Hello Edwin Klingman,

My initial comment, as I intend to return to make more, is that your effort to demystify the unnecessary mystery introduced into physics at the quantum level is to be encouraged especially given the coherence of your argument. It however seems, you believe that there is a mystery to be solved since you use the same kind of reasoning Bell used only leaving out the hidden constraints. I am not expert on the EPR argument and I have serious reservations about the starting premise. For example, in the EPR experiment using light polarization, it is a doctrine that a photon is indivisible and it is on this premise that an attribute called "spin" was foisted on light. Whereas, light as a wave can be split and made to interfere being a transverse wave and cancel each other. Let me leave that for now.

Given, a large box full of black balls and another full of white balls. If you select one ball from each box and give to an assistant to package one ball each in a parcel and DHL one parcel to Alice on Venus and another to Bob on Mars. On receipt, Alice is to write parcel 1 = Black or White as the case may be; parcel 2 = Black or White as the case may be, etc up to parcel 12. Bob on Mars is to do the same. After the expedition they report back to you on Earth with their findings. You, who carefully prepared the parcels in the so-called 'singlet state' or binary as Tim prefers. Are you saying the report of Alice and Bob will give us new physics or mathematics, or am I missing something?

I hope you will not like others claim that because of one controversial experiment by Aspect et al, which the late Caroline Thompson has discredited in my opinion as I have stated elsewhere on a blog post on the FQXi website we should be made to undergo unnecessary head splitting as is currently the case?

In my opinion, unless you think otherwise, any time Alice marks Black ball, Bob will mark White ball, and if no ball perishes in transit they will be correlated 100% of the time. This is an experiment that can be performed cheaply on the classical scale. Or is it not as simple as I suggest? Perhaps, there are things I am ignorant of that I need to be taught?

Best regards and always willing to learn from you,

Akinbo

    Dear Akinbo Ojo,

    I do appreciate your kind remarks, and thank you for reading my paper. I'm very happy you intend to return to make more comments.

    I'm sure you understand that I claim John Bell significantly oversimplified the problem, leading to an erroneous conclusion. But even his oversimplification is complex! To go a level deeper, as I have done, makes the issue even more complex. (Actually, I think it simplifies the physics, but in the context of his theorem it requires both the new level of physics plus Bell's model and requires bringing in the Dirac fundamental helicity eigenvalue equation plus the Pauli provisional precession eigenvalue equation plus new arguments and the new Energy-Exchange theorem and local conservation of energy. Thus Bell supporters can either validly miss the point or can obfuscate by ignoring the points.)

    As I have noted, Bell's models do not work. Bell could easily have simply stated that "my model fails to produce either the quantum mechanical or the experimental measurements" and it would not have been a big deal. Instead Bell claims that no one's local model can possibly work (a pretty big assumption, if you ask me) and then claims that local reality, one of our most basic intuitions of the universe, is wrong. That is a big deal.

    Because Bell formulates this as a simple mathematical model and because his mathematics is essentially correct (his physics is wrong) those who work through his mathematical model conclude that no local model could escape his logic. The fact is that Bell imposes unwarranted constraints as the first equation in his theorem and this guarantees that no local model can beat his theorem. The only question is, are his constraints justified? I argue that they are not.

    As I do not assume that you have read all of the above comments, I will repeat a few points. First, Bell (and/or his defenders) make (at least) two false equivalencies:

    1.) The assumption that the Dirac equation and the Pauli equation are essentially equivalent.

    2.) The assumption that the Stern-Gerlach and the Aspect experiments are essentially equivalent.

    The first I have dealt with in detail in my essay and in the ~20 page paper Spin: Newton, Maxwell, Einstein, Dirac, Bell, so I won't repeat the arguments here. The second I have not yet written up in detail, so I will mention it here.

    It is an error to assume that Stern-Gerlach and Aspect experiments are equivalent due to two facts. The first and obvious fact is the quite different physical nature of the entities being tested. The fact that quantum mechanical kets look similar, or that simplistic models are plane waves obscures this but does not erase the essential difference between charged spinor fermions and uncharged bosons, and no one who is serious can claim that these physical entities are equivalent.

    But even more significant, from the Bell's theorem perspective, is the essentially different measurement techniques involved. Despite many comments above, Stern-Gerlach, whether measuring silver atoms or neutrons, produces a distribution of deflections. It is a scattering experiment, whose outputs are position measurements. Aspect-type experiments count photons, and the output is a count. In the deflection measurements, the initial spin (lambda) is indirectly exhibited, and clearly exists. In the counts, the photon-equivalent of the initial orientation is subsumed, and is not evident as it is in Stern-Gerlach. This is one reason I have focused on SG experiments.

    On page 84, in Bell's "Speakable..." Bell states "let A be a variable which takes the values +1 or -1 according to whether counter one does or does not register. [and same for B...]" This, whether it is currently realized by Bell defenders or not, is significantly different from his claim on page 15 that "the result A of measuring sigma_dot_a ... [is +1 or -1 ]." One is a deflection, the other is a count. One exhibits the 'hidden variable' in the value of a deflection, the other subsumes it in a count. To expand on this as it deserves would take another essay. The point is, it is overly simplistic to equate these two types of experiments as almost all Bell defenders do. Such a claim is based on either ignorance of the physics, ignorance of the nature of the measurements, or both.

    As Nick mentioned above, this battle has often been fought on the grounds of "loopholes", and Caroline Thompson, as I recall, focused on loopholes, forgive me if I'm wrong on this. That argument, I believe, is essentially that the measurements are wrong, and loophole free measurements would agree with local models. That is significantly different from my argument which is that Bell imposed erroneous constraints on local models and that is the reason his local models do not work. I have presented a local model, the physics underlying the local model, a computer experiment based on the local model, and the results of the local model, which agree with experiments and with quantum mechanics. Loopholes play no part in my argument and are simply a distraction. Bell's oversimplified physics is the essence of my argument and I present physics that, as Einstein demanded is "as simple as possible, but not simpler."

    Akinbo, yours is a very relevant comment, and to address all your points in one response would require a longer comment, so I'll stop here, and address your other points in another comment(s).

    I hope to address two types of readers in this forum - one type is the Perimeter-type, like Pusey and Leifer, "the big boys" in the field who have entered FQXi contests in the past and who contribute to FQXi. I hope for the sake of the FQXi community they respond. You represent the other type - informed, brilliant, interested non-physicists - so I hope you will return with more comments. The effort to move me down in the rankings is, I believe, to decrease the visibility of my essay and my arguments and I consider that a good sign.

    My very best regards,

    Edwin Eugene Klingman

    Dear Akinbo,

    You are correct that I am against mysticism in science. If mysticism is real, it belongs in religion. The mystical has no place in science. In my opinion entanglement is mysticism. Technically, it is represented by the shaded area shown at bottom right of page 6 in my essay. Both quantum mechanics and experiment yield the cosine curve shown, while Bell's constrained local models yield straight lines. 'Entanglement' is the non-local bridge designed to get one from Bell's "local" model to reality. As such, it is a mystical figment that cannot be explained, accurately described, or measured, despite hundreds or thousands of papers that work in the shaded realm. That statement does not make friends in the Bell community, but that does not affect its truth value.

    I am not certain what other mysticism you refer to. As noted in my first comment to you, photon-based experiments are essentially different from Stern-Gerlach scattering of magnetic dipoles in an inhomogeneous field. It only complicates things further to deal with the difference, and it is not necessary to do so to "disprove" Bell, who clearly was thinking of Stern-Gerlach as he addressed EPR issues.

    Bell's formulation adds a "hidden variable", lambda, that Bell essentially allows to be "anything". The designer of a local theory can choose whatever physical attribute he wishes for lambda. The goal of the game is to compute the physics of the local model, based on a distribution of lambdas input to Alice and Bob's measurements, such that the outputs of Alice and Bob's measurements will be correlated as predicted by quantum mechanics, and as found by (photon-based) experiments.

    Your box of black and white balls does not have anything corresponding to lambda, therefore it is not analogous to a Bell experiment. I have spent a short while considering adding colors to your balls and letting Alice and Bob look through a third color filter, but it gets too complicated for a comment. I hope you get the idea however.

    In my local model, lambda is the initial orientation of the spin, which can be any vector in 3-D space. If this spin vector is sent to Alice, the opposite will be sent to Bob. As outlined in detail in my essay and references, whatever the initial value of spin vector is sent to Alice, it will align with the field direction (that she chooses) or it will anti-align with the field. But this process of alignment is a dynamic process, that involves energy exchange between the "precessional" energy and the "deflectional" energy modes, in such a way that (since both energy modes depend on the angle between Alice's field and the initial spin direction) the deflection contains information, recorded as position, about the initial value of lambda. That information is absent from quantum mechanics, hence quantum mechanics is incomplete. Not wrong, incomplete.

    The question is whether, given the value of this (hidden) variable lambda, a local theory can determine the deflection such that the actual values, calculated locally by Alice (and Bob does the same for the field angle he chooses), when correlated (on a pairwise basis) agree with the statistical quantum mechanical predictions, or not. My local model does agree with quantum mechanics, whereas Bell says this is impossible.

    But Bell does not measure deflection - the information is there but he throws it away and says, in effect, "I care only about whether it was deflected "up" or "down", not how far up or down. Thus he allows you to put additional information (the initial direction, lambda) into the problem, and even to calculate the physics with a local theory, but then he erases all of the physical information content in the "how far up or down" by using only simply "up" or "down". (+1 or -1).

    Why does he do this? To understand this you need some concept of eigenvalues and eigenvalue equations, and this involves the Dirac and the Pauli equations which Bell apparently considers equivalent (they are not!) In essence, a simplistic idea from 1925, Goudsmit and Uhlenbeck's idea that "the projection of spin on any axis is +1 or -1" has added a mystical aspect to spin that no one can understand, and makes spin 'look like' one bit of information instead of a physical spin that simply aligns with a complex local apparatus. It is absolutely not an essential concept of quantum mechanics. If it were it would be an axiom. It is simply more confusion that came about historically and is treasured by those who worship quantum mechanical mysticism. It's got nothing to do with the statistical results of the quantum mechanical formalism.

    I hope that the above helps you understand why the black and white ball example is not a good analogy for Bell's theorem.

    Best regards,

    Edwin Eugene Klingman

    Akimbo, - I should probably add one more brief comment. The experiment with balls that you describe corresponds to Alice and Bob always choosing the same direction of magnetic field in their respective instruments. In that case, yes, the (anti-)correlation is perfect. The problem of Bell and EPR is when Alice and Bob can freely choose any direction, uncorrelated with each other, and unknown to each other. That aspect of the problem does not show up in your B&W analogy. - Edwin Eugene Klingman

    Edwin,

    Personally, I agree with your premise that the 'timing device' of spin is not the determinant of deflection in SG positional plots. But as an editorial comment, in the interest of 'sales presentation', spin should and must be given its due in quantum mechanical methodology. The eventual abandonment of the electron as a classical particle in an atomic volume was in part due to the Goudsmit-Uhlenbeck hypothesis, but the utility of +1 or -1 symmetry extends to establishing a benchmark for an otherwise chaotic atomic structure. I have not found anything in reading that suggests that the constant rate of spin was for the specific purpose of the classical particle of the GU model always presenting the same designated point on an equatorial plane towards the nucleus (spin is like the dark side of moon) against which the rotational speed could be metered, but it works that way. Actually at the time numerous notables contributed to the spin orthodoxy and the 1:1 rotation to orbit may simply have mathematically become evident, and casually accepted as axiomatic.

    So while the definition of inertia provides sufficient reference from trajectory to protract axial deviation from the normal line in a particle-like form exhibiting a magnetic dipole, and macroscopically deflection dependent on the a continuous measure of that deviation, spin is simply subsumed not necessarily absent.

    Give a little thought to putting some friendly spin on your sales pitch. :-) jrc

    Dear John,

    "Give a little thought to putting some friendly spin on your sales pitch. :-) jrc"

    Thanks,

    It's so easy to get caught up in the logic and the politics, and forget what is being communicated to whom. I thank you for this reminder, and hope to respond accordingly.

    Edwin Eugene Klingman

    • [deleted]

    • Post #131

    Hi Nick,

    In re-reading your first comment above, you bring up Wigner's "Unreasonable effectiveness..." paper, answering which was a key motivation for my dissertation, [link:www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_noss?url=search-alias%3Dstripbooks&field-keywords=Klingman+Automatic+]The Automatic Theory of Physics[/link]. The figure on the first page of my essay encapsulates the way in which physical counters, producing natural numbers, can make counter-based measurements (recall that the heart of quantum field theory is the number operator.) The measurement map is the plane at the far left, and the measurements are generated automatically, one way or another. The question is what to do with all these numbers. To answer that, I invoke a robot. This allows algorithmic computations but removes intuition. (Whatever one thinks of the eventual possibilities of robots gaining intuition, it was beyond doubt that when I wrote this, robots did not have intuition. But even in those dark ages we had neural net algorithms and other self-modifying-map architectures for learning.)

    My design of the robot anticipates Max Tegmark's concern with 'baggage' - I left the baggage out. The robot has access to resources, including random number generators, arithmetic-logic-language circuitry and systems, and sensors and activators to interface to the physical world, but no consciousness or intuition or beliefs - no baggage - just designed-in algorithms, including learning and self-modifying-map algorithms. This response to Wigner is a vehicle for testing "A theory of theories of physics", and some similar work by others in 2009 extended this idea.

    The relevance of this to your being laid back about the incompleteness of QM is that the measurement space on the left of the figure consists of nothing but numbers, all of which can be accessed by the robot who performs cluster mapping on involving intercept and interest set distances, grouping the data into n-dimensional cluster space. This is not necessarily the optimal dimensional representation of physical reality (i.e., the object/source of measurements) so I employ a Karhunen-Loeve transformation from n-space to lower dimensional m-space, from which the feature vectors are formed. The eigenvalues are the vector elements and the eigenvalue equations are the transforms that preserve them - quantum mechanics!

    In this view the quantum mechanical formulation arises from statistical clustering of measurement numbers, but what is being measured? What is at the left of the number space that is the real source of measurements? What is its nature? There is no obvious answer.

    If one believes all of physical reality is somehow quantized, and it is impossible to measure any other value, then one assumes

    A eigenstates exist, and

    B ideal measurements yield eigenvalues

    But the robot doesn't carry this baggage, the ingrained belief of almost a century of QM. There is no way for him to tell whether the numbers represent eigenstates or random digitized data derived from measurements on a continuum. Not being a robot, I do carry baggage, and my personal view is that reality is a continuum, with only action quantized, not time or length or even energy, except when boundaries are imposed on a subsystem. The magnitude of intrinsic spin is quantized, but its direction is 3-dimensional unless and until it is caused to align with the local field, as in Stern-Gerlach.

    This view has led to a local model that produces the same correlation as quantum mechanics, with implications for entanglement and it seems to imply that QM is incomplete. I repeat, not wrong, but incomplete. As you mention, there is EPR baggage that causes some resistance to this notion. Not sure how to handle it.

    Edwin Eugene Klingman

    John,

    Reading a book on Schrodinger, I just came across the following:

    "Arguably the most significant development in science in the 20th century - was the resolution of the EPR 'Paradox' and experimental confirmation that quantum entanglement ... is real."

    Sometimes I am at a loss as to how to put a happy spin on tackling this, as some are hostile to the idea that entanglement and 'non-locality' are not what they've been taught for 50 years. If you have any helpful suggestions (other than to drop all snarky references to "worship of quantum mysticism") please give them to me off-line at klingman@geneman.com. And again, thanks for your sage advice.

    Edwin Eugene Klingman

    Dear Doc,

    I'll be pleased to. Though the abundance of literature seems to be more about eliminating loopholes than demonstrating the dependence of both quantum and relativistic theory on firm classical grounds. Forgotten in the application of textbook inventory formulae, is the stated rationale at inception of many concepts. In particular to 'spin', the 1/2 value is prescribed quite simply by Maxwell's authoritative qualification of Faraday's 'right hand rule', even Heisenberg recognized that. 1/2pi, is (gee) 90 degrees. Which goes to Minkowski, which goes to spin being an intrinsic property of real measurement function. That no doubt might sound cranky to one without a dissertation on file, so if I run across a choicy item I'll email. Kind regards, jrc

    Errata: In the above the phrase "performs cluster mapping on involving intercept and interest set distances" should read "performs cluster mapping on evolving inter-set and intra-set distances".

    I would blame it on my Dragon voice recognition software, but then I'm the one with the duty to edit my own words. - - - Edwin Eugene Klingman

    Dear Edwin,

    Thanks for throwing more light on this topic. This is as it should be. Honest and sincere attempts to throw more light where one can rather than generating heat that does not illuminate the problem.

    I will FULLY agree to this summary, which you have yourself stated: Bell SHOULD have simply stated that "my model fails to produce either the quantum mechanical or the experimental measurements".

    My black and white ball analogy may be too simplistic. It may also not provide for the scenario where Alice and Bob freely choose how they each want to go about doing their measurement. But in my opinion it would seem wise to start with a simple experiment, such as black and white, obtain the result. Then repeat with more and more complex arrangements and compare the results. If no correlation is then found in the latter more complex cases, then the conclusion that would appear correct to me is that the starting complex arrangement is what is responsible for non-correlation and not any entanglement or quantum magic. The experiments can also be done for the case where Alice and Bob freely choose which color they want to record for the case of balls with for example up to three colors on them.

    All the same I wish you well in this competition. It is high time we do away with this Bell non-issue and devote our energies to something more rewarding. Your approach almost confirms this and it should be given a dispassionate hearing by the 'big boys". Others have equally faulted the math used (I cant recall the name but someone submitted an essay to the 2013 competition faulting the basis for the first equation in Bell's paper). And as John Cox pointed out, in the midst of the euphoria about Bell's theorem the stated rationale at inception is forgotten.

    Regards,

    Akinbo

    Akinbo,

    I think the real issue facing quantum mechanics is the same it has battled over all along. Schodinger himself, among other originators, objected so strongly to the purely probabilistic interpretation launched by Max Born, that he publicly stated that he wished he had never had anything to do with the development of QM. You can find some good excerpted reading at www.spaceandmotion.com, a webpage developed by Dr. Milo Wolff. He also started another site dedicated to further examination of a model he developed from discovering a physical rationale for deBroglie's Wave Equation which, though never having been explained by anyone, is the underpinning of all wavefunction in QM. That site is at www.quantummatter.com. Wishing you good hunting, jrc

    Dr. Klingman,

    I am being formal out of respect that my own lack of credentials can be a liability to those such as yourself whom have successfully defended a doctoral dissertation. This thread seems to be missing a recent post of yours to Akinbo that provides a link to your 1979 dissertation, now published as Automatic Theory of Physics. Just a heads-up. ;-) jrc

    John,

    I appreciate your comments, but I like the informality of FQXi, so just please yourself. I appreciate your support for my arguments, as you know I am swimming against the flow. But I think the link that you saw was in a belated response to Nick Mann above. I had just noted that he was informing me about Wigner's "Unreasonable Effectiveness..." and I mentioned to him that Wigner's well-known remark was a large motivation for my work. I believe the link is still there, with a short synopsis of my approach.

    Best regards,

    Edwin Eugene Klingman

    Thanks Edwin,

    I've got a recent problem with my email send not interfacing with my IP, but when I get that sorted out I'll contact you on topics beyond the scope of this current contest subject. I very much appreciate being included, and the directive guidance in your remarks. Thank-you again, jrc

    Hi again, Edwin,

    I'm focusing on Chapter 14 of TAToP (Robot Physics Example) because I like to start with concrete examples and work backward to theory, bouncing around as I go. Also looking for the author's evolution from the older toward the current work. Sometimes I get screwed up doing this, however. If you think that might become the case here let me know ...

    Nick

    Dear Akinbo,

    You have picked a very rational statement to agree with, because it is obviously true! Bell's models do not agree with either quantum mechanics or with "reality" as determined by experiment. All other conclusions must simply follow from application of logic to Bell's basic assumptions. As his basic assumptions are oversimplified, the conclusions that follow are "unreal", which is the reason entanglement is not observable, but only inferred.

    Your B&W ball case is the one Einstein started with: when Alice and Bob choose to experiment with the same angle, they always find perfect anti-correlation; she gets white, he gets black, and vice versa. I believe this has been experimentally tested to everyone's satisfaction. The logic is essentially that of conservation of energy/momentum.

    But things become more complicated when Alice and Bob choose to test different angles. Unfortunately the B&W example does not have a corresponding analogy, but you do seem to have the idea with different colors in the case when Alice and Bob randomly choose the "color filter" they use for each experiment. Then the 'measured colors' are correlated (on a pairwise basis) and results will not match those predicted by Bell.

    Also, I believe that you are thinking of Gordon Watson's essay in the 2013 contest above. I have used Gordon's development in Quantum Spin and Local Reality [ref 2 in my essay], and I believe he has created a formalism that best represents the 'jump' or 'collapse of the wave function' and essentially maps classical mechanics into quantum mechanics, but this even further complicates the issues, so I have not mentioned this in my essay.

    Best regards,

    Edwin Eugene Klingman

    Dear Akinbo,

    You mention above that I have "carefully prepared the parcels in the so-called 'singlet state' or binary as Tim prefers." As the singlet states are 2-D representations, but include the imaginary i, and Pauli matrices are 2 x 2 matrices, also including i, the operations of the 2 x 2 matrix on the 2-D states can be mapped into a 3 x 3 real rotation matrix operating on a real 3-D vector. Just another way in which quantum mechanics obscures or hides the 3-D nature of spin. (Nothing nefarious implied, just the way things are.)

    As you note Tim (@ 03:49 0n 4 Feb above) states

    "Send a neutron through a Stern-Gerlach apparatus and report the outcome as either "spin up" meaning "neutron recorded above the midline" or "spin down" meaning "outcome recorded below the midline". The outcome space is now binary and Bell's result applies. This is what is meant everywhere by "doing a spin measurement on a neutron" and it is what is understood by saying "a spin measurement on a spin ½ particle is always either spin-up or spin-down"."

    He then goes on to state: "The actual results cluster in a small group well above the midline and a small group well below, and for the purposes of reporting the result the former count as "spin up" and the latter as "spin down". This describes the outcome of every such experiment ever done..."

    This appears not to be the case, based on "an actual experimental record of neutron impact positions on the screen." As we non-members are not allowed to post graphics (probably a good rule) I will post the neutron data in such manner than anyone can plot it:

    Position, counts

    60, 48

    50, 130

    40, 182

    30, 298

    20, 364

    10, 350

    0, 436

    -10, 381

    -20, 338

    -30, 311

    -40, 154

    -50, 102

    -60, 39

    Tim Maudlin, in a series of comments above, flatly states that Stern-Gerlach, with neutrons, is a binary measurement, with "actual results cluster in a small group well above the midline and a small group well below..." and further states, "This describes the outcome of every such experiment ever done..." Does this appear to be the case to anyone else? Plot it and see.

    Regards,

    Edwin Eugene Klingman

      A curious distribution indeed. Not binary but also not a normal Bell-curve type distribution. Here Bell does not refer to John Bell.

      I am hopeful that Hamilton might allow those spin calculation to be done in an alternate manner.

      Regards,

      Gary Simpson

      Gary,

      I wonder if what you mean, is that there might be a topological fix to make the asymmetric position plots conform to a symmetrical bell curve? I think not.

      The asymmetry looks very much akin to an analemma that one would expect of an orbiting body annually by its declination and time equation. If the precession axis intersects the midpoint of the rotation axis, the resultant analemma will be a symmetrical 'figure eight'. An asymmetrical analemma is prescribed by an intersect offset from the midpoint.

      And that is what I find distinguishing in the arguments about quantum mechanical spin. Firstly, spin was an adjustment for the magnetic field intensity of an electron, envisioned as a hard sphere with the total charge uniformly distributed on the surface, being much too strong to be explained by Maxwell's electrodynamics as generated by rotation of the sphere unless the translational velocity on the equatorial plane was in excess of light velocity. So spin was hypothesized to be an intrinsic, static, rotation. In other words, it behaves as if there is rotation but there isn't.

      Secondly, though General Relativity has yet to be reformulated to describe micro-scale field quasi-particles, the relativistic concept of time dilation need not be discounted. A photon would experience the same elapsed time, transiting the same amount of time in a smaller bottle as in a larger bottle. So the magnitude of light velocity difference between electrical and magnetic field intensity between identical point charges as per Maxwell, (treated as angular light velocity on the electron equator) could be attributed to relativistic time differential in a spherical non rotating energy field volume. The polarity of the magnetic field would then be explained as a typical projection of physical rotation exhibiting a dipole moment, but with out exceeding light velocity. Spin is not really necessary but would be subsumed as a measurement function extending from a point center which QM treats as the point particle. Yet that spin axis initially should be treated in relation to the inertial trajectory of the real particle.

      AND, thirdly, spin evolves from the electron ("I would just like to know what an electron is." A. Einstein) so we have to acknowledge that. BUT you can NOT use electrons in a Stern-Gerlach experiment because the magnetic moment becomes overwhelmed by interaction with the external field. Neutral atoms, or neutrons are used which experience gradient deflection in relation to the axial declination of rotation at point of time in precession. Hence the asymmetrical plot spread indicates a real particle rotating with a slight wobble.

      Also, in an S-G experiment, neutrons come one at a time, as many as you like. There is no splitting of equal numbers of opposite polarities.

      Hornets! you say? :-) jrc