Answering Mermin’s Challenge

Stefan,

I need a break too! I've been getting nowhere. jrc Hey, its election night! maybe I'll just relax and watch the returns

Stefan, John, Steve,

unsupported weightless gyroscopes are different from supported weighted gyroscopes. Not only do they not precess, I think less force will bee needed to alter orientation as there will be less energy loss due to not having to work against gravity, and no region/point of friction where gyroscope meets support. There will still be air resistance or liquids resistance, which can be removed from the simulation by having the tests conducted in vacuum instead of air or liquid.

There are some calculations that can be done that would add evidence for or against the prediction made.

Only by experiencing the same spatial orientation of field are the forces on the particles such that correlation or anticorrelation (depending on how the pairs are produced for this experiment) is preserved and reflected by the state outcomes.

By keeping the orientations of the field the same but inverting one of the apparatus- the relationship is altered in the same way as if the particle rotations was reversed and the environmental field orientation of polarity was kept the same. In these two cases the two particles of a pair are experiencing the inhomogeneous field in same, or similar ways.

At 90 degrees they are experiencing the field very differently and the difference/similarity of orientation and spatial position evolves as each particle passes through the inhomogeneous field according to the forces acting upon it. Not being acted upon in same or similar ways as their partner particle

Georgina,

thanks for your replies and your efforts. Sorry that the discussion is that exhaustive, i think that is hard to avoid since communication misunderstandings can't be avoided.

I understand how you want to explain the 0 degree and 180 degree cases, otherwise i hadn't written that my test does not work, since it does not alter the probabilities.

Maybe you misunderstood that sentence form me in one of my recent posts

"Nonetheless i think that your scheme suffers from a contradiction in the assumptions that have to be made to cover at least the 0 degree and the 90 degree cases."

Surely your scheme would explain the 0 degree and the 180 degree cases WHEN one presupposes that "They may experience adjustment of alignment but it happens to both such that anti-correlation is preserved."

Consequently, whatever the relative angle between the spinning axis of both particles (as you mentioned that axis has the same orientation in space for each particle pair but is distributed evenly over 360 degrees for all pairs send out from the source and hence, the relative angle of that orientation WITH the spatial orientation of the magnets is different for almost every pair) and the spatial orientation of field of the magnets is (in the 0 or 180 degree cases), "They may experience adjustment of alignment but it happens to both such that anti-correlation is preserved."

I think they not only "may" experience that adjustment, but they MUST, because for the overwhelming majority of incoming pairs the environmental conditions aren't such that no alignment would be necessary.

My point is that whatever rules that alignment, it cannot also rule the outcomes in the 90 degree case. In that case it can rule the particle whose magnet was not turned, but not the particle whose magnet was turned.

I know that as it stands up to now, you haven't really mentioned the physical details that is responsible for the experience of adjustment of alignment. But my point is that whatever that will be, it is incompatible with the 90 degree case and also incompatible with the rest of the angles.

Sorry that i claim that although it is not even clear how the physical details look like. But on the other side, if it is not even clear how the physical details look like, it is hard to decide what we are talking about and that may have caused some heavy misunderstandings.

Be it as it is, in any way, i apologize for having been so grumpy to you in some of my posts, hope that you forgive me and are able to clear misunderstandings, since if not cleared, they mess up all conclusions.

For avoiding probable misunderstandings. I wrote

and the spatial orientation of field of the magnets is (in the 0 or 180 degree cases), "They may experience adjustment of alignment but it happens to both such that anti-correlation is preserved."

This does not mean that for the 180 degree case i would think that anti-correlation is the result. I know that the result for 180 degrees would be correlation.

I write that only because it could be misunderstood.

Again, for avoiding probable misunderstandings. I further wrote

"Surely your scheme would explain the 0 degree and the 180 degree cases WHEN one presupposes that "They may experience adjustment of alignment but it happens to both such that anti-correlation is preserved."

This does not mean that for the 180 degree case i would think that anti-correlation is the result. I know that the result for 180 degrees would be correlation.

Georgina and Stefan,

I've befuddled myself, and am worrying myself with questions, so I want to dig into what I can find on open source references about the historical details of Stern and Gerlach's research and experiments before making more of a fool of myself.

Part of the reason for this is that apart from Mermin, S-G used the 'neutral' Silver atom, but that doesn't mean that the positive and negative charges of protons and electrons in any way neutralize each other. The electrostatic field still pervades the atomic volume and maintains separation of atomic centers. They can only be said to equalize. But that means that in the orthogonal reference frame in the air gap of S-G magnets, both the magnetic and electrostatic axial directions would be expected to flip. And right now, I can't see how in a strict causal account, that there would be expected anything accept a 50/50 probability no matter what the angle of magnet groups would be relative to the source.

Georgi, your point about earth bound versus weightless gyros is well taken, and given the axiom of inertia there is a good argument that a (generic) particle would preserve its relative spatial orientation prepared in the source. But size also matters and that orientation might well become lost as the particle enters the concentrated magnetic field region. This then goes to a question for Stefan.

I am quite okay with your focus on the theoretical and statistics, so in Mermin's scheme of 1, 2, 3, positions of detector angles, does it matter if the detector angle progresses CW or CCW? A magnetic reaction will take the path of least rotation. An oriented particle at 0* will tumble one direction to align with position 2, and the other direction for position 3. Does Mermin's matrix of results take that into account or does it not matter?

Bye for a while, we are entering a rare November spell of dry, cool weather and I'll feel better after a few days of meaningful outdoor work. Thanks All, jrc

Stefan, it is important to remember that the output bits are not the same as particles themselves. One could say they represent behavior when field and particle interact. This is a break away from the idea that the particle has the state that will be found or has instructions that allow it to carry the outcome prior to the measurement process.

Reversing the spin of a particle can be achieved either by (1.) stopping it and restarting it in the opposite direction , or (2.) by inverting it; ie. turning it over. If either of those were to happen and the extremal field polarity stay the same-then the relation between particle and external field has changed. It can be changed in the same way if instead (3.) the field is inverted and the particle left alone. If the external field is ignored the anticorrelation remains .the changed relation to the field produces results as if there is correlation of particles. ie. 1. or 2. -remember as far as relationship between particle and external field polarity is concerned 1, 2. or 3. are all the same.

Georgina,

"Stefan, it is important to remember that the output bits are not the same as particles themselves. One could say they represent behavior when field and particle interact. This is a break away from the idea that the particle has the state that will be found or has instructions that allow it to carry the outcome prior to the measurement process."

If you wouldn't think that one can conclude from the output bits to the outputs of the magnets (at least in the 0 degree and 180 degree cases), you would not have constructed your entanglement scheme in the first place. But i agree that thinking one can conclude something from something other is one story, another story is whether or not the physics that is concluded by you to exist - and is concluded by you to be responsible for the experimental results - follows these conclusions. If that physics does not follow your conclusions, your entanglement scheme is simply wrong.

So what should we do now, stop thinking about your entanglement scheme, since we concluded we do not know most of the details that lead to the experimental results? If yes, then your explanations how spin might react to some environment is not different from any other attempt to explain what is going on at the magnets and with the particles. In fact, as you surely know there have been proposed other schemes here on fqxi and elsewhere to account for the physics of such experiments.

Consequently, if there is indeed some well defined physics behind the experimental results, then the challenge is to find the one and only scheme which explains all the hitherto unknown details of what is physically going on. Surely and theoretically, there may "exist" more than one scheme, each of them telling a different story about what is going on physically. But that is not what you wanted in the first place.

According to the citation above, it is not even clear that finding "the one and only scheme" is at all a logical possibility. My point here is that it simply is logically impossible, but not because one cannot test the candidates for such schemes, but because if each of them, when checked for its internal logical consistency, will reveal its logical inconsistency. The point here is that the main assumption of that falsifying-scheme is that there does not exist such a scheme.

That's the reason why i wrote my long posts, trying to explain what i consider logical inconsistencies in your scheme. I am really not sure whether or not you understood what i wrote about your 90 degree case. Or what i wrote about the source and how it should distribute the angles of each pair's axis in your scheme to be consistent not only with the 0 and 180 degree cases, but also with your 90 degree case.

You didn't take a stand yet to these objections and i think it's a pity that i took my time to write them and constantly reply to your own objections without getting a feedback whether or not you grasped the inconsistencies i described.

I think there are reasons for that absend feedback, namely that my arguments prove that the falsifying-scheme i just mentioned has done its job. If you don't think so, please explain to me why you conclude that it didn't the job. So i would like you to consider my arguments already made - before advancing to another issue of the experiments we discuss here.

Thanks and have a recreative break from heavy discussions! If you need some longer time to reply and i do not check that discussion page ever day, simply write me a message on my latest essay-contest page and i get informed per Mail that you replied.

The extensive discussion shows once again that quantum versus classical precursors and outcomes are no clearer with the Mermin device. The Mermin challenge was:

"To explain in simple language quantum superposition and entanglement by using simple language to explain how the Mermin device works."

My simple explanation is that the Mermin device Case B reveals the nature of quantum phase incoherence. It is not clear to me if there has been a simpler explanation here yet or not.

Of course, the Mermin device adds a particle entanglement to the Stern-Gerlach experiment and, of course, entanglement adds yet another quantum phase puzzle and so really does not help at all with the SG quantum puzzle. The entanglement of two quantum particles simply means that measuring one of the two particle spins immediately reveals the other particle spin without the need for a measurement of the second particle at all.

However, the basic quantum puzzle still exists: before measurement, the particle spin did not exist in a knowable single spin, but rather in an incoherent superposition of the two spin states. The magnetic file gradient of the SG device actually produced two discrete quantum spin states and not a continuum of two classical spin states expected from classical spin.

This simple quantum puzzle has been told and retold thousands of times and yet somehow the quantum truth of physical reality is just not acceptable to the classical determinism of gravity relativity.

It is certainly true that quantum spin outcomes always have quantum spin precursors. However, there is an uncertainty in the superpositions of all quantum spin precursor phases and quantum phase superposition simple does not exist for classical spin precursors.

So once again, the simple explanation for the quantum puzzle is quantum phase incoherence. Since there is no classical role for quantum phase at all, classical spin outcomes never reveal classical spin precursors.

There is some mention of the SG spinning up a silver atom gyroscope and that gyroscope and therefore quantum spin did not exist before the SG spin up. Of course, there are many different manifestations of the quantum spin of silver atoms and so a classical gyroscope model is therefore limited. If you include quantum phase incoherence, you can use a gyroscope model, but the electron spin gyroscope is always spinning.

The two isotopes Ag-107 and Ag-107 both also have spin = 1/2 and so there is a hyperfine splitting in the Ag spectra shows the electron-nuclear spin coupling even without an external magnetic field. Another is that the NMR or EPR measurements both show the electron-nuclear coupling as well. Both NMR and EPR use a linear magnetic field with radio signal excitations of the initially incoherent spin states.

Here's a thought,

maybe the role of a neutron in atoms with more than one electron is because its necessary to modulate bit-flips. Have you read anything about 3-phase alternating current transmission? it incorporates a 'neutral line' that carries no current but without it the phasing can get out of sych and the power factor suffers. I'll brush up and maybe get back on that. jrc

Local realism assumes that the output states pertain to the kind of particle. It assumes there are two kinds of particle in the SG experiments, that only need separating by 'measurement'; like red and blue socks. Using coins for analogy, this is like saying there are heads only and tails only coins. However to ascertain heads or tails state of a normal two sided coin, the protocol used to call it has to be decided. Palm open upon catching or flipping onto opposite hand. Likewise there can not be a definite state of the particles (even if unknown) prior to deciding how each will be 'measured'. It is particle and environmental field interaction that is producing the output states. Not the inherent nature of the particles alone. This is no longer like sock colours and so Bell's inequalities do not apply. Violation of the inequalities is expected.

Re. entanglement: This is where there is a correlated or anticorrelated relation between the particles produced during formation of the pair, at the source. If both are treated the same, from then on, that relation of particle orientations to each other is preserved. If treated the same but for inversion of one particles external field exposure, output states are correlated rather than anticorrelated. Because of the equivalence of that change of environmental exposure with particle spin reversal and environment unchanged. In these 0 and 180 degree cases each individual particle is acted upon by its local environment; the similarity of experience maintaining the relation of particle orientations to each other. At 90 degrees each particle will be effected by its local environment, according to such things as where it entered the field and its orientation on doing so. That experience of field is not necessarily but could be by chance matched by the partner

Georgina,

thanks for your reply. Let's now make the consistency-test.

Let's label the axis of flight of the particles with "y". Let's label the vertical axis with "z" and the remaining axis with "x".

Let us first look at the case where both magnets have a relative angle of 0 degree around the y axis so that they are oriented in space like depicted in figure 6.2 of that paper (although there is just one magnet scribbled)

https://physics.mq.edu.au/~jcresser/Phys301/Chapters/Chapter6.pdf .

Let us now analyse one particle pair. According to your scheme, every pair send out from the source has a shared orientation of their (gyroscopic) axis. So for each of the two particles of that pair its axis points in the same direction in our coordinate system as the partner's axis does.

Let us now assume that our particle pair's both axis' are in alignment with the z axis when sent out from the source (oriented vertically).

Since in your scheme the particles coming form the source have opposite spin direction, the test series will give anti-correlated results. As you wrote, each individual particle is acted upon by its local environment.

Let us now assume that for this test series the magnets hadn't been oriented as we have defined it above (called SCENARIO A), but both had been oriented 90 degrees relative to what we defined above (called SCENARIO B) whereby maintaining their relationship of field orientation. So in scenario B, the magnets are in alignment with the x axis, and hence have a 90 degree angle to the z axis - although we always assume that the particle pair's orientation and spin direction is left unchanged.

Now according to your scheme, that difference between the original angle of 0 degree and the alternative angle of 90 degree for both magnets does not alter your statement that "each individual particle is acted upon by its local environment.". So the local conditions for each particle in this alternative case are

"At 90 degrees each particle will be effected by its local environment, according to such things as where it entered the field and its orientation on doing so. That experience of field is not necessarily but could be by chance matched by the partner"

Consequently, according to your introduction of chance when one locally changes a 0 degree angle situation to a 90 degree angle situation at one magnet, the local outputs at that magnet now should come about by chance. Since in scenario B both sides have been altered by 90 degree, consequently your rule of chance is realized for both sides and that alternative scenario should give 50% anti-correlation and 50% correlation. But that is a contradiction to what you predicted when both magnets have the same orientation - what is exactly the case in my alternative scenario. Don't bother about me ignoring your rule of anti-correlation or your rule that only one magnet is allowed to be turned 90 degree for "activating" your rule of chance, i will soon come to that issue.

I now have to cite myself as i wrote above

"Consequently, according to your introduction of chance when one locally changes a 0 degree angle situation to a 90 degree angle situation"

Take care of what is meant here by me: DON'T CONFUSE the angles in my citation (0 and 90 degree) with the relative angles between the two magnets. The angles in my citation are the angles when ONE magnet's LOCAL output for 0 degree RELATIVE to the source IS COMPARED to its output if that one magnet's angle RELATIVE to the source is changed by 90 degree (NOTE that the orientation of axis and spin direction of that incoming particle stays exactly what we assumed it to be for the 0 degree relative angle to source). It DOESN'T matter how the other magnet is oriented, since we are examining LOCAL behaviour at one magnet - independent of the orientation of the other magnet:

the magnet we examine cannot know how the other magnet is oriented - even if the other magnet is oriented identical - what scenario B covers. But that other magnet could also well be oriented in a variety of angles and that's the reason why one should not confuse the angles in my citation with the relative angles BETWEEN the two magnets. And that is also the reason for why one cannot apply your anti-correlation rule for my alternative scenario.

As a result we have a scenario where the magnets have 0 degree relative angle (SCENARIO A) to each other and your anti-correlation rule should apply. And we have an alternative scenario where we compared this rule for the case when your rule of chance should apply (90 degree). That scenario (SCENARIO B) was the change of orientation of both magnets relative to the source by the same amount (90 degree) and in the same direction, whereby we assumed for both scenarios that the test particle's orientation of axis and spin directions have in no way altered in scenario A compared to scenario B and vice versa. The result is that your two rules are inconsistent with each other since they predict different results for scenario B.

KEEP IN MIND that scenario A and scenario B AREN'T to be understood that these are TWO runs that should factually be conducted one after the other in an experiment. Since it is clear that for such a test sequence we would need TWO particle pairs - that could well have different orientations and spin directions compared to each other. We assume instead that we have ONE particle pair with well defined axis of orientation and spin directions before measurement, no matter whether we then apply scenario A or scenario B to that pair. With that we examine what would happen to that particle pair if we had measured it differently than scenario A would have done. It doesn't matter that we cannot predict the outcome of just one particle pair being tested. The statistics does matter and the statistics that is produced by your rule of chance is different than the one produced by your rule of anti-correlation.

So, if you do not focus on your anti-correlation rule but instead focus on ONE magnet oriented in one scenario (scenario A) at 0 degree relative angle to the scource and in the second scenario (scenario B) the same magnet oriented 90 degree different from scenario A - but for both scenarios with the same particle with the same initial orientation and spin rotations unchanged entering the magnet of scenario B (so as if the first scenario hadn't happened but instead scenario B was applied to that identical particle) - then you hopefully will grasp that your anti-correlation rule and your introduction of chance at 90 degree are inconsistent with each other. They simply predict contradictory results for scenario B, since:

if you only focus on ONE magnet as just described, you may say that your rule of chance should apply for scenario B. But if you also focus on the other magnet in scenario B(that is oriented identical to the first magnet you focused on, namely with a 90 degree change compared to scenario A), then your rule of anti-correlation should apply. So two rules that predict different outcomes for one and the same scenario (scenario B) should apply for scenario B. That's the inconsistency i spoke of.

Stefan,

Re. "your rule that only one magnet is allowed to be turned 90 degree for "activating" your rule of chance," SW. I have not specified such a rule but was merely talking about ubiquitous 'everyday' chance, as in probability. Nor is there a rule of anticorrelation applying to singular apparatus. It matters not whether one or the other magnet is inverted or both adjusted 90 degrees. I was trying to keep it simple and not overly wordy for the reader by not addressing each possible variant.

What matters for 'entanglement is that the particles produced from the source share a relation that is same spatial x,y,z orientation of axis of rotation -nothing to do with the analyzers yet. As they are like gyroscopes they keep their orientation until acted upon by forces that twist the axis of rotation. Each particle adjusts to the local environment it encounters. They (environments) are the same but opposite each other( they could be placed diagrammatically next to each other, then it easier to see how the anti correlation of the particles is preserved.)The adjusted ( if it was necessary) orientation is then maintained . And could be retested with same apparatus orientation. Because they were exposed to the same environment the relation of the particles to each other is preserved.

For 90 degrees : again we do not know the precise orientation of the axes of rotation , only that they are the same. They enter the apparatus and each experience a different field orientation from each other. There is nothing special about the 90 angle of one magnet - the particle will respond to whatever it encounters. What matters is has the relation of the particles to each other been preserved or not. As for the particles there is a lot of variation in up-ness or down-ness possible- that give the clear cut up and down bit outputs.

Georgina,

"There is nothing special about the 90 angle of one magnet - the particle will respond to whatever it encounters."

The angle is not special, but the statistical results are.

"I have not specified such a rule but was merely talking about ubiquitous 'everyday' chance, as in probability."

If ubiquitous everyday chance is responsible for the coutcomes at 90 degree, then please explain to me why and how a particle that encounters the 90 degree magnet is measured "up" instead of "down". Surely, for your explanation you can choose the necessary features for that particle like spin direction, orientation of axis and field orientation in the x,y,z coordinate system.

If ubiquitous everyday chance is NOT responsible for the coutcomes at 90 degree, please nonetheless explain the "up" outcome.

I want to request from you please not to answer with inexpressively statements like

" They enter the apparatus and each experience a different field orientation from each other."

what is TRIVIALLY TRUE under the assumptions you already made for the 180 degree case, or statements like

"Nor is there a rule of anticorrelation applying to singular apparatus."

what is also trivially true under the assumptions you already made for the 0 and 180 degree cases. By the way i never claimed that the rule of anticorrelation applies to singular apparatus. Hope that you don't think that i claimed that in my last post or elsewhere.

Just like it is not possible to give the heads or tails coin before the measurement protocol is decided, so too for up or down bits produced by the analyzers. The entanglement can not be explained just by considering the individuals alone but requires the relation of the particles to each other. Now the particles are not considered as up or down at production as how they will develop depends on their (unknown) axes of rotation orientation, spin and which apparatus orientation is selected and hoow the particles respond. I do not know the finer details of pair production to know if there are preferred orientations of axes of pairs produced or not. By not, meaning any orientations but just the same. Nevertheless if x, y or z orientation of analyses is selected at random, that alone will introduce chance. If the field orientation is the same for both, they react tin similar ways and anti-correlation is preserved, despite the chance selection of a same particular field challenge for both. Chance is involved but the output does not look random.

At 90 degrees difference of orientation of analyzers AT LEEAST one of the particles will experience a change of axis of rotation. It can not keep the same orientation as the other even if they both move. What can be said is the certainty of anticorrelated outcome no longer applies. For each individual the result could be up or down and which depends upon the relation of particle too field. Over many test their will be equal or approx. equal numbers of each- the more tests the more accurate; same as random. The force from fields acting on moving charge mentioned by John is important,,, spin direction is important ;affecting outcome as shown by the difference of 0 and 180 difference results. In all tests where the particles enter the analyzer, and the inhomogeneity of the fields plays a part. I do think if all the unknowns were known the output could be predicted for each individual. But those unknowns are not known and they are treated statistically.

Please excuse the many typos.. I accidentally hit submit before finishing spell check.

Georgina,

thank you for your reply. Typos are excused :-)

"The entanglement can not be explained just by considering the individuals alone but requires the relation of the particles to each other."

That is only true for how you explained the 0 and 180 degree cases (if one believes that this explanation is what actually happens physically). I see not the slightest reasons so far in your hitherto made statements why the citation above should be also true for all the other angles.

Quite the contrary, it is not even clear to me from your hitherto made statements like

"At 90 degrees difference of orientation of analyzers AT LEEAST one of the particles will experience a change of axis of rotation. It can not keep the same orientation as the other even if they both move. What can be said is the certainty of anticorrelated outcome no longer applies. For each individual the result could be up or down and which depends upon the relation of particle too field."

how you wish to explain that 90 degree case deterministically so that your assumption

"if all the unknowns were known the output could be predicted for each individual."

matches reality.

Surely, in that 90 degree case both magnets produce their "up" and "down" with equal likelihood such that the result over many tests will look the same as random. But from your hitherto made statements AT LEAST the magnet that had NOT been turned 90 degrees will produce its outcomes according to the logic you already declared applicable for the 0 degree case for this magnet. Consequently, the individual that encounters that magnet which had not been turned 90 degrees cannot know whether or not its partner encounters a 90 degree difference, and therefore that individual will react in the same manner as if the other magnet hadn't been turned 90 degree. If that would not be true logically, then also your whole explanation for the 0 and 180 degree cases cannot be true either!

That the individual i spoke of above cannot know whether nor not its partner encounters a 90 degree difference is not just a rethorical statement, but the serious question about whether or not the relationship between the two individuals does play the same important role in explaining the 90 degree results as it did in explaining the 0 and 180 degree cases.

Moreover, that important question additionally makes me doubt that your explanation for the 0 and 180 degree cases says at all something true about what is physically going on in the experiments. Since there is nothing special about the 90 degree angle, the physical mechanisms for its outcomes shouldn't be that special either - or one had to explain why the 90 degree case is physically that special.