Dear Peter,

thank you very much for your clarifications.

O.k., my picture was right, despite of the fact that the charge at the equatorial plane describes a helical path over time. I conclude out of that that both particle spheres turn around perpendicular to the spin axis (= propagation axis). I assume that the direction of this spinning movement could be anti-clockwise or clockwise, as long as both particles do their turnarounds in the same direction.

Another question: The experiment is surely made with electrons (at least i do not know about 'twin-atoms' for the Bohmian EPR experiment - sorry Georgina, i confused two different cases, when saying that the experiment can also be done with atoms).

Now the question: To compensate the electrons charge, one has to adopt a certain electrical field between the two poles of the magnet, otherwise one cannot deduce anything about spin from this experiment? Am i correct with this assumption or not?

"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'."

This is not entirely clear to me. Coincidentally i have replied to your post above (the lions issue with Georgina), and i remarked that in my opinion the conditions at both detectors are identical, as are the properties the particles themselves have (same spin orientations, same rotations around the propagation axis). So what is causing one particle to go one way, the other particle to go the opposite way?

Last but not least: I assume that in the magnetic field of the detectors, the particles (after the modulation you mentioned) are no more the same, but two new particles are generated and send further with the same velocity the original particles may have had. Is this correct or not?

Dear Peter, thanks for your reply. Please reply again to my questions. Until now, it was a lot to get my head round it in one go, but hopefully i can grasp the full picture upcoming.

Best wishes,

Stefan

    Stefan,

    I hope my answers below elucidate, but; Yes, one 'sees' N and one S. Then also No; the magnetic fields dictate electron SPIN direction, so as the spin finding is 'RELATIVE' (which Bell himself identified in "Bertleman's socks..") they will be found different if the setting is the same.

    I derived the intermediate cos distribution below, but just ask if not clear. I also saw you posted some links to evaluate which I'll do the moment I can. I just spent some time with the comprehensive responses in the new string below.

    Thank you for putting in the effort to understand. It's a shame most just assume they know without trying so live under misapprehensions, which is the same mistake QM mainstream makes, identified by Bell from Koestler's; 'The sleepwalkers';

    "Contemporary progress in cosmology "...is made in spite of the fundamental obscurity in quantum mechanics. Our theorists stride through that obscurity unimpeded... sleepwalking?." also;

    "The founding fathers of quantum theory decided even that no concepts could possibly be found which could emit direct description of the quantum world. So the theory which they established aimed only to describe systematically the response of the apparatus." Speakable..P.170, and;

    "The problem then is this: how exactly is the world to be divided into speakable apparatus...that we can talk about...and unspeakable quantum system that we cannot talk about? ...Now in my opinion the founding fathers were in fact wrong on this point. The quantum phenomena do not exclude a uniform description of micro and macro worlds...systems and apparatus." p.171

    Peter

    "The quantum phenomena do not exclude a uniform description of micro and macro worlds...systems and apparatus." p.171

    Exactly. Unless a pair of bits -- classical information bit or the analogous quantum qubit -- are independent of apparatus and detector settings, there is no way to have a local realistic theory that explains strong quantum correlations without a nonlocal model. That's what the Bell-Aspect result absolutely proves.

    That is, only a coordinate free measure schema (Joy's) that incorporates a degree of freedom not found in the ordinary space of the Bell-Aspect (as well as your) result, breaks down the distinction between quantum and classical domains, to produce " ... a uniform description of micro and macro worlds."

    Dear Peter,

    o.k., when the two spheres meet, they touch each other at some tangential point. There is some current flowing round the equatorial plane, but not only there, but also - in the same direction - at all the latitudes of the sphere. By touching that electron at an arbitrary latitude, a momentum in the range from nothing to maximum is passed by. Nothing at the pole, maximum at the equatorial plane... But this cannot be, because if nothing (no force) is transfered, the electron could not change its direction.

    "The speed of surface spin at the at latitude VARIES BY THE COSINE OF THE ANGLE FROM THE CENTRE OF THE SPHERE."

    I is clear for me that the speed from a ring with bigger latitude is bigger than the speed from a ring with lesser latitude. Means, the bigger the circumference on which the charge is looping, the bigger the transfered force. But you say 'cosine of the angle from the centre of the sphere'. Can one understand this in the sense that one has to draw two lines from the centre of the sphere to the opposite points of that specific latitude?

    Let me continue: the particle to the left was touched at latitude 'e'. The particle to the right was touched at latitude 'f'. We now can draw the respective latitudes into a Bloch sphere and draw the lines to the opposite ends of the respective latitudes. There are now 6 lines that intersect each other at the centre of the sphere:

    the propagation axis (spin axis), the equatorial axis, two lines for cone 'e' and two lines for cone 'f'. Is this correct or not?

    Now, how have i to read the RELATIVE angle? (between which lines?)

    Where do the two spheres at each side of the experiment (Bob and Alice) have to touch to get anti-correlation, correlation, and random - means - uncorrelated pairs of data?

    Peter, very much thanks for your replies, i hope you can and do answer my questions. Your approach seems to be very interesting.

    Best wishes,

    Stefan

    Stefan, Pete, and everybody,

    I would like to point out a blatant assumption in classical realism that is as much a problem as the defacto QM assumption that we cannot look into the quantum realm, ie: spin.

    Long ago in early reading I accepted (naively) the dictum that 'spin' did not physically mean rotation. Well... okay, so what is it? In QM it is a probable outcome of orientation, which could be related to physical rotation. But in classical mechanics, spin is generally assumed as being a physical state of rotation and it is simply assumed that rotation can only occur physically as only a single axial phenomenon. This is visibly true of the wheel, or any macroscopic device.

    If we accept the classical 'given' that all regions of space are suffused with a field, and that there are innumerable loci of discrete, overlapping or superposed fields, then what we are speaking of is 'fields of energy'. So who are we to say that energy must only rotate around one single axial in any discrete, self-limiting field volume? To the contrary, would it not be more likely that energy would seek an extant state of light velocity, and would have no preferred direction in space over time? It would then be a special case for energy to seek light velocity in a linear propagation as electromagnetic radiation, and a general case for a condensate of energy to assume an ideally spherical volume which would be geometrically constrained to exhibit an orthogonal axial probability. In general then, it is only our measurement of axial orientation that results in a single spin state. jrc

    "'discrete state spaces', the key word here is the plural 'spaces'. Yet how can there be influence if there is nonlocality? Hence we call it 'entanglement'. So there must be some reality to space (and time, together) that conveys the necessary connectivity. jrc"

    John R, you bet. As Einstein averred, "All physics is local."

    Dear Peter,

    I would propose to continue in the thread below opened by me. I have written down my remaining questions in the thread below and also in the one thread up the below one, if you would reply below would be fine. Sorry for having opened some different threads the last days, it all was due to inattention.

    Best wishes,

    Stefan

    Tom,

    You need to put more effort in to understand the propositions I've presented. You're still a very long way off. I'll help all I can. You also imposed your own meaning above changing Bells. He did not mean what you suggested, only that a logically consistent ('uniform') description of quantum phenomena is possible (in terms of his 'Beables' real 'be-able' qualities).

    Stefan,

    Agreed. I'll also try to find those links.

    Peter

    Jonathan said, "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."

    IMHO, one of the most profound aspects of Joy Christian's Joy Christian's classical local realistic model is that space has unique spinor properties. It is a solution that should not be ignored. Speaking of Dirac, what he discovered way back in the 1920's supports this notion as Tom alludes to that it was right in front of us all this time.

    Stefan,

    "if nothing (no force) is transfered, the electron could not change its direction." Exactly correct. It doesn't if it hits precisely at the pole. That's the 50:50, 90 degree, or 'crossover' point on the graph.

    But you don't need to 'draw two lines' to get each 'cone'. Just one line for each detector, to ANYWHERE on the different latitudes. There are only TWO 'cones'. The spin of the sphere creates the 'ring' of each cone (see Figure 3). The Circumference there is the line of latitude.

    Simply; The surface speed at that latitude is what produces the Orbital Angular Momentum energy. the CHANGE in energy with latitude in non-linear; changing by the COSINE of the angle with the common spin axis/equatorial plane.

    "RELATIVE angle? (between which lines?)"

    Angle theta is as shown in the Fig, between the 'faces' of the two cones (which have a common centreline on the propagation axis) each of which represents one 'setting angle'. i.e. If A chooses 90^o and B chooses 170^o the critical 'DIFFERENCE' angle is 80^o. Now WHEREVER say 80^o happens to fall between the poles, the surface spin energy difference varies by the Cos^2 of the angle. (familiarise yourself with Cosines, which derive from lines and circles, then just extend the geometry to planes and spheres).

    We need to extend the model a little to understand the full dynamic as it works whatever orientation Alice or Bob and the equipment start at using all degrees of freedom! We also have the inverse relationship depending if we want 100% probability of spin direction or of energy, where we then get 0% of the OTHER! We can look from the 'side', and say 'spin' UP is really the equator going 'UP', but then if we rotate the poles (or go round the other side) we find the spin going DOWN! But at the poles it's doing neither!! There is a fundamental simplicity about a spinning sphere we haven't previously understood which previous methods didn't expose.

    In fundamental terms the answer does NOT 'disprove QM', just the belief in spooks, and it does NOT give complete determinism, just to the next gauge down ('decoding' much Shannon channel 'noise'), and though the DFM uses absolute time it does NOT falsify the SR postulates, only showing the 'add on' original interpretation is only mathematical and does not model physical processes (and that's where we'll probably loose Tom to convictions again. Sorry Tom) but it DOES entirely allow QM and SR to converge, as the re-emission by the electron after the absorption is at c in the new electron rest frame EACH TIME.

    John,

    Brilliant! Wheels within wheels and 'ever decreasing circles' of all orientations. (PS. I forgot to mention the CMB helical anisotropy a few gauges above galaxies, derived in my cyclic evolution essay). And I agree that in terms of 'findings' observer orientation and interaction is EVERYTHING! As my 2012 essay showed as things translate as well as rotate this is all helical 'paths' at all scales (or double helices in the case of 'life'/DNA). Mind you I don't strictly agree the 'linear propagation' except where it's a spin axis as the whole universe is non-linear.

    I've described how path integrals also emerge naturally, and the inner' red and green 'charges' in my fig 1 represent the "quantum angular momentum" which is simply OAM at the next gauge. I hope you also had a nice eureka moment there. I also hope you may perhaps 'link arms' with the DFM but run with that in parallel yourself!

    best wishes

    Peter

    Lawrence,

    I owe an apology both to you and to myself. I was preparing for a vacation at the time you posted this, and regretted that I was not able to engage your interesting and important argument. I made a promise to myself to get back to it, and forgot.

    It's exactly the case that homotopically continuous functions require two distinct operations that prevents the analytical continuation from the initial condition, of a single function over the simply connected manifold of a unitary space.

    Your comparison of the two-slit experiment to a homotopy-equivalent topology of genus 2 reduced to a torus of genus 1 is absolutely brilliant, in my opinion. I had never heard it expressed that way before. It's pinpoint accurate.

    For continuous function physics on a topology of genus 0, analysis on the simply connected 3-sphere continues from every point to any other set of points, because all points are homotopy equivalent.

    I would love to discuss the black hole case with you.

    All best,

    Tom

    "You need to put more effort in to understand the propositions I've presented."

    I would, if they didn't conflict with the physics we already know.

    Since the universe is Fine-Tuned, then we have good reason to post the following message somewhere on the planet earth, in big letters.

    Dear Creator of the Universe,

    How are you. Hope you're fine. We're OK. Please communicate with us.

    Love and respect,

    Humanity

    P.S. Can you tell us how to build a hyperdrive?

    Dear Peter,

    thank you again for your reply.

    As i now understand it: when i need to draw just one line for each detector, then neccessarily the cones must be indentical at each side. In your fig. 3 the cones are such, that the two lines are perpendicular to each other. I had in mind what you said earlier, that one cone is for Alice, the other for Bob. So the two lines cannot always be perpendicular to each other. Because, say, at the left side of your fig. 3 (let's associate this side with what happens at the left detector) the left particle could be touched exactly at the pole. For this case the circumference (line of latitude) must shrink to zero. But what happens here should not influence what happens at the other detector, means the other cone in fig. 3 could well be the same and should not shrink.

    For the case that at the left detector there is maximum angular momentum transfered, the circumference (line of latitude) must be at the maximum, means must be identical with the equatorial plane. This would automatically also rise the other cone's line of latitude to the maximum. Again, both setting angles are now identical again, which contradicts the independence of Alice and Bob.

    So, how to draw just two lines to represent to different cones with two different lines of latitude? Or are the two lines perpendicular to each other the frame of reference for your further considerations?

    I trust your cosine^2 and sine^2 functions. I only want to know how to systematically read out from fig. 3 the circumstances at Bob's and Alice's sides for EVERY case. Have the drawings to be changed for every run of the experiment? Or is it so, that the two axis standing perpendicular to each other automatically lead to the conclusion that the 'poles' are not a single point at the sphere, but are pole caps (like you suggest in your fig. 3)?

    Can one read out of fig. 3 that for each one of two particles a different line of latitude has been touched?

    I think that should it be for tonight.

    Thanks again for replying!

    Stefan

    John,

    I like what you said. A macroscopic example would be a set of Gimbals as used on ships and aircraft. "In inertial navigation, as applied to ships and submarines, a minimum of three gimbals are needed to allow an inertial navigation system (stable table) to remain fixed in inertial space, compensating for changes in the ship's yaw, pitch, and roll". .........."In turn, angular measurement devices called "resolvers" mounted on the three gimbals provide the nine cosine values for the direction cosine matrix needed to orient the ship.Similar sensing platforms are used on aircraft."Wikipedia, Gimbal. Which makes me think this analogy allows a better description of the roll motion I was trying to describe than a second axis on the flip plane, which I'm not sure is right.If you look at the picture of the early Modern dry compass suspended by gimbals it can be seen that three motions are possible; the inner ball can spin, the gimbal on which it is suspended allows what I called flip and the one suspending that gimbal allows what I have called roll.If orientation of observer can also be altered it can be seen that there is very much more variation in possible spin outcomes than might at first be imagined with simple spinning ball visualization.Another macroscopic example of extra degrees of freedom than one axis of rotation is a globe pivoted on the sides but also able to be spun with the pivots sliding around on the equator, and mounted on a rotating platform.

    Describing how the electromagnetic wave is formed from the motion of the photon particle. The spin clockwise and anticlockwise (depends which pole is thought about) gives the magnetic field of the photon. The flip North to bottom, South to top and vice versa gives the oscillation of the magnetic field and the roll to left or right acting on the flip and consequently also the spins gives the two different polarizations. Its now moving simultaneously in 3 ways. If that motion from one exterior viewpoint over time, as the wave passes, is represented diagrammatically it looks like an electromagnetic wave in which the oscillation of magnetic field along the line of propagation is also turning about that line. The direction of turn being its polarization. The electric component is a consequence of the moving oscillating magnetic field.

    This particle motion answers the double slit particle wave conundrum. The photon really is a particle and its motion is creating oscillating flux in the environment recognized as magnetic and electric fields. When reaching the double slit the particle can only go through one but its associated flux acts like the wave it is passing through both slits and interfering on the other side. The interference of the flux is then able to influence the path the particle takes. Even a single photon particle will produce the the regularly fluctuating flux which is able to interfere with itself on reaching the double slit apparatus.

    As the same interference is found for other particles too it can be assumed that they too have oscillatory characteristics that set up environmental flux that will behave as waves too.

    Hi Georgina,

    the Gimbal is a fascinating thing, though i don't think that it can explain the double-slit epermiment's results. Imagine the delayed-choice experiment, measuring through which slit the photon came after it passed the slit.

    By outlining a photographic plate at the measurement plane, there will be seen interference over time. Now do outline two detectors for each slit instead of the photographic plate (at points that correspond to the minima at the photographic plate).

    Over time (the same time as needed to generate the interference pattern), there will be no more minima at the two detector positions, despite the detectors are in the same plane as the photographic plate was. This indicates, that there must be some 'nonlocal' influence form the detectors in the direction to the slits.

    Is there a flaw in my lines of reasoning. Comments are welcome.

    I found a 'quantum gyroscope', maybe this could be interesting for you.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_gyroscope

    Best wishes,

    Stefan

    Stefan sorry I didn't really understand your explanation of the delayed choice experiment.

    Quote" These experiments are attempts to decide whether light somehow "senses" the experimental apparatus in the double-slit experiment it will travel through and adjusts its behavior to fit by assuming the appropriate determinate state for it, or whether light remains in an indeterminate state, neither wave nor particle, and responds to the "questions" asked of it by responding in either a wave-consistent manner or a particle-consistent manner depending on the experimental arrangements that ask these "questions."End quote ,Wikipedia,Wheelers delayed choice experiment Notice the option it actually is a particle creating associated wave (as a result of the particles particular motion) is not an option, The electromagnetic nature of the photon has been ignored.

    Quote"According to the complementary principle, a photon can manifest properties of a particle or of a wave, but not both at the same time. What characteristic is manifested depends on whether experimenters use a device intended to observe particles or to observe waves... When this statement is applied very strictly, one could argue that by determining the detector type one could force the photon to become manifest only as a particle or only as a wave."End quote.Wikipedia wheeler's delayed choice That is a measurement problem. The particle is creating a wave through its motion but both wave and particle can't be detected together. Not entirely true because even when just a single photon is detected as a particle it is still affected by wave interference because if lots are allowed through they show the interference pattern through the build up of their distribution over time.

    Dear Georgina,

    maybe i should explain it a little more in detail.

    You assume the photon to be a particle with a certain electromagnetic flux around it.

    As you know from the double-slit experiment with single photons, over time, there will be an interference pattern at the observation plane. This pattern consists (usually) of dark and light bars. The lightest bar of them is found approximately in the middle of the two slits (projected to the observation plane).

    If we measure with two detectors in the area whe are used to find the lightest bar, we can 'deduce' 'which way' each photon went (slit one or slit two). The relative frequencies of particle impacts at detector 1 and 2 are different from what we could expect if we do not measure 'which way' information.

    In other words: By measuring 'which way' information, the inferference pattern i spoke of above is altered over time at the areas where the the two detectors are situated: Statistically, much more photons do arrive there than in the case of a measurement method that does not extract which-way information at these two points in the observation plane.

    Note that until the observation plane (with or without the two detectors standing there) is reached by every single photon, the conditions for the physical mechanisms described by you (two slits open, particle, flux) from the slits to the observation plane remain unchanged. This must also include the mechanism that is responsible for every single particle's path to contribute properly to the whole interference pattern.

    But as i remarked, by observing several regions of the observation plane with a device capable of extracting 'which way' information, the expected interference pattern gets altered. Means, now there are more photons that find their ways to these measurement locations than without the two detectors.

    The question therefore is, how the two detectors in sufficient distance to the action at the slits can alter this action by remote.

    For an interesting discussion of the so called "separation fallacy" you may wish to take a look at this interesting paper:

    The 'Past' and the 'Delayed-Choice' Double-Slit Experiment

    Best wishes,

    Stefan