Dear Peter,

first of all, thank you very much for your reply. Step by Step i understand your approach better now.

For the moment, i am reading the Thompson paper "A chaotic Ball". So give me time until tomorrow to reply in detail. I have to think about it all overnight.

Just a few remarks:

The first part of the Bohmian experiment is easy to interpret in terms of local reality. If both detector's magnetic fields built a common angle of 0° or 180°, the pairs are perfectly (anti)-correlated. This could be explained by the source sending out only pairs whose overall spin is zero and the gross spin is always anti-correlated, but in arbitrary directions (as is assumed in QM).

The harder part to explain are the intermediate angles between 0° and 180°.

I summarize what i assume to have understood until now:

"In that case both North poles face the same way (at random, but say left) so both South poles right. The common propagation axis then ensures the north pole is what arrives at the left polariser, the south pole (clockwise) to the right polariser. If the A,B 'analyser' ('filter') settings are the same, the particles then go in OPPOSITE directions. Reversing just ONE of the analysers, so A,B are opposite, means that both particles will then deflect the SAME way."

O.k., every 'particle' has both poles, the equatorial plane of them is the plane in the common propagation axis. The boundary between the both poles (between the both colors green and red), so to speak the equatorial plane of the two particles, are parallel to the equatorial plane of the earth (or my writing desk)? Have i understood this correctly?

Now let's say our two magnets (analysers) have their north poles above and their south poles below. What causes the left particle to go in one direction, the right particle to go in the opposite direction? What forces will do this? There is an identical field orientation for both magnets, both particle's magnetic fields are the same, as are the ones of the magnets. O.k., their OAM may point into opposite directions wrt the magnets. Also the north pole of the left particle enters the magnet first, the south pole of the right particle first.

But the latter scenario implies that one must measure both particles at the same time. This is not neccessary.

Maybe i am allowed to give you two resources from the internet. Could i ask you to tell me what are the wrong assumptions made by the authors? That would be fine, so we can probably save us much exchange and discussions here.

Here are the two sources:

http://www.upscale.utoronto.ca/GeneralInterest/Harrison/SternGerlach/SternGerlach.html

http://everything2.com/title/Stern-Gerlach+experiment

Thank you very much for your time investing in my questions!!!

Best wishes,

Stefan

Stephan,Peter,

Stephan wrote "the equatorial plane of them is the plane in the common propagation axis." How is that known?

Peter you wrote-Quote,"Fig 1 simply showed quantum spin 1/2 classically producible diagrammatically. We need twin helical charge paths to apply in 4D so best to revert to simple 'Polarity' (of a spinning sphere = N and S poles).

In that case both North poles face the same way (at random, but say left) so both South poles right. The common propagation axis then ensures the north pole is what arrives at the left polariser, the south pole (clockwise) to the right polariser. "End Quote.

How does that motion reconcile with electromagnetic wave propagation? Having got to grips with the spinning sphere that "from its own perspective" always spins in the same direction but from observer perspective at each pole is spinning in opposite directions.Its cool. But is the motion your describing too simple, with North pole left, South pole right or vice versa and propagating along the equatorial plane so rolling with a pole each side.

Now instead let it flip end over end and imagine it coming to wards you. It is now alternating clockwise and anticlockwise rotation without changing its own spin. Which is a really cool motion. That doesn't seem related to what you are describing.If the equatorial plane is also turning it gives alternating top-bottom rotation so from forward view alternating clockwise anticlockwise; and then side to side and giving alternating LHS anticlockwise RHS clockwise, LHS clockwise RHS anticlockwise. The motion is now starting to look something like an electromagnetic wave.

What do you think?

Dear Peter, Georgina,

a minor correction - for describing it as i understood it during writing, but wrote it down false - of my new thread's post above:

The boundary between the both poles (between the both colors green and red) is not parallel, but perpendicular to the earth's 'equatorial plane'. Means, my writing desk has to be tilted - to the left or to the right - until it's perpendicular with the floor of my room.

Anyways, after Georgina's post here, i am no more sure how to imagine the term 'clockwise' Peter mentioned by saying

"The common propagation axis then ensures the north pole is what arrives at the left polariser, the south pole (clockwise) to the right polariser."

If i am sitting in front of the propagation axis, to my left is an analyser (magnet), to my right there is another one. In the middle there is the particle source. So clockwise means for me the particle to the right, imagined in 2D as a circle, spins clockwise ('rolling' clockwise towards the right analyser). The particle to the left, as i understood it, spins also clockwise, but simply flys in the other direction as the right particle does. So both, from my perspective, spin clockwise, as Peter indicated in his essay on page 4 by writing

"and sent out particles with both poles orientated randomly left or right, but both the same way round".

Clarifications are welcome!

Best wishes

Stefan

Stephan, All,

the terms clockwise and anticlockwise are relative to the perspective.A Southern hemisphere clockwise is a Northern hemisphere anticlockwise as the "viewers are each inverted relative to the other. Peter's insight.

South view is opposite of a North. So really it should be required that when clockwise or anticlockwise are specified the perspective of the viewer also be given. That is why when viewing the spin flip motion from outside,flip coming North pole forwards then South pole forwards there is a change from anticlockwise rotation to clockwise but only from the perspective of the viewer who is looking along the line of travel with the particle approaching, which is orthogonal to the top/bottom flipping and the lateral flipping, lets call it rolling to avoid confusion.

For the particle the spin rotation is not changing from clockwise to anticlockwise or vice versa (depending on whether we consider the particle to have a North hemisphere or South hemisphere viewpoint.)

To get the electromagnetic wave motion it isn't top/bottom flip then lateral flip but spin(clockwise/anticlockwise), flip( top/bottom) and roll(lateral,left/right)simultaneously.

Imagine the North pole at the top as you look at it the hemisphere around it is spinning anticlockwise, lets say; looking along the line of propagation of the wave/particle coming towards you. The North pole comes forward and to the viewers left lets say (it could go to the right but that would give the opposite polarization) so midway in its top bottom flip it is now spinning at 90 degrees to its starting position on the left hand side ignoring for a moment the forwards motion it has just made for the sake of visualizing its current location. As the downwards flip continues the roll motion continues on the oblique angle taking the North pole to the bottom. It then continues to roll and flip as it spins taking the North pole to the right hand side and from there back up to the top. Meanwhile of course the South pole is taking its compulsory journey. Again from the outside perspective South pole flips up and right then up to top carrying on the same oblique route then down left and back to bottom. Spinning (clockwise /anticlockwise) flipping (top to bottom bottom to top) and rolling lateral rotation RHS to LHS, LHS to RHS (outside viewers perspective looking along line of propagation wave/particle coming towards.)

Now we have a motion that will permit light speed travel. With, from outside perspective, top-bottom and side-side alternating clockwise and anticlockwise rotation. Which could disrupt the surrounding environment including that ubiquitous resistance said to give particles mass.It is tunneling. The "resistance" can not resist the alternating "swirling" all around motion so there is no (or very, very little inertia.) Hence a light speed massless particle.

How can we test the hypothesis that that is how the photon wave-particle is moving? replicate the motion in a prototype model or vehicle and see how fast it will go. Who's interested?

(I take it back Peter, I can visualize a photon.)

Clarification. When I wrote "South pole flips up and right then up to top carrying on the same oblique route then down left and back to bottom. Spinning (clockwise /anticlockwise).............)" I don't mean the South pole is changing its spin but that it could be going clockwise or anticlockwise depending on perspective, and convention.That was a confusing statement to jot in there, sorry.It would have been better to just say clockwise which is the convention being used for the South pole external viewer looking along line of propagation.

Dear Georgina,

these clockwise/anticlockwise labels are in fact only conventional. Peter could have been writing

"The common propagation axis then ensures the north pole is what arrives at the left polariser, the south pole (anticlockwise) to the right polariser."

as well as what he really wrote

"The common propagation axis then ensures the north pole is what arrives at the left polariser, the south pole (clockwise) to the right polariser."

It's only the language that describes a common point of view, so we can communicate what goes on in an experiment.

For example, when i say to you

"my cirle (clock) i have drawn on the paper with a 'clockwise' arrow at the 12 suddenly runs anti-clockwise"

i have to add that i have just reverted the front side of the paper to be the back side. Then the arrow points 'anti-clockwise' (a thin paper with a big edding, so you can see the drawing from the other side of the paper).

Similarily, without rotating the paper, i can gain the same result by walking around it and look at its back side (same result).

Simulating an electromagnetic light ray by projecting some axis of rotation of a ball into sinus-like curves is not a suprising thing.

I am mainly interested in understanding Peter's case of the Bohmian experiment and struggled with some terminology to properly imagine what he has in mind.

Best wishes,

Stefan

Hi Stephen Weckback,

I am just stunned at the implications of what it means that our universe *is* fine-tuned. I am surprised that the scientific community doesn't announce this discovery as the most shocking revelation of our time. It could mean one of two things, or both. It could mean,

There is an Intelligent Designer,

or, it could mean that our universe is part of an even greater multiverse,

or it could mean that both are true.

It is a shame that there are so many atheist physicists who are polarized cynical because the implication of these facts are truly amazing. The fact that some people bump into grey aliens, UFO's or have other encounters with strange lifeforms should fill us with awe and excitement. SETI is this fearful attempt to spy on other intelligent life. But if scientists were really bold, they would beam the message into space that we know that you guys are out there, please stop by for a visit.

Stefan, apologies for spelling your name wrong earlier.

I am interesting in visualizing what Peter is describing in my own time. Had to get the hang of visualizing the spin/s moving. It then seemed natural to seek the motion that must be occurring to get the double perpendicular sinusoidal light waves. That correlation of motion lets me know, according to the chosen convention for describing it, where/when there is spin that is anticlockwise and clockwise. Seems to me the motion visualized over time has implications for interpretation of the experimental results.

Looking at the direction of wave propagation with the wave coming straight ahead the spin changes from anticlockwise to clockwise, that's not convention, I'm not just calling it clockwise when its still turning the same way. Its objectively happened from that given perspective because the sphere has been inverted. (Though from the perspective of the North pole the whole sphere is moving anticlockwise.) Likewise looking from one side there is swapping of anticlockwise and clockwise spin but each hemisphere retains the same spin whatever position it is in.

I think that is really fascinating and wonderful to behold. Also very interesting to me is that it isn't an electo-wave and a magnetic wave is is frequently depicted but magnetic-magnetic waves generating the electric field because the magnetic field is moving. That may be old hat to you but its new to me, so interesting.

Peter has found something very profound that should alter how we think about particle spins. That is they can't be just clockwise or just anticlockwise.Its always relative to the viewpoint of the observer or detector!! I must compare Peter's description of the particles motion to see if it is compatible but just differently described OR if it is different how his model of the motion has the better explanatory power.If using an unconventional materialist interpretation to explain the results of an experiment using photons it has to also fit what we know about electromagnetic waves it seems to me.If it doesn't I'll have to say nice try but that isn't happening. Unless the experiment is so unnatural that it is changing the way a photon naturally behaves and so is irrelevant to our understanding of nature. (At present I don't think that is the case.)

Also from my point of view it also answers how up and down magnetic detectors can intercept the different/ spins as well as the left right ones, which is something you asked Peter about.

I will not trouble you further.

  • [deleted]

  • Post #478

Georgina & all, if you will kindly forgive my intrusion:

" ... according to the chosen convention for describing it, where/when there is spin that is anticlockwise and clockwise."

That's a problem that Joy Christian's quantum measurement framework has solved, with an extra degree of freedom analogous to the 3-dimension phenomenon inherent in the Dirac belt trick, or the Filipino plate dance. At what point (where?) and at what time (when?) can the belt be said to have transformed from one state of motion to the other, or the plate in the dancer's hand? The motion is continuous; the pair of states is continuous. And yet because the states are a pair, a quantum bit, they have 2 discrete values. As fundamental quantum mechanics informs us, a pair of values can be correlated or anti-correlated; correlation is the coincidence of 2 spins, anti-correlation is the opposite of coincidence. Quantum theory allows that the values and their correlations are entirely random for each measure, while classical (i.e., continuous function) physics allows a continuum of correlated values measured from an initial condition, without random coincidences.

The problem with classical physics is that to solve the equations, which are ordinary differential or partial differential equations, one must define boundary conditions. The equations can be solved exactly, yet not satisfactorily, because there are too many solutions. On the other hand, the equations of quantum theory can be solved satisfactorily though not exactly. Indeterminism is built into the model.

"The motion is now starting to look something like an electromagnetic wave."

You got it, sister. :-) Classical theories are based in continuous wave phenomena, and continuous wave phenomena evolve deterministically; correlated and anticorrelated points of the wave are not discrete objects. It requires an extra degree of freedom imparted by an extradimensional framework, however, to show that mathematically -- and it takes a continuous measurement correlation function experimentally (catching measured values 'on the fly').

Joy Christian has met the challenge mathematically -- quantum correlations are points of the 3-sphere Hopf fibration that precisely correspond to locally real measures in 2-sphere classical space. Think of how sine wave amplitudes are smoothly correlated with their troughs; if this mathematically smooth and continuous function is shown to underly all basic physics, then there is no true randomness and cherished ideas of conventional quantum theory (probabilism, entanglement, nonlocality, wave function collapse) have to be discarded.

The big question is, where does the extra degree of freedom come from? It's beautifully built into the topology of the 3-sphere -- where every point of origin is a point at infinity. It takes a little study and training in topology to appreciate the implications, though to make a long story longer, the simple point at infinity is such that while dividing by zero is an arithmetic no-no, the 3-sphere structure defines n/0 = oo. Because this feature is also available to real analysis via the real projective line, the 3-sphere topological framework projects as well to the curved manifold of the 2-sphere.

So getting back to the where and the when of spin characteristics, if the qubit state is continuous, there is no where or when that one of the pair's state transforms into the other -- although the transformation (as with the Dirac trick or the Filipino dance) is completely described and determined by the initial condition of a measurement. And this goes for the initial condition of all measured quantum correlations, whether one is measuring spin (which in the quantum world does not at any rate actually correspond to classical angular direction and momentum) or any other quantum characteristic.

Well said Tom,

Your post as Anonymous sums up the salient features of Joy Christian's model nicely. I think that the existence of an extra-dimensional framework is essential to understanding the quantum correlations problem, and that Joy goes to the core of the issue. Peter's approach seems mainly to deal with the phenomenology, which may be more like the conventional approach to Physics in some ways, but JC points out that the assumption of an underlying reality with a topological twist provides an elegant answer why some of those intriguing phenomena occur in the first place.

The thing is; Joy is simply citing facts of geometry and topology that are indisputable realities, and asserting that they explain the Physics we observe. However; showing that the rudiments of geometry dictate the properties of space is difficult, in a world where the majority of physicists feel that the Physics is determining the properties of space, rather than the other way around.

Regards,

Jonathan

Dear Georgina,

i also have to apologize for my somewhat rude reply to your commentary. It was in no way ment to downgrade what you have to say about the whole issue.

My point is, your are talking about spin, and i am left with no information what you understand in detail by 'spin'. Firstly, i tried to visualize what Peter replied to me. He spoke of the particles flying to the left and to the right. So i imagined them as rolling along the propagation axis (one of them; the other flying in the opposite direction, but having the same rolling 'spin' - clockwise).

Now, is this rolling already the spin Peter and you talk about? I had to assume a yes, because Peter told me one can simply visualize the spin properties (north and south pole) by imagining the particle as 'painted half green and half red - each hemisphere with one of the colours).

What i assume to be the spin in your visualization, is the fact that those waves (electromagnetic) produce tales and hills in a regular manner and the two components of the wave (electric, magnetic) always are perpendicular to each other (see http://www.upscale.utoronto.ca/GeneralInterest/Harrison/SternGerlach/Polarisation.html - second picture, transverse waves).

What seems to point to the left side of the red arrows (ahead, front) seems to point to the right side - when watched from the back perspective of the illustration. The question is how this is translated physically in such a way, that the frequency of the waves (in the Bohmian experiment) do not randomly trigger the detectors to produce a 50:50 change for spin up/spin down, but do it in an (anti)-correlated manner (if both magnetic fields are in the same direction or in a 180° relation).

Be aware of something: One can do the experiment not only with electrons, but also with silver atoms (or hydrogen atoms). Only the 47th electron in the silver atom has the net magnetic moment needed for testing the spin orientation of that particle. So the question is, how are the forces of that 47th electron transferred to the detectors?

I will wait, until Peter replies, before speculating further.

Best wishes,

Stefan

Stefan, you are right that if you want to understand what Peter is describing its best to let him explain it: ) I'm just describing the motion of one photon wave-particle.

Perhaps I can describe the particle motion more clearly for whoever is interested. What I was describing as spin is the hemispheres spinning. North Pole at the top imagine its hemisphere turning anticlockwise. Then it also has to flip which involves the top Northern hemisphere moving to the bottom. So perpendicular to the spin. But it doesn't do that in one go but via the roll to the left hand side when facing the oncoming wave-particle which involves twisting of the equatorial plane. So its moving around 3 different axes. For spin imagine Northern hemisphere up and a plane bisecting the Globe perpendicular to the equatorial plane. That plane is turning anticlockwise from Northern hemisphere perspective.The axis of rotation running top to bottom through the plane. For the top bottom flip the equatorial plane is rotating. Looking at the front, wave-particle approaching with Northern hemisphere up, the plane is rotating front down back up. Draw a diameter from left hand side to right hand side and rotate around that diameter as its axis. To get the roll to the left there has to be another motion of the equatorial plane which is perpendicular to the flip rotation.Draw another diameter perpendicular to the first which is another axis of rotation That can be imagined by taking now forward facing Northern hemisphere to left hand side as viewed from in front. However the spin flip and roll are all occurring together so it doesn't move half way forward and then to the left but obliquely and the Southern hemisphere also moves obliquely from bottom to right hand side when viewed from in front facing oncoming wave-particle.The result is North and South poles are switching places top and bottom and left and right.Which to the "outside observer" looking at the wave-particle motion appears as alternating clockwise/anticlockwise rotation top and bottom and also left and right.Giving the fluctuating magnetic fields and corresponding electric field.

Georgina,

Yes. Your 'naive' analogies are now very close. Half silvered mirrors will indeed split the 'signal'. The claim we can't 'divide' photons is a stupid assumption derived FROM the fact that we only find a signal on one path. My 2012 essay (last fig) showed an experimental result of an orbiting charge, like a ruby ring.

It's 50:50 which of any 'semicircle' the ruby will be in, but the WHOLE distribution is the ring itself. The ring really describes a helix, but looked at in 2D from the side a helix is a wave sequence. Strike a vertical line at random anywhere on that sequence and it will cut either through the positive or negative charge position. The 'manifestation' can only be on the positive charge path, but recombining the two still gives the 'self-interference' pattern. Again that's a simplification - but perhaps still too complex to easily grasp.

LET SLEEPING LIONS LIE

They don't work well as symmetry and independent rotation are required, but we can make the basics work if ghost is lying down, belly facing Alice (or Bob). She can roll over at random, and also, as you identify, rotate her orientation, so when lying along the A-B axis both A and B see 50:50 light/dark. There are also intermediate angles on both planes (lying on her belly at 45 degrees) but as she's not a sphere or torus this 'distribution' can't give us the cosine curve! The other problem is that we also need a 'ghost' Ghost who can be rotated independently of the first. If we can't do that, then we'd need to be able to rotate the 'picture' of ghost (belly to back) by rotating the photons, which returns us to nonsense!

The problem using Lions is the same problem as using maths. We can only make it fully 'work' by assuming some physically nonsensical effect or other. Nature is simpler. Just consider the Bohm case of a central Stern-Gerlach 'splitter' sending identical spinning spheres in opposite directions on the spin axis, one then seen as the North pole the other the South (each can see HALF of the object reality!) But the pole orientations are able to be reversed incrementally by the detector EM field setting angle without affecting the spin (giving each observers subjective reality).

Understanding that is like riding a bike. Beyond human capability at first, then entirely intuitive once learned. You're definitely getting there!

Best wishes

Peter

"So it's moving around 3 different axes."

Bingo, Georgina. A vector in ordinary space is called a 3-vector, because it has three components describing direction and magnitude. Quantum mechanical functions in n-dimension Hilbert spaces, however, may or may not correspond to ordinary space. That's the crux of the foundational problem: because the quantum mechanics of discrete state spaces cannot map to ordinary space without assuming nonlocal influences, there is no escaping the conclusion that probability measures are fundamental to nature -- an attempt to "breathe in empty space," as Einstein put it. The classical model does not allow any space empty of the field.

I appreciate that the discussants here are trying to circumvent the conclusion with a simple model in ordinary space. That such can't be done, however, is what the Bell-Aspect result proves.

Thanks for nailing it down, Jonathan.

I had made a study of string theory long before I knew of Joy's measurement framework, and I always struggled with the idea of how a field theory can admit nonlocal measurement criteria.

If field influences are self-similar at every scale, however, there is an implied degree of freedom that obviates nonlocality. It was quite a revelation to me that -- as Joy describes -- the topology was lying right before our eyes all the time.

Stefan, Georgina.

To clarify. The propagation axis IS the spin axis. I didn't make it clear enough Stefan to completely depart from the fig 1 orientations. We now have two spheres, identical but propagating in opposing directions, so one 'North first', one South first. Any position ('charge') on the 'equator' (yes, perpendicular to the axis) then describes a helical path. Two opposite equatorial points then describe a TWIN helix. Observe a helix from ANY SIDE and you have a sine wave in 2D! (all as my 2012 essay).

The 'tumbling' model you refer Georgina (where also rotating 'pole over pole') is, as Tom agrees, the standard assumed model. Tom assumes I adopt that model, which is also the one Bell adopted. I DO NOT! Tom's correct that that model is what leads to the constraints of Bell's inequality (adapted from the 'Wigner-d'Espagnet' inequality as he identifies). So let's return to what I DO specify, which I show circumvents that limit; opposite propagation along a COMMON spin axis (so equatorial planes also parallel).

Stefan, Hopefully you now see the answer to your 'Bohmian set up' question as simple. Think of it as the detector electron "dominating" the measurement interaction ('momentum exchange') so there is a quanta of "energy", but it's spin direction has been modulated to the DETECTOR ELECTRON spin direction when re-emitted. That is a simple 'rotation' of the poles on the y and or z axis which CONSERVES the x axis 'spin'.

Now lets revert for a moment to the 'CHARGES' to consider the fundamentals of fractal helicity. Each CHARGE is itself a spinning sphere. That's what a 'spin/orbit' relation really is, as found experimentally ("hyperfine spin" as the Planck Inst. and Nano Optics links I posted). Joy may derive this mathematically, I certainly do so geometrically and empirically. But these two gauges are just two of a fractal sequence (as our planet orbits the sun as the sun orbits the galaxy, etc.) That is the underlying nature (of Godel's Fuzzy Logic, Chaos theory and Joy's 'infinity', but now not necessarily infinite).

Back to Bohm's magnets. We then simply have north poles going one way and the south going the other (or the SAME ways when setting are opposite), with EACH FINDING determined independently by A and B's setting, so producing the basic 'non-local' QM prediction. I'll derive the Cos^2 in another post, but first I point out the the 'entanglement' is the common AXIS, which gives a relationship between the two detectors angles (as vectors, so forming 'cones' in a spinning Bloch sphere).

A last point; If a blind observer touches the equator he's sure of energy but not of spin 'direction'. A Conversely at the pole he's certain of direction but 'energy' reduces to zero. That should be familiar as a classical Bayesian "probability distribution".

Peter