE to the source is changed by 90 degree (NOTE that the orientation of axis and spin direction of that incoming particle stays exactly what we assumed it to be for the 0 degree relative angle to source). It DOESN'T matter how the other magnet is oriented, since we are examining LOCAL behaviour at one magnet - independent of the orientation of the other magnet:
the magnet we examine cannot know how the other magnet is oriented - even if the other magnet is oriented identical - what scenario B covers. But that other magnet could also well be oriented in a variety of angles and that's the reason why one should not confuse the angles in my citation with the relative angles BETWEEN the two magnets. And that is also the reason for why one cannot apply your anti-correlation rule for my alternative scenario.
As a result we have a scenario where the magnets have 0 degree relative angle (SCENARIO A) to each other and your anti-correlation rule should apply. And we have an alternative scenario where we compared this rule for the case when your rule of chance should apply (90 degree). That scenario (SCENARIO B) was the change of orientation of both magnets relative to the source by the same amount (90 degree) and in the same direction, whereby we assumed for both scenarios that the test particle's orientation of axis and spin directions have in no way altered in scenario A compared to scenario B and vice versa. The result is that your two rules are inconsistent with each other since they predict different results for scenario B.
KEEP IN MIND that scenario A and scenario B AREN'T to be understood that these are TWO runs that should factually be conducted one after the other in an experiment. Since it is clear that for such a test sequence we would need TWO particle pairs - that could well have different orientations and spin directions compared to each other. We assume instead that we have ONE particle pair with well defined axis of orientation and spin directions before measurement, no matter whether we then apply scenario A or scenario B to that pair. With that we examine what would happen to that particle pair if we had measured it differently than scenario A would have done. It doesn't matter that we cannot predict the outcome of just one particle pair being tested. The statistics does matter and the statistics that is produced by your rule of chance is different than the one produced by your rule of anti-correlation.
So, if you do not focus on your anti-correlation rule but instead focus on ONE magnet oriented in one scenario (scenario A) at 0 degree relative angle to the scource and in the second scenario (scenario B) the same magnet oriented 90 degree different from scenario A - but for both scenarios with the same particle with the same initial orientation and spin rotations unchanged entering the magnet of scenario B (so as if the first scenario hadn't happened but instead scenario B was applied to that identical particle) - then you hopefully will grasp that your anti-correlation rule and your introduction of chance at 90 degree are inconsistent with each other. They simply predict contradictory results for scenario B, since:
if you only focus on ONE magnet as just described, you may say that your rule of chance should apply for scenario B. But if you also focus on the other magnet in scenario B(that is oriented identical to the first magnet you focused on, namely with a 90 degree change compared to scenario A), then your rule of anti-correlation should apply. So two rules that predict different outcomes for one and the same scenario (scenario B) should apply for scenario B. That's the inconsistency i spoke of.
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
Georgina Woodward replied on Nov. 6, 2020 @ 21:14 GMT
Stefan,
Re. "your rule that only one magnet is allowed to be turned 90 degree for "activating" your rule of chance," SW. I have not specified such a rule but was merely talking about ubiquitous 'everyday' chance, as in probability. Nor is there a rule of anticorrelation applying to singular apparatus. It matters not whether one or the other magnet is inverted or both adjusted 90 degrees. I was trying to keep it simple and not overly wordy for the reader by not addressing each possible variant.
What matters for 'entanglement is that the particles produced from the source share a relation that is same spatial x,y,z orientation of axis of rotation -nothing to do with the analyzers yet. As they are like gyroscopes they keep their orientation until acted upon by forces that twist the axis of rotation. Each particle adjusts to the local environment it encounters. They (environments) are the same but opposite each other( they could be placed diagrammatically next to each other, then it easier to see how the anti correlation of the particles is preserved.)The adjusted ( if it was necessary) orientation is then maintained . And could be retested with same apparatus orientation. Because they were exposed to the same environment the relation of the particles to each other is preserved.
For 90 degrees : again we do not know the precise orientation of the axes of rotation , only that they are the same. They enter the apparatus and each experience a different field orientation
from each other. There is nothing special about the 90 angle of one magnet - the particle will respond to whatever it encounters. What matters is has the relation of the particles to each other been preserved or not. As for the particles there is a lot of variation in up-ness or down-ness possible- that give the clear cut up and down bit outputs.
report post as inappropriate
Stefan Weckbach replied on Nov. 6, 2020 @ 23:58 GMT
Georgina,
"There is nothing special about the 90 angle of one magnet - the particle will respond to whatever it encounters."
The angle is not special, but the statistical results are.
"I have not specified such a rule but was merely talking about ubiquitous 'everyday' chance, as in probability."
If ubiquitous everyday chance is responsible for the coutcomes at 90 degree, then please explain to me why and how a particle that encounters the 90 degree magnet is measured "up" instead of "down". Surely, for your explanation you can choose the necessary features for that particle like spin direction, orientation of axis and field orientation in the x,y,z coordinate system.
If ubiquitous everyday chance is NOT responsible for the coutcomes at 90 degree, please nonetheless explain the "up" outcome.
I want to request from you please not to answer with inexpressively statements like
" They enter the apparatus and each experience a different field orientation from each other."
what is TRIVIALLY TRUE under the assumptions you already made for the 180 degree case, or statements like
"Nor is there a rule of anticorrelation applying to singular apparatus."
what is also trivially true under the assumptions you already made for the 0 and 180 degree cases. By the way i never claimed that the rule of anticorrelation applies to singular apparatus. Hope that you don't think that i claimed that in my last post or elsewhere.
report post as inappropriate
Georgina Woodward replied on Nov. 7, 2020 @ 03:04 GMT
Just like it is not possible to give the heads or tails coin before the measurement protocol is decided, so too for up or down bits produced by the analyzers. The entanglement can not be explained just by considering the individuals alone but requires the relation of the particles to each other. Now the particles are not considered as up or down at production as how they will develop depends on...
view entire post
Just like it is not possible to give the heads or tails coin before the measurement protocol is decided, so too for up or down bits produced by the analyzers. The entanglement can not be explained just by considering the individuals alone but requires the relation of the particles to each other. Now the particles are not considered as up or down at production as how they will develop depends on their (unknown) axes of rotation orientation, spin and which apparatus orientation is selected and hoow the particles respond. I do not know the finer details of pair production to know if there are preferred orientations of axes of pairs produced or not. By not, meaning any orientations but just the same. Nevertheless if x, y or z orientation of analyses is selected at random, that alone will introduce chance. If the field orientation is the same for both, they react tin similar ways and anti-correlation is preserved, despite the chance selection of a same particular field challenge for both. Chance is involved but the output does not look random.
At 90 degrees difference of orientation of analyzers AT LEEAST one of the particles will experience a change of axis of rotation. It can not keep the same orientation as the other even if they both move. What can be said is the certainty of anticorrelated outcome no longer applies. For each individual the result could be up or down and which depends upon the relation of particle too field. Over many test their will be equal or approx. equal numbers of each- the more tests the more accurate; same as random. The force from fields acting on moving charge mentioned by John is important,,, spin direction is important ;affecting outcome as shown by the difference of 0 and 180 difference results. In all tests where the particles enter the analyzer, and the inhomogeneity of the fields plays a part. I do think if all the unknowns were known the output could be predicted for each individual. But those unknowns are not known and they are treated statistically.
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
Georgina Woodward replied on Nov. 7, 2020 @ 03:10 GMT
Please excuse the many typos.. I accidentally hit submit before finishing spell check.
report post as inappropriate
Stefan Weckbach replied on Nov. 7, 2020 @ 10:44 GMT
Georgina,
thank you for your reply. Typos are excused :-)
"The entanglement can not be explained just by considering the individuals alone but requires the relation of the particles to each other."
That is only true for how you explained the 0 and 180 degree cases (if one believes that this explanation is what actually happens physically). I see not the slightest reasons so...
view entire post
Georgina,
thank you for your reply. Typos are excused :-)
"The entanglement can not be explained just by considering the individuals alone but requires the relation of the particles to each other."
That is only true for how you explained the 0 and 180 degree cases (if one believes that this explanation is what actually happens physically). I see not the slightest reasons so far in your hitherto made statements why the citation above should be also true for all the other angles.
Quite the contrary, it is not even clear to me from your hitherto made statements like
"At 90 degrees difference of orientation of analyzers AT LEEAST one of the particles will experience a change of axis of rotation. It can not keep the same orientation as the other even if they both move. What can be said is the certainty of anticorrelated outcome no longer applies. For each individual the result could be up or down and which depends upon the relation of particle too field."
how you wish to explain that 90 degree case deterministically so that your assumption
"if all the unknowns were known the output could be predicted for each individual."
matches reality.
Surely, in that 90 degree case both magnets produce their "up" and "down" with equal likelihood such that the result over many tests will look the same as random. But from your hitherto made statements AT LEAST the magnet that had NOT been turned 90 degrees will produce its outcomes according to the logic you already declared applicable for the 0 degree case for this magnet. Consequently, the individual that encounters that magnet which had not been turned 90 degrees cannot know whether or not its partner encounters a 90 degree difference, and therefore that individual will react in the same manner as if the other magnet hadn't been turned 90 degree. If that would not be true logically, then also your whole explanation for the 0 and 180 degree cases cannot be true either!
That the individual i spoke of above cannot know whether nor not its partner encounters a 90 degree difference is not just a rethorical statement, but the serious question about whether or not the relationship between the two individuals does play the same important role in explaining the 90 degree results as it did in explaining the 0 and 180 degree cases.
Moreover, that important question additionally makes me doubt that your explanation for the 0 and 180 degree cases says at all something true about what is physically going on in the experiments. Since there is nothing special about the 90 degree angle, the physical mechanisms for its outcomes shouldn't be that special either - or one had to explain why the 90 degree case is physically that special.
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
Georgina Woodward replied on Nov. 7, 2020 @ 23:14 GMT
I'm using the same word as quantum physics but mean by it something different. In the quantum explanation the particles do not have up or down property but exist as superposition of both AND the pair are a singular system in which it is presumed that the partners communicate faster than light to co-ordinate the outcomes they produce. My way of thinking is that up or down of particles can not be...
view entire post
I'm using the same word as quantum physics but mean by it something different. In the quantum explanation the particles do not have up or down property but exist as superposition of both AND the pair are a singular system in which it is presumed that the partners communicate faster than light to co-ordinate the outcomes they produce. My way of thinking is that up or down of particles can not be assigned prior to measurement. Each is not both outcomes together, it is just logically impossible to make the call. "My particles do not communicate with each other but at 0 and 180 degrees the same treatment (0 degrees) or similar treatment(180 degrees) preserves the same axis of rotation orientation of both; no communication between particles necessary. I have previously said , if the particles of a pair are not treated in the same way 'entanglement'( giving 100% one kind of output-all same, or all opposite) is lost.
"If the unknowns were known the output could be predicted for each individual. "GW That is what I think but we do not have all of the unknowns. I do not believe the particles are communicating each other at any relative angles of analyzers. They do not conspirer to give random output at 90 degrees. The particles know nothing . It matters not to the particle what the history of the field it encounters. Changed or unchanged it just responds to what it encounters. The output could be up or down as we know nothing about the individual; unless it is being retested with same field orientation. Yes the particle a knows nothing of particle b's field exposure. It does not need to. By my way of thinking they just need same as each other (or similar as for 180 case) or not. The particles do not care how that same similar or not relation is attained.
Maybe to say there was nothing special about 90 degrees was misleading . Of all possible angles it requires the most adjustment of angles of rotation; whether achieved by adjustment of the axis of one or both partners. They each respond to the forces they individually find-no communication between them needed.
Proof of the pudding is in the eating. I have outlined a possible experiment. Scale may be an issue. I don't know if strength of the magnets can compensate for difference in scale of the constituents. Electron Cf. magnet is a big difference of scale. Comparability of electron rotation and that of the electrons of the magnets may be relevant. Perhaps all of the apparatus and variables could be modelled on computer to evaluate promise,
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
Stefan Weckbach replied on Nov. 8, 2020 @ 12:25 GMT
Georgina,
thanks for your reply.
You wrote
"Of all possible angles it requires the most adjustment of angles of rotation; whether achieved by adjustment of the axis of one or both partners."
This implies that the source sends out "entangled" (your definition of entanglement!) particle pairs with different orientations of axis' relative to the source such that all possible orientations in space for all pairs (a pair has the same orientation of both its axis' in space) are equally likely to encounter the experimental setup (magnets).
Consequently, in the 90 degree case, if that setup is not changed during many tests with incoming particle pairs, there will be many particle pairs whose BOTH axis do NOT require "the most adjustment" of angles of rotation. So your statement does not constitute any "speciality" of the 90 degree case.
"Proof of the pudding is in the eating."
Yes, but only when the theory is consistent.
report post as inappropriate
Georgina Woodward replied on Nov. 8, 2020 @ 20:59 GMT
Stefan,
"Of all possible angles it requires the most adjustment of angles of rotation; whether achieved by adjustment of the axis of one or both partners. "GW.I may not have made it clear, I was talking about what must occur for entangled pairs. I must admit in hindsight that is not well expressed. I mean there is the largest total adjustment that has to happen, compared to any other field orientation combination, for that kind of pair. As the fields of the analyzers are at their most dissimilar in orientation.
"This implies that the source sends out "entangled" (your definition of entanglement!) particle pairs with different orientations of axis' relative to the source ..." SW, I said I don't know, but that is a possibility. The entangled pairs start out with same orientation of their axes of rotation . That can not be preserved at the 90 degree test.
"..such that all possible orientations in space for all pairs (a pair has the same orientation of both its axis' in space) are equally likely to encounter the experimental setup (magnets)." SW. (Only entangled pairs have same orientation of axes.)A. Maybe so.
"Consequently, in the 90 degree case, if that setup is not changed during many tests with incoming particle pairs, there will be many particle pairs whose BOTH axis do NOT require "the most adjustment" of angles of rotation." SW. Yes there may be unentangled pairs perfectly out of parallel with each other so they match the orientation of the field exactly as they are. Probability of that if each particle can have any orientation of axis of rotation? For entangled pairs the total difference in angle has to go from 0 to 90 degrees , however achieved. Both may gave to move though 45 degrees or one may have to turn more than the other. The other extreme is one turned 90 degrees the other 0 degrees.
report post as inappropriate
Stefan Weckbach replied on Nov. 9, 2020 @ 00:53 GMT
Georgina,
"I may not have made it clear, I was talking about what must occur for entangled pairs. I must admit in hindsight that is not well expressed. I mean there is the largest total adjustment that has to happen, compared to any other field orientation combination, for that kind of pair. As the fields of the analyzers are at their most dissimilar in orientation."
Not well expressed is an understatement as well as your belief that you may made it not clear whereof you are talking about: you talked about the 90 degree case and expressed this very clearly.
Sorry Georgina, but i cannot further discuss with somebody who is such confused as you are. You are writing horribly inconsistent things, not only concerning your scheme, but also concerning what you consider a clear line of thought.
report post as inappropriate
Stefan Weckbach replied on Nov. 9, 2020 @ 02:59 GMT
Georgina,
by writing
"Maybe to say there was nothing special about 90 degrees was misleading. Of all possible angles it requires the most adjustment of angles of rotation; whether achieved by adjustment of the axis of one or both partners."
you referred to the 90 degree case. You compared all of its "relevant" cases (the ones that have to change their orientations maximally)...
view entire post
Georgina,
by writing
"Maybe to say there was nothing special about 90 degrees was misleading. Of all possible angles it requires the most adjustment of angles of rotation; whether achieved by adjustment of the axis of one or both partners."
you referred to the 90 degree case. You compared all of its "relevant" cases (the ones that have to change their orientations maximally) with all of the "relevant" cases for 0 degree (the ones that have to change their orientations maximally). Since in the 90 degree case there are 6 maximal changes and in the 0 degree case there are 4 maximal changes, you concluded that this 90 degree angle must be the "most special" of all angles - since it produces the "most adjustment".
Now you say that you didn't refer to the 90 degree angle but "I was talking about what must occur for entangled pairs". No, you simply made a mistake by forgetting to also consider the entangled pairs in your examination.
For the entangled pairs (180 degree angle), there are 8 "relevant" cases of the kind i described above, and - lo and behold! - in your next reply you claimed that you actually had talked about the 180 degree case. But you talked about the 90 degree case, until you realized that this does not work...
You also forgot that there are many other, "not so maximal" cases for each of the 0, 90 and 180 degree relative angles - and in your last post you now come up with those cases by introducing a bunch of inconsistent new guesswork.
The 90 degree case cannot be special in any respect, since you can construct this angle all around the y-axis (axis of flight). The same is true also for the 0 and 180 degree angles - and for all remaining angles. You will always be able to shift these relative angles around the y-axis by simply adding a same amount of change (same amount of degrees in the same direction) to each of both magnets. Since it is always only the relative angles between the two magnets that are responsible for the outcomes at that angle - and not the relative shift of angles as just described, the only conclusion is to accept that the source sends out the particle pairs in the manner i described in my next to last post.
All other distributions of pair orientations (or single particle orientations if you like to abandon your entanglement scheme) will not reproduce the measurement results. That's the wonder of QM entanglement - the particles do not care about their relative angle they initially have with the source - what is also equivalent that they do not care about your scheme and all its possible modifications.
The only reason to be further "entangled" notional with your original scheme is that the relative angles of 0 and 180 degree are the one and only cases that can be explained classically. You may think otherwise, but i know better and know that this notional entanglement enables only a going in circles. Whatever you change to match your scheme with the experimental outcomes of certain angles, these changes automatically will mismatch other angles about which you thought you already have matched them with the experimental outcomes.
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
Georgina Woodward replied on Nov. 9, 2020 @ 03:22 GMT
Stefan, thank you for your time. I am disappointed that I have not been able to convey my thoughts in a way conducive to development of an acceptable description. I will keep your objections in mind as I work on improvement.
I know you are now out of the conversation but I'd just like to leave the thought that if the two apparatus are moved through 90 degrees in opposite directions they end up at 180 difference of angles from 0 degree difference. And the consequence of that is change in anticorrelated ( for 0) to correlated (for 180) , particle rotation direction. Without communication, just geometry.
If spin gives the magnetic polarity; One pole each sided. There will either be attraction or repulsion at the magnet pole nearest, according to orientation of the particle 'poles'. Repelled at one pole the particle could flip and be attracted by the other.
The split of ups and downs outputs could also be depending on above or below midline between magnet poles the test particles enter their apparatus; relevant to whether attracted by near pole or not.
That may sound like a lot of incoherent rambling but it is my provisional conclusions from many hand-drawn diagrams. I hope to knock' it into a testable, consistent, hypothesis .
Kind regards ,Georgina
PS I've noticed another post by you after drafting a response. I'm not used to having so much difficulty communicating what I mean. I'm not sure if I'm really being incoherent and inconsistent or whether you are being obtuse . I'll take a look and see if your latest criticisms make any sense to me.
report post as inappropriate
Georgina Woodward replied on Nov. 9, 2020 @ 03:44 GMT
I don't see any thing in your latest post worth discussing. Sorry you have found my writing horribly confused and inconsistent. You seem to think I have some kind of agenda that I really don't. I enjoy having my ideas challenged so that I can improve my explanations. I don't like implications of dishonest motive or trying to cover up errors; nor do I enjoy insults. I'm OK with you thinking you know better and leaving it there. ( I know you know you know better, don't just think it -I don't want to argue.)
report post as inappropriate
Stefan Weckbach replied on Nov. 9, 2020 @ 10:55 GMT
Georgina,
"I know you are now out of the conversation but I'd just like to leave the thought that if the two apparatus are moved through 90 degrees in opposite directions they end up at 180 difference of angles from 0 degree difference. And the consequence of that is change in anticorrelated ( for 0) to correlated (for 180), particle rotation direction. Without communication, just...
view entire post
Georgina,
"I know you are now out of the conversation but I'd just like to leave the thought that if the two apparatus are moved through 90 degrees in opposite directions they end up at 180 difference of angles from 0 degree difference. And the consequence of that is change in anticorrelated ( for 0) to correlated (for 180), particle rotation direction. Without communication, just geometry."
To make a long story relatively short, on Nov. 1, 2020 @ 21:34 GMT you introduced
"The two kinds are called entangled pairs and product pairs."
what you called "product pairs". I argued against these because of being logically inconsistent.
You agreed to that on Nov. 2, 2020 @ 02:03
"Stefan, re. product pairs vs. entangled pairs. This is new to me but I thought it was something that might be useful to incorporate. In real life the 100% anti-correlation is really just there about. The entanglement process is not exact. I think you are right after exposure to a particular field orientation many not previously entangled particles will take up same alignment and by results be indistinguishable from those emitted entangled."
On Nov. 8, 2020 @ 20:59 GMT
"Yes there may be unentangled pairs perfectly out of parallel with each other so they match the orientation of the field exactly as they are. Probability of that if each particle can have any orientation of axis of rotation?"
you re-introduced them as a new possibility, although having refused them a couple of days earlier as cited above. Surely your re-introduction of them is slightly different from your first introduction, but nonetheless equivalently logically inconsistent by constantly switching between an entanglement experiment and - metaphorically speaking - an experiment where two ovens produce to non-entangled particles whereby you try to match the resulting paired outcomes with what has been experimentally measured for the entanglement experiment.
You seem to be not aware of that your entanglement scheme, as you originally introduced it, is a correlation scheme that - for at all being deterministic and matching the QM results - in any case must retain a relative relationship between the relative phases of all of your particle and magnet properties (axis, spin, orientation relative to the source and the magnets' fields), - independent of whether or not a new relationship establishes or the current one is retained.
Without introducing non-causal randomness this can only be achieved (if at all!) by deterministic processes for all relative magnet angles. Howsoever these deterministic processes may look like, consequently for every member of a pair in a deterministic process, after the measurement direction is decided, but before it has actually been measured, there has to be an unambigious state for the particle's actual condition as well as for the magnet's actual condition. This is independent of whether or not we can know all these states before the actual measurement or after. Once the measurement is done at one particle, according to your belief, we should theoretically be able to conclude what the other particle's outcome will be (when not measured yet or already measured but we have not been told the result).
On Nov. 7, 2020 @ 03:04 GMT you wrote
"I do think if all the unknowns were known the output could be predicted for each individual."
Yes, you argue that way, but i think you do not grasp that cause and effect is just another term for relative relationship between the interactions of two physical objects and if you want to explain what happens when these two objects encounter each other, then there should be a bijection for all the possible measurement outcomes with all the possible situations of encounter. This has nothing to do with deciding a measurement protocol just as little as it has to do with measurement protocols for other classical, deterministic causes and effects.
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
Georgina Woodward replied on Nov. 9, 2020 @ 23:37 GMT
I'm taking the board rubber and starting again using analogy to paint a picture of what's going on, and why it must be so.
2X, 2Y and 2Z are the three commonly used same orientations of apparatus. That are 120 degrees different from each other. Inversion of polarity is denoted Xi, Yi. and Zi. An example of a pair with one inverted magnet polarity would be X, Xi.
X =Formal dinner,...
view entire post
I'm taking the board rubber and starting again using analogy to paint a picture of what's going on, and why it must be so.
2X, 2Y and 2Z are the three commonly used same orientations of apparatus. That are 120 degrees different from each other. Inversion of polarity is denoted Xi, Yi. and Zi. An example of a pair with one inverted magnet polarity would be X, Xi.
X =Formal dinner, Y =casual gathering, Z=pool party. Each occasion has two choices of attire. For brevity :X has bow tie or business tie: Y has hoodie or jumper :Z has board shorts or euro. trunks The attire can be likened to measurement out comes.
Pairs of invites sent with opposite instructions ;not to be taken literally but to represent pairs of particles with opposite spin. ( for consistent lets say that is decided ( in principle not practice) by looking at the equator .One is instructed to pick up LH. dress code, the other RH dress code. Which gets which is unknown until they attend the party/complete test. The results will be anticorrelated.
Turning the apparatus from XX to Xi, as an example; is like turning the invitation marque so that exit and entrance are reversed.. The same reversal effect can be obtained by making the invitee enter backwards the normal orientation (not reversed tent).In these cases the participating pair will receive same rather than opposite dress codes. Which is correlated outcome rather than anticorrelated.
If the test apparatus are at 90 degrees to each other that is midway between producing a correlated result and an anticorrelated result. It could go either way. And that is uncorrelated. Whether that is special or not depends on how it is thought about. It looks random, no special relationship shown by that. And yet it is precisely between correlated and anticorrelated and that is special.
As for 'product pairs' (rather than entangled pairs, they are not opposites from the outset, they may or may not end up with opposite attire depending on how they encounter the invitation marque. This gives the real life experimental deviation from 100% of a particular kind of outcome. If just talking about pure theory rather than practice they can be ignored.
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
Stefan Weckbach replied on Nov. 10, 2020 @ 23:59 GMT
Obviously it doesn't matter for the results which of the two magnets is turned 180 degree. And just as well it doesn't matter which of the two magnets is turned to obtain the 0 degree results again. Same is true for the 90 degree case. The 0 and 180 degree cases are the ones that could be explained classically by some hidden variables. The 90 degree case produces results “as if” there would be a “superposition” of the 0 and 180 degree cases present. Quantum mechanically, one surely can construct similar superpositions to also “explain” other angles as superpositions of certain angles. Without quantum mechanical background one could say that the 90 degree case produces random results. For that 50/50 behaviour in the 90 degree case one could further say that the 50/50 is due to the arithmetic mean of 180 + 0 = 90 degree, what is 50%. I guess one is allowed to calculate that classically, since the outputs of these angles can be explained classically. The big question is what “randomness” means, since it could mean randomness without any physical causation or randomness in the sense of a coin toss.
report post as inappropriate
Georgina Woodward replied on Nov. 11, 2020 @ 00:10 GMT
Invitation type corresponds to magnet orientations . Axes of rotation respond by adjustment of alignment if necessary . It may not be necessary. A gentleman appropriately dressed for a formal dinner does not need to change; but we can not have board shorts attending.
If a random selection of tests are run. For each there are three possible outcomes, correlated, anticorrelated and uncorrelated (could have been with each outcome but probability is that half of the time it is one of the possible (ie. a same outcome) and half of the time the other ie. a different outcome). Each of the kinds can be added to the pool of anticorrelated or correlated results as it matches. Giving 1/3 plus 1/6 anticorrelated and 1/3 plus 1/6 correlated.
The graph plotting angle of inclination of magnet pairs relative to each other, against proportion of results showing correlation and anti correlation (I think that's what that axis is),shows there is more variation of angle producing correlated and anticorrelated results than would be expected for direct proportionality of distribution of the measured outcomes. This is to be expected if the test particles can change their axis of rotation to match the test conditions. Such behaviour means the particles do not have a permanent portfolio of properties that can be expected to comply with Bell's inequalities. Violation of the inequalities is expected.
report post as inappropriate
Georgina Woodward replied on Nov. 11, 2020 @ 00:24 GMT
To be clear;
" Giving 1/3 plus 1/6 anticorrelated and 1/3 plus 1/6 correlated." GW
Meaning by that-
Giving 1/3 anticorrelated, plus 1/6 that are 50:50 random but look indistinguishable from the were certain to be anticorrelated.
And 1/3 correlated plus 1/6 that are 50:50 random but look indistinguishable from the were certain to be correlated.
report post as inappropriate
Georgina Woodward replied on Nov. 11, 2020 @ 04:38 GMT
" The big question is what “randomness” means, since it could mean randomness without any physical causation or randomness in the sense of a coin toss." SW Randomness without any physical causation ? Supernatural then. Such as a pixie overseer operating a mystical random number generator behind the scenes,**Random like a coin toss: Each toss is individual and if one viewpoint was applied throughout and all the forces and sequence of orientations and trajectory and momentum was known, and for uniform catching, then for a set calling protocol each outcome should be (at least in theory) predictable. There is no preferred outcome or set pattern to the sequence of outcomes. However if enough tosses are carried out there will be 50% heads and 50% tails. The same as if a random no. generator was behind it; Even no.= heads. Odd no. = tails.
report post as inappropriate
Stefan Weckbach replied on Nov. 11, 2020 @ 16:09 GMT
I wonder in which cases it may not be necessary that one particle's axis of rotation must not respond to magnetic field orientation. Since there are only three variables, namely orientation of axis, magnetic field orientation and spin direction, that case seems to occur for me for the 180 degree case when both axis are perfectly aligned with the magnet orientation, say aligned with the z-axis...
view entire post
I wonder in which cases it may not be necessary that one particle's axis of rotation must not respond to magnetic field orientation. Since there are only three variables, namely orientation of axis, magnetic field orientation and spin direction, that case seems to occur for me for the 180 degree case when both axis are perfectly aligned with the magnet orientation, say aligned with the z-axis (vertically). Since the orientation of axis of rotation does only play a role when not aligned with the magnet orientation, or in other words when there is a relative angle between the magnet orientations and the axis or rotation, I conclude that the particles axis of rotation have no other function then reacting when such a relative angle is present.
In my example (s.o.) there is no such relative angle involved. Since there are only two spin combinations possible for one particle pair, namely clockwise-anticlockwise or anticlockwise-clockwise and we define “clockwise” together with magnet field orientation “up” as the side where one of the two test particles is affected by that combination of forces, then the other particle with combination “anti-clockwise” and field orientation “down” is not affected. Let's say the affected particle is on the right side. Affected means it encounters some forces that make it leave its trajectory and should, say, then fly along downwards. But the particle on the left side has not encountered any forces since it has not been affected – and shouldn't neither fly downwards nor fly upwards but should not change its initial direction given to it by the source. Hence, the particle on the left side does neither output “up” nor “down”.
But if we instead had defined the particle on the left as being also affected by its situation ("anti-clockwise" and field orientation "down") and leaving the above made definition for the particle on the right untouched (it was "clockwise" and "up"), then that combination of definitions gives the correct outcome of "correlation".
But if we apply these "instead" definitions also for the 0 degree case, then the pair(s) do not return anymore the correct outcomes of "anti-correlation" and thus, are incompatible with the 0 degree case.
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
Georgina Woodward replied on Nov. 11, 2020 @ 23:15 GMT
Maintenance of same or opposite axis of rotation orientation is important for answering two important questions. 1/ Why can pairs of particles separated by large distances act as if they are coordinating their responses to tests? 2/ Why do particles given the same test as previously act so that it seems the output state is fixed ( as if resulting from a property of the particle), yet if tested at a different angle (as ascertained by many such tests) the outcome state is random , as if it is not related to a fixed property of the particle. Weightless gyroscopes maintain their axes of rotation unless acted upon by twisting forces. If same environment to which it is already aligned it will not change its axis of rotation. If a different environment encountered it will respond to the forces it encounters.
report post as inappropriate
Georgina Woodward replied on Nov. 11, 2020 @ 23:47 GMT
Randomness: There are as many different ways of a coin toss evolving into the situation in which a heads is called ,as there are ways it can evolve into a situation where tails is called; for the same coin state calling protocol. There are many parameters and variables involved in each toss. Over many throws it can be seen that there are as may heads as tails outcomes. Though each toss is ultimately deterministic , because there are very many ways of becoming one or the other outcome, and equal amounts of each possibility-the act of coin tossing gives a random (no pattern to the sequence) 50;50 result.
90 degree difference in magnets orientation. Experiencing different field orientations the particle pair can not maintain opposite axes of rotation orientation. One or both must realign its orientation with the field it encounters. At 90 degrees there are as many ways of evolving into a situation where the outcome states are the same as there are for them being opposite; like the coin toss, that looks random.
report post as inappropriate
Stefan Weckbach replied on Nov. 12, 2020 @ 00:26 GMT
I wonder about the case that one isn't interested in answers to these three important questions but first and foremost interested in an answer about what a gyroscope theory would say about the thought experiment in my last post?
report post as inappropriate
Georgina Woodward replied on Nov. 12, 2020 @ 03:09 GMT
Stefan I do not understand your gripe. You have shared some thoughts about a possible theory for what's going on that doesn't work for 0, 90 and 180 degrees as it should according to experimental results. What do you want, congratulations for not giving a viable explanation. What answers to what questions have you provided?
I have explained why preservation of axis of rotation orientation is important. It has explanatory power that makes faster than light communication between particles unnecessary. It also explains the strange semi permanence of propensity to give particular state outcome when a particle is given same orientation test. Random outcome state for different test. Two famous examples of supposed quantum strangeness.
report post as inappropriate
Stefan Weckbach replied on Nov. 12, 2020 @ 08:27 GMT
Georgina, I want no congratulations, my gripe is about the illogics with that you arrive at your conclusion that the explanatory power of preserving the axis of rotation orientation is important to put an end to some non-local behaviour and to the strangeness of semi permanence. In my opinion it is logically inconsistent to conclude that importance, since in my opinion my thought experiment shows...
view entire post
Georgina, I want no congratulations, my gripe is about the illogics with that you arrive at your conclusion that the explanatory power of preserving the axis of rotation orientation is important to put an end to some non-local behaviour and to the strangeness of semi permanence. In my opinion it is logically inconsistent to conclude that importance, since in my opinion my thought experiment shows that your proposed interplay of “axis of rotation/spin” with “magnet field orientation” does only work for one of two cases (0 and 180 degree) that had to be explained. Would it have explained both cases that would be sufficient to deduce that your approach might be important to explain all measurement results. But as I think to have shown in my thought experiment, with your approach one can only explain one of two cases (0 or 180 degree). If only one of these cases can be explained due to logically contradictory requirements for being able to explain both cases, then I think it is more than justified to question the “importance” of your approach.
So my gripe is about claiming something that logically can't be the case and moreover then physically can't be the case. From the point of view of ordinary logics, there exist two mutually exclusive requirements for explaining both cases (0 and 180 degree). If one wants to nonetheless “explain” both cases, one necessarily had to switch (invert) the proposed mapping for the interplay between the three components “axis of rotation”, “spin” and “magnet field orientation” on the fly (what would be no more a deterministic approach).
So if one can't even map these three components consistently for the two cases (0 and 180 degree), then I think it is not only illogical to say that your approach is important concerning the issues you mentioned, but the insistence on that importance seems to be merely wishful thinking to me.
All of what I wrote so far would be pointless if I made a mistake in my thought experiment. Everyone is free to prove it is flawed. The most important question for me was whether or not your scheme does say anything about what is going on in the experiment we discussed. Only then it makes sense to me in this context to think about other important questions like randomness, determinism, faster than light influences etc. I will write about that more during the course of the present day for everyone that is interested, but not now because I have to do some work.
Do you now understand my gripe?
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
Georgina Woodward replied on Nov. 12, 2020 @ 09:13 GMT
Stefan. (drafted prior to your last reply)
'I'll try addressing what you wrote.
" Since the orientation of axis of rotation does only play a role when not aligned with the magnet orientation, or in other words when there is a relative angle between the magnet orientations and the axis or rotation, I conclude that the particles axis of rotation have no other function then reacting...
view entire post
Stefan. (drafted prior to your last reply)
'I'll try addressing what you wrote.
" Since the orientation of axis of rotation does only play a role when not aligned with the magnet orientation, or in other words when there is a relative angle between the magnet orientations and the axis or rotation, I conclude that the particles axis of rotation have no other function then reacting when such a relative angle is present." SW
The stability of the axis of rotation (conditionally) preserves the anticorrelation or correlation of particle pairs with same axis orientation antiparallel or parallel respectively.
"In my example (s.o.) there is no such relative angle involved." SW I'm not sure what (s.o.) is referring. "Since there are only two spin combinations possible for one particle pair, namely clockwise-anticlockwise or anticlockwise-clockwise and we define “clockwise” together with magnet field orientation “up” as the side where one of the two test particles is affected by that combination of forces, then the other particle with combination “anti-clockwise” and field orientation “down” is not affected." SW
I'm not convinced that tthe partner will not be affected. If north seeking and south seeking behaviour are due to rotation being like that of the electrons of he near magnet pole, or opposite in rotation, there could be attraction of one spin direction expected and repulsion of opposite. What is requied to get a certain anticorrelated outcome iis that the same field orientation of magnets for both keeps the relatioship of the particles rerlative to each other as it is. I think, rather like the coin toss we may not yet know exactly how all of the parameters and variables work together to give an individual outcome but non theless we can say they must give the expected statistical lresult over many tests.
"Let's say the affected particle is on the right side. Affected means it encounters some forces that make it leave its trajectory and should, say, then fly along downwards. But the particle on the left side has not encountered any forces since it has not been affected – and shouldn't neither fly downwards nor fly upwards but should not change its initial direction given to it by the source. Hence, the particle on the left side does neither output “up” nor “down”. SW
Outputting neither up nor down isn't an option .
"But if we instead had defined the particle on the left as being also affected by its situation ("anti-clockwise" and field orientation "down") and leaving the above made definition for the particle on the right untouched (it was "clockwise" and "up"), then that combination of definitions gives the correct outcome of "correlation" .SW
But if we apply these "instead" definitions also for the 0 degree case, then the pair(s) do not return anymore the correct outcomes of "anti-correlation" and thus, are incompatible with the 0 degree case ."SW
So there is something amiss with your supposition
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
Georgina Woodward replied on Nov. 12, 2020 @ 10:20 GMT
Interesting: "The magnet is de-energized and the axis of the gyroscope is set at an angle 40-50° to the direction of the field, and the gyroscope is then set in motion. The magnetic field is then turned on, and the axis is seen to change its position until it is parallel to the magnetic field. "demonstration with conducting gyroscope in a magnetic field K N Baranskiĭ © 1968 American Institute of Physics Soviet Physics Uspekhi, Volume 11, Number 2
report post as inappropriate
Stefan Weckbach replied on Nov. 12, 2020 @ 14:55 GMT
Georgina,
“I'm not sure what (s.o.) is referring.”
Referring to the beginning of the respective post of me: 180 degree case with axis of fields vertically oriented (z-axis), both axis of particles are in alignment with the z-axis.
The result is just as I described it in this post, without having to fiddle around with some right-hand-rules for electrical current and angular momentum. If one particle's axis of rotation must and does not respond to magnetic field orientation as you suggested, this means that this “gyroscope's” spinning orientation before the measurement (in my example “anti-clockwise”) is not switched by the measurement, since the spinning object of a gyroscope is coupled to the axis of rotation. All other statements from me just follow from that.
“I'm not convinced that tthe partner will not be affected. If north seeking and south seeking behaviour are due to rotation being like that of the electrons of he near magnet pole, or opposite in rotation, there could be attraction of one spin direction expected and repulsion of opposite.”
Maybe there is some current involved, I do not know, that could be a possibility. One then had to list all possible combinations of variables, namely orientation of axis, magnetic field orientation, spin direction and current (moving charge) and map them to the two possible outcomes for the 180 degree case (up/up, down/down) as well as for the 0 degree case (up/down, down/up) – to see whether or not these 4 variables explain the 0 and 180 degree cases consistently.
So I propose that you may want to do this and if you have a result you may post it here.
report post as inappropriate
Georgina Woodward replied on Nov. 13, 2020 @ 00:24 GMT
Using the right hand rule Key: Anticlockwiswe= antiCl, clocckwise =Cl
Current flow direction correlated with output state.
axis of rotation aligns parallel to field direction
Same viewpoint used for all rotation designations
0 degrees difference in rotation of apparatusMagnetic field vectors from North top to South bottom
Using right hand...
view entire post
Using the right hand rule Key: Anticlockwiswe= antiCl, clocckwise =Cl
Current flow direction correlated with output state.
axis of rotation aligns parallel to field direction
Same viewpoint used for all rotation designations
0 degrees difference in rotation of apparatusMagnetic field vectors from North top to South bottom
Using right hand rule:
particle pairs anticorrelated are,
Left apparatus; AntiCl (current turn [spin]) Up direction of current flow: Right apparatus; Cl (current turn [spin]), down direction of current flow. Current flow direction correlated with output state.
Left apparatus; Cl(current turn [spin]) Down direction of current flow: Right apparatus; AntiCl (current turn [spin]), Up direction of current flow. Current flow direction correlated with output state.
Maintenance of anti correlation
180 degrees difference in rotation of apparatusWe know field polarity matters as 180 difference gives change from anti correlation to correlation. Fir rotation of one of the apparatus, that one has reversed field direction, having the effect of current turn[spin] reversal. Maybe by flip of particle.
Using righthand rule;
Left apparatus unchanged ;right apparatus inverted 180 degrees
Left apparatus; AntiCl (current turn [spin]) Up direction of current flow: Right apparatus; changed to AntiCl (current turn [spin]), Up direction of current flow. Current flow direction correlated with output state.
Left apparatus; Cl(current turn [spin]) Down direction of current flow: Right apparatus; changed to Cl (current turn [spin]), Down direction of current flow. Current flow direction correlated with output state.
Result correlation instead of anticorrelation.
Same outcome expected if each side was adjusted by 90 degrees in opposite directions from 0 degree start. The pair responding equally but oppositely to their own environment.
90 degrees difference in rotation of apparatusif 0 and 180 considered parallel /parallel and parallel/ antiparallel to a vertical field (for simplification of explanation -every variation can not be discussed);for comparison, consider two particles anticororelated drawn as balls with central axis of rotation as a stick running vertically through the middle. Drawn thus they represent vertical field alignment. Colour in he top hemisphere of the left hand ball and colour the bottom hemisphere of the right hand ball to represent opposite spin. To align with the 90 degree field the axis must turn towards viewer, top of axis down or bottom of axis up as looked at as a diagram. The choice allows randomness (of the deterministic, many unknowns, coin toss kind) Rotating the apparatus has made up and down outputs, left and right spatially but up and down are just names, they could be called red and green.
There is no maintenance of anticorrelation with vertically aligned partner
There may need to be adjustment to comply with convention, spin being opposite to current turn rather than same as in this illustration.
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
Georgina Woodward replied on Nov. 13, 2020 @ 01:15 GMT
Correction: I wrote ' Rotating the apparatus has made up and down outputs, left and right spatially but up and down are just names, they could be called red and green."
That should be - Rotating the apparatus has made up and down outputs, towards and away spatially but 'up' and 'down' are just names, they could be called red and green.
I have used left and right to designate the different apparatus relative locations, x orientation. A vertical field ,y orientation and towards and away are z orientation.
report post as inappropriate
Georgina Woodward replied on Nov. 13, 2020 @ 04:58 GMT
I think the up and down bit outputs have a different meaning from each other/ With north magnet top, south bottom there is a vertical field with direction north (top) to south (Bottom). An UP bit is obtained by motion of particle in the direction of north magnet. DOWN bits correspond to motion in the direction of the south magnet.
With the south magnet at the top, as in 180 degree rotation of one apparatus; there is still a vertical field but the north south direction of field is bottom to top of apparatus.
For input correlated pair; Left, north top, right, south top. Becomes output N(UP)S(UP) or N(DOWN) S(DOWN)
report post as inappropriate
John R. Cox replied on Nov. 13, 2020 @ 17:18 GMT
Gyro or Stats,
why must we assume a macro particle of Ag will necessarily align N/S vertically? with either the source initial polarization or the S-G directed field?
Superscribe a sphere over the 3-axis orthogonal and we construct 6 radii. Trace a great circle on a vertical plane through the sphere so that it intersects four of those radial points and call it 'L'ongitude with the...
view entire post
Gyro or Stats,
why must we assume a macro particle of Ag will necessarily align N/S vertically? with either the source initial polarization or the S-G directed field?
Superscribe a sphere over the 3-axis orthogonal and we construct 6 radii. Trace a great circle on a vertical plane through the sphere so that it intersects four of those radial points and call it 'L'ongitude with the UPper point, North. Trace another great circle on the horizontal plane through two of those points and the remaining two and call it 'E'quitorial. Now please, parallelize a second great circle on 'L' and rotate it either direction 45* on the Equator and protract an arc both CCW and CW from 'N' 120* on 'l' so that we have three points at 120* separation on that skewed great circle. It is immediately apparent that an ancillary radius from origin to either of the 120* points will be at 60* arc from the 'S'outh radius axis. But because the orthogonal is symmetric, there exists a 60* arc of separation from each of the adjacent radii axis on the 'E'quitorial plane, so that ancillary radius would intersect the midpoint of the sphere octant and the equilateral triangle of the facet if the 'E' points and 'S' were scribed with a connecting line. Spin that in your mind a while, there would be 8 such ancillary radii for a total of 14 axil radii dimensions, and any three that would be orthogonal and their diametric twins would be rotationally preceding some electromagnetic relationship.
In the environs of the S-G air gap there exist the conundrum of which way the electrostatic axis would become responsive, the Ag atom is electrically neutral. So a bit-flip would by necessity occur for either CCW or CW deflection on the horizontal plane of the air gap giving the lateral spread of results that has the distinctive profile of a traditional rolling pin that has been split lengthwise and separated into UP and DOWN clusters of results. Look at all the intriguing angles and rotations of that skewed great circle arrangement! What fun! jrc
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
Stefan Weckbach replied on Nov. 13, 2020 @ 17:41 GMT
Georgina,
thank you for placing your lines of reasoning to the disposal.
For obtaining anti-correlation in the 0 degree case, it is necessary that the particle to the left and the particle to the right exchange signs. Since we talk about particle pairs that all are send off from the source with opposite signs, in the 0 degree case each pair's particle sign must be inverted to obtain anti-correlation.
If only one sign is changed, one would obtain correlation – what is not the case as you know. If none of the two signs would be changed, then opposite particles would encounter the same environment – what does not match your scheme.
So for obtaining anti-correlation (what is the 0 degree case), the signs of both particles have to exchange. But this is in contradiction with the 180 degree case when the left apparatus remains unchanged but the right apparatus is inverted 180 degrees: the left apparatus will not change the sign of the left member of the first particle pair, as well as it didn't in the 0 degree case for that member. That is the logical contradiction and in my opinion it cannot be cured by switching some names or labels.
report post as inappropriate
Stefan Weckbach replied on Nov. 13, 2020 @ 18:19 GMT
"If none of the two signs would be changed, then opposite particles would encounter the same environment – what does not match your scheme."
That should be
"If none of the two signs would be changed, then opposite particles would encounter the same environment and both would not be changed by that enviroment – what does not match your scheme."
"in the 0 degree case each pair's particle sign must be inverted to obtain anti-correlation."
could need a minor correction for the word "sign":
"in the 0 degree case each pair's particle signs must be inverted to obtain anti-correlation."
report post as inappropriate
Georgina Woodward replied on Nov. 13, 2020 @ 23:30 GMT
I don't see why sign reversal is necessary. Do you just mean they fly in opposite directions? They can maintain opposite spin doing that. As I'd have it the oppositely spinning particles both encounter the same xyz orientation of apparatus , they are both ,lets say horizontal but turned to face each other not alongside each other. So if considering the individuals rather than the whole system they (the individuals of a pair), do experience the same forces relative to their own orientation which maintains the anticorrelation.
180 degrees: Lets say the left apparatus is unchanged-gives same effect on particle as 0 degrees. Right apparatus inverted 180 degrees. Field still vertical but magnet poles reversed for right hand side. The output of both sides must now be correlated rather than anticorrelated. Key: L=left, R=right, N=north, S=south (magnetic poles of apparatus), UP/DOWN=bit outcomes.
LNUP, RSDOWN or LSDOWN, RNUP becomes L: NUP, RSUP or LSDOWN, RNDOWN
Each particle of a pair is experiencing the field direction n-s differently, whereas for 0 degrees even though the apparatus are facing each other n-s field orientation is the same. The particles align with the field they individually encounter. The opposite field direction causes an opposite (from what it would have been without field direction reversal of up/down direction of motion. But interestingly maintains the same apparent north or south seeking behaviour). All that is required is that the particle align its axis of rotation with n-s field direction. {Applies to all tests} 0 degrees and 180 are not comparable situation as for 0 both apparatus have the same n-s field direction.
report post as inappropriate
Stefan Weckbach replied on Nov. 14, 2020 @ 09:18 GMT
Georgina,
“I don't see why sign reversal is necessary. Do you just mean they fly in opposite directions? They can maintain opposite spin doing that.”
No, i do not mean that they fly in opposite directions – they certainly do so. I am still talking about a specific particle pair whose both axis is aligned with the magnets orientation (in space) such that the pair's axis are...
view entire post
Georgina,
“I don't see why sign reversal is necessary. Do you just mean they fly in opposite directions? They can maintain opposite spin doing that.”
No, i do not mean that they fly in opposite directions – they certainly do so. I am still talking about a specific particle pair whose both axis is aligned with the magnets orientation (in space) such that the pair's axis are PARALLEL to the magnets field lines - independent of the directions of these lines! Let's say that the orientation of these lines in space is straight along the z-axis. So i am still talking about the case where the particle pair's axis is in exactly the same direction in space as the magnets field lines, namely in the z-axis. So please keep in mind that all I will say refers to that special case of alignment!
“All that is required is that the particle align its axis of rotation with n-s field direction.”
This “mechanics” causes the contradiction I spoke of and I will try to explain it again.
0 degree case:
According to your scheme, the particle pair flying towards the magnets has opposite spins for each particle. And according to the previous citation form you, one particle of the pair hasn't to change its axis, since it is already aligned with the n-s field direction. But that is not the case for the other particle, so that the other particle has to reverse its spin (axis). Remember we are talking here about the 0 degree case.
CONSEQUENTLY the outcome would be CORRELATION (up/up or down/down) – what does not match the experimental results nor does it match your predictions. Therefore I wrote in my previous post that in the 0 degree case BOTH particles of a pair HAVE TO REVERSE their spins they have during the flight when encountering their respective magnets – to at all being able to achieve anti-correlation.
Now I am talking about the 180 degree case:
Imagine that we examine a pair that has LRED with RGREEN during the flight towards the measurement setup. Keep in mind what I wrote at the beginning about the special case of alignment with the z-axis.
We can now compare the 0 degree case with your 180 degree case that you outlined in your post from Nov. 13, 2020 @ 00:24 GMT. There you wrote
“Left apparatus unchanged ;right apparatus inverted 180 degrees”
According to your case study in your post from Nov. 13, 2020 @ 00:24 GMT, if the left apparatus is unchanged and the right apparatus is inverted 180 degree, the CORRELATION of the outputs (up/up, down/down) is due to the change of the right apparatus – COMPARED to the 0 degree case.
You made that very clear by writing
“Right apparatus; changed to AntiCl (current turn [spin])”
and
“Right apparatus; changed to Cl (current turn [spin])”
Consequently, in your 180 degree case, the particle to the left isn't allowed to CHANGE because otherwise you would obtain ANTI-CORRELATION and this would contradict your prediction as well as experimental results for the 180 degree case.
So my logical conclusion for your 180 degree case is that LRED does not change, but RGREEN does change to RRED – to enable CORRELATION.
The contradiction now can be found in the fact that for the 180 degree case LRED stays LRED, whereas in the 0 degree case LRED must change to LGREEN (as I explained at the beginning of my post!!). In the 0 degree case as well as in the 180 degree case we are still talking about the same pair that has LRED with RGREEN during the flight towards the measurement setups. And we still have the alignment with the z-axis I spoke of at the beginning of that post: both axis of the pair and both of the magnet's field lines have the same orientation in space (z-coordinate axis) for the 0 degree case as well as for the 180 degree case. Hence, the difference between the 0 degree case and the 180 degree case is that the right apparatus has been inverted by 180 degree – its field orientation has simply been inverted along the z-axis.
A particle pair that has LRED with RGREEN during the flight towards the measurement setup, whereby the axis of rotation of both particles axis are oriented in the same direction as the magnets field lines (z-axis) is surely a rare case statistically. But nonetheless it WILL HAPPEN when enough particle pairs with the pairing LRED and RGREEN during flight encounter the 0 and 180 degree cases we are talking about.
I think all this is not so difficult to see. One only has to use the same specific particle pair for the 0 degree case as well as for the 180 degree case (LRED and RGREEN during flight towards experimental setups) – and should not switch to the complementary particle pair (what would be LGREEN with RRED) when comparing the 0 degree case with the 180 degree case.
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
Georgina Woodward replied on Nov. 15, 2020 @ 03:15 GMT
OK. The particles are produced as a pair. We have been calling them anti-corelated. I mean they are opposite in some way; now presuming opposite gyroscopic rotation. They have an affinity with the rotation they were produced with that is sensitive to magnetic field orientation. The relation between rotation it was produced with and magnetic field orientation is maintained -so if the field...
view entire post
OK. The particles are produced as a pair. We have been calling them anti-corelated. I mean they are opposite in some way; now presuming opposite gyroscopic rotation. They have an affinity with the rotation they were produced with that is sensitive to magnetic field orientation. The relation between rotation it was produced with and magnetic field orientation is maintained -so if the field direction is altered the particle adjusts to it, If the field is inverted the particle inverts maintaining their relationship.
Let call the particle pairs twins, and because they are opposites, twin/anti-twin pairs. (T/At). We do not know which is the twin and which the anti, the abbreviation applies to both possibilities.[To try and more clearly differentiate particles and output bit results. ]
0 degrees difference in apparatus angle. North magnet top. T/At pair.
As they were produced as opposites they have different preference of orientation in the same direction of field; such as north magnet top. They will each adjust to the field they encounter. One of the many possible adjustments that could happen is both particles turn head over heels (or heels over head) to achieve their preferred relation with the field. [Not knowing if the anti parallel axes of rotation orientation are the same for every pair or random. My guess is random.] The other extreme is they are already perfectly parallel and anti-parallel to the field and do not need to adjust their orientation. In all cases the twin/anti-twin relation is maintained. Applying the right hand rule, (N)up: (S)down or (N)down: (S)up
180 LHS N top RHS S top T/At pair
LHS same as for 0 degrees. Lets assume for ease that no adjustment is needed and (as we have to chose one of the options for discussion) The LHS particle has antiCl. Turn (rotation) giving by Right hand rule (N) up flow.
The partner finds the opposite field orientation S top.
Reminder; With N top this particle, the opposite, with Cl. Rotation, would be (S) down So it maintains its preferred relation with field by inverting. Now by RH rule it is now turning antiCl. Flow (S) up. The bits are matching, up. But although the bits are deemed identical, the magnetic polarity involved in production is different.
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
Stefan Weckbach replied on Nov. 15, 2020 @ 09:00 GMT
Georgina,
thank you again for placing your lines of reasoning to the disposal.
You wrote
“0 degrees difference in apparatus angle. North magnet top. T/At pair.
As they were produced as opposites they have different preference of orientation in the same direction of field; such as north magnet top. They will each adjust to the field they encounter. One of the many...
view entire post
Georgina,
thank you again for placing your lines of reasoning to the disposal.
You wrote
“0 degrees difference in apparatus angle. North magnet top. T/At pair.
As they were produced as opposites they have different preference of orientation in the same direction of field; such as north magnet top. They will each adjust to the field they encounter. One of the many possible adjustments that could happen is both particles turn head over heels (or heels over head) to achieve their preferred relation with the field. [Not knowing if the anti parallel axes of rotation orientation are the same for every pair or random. My guess is random.] The other extreme is they are already perfectly parallel and anti-parallel to the field and do not need to adjust their orientation. In all cases the twin/anti-twin relation is maintained. Applying the right hand rule, (N)up: (S)down or (N)down: (S)up”
In the following I again will refer to the case where the axis of rotation of both particles axis' are oriented in the same direction as the magnets field lines are for the 0 degree case.
What I still do not understand in your derivation for the 0 degree angle case is why a pair whose two members have an opposite property right from the start should be able to maintain that opposite relationship when both members encounter identical environments (means same field directions for both magnets). So I do not understand why both particle pairs, namely the “twin” as well as the “anti-twin” pair both should NOT be altered in the 0 degree case (with the special alignment axis' with direction of field lines I am here referring to!) such that one member of that pair does not need to adjust its axis - whereas the other member has to adjust its axis by making an 180 degree turn of its axis.
Please be patient with me since I still cannot see the logic that you have applied in your derivation for concluding that when each member of a pair has an opposite feature, then identical environments at both sides (identical field orientations of the two magnets) should lead to an identical reaction at both sides (for example the 180 degree turn necessary for both members of that pair). Maybe I am blind, but until now I cannot the logical reasons for such a derivation.
So would it be possible that you explain your reasons behind that kind of logical mechanics for each of the two members of that distinctive pair which is considered by you having to turn left side axis as well as right side axis by 180 degree when it encounters the 0 degree case? I think that would be helpful for me. For simplicity you may wish to explain that by referring only to one of the two possible cases for the magnets' orientation, let's say North magnets top.
Thank you very much in advance for taking the time explaining to me your derivation and also thank you again for already having been committed to lay out in more detail the explanatory scheme you have in mind.
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
Georgina Woodward replied on Nov. 16, 2020 @ 02:10 GMT
Stefan, thank you for your questions, I drafted quite a lengthy reply but think I am now ready to write my thoughts in paper for anyone/everyone to critique as they wish. Your questioning has been helpful in getting me to explain myself clearly and be consistent.. Hopefully that paper, which I will post on viXra, will answer all of your remaining questions.
report post as inappropriate
Stefan Weckbach replied on Nov. 16, 2020 @ 19:29 GMT
Georgina,
I will certainly take a look at it when it is available. I already guess what the answer to my last question will be since i remember to have heard it at fqxi already - but i stay tuned for surprises!
report post as inappropriate
hide replies