If you are aware of an interesting new academic paper (that has been published in a peer-reviewed journal or has appeared on the arXiv), a conference talk (at an official professional scientific meeting), an external blog post (by a professional scientist) or a news item (in the mainstream news media), which you think might make an interesting topic for an FQXi blog post, then please contact us at forums@fqxi.org with a link to the original source and a sentence about why you think that the work is worthy of discussion. Please note that we receive many such suggestions and while we endeavour to respond to them, we may not be able to reply to all suggestions.
Please also note that we do not accept unsolicited posts and we cannot review, or open new threads for, unsolicited articles or papers. Requests to review or post such materials will not be answered. If you have your own novel physics theory or model, which you would like to post for further discussion among then FQXi community, then please add them directly to the "Alternative Models of Reality" thread, or to the "Alternative Models of Cosmology" thread. Thank you.
Please also note that we do not accept unsolicited posts and we cannot review, or open new threads for, unsolicited articles or papers. Requests to review or post such materials will not be answered. If you have your own novel physics theory or model, which you would like to post for further discussion among then FQXi community, then please add them directly to the "Alternative Models of Reality" thread, or to the "Alternative Models of Cosmology" thread. Thank you.
Forum Home
Introduction
Terms of Use
By using the FQXi Forum, you acknowledge reading and agree to abide by the Terms of Use
RSS feed | RSS help
Introduction
Terms of Use
By using the FQXi Forum, you acknowledge reading and agree to abide by the Terms of Use
RSS feed | RSS help
RECENT POSTS IN THIS TOPIC
John Cox: on 12/14/20 at 2:52am UTC, wrote Doc, I just checked in, I've been preoccupied. I thought the paper would...
Steve Agnew: on 12/11/20 at 0:20am UTC, wrote This is fun...a combination of boron nitride quantum dot with double layer...
Stefan Weckbach: on 12/9/20 at 6:55am UTC, wrote Georgina, “For alignment to happen some particles will change their...
Georgina Woodward: on 12/8/20 at 23:32pm UTC, wrote I don't agree Stefan, you have a strange idea that the precise location of...
Stefan Weckbach: on 12/8/20 at 7:52am UTC, wrote Georgina, you claim that in your model the “up” and “down”...
Georgina Woodward: on 12/8/20 at 2:53am UTC, wrote Stefan, my answers to your questions about your experiments are to do with...
Stefan Weckbach: on 12/8/20 at 0:21am UTC, wrote Georgina, you now made it clear as possible with your answers that your...
Georgina Woodward: on 12/7/20 at 23:42pm UTC, wrote The orientation of axis and direction of rotation, of a random individual...
John Cox: on 12/14/20 at 2:52am UTC, wrote Doc, I just checked in, I've been preoccupied. I thought the paper would...
Steve Agnew: on 12/11/20 at 0:20am UTC, wrote This is fun...a combination of boron nitride quantum dot with double layer...
Stefan Weckbach: on 12/9/20 at 6:55am UTC, wrote Georgina, “For alignment to happen some particles will change their...
Georgina Woodward: on 12/8/20 at 23:32pm UTC, wrote I don't agree Stefan, you have a strange idea that the precise location of...
Stefan Weckbach: on 12/8/20 at 7:52am UTC, wrote Georgina, you claim that in your model the “up” and “down”...
Georgina Woodward: on 12/8/20 at 2:53am UTC, wrote Stefan, my answers to your questions about your experiments are to do with...
Stefan Weckbach: on 12/8/20 at 0:21am UTC, wrote Georgina, you now made it clear as possible with your answers that your...
Georgina Woodward: on 12/7/20 at 23:42pm UTC, wrote The orientation of axis and direction of rotation, of a random individual...
FQXi FORUM
January 27, 2021
FQXi Administrator Zeeya Merali wrote on Sep. 28, 2020 @ 15:11 GMT
There's a new paper in Scientific Reports by Mark Stuckey and colleagues showing that the relativity principle responsible for time dilation and length contraction in special relativity is also responsible for Bell state entanglement.
From the abstract:
"In 1981, Mermin published a now famous paper titled, “Bringing home the atomic world: Quantum mysteries for anybody” that Feynman called, “One of the most beautiful papers in physics that I know.” Therein, he presented the “Mermin device” that illustrates the conundrum of quantum entanglement per the Bell spin states for the “general reader.” He then challenged the “physicist reader” to explain the way the device works “in terms meaningful to a general reader struggling with the dilemma raised by the device.” Herein, we show how “conservation per no preferred reference frame (NPRF)” answers that challenge. In short, the explicit conservation that obtains for Alice and Bob’s Stern-Gerlach spin measurement outcomes in the same reference frame holds only on average in different reference frames, not on a trial-by-trial basis. This conservation is SO(3) invariant in the relevant symmetry plane in real space per the SU(2) invariance of its corresponding Bell spin state in Hilbert space. Since NPRF is also responsible for the postulates of special relativity, and therefore its counterintuitive aspects of time dilation and length contraction, we see that the symmetry group relating non-relativistic quantum mechanics and special relativity via their “mysteries” is the restricted Lorentz group."
Thank you to Mark Stuckey for suggesting that we open a forum thread to discuss this paper.
From the abstract:
"In 1981, Mermin published a now famous paper titled, “Bringing home the atomic world: Quantum mysteries for anybody” that Feynman called, “One of the most beautiful papers in physics that I know.” Therein, he presented the “Mermin device” that illustrates the conundrum of quantum entanglement per the Bell spin states for the “general reader.” He then challenged the “physicist reader” to explain the way the device works “in terms meaningful to a general reader struggling with the dilemma raised by the device.” Herein, we show how “conservation per no preferred reference frame (NPRF)” answers that challenge. In short, the explicit conservation that obtains for Alice and Bob’s Stern-Gerlach spin measurement outcomes in the same reference frame holds only on average in different reference frames, not on a trial-by-trial basis. This conservation is SO(3) invariant in the relevant symmetry plane in real space per the SU(2) invariance of its corresponding Bell spin state in Hilbert space. Since NPRF is also responsible for the postulates of special relativity, and therefore its counterintuitive aspects of time dilation and length contraction, we see that the symmetry group relating non-relativistic quantum mechanics and special relativity via their “mysteries” is the restricted Lorentz group."
Thank you to Mark Stuckey for suggesting that we open a forum thread to discuss this paper.
John R. Cox replied on Sep. 29, 2020 @ 14:10 GMT
This should be great! There is so much to argue for much of what we measure that are actually averaged results, and that averaging is what makes physical constants, constant.
Mermin specifies electrons not photons in the SG apparatus, so for a benchtop experimentalist's approach we are looking at attempting to stage time-wise, the projection of two electrons at the same (or near to it) velocity in opposite directions through identical (or near to it) homogeneous magnetic fields. It is those magnets that induce a dipole moment on each electron of the pair, but physically we cannot say that the pair of electrons at origin are entangled. It is all in the time-wise staging and projection velocities that entangle them. And it is physically simply the antipodal directions of the electrons in flight that accounts for the anti-correlation of spin up and spin down when the magnets are both vertically aligned in the same N up S dn orientation to the vertical plane of the source. jrc
report post as inappropriate
Mermin specifies electrons not photons in the SG apparatus, so for a benchtop experimentalist's approach we are looking at attempting to stage time-wise, the projection of two electrons at the same (or near to it) velocity in opposite directions through identical (or near to it) homogeneous magnetic fields. It is those magnets that induce a dipole moment on each electron of the pair, but physically we cannot say that the pair of electrons at origin are entangled. It is all in the time-wise staging and projection velocities that entangle them. And it is physically simply the antipodal directions of the electrons in flight that accounts for the anti-correlation of spin up and spin down when the magnets are both vertically aligned in the same N up S dn orientation to the vertical plane of the source. jrc
John R. Cox wrote on Sep. 29, 2020 @ 00:28 GMT
Thanks Zeeya,
this paper is worth going over repeatedly and is on my favorites bar. Where I think people get confused with SR is that there is NPRF of what the rate of passage of time might be either, it could be anything from nil to light velocity. The LT is just calculated from the relative rates of uniform motion. Does anybody really know what time it is? jrc
report post as inappropriate
this paper is worth going over repeatedly and is on my favorites bar. Where I think people get confused with SR is that there is NPRF of what the rate of passage of time might be either, it could be anything from nil to light velocity. The LT is just calculated from the relative rates of uniform motion. Does anybody really know what time it is? jrc
Steve Dufourny wrote on Sep. 29, 2020 @ 07:45 GMT
Hi Zeeya, thanks for sharing this paper, it seems very relevant, regards
report post as inappropriate
report post as inappropriate
hide replies
John R. Cox replied on Sep. 30, 2020 @ 03:25 GMT
Hi Steve,
a little help here if you could. If the restricted Lorentz group is a group of coordinates on a hyperbolic space that is tilted to different angles of rotation (that is, each tilt is a seperate measurement of a Lorentz boost of 4 transforms, not an accelerated, or moving rotation) and that those coordinate points on the hyperboloid are connected by a continuous curved line; can we surmise from the figs. and text of the paper that any line for any of the detector settings would be represented on a plane as is the shape of either the upper or lower recursive lines of the 'pattern observed experimentally' in fig.1 . The upper recursive line representing spin up detection transform coordinates; and the lower, spin down detections of the binary choice produced by projected singlet pairs. ??? jrc
report post as inappropriate
a little help here if you could. If the restricted Lorentz group is a group of coordinates on a hyperbolic space that is tilted to different angles of rotation (that is, each tilt is a seperate measurement of a Lorentz boost of 4 transforms, not an accelerated, or moving rotation) and that those coordinate points on the hyperboloid are connected by a continuous curved line; can we surmise from the figs. and text of the paper that any line for any of the detector settings would be represented on a plane as is the shape of either the upper or lower recursive lines of the 'pattern observed experimentally' in fig.1 . The upper recursive line representing spin up detection transform coordinates; and the lower, spin down detections of the binary choice produced by projected singlet pairs. ??? jrc
Steve Dufourny replied on Sep. 30, 2020 @ 16:30 GMT
Hi John, It is about the minkowski spacetime and the transformations of Lorentz, if we take this restricted SO(1,3) for the automorphisms, we change just if my memory is good the referentials in conserving the orientations spatio temporals, these transformations are just changements inertial of referentials. If the spin up and down are like binary systems, I cannot answer because for me it is not correlated the balance with the relativity only , I consider a deeper logic with two senses of rotation but not for the photons wich turn in one precise sense , and I balance with the cold dark matter and the anti matter the same in fqct, so it becomes non relativistic and so the lorentz transformations are not the same because it is not about this special relativity, but you can consider an other logic for the quadrimoments and with the lie algebras and these lorentz transformations, that can help I beleive, but I am not a specialist of this method for the rotating light if I can say. Could you be nore precise still please ?regards
report post as inappropriate
Steve Dufourny replied on Sep. 30, 2020 @ 17:07 GMT
John, what you tell is very important for the quantum computing and the qubits , my idea is different than the fact to consider only photons or electrons and their spins, moments or others, like I told you I consider a deeper logic than just these photons and so the lorenyz transformations of course are relevant for our relativity , but if we rank the quantum informations with a deeper logic, all...
view entire post
view entire post
John, what you tell is very important for the quantum computing and the qubits , my idea is different than the fact to consider only photons or electrons and their spins, moments or others, like I told you I consider a deeper logic than just these photons and so the lorenyz transformations of course are relevant for our relativity , but if we rank the quantum informations with a deeper logic, all is different about the binary systems, we have several roads to analyse, the spin up and down with this minkowski spacetime and the lorentz transformations in considering the mass and so we can make maps and in taking into account matrices, but if my idea is correwct , all is different to reach a kind of quantum computing and so we have different spins up and down, it is not just about the rotations of photons or electrons but about the two fuels that I explained in my model. And if simply we had two main senses of rotations for these fuels permitting the balance and in fact we don t see it in the minkowski spacetime, we just observe photons and their motions if I can say , it is just observations. The quantum informations so become very complex considering these two main systems more furthermore this spacevacuum DE energetical possessing the main codes and probably still different in the motions rotations, the momentum , spins and others are more complex than just this relativistic spacetime for me, and the relativistic informations cannot give a quantum computer, we need the two other systems, and fruthermore we must reach the singularities. The lorentz transformations could consider this cold DM and this vacuum energetical and we can superimpose these two other ethers but frankly I search a road and I become crazy with all this complexity ,and furthermore it is an assumption but I think it is correct, these 3D spheres and these series and this dirac large number for these primordial series can permit to reach this universal quantum computing , but wowww it is not easy seen the number and the interactions more the exchanges and enciodings, sortings, superimposings , synchros. I beleive strongly that all is a question of rotating spheres 3D , but seen the different volumes and their oscillations , it is beyong my understanding.
view post as summary
view post as summary
John R. Cox replied on Sep. 30, 2020 @ 17:14 GMT
Thanks Steve,
I'm still trying to figure out how by treating each different detector setting (in the paper: 120* rotations) as different reference frames is somehow the same thing as SR treating two different inertial reference frames where there is "no prefered reference frame" (neutral centrality). I think where the author is drawing an equivalence is in taking the reference frame of recording results as being independent of the inertial frame of the Mermin Device. And I'm troubled by a lack of links to specifications and technical protocols on the device itself. Its talking about electrons, not photons. So how are the experimenters confident that whatever type of emitter the device uses as a source, is spitting out only two electrons. That's a tall order in itself, and even loftier to assume that those two electrons are stripped from the same atom and have a correlated spin angular momentum in the first place.
So we are back to the "pattern observed experimentally". The detector elements are obviously reading any angle 1/2pi as Spin down, for the results all to fall on the outline of all deflections that would result from less than uniform velocities among the (assumed) pairs. Or random numbers of electrons projected in clusters.
I'm grasping at straws, here. But from a classical experimentalist perspective.jrc
report post as inappropriate
I'm still trying to figure out how by treating each different detector setting (in the paper: 120* rotations) as different reference frames is somehow the same thing as SR treating two different inertial reference frames where there is "no prefered reference frame" (neutral centrality). I think where the author is drawing an equivalence is in taking the reference frame of recording results as being independent of the inertial frame of the Mermin Device. And I'm troubled by a lack of links to specifications and technical protocols on the device itself. Its talking about electrons, not photons. So how are the experimenters confident that whatever type of emitter the device uses as a source, is spitting out only two electrons. That's a tall order in itself, and even loftier to assume that those two electrons are stripped from the same atom and have a correlated spin angular momentum in the first place.
So we are back to the "pattern observed experimentally". The detector elements are obviously reading any angle 1/2pi as Spin down, for the results all to fall on the outline of all deflections that would result from less than uniform velocities among the (assumed) pairs. Or random numbers of electrons projected in clusters.
I'm grasping at straws, here. But from a classical experimentalist perspective.jrc
John R. Cox replied on Sep. 30, 2020 @ 17:19 GMT
ADD:
the posting dropped important pieces in my last post. It should specify that the detector is obviously reading any angle 1/2pi as Spin down
report post as inappropriate
the posting dropped important pieces in my last post. It should specify that the detector is obviously reading any angle 1/2pi as Spin down
John R. Cox replied on Sep. 30, 2020 @ 17:22 GMT
Windows 10 did it again, I guess I can't post using a 'greater' or 'lesser'
symbol.
it should be: any angle lesser than 1/2pi as Spin up and any greater than 1/2pi as Spin down
report post as inappropriate
symbol.
it should be: any angle lesser than 1/2pi as Spin up and any greater than 1/2pi as Spin down
Steve Dufourny replied on Oct. 1, 2020 @ 09:33 GMT
Hi John, you are welcome, I am not a specialist about all this but I understand the general principle, I can understand also what you tell about the specifications and techn protocols, it is interesting in all case like paper ,
report post as inappropriate
hide replies
Steve Agnew wrote on Sep. 30, 2020 @ 18:26 GMT
I have not actually ever seen the Mermin device before, but am very familiar with the Stern-Gerlach apparatus that Mermin's device models. The Mermin device illustrates quantum superposition for single entangled particles just like the Stern-Gerlach device does for each particle and also illustrates the quantum measurement "problem" quite well too.
The challenge seems to be to explain in...
view entire post
The challenge seems to be to explain in...
view entire post
I have not actually ever seen the Mermin device before, but am very familiar with the Stern-Gerlach apparatus that Mermin's device models. The Mermin device illustrates quantum superposition for single entangled particles just like the Stern-Gerlach device does for each particle and also illustrates the quantum measurement "problem" quite well too.
The challenge seems to be to explain in simple language quantum superposition and entanglement by using simple language to explain how the Mermin device works. The simple explanation is that the Mermin device Case B reveals the nature of quantum phase incoherence.
Our classical reality first of all mostly involves quantum phase coherence and all gravity relativity outcomes only involve quantum phase coherence. All of reality, however, actually does involve quantum phase and all matter bonds involve coherent quantum phases and coherent quantum phase makes up most of our classical reality as a result.
However, even bonded matter particles can exist with incoherent quantum spin phases above absolute zero, especially vaporized matter. For example, each silver atom in the vapor of the Stern-Gerlach experiment exists as an incoherent phase superposition of the silver atom's two quantum spin phases of +/-1/2.
Generally, classical reality can ignore quantum phase incoherence because of statistical averaging over large numbers of particles. However, certain quantum measurements of single atoms or particles do show the effects of quantum phase incoherence, which of course, has no classical explanation at all.
The Mermin device (see attachment) measures each of two silver atoms with entangled but still incoherent spin phases. When the two measurements have the same quantum phase or orientation, Case A, the two measured entangled spins always agree.
When the two measurements have different quantum phase at an orientation of 120 degrees from each other, Case B, the two entangled silver atom spin phases only agree 25% of the time. This means that each measurement of the two silver atoms with incoherent but entangled quantum spin phases has an incoherent precursor quantum spin phase that is only knowable with some well-defined incoherence.
Thus, quantum phase incoherence results in an intrinsic uncertainty for all quantum outcomes. Classical reality is a result of only quantum phase coherence and so it is actually quantum phase incoherence that reveals the true quantum nature of the world.
Correspondingly, the quantum measurement "problem" is only a problem because even many very smart people ignore the reality of quantum phase incoherence.
view post as summary
The challenge seems to be to explain in simple language quantum superposition and entanglement by using simple language to explain how the Mermin device works. The simple explanation is that the Mermin device Case B reveals the nature of quantum phase incoherence.
Our classical reality first of all mostly involves quantum phase coherence and all gravity relativity outcomes only involve quantum phase coherence. All of reality, however, actually does involve quantum phase and all matter bonds involve coherent quantum phases and coherent quantum phase makes up most of our classical reality as a result.
However, even bonded matter particles can exist with incoherent quantum spin phases above absolute zero, especially vaporized matter. For example, each silver atom in the vapor of the Stern-Gerlach experiment exists as an incoherent phase superposition of the silver atom's two quantum spin phases of +/-1/2.
Generally, classical reality can ignore quantum phase incoherence because of statistical averaging over large numbers of particles. However, certain quantum measurements of single atoms or particles do show the effects of quantum phase incoherence, which of course, has no classical explanation at all.
The Mermin device (see attachment) measures each of two silver atoms with entangled but still incoherent spin phases. When the two measurements have the same quantum phase or orientation, Case A, the two measured entangled spins always agree.
When the two measurements have different quantum phase at an orientation of 120 degrees from each other, Case B, the two entangled silver atom spin phases only agree 25% of the time. This means that each measurement of the two silver atoms with incoherent but entangled quantum spin phases has an incoherent precursor quantum spin phase that is only knowable with some well-defined incoherence.
Thus, quantum phase incoherence results in an intrinsic uncertainty for all quantum outcomes. Classical reality is a result of only quantum phase coherence and so it is actually quantum phase incoherence that reveals the true quantum nature of the world.
Correspondingly, the quantum measurement "problem" is only a problem because even many very smart people ignore the reality of quantum phase incoherence.
view post as summary
attachments: MerminExperiment.jpg
John R. Cox replied on Sep. 30, 2020 @ 19:25 GMT
Thank you for that Doc, that gives a good start for browsing up a reading list.jrc
report post as inappropriate
John R. Cox replied on Oct. 1, 2020 @ 00:52 GMT
Dr. Agnew,
The reading I've started referencing SG does make better sense of the operational meaning of superposition than I have been assuming from the common application to photonic probability distribution. Thanks much again. Now I'm as obliged QM-wise, as I am to Tom Ray for peeling the scales from my eyes in GR. Not that I'll abandon a classical model, in fact I was struck with a...
view entire post
The reading I've started referencing SG does make better sense of the operational meaning of superposition than I have been assuming from the common application to photonic probability distribution. Thanks much again. Now I'm as obliged QM-wise, as I am to Tom Ray for peeling the scales from my eyes in GR. Not that I'll abandon a classical model, in fact I was struck with a...
view entire post
Dr. Agnew,
The reading I've started referencing SG does make better sense of the operational meaning of superposition than I have been assuming from the common application to photonic probability distribution. Thanks much again. Now I'm as obliged QM-wise, as I am to Tom Ray for peeling the scales from my eyes in GR. Not that I'll abandon a classical model, in fact I was struck with a similar comparison to the 'particle edge boundary' we noted in an earlier post.
It would take a lengthy paradigm shifting rundown to layout the mathematical rationale for the matter phase static unitary particle model, but suffice it to conclude thusly: It becomes apparent that to account for a quantity of energy (aether) condensing to a free rest mass such that the quantity is determinate of the volume in a co-ordinate free geometry, and the density increases exponentially from lower to upper bound; a simple same quantity, or same density cannot be incrementalized to concentric spheres (as might be attempted in accord with inverse square law). An exponentiation on a single pole will suffice because any pole in a manifold of radial poles would naturally be the root of all poles incremental to exponential variance of energy in density per volume. So while it is invalid to employ the exponential rate unit in a math function as the exponent in linear algebra; the pole root rationale is non-linear. Given a radii length equivalent to c(c^1/e) which would be commensurate with an exponential acceleration from rest to light velocity, that can be taken as the radial difference factor from an empirically derived base radius for a constant upper density core. So in a condensate where the proportional density difference is c^3, the proportional difference of energy quantity required by density in the upper density core volume and that at the lower density bound in the full field volume is an order of (c^3)^1/e, and the change of volume between lower and upper density boundaries is an order of c^3[(c^3)^1/e] .
Those distinctly different isomorphic proportions co-exist, in a superposition of physical properties, that hold for all energy quantities in a self-limiting rationale that matches the observed limits of the EM spectrum thru the mass accumulation in elemental isotopes with a terminal rationale at 263.11 a.m.u.
Thank-you very much again for your patience, Doc. I've learned something of great value. (Mom always said I was slow but good with my hands. :-) jrc
view post as summary
The reading I've started referencing SG does make better sense of the operational meaning of superposition than I have been assuming from the common application to photonic probability distribution. Thanks much again. Now I'm as obliged QM-wise, as I am to Tom Ray for peeling the scales from my eyes in GR. Not that I'll abandon a classical model, in fact I was struck with a similar comparison to the 'particle edge boundary' we noted in an earlier post.
It would take a lengthy paradigm shifting rundown to layout the mathematical rationale for the matter phase static unitary particle model, but suffice it to conclude thusly: It becomes apparent that to account for a quantity of energy (aether) condensing to a free rest mass such that the quantity is determinate of the volume in a co-ordinate free geometry, and the density increases exponentially from lower to upper bound; a simple same quantity, or same density cannot be incrementalized to concentric spheres (as might be attempted in accord with inverse square law). An exponentiation on a single pole will suffice because any pole in a manifold of radial poles would naturally be the root of all poles incremental to exponential variance of energy in density per volume. So while it is invalid to employ the exponential rate unit in a math function as the exponent in linear algebra; the pole root rationale is non-linear. Given a radii length equivalent to c(c^1/e) which would be commensurate with an exponential acceleration from rest to light velocity, that can be taken as the radial difference factor from an empirically derived base radius for a constant upper density core. So in a condensate where the proportional density difference is c^3, the proportional difference of energy quantity required by density in the upper density core volume and that at the lower density bound in the full field volume is an order of (c^3)^1/e, and the change of volume between lower and upper density boundaries is an order of c^3[(c^3)^1/e] .
Those distinctly different isomorphic proportions co-exist, in a superposition of physical properties, that hold for all energy quantities in a self-limiting rationale that matches the observed limits of the EM spectrum thru the mass accumulation in elemental isotopes with a terminal rationale at 263.11 a.m.u.
Thank-you very much again for your patience, Doc. I've learned something of great value. (Mom always said I was slow but good with my hands. :-) jrc
view post as summary
Steve Agnew wrote on Oct. 1, 2020 @ 23:52 GMT
...oh...you did mention phase once..but not quantum. Ok...you love a determinate materialist classical reality so you are not alone...but somehow you are here in a quantum muck...
I love classical physics because classical differentials model reality really well. I also love quantum physics because quantum phase is how the universe really works and quantum field theory works very well.
What surprises me as a working scientist all these years is that the Science community cannot get its collective act in order and get a quantum gravity. Science still cannot describe a common basis for quantum charge and gravity relativity. Even very smart people like Steven Weinberg, Sean Carroll, Lee Smolin, and Sabrina Hosenfelder disagree vehemently about the nature of physical reality. And yet, none of them as a way to derive the universe from a few simple principles much less a way to derive charge and gravity from a the same simple principle...
report post as inappropriate
I love classical physics because classical differentials model reality really well. I also love quantum physics because quantum phase is how the universe really works and quantum field theory works very well.
What surprises me as a working scientist all these years is that the Science community cannot get its collective act in order and get a quantum gravity. Science still cannot describe a common basis for quantum charge and gravity relativity. Even very smart people like Steven Weinberg, Sean Carroll, Lee Smolin, and Sabrina Hosenfelder disagree vehemently about the nature of physical reality. And yet, none of them as a way to derive the universe from a few simple principles much less a way to derive charge and gravity from a the same simple principle...
John R. Cox replied on Oct. 2, 2020 @ 03:07 GMT
Doc,
well... yeh, these days if you shoehorn in a lower case 'h' its quantum. But that lower case 'h' is derivative of Planck's classical distribution theorem and it (reasonably) assumes an equal partition of probability and demonstrates that a path of least resistance provides an escape from the ultra-violet catastrophe. So at some point in the spectrum we might also expect an equipartition of 'h', and we functionally assume that in the reduced Planck constant. In conjugal application, then, we can safely assume that 'h' is the averaged least observable value of action, so while that action by e=hf obtains that value for any observed wavelength, it matters little if a photon is a single phase outcome or a measure of aggregate phase actions. A partition of 'h' proportional to wavelength, into a rest matter phase particle small enough to be accelerated to light velocity would require the remainder of 'h' as the accelerating charge. That combined partitioning would be conserved in the outcome. Again in the interest of theoretical modeling, it matters naught if the reality is a single photon or the work function of many that quantizes the spectral lines. That least observable action per wavelength provides a means for a realistic phase cyclic model to assign requisite densities associated with primary force effects, and evolve a static state matter phase free rest mass. What's not quantum in a continuous function if the result is some observable quantized outcome?
report post as inappropriate
well... yeh, these days if you shoehorn in a lower case 'h' its quantum. But that lower case 'h' is derivative of Planck's classical distribution theorem and it (reasonably) assumes an equal partition of probability and demonstrates that a path of least resistance provides an escape from the ultra-violet catastrophe. So at some point in the spectrum we might also expect an equipartition of 'h', and we functionally assume that in the reduced Planck constant. In conjugal application, then, we can safely assume that 'h' is the averaged least observable value of action, so while that action by e=hf obtains that value for any observed wavelength, it matters little if a photon is a single phase outcome or a measure of aggregate phase actions. A partition of 'h' proportional to wavelength, into a rest matter phase particle small enough to be accelerated to light velocity would require the remainder of 'h' as the accelerating charge. That combined partitioning would be conserved in the outcome. Again in the interest of theoretical modeling, it matters naught if the reality is a single photon or the work function of many that quantizes the spectral lines. That least observable action per wavelength provides a means for a realistic phase cyclic model to assign requisite densities associated with primary force effects, and evolve a static state matter phase free rest mass. What's not quantum in a continuous function if the result is some observable quantized outcome?
Steve Dufourny replied on Oct. 2, 2020 @ 09:08 GMT
Hi To both of you,
Steve , I agree that the classical model reality is essential and that this universe is simple, we can in logic explain the quantum mechanics with several tools and the quantum phases are important. It exists like universal partitions towards our main codes , but like I said unfortunally we don t know these foundamental objects and also the real philosophical origin of this universe, so what we analyse at this moment are just effects and of course we are very limitated due to problems of knowledges and technologies. I beleive also strongly that these phases and fields are essential, but we have probably a deeper logic to superimpose to reach our unknowns. I really doubt and it is just my opinion that we have just these phtons and relativity like primoridal essence, I don t tell that this relativity is not correct, of course it is relevant, I just tell that we cannot be sure that it is the only one piece of puzzle. Even Einstein told it, he considered a probable deeper logic to all this. The gravitational quantum fields for me are not electromagnetic or emergent from this electromagntism, I really think that it is a n other logic of encoding in our nuclei, this force is different. Regards
report post as inappropriate
Steve , I agree that the classical model reality is essential and that this universe is simple, we can in logic explain the quantum mechanics with several tools and the quantum phases are important. It exists like universal partitions towards our main codes , but like I said unfortunally we don t know these foundamental objects and also the real philosophical origin of this universe, so what we analyse at this moment are just effects and of course we are very limitated due to problems of knowledges and technologies. I beleive also strongly that these phases and fields are essential, but we have probably a deeper logic to superimpose to reach our unknowns. I really doubt and it is just my opinion that we have just these phtons and relativity like primoridal essence, I don t tell that this relativity is not correct, of course it is relevant, I just tell that we cannot be sure that it is the only one piece of puzzle. Even Einstein told it, he considered a probable deeper logic to all this. The gravitational quantum fields for me are not electromagnetic or emergent from this electromagntism, I really think that it is a n other logic of encoding in our nuclei, this force is different. Regards
John R. Cox wrote on Oct. 2, 2020 @ 14:21 GMT
Steve and Doc,
I thought I'd posted a response but it is probably just as well that it didn't take. Too wordy. The gist was that the Quantum is a measure of action and a multiple of Quanta. And that Quanta is incomprehensibly small to our human experience. It is mentally meaningless to imagine that the fundamental unit of work is roughly equivalent to a decimal point followed by 34 zeroes and a 7 watt incandescent Christmas Tree light bulb.
But given that it IS that small, the prediction by the limitation on degrees of freedom in SR, that at light velocity any inertially bound mass equivalent quantity of energy would become infinite, is definitely a mathematical consequence not the physical reality. The phase action is a function of velocity, and if given a postulate that energy density varies in direct inverse proportion to velocity, then at progressively higher velocities and corresponding lower densities the induction reactance of a charge field to a field intensity propelling acceleration would also become correspondingly lower.
So we can treat physical phenomenon in simple terms of the action of change between a material phase and an energy phase. What may characterize a photon from a subluminal, gravitational mass may well be that the proportional upper density bound of a photon in its matter phase is lower than an empirical density which exhibits inelastic response... hence it is a particle of charge not kinetic ballistic impact. It is still a mass, but gravitational response measured as mass might require an inelastic density characteristic that would be proportional to a greater mass quantity matter phase. :-) jrc
report post as inappropriate
I thought I'd posted a response but it is probably just as well that it didn't take. Too wordy. The gist was that the Quantum is a measure of action and a multiple of Quanta. And that Quanta is incomprehensibly small to our human experience. It is mentally meaningless to imagine that the fundamental unit of work is roughly equivalent to a decimal point followed by 34 zeroes and a 7 watt incandescent Christmas Tree light bulb.
But given that it IS that small, the prediction by the limitation on degrees of freedom in SR, that at light velocity any inertially bound mass equivalent quantity of energy would become infinite, is definitely a mathematical consequence not the physical reality. The phase action is a function of velocity, and if given a postulate that energy density varies in direct inverse proportion to velocity, then at progressively higher velocities and corresponding lower densities the induction reactance of a charge field to a field intensity propelling acceleration would also become correspondingly lower.
So we can treat physical phenomenon in simple terms of the action of change between a material phase and an energy phase. What may characterize a photon from a subluminal, gravitational mass may well be that the proportional upper density bound of a photon in its matter phase is lower than an empirical density which exhibits inelastic response... hence it is a particle of charge not kinetic ballistic impact. It is still a mass, but gravitational response measured as mass might require an inelastic density characteristic that would be proportional to a greater mass quantity matter phase. :-) jrc
Steve Agnew replied on Oct. 10, 2020 @ 04:31 GMT
I am sorry...this is a word salad.
You need to begin your universe with a very simple principles and show how those principles explain everything.
report post as inappropriate
You need to begin your universe with a very simple principles and show how those principles explain everything.
William Mark Stuckey wrote on Oct. 14, 2020 @ 16:56 GMT
Here is a summary of the paper for a general audience.
report post as inappropriate
report post as inappropriate
attachments: ShannonNoise.JPG, headEdgeTails.jpg
report post as inappropriate
report post as inappropriate
report post as inappropriate
report post as inappropriate
report post as inappropriate
hide replies
Robert H McEachern replied on Oct. 15, 2020 @ 13:44 GMT
That paper states that "When the SG magnets are oriented the same way (case (a)), the outcomes are always the same due to conservation of spin angular momentum between the pair of particles."
But that statement assumes that all the "outcomes" of every detection event are in fact correct and thus indicative of the "true" state" of the entity being measured. But it has been demonstrated that such perfectly correct outcomes are not even a logical possibility, in purely classical systems, whenever the system has been constructed such that it manifests only one, single bit of information. In other words, even when the system is constructed with perfectly anti-parallel "entangled particles", the actually detected "outcomes" cannot possibly be anti-parallel in every case ("bit-errors" are inevitable in some detections), and the probability of detections failing to be anti-parallel, is a function of the misalignment between the polarization axis of the entity being measured and the axis of the measuring device.
The paper then says "Instead, what happens in case (b) trials is that Bob's outcomes corresponding to Alice's outcomes for a particular setting correctly average to what one would expect for conservation of spin angular momentum (Figure 4)."
That statement is correct - precisely because the average is based upon coincidence-detection, that systematically fails to detect the entangled pairs most prone to producing the bit-errors; because, the mechanism that causes the bit-errors is the same as that which causes coincidence-detection to fail to detect every particle pair.
Rob McEachern
report post as inappropriate
But that statement assumes that all the "outcomes" of every detection event are in fact correct and thus indicative of the "true" state" of the entity being measured. But it has been demonstrated that such perfectly correct outcomes are not even a logical possibility, in purely classical systems, whenever the system has been constructed such that it manifests only one, single bit of information. In other words, even when the system is constructed with perfectly anti-parallel "entangled particles", the actually detected "outcomes" cannot possibly be anti-parallel in every case ("bit-errors" are inevitable in some detections), and the probability of detections failing to be anti-parallel, is a function of the misalignment between the polarization axis of the entity being measured and the axis of the measuring device.
The paper then says "Instead, what happens in case (b) trials is that Bob's outcomes corresponding to Alice's outcomes for a particular setting correctly average to what one would expect for conservation of spin angular momentum (Figure 4)."
That statement is correct - precisely because the average is based upon coincidence-detection, that systematically fails to detect the entangled pairs most prone to producing the bit-errors; because, the mechanism that causes the bit-errors is the same as that which causes coincidence-detection to fail to detect every particle pair.
Rob McEachern
Steve Agnew replied on Oct. 17, 2020 @ 16:27 GMT
I love your stubborn "Shannon bit noise explains quantum phase..." argument.
The basic issue with quantum measurements is that once an observer measures two entangled spin states from a single electron outcome, that observer cannot then know what the precursor spin state was for that electron. This means that before observation, quantum spin states exist as a superposition of both spin states.
Classical electron spin states represent revealed knowledge in that the classical observer measures a classical electron that the classical measurement reveals certain the spin states before the measurement, albeit within the classical Shannon noise level of the measurement. In the absence of perturbations, classical spin state outcome coming from a precursor necessarily means that spin state existed prior to the measurement and the measurement simply revealed that hidden knowledge.
The revealed knowledge of classical Shannon noise has no bit limit since a higher resolution classical measurement bit is always possible. Single electrons represent a limit for a Shannon bit, but a single electron is a qubit since it has quantum phase.
A electron simply cannot exist as a classical bit, so this classical explanation for quantum phase simply invents a new particle of matter called a classical bit. However, there is no way to measure a classical bit of noise without quantum phase.
By carefully fitting bit errors as a function of quantum phase angle, a classical bit can fit quantum phase correlations like Bell's. There is of course a classical noise fit to the Stern-Gerlach quantum phase as well. These classical noise fits have no useful predictions for any other measurements. In fact, a classical noise "hidden" function that fits a quantum phase property is a proof of the validity of a hidden quantum phase, not proof of classical noise...here is the figure from 2019jul...
attachments: 1_mceachernCorrelate.jpg
report post as inappropriate
The basic issue with quantum measurements is that once an observer measures two entangled spin states from a single electron outcome, that observer cannot then know what the precursor spin state was for that electron. This means that before observation, quantum spin states exist as a superposition of both spin states.
Classical electron spin states represent revealed knowledge in that the classical observer measures a classical electron that the classical measurement reveals certain the spin states before the measurement, albeit within the classical Shannon noise level of the measurement. In the absence of perturbations, classical spin state outcome coming from a precursor necessarily means that spin state existed prior to the measurement and the measurement simply revealed that hidden knowledge.
The revealed knowledge of classical Shannon noise has no bit limit since a higher resolution classical measurement bit is always possible. Single electrons represent a limit for a Shannon bit, but a single electron is a qubit since it has quantum phase.
A electron simply cannot exist as a classical bit, so this classical explanation for quantum phase simply invents a new particle of matter called a classical bit. However, there is no way to measure a classical bit of noise without quantum phase.
By carefully fitting bit errors as a function of quantum phase angle, a classical bit can fit quantum phase correlations like Bell's. There is of course a classical noise fit to the Stern-Gerlach quantum phase as well. These classical noise fits have no useful predictions for any other measurements. In fact, a classical noise "hidden" function that fits a quantum phase property is a proof of the validity of a hidden quantum phase, not proof of classical noise...here is the figure from 2019jul...
attachments: 1_mceachernCorrelate.jpg
Steve Dufourny replied on Oct. 17, 2020 @ 17:01 GMT
Hi , I liked also, but a question intrigues me, what is really an electron, I have my idea in my model and these spheres but they are intriguing in fact.
report post as inappropriate
Steve Dufourny replied on Oct. 17, 2020 @ 17:32 GMT
Steve Agnew, do you know well the dirac electrons? and the fact that they are massless in their comportments , it seems relevant for the electronics and the phases, do you know the method to have this comportment , is it with crystal and changements in temperatures , and if yes why exactly ?
report post as inappropriate
Steve Dufourny replied on Oct. 17, 2020 @ 19:07 GMT
the graphene seems the answer with the changements , amorphous to crystalline due to heat and the materials of course are important but what is an electron and why ?
report post as inappropriate
Robert H McEachern replied on Oct. 17, 2020 @ 19:43 GMT
Steve Agnew:
Everyone will either have to learn to love my argument, or at least live with it, since the argument is correct.
The entire point of Shannon's Information Theory, is to avoid ever making any "measurements" at all; because measurements always involve making errors, in the real, non-ideal world. To completely eliminate every error, it is...
view entire post
Everyone will either have to learn to love my argument, or at least live with it, since the argument is correct.
The entire point of Shannon's Information Theory, is to avoid ever making any "measurements" at all; because measurements always involve making errors, in the real, non-ideal world. To completely eliminate every error, it is...
view entire post
Steve Agnew:
Everyone will either have to learn to love my argument, or at least live with it, since the argument is correct.
The entire point of Shannon's Information Theory, is to avoid ever making any "measurements" at all; because measurements always involve making errors, in the real, non-ideal world. To completely eliminate every error, it is necessary to substitute error-free "decisions", for error-prone "measurements".
"The basic issue with quantum measurements is that once an observer measures two entangled spin states from a single electron outcome..." then that observer has totally skewed up! An observer must never even attempt to make any such "measurements", because any such attempt is doomed to fail - many of the "measurements" will inevitably produce the exact opposite result, from the "true" result.
To put it bluntly (I never have been "politically correct"), it is an exercise in stupidity, to ever even perform a Bell test, unless the observer first figures out how to absolutely guarantee that the axis of the measuring device, will always be perfectly aligned with the axis of the entity to be measured; because that is the only configuration in which the errors can be eliminated, even in the classical case, that the Bell test statistics are being compared with.
Shannon's "decision" theory of information, is founded upon exploiting "exclusion" zones; think of the Pauli exclusion principle or the Demilitarized Zone separating North and South Korea. Everything of any consequence, is being systematically excluded from such a zone, meaning that nothing of consequence, is "allowed" to even exist within such a zone. Hence, anything "measured" within such a zone, must be something that should not be there. (For example, there are no "allowed" integers, between the values of 1 and 2 and there are no "allowed" letters between "a" and "b" in the English alphabet).
That is what "quantization" is all about - "quantizing" information (not space and/or time, as virtually all physicists have supposed) by enforcing "exclusion zones" between every valid value; all "valid" values of all physical states are necessarily discrete rather than continuous, because only discrete (hence potentially error-free) values can enable perfectly repeatable (deterministic) behaves to ever exist (emerge from chaos). In other words, it is the existence of discrete, "valid" states, that enable "Cause and Effect" itself to exist as a physical phenomenon. Continuous states can and do exist; but they cannot enable perfect "cause and effect" because there is no "perfectly measurable" cause to trigger a correspondingly perfectly reproducible effect. Deteminism exists precisely where discrete states are being exploited to ensure perfect (error free) information recovery.
In the case of the polarized coin measurements, there is an "exclusion zone" being constructed between 0 degrees and 180 degrees; hence, nothing "valid" can ever exist between 0 and 180 degrees. Hence, if you think you "measured" something within the exclusion zone between 0 and 180 degrees, then you measured something that should not be there - something invalid! The polarized objects being measured, in the classical case, were constructed to make that true! There is nothing "valid" to ever be measured at angles other than 0 or 180 degrees, since the exclusion zone was constructed such that only noise, distortion and inter-symbol-interference can exist between 0 and 180 degrees - nothing "valid" (AKA capable of being correctly "measured" exists there). It is an observed fact, that Quantum entities behave in exactly the same manner - that is where the name "Quantum" came from in the first place!
"Until Shannon, it was simply conventional wisdom that noise had to be endured. Shannon’s promise of perfect accuracy was something radically new."
Rob McEachern
view post as summary
Everyone will either have to learn to love my argument, or at least live with it, since the argument is correct.
The entire point of Shannon's Information Theory, is to avoid ever making any "measurements" at all; because measurements always involve making errors, in the real, non-ideal world. To completely eliminate every error, it is necessary to substitute error-free "decisions", for error-prone "measurements".
"The basic issue with quantum measurements is that once an observer measures two entangled spin states from a single electron outcome..." then that observer has totally skewed up! An observer must never even attempt to make any such "measurements", because any such attempt is doomed to fail - many of the "measurements" will inevitably produce the exact opposite result, from the "true" result.
To put it bluntly (I never have been "politically correct"), it is an exercise in stupidity, to ever even perform a Bell test, unless the observer first figures out how to absolutely guarantee that the axis of the measuring device, will always be perfectly aligned with the axis of the entity to be measured; because that is the only configuration in which the errors can be eliminated, even in the classical case, that the Bell test statistics are being compared with.
Shannon's "decision" theory of information, is founded upon exploiting "exclusion" zones; think of the Pauli exclusion principle or the Demilitarized Zone separating North and South Korea. Everything of any consequence, is being systematically excluded from such a zone, meaning that nothing of consequence, is "allowed" to even exist within such a zone. Hence, anything "measured" within such a zone, must be something that should not be there. (For example, there are no "allowed" integers, between the values of 1 and 2 and there are no "allowed" letters between "a" and "b" in the English alphabet).
That is what "quantization" is all about - "quantizing" information (not space and/or time, as virtually all physicists have supposed) by enforcing "exclusion zones" between every valid value; all "valid" values of all physical states are necessarily discrete rather than continuous, because only discrete (hence potentially error-free) values can enable perfectly repeatable (deterministic) behaves to ever exist (emerge from chaos). In other words, it is the existence of discrete, "valid" states, that enable "Cause and Effect" itself to exist as a physical phenomenon. Continuous states can and do exist; but they cannot enable perfect "cause and effect" because there is no "perfectly measurable" cause to trigger a correspondingly perfectly reproducible effect. Deteminism exists precisely where discrete states are being exploited to ensure perfect (error free) information recovery.
In the case of the polarized coin measurements, there is an "exclusion zone" being constructed between 0 degrees and 180 degrees; hence, nothing "valid" can ever exist between 0 and 180 degrees. Hence, if you think you "measured" something within the exclusion zone between 0 and 180 degrees, then you measured something that should not be there - something invalid! The polarized objects being measured, in the classical case, were constructed to make that true! There is nothing "valid" to ever be measured at angles other than 0 or 180 degrees, since the exclusion zone was constructed such that only noise, distortion and inter-symbol-interference can exist between 0 and 180 degrees - nothing "valid" (AKA capable of being correctly "measured" exists there). It is an observed fact, that Quantum entities behave in exactly the same manner - that is where the name "Quantum" came from in the first place!
"Until Shannon, it was simply conventional wisdom that noise had to be endured. Shannon’s promise of perfect accuracy was something radically new."
Rob McEachern
view post as summary
Steve Agnew replied on Oct. 17, 2020 @ 23:26 GMT
It is not clear what you mean by your argument being correct...your arguments now are a random laundry list of Stern-Gerlach and double-slit diffraction and Shannon noise theory.There is absolutely nothing wrong with Shannon noise...it is just the classical noise of chaos. What is wrong is that Shannon noise is the approximation that Shannon noise is always completely independent of either sender...
view entire post
view entire post
It is not clear what you mean by your argument being correct...your arguments now are a random laundry list of Stern-Gerlach and double-slit diffraction and Shannon noise theory.There is absolutely nothing wrong with Shannon noise...it is just the classical noise of chaos. What is wrong is that Shannon noise is the approximation that Shannon noise is always completely independent of either sender or receiver as the attached Wiki diagram shows.
This is a very good approximation for a coin flip, but is a invalid for quantum phase of Stern-Gerlach or 2-slit diffraction. Note that even with a coin flip, there are in between coin outcomes because the coin is 3-D and a coin edge can affect the outcome. So a coin can end up on its edge as the attached pic shows, or you could catch and manipulate the coin that to influence the outcome, which is a common magic trick after all.
Since Shannon never addressed the role of quantum phase in his information theory, Shannon had the quantum phase of qubits. But Shannon did know about quantum phase of von Neumann and that is quantum information theory.
I agree with you that Shannon theory injects classical "random" bit noise independent of either precursor or outcome. However, Shannon noise injection has no lower classical limit and if Shannon noise RMS voltage is an order of magnitude below the bit voltage, Shannon noise will affect very few results. Two orders of magnitude and so on without any limit will eventually reach the limit of the wavelength of the universe.
It is possible to tune a classical Shannon noise function to mimic outcomes of quantum phase noise, but without quantum superposition and entanglement, such tuning does not result in any useful predictions. In particular, classical and quantum noise behave differently with temperature, pressure, or other environmental effects.
Even one electron represents a measurable quantum event way above one bit of Shannon noise with many common measurements. One electron can be in a superposition state and one electron can interfere with itself and result in two possible paths or spin state outcomes. Those outcomes are necessarily subject to quantum phase uncertainty but not to the chaos of Shannon noise...
view post as summary
This is a very good approximation for a coin flip, but is a invalid for quantum phase of Stern-Gerlach or 2-slit diffraction. Note that even with a coin flip, there are in between coin outcomes because the coin is 3-D and a coin edge can affect the outcome. So a coin can end up on its edge as the attached pic shows, or you could catch and manipulate the coin that to influence the outcome, which is a common magic trick after all.
Since Shannon never addressed the role of quantum phase in his information theory, Shannon had the quantum phase of qubits. But Shannon did know about quantum phase of von Neumann and that is quantum information theory.
I agree with you that Shannon theory injects classical "random" bit noise independent of either precursor or outcome. However, Shannon noise injection has no lower classical limit and if Shannon noise RMS voltage is an order of magnitude below the bit voltage, Shannon noise will affect very few results. Two orders of magnitude and so on without any limit will eventually reach the limit of the wavelength of the universe.
It is possible to tune a classical Shannon noise function to mimic outcomes of quantum phase noise, but without quantum superposition and entanglement, such tuning does not result in any useful predictions. In particular, classical and quantum noise behave differently with temperature, pressure, or other environmental effects.
Even one electron represents a measurable quantum event way above one bit of Shannon noise with many common measurements. One electron can be in a superposition state and one electron can interfere with itself and result in two possible paths or spin state outcomes. Those outcomes are necessarily subject to quantum phase uncertainty but not to the chaos of Shannon noise...
view post as summary
attachments: ShannonNoise.JPG, headEdgeTails.jpg
Robert H McEachern replied on Oct. 18, 2020 @ 05:39 GMT
You seem have no idea at all, in regards to what Shannon's Theory was originally all about: To ensure error-free information recovery (no uncertainty! - none!), rather than transmitting any physically-meaningful "data", that can be "measured", an emitter needs to transmit a sequence of intrinsically meaningless random noise. That entire sequence of transmitted noise is "detected" in one,...
view entire post
view entire post
You seem have no idea at all, in regards to what Shannon's Theory was originally all about: To ensure error-free information recovery (no uncertainty! - none!), rather than transmitting any physically-meaningful "data", that can be "measured", an emitter needs to transmit a sequence of intrinsically meaningless random noise. That entire sequence of transmitted noise is "detected" in one, single, irreducible, integration "event", (incorrectly interpreted, in quantum theory, as a collapse of a wavefunction) via a correlation process (a matched filter, which has a priori knowledge of the sequences to be transmitted). Each entire sequence is thus either successfully "detected", or not - all or nothing - there is nothing being "measured". Whatever "meaning" or significance is attached to each such detection event, is just that; "attached" extrinsically. Shannon's theory is all about the design of such correlation based detection; how does the duration and bandwidth of the "noise-like" sequence effect the maximum correlation "processing gain" and thus the probability of never mistaking the detection of the desired sequences, for the detection of any other noise sequence. Longer sequences with larger bandwidths result in greater processing gain, and thus, less likelihood of ever mistaking a desired sequence for any other sequence.
In other words, rather than directly transmitting any physically-meaningful "data", that might actually be desired (and subjected to an attempt at "measurement") by some intended receiver, an emitter must instead, deliberately transmit the only type of "signal" (random "noise-like" sequences with suitably high processing gain) that can ever be unmistakably detected by any receiver. The actually desired "data" can subsequently be deduced (not measured!), via an a priori agreed upon "encoding" of which data (such as a bit-value = 1, or "spin up") corresponds to which a priori known, random noise sequence.
The issue of concern in quantum physics, is what happens when the sequence duration and its bandwidth, are simultaneously reduced to the minimum-possible time-bandwidth product, that would still enable the sequence to be just barely detectable (in the presence of "channel noise"), even under the most optimal conditions possible (the receiver has complete a priori knowledge of the optimal matched filter etc.) That is what the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle is ultimately all about. And that is what is being demonstrated in my paper - and even though the matched filter being used, in the paper, is not actually the optimal filter, it nevertheless is already "good enough" to reproduce the entire quantum correlation curve (not just the few points produced by typical "Bell tests"), with detection efficiencies greater than that which has been supposedly "proven" to be the maximum possible, for any conceivable, classical system (AKA "local realism").
Rob McEachern
view post as summary
In other words, rather than directly transmitting any physically-meaningful "data", that might actually be desired (and subjected to an attempt at "measurement") by some intended receiver, an emitter must instead, deliberately transmit the only type of "signal" (random "noise-like" sequences with suitably high processing gain) that can ever be unmistakably detected by any receiver. The actually desired "data" can subsequently be deduced (not measured!), via an a priori agreed upon "encoding" of which data (such as a bit-value = 1, or "spin up") corresponds to which a priori known, random noise sequence.
The issue of concern in quantum physics, is what happens when the sequence duration and its bandwidth, are simultaneously reduced to the minimum-possible time-bandwidth product, that would still enable the sequence to be just barely detectable (in the presence of "channel noise"), even under the most optimal conditions possible (the receiver has complete a priori knowledge of the optimal matched filter etc.) That is what the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle is ultimately all about. And that is what is being demonstrated in my paper - and even though the matched filter being used, in the paper, is not actually the optimal filter, it nevertheless is already "good enough" to reproduce the entire quantum correlation curve (not just the few points produced by typical "Bell tests"), with detection efficiencies greater than that which has been supposedly "proven" to be the maximum possible, for any conceivable, classical system (AKA "local realism").
Rob McEachern
view post as summary
Stefan Weckbach replied on Oct. 19, 2020 @ 07:13 GMT
Dear Robert,
for me your theory about the issue of (non-) local quantum behaviour is similar to the quest of whether mathematics is something merely invented or something really discovered by man.
If local quantum behaviour for entanglement is thought to be possible only due to in-principle undetectable physical mechanisms, the question arises whether these mechanisms are just invented (to save local-realism) by man or are really discovered by man (to demonstrate local-realism).
Using in-principle undetectable physical mechanisms to explain something may result in a nice explanation, but as we know not all nice explanations meet reality as it is independent of our thoughts.
Therefore, for me there is a difference between a theory that cannot be falsified because all the contents of the theory perfectly match physical reality (theory spot-on describes what physically goes on) and a theory that cannot be falsified because parts of its contents are defined as in-principle undetectable. Therefore my question: is your theory falsifiable and if not, why?
Stefan
report post as inappropriate
for me your theory about the issue of (non-) local quantum behaviour is similar to the quest of whether mathematics is something merely invented or something really discovered by man.
If local quantum behaviour for entanglement is thought to be possible only due to in-principle undetectable physical mechanisms, the question arises whether these mechanisms are just invented (to save local-realism) by man or are really discovered by man (to demonstrate local-realism).
Using in-principle undetectable physical mechanisms to explain something may result in a nice explanation, but as we know not all nice explanations meet reality as it is independent of our thoughts.
Therefore, for me there is a difference between a theory that cannot be falsified because all the contents of the theory perfectly match physical reality (theory spot-on describes what physically goes on) and a theory that cannot be falsified because parts of its contents are defined as in-principle undetectable. Therefore my question: is your theory falsifiable and if not, why?
Stefan
Steve Dufourny replied on Oct. 19, 2020 @ 10:28 GMT
Hi Stefan, you speak about a relevant point of vue in fact, how can we consider the fiability of our tools mathematical utilised and its partitions, I beleive strongly that like Max Tegmark said that these maths when they are well utilised and concrete permit to describe correctly the quantum mechanics in its effects, but of course we have limitations and unknowns. The maths permit to prove but also can extrapolate assumptions not proved still, like the reversibility of this time for example, the whormholes or others mathematical symmetries, we must probably be prudent in our conclusions. It is the same with the strinsg theory and the dimensions , they begin in 1D with these strings at this planck scale and after connect with the 1D main fields and after extrapolate the 11D mainly , but we cannot affirm that all this is tue, we don t know like I said our foundamental objects and the real philosophical origin of our universe. I liked also the ideas of Robert and your question indeed is relevant , is it falsifiable and if not, why? regards
report post as inappropriate
Steve Dufourny replied on Oct. 19, 2020 @ 10:38 GMT
we arrive at these hidden variables and new parameters to superimpose, the local realism is described with actual mathematical and physical tools but we analyse the surfaces of probelsm with the effects, the problem is mainly that we don t know the real origin of mechanisms and the main causes , the fields of course are relevant and the strings permit to better understand their comportments , they permit to better rank the fields bosonic of this standard model, but unfortunally we have not the main cause and the philosophical origin. The mathematics are not really invented by the humans , we have just invented the language to interpret it, a number 1 will be always a number 1 after all , even on an other planet with an advanced civilisations, they utilise the same tools even if the language is different. Maybe the only one thing with the maths to be prudent is the extrapolations , we cannot conclude and affirm all the mathematical extrapolations, we can just accept the proved rigourous laws, axioms, equations and in physics it is the same. The universe seems to utilise precise mathenatical and physical laws , Tegmark has described this universe with mor than 100 mathematical equations I beleive and he has concluded a multiverse, it is relevant, even if I consider only one universe, we cannot affirm in fact, it is beyond our understanding still.
report post as inappropriate
Steve Dufourny replied on Oct. 19, 2020 @ 10:46 GMT
If Max Tegmark is right about the fact that the maths are foundamental , that becones veryy relevant because it exists an universal partition permitting to explain the majority of unknowns, but we are still youngs considering the evolution and our knowledges, this partition seems beyond our understanding, but it exists, I beleive strongly that these 3d spheres , these 3 main finite series are the secret but I cannot find the partition of these spheres due to their number and their complexity , furthermore th evolution also is essential and this thing is difficult to consider in our quantum mechanics. It could be relevant to make simulations in inserting all the mathematical equations more these finite series and consider the physical properties and play with the combinations and variables, but a computer is made by us with also limitations in equations and concepts utilised, the problem seems there, it lacks many things, that is why we cannot reach a quantum computer and explain our unknowns, just because we don t know the main partition , the foundamental mathematical and physical objects and the philosophical origin, but we evolve each day.
report post as inappropriate
Steve Agnew replied on Oct. 19, 2020 @ 13:48 GMT
Boy, you really love this Shannon-Hartley law of bits versus bandwidth and you are right, Shannon-Hartley is all about transmitting Gaussian white noise, not really information. I have to admit that you have studied Shannon-Hartley law much more than I have, but looking carefully at your example of missed Shannon bit detections shows that your arguments actually prove the fundamental quantum notion: measuring a bit polarization outcome does not reveal with certainty the polarization of its precursor.
Quantum phase shows this uncertainty just like your tuned Shannon bit filter also shows this uncertainty...so your tuned Shannon bit filter actually validates the uncertainty principle of quantum phase. Here is a pic to show the difference between quantum and Shannon bits...
attachments: MceachernMissedDetections.JPG
report post as inappropriate
Quantum phase shows this uncertainty just like your tuned Shannon bit filter also shows this uncertainty...so your tuned Shannon bit filter actually validates the uncertainty principle of quantum phase. Here is a pic to show the difference between quantum and Shannon bits...
attachments: MceachernMissedDetections.JPG
Steve Agnew replied on Oct. 19, 2020 @ 13:50 GMT
...an here is the whole scheme...
attachments: quantumVsShannonBits.jpg
report post as inappropriate
attachments: quantumVsShannonBits.jpg
John R. Cox replied on Oct. 19, 2020 @ 15:27 GMT
Robert, Doc and Steve,
i.e. "measuring a bit polarization outcome does not reveal with certainty the polarization of its precursor."
from widely divergent perspectives, you all seem to be in agreement on that! That individual divergence spans the paradigm difference of an assumed ideal, uniform particle specie, and the contrary realistic view that there is no such thing as a truly ideal particle that is uniform as a spicie.
At least this does go to the question of what actually happens in the Near Field of the Transition zone, because as it is the practicing general consensus been assuming just the opposite: that what is detected on reception is a perfect replication of what happens in the source.
I'd say this dialogue you have going is displaying real progress. jrc
report post as inappropriate
i.e. "measuring a bit polarization outcome does not reveal with certainty the polarization of its precursor."
from widely divergent perspectives, you all seem to be in agreement on that! That individual divergence spans the paradigm difference of an assumed ideal, uniform particle specie, and the contrary realistic view that there is no such thing as a truly ideal particle that is uniform as a spicie.
At least this does go to the question of what actually happens in the Near Field of the Transition zone, because as it is the practicing general consensus been assuming just the opposite: that what is detected on reception is a perfect replication of what happens in the source.
I'd say this dialogue you have going is displaying real progress. jrc
Robert H McEachern replied on Oct. 19, 2020 @ 20:08 GMT
Stefan asked:
"Therefore my question: is your theory falsifiable..."
Of course it is. Just demonstrate that the code in my paper, either (1) does not in fact do what I claim it will do, when executed on your own computer, or (2), that it does in fact do what I claim, but not for any of the reasons that I have claimed. And consider this: I choose to attack this particular "quantum...
view entire post
"Therefore my question: is your theory falsifiable..."
Of course it is. Just demonstrate that the code in my paper, either (1) does not in fact do what I claim it will do, when executed on your own computer, or (2), that it does in fact do what I claim, but not for any of the reasons that I have claimed. And consider this: I choose to attack this particular "quantum...
view entire post
Stefan asked:
"Therefore my question: is your theory falsifiable..."
Of course it is. Just demonstrate that the code in my paper, either (1) does not in fact do what I claim it will do, when executed on your own computer, or (2), that it does in fact do what I claim, but not for any of the reasons that I have claimed. And consider this: I choose to attack this particular "quantum correlation" issue and provided my code, precisely to make it very simple (just download the code and run it) for everyone to "hit me with your best shot." So here we are, four years later, the code has now been viewed by thousands, rewritten and reproduced by a few, and yet no one has publicly claimed to have falsified it.
In this regard, note that I am claiming to have falsified Bell's theorem and related Bell tests, via (2) above and not by (1); "Quantum Correlations" really do happen; but they are being caused by an entirely different mechanism than that supposed by Bell and others. I am merely exploiting a "loophole", that they failed to close. And they failed to close it, precisely because they failed to realize that it even existed, which is exactly what Einstein et al predicted would happen with the EPR paradox. So there is no great surprise that this has eventually happened.
The issue has nothing to do with "undetectable physical mechanisms". It is simple, World War II era radar signal detection theory, combined with Shannon's World War II era Information Theory. Here is a simple, Korean "exclusion zone", detection problem, that may help to put this all in perspective:
Your mission (and it is not always impossible), should you decide to accept it, is to determine that, if an intruder ever appears in the exclusion zone separating North and South Korea, then correctly decide if they entered from North Korea (up) or from South Korea (down). You are allowed to adjust these two parameters as required; (1) the "bandwidth" of the exclusion zone - how wide it is, and (2) the time interval between successive observations looking for any possible intruder. Thus, for example, if you think the intruder will be on foot and running no faster than 30 km/h, then you might wish to make the width of the exclusion zone wide enough to ensure that such a runner could not possibly run from either edge of the zone and across a "decision point" in the middle of the zone, between the time-intervals between observations, that you have also chosen. On the other hand, if the intruder is in a jet fighter, screaming along at 2000 km/h, you might wish to construct a wider exclusion zone than would be necessary in the case of the runner, and employ shorter time-intervals between observations, to ensure that even such a fast intrusion would never prevent you from correctly deciding if the intruder is either an "up" intruder or a "down" intruder; they cannot cross the decision "threshold" before being observed.
The point is, your ability to correctly decide the "up" or "down" intrusion event, is highly dependent on the time-bandwidth product that has been built into the detection mechanism. That is what Shannon's Information Theory is all about. So what is going to happen, in the case in which you reduce both the time-interval and the bandwidth of the detector, to values so very small, that even a tiny amount of "noise" anywhere in the situation, makes it impossible, even in principle, to correctly decide the issue? You had better pray, very hard, that such non-zero amounts of noise can ever possibly exist, in the real world! Unfortunately, that prayer, the prayer of all physicists, does not appear to have been answered; "identical" particles (the "intruders") do not seem to exhibit identical "noise" - hence they appear to behave as if they are a bit "fuzzy" around the edges - just enough to make it impossible to ever correctly decide the detection problem, when the "exclusion zone" is effectively smaller than the "fuzz" around the edges. So even though you may frequently succeed at detecting the existence of any intruders within the "exclusion zone", you may nevertheless fail to correctly decide the "up" versus "down" problem in most intrusion events.
That is the situation being systematically constructed within my code; it is constructing "locally real" objects, that have just the right amount of "noise" to prevent correct "up" versus "down" bit-decisions, whenever the polarized objects being measured have their polarization axis misaligned with the axis of the detector. And that brings us back to the original subject matter of this discussion - is there a preferred reference frame for making such measurements? Yes there is - the polarization axis of the entity to be measured. Because the entire detection process has been so delicately balanced - at the very limit (Shannon's limit) of what can been done, that ever Bell test will collapse (produce too many bit-errors) when "lope-sided", off-axis measurements are made.
Rob McEachern
view post as summary
"Therefore my question: is your theory falsifiable..."
Of course it is. Just demonstrate that the code in my paper, either (1) does not in fact do what I claim it will do, when executed on your own computer, or (2), that it does in fact do what I claim, but not for any of the reasons that I have claimed. And consider this: I choose to attack this particular "quantum correlation" issue and provided my code, precisely to make it very simple (just download the code and run it) for everyone to "hit me with your best shot." So here we are, four years later, the code has now been viewed by thousands, rewritten and reproduced by a few, and yet no one has publicly claimed to have falsified it.
In this regard, note that I am claiming to have falsified Bell's theorem and related Bell tests, via (2) above and not by (1); "Quantum Correlations" really do happen; but they are being caused by an entirely different mechanism than that supposed by Bell and others. I am merely exploiting a "loophole", that they failed to close. And they failed to close it, precisely because they failed to realize that it even existed, which is exactly what Einstein et al predicted would happen with the EPR paradox. So there is no great surprise that this has eventually happened.
The issue has nothing to do with "undetectable physical mechanisms". It is simple, World War II era radar signal detection theory, combined with Shannon's World War II era Information Theory. Here is a simple, Korean "exclusion zone", detection problem, that may help to put this all in perspective:
Your mission (and it is not always impossible), should you decide to accept it, is to determine that, if an intruder ever appears in the exclusion zone separating North and South Korea, then correctly decide if they entered from North Korea (up) or from South Korea (down). You are allowed to adjust these two parameters as required; (1) the "bandwidth" of the exclusion zone - how wide it is, and (2) the time interval between successive observations looking for any possible intruder. Thus, for example, if you think the intruder will be on foot and running no faster than 30 km/h, then you might wish to make the width of the exclusion zone wide enough to ensure that such a runner could not possibly run from either edge of the zone and across a "decision point" in the middle of the zone, between the time-intervals between observations, that you have also chosen. On the other hand, if the intruder is in a jet fighter, screaming along at 2000 km/h, you might wish to construct a wider exclusion zone than would be necessary in the case of the runner, and employ shorter time-intervals between observations, to ensure that even such a fast intrusion would never prevent you from correctly deciding if the intruder is either an "up" intruder or a "down" intruder; they cannot cross the decision "threshold" before being observed.
The point is, your ability to correctly decide the "up" or "down" intrusion event, is highly dependent on the time-bandwidth product that has been built into the detection mechanism. That is what Shannon's Information Theory is all about. So what is going to happen, in the case in which you reduce both the time-interval and the bandwidth of the detector, to values so very small, that even a tiny amount of "noise" anywhere in the situation, makes it impossible, even in principle, to correctly decide the issue? You had better pray, very hard, that such non-zero amounts of noise can ever possibly exist, in the real world! Unfortunately, that prayer, the prayer of all physicists, does not appear to have been answered; "identical" particles (the "intruders") do not seem to exhibit identical "noise" - hence they appear to behave as if they are a bit "fuzzy" around the edges - just enough to make it impossible to ever correctly decide the detection problem, when the "exclusion zone" is effectively smaller than the "fuzz" around the edges. So even though you may frequently succeed at detecting the existence of any intruders within the "exclusion zone", you may nevertheless fail to correctly decide the "up" versus "down" problem in most intrusion events.
That is the situation being systematically constructed within my code; it is constructing "locally real" objects, that have just the right amount of "noise" to prevent correct "up" versus "down" bit-decisions, whenever the polarized objects being measured have their polarization axis misaligned with the axis of the detector. And that brings us back to the original subject matter of this discussion - is there a preferred reference frame for making such measurements? Yes there is - the polarization axis of the entity to be measured. Because the entire detection process has been so delicately balanced - at the very limit (Shannon's limit) of what can been done, that ever Bell test will collapse (produce too many bit-errors) when "lope-sided", off-axis measurements are made.
Rob McEachern
view post as summary
Robert H McEachern replied on Oct. 19, 2020 @ 23:12 GMT
JRC wrote:
"That individual divergence spans the paradigm difference of an assumed ideal, uniform particle specie, and the contrary realistic view that there is no such thing as a truly ideal particle that is uniform as a spicie."
You are now very close to seeing the simple, most "elemental" truth:
Because quantum theory incorrectly assumed that all the particles of any given "species" are absolutely identical, it also had to be assumed, that the observed particle probability distributions, usually attributed to the fact that all the members of a given species are not absolutely identical, must be caused, in some very strange way, by each individual particle actually being the observed probability distribution. That is what philosophers call a "category" mistake; attributing to one type of thing (an individual particle), something that is only a property of a very different type of thing (an entire set of particles).
That entire problem vanishes, just as soon as you finally recognize that identical particles are not that identical. Entangled pairs are only fraternal twins, not identical twins.
Rob McEachern
report post as inappropriate
"That individual divergence spans the paradigm difference of an assumed ideal, uniform particle specie, and the contrary realistic view that there is no such thing as a truly ideal particle that is uniform as a spicie."
You are now very close to seeing the simple, most "elemental" truth:
Because quantum theory incorrectly assumed that all the particles of any given "species" are absolutely identical, it also had to be assumed, that the observed particle probability distributions, usually attributed to the fact that all the members of a given species are not absolutely identical, must be caused, in some very strange way, by each individual particle actually being the observed probability distribution. That is what philosophers call a "category" mistake; attributing to one type of thing (an individual particle), something that is only a property of a very different type of thing (an entire set of particles).
That entire problem vanishes, just as soon as you finally recognize that identical particles are not that identical. Entangled pairs are only fraternal twins, not identical twins.
Rob McEachern
Stefan Weckbach replied on Oct. 20, 2020 @ 08:35 GMT
Dear Robert,
whatever your code does, why should this be proof that nature does the same for the experiments in question? For me that is similar to confusing a map with the territory. The territory is the physical world with its quantum experiments. You have to show via a clever experiment that it is indeed your claimed mechanisms that are responsible for the known results. Otherwise in my opinion your claims aren't falsifiable.
Stefan
report post as inappropriate
whatever your code does, why should this be proof that nature does the same for the experiments in question? For me that is similar to confusing a map with the territory. The territory is the physical world with its quantum experiments. You have to show via a clever experiment that it is indeed your claimed mechanisms that are responsible for the known results. Otherwise in my opinion your claims aren't falsifiable.
Stefan
John R. Cox replied on Oct. 20, 2020 @ 14:55 GMT
Stefan,
I think you are mistaking McEachern's programed simulation (code) for something else. It is easily seen without running it, that it would output he statistical probabilities of the results that would physically result from less than perfectly correlated alignments of spatial orientation of spin angular momentum axes. The point being (and properly so) is that the only preferred reference frame is that of each of any pair of particles being detected in relation to the angle settings of the receiving device. jrc
report post as inappropriate
I think you are mistaking McEachern's programed simulation (code) for something else. It is easily seen without running it, that it would output he statistical probabilities of the results that would physically result from less than perfectly correlated alignments of spatial orientation of spin angular momentum axes. The point being (and properly so) is that the only preferred reference frame is that of each of any pair of particles being detected in relation to the angle settings of the receiving device. jrc
Stefan Weckbach replied on Oct. 20, 2020 @ 20:50 GMT
John,
i do not doubt that the computer progam, when run, gives the same statistics quantum theory does give. So please do not misunderstand me.
But unless nature is a kind of computer with the above mentioned computer program (and we living in a computer simulation) running, i doubt that McEachern's program code reaveals the missing pieces (forces, interactions, particle properties etc.) that nature uses to produce the statistics in question.
If McEachern or you know these pieces, please tell the world - and hopefully the world then will accept the pieces as convincing. If not, please say so for the sake of clarity.
Stefan
report post as inappropriate
i do not doubt that the computer progam, when run, gives the same statistics quantum theory does give. So please do not misunderstand me.
But unless nature is a kind of computer with the above mentioned computer program (and we living in a computer simulation) running, i doubt that McEachern's program code reaveals the missing pieces (forces, interactions, particle properties etc.) that nature uses to produce the statistics in question.
If McEachern or you know these pieces, please tell the world - and hopefully the world then will accept the pieces as convincing. If not, please say so for the sake of clarity.
Stefan
John R. Cox replied on Oct. 21, 2020 @ 01:41 GMT
Stefan,
That is the whole point in experimental physics, isn't it? But no single type of experiment can do more than reveal what is looked for. What can be done, is to look at results to find a pertinent question and in the case of the original Stern-Gerlach experiment, the deduction was that the neutral silver atoms (and subsequent variations with free electrons) had intrinsic physical...
view entire post
That is the whole point in experimental physics, isn't it? But no single type of experiment can do more than reveal what is looked for. What can be done, is to look at results to find a pertinent question and in the case of the original Stern-Gerlach experiment, the deduction was that the neutral silver atoms (and subsequent variations with free electrons) had intrinsic physical...
view entire post
Stefan,
That is the whole point in experimental physics, isn't it? But no single type of experiment can do more than reveal what is looked for. What can be done, is to look at results to find a pertinent question and in the case of the original Stern-Gerlach experiment, the deduction was that the neutral silver atoms (and subsequent variations with free electrons) had intrinsic physical rotation and was seen at the time as advancing the QM model over the classicism model where-in particles were not envisioned as having such. That question is open in classicism today and arguments range from induced rotation to a mathematically intrinsic argument. Be that as it may, the duration, and bandwidth, are valid arguments in this SG scenario given what is accepted as 'knowns'. A higher velocity gives a shorter duration under influence of magnetic flux density in the length of span of the magnet group (read bandwidth). And those two parameters can be strategically varied as an experimenter might desire. The catalogue of observed results from numerous redundant experiments of the type, makes predictability a matter of strong assurance.
So I suppose that in answer to your own search, a theoretical question could be posited despite the fact that there is yet no real definition of what 'electric charge' might physically be. Given that admitted lack of knowledge we could still ask (?); how would polarity arise that is evidenced as magnetic moment in a rotating particle? If you have followed much of what the respondents in this thread have put forth in the past, all (including myself) consider the basic form of a particle to be "fuzzy", not simply a distinct hard chunk. Steve Agnew has posited an electron to be a composite of three bound quarks, for instance. Variations of field theory models abound. So perhaps a question we could propose would be essentially that the uniform negative charge of the electron might develop a differentiated polarity (combing the hair on a coconut) if it has some sort of core region that when rotating, drags the charge and/or flux density along with it. Similar to 'slippage' in an electric motor where the rotar lags behind the rotation of the field.
I can understand your contention that math is first and foremost a tool, not necessarily an existential essence. So the experimental question presents itself as; what could be used to probe the depths of an electron, and how could it quantitatively be deducted that there exists a differentiable core region? I am personally more a classical bench-top sort, myself. Does that come close to your thinking? :-) jrc
view post as summary
That is the whole point in experimental physics, isn't it? But no single type of experiment can do more than reveal what is looked for. What can be done, is to look at results to find a pertinent question and in the case of the original Stern-Gerlach experiment, the deduction was that the neutral silver atoms (and subsequent variations with free electrons) had intrinsic physical rotation and was seen at the time as advancing the QM model over the classicism model where-in particles were not envisioned as having such. That question is open in classicism today and arguments range from induced rotation to a mathematically intrinsic argument. Be that as it may, the duration, and bandwidth, are valid arguments in this SG scenario given what is accepted as 'knowns'. A higher velocity gives a shorter duration under influence of magnetic flux density in the length of span of the magnet group (read bandwidth). And those two parameters can be strategically varied as an experimenter might desire. The catalogue of observed results from numerous redundant experiments of the type, makes predictability a matter of strong assurance.
So I suppose that in answer to your own search, a theoretical question could be posited despite the fact that there is yet no real definition of what 'electric charge' might physically be. Given that admitted lack of knowledge we could still ask (?); how would polarity arise that is evidenced as magnetic moment in a rotating particle? If you have followed much of what the respondents in this thread have put forth in the past, all (including myself) consider the basic form of a particle to be "fuzzy", not simply a distinct hard chunk. Steve Agnew has posited an electron to be a composite of three bound quarks, for instance. Variations of field theory models abound. So perhaps a question we could propose would be essentially that the uniform negative charge of the electron might develop a differentiated polarity (combing the hair on a coconut) if it has some sort of core region that when rotating, drags the charge and/or flux density along with it. Similar to 'slippage' in an electric motor where the rotar lags behind the rotation of the field.
I can understand your contention that math is first and foremost a tool, not necessarily an existential essence. So the experimental question presents itself as; what could be used to probe the depths of an electron, and how could it quantitatively be deducted that there exists a differentiable core region? I am personally more a classical bench-top sort, myself. Does that come close to your thinking? :-) jrc
view post as summary
Stefan Weckbach replied on Oct. 21, 2020 @ 06:14 GMT
John,
McEachern uses many terms without explaining what they – according to his theory – physically mean. For example the term “noise”. Or “bit-flip”. I would wish that someone could explain me to what physically known processes these terms do refer – given that they refer to already known physical processes/mechanisms. If they do not refer to already known physical processes/mechanisms it would be helpful to explain the newly introduced mechanisms.
After that, one can think about how the consequences of these processes/mechanisms could be tested experimentally. That way of proceeding does come close to my thinking.
Stefan
report post as inappropriate
McEachern uses many terms without explaining what they – according to his theory – physically mean. For example the term “noise”. Or “bit-flip”. I would wish that someone could explain me to what physically known processes these terms do refer – given that they refer to already known physical processes/mechanisms. If they do not refer to already known physical processes/mechanisms it would be helpful to explain the newly introduced mechanisms.
After that, one can think about how the consequences of these processes/mechanisms could be tested experimentally. That way of proceeding does come close to my thinking.
Stefan
John R. Cox replied on Oct. 21, 2020 @ 21:46 GMT
Stefan,
Read up a bit on Claude Shannon, if it can be said that there is a 'father of the electronics revolution', it would be he. Shannon's definition of information, and what constitutes 'one bit' is central to Robert's argument. Keeping in mind that it is a step in the direction that you want to go; the QM correlations assume a perfectly symmetrical particle space that is uniform to any particle of the same sort, for any sort. And Bell's Theorem is taken as QM's article of faith that a classical theory of local realism cannot replicate the results of statistical probabilities observed in innumerable experiments, as QM does. Robert's argument refutes that and as he frequently states; singlet pair production physically produces 'fraternal twins' not 'identical twins'. All of this goes to arguments between different mathematical methods of geometric measurements, and many today question the long primacy of arbitrarily chosen measurement space as a utilitarian expedient in the early development of that highly productive theoretical approach. The symmetry is baked into the math of QM, and is held fast by many because it provides a high level of mathematical precision. At present, technical limits on observation leave physics with far too many events happening too quickly at such tiny differences of distance and parametric values, to sort things out individually. Probabilities in aggregate is the order of the day, and however QM itself evolves, its not going away anytime soon.
It's autumn chore time, winter comes fast when it arrives. later - jrc
report post as inappropriate
Read up a bit on Claude Shannon, if it can be said that there is a 'father of the electronics revolution', it would be he. Shannon's definition of information, and what constitutes 'one bit' is central to Robert's argument. Keeping in mind that it is a step in the direction that you want to go; the QM correlations assume a perfectly symmetrical particle space that is uniform to any particle of the same sort, for any sort. And Bell's Theorem is taken as QM's article of faith that a classical theory of local realism cannot replicate the results of statistical probabilities observed in innumerable experiments, as QM does. Robert's argument refutes that and as he frequently states; singlet pair production physically produces 'fraternal twins' not 'identical twins'. All of this goes to arguments between different mathematical methods of geometric measurements, and many today question the long primacy of arbitrarily chosen measurement space as a utilitarian expedient in the early development of that highly productive theoretical approach. The symmetry is baked into the math of QM, and is held fast by many because it provides a high level of mathematical precision. At present, technical limits on observation leave physics with far too many events happening too quickly at such tiny differences of distance and parametric values, to sort things out individually. Probabilities in aggregate is the order of the day, and however QM itself evolves, its not going away anytime soon.
It's autumn chore time, winter comes fast when it arrives. later - jrc
Robert H McEachern replied on Oct. 22, 2020 @ 00:33 GMT
It may be helpful to think about the origins and aims of any physical theory, and quantum theory in particular. The theories are intended to describe either what "reality" and "matter" are, or at least, how they behave.
But quantum theory ended-up describing neither what matter is, nor even how it behaves. The theory ended-up, only describing the statistical behavior of a "drug test" for matter, rather than how matter itself (the "drug") behaves.
This happened for several reasons, the most important being the introduction and complete misinterpretation of the "Born Rule" which is in fact, just the mathematical description of a Matched Filter for the Detection of Identical Particles.
Rob McEachern
report post as inappropriate
But quantum theory ended-up describing neither what matter is, nor even how it behaves. The theory ended-up, only describing the statistical behavior of a "drug test" for matter, rather than how matter itself (the "drug") behaves.
This happened for several reasons, the most important being the introduction and complete misinterpretation of the "Born Rule" which is in fact, just the mathematical description of a Matched Filter for the Detection of Identical Particles.
Rob McEachern
Stefan Weckbach replied on Oct. 22, 2020 @ 07:05 GMT
John, Robert,
You both did not answer my questions. If a bit flips in the experiments in question, then something physical must happen that represents this bit and its flip. It must be a mechanism – or it happens without cause, randomly. You assume the first case, so please explain the mechanism(s). In both of your cited references it isn't explained. Once you explained it, one can think about testing the theory.
Stefan
report post as inappropriate
You both did not answer my questions. If a bit flips in the experiments in question, then something physical must happen that represents this bit and its flip. It must be a mechanism – or it happens without cause, randomly. You assume the first case, so please explain the mechanism(s). In both of your cited references it isn't explained. Once you explained it, one can think about testing the theory.
Stefan
John R. Cox replied on Oct. 22, 2020 @ 15:51 GMT
Stefan,
point taken. Counter-point: how would you explain it, given what you know (or perhaps do not) about the protocols of Stern-Gerlach, the orthogonal relationship of electro-motive force (the right hand rule) discovered by Faraday, the characteristics of spin angular momentum as distinct from orbital angular momentum, the peculiar gyroscopic idiosyncrasies of rotating objects in a gravitational field (try tilting a spinning bicycle wheel from axel horizontal to vertical), the lack of a Unified Theory relating gravitational mass to electromagnetism, the limits of observation denying direct evidence of individual atomic structure and behavioral response, the fairly well known macroscopic sizes of magnetic domains (which is why the politics of rare earth elements has become critical these days), and the statistical methodologies of teasing out any real possible picture of what any single atom or subatomic particle is actually doing in the cluster of time dependent projections of less than perfect purity of kinds of particles which constitute any projected cluster... and etc. What do you think might physically be happening in the course of a Stern-Gerlach type experiment? Is spatial orientation determined by gyroscopic response of the mass, or by polarity of electromagnetic response? Does the bit flip 90* or 180*? How do you choose, and how would you prove? jrc
report post as inappropriate
point taken. Counter-point: how would you explain it, given what you know (or perhaps do not) about the protocols of Stern-Gerlach, the orthogonal relationship of electro-motive force (the right hand rule) discovered by Faraday, the characteristics of spin angular momentum as distinct from orbital angular momentum, the peculiar gyroscopic idiosyncrasies of rotating objects in a gravitational field (try tilting a spinning bicycle wheel from axel horizontal to vertical), the lack of a Unified Theory relating gravitational mass to electromagnetism, the limits of observation denying direct evidence of individual atomic structure and behavioral response, the fairly well known macroscopic sizes of magnetic domains (which is why the politics of rare earth elements has become critical these days), and the statistical methodologies of teasing out any real possible picture of what any single atom or subatomic particle is actually doing in the cluster of time dependent projections of less than perfect purity of kinds of particles which constitute any projected cluster... and etc. What do you think might physically be happening in the course of a Stern-Gerlach type experiment? Is spatial orientation determined by gyroscopic response of the mass, or by polarity of electromagnetic response? Does the bit flip 90* or 180*? How do you choose, and how would you prove? jrc
Robert H McEachern replied on Oct. 22, 2020 @ 16:56 GMT
Stefan,
Think about a set of stationary (relative to each other), but otherwise randomly oriented coins, floating in outer space, as a single encrypted message to be "read", from left to right, rather than as a set of physical objects to be "measured". Your job as an astronaut, is to go up, rendezvous with that message, and correctly read it as a series of bits, such as HHTHTHTTTTH. But the...
view entire post
Think about a set of stationary (relative to each other), but otherwise randomly oriented coins, floating in outer space, as a single encrypted message to be "read", from left to right, rather than as a set of physical objects to be "measured". Your job as an astronaut, is to go up, rendezvous with that message, and correctly read it as a series of bits, such as HHTHTHTTTTH. But the...
view entire post
Stefan,
Think about a set of stationary (relative to each other), but otherwise randomly oriented coins, floating in outer space, as a single encrypted message to be "read", from left to right, rather than as a set of physical objects to be "measured". Your job as an astronaut, is to go up, rendezvous with that message, and correctly read it as a series of bits, such as HHTHTHTTTTH. But the observed message (bit sequence) will appear to change, whenever the coins are viewed from different angles in 3D space. So what is the correct viewing angle (frame of reference)? The astronaut must either know that a priori, or be able to determine it upon arrival at the message. Otherwise bit-errors will occur, while attempting to read the message, as the result of attempting to view the message from the wrong frame of reference. But that is not the only mechanism that might cause a bit-error. Something else may have tampered with (disturbed) the message before the astronaut arrived, in such a manner that one or more of the coins will appeared to be "flipped", even when viewed from the correct frame of reference.
But now imagine that you, the poor astronaut tasked with this mission, had ignorantly assumed that all the coins were going to be beautifully pristine, newly minted coins, that were all exactly identical, and that could, consequently, each be easily and accurately "measured", even in the cases in which some of them appear nearly "edge-on" within the message. But to your absolute horror, when you finally arrive at the message, you observe that all the coins are worn-down, dirty, blurry and consequently very hard to discern, especially whenever they are anywhere near to being edge-on when viewed from the correct angle.
So you call mission control and say "What the &%$#!! where you people thinking! You never told me that all these bloody coins were going to be so beat-up and really hard to make out!" And mission control then responds "Sorry! We never considered that possibility ourselves! Sorry! But maybe we can all work together and save this mission anyhow, because there just so happens to be another duplicate message, and another astronaut, Alice, with the same problem. Maybe you and Alice can get together and study the correlation statistics between your two sets of observed bit-values and figure out the correct values for all the dirty, blurry, worn-down, edge-on coins, by comparing your results." To which you respond "But some of these things are so hard to make-out, that I'm not sure that I even know how many coins there are in the message!" To which, mission control responds "Yeah. We understand. Alice is having the same problem. But maybe you two can still work it all out - try coincidence detection analysis of something like that. We sure hope you can! And Good Luck with that! Over and out."
Rob McEachern
view post as summary
Think about a set of stationary (relative to each other), but otherwise randomly oriented coins, floating in outer space, as a single encrypted message to be "read", from left to right, rather than as a set of physical objects to be "measured". Your job as an astronaut, is to go up, rendezvous with that message, and correctly read it as a series of bits, such as HHTHTHTTTTH. But the observed message (bit sequence) will appear to change, whenever the coins are viewed from different angles in 3D space. So what is the correct viewing angle (frame of reference)? The astronaut must either know that a priori, or be able to determine it upon arrival at the message. Otherwise bit-errors will occur, while attempting to read the message, as the result of attempting to view the message from the wrong frame of reference. But that is not the only mechanism that might cause a bit-error. Something else may have tampered with (disturbed) the message before the astronaut arrived, in such a manner that one or more of the coins will appeared to be "flipped", even when viewed from the correct frame of reference.
But now imagine that you, the poor astronaut tasked with this mission, had ignorantly assumed that all the coins were going to be beautifully pristine, newly minted coins, that were all exactly identical, and that could, consequently, each be easily and accurately "measured", even in the cases in which some of them appear nearly "edge-on" within the message. But to your absolute horror, when you finally arrive at the message, you observe that all the coins are worn-down, dirty, blurry and consequently very hard to discern, especially whenever they are anywhere near to being edge-on when viewed from the correct angle.
So you call mission control and say "What the &%$#!! where you people thinking! You never told me that all these bloody coins were going to be so beat-up and really hard to make out!" And mission control then responds "Sorry! We never considered that possibility ourselves! Sorry! But maybe we can all work together and save this mission anyhow, because there just so happens to be another duplicate message, and another astronaut, Alice, with the same problem. Maybe you and Alice can get together and study the correlation statistics between your two sets of observed bit-values and figure out the correct values for all the dirty, blurry, worn-down, edge-on coins, by comparing your results." To which you respond "But some of these things are so hard to make-out, that I'm not sure that I even know how many coins there are in the message!" To which, mission control responds "Yeah. We understand. Alice is having the same problem. But maybe you two can still work it all out - try coincidence detection analysis of something like that. We sure hope you can! And Good Luck with that! Over and out."
Rob McEachern
view post as summary
John R. Cox replied on Oct. 23, 2020 @ 00:27 GMT
There is another angle to the Mermin results which obtain as average incidence of correlations in different reference frames, produced by the choice of 120 degree rotations rather than the typical 90* and 45* rotations of detectors and/or filters in both SG and Bell Aspect experiments. The relevant symmetry plane naturally follows physically and mathematically from the orthogonal relationship observed in electromagnetism, so the explicit A & B correlations are common to the same reference frame, but not to the non-typical 1/3 circular arc of 120 degrees.
Now, if we were to take that symmetry plane as the square base of a pyramid made up of four equilateral triangles and put two of those base to base we construct an octahedron which shares properties of both a cube and a sphere. It also shares an internal angle with that of a Brewster Window which polarizes the light in a Laser, so it must have (well, may have) some physical relationship with the Up/Down direction of Spin Angular Momentum. That angle is 52 !/2 degrees and is found as the angle from the square symmetry plane to the slope of an adjacent equilateral triangle. In Lasers, the angle of the Brewster Windows varies with wavelength (frequency if you prefer) but within narrow bounds which bracket 52 !/2 degrees.
That would also be a different reference frame than 1/2 and 1/4 pi rotations common to the orthogonality of the symmetry plane. I have more than occasionally puzzled on what results would be observed in Bell-Aspect experiments with filters set in juxtaposition to that Brewster Angle. And if they depart from the norms, would they jibe with the same juxtaposition of detector angles in an SG type apparatus ??? jrc
report post as inappropriate
Now, if we were to take that symmetry plane as the square base of a pyramid made up of four equilateral triangles and put two of those base to base we construct an octahedron which shares properties of both a cube and a sphere. It also shares an internal angle with that of a Brewster Window which polarizes the light in a Laser, so it must have (well, may have) some physical relationship with the Up/Down direction of Spin Angular Momentum. That angle is 52 !/2 degrees and is found as the angle from the square symmetry plane to the slope of an adjacent equilateral triangle. In Lasers, the angle of the Brewster Windows varies with wavelength (frequency if you prefer) but within narrow bounds which bracket 52 !/2 degrees.
That would also be a different reference frame than 1/2 and 1/4 pi rotations common to the orthogonality of the symmetry plane. I have more than occasionally puzzled on what results would be observed in Bell-Aspect experiments with filters set in juxtaposition to that Brewster Angle. And if they depart from the norms, would they jibe with the same juxtaposition of detector angles in an SG type apparatus ??? jrc
Stefan Weckbach replied on Oct. 23, 2020 @ 14:31 GMT
John, Robert,
part of what i asked for is an answer to whether or not Robert's theory is falsifiable. In my opinion there are only 3 options: yes, no, "we do not know".
If the answer is "no", then maybe a detailed description of the theories assumptions can alter the picture (if some clever person comes the way).
If the answer is "yes", that would be great, because the theory can be tested or already has been tested in the past.
If the answer is "we do not know", again a detailed description of the - hitherto developed assumptions - may help some person to find a way to test the theory.
By "testing" i do not mean a computer program, but an experimental test with real physical "quanta" (or "partices" or whatever you like to name it).
Concerning all your questions John, i would say i have the opinion that causality as we know it (timely ordered etc.) breaks down at a certain level within the microcosm. What makes our world stable then must lie beyond our familiar space-time (the latter's assumptions being deeply engraved into our ways of thinking). This is another reason why i consider the falsifiability of Robert's theory interesting, because if some predictions of that theory could be verified, this would obviously speak against my rather "transcendental" view of space-time and all the rest.
Stefan
report post as inappropriate
part of what i asked for is an answer to whether or not Robert's theory is falsifiable. In my opinion there are only 3 options: yes, no, "we do not know".
If the answer is "no", then maybe a detailed description of the theories assumptions can alter the picture (if some clever person comes the way).
If the answer is "yes", that would be great, because the theory can be tested or already has been tested in the past.
If the answer is "we do not know", again a detailed description of the - hitherto developed assumptions - may help some person to find a way to test the theory.
By "testing" i do not mean a computer program, but an experimental test with real physical "quanta" (or "partices" or whatever you like to name it).
Concerning all your questions John, i would say i have the opinion that causality as we know it (timely ordered etc.) breaks down at a certain level within the microcosm. What makes our world stable then must lie beyond our familiar space-time (the latter's assumptions being deeply engraved into our ways of thinking). This is another reason why i consider the falsifiability of Robert's theory interesting, because if some predictions of that theory could be verified, this would obviously speak against my rather "transcendental" view of space-time and all the rest.
Stefan
hide replies
Steve Agnew wrote on Oct. 18, 2020 @ 00:00 GMT
"A question intrigues me, what is really an electron, I have my idea in my model and these spheres but they are intriguing in fact."...Steve Defourny.
An electron definition is really quite tricky since, as a fundamental particle, it is like asking why the universe exists or why matter exists at all. Electrons exist because they exist, which is an identity and hardly helpful. Science says...
view entire post
An electron definition is really quite tricky since, as a fundamental particle, it is like asking why the universe exists or why matter exists at all. Electrons exist because they exist, which is an identity and hardly helpful. Science says...
view entire post
"A question intrigues me, what is really an electron, I have my idea in my model and these spheres but they are intriguing in fact."...Steve Defourny.
An electron definition is really quite tricky since, as a fundamental particle, it is like asking why the universe exists or why matter exists at all. Electrons exist because they exist, which is an identity and hardly helpful. Science says you must simply believe in electrons and then gives their mass, charge, spin, and so on.
You may want to know what is a matter-action electron. Since the only fundamental matter-action particle is the dust of quantum aether, it is quantum aether dust that makes up electrons and all fundamental particles, including photons. At the CMB, only a small fraction (~1e-7) of aether was frozen into quarks, and then quarks froze into electrons and other particles.
Before the CMB, forces were too weak and there was aether equilibrium. Since the CMB cooling, the reverse reaction has been kinetically limited except for very high energies like stars and black holes...and particle accelerators. Antimatter is then what made up the precursor to our matter universe.
The only matter that survived CMB cooling was neutral hydrogen and small amounts of other neutral atoms according to the Schrödinger equation. The Rydberg energy of hydrogen ionization stabilizes our universe by the Schrödinger equation and all else follows...
So a proton and neutron are both made up of three quarks as pairs. Quarks are then part of the same Rydberg energy stabilization as is hydrogen and all matter. An electron is then made up of a three quarks as pairs as well. Electron mass is a result of the same Rydberg stabilization energy that forms quarks into protons and then electrons into hydrogen.
Although the freezeout of CMB matter involved many possible outcomes including antimatter outcomes, only those outcomes that met the Rydberg energy formed stable hydrogen and thus only about 1e-7 of aether makes up observable matter. Unlike a proton or neutron which have both mass and charge radii, an electron has only a charge and not a mass radius. This is because of the very different quark quantum phases for an electron versus a proton or neutron.
The matter-action outcomes are, of course, not accepted at all by Science, but have not been falsified either...
view post as summary
An electron definition is really quite tricky since, as a fundamental particle, it is like asking why the universe exists or why matter exists at all. Electrons exist because they exist, which is an identity and hardly helpful. Science says you must simply believe in electrons and then gives their mass, charge, spin, and so on.
You may want to know what is a matter-action electron. Since the only fundamental matter-action particle is the dust of quantum aether, it is quantum aether dust that makes up electrons and all fundamental particles, including photons. At the CMB, only a small fraction (~1e-7) of aether was frozen into quarks, and then quarks froze into electrons and other particles.
Before the CMB, forces were too weak and there was aether equilibrium. Since the CMB cooling, the reverse reaction has been kinetically limited except for very high energies like stars and black holes...and particle accelerators. Antimatter is then what made up the precursor to our matter universe.
The only matter that survived CMB cooling was neutral hydrogen and small amounts of other neutral atoms according to the Schrödinger equation. The Rydberg energy of hydrogen ionization stabilizes our universe by the Schrödinger equation and all else follows...
So a proton and neutron are both made up of three quarks as pairs. Quarks are then part of the same Rydberg energy stabilization as is hydrogen and all matter. An electron is then made up of a three quarks as pairs as well. Electron mass is a result of the same Rydberg stabilization energy that forms quarks into protons and then electrons into hydrogen.
Although the freezeout of CMB matter involved many possible outcomes including antimatter outcomes, only those outcomes that met the Rydberg energy formed stable hydrogen and thus only about 1e-7 of aether makes up observable matter. Unlike a proton or neutron which have both mass and charge radii, an electron has only a charge and not a mass radius. This is because of the very different quark quantum phases for an electron versus a proton or neutron.
The matter-action outcomes are, of course, not accepted at all by Science, but have not been falsified either...
view post as summary
Steve Dufourny replied on Oct. 18, 2020 @ 08:17 GMT
Hi Steve, thanks for developing, it is well explained. I like the works of Dirac , the matter action of course seems relevant , we need to know more because like I told we have limitations in knowledges unfortunally about the main origin of our reality and we don t know really also these foundamental mathematical and physical objects , your explainations were a pleasure to read, I study in the same time, thanks still. Regards
report post as inappropriate
Steve Dufourny replied on Oct. 18, 2020 @ 12:33 GMT
Steve , if we take the matter action and if we correlate with the einstein hilbert action and the fields equations, we consider this general relativity and still these photons like primordial essence, I like these works, but we cannot affirm that this is the main origin of our universe, einstein recognised this, that is why for me they cannot renormalise and quantified this quantum gravitation ,...
view entire post
view entire post
Steve , if we take the matter action and if we correlate with the einstein hilbert action and the fields equations, we consider this general relativity and still these photons like primordial essence, I like these works, but we cannot affirm that this is the main origin of our universe, einstein recognised this, that is why for me they cannot renormalise and quantified this quantum gravitation , because in fact the aim is not to unify th GR and this QM, but we need to superimpose a deeper logic for the matter actions like you told. The electrons are fascinating but we don t know like I said what they are really and why they have their properties like mass, spin and others, we just see the effects and we are limited unfortunally about their main essence, the strings and geometrical algebras consider an origin of fields and they try to rank them with the non commutativity and the non acciativity also like the Lie groups but for me and it is just my opinion, it is not sufficient and it lacks many things, I doubt really that this universe comes from an infinite heat and after photons and after they oscillate and vibrates to give the geometries, topologies.... we cannot affrim these things, this reasoning permit just to encircle better our standard model and its feilds but don t explain the generality of our universe. You speak about the aether, it is still a luminiferous aether and it seems to lack something, that is why I consider two other aethers superimposed with the cold dark matter and this DE vaccuum space for the main codes, that can permit to better understand this matter action in its deepest meaning. like you told, the universe is the universe because it is like thais, but philosophically we need to understand better its origin and these foundamental objects, we just analyse the surfaces of the problem actually and this standard model is so limited, we know so few still, we must accept our limitations and the fact that we know a so small part of the puzzle, I doubt really that the fields are the solution, I prefer to consider particles coded giving fields. The electrons are intriguning because these fermions are important for the matters like these photons, they permit their properties but we don t know unfortunally thei main causes and codes if I can say. All this to tell that the tensors actually for the GR and this luminiferous aether with the works of Ricci , riemann, einstein,m hilbert are for this luminiferous aether , but they don t explain the deep unknowns, I beleive strongly that this relativity is a prison even if I recognise it like correct, I just tell that we need to superimpose other parameters, without this, we cannot explain our unknowns, it is not possible. The vaccuum , the aether of space and main codes more this cold dark matter the second fuel in the cold can permit to exaplin these unknowns, and the antiparticles , the evolution also like the life death even and the recycling. All this becomes philosophical and we need this philosophy and different ideas to try to understand this origin. We must think beyond the box probably. Regards
view post as summary
view post as summary
Steve Dufourny replied on Oct. 18, 2020 @ 15:35 GMT
If we take the charged point particles for the einstein gravitational field, we see the motions and the effects on this spacetime that we observe, but all this is for observations , I beleive humbly that it is the problem when the searchers try to unify this GR and the QM to reach this quantum gravitation, in fact we must consider a different logic because what we searc is not about the...
view entire post
view entire post
If we take the charged point particles for the einstein gravitational field, we see the motions and the effects on this spacetime that we observe, but all this is for observations , I beleive humbly that it is the problem when the searchers try to unify this GR and the QM to reach this quantum gravitation, in fact we must consider a different logic because what we searc is not about the observations and the GR for me, it is a force between particles and their motions orbital and spinal, it is totally different, we must respect the newtonian mechanics it seems to me , that is why there is a problem of renormalisation, now in considering other particles than photons to be simplistic for the bosonic fields and that this cold dark matter permit to explain the balance of heat for all particles , that explains that the standard is encircled by a cold deeper logic explaining the antiparticles but also this quantum gravitation because the main codes are in this vacuum energetical of this DE and after we have the two fuels that I explained permitting the fields, the quantum gravitation so is not an emergent electromagnetic force but in fact the gravitation is the main chief orchestra and this electronagntism it is the emergence, it is totally diffrent. The last works of Wilczek and these gravitons and their noises permit to better understand the general relativity but they are not these points the quanta of this gravitational quantum weakest force, they are just points of gravitational waves. I return so about this prison of this relativity and the fact to consider only these photons like primordial essence, einstein has well worked indeed but it is just observations and the photons, and now all they try with different oscillations and geonetrical algebras to find our unknowns in this logic, but that cannot explain the deepest unknowns like this DM,this DE , this QG,this consciousness even and others, it lacked really to insert deeper reasonings , all this is philosophical also. I cannot affirm that my 3 finite series of 3D spheres, the vacuum space and the two fuels are true, but it is an idea like the others, and the spheres seem foundamental, after all, we have inside this universe only spheres , I have calculated the dirac large number converges with the finite numbr of cosmol spheres and probably that these 3 main finite series also quant are like this, why I don t know, it is simply the choice of the primordial fractal from this infinite eternal consciousness , it is my interpretation but I respct the others , and nobody knows the truth is we are an accident mathematical or others, we just discuss, and that implies that we have a central one for all finite series, now philosophically that implies a thing paradoxal about the central cosmological sphere, it is there that all comes from, maybe we have a multiverse I don t know but so it implies intriguing things about the central ones, multispheres or universal sphere , in all case we retrun always at a necessary uniqueness, but already our universe it is difficult to understand it ,so let s be humble. If the fractal of spheres is a primoridal thing, so it becomes even complex seem that each cosmological sphere is unique in its complexity. The matter action are more than we can imagine, it is nor about the GR nor about our limited analysis, it is deeper, it seems evident.Now is my reasoning is corrct considering these 3 main finite series, that becomes relevant to rank our particles , we have mainly particles and fields due to these encoded particles of DM and photons, the cold and heat dance together under the codes of this space.
view post as summary
view post as summary
Georgina Woodward wrote on Oct. 26, 2020 @ 00:13 GMT
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.
report post as inappropriate
report post as inappropriate
report post as inappropriate
report post as inappropriate
report post as inappropriate
report post as inappropriate
report post as inappropriate
report post as inappropriate
report post as inappropriate
report post as inappropriate
report post as inappropriate
report post as inappropriate
report post as inappropriate
report post as inappropriate
report post as inappropriate
report post as inappropriate
report post as inappropriate
report post as inappropriate
report post as inappropriate
report post as inappropriate
report post as inappropriate
report post as inappropriate
report post as inappropriate
report post as inappropriate
report post as inappropriate
report post as inappropriate
report post as inappropriate
report post as inappropriate
hide replies
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.
Stefan Weckbach replied on Oct. 26, 2020 @ 08:51 GMT
Dear Georgina,
trying to trace your argument.
Particles are produced as a pair. By production, they always have the same orientation of a pre-measurement property. Then they are exposed to the same physical forces. This then results in the same response. This is the case for the angles 0 degree as well as 180 degree.
If we have a relative angle of 90 degree, it seems that the...
view entire post
trying to trace your argument.
Particles are produced as a pair. By production, they always have the same orientation of a pre-measurement property. Then they are exposed to the same physical forces. This then results in the same response. This is the case for the angles 0 degree as well as 180 degree.
If we have a relative angle of 90 degree, it seems that the...
view entire post
Dear Georgina,
trying to trace your argument.
Particles are produced as a pair. By production, they always have the same orientation of a pre-measurement property. Then they are exposed to the same physical forces. This then results in the same response. This is the case for the angles 0 degree as well as 180 degree.
If we have a relative angle of 90 degree, it seems that the “correlation” is random, but this is only so because we have no way to know the original orientation of the particle pair at the time of its production. But according to this scheme, we at least assume that both particles have both the same inherent orientations of some inherent property.
So far we have at least figured out that at the angles of 0, 90 and 180 degrees, there could be a physical mechanism to explain the results.
But how do results for the intermediate angles come about? In your scheme the individual particle's inherent properties simply respond to different angles of the individual measurement devices - relative to a particle. That's a local scheme of course – every particle's response is only determined by its original orientation at the time of production and its relative angle to the local measurement device. Since the influence of the measurement device is thought to be non-linear when it is not aligned at the same orientation as the particle's original orientation (at the time of pair production), one then could eventually explain this non-linearity of statistical outcomes (bell curve) by the relative angle between measurement device (aka magnetic field) and the particle's magnetic moment (or something like that) – what is exclusively only then the case when both magnets are neither oriented 0 or 180 degrees relative to each other – because if they are orientated 0 or 180 degrees relative to each other, in these cases the responses are always linear due to the production of perfectly correlated pairs.
So if the non-linearity in question (bell curve) stems from the non-linear forces of a measurement device's magnetic field relative to a starting orientation of a particle (and its magnetic component), one could expect that even for the strong correlations at 0 and 180 degrees, the particle pairs could well be *initially* orientated such that the magnetic field of the measurement devices exhibit the same amount (and directions!) of forces to the particles as it would be the case for the intermediate relative angles (the angles not being 0 or 180 degrees). If that would be the case, the statistics of course would be altered from the well known bell curve to something other. In your scheme I see no reason so far why the source should only produce pairs that have only two options to be orientated in space: either “up” relative to the source, or “down” relative to the source (this kind of explanation would use a preferred reference frame). But let's figure it out:
Can this explanation via a preferred reference frame be tested? Yes, according to your scheme there is a difference in the amount and directions of the forces of the measurement devices (and therefore there must also be a difference in the resulting statistics) that act on the particle's for different relative orientations.
So to test the hypothesis that the non-linearity in question (bell curve) stems from different forces (amount and directions) of the measurement magnets, one theoretically could make a series of measurements with perfectly aligned magnets, but with different orientations relative to the source. This may at first glance appear to be nonsense, since measuring always only with the help of relative magnet angles of 0 or 180 degrees (but both changed from time to time relative to the *source*) will not alter the perfect correlations (the latter means that for 0 degree there is predictable “anti-correlation, for 180 degree there is predictable “correlation”).
But nonetheless I think there are consequences for your scheme here. Assume we orient both magnets relative to the source such that we define that angle “0”. Keep in mind that both magnets are nonetheless still always orientated at, say, 180 degrees relative to each other as the starting point of our measurements. With these settings then we make the full circle of bell measurements.
After that, we only change the relative angle in space of the magnets to the source by a certain degree (the magnets nonetheless are still oriented 180 degrees relative to each other) and again take this as the starting point to make the full circle of bell measurements.
This goes on till we arrive at an angle of 180 degrees for the relative orientation of source with magnets (our starting point was “0” degrees).
Finally we compare the measurement results of all the different settings. According to your scheme there must be significant differences for the different runs of full circle bell measurements. And this conclusion is independent of whether you assume a preferred reference frame relative to the source or not.
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. This should be so because your scheme aims to be local and is dependent on the relative angle (amount and direction of forces) of the magnets to explain the peculiar non-linearities apart from the trivial angles 0 and 180.
For the case that the source does orient the correlated pairs randomly over say, 360 degrees (relative to the source itself), the comparison of the results of the above mentioned different full circle runs should also result in some dramatic deviations from the well known bell curve - at least for some settings.
If I am right, the question now is whether or not that sophisticated series of experiments has already been done or not. Apart from that I would bet that once done, it would not alter the well known bell curve in any case – what would be in conflict with your local explanation. But my guess isn't really important for what nature does.
Please write back what you think about all of this.
Greetings,
Stefan
view post as summary
trying to trace your argument.
Particles are produced as a pair. By production, they always have the same orientation of a pre-measurement property. Then they are exposed to the same physical forces. This then results in the same response. This is the case for the angles 0 degree as well as 180 degree.
If we have a relative angle of 90 degree, it seems that the “correlation” is random, but this is only so because we have no way to know the original orientation of the particle pair at the time of its production. But according to this scheme, we at least assume that both particles have both the same inherent orientations of some inherent property.
So far we have at least figured out that at the angles of 0, 90 and 180 degrees, there could be a physical mechanism to explain the results.
But how do results for the intermediate angles come about? In your scheme the individual particle's inherent properties simply respond to different angles of the individual measurement devices - relative to a particle. That's a local scheme of course – every particle's response is only determined by its original orientation at the time of production and its relative angle to the local measurement device. Since the influence of the measurement device is thought to be non-linear when it is not aligned at the same orientation as the particle's original orientation (at the time of pair production), one then could eventually explain this non-linearity of statistical outcomes (bell curve) by the relative angle between measurement device (aka magnetic field) and the particle's magnetic moment (or something like that) – what is exclusively only then the case when both magnets are neither oriented 0 or 180 degrees relative to each other – because if they are orientated 0 or 180 degrees relative to each other, in these cases the responses are always linear due to the production of perfectly correlated pairs.
So if the non-linearity in question (bell curve) stems from the non-linear forces of a measurement device's magnetic field relative to a starting orientation of a particle (and its magnetic component), one could expect that even for the strong correlations at 0 and 180 degrees, the particle pairs could well be *initially* orientated such that the magnetic field of the measurement devices exhibit the same amount (and directions!) of forces to the particles as it would be the case for the intermediate relative angles (the angles not being 0 or 180 degrees). If that would be the case, the statistics of course would be altered from the well known bell curve to something other. In your scheme I see no reason so far why the source should only produce pairs that have only two options to be orientated in space: either “up” relative to the source, or “down” relative to the source (this kind of explanation would use a preferred reference frame). But let's figure it out:
Can this explanation via a preferred reference frame be tested? Yes, according to your scheme there is a difference in the amount and directions of the forces of the measurement devices (and therefore there must also be a difference in the resulting statistics) that act on the particle's for different relative orientations.
So to test the hypothesis that the non-linearity in question (bell curve) stems from different forces (amount and directions) of the measurement magnets, one theoretically could make a series of measurements with perfectly aligned magnets, but with different orientations relative to the source. This may at first glance appear to be nonsense, since measuring always only with the help of relative magnet angles of 0 or 180 degrees (but both changed from time to time relative to the *source*) will not alter the perfect correlations (the latter means that for 0 degree there is predictable “anti-correlation, for 180 degree there is predictable “correlation”).
But nonetheless I think there are consequences for your scheme here. Assume we orient both magnets relative to the source such that we define that angle “0”. Keep in mind that both magnets are nonetheless still always orientated at, say, 180 degrees relative to each other as the starting point of our measurements. With these settings then we make the full circle of bell measurements.
After that, we only change the relative angle in space of the magnets to the source by a certain degree (the magnets nonetheless are still oriented 180 degrees relative to each other) and again take this as the starting point to make the full circle of bell measurements.
This goes on till we arrive at an angle of 180 degrees for the relative orientation of source with magnets (our starting point was “0” degrees).
Finally we compare the measurement results of all the different settings. According to your scheme there must be significant differences for the different runs of full circle bell measurements. And this conclusion is independent of whether you assume a preferred reference frame relative to the source or not.
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. This should be so because your scheme aims to be local and is dependent on the relative angle (amount and direction of forces) of the magnets to explain the peculiar non-linearities apart from the trivial angles 0 and 180.
For the case that the source does orient the correlated pairs randomly over say, 360 degrees (relative to the source itself), the comparison of the results of the above mentioned different full circle runs should also result in some dramatic deviations from the well known bell curve - at least for some settings.
If I am right, the question now is whether or not that sophisticated series of experiments has already been done or not. Apart from that I would bet that once done, it would not alter the well known bell curve in any case – what would be in conflict with your local explanation. But my guess isn't really important for what nature does.
Please write back what you think about all of this.
Greetings,
Stefan
view post as summary
Georgina Woodward replied on Oct. 26, 2020 @ 09:52 GMT
Stefan, that is a long reply. I'll read it carefully tomorrow.
As I understand the issue- there are three different angles of orientation of the magnetic fields of the magnets and a choice of same orientation for "measuring" each of the pair OR choice of different orientations for "measuring" each of what was a matched pair but will now not give a certainly same state outcome. The two different environments causes them to be uncorrelated. Though by probability still giving the same/matched state outcome 1/4 of the time.
You ask why only up and down [outcomes}? Because that is the options allowed by the apparatus. The bits, ups and downs are not particles but tell something about the particle's prior behaviour; that led to the outcome.
report post as inappropriate
As I understand the issue- there are three different angles of orientation of the magnetic fields of the magnets and a choice of same orientation for "measuring" each of the pair OR choice of different orientations for "measuring" each of what was a matched pair but will now not give a certainly same state outcome. The two different environments causes them to be uncorrelated. Though by probability still giving the same/matched state outcome 1/4 of the time.
You ask why only up and down [outcomes}? Because that is the options allowed by the apparatus. The bits, ups and downs are not particles but tell something about the particle's prior behaviour; that led to the outcome.
Stefan Weckbach replied on Oct. 26, 2020 @ 11:29 GMT
Dear Georgina,
“Though by probability still giving the same/matched state outcome 1/4 of the time. “
No no, the ¼ you speak of are only the case if the two measurement magnets have a relative angle of 90 degrees (or 270 degrees) to each other. In all other cases the probabilities behave according to the bell curve, not linear. Look at that Bell-curve (roughly speaking the orange line):
https://fqxi.org/data/forum-attachments/MceachernMisse
dDetections.JPG
report post as inappropriate
“Though by probability still giving the same/matched state outcome 1/4 of the time. “
No no, the ¼ you speak of are only the case if the two measurement magnets have a relative angle of 90 degrees (or 270 degrees) to each other. In all other cases the probabilities behave according to the bell curve, not linear. Look at that Bell-curve (roughly speaking the orange line):
https://fqxi.org/data/forum-attachments/MceachernMisse
dDetections.JPG
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
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.
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
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.
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
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
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
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
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.
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
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
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
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
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
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
"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?
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
"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,
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
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
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
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
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
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
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.
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
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.
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
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
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
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
. 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. '
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
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
Georgina Woodward replied on Oct. 29, 2020 @ 02:51 GMT
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
"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???
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
.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?
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
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
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
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
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
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.
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
“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?
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
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.
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
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???
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
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
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
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.
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
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.
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
"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.
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
* 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.
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
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.
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
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.
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,
"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.
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
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.
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
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.
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
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.
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
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
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
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
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.
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
"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)
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
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.
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
"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
"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
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
"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.".
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
"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.
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
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.
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
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.
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
"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
"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
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
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.
Georgina Woodward replied on Nov. 2, 2020 @ 10:33 GMT
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
"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.
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
"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.
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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.
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
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.
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
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
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
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.
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
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.
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
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.
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
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
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
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.
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
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
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
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
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.
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
At 0 degrees both particles experience the same field orientation but with their own opposite polarity, due to their opposite spins.
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
I need a break too! I've been getting nowhere. jrc Hey, its election night! maybe I'll just relax and watch the returns
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
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.
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
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
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
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
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
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
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.
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
"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.
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
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
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
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.
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
"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
"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
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
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
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
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
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.
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
"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.
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
"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
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
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.
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
"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.
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
"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.
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
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
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
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
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.
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
"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
"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
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
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
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
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
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.
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
" 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.
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
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
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
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
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.
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
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.
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
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
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
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
'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
'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
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
“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.
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 apparatus
Magnetic field vectors from North top to South bottom
Using right hand...
view entire post
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 apparatus
Magnetic 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 apparatus
Magnetic 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 apparatus
We 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 apparatus
if 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
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 apparatus
Magnetic 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 apparatus
We 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 apparatus
if 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
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
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.
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
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)
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
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
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
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
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.
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
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."
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
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.
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
“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
“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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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!
hide replies
Steve Agnew wrote on Nov. 5, 2020 @ 14:58 GMT
The extensive discussion shows once again that quantum versus classical precursors and outcomes are no clearer with the Mermin device. The Mermin challenge was:
"To explain in simple language quantum superposition and entanglement by using simple language to explain how the Mermin device works."
My simple explanation is that the Mermin device Case B reveals the nature of quantum...
view entire post
"To explain in simple language quantum superposition and entanglement by using simple language to explain how the Mermin device works."
My simple explanation is that the Mermin device Case B reveals the nature of quantum...
view entire post
The extensive discussion shows once again that quantum versus classical precursors and outcomes are no clearer with the Mermin device. The Mermin challenge was:
"To explain in simple language quantum superposition and entanglement by using simple language to explain how the Mermin device works."
My simple explanation is that the Mermin device Case B reveals the nature of quantum phase incoherence. It is not clear to me if there has been a simpler explanation here yet or not.
Of course, the Mermin device adds a particle entanglement to the Stern-Gerlach experiment and, of course, entanglement adds yet another quantum phase puzzle and so really does not help at all with the SG quantum puzzle. The entanglement of two quantum particles simply means that measuring one of the two particle spins immediately reveals the other particle spin without the need for a measurement of the second particle at all.
However, the basic quantum puzzle still exists: before measurement, the particle spin did not exist in a knowable single spin, but rather in an incoherent superposition of the two spin states. The magnetic file gradient of the SG device actually produced two discrete quantum spin states and not a continuum of two classical spin states expected from classical spin.
This simple quantum puzzle has been told and retold thousands of times and yet somehow the quantum truth of physical reality is just not acceptable to the classical determinism of gravity relativity.
It is certainly true that quantum spin outcomes always have quantum spin precursors. However, there is an uncertainty in the superpositions of all quantum spin precursor phases and quantum phase superposition simple does not exist for classical spin precursors.
So once again, the simple explanation for the quantum puzzle is quantum phase incoherence. Since there is no classical role for quantum phase at all, classical spin outcomes never reveal classical spin precursors.
There is some mention of the SG spinning up a silver atom gyroscope and that gyroscope and therefore quantum spin did not exist before the SG spin up. Of course, there are many different manifestations of the quantum spin of silver atoms and so a classical gyroscope model is therefore limited. If you include quantum phase incoherence, you can use a gyroscope model, but the electron spin gyroscope is always spinning.
The two isotopes Ag-107 and Ag-107 both also have spin = 1/2 and so there is a hyperfine splitting in the Ag spectra shows the electron-nuclear spin coupling even without an external magnetic field. Another is that the NMR or EPR measurements both show the electron-nuclear coupling as well. Both NMR and EPR use a linear magnetic field with radio signal excitations of the initially incoherent spin states.
view post as summary
"To explain in simple language quantum superposition and entanglement by using simple language to explain how the Mermin device works."
My simple explanation is that the Mermin device Case B reveals the nature of quantum phase incoherence. It is not clear to me if there has been a simpler explanation here yet or not.
Of course, the Mermin device adds a particle entanglement to the Stern-Gerlach experiment and, of course, entanglement adds yet another quantum phase puzzle and so really does not help at all with the SG quantum puzzle. The entanglement of two quantum particles simply means that measuring one of the two particle spins immediately reveals the other particle spin without the need for a measurement of the second particle at all.
However, the basic quantum puzzle still exists: before measurement, the particle spin did not exist in a knowable single spin, but rather in an incoherent superposition of the two spin states. The magnetic file gradient of the SG device actually produced two discrete quantum spin states and not a continuum of two classical spin states expected from classical spin.
This simple quantum puzzle has been told and retold thousands of times and yet somehow the quantum truth of physical reality is just not acceptable to the classical determinism of gravity relativity.
It is certainly true that quantum spin outcomes always have quantum spin precursors. However, there is an uncertainty in the superpositions of all quantum spin precursor phases and quantum phase superposition simple does not exist for classical spin precursors.
So once again, the simple explanation for the quantum puzzle is quantum phase incoherence. Since there is no classical role for quantum phase at all, classical spin outcomes never reveal classical spin precursors.
There is some mention of the SG spinning up a silver atom gyroscope and that gyroscope and therefore quantum spin did not exist before the SG spin up. Of course, there are many different manifestations of the quantum spin of silver atoms and so a classical gyroscope model is therefore limited. If you include quantum phase incoherence, you can use a gyroscope model, but the electron spin gyroscope is always spinning.
The two isotopes Ag-107 and Ag-107 both also have spin = 1/2 and so there is a hyperfine splitting in the Ag spectra shows the electron-nuclear spin coupling even without an external magnetic field. Another is that the NMR or EPR measurements both show the electron-nuclear coupling as well. Both NMR and EPR use a linear magnetic field with radio signal excitations of the initially incoherent spin states.
view post as summary
John R. Cox replied on Nov. 5, 2020 @ 16:15 GMT
Dr. Agnew,
There are many gaps, lapses and contradictions that have compiled in the classical run-up to Quantum Mechanics. One lapse in particular you point out as classical assuming a single spin state. I quite agree, and it relates to the electron-nucleon spin coupling without displaying an external magnetic field. 45 to 40 years ago I was playing with magnets and constructed a number of...
view entire post
There are many gaps, lapses and contradictions that have compiled in the classical run-up to Quantum Mechanics. One lapse in particular you point out as classical assuming a single spin state. I quite agree, and it relates to the electron-nucleon spin coupling without displaying an external magnetic field. 45 to 40 years ago I was playing with magnets and constructed a number of...
view entire post
Dr. Agnew,
There are many gaps, lapses and contradictions that have compiled in the classical run-up to Quantum Mechanics. One lapse in particular you point out as classical assuming a single spin state. I quite agree, and it relates to the electron-nucleon spin coupling without displaying an external magnetic field. 45 to 40 years ago I was playing with magnets and constructed a number of rotary devices to play with equilibrium. I kept a couple of them because they were interesting enough that I added a light fixture to one used as a art deco table lamp. But it is quite easy to rotate magnet groups through continuously varying angular orientations and separations as if there were no magnets there at all! nada! Bring a strip o steel in proximity and it will be evident, but that isn't how fields at quantum level are made observable.
Similarly, the net zero charge of the silver atom doesn't mean that there exists no electro-static or attendant magnetic field, just one that is not differentiated until subject to the massively predominant orthogonal directed region of the S-G field. The electron-nucleon coupling equalizes the charges but they still exist. So on the two axel directions perpendicular to the direction of the particles travel, the quantum precursor for the proton + direction of deflection exists in equal proportion to the opposite direction of deflection for the electron -, and that direction of travel is not established along the longitudinal vertical plane of the magnet group, until the particle is injected. So the horizontal plane of the orthogonal field zone is in superposition also. The precursor is there, but it would be the experimenter's choice the send the particles down the length of the air gap, or across its width. Only then would the direction relative to the magnet group be established for the electro-static axis in the external field. And that axis is itself in superposition of positive and negative charge. It is a bit-flip as much as is the North and South. Classicism should come to accept that. jrc
view post as summary
There are many gaps, lapses and contradictions that have compiled in the classical run-up to Quantum Mechanics. One lapse in particular you point out as classical assuming a single spin state. I quite agree, and it relates to the electron-nucleon spin coupling without displaying an external magnetic field. 45 to 40 years ago I was playing with magnets and constructed a number of rotary devices to play with equilibrium. I kept a couple of them because they were interesting enough that I added a light fixture to one used as a art deco table lamp. But it is quite easy to rotate magnet groups through continuously varying angular orientations and separations as if there were no magnets there at all! nada! Bring a strip o steel in proximity and it will be evident, but that isn't how fields at quantum level are made observable.
Similarly, the net zero charge of the silver atom doesn't mean that there exists no electro-static or attendant magnetic field, just one that is not differentiated until subject to the massively predominant orthogonal directed region of the S-G field. The electron-nucleon coupling equalizes the charges but they still exist. So on the two axel directions perpendicular to the direction of the particles travel, the quantum precursor for the proton + direction of deflection exists in equal proportion to the opposite direction of deflection for the electron -, and that direction of travel is not established along the longitudinal vertical plane of the magnet group, until the particle is injected. So the horizontal plane of the orthogonal field zone is in superposition also. The precursor is there, but it would be the experimenter's choice the send the particles down the length of the air gap, or across its width. Only then would the direction relative to the magnet group be established for the electro-static axis in the external field. And that axis is itself in superposition of positive and negative charge. It is a bit-flip as much as is the North and South. Classicism should come to accept that. jrc
view post as summary
John R. Cox replied on Nov. 5, 2020 @ 17:02 GMT
Here's a thought,
maybe the role of a neutron in atoms with more than one electron is because its necessary to modulate bit-flips. Have you read anything about 3-phase alternating current transmission? it incorporates a 'neutral line' that carries no current but without it the phasing can get out of sych and the power factor suffers. I'll brush up and maybe get back on that. jrc
report post as inappropriate
maybe the role of a neutron in atoms with more than one electron is because its necessary to modulate bit-flips. Have you read anything about 3-phase alternating current transmission? it incorporates a 'neutral line' that carries no current but without it the phasing can get out of sych and the power factor suffers. I'll brush up and maybe get back on that. jrc
Steve Agnew replied on Nov. 8, 2020 @ 03:58 GMT
...sounds like you want to eat your quantum cake and have it as well...The neutral Ag atom is extremely polarizable and so you are right that there is therefore a significant dispersive attractive force to charge or even to another neutral atom. In fact, there is a whole spectroscopy associated with Ag atom polarizability on conducting surfaces called surface-enhanced Raman spectroscopy, SERS.
You are spot on about the role of the neutron in the nucleus to moderate spin angular momentum among charged protons. Charge motion in the nucleus results in nuclear spin magnetism and the neutrons moderate that effect since their motion does not generate spin magnetism. Of course, neutrons do have spin = 1/2, just like a proton, and neutrons are also are much more polarizable than protons.
Notice that quarks only have 1/3 or 2/3 of charge and so do form a three phase gluon current. That three-phase gluon current differentiates protons and neutrons...and I believe that electrons are also made up of three quarks as well. Electrons are no more fundamental than neutrons or protons and it is really quark gluon current that is the basic action that makes up all matter.
report post as inappropriate
You are spot on about the role of the neutron in the nucleus to moderate spin angular momentum among charged protons. Charge motion in the nucleus results in nuclear spin magnetism and the neutrons moderate that effect since their motion does not generate spin magnetism. Of course, neutrons do have spin = 1/2, just like a proton, and neutrons are also are much more polarizable than protons.
Notice that quarks only have 1/3 or 2/3 of charge and so do form a three phase gluon current. That three-phase gluon current differentiates protons and neutrons...and I believe that electrons are also made up of three quarks as well. Electrons are no more fundamental than neutrons or protons and it is really quark gluon current that is the basic action that makes up all matter.
John R. Cox replied on Nov. 8, 2020 @ 16:41 GMT
Thank-you for that informative comment, Doc,
that's really what I come here for. Incidentally, precession plays an important part in aggregate rotations of polarized magnetic fields. That ubiquitous equilibrium that begets the quantum probabilities is displayed by common bar magnets at right angles. A linear sweep will meet repulsion at one end and attraction at the other, but an arcing sweep introduces angle and separation change which along with a precession of relative position introduces the pole without resistance, and backs its proximity away from attraction at the planar end of the sweep. So, rotating quarks generating uniform charge fields sounds plausible to me. thanks jrc
report post as inappropriate
that's really what I come here for. Incidentally, precession plays an important part in aggregate rotations of polarized magnetic fields. That ubiquitous equilibrium that begets the quantum probabilities is displayed by common bar magnets at right angles. A linear sweep will meet repulsion at one end and attraction at the other, but an arcing sweep introduces angle and separation change which along with a precession of relative position introduces the pole without resistance, and backs its proximity away from attraction at the planar end of the sweep. So, rotating quarks generating uniform charge fields sounds plausible to me. thanks jrc
hide replies
Georgina Woodward wrote on Nov. 14, 2020 @ 04:30 GMT
John, replying to your post Nov. 13, 2020 @ 17:18 GMT I think your description of how to draw a silver atom is too complicated for me to actually draw and contemplate. Perhaps that was your intention. Besides it would be useful to work back from what happens, to what sort of arrangement would allow that.
How about picturing the atom, like a drone swarm of gyroscopes? Each particle is individual but the whole atom is held together in its form by the attraction of electrons to the nucleus and mutual repulsion of electrons, except for electron pairs with opposite axis of rotation orientation, That allowing a figure of eight dance composed of the two different rotations, which gives stable proximity rather than repulsion. All the electrons are paired thus, except for the lone outer one, that makes it an atom rather than an ion, That outer electron could have either spin. Which one can not be told as it depends on the viewpoint chosen to describe the atom; top down or bottom up.
The gyroscopic spins of the paired electrons will balance and cancel out any movement that would occur with just one. Depending on relative orientation of that single electron, parallel or anti- parallel to the magnetic field encountered, (it will adjust if necessary to be one of those options.) if the atom ensemble is considered weightless, as gravity is minuscule at this scale compared to thee other forces at play, the weightless atom will move with the singlet outer electron. Up or down with the electron not tilting as only a twisting force can change the orientation of the gyroscopic electrons.
You wrote Gyro or stats. I'd say both together looks promising.
report post as inappropriate
report post as inappropriate
report post as inappropriate
report post as inappropriate
report post as inappropriate
report post as inappropriate
report post as inappropriate
report post as inappropriate
report post as inappropriate
report post as inappropriate
report post as inappropriate
report post as inappropriate
report post as inappropriate
hide replies
How about picturing the atom, like a drone swarm of gyroscopes? Each particle is individual but the whole atom is held together in its form by the attraction of electrons to the nucleus and mutual repulsion of electrons, except for electron pairs with opposite axis of rotation orientation, That allowing a figure of eight dance composed of the two different rotations, which gives stable proximity rather than repulsion. All the electrons are paired thus, except for the lone outer one, that makes it an atom rather than an ion, That outer electron could have either spin. Which one can not be told as it depends on the viewpoint chosen to describe the atom; top down or bottom up.
The gyroscopic spins of the paired electrons will balance and cancel out any movement that would occur with just one. Depending on relative orientation of that single electron, parallel or anti- parallel to the magnetic field encountered, (it will adjust if necessary to be one of those options.) if the atom ensemble is considered weightless, as gravity is minuscule at this scale compared to thee other forces at play, the weightless atom will move with the singlet outer electron. Up or down with the electron not tilting as only a twisting force can change the orientation of the gyroscopic electrons.
You wrote Gyro or stats. I'd say both together looks promising.
John R. Cox replied on Nov. 17, 2020 @ 16:41 GMT
Georgina,
Best of Luck in your efforts to associate gyroscopic effects with the electromagnetic spin states. There exists plenty of evidence that at quantum scales gyroscopic behavior might well be essentially "weightless". Beware, of course, that experiment to date only is capable of observing particulate matter in aggregate, and it is a far stretch to treat a clump of n? particles as exhibiting the characteristics of a hypothetical single particle, be it an elementary particle or the std model of atomic structure. That inconvenient truth is why QM treats a particle as being in multiple states, and refrains from speculation as to what realistically constitutes a primal particle.
Orbital and Spin angular momentum differ in magnitude (generally speaking) but both boil down to a measure of response at right angle to direction of motion in relation to velocity. Spin angular momentum of the electron is said to be 'intrinsic' because it is calculable that the surface of the charge radius would have to be moving in excess of light velocity to exhibit the amount of lateral movement in a measured magnetic field. Obviously, what is lacking is the question of "why" rotation one way or another would produce a lateral response anyway! It's not like is has some kind of traction! So... maybe gyros have something to do with it (?) . :-) jrc
report post as inappropriate
Best of Luck in your efforts to associate gyroscopic effects with the electromagnetic spin states. There exists plenty of evidence that at quantum scales gyroscopic behavior might well be essentially "weightless". Beware, of course, that experiment to date only is capable of observing particulate matter in aggregate, and it is a far stretch to treat a clump of n? particles as exhibiting the characteristics of a hypothetical single particle, be it an elementary particle or the std model of atomic structure. That inconvenient truth is why QM treats a particle as being in multiple states, and refrains from speculation as to what realistically constitutes a primal particle.
Orbital and Spin angular momentum differ in magnitude (generally speaking) but both boil down to a measure of response at right angle to direction of motion in relation to velocity. Spin angular momentum of the electron is said to be 'intrinsic' because it is calculable that the surface of the charge radius would have to be moving in excess of light velocity to exhibit the amount of lateral movement in a measured magnetic field. Obviously, what is lacking is the question of "why" rotation one way or another would produce a lateral response anyway! It's not like is has some kind of traction! So... maybe gyros have something to do with it (?) . :-) jrc
Georgina Woodward replied on Nov. 28, 2020 @ 03:05 GMT
Quantum explanation of entanglement would also have faster than light communication of particles. Gyroscopic motion can do away with faster than light communication. It could also replace faster than light intrinsic spin. A 'conducting' gyroscope has a propensity to rotate a particular way but also responds to the magnetic environment. It can turn and exhibit a different flow direction, Such as when exposed to a 90 degree field or returning to a vertical field afterwards. I now think geometry is important and not accounted for in the statistics. The rotating essence of an electron is not current or 'anti-current' but can act in such a way that the electron responds to the magnetic field by flowing in a direction that needs adding to the velocity through the apparatus.
report post as inappropriate
Georgina Woodward replied on Nov. 28, 2020 @ 21:08 GMT
Here is the paper at viXra Explaining Results of Stern Gerlach Apparatus Experiments with Gyroscopic Motion, Georgina Woodward
report post as inappropriate
Georgina Woodward replied on Nov. 30, 2020 @ 02:04 GMT
Stefan Weckbach replied on Dec. 1, 2020 @ 10:06 GMT
Hi Georgina,
I am about to read your paper now and I have trouble to understand what kind of gyroscope your reference [1] uses. Is that spinning wheel mounted into two or three gimbals? And are the output gimbals of a free or fixed configuration?
Independent of the answer, it seems to me that when that gyroscope isn't connected in any way to the silver atom, then it is impossible for...
view entire post
I am about to read your paper now and I have trouble to understand what kind of gyroscope your reference [1] uses. Is that spinning wheel mounted into two or three gimbals? And are the output gimbals of a free or fixed configuration?
Independent of the answer, it seems to me that when that gyroscope isn't connected in any way to the silver atom, then it is impossible for...
view entire post
Hi Georgina,
I am about to read your paper now and I have trouble to understand what kind of gyroscope your reference [1] uses. Is that spinning wheel mounted into two or three gimbals? And are the output gimbals of a free or fixed configuration?
Independent of the answer, it seems to me that when that gyroscope isn't connected in any way to the silver atom, then it is impossible for it to transfer its changes of momentum to the silver atom. I think that such a connection is needed physically, since otherwise the silver atom cannot be forced to change its direction of flight. That is equivalent to the gyroscopes used at the ISS, since these gyroscopes are mounted to the station to transfer their changes of momenta to the station. Motors move the axis of the spinning wheel such that the momentum transfer to the space station's orientation in space results in a rotational move of the station. The motors that you envision are produced by a changing magnetic field. But unless the gyroscopes rotational move is not coupled to the silver atom, the silver atom will not change its direction of flight.
It is clear to me that in order to avoid an angular velocity that exceeds the speed of light by multiple orders of magnitude, the gyroscope has to be declared weightless, as you did in your paper. That would mean that the gyroscope freely moves in the outer shell of the silver atom. I cannot see how all these assumptions should lead to a coordinated momentum transfer onto the silver atom so that the latter is at all able to change its orientation of flight to contribute to the pattern Stern and Gerlach found experimentally. Even if that angular velocity would be of a modest kind, one nonetheless had to explain why the change of the spin axis can be seen with human eyes, means why that change is so that slow. I mean, a silver particle goes through the SG Magnet that fast that in my opinion there isn't enough time for a spin axis to be oriented parallel or anti-parallel to the magnetic field!?
If these questions of momentum transfer cannot be reconciled with your model, it would not make sense to further investigate what your model says about the 0, 90 and 180 degree cases. So I decided to ask you these questions before i further read what your model assumes for these realtive angles.
Kind regards
Stefan
view post as summary
I am about to read your paper now and I have trouble to understand what kind of gyroscope your reference [1] uses. Is that spinning wheel mounted into two or three gimbals? And are the output gimbals of a free or fixed configuration?
Independent of the answer, it seems to me that when that gyroscope isn't connected in any way to the silver atom, then it is impossible for it to transfer its changes of momentum to the silver atom. I think that such a connection is needed physically, since otherwise the silver atom cannot be forced to change its direction of flight. That is equivalent to the gyroscopes used at the ISS, since these gyroscopes are mounted to the station to transfer their changes of momenta to the station. Motors move the axis of the spinning wheel such that the momentum transfer to the space station's orientation in space results in a rotational move of the station. The motors that you envision are produced by a changing magnetic field. But unless the gyroscopes rotational move is not coupled to the silver atom, the silver atom will not change its direction of flight.
It is clear to me that in order to avoid an angular velocity that exceeds the speed of light by multiple orders of magnitude, the gyroscope has to be declared weightless, as you did in your paper. That would mean that the gyroscope freely moves in the outer shell of the silver atom. I cannot see how all these assumptions should lead to a coordinated momentum transfer onto the silver atom so that the latter is at all able to change its orientation of flight to contribute to the pattern Stern and Gerlach found experimentally. Even if that angular velocity would be of a modest kind, one nonetheless had to explain why the change of the spin axis can be seen with human eyes, means why that change is so that slow. I mean, a silver particle goes through the SG Magnet that fast that in my opinion there isn't enough time for a spin axis to be oriented parallel or anti-parallel to the magnetic field!?
If these questions of momentum transfer cannot be reconciled with your model, it would not make sense to further investigate what your model says about the 0, 90 and 180 degree cases. So I decided to ask you these questions before i further read what your model assumes for these realtive angles.
Kind regards
Stefan
view post as summary
Georgina Woodward replied on Dec. 1, 2020 @ 22:01 GMT
The gimbals of a supported gyroscope with weight allow it freedom of movements. They are not needed by a free-floating one I'm not proposing that an electron is like the gimbal-ed gyroscopes we are familiar with. Ides for the silver atom in the appendix of the paper. The paper itself concentrates on the electron as the test particle. I put forward the idea that all of the electrons are pairs wit opposite rotations whose angular momenta cancel each other; except for the outer electron which is un-cancelled rotation. Gravity has extremely little force at these scales and conditions (i.e. compared with the magnetic field and strong nuclear force) essentially weightless it moves with the outer electron. Movement due to interaction of the rotation of the 'essence of electron (like but not current in a coil ) with the magnetic field producing force.
report post as inappropriate
Stefan Weckbach replied on Dec. 2, 2020 @ 00:38 GMT
The interaction of the gyroscope with the magnetic field in your reference [1] is due to the Lenz law. If that gyroscope would not be mounted by its mass (gravity) and the friction of one pole of the magnet (where it has been put on), but would hover weightlessly between the two poles of the magnet, then the sphere of the electron simply would begin to turn around its center (in the experiment of...
view entire post
view entire post
The interaction of the gyroscope with the magnetic field in your reference [1] is due to the Lenz law. If that gyroscope would not be mounted by its mass (gravity) and the friction of one pole of the magnet (where it has been put on), but would hover weightlessly between the two poles of the magnet, then the sphere of the electron simply would begin to turn around its center (in the experiment of reference [1] it can't do that because the gyroscope has weight, sits on one pole shoe and the induced force is to weak to turn it!). In any case, the resulting force wouldn't neither be “up”, “down” nor would it be “left” or “right” but the sphere of the electron simply would begin to turn around its own center.
If that gyroscope wouldn't float in the outer shell of the silver atom but instead being mounted to that shell in some way, the effect would be the same, just as with the ISS which can change its geodesic around the earth by tilting the axis of rotation of the mounted gyroscope (by some motors) in a certain direction (dictated by the knowledge about gyroscopes to achieve the wished-for new geodesic). The ISS (or the electron's shell) then will change its geodesic, but the earth (or the silver atom) will not be affected by that.
Another problem for the gyroscope model is that in order for the spinning object to avoid an angular velocity that exceeds the speed of light by roughly 10^24 orders of magnitude, the object's radius, mass as well as energy had to be roughly 10^9 in magnitude smaller than what has been experimentally determined. As the author of your reference [1] wrote in his footnote, if the rotation speed greatly exceeds that of the experiment, then anyway the observed effects should become weaker. The rotational speed in these experiments were 1000 rpm. If your gyroscopic spin would have an angular velocity of 10^33 – 10^9 = 10^24, then one can expect that the effects will certainly totally vanish. And i think one cannot make the angular velocity of the electron that small that it behaves as a huge macroscopic gyroscope like it does in the experiments of ref. [1]. But anyway, these effects cannot explain the electron spin, since the dynamics described by Lenz' law is linear and therefore continuous, and not discrete. That means that if electrons behave like kinds of gyroscopes, then everywhere in the interior area of the geometric figure produced by in the Stern-Gerlach experiment there should be the same frequencies of impacts as is the case at the border areas. So, I really do not neither understand how your model will achieve the discrete behaviour of atom impacts nor no I understand how this could be in any way linked to the behaviour of gyroscopes.
Without a viable mechanism that at least demonstrates on the basis of what interactions a single silver atom (or electron) will impact the measurement screen at which area it makes no sense to me to further think about your model. Sorry that I cannot say something other, but without a viable mechanism to produce the outcomes this model in my opinion is rather a ambiguous hypothesis instead of solid theory about what is going on.
view post as summary
If that gyroscope wouldn't float in the outer shell of the silver atom but instead being mounted to that shell in some way, the effect would be the same, just as with the ISS which can change its geodesic around the earth by tilting the axis of rotation of the mounted gyroscope (by some motors) in a certain direction (dictated by the knowledge about gyroscopes to achieve the wished-for new geodesic). The ISS (or the electron's shell) then will change its geodesic, but the earth (or the silver atom) will not be affected by that.
Another problem for the gyroscope model is that in order for the spinning object to avoid an angular velocity that exceeds the speed of light by roughly 10^24 orders of magnitude, the object's radius, mass as well as energy had to be roughly 10^9 in magnitude smaller than what has been experimentally determined. As the author of your reference [1] wrote in his footnote, if the rotation speed greatly exceeds that of the experiment, then anyway the observed effects should become weaker. The rotational speed in these experiments were 1000 rpm. If your gyroscopic spin would have an angular velocity of 10^33 – 10^9 = 10^24, then one can expect that the effects will certainly totally vanish. And i think one cannot make the angular velocity of the electron that small that it behaves as a huge macroscopic gyroscope like it does in the experiments of ref. [1]. But anyway, these effects cannot explain the electron spin, since the dynamics described by Lenz' law is linear and therefore continuous, and not discrete. That means that if electrons behave like kinds of gyroscopes, then everywhere in the interior area of the geometric figure produced by in the Stern-Gerlach experiment there should be the same frequencies of impacts as is the case at the border areas. So, I really do not neither understand how your model will achieve the discrete behaviour of atom impacts nor no I understand how this could be in any way linked to the behaviour of gyroscopes.
Without a viable mechanism that at least demonstrates on the basis of what interactions a single silver atom (or electron) will impact the measurement screen at which area it makes no sense to me to further think about your model. Sorry that I cannot say something other, but without a viable mechanism to produce the outcomes this model in my opinion is rather a ambiguous hypothesis instead of solid theory about what is going on.
view post as summary
John R. Cox replied on Dec. 2, 2020 @ 00:44 GMT
Georgina,
beg pard, are you suggesting that the unpaired Ag electron is physically rotating on its own axis and perhaps magnetically aligning at some relevant point(s) in the outer shell dependent on the external field orientation?
That may fit with there being no orbital angular momentum attributed to that electron, but how then does it conform to observation of the equi-partitioned electrical lateral CW or CCW deflection 90* from magnetic polar attitude? The electrical neutrality of the Ag atom doesn't seem to influence the UP/DN splitting of results but must be treated as a superposition of positive (proton) and negative (electron0 charge that exhibits an equal probability of lateral deflections; note: the pattern of the typical S-G plot, its not all in a vertical plane of discrete UP or DN... it fans out on both sides of the center vertical plane. best jrc
report post as inappropriate
beg pard, are you suggesting that the unpaired Ag electron is physically rotating on its own axis and perhaps magnetically aligning at some relevant point(s) in the outer shell dependent on the external field orientation?
That may fit with there being no orbital angular momentum attributed to that electron, but how then does it conform to observation of the equi-partitioned electrical lateral CW or CCW deflection 90* from magnetic polar attitude? The electrical neutrality of the Ag atom doesn't seem to influence the UP/DN splitting of results but must be treated as a superposition of positive (proton) and negative (electron0 charge that exhibits an equal probability of lateral deflections; note: the pattern of the typical S-G plot, its not all in a vertical plane of discrete UP or DN... it fans out on both sides of the center vertical plane. best jrc
Georgina Woodward replied on Dec. 2, 2020 @ 03:45 GMT
Stefan, I only referenced that article because it stated that a gyroscopes orientation could be influenced by a magnetic field. I have not written a paper about gyroscopes but am addressing the Stern Gerlach experiments. If you choose not to read i t because I haven't said something you want said about gyroscopes so be it. Re the sliver atom: the electrons are bound to the atom by the electrostatic force. Although the nucleus and electrons are individual parts they can be thought of as a whole. In that case the effect on orientation of the outer electrons could affect the whole atom; the angular momenta of the other electrons being cancelled out. The paper isn't about silver atoms, that's just in the appendix.
report post as inappropriate
Georgina Woodward replied on Dec. 2, 2020 @ 04:13 GMT
If I Understand your first sentence correctly, the answer is yes. But I don't agree with this bit "at some relevant point(s) in the outer shell" JC I don't see why where it is in the shell matters.
Maybe the motion 9flow) of the unpaired electron, taking the rest of the atom with it is not to do with there electrostatic charge of the atom. But instead the rotation of the essence of electron-ness of that outer electron, acting like but not current in a coil, and un-cancelled by a partners opposite rotation.
Why don't you read the paper and ask me about what I have written. How it might apply to silver atoms is an after thought. Unraveling the issues has to start somewhere. I have chosen to start with the simpler situation involving electrons.
report post as inappropriate
Maybe the motion 9flow) of the unpaired electron, taking the rest of the atom with it is not to do with there electrostatic charge of the atom. But instead the rotation of the essence of electron-ness of that outer electron, acting like but not current in a coil, and un-cancelled by a partners opposite rotation.
Why don't you read the paper and ask me about what I have written. How it might apply to silver atoms is an after thought. Unraveling the issues has to start somewhere. I have chosen to start with the simpler situation involving electrons.
Stefan Weckbach replied on Dec. 2, 2020 @ 08:30 GMT
John,
the fan out is not due to a Lorenz force. One can conclude this from how much the atom beam is fanned out at the screen when the SG-experiment does not use a horizontal slit aperture aperture the silver atoms leave before entering the SG magnet, but a circular aperture, hence a tiny circular hole.
So when using a horizontal slit aperture, the resulting original pictures of the experiment with and without a magnetic field being applied to the atom beam look like depicted here:
https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007%2F978-3-642-7
4813-4_4
That horizontal slit aperture was originally used by Gerlach, not a circular aperture. The latter does block some of the the horizontal parts of the atom beam, resulting in only two spot-like locations of impact – as depicted here:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stern%E2%80%93Gerlach_exp
eriment#/media/File:Stern-Gerlach_experiment_svg.svg
whereas the setup used by SG is schematically shown at this picture:
https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stern-Gerlach-Versuch#
/media/Datei:SternGerlach2.jpg
On that picture you can see the horizontal slit aperture. So there is no Lorenz force in play in the SG experiment. Otherwise all the silver atoms would deviate in the same horizontal direction (left or right, depending on the orientation of the magentic field). But that is not what has been observed. So since there is no Lorenz force in play, the silver atom must be considered as electrical neutral. And that neutrality is the reason for that one cannot apply Lenz law in any way as the cause for the silver atoms trajectories (up/down or left/right).
report post as inappropriate
the fan out is not due to a Lorenz force. One can conclude this from how much the atom beam is fanned out at the screen when the SG-experiment does not use a horizontal slit aperture aperture the silver atoms leave before entering the SG magnet, but a circular aperture, hence a tiny circular hole.
So when using a horizontal slit aperture, the resulting original pictures of the experiment with and without a magnetic field being applied to the atom beam look like depicted here:
https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007%2F978-3-642-7
4813-4_4
That horizontal slit aperture was originally used by Gerlach, not a circular aperture. The latter does block some of the the horizontal parts of the atom beam, resulting in only two spot-like locations of impact – as depicted here:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stern%E2%80%93Gerlach_exp
eriment#/media/File:Stern-Gerlach_experiment_svg.svg
whereas the setup used by SG is schematically shown at this picture:
https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stern-Gerlach-Versuch#
/media/Datei:SternGerlach2.jpg
On that picture you can see the horizontal slit aperture. So there is no Lorenz force in play in the SG experiment. Otherwise all the silver atoms would deviate in the same horizontal direction (left or right, depending on the orientation of the magentic field). But that is not what has been observed. So since there is no Lorenz force in play, the silver atom must be considered as electrical neutral. And that neutrality is the reason for that one cannot apply Lenz law in any way as the cause for the silver atoms trajectories (up/down or left/right).
Stefan Weckbach replied on Dec. 2, 2020 @ 12:37 GMT
"One can conclude this from how much the atom beam is fanned out at the screen when the SG-experiment does not use a horizontal slit aperture aperture the silver atoms leave before entering the SG magnet, but a circular aperture, hence a tiny circular hole."
Should be more understandable as
"One can conclude this from how much the atom beam is fanned out at the screen when the SG-experiment does not use a horizontal slit aperture. That aperture was the original one the silver atoms left before entering the SG magnet. By using a circular aperture, hence a tiny circular hole, one can see that the deviations at the x-axis you talked about stem from the use of a different slit architecture. There simply are more silver atoms coming from the oven that are able to enter ghe magnet when one uses a horizontal aperture.".
Reminder: For the experiment with the horizontal aperture, some of the silver atoms will not be in vertical alignment with the blade of the magnet, but slightly shifted horizontally. These are the atoms that experience a smaller amount of deviation from the z-axis, since they are in regions where the magnetic field isn't that inhomogenous than at directly at the z-axis of the blade.
report post as inappropriate
Should be more understandable as
"One can conclude this from how much the atom beam is fanned out at the screen when the SG-experiment does not use a horizontal slit aperture. That aperture was the original one the silver atoms left before entering the SG magnet. By using a circular aperture, hence a tiny circular hole, one can see that the deviations at the x-axis you talked about stem from the use of a different slit architecture. There simply are more silver atoms coming from the oven that are able to enter ghe magnet when one uses a horizontal aperture.".
Reminder: For the experiment with the horizontal aperture, some of the silver atoms will not be in vertical alignment with the blade of the magnet, but slightly shifted horizontally. These are the atoms that experience a smaller amount of deviation from the z-axis, since they are in regions where the magnetic field isn't that inhomogenous than at directly at the z-axis of the blade.
Stefan Weckbach replied on Dec. 2, 2020 @ 16:41 GMT
Georgina,
I read your paper fully and I also read your comments.
In all of my posts within this thread I talk about what your model says when silver atoms are send through an SG-magnet. Since you claim that the outcome at each of the two SG-magnets is governed by local interactions for each side, I tried to learn about what your hypothesis says about the governing laws leading to the...
view entire post
I read your paper fully and I also read your comments.
In all of my posts within this thread I talk about what your model says when silver atoms are send through an SG-magnet. Since you claim that the outcome at each of the two SG-magnets is governed by local interactions for each side, I tried to learn about what your hypothesis says about the governing laws leading to the...
view entire post
Georgina,
I read your paper fully and I also read your comments.
In all of my posts within this thread I talk about what your model says when silver atoms are send through an SG-magnet. Since you claim that the outcome at each of the two SG-magnets is governed by local interactions for each side, I tried to learn about what your hypothesis says about the governing laws leading to the Stern-Gerlach pattern I already referenced above to John, namely the "open-mouth"-shaped pattern Stern and Gerlach obtained in their measurements.
If your model of entanglement enables a local description of the measurement outcomes at each side, then at each side of the entanglement experiment the collected outputs should resemble that Stern-Gerlach pattern. Not until the local governing laws for the local outcomes are defined does it make sense to me to think about whether or not your model could be able to reproduce the statistical distributions for all the angles. Clearly, as you explained in your paper, the statistical distributions for the 0, 90 and 180 degree angles are obtained in your model by partitioning all pairwise possibilities into subsets and the symmetry of all these subsets will give the known statistical results.
But this kind of partitioning does not imply that there has to exist a physical mechanism that is able to determine all outcomes. Partitioning and physical mechanism refer to two different subjects. The partitioning refers to the statistics Quantum mechanics predicts, the physical mechanism refers to the belief that it should be possible in principle to find such a mechanism in nature. Beliefs are not forbidden, but are just beliefs - as long as one hasn't defined such a mechanism and has shown that it is responsible for the known outcomes of the entanglement experiment. If your approach is not able to reproduce the "open-mouth"-shaped pattern, one can say with certainty that it does describe neither the SG-experiments for non-entangled particles nor the SG-experiments for the entangled particles.
I have not found any demonstration of these mechanisms, neither in your paper nor in your hitherto comments. Therefore I wrote that any musings about whether your explanations for the 0, 90 and 180 degree cases are self-consistent or not do in my opinion not make sense to me until you provide a demonstration of the physical interactions that lead to the outcomes. Why should I ponder over the partitioning you offered in your paper when even you yourself are not sure about why and how an assumed changing magnetic moment of an electron does change a silver atoms' trajectory?
view post as summary
I read your paper fully and I also read your comments.
In all of my posts within this thread I talk about what your model says when silver atoms are send through an SG-magnet. Since you claim that the outcome at each of the two SG-magnets is governed by local interactions for each side, I tried to learn about what your hypothesis says about the governing laws leading to the Stern-Gerlach pattern I already referenced above to John, namely the "open-mouth"-shaped pattern Stern and Gerlach obtained in their measurements.
If your model of entanglement enables a local description of the measurement outcomes at each side, then at each side of the entanglement experiment the collected outputs should resemble that Stern-Gerlach pattern. Not until the local governing laws for the local outcomes are defined does it make sense to me to think about whether or not your model could be able to reproduce the statistical distributions for all the angles. Clearly, as you explained in your paper, the statistical distributions for the 0, 90 and 180 degree angles are obtained in your model by partitioning all pairwise possibilities into subsets and the symmetry of all these subsets will give the known statistical results.
But this kind of partitioning does not imply that there has to exist a physical mechanism that is able to determine all outcomes. Partitioning and physical mechanism refer to two different subjects. The partitioning refers to the statistics Quantum mechanics predicts, the physical mechanism refers to the belief that it should be possible in principle to find such a mechanism in nature. Beliefs are not forbidden, but are just beliefs - as long as one hasn't defined such a mechanism and has shown that it is responsible for the known outcomes of the entanglement experiment. If your approach is not able to reproduce the "open-mouth"-shaped pattern, one can say with certainty that it does describe neither the SG-experiments for non-entangled particles nor the SG-experiments for the entangled particles.
I have not found any demonstration of these mechanisms, neither in your paper nor in your hitherto comments. Therefore I wrote that any musings about whether your explanations for the 0, 90 and 180 degree cases are self-consistent or not do in my opinion not make sense to me until you provide a demonstration of the physical interactions that lead to the outcomes. Why should I ponder over the partitioning you offered in your paper when even you yourself are not sure about why and how an assumed changing magnetic moment of an electron does change a silver atoms' trajectory?
view post as summary
Georgina Woodward replied on Dec. 2, 2020 @ 21:30 GMT
Stefan, thank you for reading the paper. I'm disappointed that you didn't find it interesting or thought provoking. Don't you love the 90 degree axis orientations and how different they are from 0 and 180? Your goal posts keep moving. You said I needed to explain the 0, 90 and 180 results and now its the 'open mouth' pattern .My initial thought on the matter is that it could be to do with the non homogeneity of the field. It isn't actually vertical, that assumption is just a simplification. The field fans out, from the smaller pointier magnet to the bigger flatter one. As to what silver atoms do, how they move I've tried to flesh out the basic idea mentioned in the paper on this 'page'. Of course I can not know certainly but I'd rather propose a possibility that would be in keeping with the existence of material reality, at the extremely small scale.
report post as inappropriate
Georgina Woodward replied on Dec. 2, 2020 @ 23:46 GMT
Stefan, I may not have spelled out precisely how the additional movement to be added to velocity through the apparatus is happening in the paper. However I do think I have done so on this page. I am saying the rotation of the electron (single or outer of silver atom) acts in nature like current in a coil. The motion of the essence of electron-ness is not current, but like current it involves movement of electron-ness. Acting like current in a coil, the right hand rule can be applied to find the response to the magnetic field.
The response is to the field the individual encounters. Passing along close to the midline the field is vertical. Further to the sides it is not vertical. If the displacement due to the field/electron-ness 'turn' interaction is described by two vectors horizontal and vertical, then further from the midline, the horizontal vector component increases and the vertical component decreases. This gives the result that there are varying amounts of up-ness of the axes of rotation that all give UP bits. There are varying amounts of down-ness of the axes of rotation too, that all give DOWN bits.
report post as inappropriate
The response is to the field the individual encounters. Passing along close to the midline the field is vertical. Further to the sides it is not vertical. If the displacement due to the field/electron-ness 'turn' interaction is described by two vectors horizontal and vertical, then further from the midline, the horizontal vector component increases and the vertical component decreases. This gives the result that there are varying amounts of up-ness of the axes of rotation that all give UP bits. There are varying amounts of down-ness of the axes of rotation too, that all give DOWN bits.
John R. Cox replied on Dec. 3, 2020 @ 00:41 GMT
Stefan,
thank you for those refs; Occam's Razor would admit a simple stochastic scattering exiting the furnace prior to encountering the different architecture of the aperture(s) and hence your account is quite convincing. We are dealing with aggregates not single entities in experiment, and similar to the nuisance of the neutron's neutral charge we can't say that there exists no electrical field. Just one that doesn't behave as do those in aggregate moving in relation to others. So some aggregations might also exhibit neutral behavior, quarks and all. jrc
report post as inappropriate
thank you for those refs; Occam's Razor would admit a simple stochastic scattering exiting the furnace prior to encountering the different architecture of the aperture(s) and hence your account is quite convincing. We are dealing with aggregates not single entities in experiment, and similar to the nuisance of the neutron's neutral charge we can't say that there exists no electrical field. Just one that doesn't behave as do those in aggregate moving in relation to others. So some aggregations might also exhibit neutral behavior, quarks and all. jrc
Stefan Weckbach replied on Dec. 3, 2020 @ 09:55 GMT
Georgina,
you need not be disappointed at all!! I learned a lot about the logic behind various hidden-variable attempts and also about the concept of change of orientation for a magnetic moment as you use it in your attempt.
Georgina and John,
The problem is that as long as one does not look at the physical realisation of the logic one has established for explaining the...
view entire post
you need not be disappointed at all!! I learned a lot about the logic behind various hidden-variable attempts and also about the concept of change of orientation for a magnetic moment as you use it in your attempt.
Georgina and John,
The problem is that as long as one does not look at the physical realisation of the logic one has established for explaining the...
view entire post
Georgina,
you need not be disappointed at all!! I learned a lot about the logic behind various hidden-variable attempts and also about the concept of change of orientation for a magnetic moment as you use it in your attempt.
Georgina and John,
The problem is that as long as one does not look at the physical realisation of the logic one has established for explaining the outcome probabilities for the 0, 90 and 180 degree cases, the attempt seems to work since it suggests to reproduce the probabilities predicted by QM for these angles - because the outcomes on both sides for the 0 and 180 degree cases are a 100% correlated (“correlated” in the sense that if I know the outcome of one particle I can predict the outcome of the other particle with 100% certainty). For the 90 degree case that 100% correlation is thought to be replaced by some functions that should dictate whether the particle is going “up” or “down” (or additionally even “left” or “right”) with 50% probability....
But as soon as one asks what these functions represent physically, there is no unambiguous answer available. Since this holds for the 0, 90 and 180 degree cases, logically this holds also for all other angles. The logical result is that it even remains unknown how the model should reproduce the “open-mouth” figure if the magnet is not turned during the whole process of measurements (0 degree). If that would be clear, one theoretically could proceed to the 180 degree and the 90 degree cases. But how should one reconcile the 180 and 90 degree cases with the 0 degree case, if for the latter there isn't even a physical explanation available for its experimentally observed outcomes?
Thinking otherwise means to conclude from a “believed-to-be-established” explanation for the 0 degree case to a “believed-to-be-established” explanation for the 180 and 90 degree cases, and thus one “proves” what one merely has assumed in the first place. One now can say that the same circular ill defined logic is also present in how we think about the formalism of QM and what it says about ontological facts. I think the question which of the two systems of thinking about the ontology of physical systems is the correct one can only be settled by experiment, if at all. If “spin” is really not what QM suggests, namely something whose amount and orientation is fixed, this only could be found out experimentally. But for such an experiment, one needs to know what to look for! Or in other words, for such an experiment one would need a self-consistent alternative theory that predicts something other than QM does for a certain experiment No computer simulation of such an alternative theory could be used for discriminating it from QM, since simulating the alternative theory, for example for the SG-experiment, would simply mean again (as already mentioned above) that the results of that simulation would merely “prove” what had been assumed by that alternative theory in the first place! So, a real physical experiment would be needed together with a prediction of the alternative theory which contradicts a QM's prediction.
view post as summary
you need not be disappointed at all!! I learned a lot about the logic behind various hidden-variable attempts and also about the concept of change of orientation for a magnetic moment as you use it in your attempt.
Georgina and John,
The problem is that as long as one does not look at the physical realisation of the logic one has established for explaining the outcome probabilities for the 0, 90 and 180 degree cases, the attempt seems to work since it suggests to reproduce the probabilities predicted by QM for these angles - because the outcomes on both sides for the 0 and 180 degree cases are a 100% correlated (“correlated” in the sense that if I know the outcome of one particle I can predict the outcome of the other particle with 100% certainty). For the 90 degree case that 100% correlation is thought to be replaced by some functions that should dictate whether the particle is going “up” or “down” (or additionally even “left” or “right”) with 50% probability....
But as soon as one asks what these functions represent physically, there is no unambiguous answer available. Since this holds for the 0, 90 and 180 degree cases, logically this holds also for all other angles. The logical result is that it even remains unknown how the model should reproduce the “open-mouth” figure if the magnet is not turned during the whole process of measurements (0 degree). If that would be clear, one theoretically could proceed to the 180 degree and the 90 degree cases. But how should one reconcile the 180 and 90 degree cases with the 0 degree case, if for the latter there isn't even a physical explanation available for its experimentally observed outcomes?
Thinking otherwise means to conclude from a “believed-to-be-established” explanation for the 0 degree case to a “believed-to-be-established” explanation for the 180 and 90 degree cases, and thus one “proves” what one merely has assumed in the first place. One now can say that the same circular ill defined logic is also present in how we think about the formalism of QM and what it says about ontological facts. I think the question which of the two systems of thinking about the ontology of physical systems is the correct one can only be settled by experiment, if at all. If “spin” is really not what QM suggests, namely something whose amount and orientation is fixed, this only could be found out experimentally. But for such an experiment, one needs to know what to look for! Or in other words, for such an experiment one would need a self-consistent alternative theory that predicts something other than QM does for a certain experiment No computer simulation of such an alternative theory could be used for discriminating it from QM, since simulating the alternative theory, for example for the SG-experiment, would simply mean again (as already mentioned above) that the results of that simulation would merely “prove” what had been assumed by that alternative theory in the first place! So, a real physical experiment would be needed together with a prediction of the alternative theory which contradicts a QM's prediction.
view post as summary
Georgina Woodward replied on Dec. 3, 2020 @ 20:50 GMT
Stefan, I began on this page trying to use magnetic moments as an explanation. I found it didn't work for me. In the paper I wrote, I do not talk about magnetic moments but do use the terms South seeking and North seeking. I understand how that could be confusing. In the paper I'm using the terms to give indications of direction of movement within the apparatus. I'm not giving the electron the characteristic of a permanent magnet.
Unless applying a double standard, any alternative would have to be able to reproduce the same results as QM predicts without having to be proven to be what is actually occurring. A point in my favour is that there are potentially experiments that could be carried out , verifying the principle.
report post as inappropriate
Unless applying a double standard, any alternative would have to be able to reproduce the same results as QM predicts without having to be proven to be what is actually occurring. A point in my favour is that there are potentially experiments that could be carried out , verifying the principle.
Stefan Weckbach replied on Dec. 3, 2020 @ 21:50 GMT
Georgina, I don't know what precisely within your model should be “verifiable” via what kind of experiment. But luckily I need not know unless an experiment of that sort is carried out in physical reality (instead of being “carried out” in the virtual reality of the mind) and the results as well as the physical laws that led to these results are on the table and can be checked by everybody.
report post as inappropriate
Georgina Woodward replied on Dec. 4, 2020 @ 02:02 GMT
Stefan, experiments with micro or tiny macro weightless unsupported gyroscopes (in a vacuum or low pressure might help) that replicate Stem Gerlach experiments on pairs with opposite rotation and on sequential apparatus at different angles. if they replicate the findings of the experiments with electrons and silver atoms it fits the hypothesis that the results for the atomic and sub atomic test objects may also involve gyroscopic motion and its interaction with the magnetic field.
report post as inappropriate
Stefan Weckbach replied on Dec. 4, 2020 @ 06:54 GMT
Georgina, ah, experiments with gyroscopes, thank you for making that clear. Although i do not want to anticipate the results of these experiments until they are on the table, I think it would nonetheless be interesting to do them. I think it would be interesting to know whether or not the gyroscopes for those experiments are equipped with a diamagnetic conductor around their axis'? Or alternatively whether or not all the gimbals of the gyroscopes are made out of diamagnetic materials and therefore each gimbal represents a closed loop of conductive wire.
It further would be interesting to know how your hypothesis handles the orientation of axis' for the incoming gyroscope pairs. Are the identical axis' orientations for each pair all send out by the source with the same orientation relative to the laboratory frame? Or are they send out randomly orientated around 360 degrees (but surely always parallel to each other!) relative to the laboratory frame?
For the case that each pair's common parallel axis' is oriented randomly around 360 degrees, in my opinion another interesting question would be around which axis they would be randomly orientated. There are two options, namely around the x-axis or around the y-axis (y-axis as the axis of direction of flight, z-axis would be the vertical axis). Also a combination of both possibilities would be thinkable and therefore multiple different experiments that each take into account one of these possibilities separately.
Spontaneously i thought of making these experiments on the ISS, maybe there in a vacuum chamber, since there the demand of weightlessness may be satisfied in the most optimal manner.
Sorry for the many questions - you surely need not answer them.
report post as inappropriate
It further would be interesting to know how your hypothesis handles the orientation of axis' for the incoming gyroscope pairs. Are the identical axis' orientations for each pair all send out by the source with the same orientation relative to the laboratory frame? Or are they send out randomly orientated around 360 degrees (but surely always parallel to each other!) relative to the laboratory frame?
For the case that each pair's common parallel axis' is oriented randomly around 360 degrees, in my opinion another interesting question would be around which axis they would be randomly orientated. There are two options, namely around the x-axis or around the y-axis (y-axis as the axis of direction of flight, z-axis would be the vertical axis). Also a combination of both possibilities would be thinkable and therefore multiple different experiments that each take into account one of these possibilities separately.
Spontaneously i thought of making these experiments on the ISS, maybe there in a vacuum chamber, since there the demand of weightlessness may be satisfied in the most optimal manner.
Sorry for the many questions - you surely need not answer them.
Georgina Woodward replied on Dec. 4, 2020 @ 09:05 GMT
What is important is that the rotating mass of the gyroscopes is a conducting material. Metals, with free electrons would be good . It is necessary to have the electrons moving as the mass rotates like current moving through a coil; so that the right hand rule can apply.
As for gyroscope initial orientations; that will depend on the experiment being replicated.
report post as inappropriate
As for gyroscope initial orientations; that will depend on the experiment being replicated.
Stefan Weckbach replied on Dec. 4, 2020 @ 10:09 GMT
Thanks Georgina. Is there a “current flow” (“moving charges”) assumed to be present in the rotating masses of the gyroscopes for the points in time where the gyroscopes haven't yet reached the influences of their respective magnet stations?
Or can that answer only be given experimentally?
report post as inappropriate
Or can that answer only be given experimentally?
Georgina Woodward replied on Dec. 4, 2020 @ 21:33 GMT
Stefan, I have used 'turn' and 'flow' for different meanings, both to do with the moving electron-ness, and so also charge. Turn is gyroscopic rotation of the mass of electron/s, Flow is the component of motion that results from the turn of the electrons interacting with the magnetic field. So using my terminology there is turn without a local magnetic field but not flow; just the translation (not the rotation) velocity the gyroscope has. Is turn current? Not as we know it. e- are changing spatial position.
I think taking Stern Gerlach apparatus to the ISS would be prohibitively expensive. It may not be necessary to have everything on my wish list. Perhaps larger gyroscopes are less easily disturbed/ don't loose their seeming coherence so easily. Thinking preliminary work could be done using low pressure and the gyroscopes kept aloft by helium balloon jackets.
report post as inappropriate
I think taking Stern Gerlach apparatus to the ISS would be prohibitively expensive. It may not be necessary to have everything on my wish list. Perhaps larger gyroscopes are less easily disturbed/ don't loose their seeming coherence so easily. Thinking preliminary work could be done using low pressure and the gyroscopes kept aloft by helium balloon jackets.
Stefan Weckbach replied on Dec. 5, 2020 @ 01:14 GMT
Georgina,
well, if there are charges and rotations involved for the properties of the electron, then classically one could expect a magnetic dipole moment for that particle to be present. But you withdrew that classical picture. Somehow you nonetheless want to establish a connection between the classical assumptions of electromagnetism for a moving gyroscope (rotating around center of mass,...
view entire post
well, if there are charges and rotations involved for the properties of the electron, then classically one could expect a magnetic dipole moment for that particle to be present. But you withdrew that classical picture. Somehow you nonetheless want to establish a connection between the classical assumptions of electromagnetism for a moving gyroscope (rotating around center of mass,...
view entire post
Georgina,
well, if there are charges and rotations involved for the properties of the electron, then classically one could expect a magnetic dipole moment for that particle to be present. But you withdrew that classical picture. Somehow you nonetheless want to establish a connection between the classical assumptions of electromagnetism for a moving gyroscope (rotating around center of mass, conductor, moving charges, currents, magnetic fields of that current, Lenz Law) with the classical picture of an electron (rotating around center of mass, electron-ness, conductor inside, moving charges, currents, magnetic fields of that current, Lenz law). I really do not buy into this kind of analogy. For me it is an analogy, but one that is not fully symmetric when it comes to the governing laws that are responsible for the behaviour of these two distinct objects (see below).
For me it is clear that a Stern-Gerlach experiment with little gyroscopes will not result in the well-known open-mouth figure. There will not new laws of electromagnetism be discovered in such an experiment. The only thing that one possibly could discover is that one had incorrectly applied the known laws of electromagnetism and the result must be explained by properly applying these laws.
But I really do not believe that the same will also be true for the electron's quantized spin, or in other words, I don't think that the concept of a quantized spin is due to incorrectly applied laws of electromagnetism.
Why? If one could take the gyroscope experiments as an alternative replacement of a real Stern-Gerlach experiment, and thus could switch between the micro- and the macro level when making inferences or predictions, then an electron in an inhomogeneous magnetic field should not experience a classical Lorenz force. But the truth is that in the case of a gyroscope in an inhomogeneous magnetic field, Lenz Law must be applied, whereas in the case of an electron in an inhomogeneous magnetic field, the Lorentz force is dominant (there are indeed experiments thinkable where one can measure up- and down spins of electrons in an inhomogeneous magnetic field, but these effects are all purely quantum-mechanical and one needs a different experimental setup than that of an SG-experiment).
For all these reasons I also do not believe that if one replaces electrons in an SG-experiment with silver atoms then a combination of Faraday's law of induction and the Lorentz force should apply (what would be no other than Lenz law giving the directions of forces). This cannot be the case since otherwise the open-mouth figure would look different, means spin was not quantized but the figure would show continuous impacts along the z-axis of the figure.
That's simply the facts: Faraday's law as well as the Lorentz force do not operate according to “all-or-nothing” in relation to the angle an object encounters these forces, but according to trigonometric functions.
For giving you some additional food for thought about the analogies of single particles with aggregates of particles, I post you a section from a wiki article:
“In real materials the Lorentz force is inadequate to describe the collective behaviour of charged particles, both in principle and as a matter of computation. The charged particles in a material medium not only respond to the E and B fields but also generate these fields. Complex transport equations must be solved to determine the time and spatial response of charges, for example, the Boltzmann equation or the Fokker–Planck equation or the Navier–Stokes equations. For example, see magnetohydrodynamics, fluid dynamics, electrohydrodynamics, superconductivity, stellar evolution. An entire physical apparatus for dealing with these matters has developed. See for example, Green–Kubo relations and Green's function (many-body theory).”
view post as summary
well, if there are charges and rotations involved for the properties of the electron, then classically one could expect a magnetic dipole moment for that particle to be present. But you withdrew that classical picture. Somehow you nonetheless want to establish a connection between the classical assumptions of electromagnetism for a moving gyroscope (rotating around center of mass, conductor, moving charges, currents, magnetic fields of that current, Lenz Law) with the classical picture of an electron (rotating around center of mass, electron-ness, conductor inside, moving charges, currents, magnetic fields of that current, Lenz law). I really do not buy into this kind of analogy. For me it is an analogy, but one that is not fully symmetric when it comes to the governing laws that are responsible for the behaviour of these two distinct objects (see below).
For me it is clear that a Stern-Gerlach experiment with little gyroscopes will not result in the well-known open-mouth figure. There will not new laws of electromagnetism be discovered in such an experiment. The only thing that one possibly could discover is that one had incorrectly applied the known laws of electromagnetism and the result must be explained by properly applying these laws.
But I really do not believe that the same will also be true for the electron's quantized spin, or in other words, I don't think that the concept of a quantized spin is due to incorrectly applied laws of electromagnetism.
Why? If one could take the gyroscope experiments as an alternative replacement of a real Stern-Gerlach experiment, and thus could switch between the micro- and the macro level when making inferences or predictions, then an electron in an inhomogeneous magnetic field should not experience a classical Lorenz force. But the truth is that in the case of a gyroscope in an inhomogeneous magnetic field, Lenz Law must be applied, whereas in the case of an electron in an inhomogeneous magnetic field, the Lorentz force is dominant (there are indeed experiments thinkable where one can measure up- and down spins of electrons in an inhomogeneous magnetic field, but these effects are all purely quantum-mechanical and one needs a different experimental setup than that of an SG-experiment).
For all these reasons I also do not believe that if one replaces electrons in an SG-experiment with silver atoms then a combination of Faraday's law of induction and the Lorentz force should apply (what would be no other than Lenz law giving the directions of forces). This cannot be the case since otherwise the open-mouth figure would look different, means spin was not quantized but the figure would show continuous impacts along the z-axis of the figure.
That's simply the facts: Faraday's law as well as the Lorentz force do not operate according to “all-or-nothing” in relation to the angle an object encounters these forces, but according to trigonometric functions.
For giving you some additional food for thought about the analogies of single particles with aggregates of particles, I post you a section from a wiki article:
“In real materials the Lorentz force is inadequate to describe the collective behaviour of charged particles, both in principle and as a matter of computation. The charged particles in a material medium not only respond to the E and B fields but also generate these fields. Complex transport equations must be solved to determine the time and spatial response of charges, for example, the Boltzmann equation or the Fokker–Planck equation or the Navier–Stokes equations. For example, see magnetohydrodynamics, fluid dynamics, electrohydrodynamics, superconductivity, stellar evolution. An entire physical apparatus for dealing with these matters has developed. See for example, Green–Kubo relations and Green's function (many-body theory).”
view post as summary
Georgina Woodward replied on Dec. 5, 2020 @ 02:29 GMT
Stefan, you have made your opinion very clear. "For me it is clear that a Stern-Gerlach experiment with little gyroscopes will not result in the well-known open-mouth figure. There will not new laws of electromagnetism be discovered in such an experiment. The only thing that one possibly could discover is that one had incorrectly applied the known laws of electromagnetism and the result must be explained by properly applying these laws." SW. I accept that my gyroscope/'entanglement' hypothesis may be incorrect but am not yet convinced it is a dead horse. Accepting that material realty as we know it does not exist at the smallest scales, and there is faster than light conspiracy coordinating distant results is, for me, untenable. Some trial and error may be needed. So excuse me for not rolling over belly up.
report post as inappropriate
Stefan Weckbach replied on Dec. 5, 2020 @ 11:38 GMT
Georgina,
my goal is not to make you rolling over belly up. My goal is that you and the reader may understand the argument of inconsistency. I will now try to demonstrate this argument from another, more experimental perspective.
There are two options the source can send out particles (or particle pairs, considering your model):
1) The rotational axis of a particle (or the...
view entire post
my goal is not to make you rolling over belly up. My goal is that you and the reader may understand the argument of inconsistency. I will now try to demonstrate this argument from another, more experimental perspective.
There are two options the source can send out particles (or particle pairs, considering your model):
1) The rotational axis of a particle (or the...
view entire post
Georgina,
my goal is not to make you rolling over belly up. My goal is that you and the reader may understand the argument of inconsistency. I will now try to demonstrate this argument from another, more experimental perspective.
There are two options the source can send out particles (or particle pairs, considering your model):
1) The rotational axis of a particle (or the common axis of a particle pair; I do not speak here of the direction of spin rotation!) is always oriented the same relative to the laboratory frame, namely parallel to the magnetic field
2) The rotational axis of a particle (or the common axis of a particle pair; I do not speak here of the direction of spin rotation!) is randomly oriented relative to the laboratory frame
Let's first look at option 1).
By looking at option 1) we first look at the case that the magnet orientation is fixed - like in the original Stern-Gerlach experiment.
Let's label that experiment as “experiment 1”.
In experiment 1 it seems one can choose between the usual explanation for how the open-mouth figure came about or your model. Despite the fact that you haven't made it explicit how the force or the combination of forces for option 1) leads to the open mouth figure, it is nonetheless clear that your model does not have the usual explanation for that figure (because that would mean your model would incorporate the same assumptions Quantum theory does make).
Now, due to the trigonometrical dependence for the amounts of classical forces that could be involved for option 1) (namely Lorentz and Faraday) – namely an hitherto unknown combination of these laws that somewhat lead for example to a particle being deflected a little bit upwards and a little bit to the left – the logical consequence would be that if one turns the magnet, say 23 degrees off from the orientation relative to the laboratory frame for witch the original Stern-Gerlach open mouth figure was found, then according to your model this figure must change dramatically, since the trajectories of the particles are angle-dependent. Since such a change of the figure isn't the case experimentally, option 1) has to be excluded as a possibility.
Additionally, option 1) implies something more strange, namely that whenever we make experiment 1, the particle's orientation of axis is always identical to that of the magnetic field lines. For very big distances between the source and the magnets, this would imply non-local adaptions for the source to the actual orientation of the magnet. Therefore possibility 1) has to be excluded – since your model aims to exclude such non-local adaptions.
Now looking at option 2).
By looking at option 2) we first look at the case that the magnet orientation is fixed - like in the original Stern-Gerlach experiment.
Here your model may assume that all the possible combinations of angles between the axis of a particle send out form the source and the magnetic field, when combined with different amounts of Lorentz and Faraday forces, results in the open mouth picture. That assumption can be characterized by saying that this combination of known laws together with the multitude of different particle axis' relative to the fixed axis of the magnet field is an hitherto non-analysed special case such that somehow those particles whose axis' are oriented at certain relative angles apart from the magnet's vertical axis (relative angles means the angles that the particle's axis establish with the vertical orientation of the magnet field) are those that must fly only a little bit upwards and a little bit left for example. In your model, this then would depend on the particle's initial orientation of rotation axis and its direction of rotation (CW or CCW) and maybe on some additional assumptions.
If one now turns the magnet, say 23 degrees off from the orientation relative to the laboratory frame for which the open mouth figure in experiment 1 was found, then in your model this figure should somehow be conserved under such a rotation.
If one assumes this, then consequently, the subtle combinatorics of Lorentz force, Faraday law and a multitude of different particle axis' orientations relative to the laboratory frame together with the discrete parameter of clockwise and anti-clockwise spinning direction (and perhaps some additional assumptions) seems to be responsible for the original Stern-Gerlach results.
The crucial point here is that one can easily experimentally test whether or not these subtle combinatorics with or without some additional assumptions are indeed responsible for the open-mouth figure.
All one has to do in such an extended Stern-Gerlach experiment is to filter all particles that go upwards into a channel and once again start a new Stern-Gerlach experiment with that subset of particles.
We now label this new experiment as “experiment 2”.
Experiment 2 will not be done with a horizontal aperture (as has been done for experiment 1), but with a circular one. That alone would lead to a spot in the upper half of the detection screen. If that spot has established, we move the magnet a little bit to the left and wait until enough particles went through it. After that we move the magnet a little bit to the right side (in reference to its initial position before having moved it at all) and again wait until enough particles went through it. We do so systematically until we have sufficiently simulated the whole horizontal (and therefore also vertical) dimension of the original horizontal aperture.
Now, concerning your model, all the particles that came out of the first magnet in experiment 1) have an axis of rotation aligned parallel with those magnet they will go through for experiment 2 (the latter simply being a re-measurement of the subset I described). That subset is composed of particles that may have clockwise as well as anti-clockwise rotation of axis. And according to your model all these particles' orientations and spin directions are maintained when measured again with the same field orientation - these properties are not changed by an identical re-mesurement. That means that the resulting figure on the detection screen should be such that only the upper part of that picture is realizable, since all the particles have been prepared with the net force of “upwards” in the first measurement and re-measuring them with the same procedure that produced that net force will not alter that net force and thus will not alter the trajectories they will follow when re-measured.
Even for the – illogical – case that one claims that the subset of particles is somehow composed of only those particles that give the full open-mouth picture (say, for example only clockwise particles), this open-mouth picture will be distorted when the second experiment is repeated with the second magnet turned, say 23 degree away from its position it had in the first run of the second experiment.
Let's label this 23 degree experiment as “experiment 3”.
Quantum mechanics now predicts something other for experiment 3, namely that such a collective re-measurement will result again in the full open-mouth figure – independent of what angle the second magnet has relative to the vertical laboratory frame.
Note the internal contradiction derived here in your model:
An identical re-measurement should neither alter the orientation of axis nor the direction of axis rotation. Hence this would lead to the result that all incoming particles again leave the upper channel and only the upper part of an (unknown) figure will appear on the measurement screen for the second experiment (or alternatively and illogically both parts, what makes no difference to the argument!).
Now note also that experiment 2 in your model is equivalent with assuming option 1) to be true. But we already figured out that option 1) is untenable for your model since it predicts that independent of the open-mouth figure being merely replicated in the upper half or replicated in the upper and lower half of the screen, this figure must change dramatically when experiment 3 is applied to our subset of particles.
So option 1) is untenable for your model to obtain the results of experiment 3 and the only possibility that an identical re-measurement as well as measurement of kind “experiment 3” produces the upper as well as the lower part of the open-mouth picture would be option 2). But for the these two re-measurements we already eliminated option 2) by selecting only particles whose axis' are parallel to the second magnet's field lines. Consequently, your model cannot account for the experimental fact that a full second experimental run of experiment 2, but this time with a changed magnet orientation of 23 degree (called “experiment 3”), will produce the same full open-mouth picture (it cannot account for this result because the deviations from the flight-paths of the particles in your model *depend* on the relative angle of the particles' axis with the orientation of the magnetic field lines and hence the resulting figure must change for experiment 3 – when compared to experiment 2). Thus, the resulting figure predicted by your model wouldn't be any more the quantum mechanically predicted and experimentally confirmed open-mouth picture.
In other words, if your model claims to reproduce all SG experimental results, it must claim to satisfy two mutually exclusive conditions for one and the same subset of particles, namely that each and every particle should be parallel to the magnetic field lines and at the same time being non-parallel to the magnetic field lines. Since this is logically impossible for a non-quantum explanation, your model is either equivalent with quantum mechanics (with all its weirdness) or is simply contradictory and hence false.
Note also that a third option, namely
3) The rotational axis of a particle (or the common axis of a particle pair; I do not speak here of the direction of spin rotation!) is EITHER oriented the same relative to the laboratory frame, namely parallel to the magnetic field OR orthogonal to the magnetic field
does produce the same contradiction I outlined since that option 3) does only encompass two out of the many different axis orientations relative to a given magnetic field direction the source can produce according to option 2).
I hope that with that analysis you better understand why many physicists are not convinced that the results of those particle experiments can be explained by the kind of attempt you gave. The fact that they aren't convinced is not due to some ignorance, but do to the laws of logic.
And I hope that what I wrote here makes clear that experiments with little gyroscopes are totally non-conclusive regarding the question whether or not your model is a feasible explanation for the experimental outcomes.
I additionally hope that this time I was able to more clearly show the internal inconsistency that I see in your model. If you have nonetheless questions, just ask and I will answer.
Concerning the “illogical” alternative to a local dynamics, namely non-locality, faster-than-light influences and non-existent particle properties until measured, I will write something about later when the dust of how one must define “consistency” consistently (instead of defining it inconsistently) has settled a bit more.
view post as summary
my goal is not to make you rolling over belly up. My goal is that you and the reader may understand the argument of inconsistency. I will now try to demonstrate this argument from another, more experimental perspective.
There are two options the source can send out particles (or particle pairs, considering your model):
1) The rotational axis of a particle (or the common axis of a particle pair; I do not speak here of the direction of spin rotation!) is always oriented the same relative to the laboratory frame, namely parallel to the magnetic field
2) The rotational axis of a particle (or the common axis of a particle pair; I do not speak here of the direction of spin rotation!) is randomly oriented relative to the laboratory frame
Let's first look at option 1).
By looking at option 1) we first look at the case that the magnet orientation is fixed - like in the original Stern-Gerlach experiment.
Let's label that experiment as “experiment 1”.
In experiment 1 it seems one can choose between the usual explanation for how the open-mouth figure came about or your model. Despite the fact that you haven't made it explicit how the force or the combination of forces for option 1) leads to the open mouth figure, it is nonetheless clear that your model does not have the usual explanation for that figure (because that would mean your model would incorporate the same assumptions Quantum theory does make).
Now, due to the trigonometrical dependence for the amounts of classical forces that could be involved for option 1) (namely Lorentz and Faraday) – namely an hitherto unknown combination of these laws that somewhat lead for example to a particle being deflected a little bit upwards and a little bit to the left – the logical consequence would be that if one turns the magnet, say 23 degrees off from the orientation relative to the laboratory frame for witch the original Stern-Gerlach open mouth figure was found, then according to your model this figure must change dramatically, since the trajectories of the particles are angle-dependent. Since such a change of the figure isn't the case experimentally, option 1) has to be excluded as a possibility.
Additionally, option 1) implies something more strange, namely that whenever we make experiment 1, the particle's orientation of axis is always identical to that of the magnetic field lines. For very big distances between the source and the magnets, this would imply non-local adaptions for the source to the actual orientation of the magnet. Therefore possibility 1) has to be excluded – since your model aims to exclude such non-local adaptions.
Now looking at option 2).
By looking at option 2) we first look at the case that the magnet orientation is fixed - like in the original Stern-Gerlach experiment.
Here your model may assume that all the possible combinations of angles between the axis of a particle send out form the source and the magnetic field, when combined with different amounts of Lorentz and Faraday forces, results in the open mouth picture. That assumption can be characterized by saying that this combination of known laws together with the multitude of different particle axis' relative to the fixed axis of the magnet field is an hitherto non-analysed special case such that somehow those particles whose axis' are oriented at certain relative angles apart from the magnet's vertical axis (relative angles means the angles that the particle's axis establish with the vertical orientation of the magnet field) are those that must fly only a little bit upwards and a little bit left for example. In your model, this then would depend on the particle's initial orientation of rotation axis and its direction of rotation (CW or CCW) and maybe on some additional assumptions.
If one now turns the magnet, say 23 degrees off from the orientation relative to the laboratory frame for which the open mouth figure in experiment 1 was found, then in your model this figure should somehow be conserved under such a rotation.
If one assumes this, then consequently, the subtle combinatorics of Lorentz force, Faraday law and a multitude of different particle axis' orientations relative to the laboratory frame together with the discrete parameter of clockwise and anti-clockwise spinning direction (and perhaps some additional assumptions) seems to be responsible for the original Stern-Gerlach results.
The crucial point here is that one can easily experimentally test whether or not these subtle combinatorics with or without some additional assumptions are indeed responsible for the open-mouth figure.
All one has to do in such an extended Stern-Gerlach experiment is to filter all particles that go upwards into a channel and once again start a new Stern-Gerlach experiment with that subset of particles.
We now label this new experiment as “experiment 2”.
Experiment 2 will not be done with a horizontal aperture (as has been done for experiment 1), but with a circular one. That alone would lead to a spot in the upper half of the detection screen. If that spot has established, we move the magnet a little bit to the left and wait until enough particles went through it. After that we move the magnet a little bit to the right side (in reference to its initial position before having moved it at all) and again wait until enough particles went through it. We do so systematically until we have sufficiently simulated the whole horizontal (and therefore also vertical) dimension of the original horizontal aperture.
Now, concerning your model, all the particles that came out of the first magnet in experiment 1) have an axis of rotation aligned parallel with those magnet they will go through for experiment 2 (the latter simply being a re-measurement of the subset I described). That subset is composed of particles that may have clockwise as well as anti-clockwise rotation of axis. And according to your model all these particles' orientations and spin directions are maintained when measured again with the same field orientation - these properties are not changed by an identical re-mesurement. That means that the resulting figure on the detection screen should be such that only the upper part of that picture is realizable, since all the particles have been prepared with the net force of “upwards” in the first measurement and re-measuring them with the same procedure that produced that net force will not alter that net force and thus will not alter the trajectories they will follow when re-measured.
Even for the – illogical – case that one claims that the subset of particles is somehow composed of only those particles that give the full open-mouth picture (say, for example only clockwise particles), this open-mouth picture will be distorted when the second experiment is repeated with the second magnet turned, say 23 degree away from its position it had in the first run of the second experiment.
Let's label this 23 degree experiment as “experiment 3”.
Quantum mechanics now predicts something other for experiment 3, namely that such a collective re-measurement will result again in the full open-mouth figure – independent of what angle the second magnet has relative to the vertical laboratory frame.
Note the internal contradiction derived here in your model:
An identical re-measurement should neither alter the orientation of axis nor the direction of axis rotation. Hence this would lead to the result that all incoming particles again leave the upper channel and only the upper part of an (unknown) figure will appear on the measurement screen for the second experiment (or alternatively and illogically both parts, what makes no difference to the argument!).
Now note also that experiment 2 in your model is equivalent with assuming option 1) to be true. But we already figured out that option 1) is untenable for your model since it predicts that independent of the open-mouth figure being merely replicated in the upper half or replicated in the upper and lower half of the screen, this figure must change dramatically when experiment 3 is applied to our subset of particles.
So option 1) is untenable for your model to obtain the results of experiment 3 and the only possibility that an identical re-measurement as well as measurement of kind “experiment 3” produces the upper as well as the lower part of the open-mouth picture would be option 2). But for the these two re-measurements we already eliminated option 2) by selecting only particles whose axis' are parallel to the second magnet's field lines. Consequently, your model cannot account for the experimental fact that a full second experimental run of experiment 2, but this time with a changed magnet orientation of 23 degree (called “experiment 3”), will produce the same full open-mouth picture (it cannot account for this result because the deviations from the flight-paths of the particles in your model *depend* on the relative angle of the particles' axis with the orientation of the magnetic field lines and hence the resulting figure must change for experiment 3 – when compared to experiment 2). Thus, the resulting figure predicted by your model wouldn't be any more the quantum mechanically predicted and experimentally confirmed open-mouth picture.
In other words, if your model claims to reproduce all SG experimental results, it must claim to satisfy two mutually exclusive conditions for one and the same subset of particles, namely that each and every particle should be parallel to the magnetic field lines and at the same time being non-parallel to the magnetic field lines. Since this is logically impossible for a non-quantum explanation, your model is either equivalent with quantum mechanics (with all its weirdness) or is simply contradictory and hence false.
Note also that a third option, namely
3) The rotational axis of a particle (or the common axis of a particle pair; I do not speak here of the direction of spin rotation!) is EITHER oriented the same relative to the laboratory frame, namely parallel to the magnetic field OR orthogonal to the magnetic field
does produce the same contradiction I outlined since that option 3) does only encompass two out of the many different axis orientations relative to a given magnetic field direction the source can produce according to option 2).
I hope that with that analysis you better understand why many physicists are not convinced that the results of those particle experiments can be explained by the kind of attempt you gave. The fact that they aren't convinced is not due to some ignorance, but do to the laws of logic.
And I hope that what I wrote here makes clear that experiments with little gyroscopes are totally non-conclusive regarding the question whether or not your model is a feasible explanation for the experimental outcomes.
I additionally hope that this time I was able to more clearly show the internal inconsistency that I see in your model. If you have nonetheless questions, just ask and I will answer.
Concerning the “illogical” alternative to a local dynamics, namely non-locality, faster-than-light influences and non-existent particle properties until measured, I will write something about later when the dust of how one must define “consistency” consistently (instead of defining it inconsistently) has settled a bit more.
view post as summary
Georgina Woodward replied on Dec. 6, 2020 @ 02:53 GMT
Stefan,
1) Re. axis of rotation: They orient themselves ‘parallel’ to the field, ignoring for now the non homogeneity.
2) Randomly oriented electrons from the source are used for initial input to the sequential tests.
The open mouth results from a combination of the additional force (added to translation velocity through the apparatus ) due to particle- field interaction,...
view entire post
1) Re. axis of rotation: They orient themselves ‘parallel’ to the field, ignoring for now the non homogeneity.
2) Randomly oriented electrons from the source are used for initial input to the sequential tests.
The open mouth results from a combination of the additional force (added to translation velocity through the apparatus ) due to particle- field interaction,...
view entire post
Stefan,
1) Re. axis of rotation: They orient themselves ‘parallel’ to the field, ignoring for now the non homogeneity.
2) Randomly oriented electrons from the source are used for initial input to the sequential tests.
The open mouth results from a combination of the additional force (added to translation velocity through the apparatus ) due to particle- field interaction, giving UP /DOWN bit results and the non homogeneity of the field, such that wherein relation to the mid line the particle is moving through the apparatus. GW
“... according to your model this figure must change dramatically, since the trajectories of the particles are angle-dependent. Since such a change of the figure isn't the case experimentally, option 1) has to be excluded as a possibility.” SW
No, if the magnet is turned the test particles just align to what they find. ( This kind of angle consideration is only significant if using T/At pairs at different orientations of field.) There wiil still be Up bits, ,top lip and DOWN bits bottom lip. GW
Re. Option 1. I’m not saying the particles emerge from the source aligned to the apparatus, but they become aligned upon meeting it. GW
“Now, concerning your model, all the particles that came out of the first magnet in experiment 1) have an axis of rotation aligned parallel with those magnet they will go through for experiment 2 (the latter simply being a re-measurement of the subset I described). That subset is composed of particles that may have clockwise as well as anti-clockwise rotation of axis. [Your assumption , not mine. GW] And according to your model all these particles' orientations and spin directions are maintained when measured again with the same field orientation.’ SW
Rotation direction is maintained giving same output bits. GW “..these properties are not changed by an identical re-mesurement. That means that the resulting figure on the detection screen should be such that only the upper part of that picture is realizable, ”SW
Yes just UP bits. That is the result of such quantum experiments. If you find that illogical, it’s not my fault but nature’s.GW
Return to full “open mouth” /UP and DOWN bits; During a different orientation test the axes of rotation must re-align. I do not know why you have chosen 23 degrees specifically and whether that is enough of a difference to cause the ‘shuffling of orientations. If it works for atomic and sub atomic test particles I hypothesize it will be the same for the proposed micro or macro experiments. GW
“Quantum mechanics now predicts something other for experiment 3, namely that such a collective re-measurement will result again in the full open-mouth figure – independent of what angle the second magnet has relative to the vertical laboratory frame.” SW Yes and I agree there are once more UP and DOWN bits. GW
“Consequently, your model cannot account for the experimental fact..” “(it cannot account for this result because the deviations from the flight-paths of the particles in your model *depend* on the relative angle of the particles' axis with the orientation of the magnetic field lines and hence the resulting figure must change for experiment 3”SW
No, they re align to the field they find and there is more than just one way to do that, breaking the correlation. And the rotation in that field alignment interacts with the field to produce Up and DOWN bits( the two lips)GW
"... if your model claims to reproduce all SG experimental results, it must claim to satisfy two mutually exclusive conditions for one and the same subset of particles, namely that each and every particle should be parallel to the magnetic field lines and at the same time being non-parallel to the magnetic field lines.” SW
No, that is only necessary if the orientation is considered a fixed property. The axes can be exclusively parallel while having the ability to change orientation under different environmental conditions. GW Since this is logically impossible for a non-quantum explanation [ your opinion .GW], your model is either equivalent with quantum mechanics (with all its weirdness) or is simply contradictory and hence false.” SW
Nope, just explained why not. GW
view post as summary
1) Re. axis of rotation: They orient themselves ‘parallel’ to the field, ignoring for now the non homogeneity.
2) Randomly oriented electrons from the source are used for initial input to the sequential tests.
The open mouth results from a combination of the additional force (added to translation velocity through the apparatus ) due to particle- field interaction, giving UP /DOWN bit results and the non homogeneity of the field, such that wherein relation to the mid line the particle is moving through the apparatus. GW
“... according to your model this figure must change dramatically, since the trajectories of the particles are angle-dependent. Since such a change of the figure isn't the case experimentally, option 1) has to be excluded as a possibility.” SW
No, if the magnet is turned the test particles just align to what they find. ( This kind of angle consideration is only significant if using T/At pairs at different orientations of field.) There wiil still be Up bits, ,top lip and DOWN bits bottom lip. GW
Re. Option 1. I’m not saying the particles emerge from the source aligned to the apparatus, but they become aligned upon meeting it. GW
“Now, concerning your model, all the particles that came out of the first magnet in experiment 1) have an axis of rotation aligned parallel with those magnet they will go through for experiment 2 (the latter simply being a re-measurement of the subset I described). That subset is composed of particles that may have clockwise as well as anti-clockwise rotation of axis. [Your assumption , not mine. GW] And according to your model all these particles' orientations and spin directions are maintained when measured again with the same field orientation.’ SW
Rotation direction is maintained giving same output bits. GW “..these properties are not changed by an identical re-mesurement. That means that the resulting figure on the detection screen should be such that only the upper part of that picture is realizable, ”SW
Yes just UP bits. That is the result of such quantum experiments. If you find that illogical, it’s not my fault but nature’s.GW
Return to full “open mouth” /UP and DOWN bits; During a different orientation test the axes of rotation must re-align. I do not know why you have chosen 23 degrees specifically and whether that is enough of a difference to cause the ‘shuffling of orientations. If it works for atomic and sub atomic test particles I hypothesize it will be the same for the proposed micro or macro experiments. GW
“Quantum mechanics now predicts something other for experiment 3, namely that such a collective re-measurement will result again in the full open-mouth figure – independent of what angle the second magnet has relative to the vertical laboratory frame.” SW Yes and I agree there are once more UP and DOWN bits. GW
“Consequently, your model cannot account for the experimental fact..” “(it cannot account for this result because the deviations from the flight-paths of the particles in your model *depend* on the relative angle of the particles' axis with the orientation of the magnetic field lines and hence the resulting figure must change for experiment 3”SW
No, they re align to the field they find and there is more than just one way to do that, breaking the correlation. And the rotation in that field alignment interacts with the field to produce Up and DOWN bits( the two lips)GW
"... if your model claims to reproduce all SG experimental results, it must claim to satisfy two mutually exclusive conditions for one and the same subset of particles, namely that each and every particle should be parallel to the magnetic field lines and at the same time being non-parallel to the magnetic field lines.” SW
No, that is only necessary if the orientation is considered a fixed property. The axes can be exclusively parallel while having the ability to change orientation under different environmental conditions. GW Since this is logically impossible for a non-quantum explanation [ your opinion .GW], your model is either equivalent with quantum mechanics (with all its weirdness) or is simply contradictory and hence false.” SW
Nope, just explained why not. GW
view post as summary
Stefan Weckbach replied on Dec. 6, 2020 @ 08:53 GMT
Georgina,
you severely misunderstood what my last post was all about. I think a clarification is needed in this post.
citation 1):
“( This kind of angle consideration is only significant if using T/At pairs at different orientations of field.)”
You fundamentally misunderstood what my last post is all about. In that post I am NOT speaking about entangled particle...
view entire post
you severely misunderstood what my last post was all about. I think a clarification is needed in this post.
citation 1):
“( This kind of angle consideration is only significant if using T/At pairs at different orientations of field.)”
You fundamentally misunderstood what my last post is all about. In that post I am NOT speaking about entangled particle...
view entire post
Georgina,
you severely misunderstood what my last post was all about. I think a clarification is needed in this post.
citation 1):
“( This kind of angle consideration is only significant if using T/At pairs at different orientations of field.)”
You fundamentally misunderstood what my last post is all about. In that post I am NOT speaking about entangled particle pairs, but about variations of the original Stern-Gerlach experiment. NO entanglement involved, no EPR situation described, but simply an oven, a magnet and measurement screens. I called this “experiment 1”.
By having mentioned in my last post particle pairs by having written
“or the common axis of a particle pair; I do not speak here of the direction of spin rotation!”
that mentioning of particle pairs only refers to the two possible properties (option 1 or option 2) of the source to produce particles – regardless of whether nor not particles are entangled.
Citing you again:
“( This kind of angle consideration is only significant if using T/At pairs at different orientations of field.)”
In your model the angle dependence is significant already for an ordinary SG-experiment without any entanglement. And that dependence will destroy the open-mouth figure for your model when the magnet is turned 23 degree.
“There will still be Up bits, ,top lip and DOWN bits bottom lip.”
Of course there will be up and down bits, I never said otherwise. Read again in my last post: for option 1) when one changes the magnet's orientation by 23 degree in experiment 1, for your model the open-mouth figure will change dramatically. But not in the sense that this figure now has simply being rotated 23 degrees in the same direction the magnet has been rotated, but in the sense that for your model it can't any more be the geometric figure Stern and Gerlach famously discovered.
Citation 2)
“The open mouth results from a combination of the additional force (added to translation velocity through the apparatus ) due to particle- field interaction, giving UP /DOWN bit results and the non homogeneity of the field, such that wherein relation to the mid line the particle is moving through the apparatus.”
Yes, the net result of the forces that act in your model on the particles can be additive or subtractive and as you correctly identified in citation 1) that force is angle dependent! Assuming that it only is angle dependent when we make an experiment with entangled particle pairs would be illogical, so we can apply the angle dependence for experiment 1, 2 and 3.
“Re. Option 1. I’m not saying the particles emerge from the source aligned to the apparatus, but they become aligned upon meeting it. GW”
So we can sort out option 1) and concentrate on what option 2) says about your model.
“Yes just UP bits. That is the result of such quantum experiments. If you find that illogical, it’s not my fault but nature’s.GW”
So we can concentrate on the fact that only the upper part of the open-mouth picture will be reproduced in your model. At this point there is not yet a contradiction to the predictions of quantum mechanics and the experimental results, since we haven't yet applied experiment 3 (the 23 degree turn of the magnet).
“I do not know why you have chosen 23 degrees specifically and whether that is enough of a difference to cause the ‘shuffling of orientations. If it works for atomic and sub atomic test particles I hypothesize it will be the same for the proposed micro or macro experiments. GW”
I should have made it more clear that for experiment 3, according to the angle dependence mentioned above, your model predicts that the resulting figure will no more be the open-mouth picture. In experiment 3 the geometric relationship between the involved force(s) and the orientation of the magnet has changed – and the resulting geometric figure can't be any more the open-mouth figure. Remember that this geometric relationship expresses the angle dependence mentioned above.
The shuffling of orientations you mention is nothing other than what you demonstrated in Citation 2), namely for experiment 3 it is an adding/subtracting of net force to most of the incoming particles. It is clear that this adding/subtracting procedure will not produce an open-mouth picture, and surely not an open-mouth picture which is just 23 degree rotated in the direction the magnet has been rotated. It is easy to see that your model will produce a different output (different figure on the screen) than the experimentally observed one.
“No, they re align to the field they find and there is more than just one way to do that, breaking the correlation. And the rotation in that field alignment interacts with the field to produce Up and DOWN bits( the two lips)GW”
I am not talking about entanglement, but about experiment 1, 2 and 3. Your model has to explain these experiments, since your model is considered to only operate with local forces that only lead to local reactions to these forces.
“No, that is only necessary if the orientation is considered a fixed property. The axes can be exclusively parallel while having the ability to change orientation under different environmental conditions.”
It doesn't matter for my argument that the orientation of axis isn't a fixed property. What matters is that a change of orientation in your model is correlated one-to-one with an uniquely defined amount of net force added or subtracted. For experiment 2 there is a uniquely defined set of net forces that are uniquely assigned to each particle and determine the place it will impact on the screen. When comparing experiment 2 with experiment 3, for the latter there will be a different set of net forces that are responsible for the resulting figure on the screen.
Thus, citing you again
“The open mouth results from a combination of the additional force (added to translation velocity through the apparatus ) due to particle- field interaction, giving UP /DOWN bit results and the non homogeneity of the field, such that wherein relation to the mid line the particle is moving through the apparatus.”
Yes, the net result of the forces that act in your model on the particle is additive or subtractive and as you correctly identified in citation 1) that force is angle dependent! Thus, for experiment 3, in your model there will be no open-mouth figure on the screen that is merely rotated by 23 degrees in the same direction the magnet has been rotated.
Why? Because for experiment 2, according to your model which says that an identical re-measurement will not alter the present state of the particle, the upper part of the open-mouth figure will emerge on the measurement screen. Now in experiment 3 we apply additive and subtractive forces to the same set of particles and thereby changing the present states of the particles. That set of particles was able to form the upper part of the open-mouth figure in experiment 2 (via identical magnet field orientation and polarity!). Consequently, when we measure that set of particles *not* with the just mentioned identical magnet field orientation, but with a 23 degrees different one, that simply results in additive and subtractive net forces acting on that set of particles, additive or subtractive depending on the position of each particle relative to the mid line you mentioned in the above citation. Thus, adding and subtracting along the mid line will logically result in a figure on the screen that can't be any more the open-mouth picture which is merely 23 degrees rotated.
Why that? That's because the net force of additive and subtractive does not operate orthogonally to the mid line you mentioned when we apply option 1) or 2).
Remember again what your model says
“Re. Option 1. I’m not saying the particles emerge from the source aligned to the apparatus, but they become aligned upon meeting it. GW”
This shows that the net force in your model operates vertically, independent of the incoming orientations of the particles' axis'. For experiment 1, turning the oven by 23 degree and letting the magnet's orientation relative to the laboratory frame of reference untouched will not change that net force to suddenly operate non-vertically. Equivalently, turning a magnet by 23 degree and letting the orientation of the oven relative to the laboratory frame of reference untouched will not change that net force to operate non-vertically. Consequently, for experiment 3 when compared to experiment 2, the 23 degree turn will not alter the direction of the net force relative to a magnet's orientation: it will operate in the same direction it would when the magnet had not been turned by 23 degree.
So, when comparing experiment 3 with experiment 2, one can consider the magnet's orientation for experiment 2 as the orientation of the oven *changed by 23 degree relative to the magnet's orientation for experiment 3* (in other words, the magnet for experiment 2 OR 3 can be considered as the oven outputting particles). Thus, it makes not difference to the direction of the net force for experiment 3 – the net force for experiment 3 will operate in the same direction it would have operated when that magnet had not been turned 23 degrees. Consequently, in your model this will result in a figure on the screen that is neither the open-mouth figure merely turned 23 degree nor the open-mouth figure not turned 23 degree but it will be a figure not predicted by QM and not experimentally observed.
view post as summary
you severely misunderstood what my last post was all about. I think a clarification is needed in this post.
citation 1):
“( This kind of angle consideration is only significant if using T/At pairs at different orientations of field.)”
You fundamentally misunderstood what my last post is all about. In that post I am NOT speaking about entangled particle pairs, but about variations of the original Stern-Gerlach experiment. NO entanglement involved, no EPR situation described, but simply an oven, a magnet and measurement screens. I called this “experiment 1”.
By having mentioned in my last post particle pairs by having written
“or the common axis of a particle pair; I do not speak here of the direction of spin rotation!”
that mentioning of particle pairs only refers to the two possible properties (option 1 or option 2) of the source to produce particles – regardless of whether nor not particles are entangled.
Citing you again:
“( This kind of angle consideration is only significant if using T/At pairs at different orientations of field.)”
In your model the angle dependence is significant already for an ordinary SG-experiment without any entanglement. And that dependence will destroy the open-mouth figure for your model when the magnet is turned 23 degree.
“There will still be Up bits, ,top lip and DOWN bits bottom lip.”
Of course there will be up and down bits, I never said otherwise. Read again in my last post: for option 1) when one changes the magnet's orientation by 23 degree in experiment 1, for your model the open-mouth figure will change dramatically. But not in the sense that this figure now has simply being rotated 23 degrees in the same direction the magnet has been rotated, but in the sense that for your model it can't any more be the geometric figure Stern and Gerlach famously discovered.
Citation 2)
“The open mouth results from a combination of the additional force (added to translation velocity through the apparatus ) due to particle- field interaction, giving UP /DOWN bit results and the non homogeneity of the field, such that wherein relation to the mid line the particle is moving through the apparatus.”
Yes, the net result of the forces that act in your model on the particles can be additive or subtractive and as you correctly identified in citation 1) that force is angle dependent! Assuming that it only is angle dependent when we make an experiment with entangled particle pairs would be illogical, so we can apply the angle dependence for experiment 1, 2 and 3.
“Re. Option 1. I’m not saying the particles emerge from the source aligned to the apparatus, but they become aligned upon meeting it. GW”
So we can sort out option 1) and concentrate on what option 2) says about your model.
“Yes just UP bits. That is the result of such quantum experiments. If you find that illogical, it’s not my fault but nature’s.GW”
So we can concentrate on the fact that only the upper part of the open-mouth picture will be reproduced in your model. At this point there is not yet a contradiction to the predictions of quantum mechanics and the experimental results, since we haven't yet applied experiment 3 (the 23 degree turn of the magnet).
“I do not know why you have chosen 23 degrees specifically and whether that is enough of a difference to cause the ‘shuffling of orientations. If it works for atomic and sub atomic test particles I hypothesize it will be the same for the proposed micro or macro experiments. GW”
I should have made it more clear that for experiment 3, according to the angle dependence mentioned above, your model predicts that the resulting figure will no more be the open-mouth picture. In experiment 3 the geometric relationship between the involved force(s) and the orientation of the magnet has changed – and the resulting geometric figure can't be any more the open-mouth figure. Remember that this geometric relationship expresses the angle dependence mentioned above.
The shuffling of orientations you mention is nothing other than what you demonstrated in Citation 2), namely for experiment 3 it is an adding/subtracting of net force to most of the incoming particles. It is clear that this adding/subtracting procedure will not produce an open-mouth picture, and surely not an open-mouth picture which is just 23 degree rotated in the direction the magnet has been rotated. It is easy to see that your model will produce a different output (different figure on the screen) than the experimentally observed one.
“No, they re align to the field they find and there is more than just one way to do that, breaking the correlation. And the rotation in that field alignment interacts with the field to produce Up and DOWN bits( the two lips)GW”
I am not talking about entanglement, but about experiment 1, 2 and 3. Your model has to explain these experiments, since your model is considered to only operate with local forces that only lead to local reactions to these forces.
“No, that is only necessary if the orientation is considered a fixed property. The axes can be exclusively parallel while having the ability to change orientation under different environmental conditions.”
It doesn't matter for my argument that the orientation of axis isn't a fixed property. What matters is that a change of orientation in your model is correlated one-to-one with an uniquely defined amount of net force added or subtracted. For experiment 2 there is a uniquely defined set of net forces that are uniquely assigned to each particle and determine the place it will impact on the screen. When comparing experiment 2 with experiment 3, for the latter there will be a different set of net forces that are responsible for the resulting figure on the screen.
Thus, citing you again
“The open mouth results from a combination of the additional force (added to translation velocity through the apparatus ) due to particle- field interaction, giving UP /DOWN bit results and the non homogeneity of the field, such that wherein relation to the mid line the particle is moving through the apparatus.”
Yes, the net result of the forces that act in your model on the particle is additive or subtractive and as you correctly identified in citation 1) that force is angle dependent! Thus, for experiment 3, in your model there will be no open-mouth figure on the screen that is merely rotated by 23 degrees in the same direction the magnet has been rotated.
Why? Because for experiment 2, according to your model which says that an identical re-measurement will not alter the present state of the particle, the upper part of the open-mouth figure will emerge on the measurement screen. Now in experiment 3 we apply additive and subtractive forces to the same set of particles and thereby changing the present states of the particles. That set of particles was able to form the upper part of the open-mouth figure in experiment 2 (via identical magnet field orientation and polarity!). Consequently, when we measure that set of particles *not* with the just mentioned identical magnet field orientation, but with a 23 degrees different one, that simply results in additive and subtractive net forces acting on that set of particles, additive or subtractive depending on the position of each particle relative to the mid line you mentioned in the above citation. Thus, adding and subtracting along the mid line will logically result in a figure on the screen that can't be any more the open-mouth picture which is merely 23 degrees rotated.
Why that? That's because the net force of additive and subtractive does not operate orthogonally to the mid line you mentioned when we apply option 1) or 2).
Remember again what your model says
“Re. Option 1. I’m not saying the particles emerge from the source aligned to the apparatus, but they become aligned upon meeting it. GW”
This shows that the net force in your model operates vertically, independent of the incoming orientations of the particles' axis'. For experiment 1, turning the oven by 23 degree and letting the magnet's orientation relative to the laboratory frame of reference untouched will not change that net force to suddenly operate non-vertically. Equivalently, turning a magnet by 23 degree and letting the orientation of the oven relative to the laboratory frame of reference untouched will not change that net force to operate non-vertically. Consequently, for experiment 3 when compared to experiment 2, the 23 degree turn will not alter the direction of the net force relative to a magnet's orientation: it will operate in the same direction it would when the magnet had not been turned by 23 degree.
So, when comparing experiment 3 with experiment 2, one can consider the magnet's orientation for experiment 2 as the orientation of the oven *changed by 23 degree relative to the magnet's orientation for experiment 3* (in other words, the magnet for experiment 2 OR 3 can be considered as the oven outputting particles). Thus, it makes not difference to the direction of the net force for experiment 3 – the net force for experiment 3 will operate in the same direction it would have operated when that magnet had not been turned 23 degrees. Consequently, in your model this will result in a figure on the screen that is neither the open-mouth figure merely turned 23 degree nor the open-mouth figure not turned 23 degree but it will be a figure not predicted by QM and not experimentally observed.
view post as summary
Stefan Weckbach replied on Dec. 6, 2020 @ 17:24 GMT
Georgina,
I would propose to equip the measurement screens each with the same coordinate system. I propose the coordinate system for the trigonometric functions. The origin of that coordinate system then would be located at the center of the open-mouth figure. This center is the point where both symmetry axis' for the open-mouth figure meet. One symmetry axis is the x-axis of the coordinate...
view entire post
I would propose to equip the measurement screens each with the same coordinate system. I propose the coordinate system for the trigonometric functions. The origin of that coordinate system then would be located at the center of the open-mouth figure. This center is the point where both symmetry axis' for the open-mouth figure meet. One symmetry axis is the x-axis of the coordinate...
view entire post
Georgina,
I would propose to equip the measurement screens each with the same coordinate system. I propose the coordinate system for the trigonometric functions. The origin of that coordinate system then would be located at the center of the open-mouth figure. This center is the point where both symmetry axis' for the open-mouth figure meet. One symmetry axis is the x-axis of the coordinate system, indicating the horizontal axis of the laboratory frame of reference. The other symmetry axis is the z-axis, indicating the vertical axis of the laboratory frame of reference. The y-axis in this coordinate system is the axis of flight for the particles.
With that we have the same 4 quadrants as is used for the trigonometric functions.
1) Quadrant 1 is the area between the positive x-axis and the positive z-axis.
2) Quadrant 2 is the area between the negative x-axis and the positive z-axis.
3) Quadrant 3 is the area between the negative x-axis and the negative z-axis.
4) Quadrant 4 is the area between the positive x-axis and the negative z-axis.
To clarify the whole puzzle, it would make sense and would be helpful if you could explain how and which governing laws the particle X undergoes for the experiments 1, 2 and 3 and what temporary properties for the changes of its positions on the screens are needed for that particle.
Let's assume that
“2) Randomly oriented electrons from the source are used for initial input to the sequential tests.”
With assumption 2) we now make my experiment 1. The particle's impact on the screen is on the positive x-axis of our coordinate system, thus at the outer right end of the open-mouth picture.
Question 1):
What orientation of axis and what direction of spin (CW or CCW) does particle X have had before it interacted with the magnet?
We now make my experiment 2. The magnet for experiment 2 has been moved horizontally (along the x-axis) half the diameter of the circular aperture. Particle X now comes into the magnet. In which of the 4 quadrants of the screen's coordinate system will particle X make its impact and why?
We now make my experiment 3. The magnet for experiment 3 has been turned 23 degree clockwise when looked at in the direction of flight. This magnet has also been moved horizontally (along the x-axis!) half the diameter of the circular aperture. Particle X now comes into that magnet. In which of the 4 quadrants of the screen's coordinate system will particle X make its impact and why?
I think answers to these questions are needed to get a grip on why you assume that particles with adaptive axis and different directions of axis rotation can reproduce the figures for experiments 1, 2 and 3. I think answers to these questions would also safe us a lot of time...
view post as summary
I would propose to equip the measurement screens each with the same coordinate system. I propose the coordinate system for the trigonometric functions. The origin of that coordinate system then would be located at the center of the open-mouth figure. This center is the point where both symmetry axis' for the open-mouth figure meet. One symmetry axis is the x-axis of the coordinate system, indicating the horizontal axis of the laboratory frame of reference. The other symmetry axis is the z-axis, indicating the vertical axis of the laboratory frame of reference. The y-axis in this coordinate system is the axis of flight for the particles.
With that we have the same 4 quadrants as is used for the trigonometric functions.
1) Quadrant 1 is the area between the positive x-axis and the positive z-axis.
2) Quadrant 2 is the area between the negative x-axis and the positive z-axis.
3) Quadrant 3 is the area between the negative x-axis and the negative z-axis.
4) Quadrant 4 is the area between the positive x-axis and the negative z-axis.
To clarify the whole puzzle, it would make sense and would be helpful if you could explain how and which governing laws the particle X undergoes for the experiments 1, 2 and 3 and what temporary properties for the changes of its positions on the screens are needed for that particle.
Let's assume that
“2) Randomly oriented electrons from the source are used for initial input to the sequential tests.”
With assumption 2) we now make my experiment 1. The particle's impact on the screen is on the positive x-axis of our coordinate system, thus at the outer right end of the open-mouth picture.
Question 1):
What orientation of axis and what direction of spin (CW or CCW) does particle X have had before it interacted with the magnet?
We now make my experiment 2. The magnet for experiment 2 has been moved horizontally (along the x-axis) half the diameter of the circular aperture. Particle X now comes into the magnet. In which of the 4 quadrants of the screen's coordinate system will particle X make its impact and why?
We now make my experiment 3. The magnet for experiment 3 has been turned 23 degree clockwise when looked at in the direction of flight. This magnet has also been moved horizontally (along the x-axis!) half the diameter of the circular aperture. Particle X now comes into that magnet. In which of the 4 quadrants of the screen's coordinate system will particle X make its impact and why?
I think answers to these questions are needed to get a grip on why you assume that particles with adaptive axis and different directions of axis rotation can reproduce the figures for experiments 1, 2 and 3. I think answers to these questions would also safe us a lot of time...
view post as summary
Stefan Weckbach replied on Dec. 6, 2020 @ 17:55 GMT
Georgina,
in my last post i forgot to mention that for both experiments 2 and 3, the magnet is moved along the x-axis to the right, half the length of the horizontal aperture. The horizontal aperture was used in experiment 1. So, the magnet is not moved half the diameter of the circular aperture, because with that we would not see the entire figure on the screen, but half the length (not height) of the horizontal aperture.
report post as inappropriate
in my last post i forgot to mention that for both experiments 2 and 3, the magnet is moved along the x-axis to the right, half the length of the horizontal aperture. The horizontal aperture was used in experiment 1. So, the magnet is not moved half the diameter of the circular aperture, because with that we would not see the entire figure on the screen, but half the length (not height) of the horizontal aperture.
Georgina Woodward replied on Dec. 6, 2020 @ 22:06 GMT
Stefan,
your experiment 1. Usual Stern Gerlach set up with screen show results. Magnet pair vertical, Input to this first apparatus random electrons from source. Result 'open mouth". your experiment 2.Electrons from experiment 1 can not be used as they hit a screen rather than being collected from an output port. So up bit only producing electrons will have to be specially prepared ass a preliminary step of experiment 2. The moving spot aperture rather than slit is an odd addition. I assume if moved adequately the top lip could be discerned.. Experiment 3, A change of apparatus angle requires adjustment of particle orientation. 90 degrees gives randomization. I do not know if 23 degrees is sufficient to cause some. You have not said why 23 degrees is chosen.
report post as inappropriate
your experiment 1. Usual Stern Gerlach set up with screen show results. Magnet pair vertical, Input to this first apparatus random electrons from source. Result 'open mouth". your experiment 2.Electrons from experiment 1 can not be used as they hit a screen rather than being collected from an output port. So up bit only producing electrons will have to be specially prepared ass a preliminary step of experiment 2. The moving spot aperture rather than slit is an odd addition. I assume if moved adequately the top lip could be discerned.. Experiment 3, A change of apparatus angle requires adjustment of particle orientation. 90 degrees gives randomization. I do not know if 23 degrees is sufficient to cause some. You have not said why 23 degrees is chosen.
Georgina Woodward replied on Dec. 7, 2020 @ 00:57 GMT
Vertical field = formal dinner. Two dress codes (alignments allowed, parallel and anti parallel) = dinner jacket or smoking jacket.
23 degrees to vertical = fancy dress party. No formal wear allowed. Two dress code + face mask and matching T shirt or onesie
Just diner jacket wearers input to Expt. 3. Representing the type of output that would have been collected if there was not a screen showing the result. The partygoers have to get changed, some into onesies, some into masks and Ts. There is no correlation between formal wear option and fancy dress. Shows ther are different ways of f
report post as inappropriate
23 degrees to vertical = fancy dress party. No formal wear allowed. Two dress code + face mask and matching T shirt or onesie
Just diner jacket wearers input to Expt. 3. Representing the type of output that would have been collected if there was not a screen showing the result. The partygoers have to get changed, some into onesies, some into masks and Ts. There is no correlation between formal wear option and fancy dress. Shows ther are different ways of f
Georgina Woodward replied on Dec. 7, 2020 @ 01:03 GMT
Shows there are different ways of forming the new field orientation alignment, so that there are both parallel and antiparallel variants.
report post as inappropriate
Georgina Woodward replied on Dec. 7, 2020 @ 02:27 GMT
23 degrees from vertical is a small difference. It would not surprise me if there was much more of one kind of alignment because of that. 90 and 270 are as different to vertical as far as alignment is concerned and as uncorrelated as can be
report post as inappropriate
Stefan Weckbach replied on Dec. 7, 2020 @ 07:11 GMT
Georgina,
thanks for your honest replies.
I chose the 23 degree randomly.
The particle I gave as an example will be blocked by the circular aperture of experiment 2 and 3. So we have to choose a particle X that is able to pass that aperture.
There will be always particles that pass the circular aperture and enter experiment 2 and 3. We can choose one of these particles...
view entire post
thanks for your honest replies.
I chose the 23 degree randomly.
The particle I gave as an example will be blocked by the circular aperture of experiment 2 and 3. So we have to choose a particle X that is able to pass that aperture.
There will be always particles that pass the circular aperture and enter experiment 2 and 3. We can choose one of these particles...
view entire post
Georgina,
thanks for your honest replies.
I chose the 23 degree randomly.
The particle I gave as an example will be blocked by the circular aperture of experiment 2 and 3. So we have to choose a particle X that is able to pass that aperture.
There will be always particles that pass the circular aperture and enter experiment 2 and 3. We can choose one of these particles and ask the questions I asked you to answer. Choose as particle X one that in experiment 1 followed a trajectory that makes it pass quadrant 1 of the circular aperture somewhere in the middle between the x- and the z-axis of our coordinate system, let's say 32 degree away from the x-axis on the point of the upper open-mouth figure produced by experiment 1. Surely for experiment 2 and 3 we have to remove the screen of experiment 1 to proceed with experiments 2 and 3. But for experiments 2 and 3 we each have the screen in place. Instead of having a screen for experiment 1, we always have our coordinate system to talk about particle X' location in space.
For both experiments 2 and 3, if these experiments last long enough, there will come along particle X out of the oven that will satisfy the conditions mentioned above.
So we have a particle X that, after having passed the magnet of experiment 1, has a location in space that is 32 degree away from the x-axis in quadrant 1 on the point of the upper open-mouth figure produced by experiment 1. It then enters experiment 3 with that trajectory and goes into a magnet that is turned 23 degree (as described in my other post) and additionally its rotational axis is shifted to the right on the x-axis by an amount that is equal to half the length of the horizontal aperture that was used for experiment 1. For experiment 2 the amount of shift is the same, but the magnet is not turned the 23 degree, but has the same orientation of field lines in space (as well as the same polarity in space) as it is the case for the magnet in experiment 1.
There are once again the following questions to be answered by your model:
Which governing laws does the particle X undergo for the experiments 1, 2 and 3, how do these governing laws affect the changes of position in our coordinate system for particle X and what temporary properties for the changes of these positions are needed for that particle X?
Let's assume that
“2) Randomly oriented electrons from the source are used for initial input to the sequential tests.”
With assumption 2) we now make my experiment 1. The location in space of particle X after having exited experiment 1 is just as described above.
The horizontal length of the aperture used for experiment 1 is Y. Half that length then is Y/2.
Question 1):
What orientation of axis and what direction of spin (CW or CCW) does particle X have had before it interacted with the magnet of experiment 1?
We now make my experiment 2. The magnet for experiment 2 has been moved horizontally (along the x-axis) by the amount Y/2. Particle X now enters the magnet. In which of the 4 quadrants of our coordinate system will particle X make its impact and why?
We now make my experiment 3. The magnet for experiment 3 has been turned 23 degree clockwise when looked at in the direction of flight. Additionally, this magnet has been moved horizontally (along the x-axis!) by the amount Y/2. Particle X now enters that magnet. In which of the 4 quadrants of our coordinate system will particle X make its impact and why?
view post as summary
thanks for your honest replies.
I chose the 23 degree randomly.
The particle I gave as an example will be blocked by the circular aperture of experiment 2 and 3. So we have to choose a particle X that is able to pass that aperture.
There will be always particles that pass the circular aperture and enter experiment 2 and 3. We can choose one of these particles and ask the questions I asked you to answer. Choose as particle X one that in experiment 1 followed a trajectory that makes it pass quadrant 1 of the circular aperture somewhere in the middle between the x- and the z-axis of our coordinate system, let's say 32 degree away from the x-axis on the point of the upper open-mouth figure produced by experiment 1. Surely for experiment 2 and 3 we have to remove the screen of experiment 1 to proceed with experiments 2 and 3. But for experiments 2 and 3 we each have the screen in place. Instead of having a screen for experiment 1, we always have our coordinate system to talk about particle X' location in space.
For both experiments 2 and 3, if these experiments last long enough, there will come along particle X out of the oven that will satisfy the conditions mentioned above.
So we have a particle X that, after having passed the magnet of experiment 1, has a location in space that is 32 degree away from the x-axis in quadrant 1 on the point of the upper open-mouth figure produced by experiment 1. It then enters experiment 3 with that trajectory and goes into a magnet that is turned 23 degree (as described in my other post) and additionally its rotational axis is shifted to the right on the x-axis by an amount that is equal to half the length of the horizontal aperture that was used for experiment 1. For experiment 2 the amount of shift is the same, but the magnet is not turned the 23 degree, but has the same orientation of field lines in space (as well as the same polarity in space) as it is the case for the magnet in experiment 1.
There are once again the following questions to be answered by your model:
Which governing laws does the particle X undergo for the experiments 1, 2 and 3, how do these governing laws affect the changes of position in our coordinate system for particle X and what temporary properties for the changes of these positions are needed for that particle X?
Let's assume that
“2) Randomly oriented electrons from the source are used for initial input to the sequential tests.”
With assumption 2) we now make my experiment 1. The location in space of particle X after having exited experiment 1 is just as described above.
The horizontal length of the aperture used for experiment 1 is Y. Half that length then is Y/2.
Question 1):
What orientation of axis and what direction of spin (CW or CCW) does particle X have had before it interacted with the magnet of experiment 1?
We now make my experiment 2. The magnet for experiment 2 has been moved horizontally (along the x-axis) by the amount Y/2. Particle X now enters the magnet. In which of the 4 quadrants of our coordinate system will particle X make its impact and why?
We now make my experiment 3. The magnet for experiment 3 has been turned 23 degree clockwise when looked at in the direction of flight. Additionally, this magnet has been moved horizontally (along the x-axis!) by the amount Y/2. Particle X now enters that magnet. In which of the 4 quadrants of our coordinate system will particle X make its impact and why?
view post as summary
Georgina Woodward replied on Dec. 7, 2020 @ 21:52 GMT
Stefan, I'm sorry I don't understand what you are trying to demonstrate with your series of experiments. They seem totally unrelated to what I've been thinking about. Lateral displacement is not correlated with one bit outcome rather than another. So I don't see the reason for selecting just X. Two kinds of movement are important for my idea to work 1. the alignment with the field 2. the resultant movement of electrons due to rotation ; field interaction. I do think if the gyroscopes are too large the UPS/DOWNS may have to be sorted by direction of induced current ( how to allow that flow is another issue, perhaps to do with the medium. Or Maybe charging a capacitor attached to the axis) rather than movement of the gyroscope. There are things to think about regarding design.
report post as inappropriate
Stefan Weckbach replied on Dec. 7, 2020 @ 22:21 GMT
Georgina,
your model needs not to understand what an experimenter has in mind, it just needs to answer the questions about the kinetics of a particle.
If it can't answer these questions for one single particle, it is neither able to explain the frequencies of “up” and “down” impacts in an entanglement experiment for the left side nor for the right side and hence, it explains nothing.
report post as inappropriate
your model needs not to understand what an experimenter has in mind, it just needs to answer the questions about the kinetics of a particle.
If it can't answer these questions for one single particle, it is neither able to explain the frequencies of “up” and “down” impacts in an entanglement experiment for the left side nor for the right side and hence, it explains nothing.
Georgina Woodward replied on Dec. 7, 2020 @ 23:42 GMT
The orientation of axis and direction of rotation, of a random individual electron, prior to going through the apparatus is not knowable.
I don't see how moving the magnet horizontally effects orientation with field or direction of rotation. The particle just enters the field somewhere and responds to what is encountered.
Result from 2 not necessarily the same/correlated with result at 3 because of angle change. If the result was UP it could now give either an Up or Down bit. Once more I don't understand the purpose of the horizontal magnet alteration. Although in some circumstances axis orientation and rotation is preserved, where along an x axis a recycled particle enters an apparatus is snot preserved. I think you have unrealistic expectations of the sequence of scenarios you describe.
report post as inappropriate
I don't see how moving the magnet horizontally effects orientation with field or direction of rotation. The particle just enters the field somewhere and responds to what is encountered.
Result from 2 not necessarily the same/correlated with result at 3 because of angle change. If the result was UP it could now give either an Up or Down bit. Once more I don't understand the purpose of the horizontal magnet alteration. Although in some circumstances axis orientation and rotation is preserved, where along an x axis a recycled particle enters an apparatus is snot preserved. I think you have unrealistic expectations of the sequence of scenarios you describe.
Stefan Weckbach replied on Dec. 8, 2020 @ 00:21 GMT
Georgina,
you now made it clear as possible with your answers that your model has nothing to do with physics. This has nothing to do with me having expectations or not.
I wish you a nice pre-Christmas time!
report post as inappropriate
you now made it clear as possible with your answers that your model has nothing to do with physics. This has nothing to do with me having expectations or not.
I wish you a nice pre-Christmas time!
Georgina Woodward replied on Dec. 8, 2020 @ 02:53 GMT
Stefan, my answers to your questions about your experiments are to do with how nature is rather than "my model' in particular.
That the rotation and orientation of a random particle can not be known until it has been measured should not be too shocking, More surprising and an important issue is that the Stern Gerlach apparatus does not just measure but alters a characteristic that is important for producing the outcome, Sometimes called an analyzer rather than measuring device for that reason.
Whether UP or DOWN bits are produced is independent of lateral location in the field. When experiencing a new field orientation , the previous relation with former field orientation has to be relinquished. It can not both change and stay the same. So the axis orientation and rotation direction are only semi permanent (Bell's inequalities don't apply).
The experimenter could set up the apparatus in such a way that the collected electrons pass precisely through the next magnet from a precise lateral input location. That precise input is a contrivance of the experimenter, not due to lateral location being a preserved characteristic. As a new field direction causes loss of former alignment it can't be said with certainty whether the new field orientation will give an Up or DOWN output.
Perhaps that is not physics as you would like it to be. I'm still talking about the physics of the universe; how it is .
report post as inappropriate
That the rotation and orientation of a random particle can not be known until it has been measured should not be too shocking, More surprising and an important issue is that the Stern Gerlach apparatus does not just measure but alters a characteristic that is important for producing the outcome, Sometimes called an analyzer rather than measuring device for that reason.
Whether UP or DOWN bits are produced is independent of lateral location in the field. When experiencing a new field orientation , the previous relation with former field orientation has to be relinquished. It can not both change and stay the same. So the axis orientation and rotation direction are only semi permanent (Bell's inequalities don't apply).
The experimenter could set up the apparatus in such a way that the collected electrons pass precisely through the next magnet from a precise lateral input location. That precise input is a contrivance of the experimenter, not due to lateral location being a preserved characteristic. As a new field direction causes loss of former alignment it can't be said with certainty whether the new field orientation will give an Up or DOWN output.
Perhaps that is not physics as you would like it to be. I'm still talking about the physics of the universe; how it is .
Stefan Weckbach replied on Dec. 8, 2020 @ 07:52 GMT
Georgina,
you claim that in your model the “up” and “down” outcomes at each side of an entanglement experiment are each due to local physical interactions. If that's the physics of the universe, then your model should be able to answer at least the questions I posed for experiment 1.
Ever since I posed these questions, you successfully avoided to even give an answer for...
view entire post
you claim that in your model the “up” and “down” outcomes at each side of an entanglement experiment are each due to local physical interactions. If that's the physics of the universe, then your model should be able to answer at least the questions I posed for experiment 1.
Ever since I posed these questions, you successfully avoided to even give an answer for...
view entire post
Georgina,
you claim that in your model the “up” and “down” outcomes at each side of an entanglement experiment are each due to local physical interactions. If that's the physics of the universe, then your model should be able to answer at least the questions I posed for experiment 1.
Ever since I posed these questions, you successfully avoided to even give an answer for experiment 1. If your model cannot infer for experiment 1 from particle X' position in the coordinate system after it went through the magnet to what its properties (particle location in the coordinate system in the horizontal aperture & its orientation of its axis in that coordinate system; direction of rotation) must have been just before it entered the magnet, then your model has not established a local physical explanation. Experiment 1 does not deal with a lateral shift of the magnet.
For establishing a model that exhibits local physical interactions at every point in the coordinate system and at every point in time for experiment 1, every particle that enters experiment 1 must have a unique position in the horizontal aperture. After having exited the experiment, every particle that went through the magnet will have a unique place at the measurement screen due to its local physical interactions.
Every model that aims to exhibit local physical interactions and claims to have determined the involved kinetics which leads to that unique place must be able to infer from that unique place the initial conditions (particle's properties just before the particle entered the magnet). If it can't make that link between that unique place at the screen and the initial conditions, it simply is not a model that is able to make unique mappings of local physical interactions with unique measurement outcomes! It's really that simple!
Since your model cannot make these unique mappings (otherwise please demonstrate it), it's explanations of how a particle's properties together with the local environment it encounters produce a unique outcome is simply inconsistent. That's true even for the case that your model's explanatory scheme neglects macroscopic imperfections of the apparatus as well as microscopic noise that additionally may act on a particle:
in both cases your model simply cannot infer from even one single particle outcome to the temporal properties that particle must have had just before it entered the magnet of experiment 1. Consequently your model also cannot conclude from the particle's temporal properties your model ascribes to it just before it enters the magnet to what it's outcome will be (“up” or “down”). Otherwise please demonstrate it. It's really that simple Georgina.
Once again this is not about me liking something or not, but about logics and consistency.
view post as summary
you claim that in your model the “up” and “down” outcomes at each side of an entanglement experiment are each due to local physical interactions. If that's the physics of the universe, then your model should be able to answer at least the questions I posed for experiment 1.
Ever since I posed these questions, you successfully avoided to even give an answer for experiment 1. If your model cannot infer for experiment 1 from particle X' position in the coordinate system after it went through the magnet to what its properties (particle location in the coordinate system in the horizontal aperture & its orientation of its axis in that coordinate system; direction of rotation) must have been just before it entered the magnet, then your model has not established a local physical explanation. Experiment 1 does not deal with a lateral shift of the magnet.
For establishing a model that exhibits local physical interactions at every point in the coordinate system and at every point in time for experiment 1, every particle that enters experiment 1 must have a unique position in the horizontal aperture. After having exited the experiment, every particle that went through the magnet will have a unique place at the measurement screen due to its local physical interactions.
Every model that aims to exhibit local physical interactions and claims to have determined the involved kinetics which leads to that unique place must be able to infer from that unique place the initial conditions (particle's properties just before the particle entered the magnet). If it can't make that link between that unique place at the screen and the initial conditions, it simply is not a model that is able to make unique mappings of local physical interactions with unique measurement outcomes! It's really that simple!
Since your model cannot make these unique mappings (otherwise please demonstrate it), it's explanations of how a particle's properties together with the local environment it encounters produce a unique outcome is simply inconsistent. That's true even for the case that your model's explanatory scheme neglects macroscopic imperfections of the apparatus as well as microscopic noise that additionally may act on a particle:
in both cases your model simply cannot infer from even one single particle outcome to the temporal properties that particle must have had just before it entered the magnet of experiment 1. Consequently your model also cannot conclude from the particle's temporal properties your model ascribes to it just before it enters the magnet to what it's outcome will be (“up” or “down”). Otherwise please demonstrate it. It's really that simple Georgina.
Once again this is not about me liking something or not, but about logics and consistency.
view post as summary
Georgina Woodward replied on Dec. 8, 2020 @ 23:32 GMT
I don't agree Stefan, you have a strange idea that the precise location of the output bit is directly correlated with the pre-magnet input co-ordinates and orientation. That is not so. For alignment to happen some particles will change their orientation more than others. The process of alignment may also affect how much lateral displacement there is due to the non-homogenous field, prior to alignment. You have the naïve assumption that they are all affected equally and that effect can just be subtracted to get the input 'characteristics'.
It seems to me you are using a model of how you think classical physics should be (that has been shown not to work in these kinds of SG experiment, to discredit an alternative classical explanation.
report post as inappropriate
It seems to me you are using a model of how you think classical physics should be (that has been shown not to work in these kinds of SG experiment, to discredit an alternative classical explanation.
Stefan Weckbach replied on Dec. 9, 2020 @ 06:55 GMT
Georgina,
“For alignment to happen some particles will change their orientation more than others.”
as well as
“Two kinds of movement are important for my idea to work 1. the alignment with the field 2. the resultant movement of electrons due to rotation ; field interaction.”
are just figments of a human mind, in this case figments of your mind (and maybe also...
view entire post
“For alignment to happen some particles will change their orientation more than others.”
as well as
“Two kinds of movement are important for my idea to work 1. the alignment with the field 2. the resultant movement of electrons due to rotation ; field interaction.”
are just figments of a human mind, in this case figments of your mind (and maybe also...
view entire post
Georgina,
“For alignment to happen some particles will change their orientation more than others.”
as well as
“Two kinds of movement are important for my idea to work 1. the alignment with the field 2. the resultant movement of electrons due to rotation ; field interaction.”
are just figments of a human mind, in this case figments of your mind (and maybe also figments of the minds of people that buy into those claims you make). For me there are no reasons to take these claims serious as long as you can't give the full kinetics that would describe why particles impact the screen at a certain location rather than another location. That full kinetics then also should explain why particles never impact at the area inside the open-mouth figure.
You are free to find it strange to ask what governing laws for which particle orientations and spin directions lead to the outcomes your model claims to produce. I do not at all consider that question as being strange. You excluded a magnetic moment from your model to be the property that the governing laws interact with. I ask which governing laws other than magnetic forces then make the particles deviate from their paths to produce “up” and “down” impacts and why these governing laws do prevent impacts at the area inside the open-mouth figure. If you find these questions strange then that's your decision but that decision really does not contribute anything to the quest of how and why the outcomes in your model come about in physical reality rather than in your mind!
“It seems to me you are using a model of how you think classical physics should be (that has been shown not to work in these kinds of SG experiment, to discredit an alternative classical explanation.”
I am using no model, I just ask questions. If asking questions should discredit your model, this is not my fault, but the fault of your model.
“you have a strange idea that the precise location of the output bit is directly correlated with the pre-magnet input co-ordinates and orientation. That is not so.”
That's another figment of your mind. As long as your model lacks the full kinetics, it cannot definitely state that certain correlations exist or do not exist. Nonetheless doing so is once more a figment of your mind and deeply inconsistent.
The inconsistency of your model simply is to declare all the mentioned figments of your mind to be how the universe factually works. This declaration is itself a figment of your mind. It could be considered as being more than just a figment of your mind if you could give the full kinetics and if you could do so, then one could carefully analyse this kinetics and maybe one then would trace that this kinetics is able to reproduce the correlation statistics of the entanglement experiment (but also maybe one then would trace that this kinetics isn't able reproduce the needed correlations).
But neither your model gives the full kinetics nor has this hypothetical kinetics already been analysed and found to reproduce the QM correlations. None of these requirements are delivered by your model and claims that these requirements are nonetheless delivered would be simply counterfactual reasoning. In other words, you and your model permanently confuse counterfactuals with facts and that is inconsistent reasoning. If you should find it strange that one demands from your model that it should be at all analysable, then your model does no better or different than a quantum mechanical analysis of the “real” facts responsible for the locations of particle impacts would do. It's really that simple Georgina.
view post as summary
“For alignment to happen some particles will change their orientation more than others.”
as well as
“Two kinds of movement are important for my idea to work 1. the alignment with the field 2. the resultant movement of electrons due to rotation ; field interaction.”
are just figments of a human mind, in this case figments of your mind (and maybe also figments of the minds of people that buy into those claims you make). For me there are no reasons to take these claims serious as long as you can't give the full kinetics that would describe why particles impact the screen at a certain location rather than another location. That full kinetics then also should explain why particles never impact at the area inside the open-mouth figure.
You are free to find it strange to ask what governing laws for which particle orientations and spin directions lead to the outcomes your model claims to produce. I do not at all consider that question as being strange. You excluded a magnetic moment from your model to be the property that the governing laws interact with. I ask which governing laws other than magnetic forces then make the particles deviate from their paths to produce “up” and “down” impacts and why these governing laws do prevent impacts at the area inside the open-mouth figure. If you find these questions strange then that's your decision but that decision really does not contribute anything to the quest of how and why the outcomes in your model come about in physical reality rather than in your mind!
“It seems to me you are using a model of how you think classical physics should be (that has been shown not to work in these kinds of SG experiment, to discredit an alternative classical explanation.”
I am using no model, I just ask questions. If asking questions should discredit your model, this is not my fault, but the fault of your model.
“you have a strange idea that the precise location of the output bit is directly correlated with the pre-magnet input co-ordinates and orientation. That is not so.”
That's another figment of your mind. As long as your model lacks the full kinetics, it cannot definitely state that certain correlations exist or do not exist. Nonetheless doing so is once more a figment of your mind and deeply inconsistent.
The inconsistency of your model simply is to declare all the mentioned figments of your mind to be how the universe factually works. This declaration is itself a figment of your mind. It could be considered as being more than just a figment of your mind if you could give the full kinetics and if you could do so, then one could carefully analyse this kinetics and maybe one then would trace that this kinetics is able to reproduce the correlation statistics of the entanglement experiment (but also maybe one then would trace that this kinetics isn't able reproduce the needed correlations).
But neither your model gives the full kinetics nor has this hypothetical kinetics already been analysed and found to reproduce the QM correlations. None of these requirements are delivered by your model and claims that these requirements are nonetheless delivered would be simply counterfactual reasoning. In other words, you and your model permanently confuse counterfactuals with facts and that is inconsistent reasoning. If you should find it strange that one demands from your model that it should be at all analysable, then your model does no better or different than a quantum mechanical analysis of the “real” facts responsible for the locations of particle impacts would do. It's really that simple Georgina.
view post as summary
hide replies
John R. Cox wrote on Nov. 18, 2020 @ 21:57 GMT
Georgi,
A principle problem that confronts efforts to model a realistic elementary particle becomes apparent in such experiments as Stern-Gerlach. It is acknowledged that macro experiments deal with aggregates of n? particles such as neutral Ag silver atoms, so we can deduce only so much applied to single entities. Cutting to the chase, let's look at either a proton or electron. The intrinsic spin, if taken as a real physical rotation would produce a magnetic field with a strength that is coefficient of charge and speed of rotation. If that axil orientation is Up and the rotation is CCW, then when/if flipped so that it is oriented Down, the rotation would be CW. The magnetic field orientation may well be in parallel with the rotational axis but regardless of Up or Down, the right angle deflection on the horizontal plane will always be CW veering towards the right when viewed from overhead of a magnet group with the South pole face of the upper magnet facing upwards. The Up/Down spin does not alter the negative charge response on that horizontal electrical plane. A proton will veer CCW to the left.
So how can we model charge realistically? It really physically behaves as if it were moving in all directions on the surface of the charge radius. Or is there a wobble to a precessing orbital of the rotation axis that is intermediate to the orthogonals of an electron (or proton) moving through an external magnetic field?
report post as inappropriate
A principle problem that confronts efforts to model a realistic elementary particle becomes apparent in such experiments as Stern-Gerlach. It is acknowledged that macro experiments deal with aggregates of n? particles such as neutral Ag silver atoms, so we can deduce only so much applied to single entities. Cutting to the chase, let's look at either a proton or electron. The intrinsic spin, if taken as a real physical rotation would produce a magnetic field with a strength that is coefficient of charge and speed of rotation. If that axil orientation is Up and the rotation is CCW, then when/if flipped so that it is oriented Down, the rotation would be CW. The magnetic field orientation may well be in parallel with the rotational axis but regardless of Up or Down, the right angle deflection on the horizontal plane will always be CW veering towards the right when viewed from overhead of a magnet group with the South pole face of the upper magnet facing upwards. The Up/Down spin does not alter the negative charge response on that horizontal electrical plane. A proton will veer CCW to the left.
So how can we model charge realistically? It really physically behaves as if it were moving in all directions on the surface of the charge radius. Or is there a wobble to a precessing orbital of the rotation axis that is intermediate to the orthogonals of an electron (or proton) moving through an external magnetic field?
John R. Cox wrote on Nov. 26, 2020 @ 01:57 GMT
Dr. Agnew,
This might be something you would find interesting, I ran across browsing with an eye for practical applications and developmental research. It cross references with physics.org so its a good start point.
https://www.graphene-info.com/researchers-achieve-dire
ct-visualization-quantum-dots-bilayer-graphene
the site also has an investment guide to players in the emerging field. enjoy-jrc
report post as inappropriate
This might be something you would find interesting, I ran across browsing with an eye for practical applications and developmental research. It cross references with physics.org so its a good start point.
https://www.graphene-info.com/researchers-achieve-dire
ct-visualization-quantum-dots-bilayer-graphene
the site also has an investment guide to players in the emerging field. enjoy-jrc
Steve Agnew replied on Dec. 11, 2020 @ 00:20 GMT
This is fun...a combination of boron nitride quantum dot with double layer graphene. They use an over potential to inject charge into one spot and create a quantum dot as a BN+/graph- trapped polaron.
They can then scan the quantum with a lower voltage and show that there is about 1% charge exchange with the scan. By the math, it seems that there are about 50-60 charge pairs trapped in the quantum dot that they showed. There are also a lot of structure and symmetry, which will take many, many papers to more thoroughly model.
Of course, there are a lot of neat things that are possible at 4.8 K but that do not exist at 300 K...but what the heck...have some fun with charge. They do not measure the dephasing rate and that would be interesting as well as the quantum dot lifetime.
report post as inappropriate
They can then scan the quantum with a lower voltage and show that there is about 1% charge exchange with the scan. By the math, it seems that there are about 50-60 charge pairs trapped in the quantum dot that they showed. There are also a lot of structure and symmetry, which will take many, many papers to more thoroughly model.
Of course, there are a lot of neat things that are possible at 4.8 K but that do not exist at 300 K...but what the heck...have some fun with charge. They do not measure the dephasing rate and that would be interesting as well as the quantum dot lifetime.
John R. Cox replied on Dec. 14, 2020 @ 02:52 GMT
Doc,
I just checked in, I've been preoccupied. I thought the paper would be in your wheelhouse, and what had immediately struck me was a possible fit with your hypothesis of a three quark electron. The structure visualized, produced three dots rather than previous efforts which displayed concentric rings. I have to admit that it is all well beyond my level of play but am happy to watch and learn. Glad you like it, graphene may well be the energy game changer. Twenty years from now people will be saying, "Can you imagine! they actually burnt the stuff! what a terrible waste of the best source of elemental carbon nature provides! Heavens!" Happy Holidays - stay well, jrc
report post as inappropriate
I just checked in, I've been preoccupied. I thought the paper would be in your wheelhouse, and what had immediately struck me was a possible fit with your hypothesis of a three quark electron. The structure visualized, produced three dots rather than previous efforts which displayed concentric rings. I have to admit that it is all well beyond my level of play but am happy to watch and learn. Glad you like it, graphene may well be the energy game changer. Twenty years from now people will be saying, "Can you imagine! they actually burnt the stuff! what a terrible waste of the best source of elemental carbon nature provides! Heavens!" Happy Holidays - stay well, jrc
Login or create account to post reply or comment.