Answering Mermin’s Challenge

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

Hi Zeeya, thanks for sharing this paper, it seems very relevant, regards

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

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

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

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.

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

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

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

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.Attachment #1: MerminExperiment.jpg

Thank you for that Doc, that gives a good start for browsing up a reading list.jrc

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

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 ,

...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...

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?

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

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

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.

Here is a summary of the paper for a general audience.