Answering Mermin’s Challenge

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.

I'm using the same word as quantum physics but mean by it something different. In the quantum explanation the particles do not have up or down property but exist as superposition of both AND the pair are a singular system in which it is presumed that the partners communicate faster than light to co-ordinate the outcomes they produce. My way of thinking is that up or down of particles can not be assigned prior to measurement. Each is not both outcomes together, it is just logically impossible to make the call. "My particles do not communicate with each other but at 0 and 180 degrees the same treatment (0 degrees) or similar treatment(180 degrees) preserves the same axis of rotation orientation of both; no communication between particles necessary. I have previously said , if the particles of a pair are not treated in the same way 'entanglement'( giving 100% one kind of output-all same, or all opposite) is lost.

"If the unknowns were known the output could be predicted for each individual. "GW That is what I think but we do not have all of the unknowns. I do not believe the particles are communicating each other at any relative angles of analyzers. They do not conspirer to give random output at 90 degrees. The particles know nothing . It matters not to the particle what the history of the field it encounters. Changed or unchanged it just responds to what it encounters. The output could be up or down as we know nothing about the individual; unless it is being retested with same field orientation. Yes the particle a knows nothing of particle b's field exposure. It does not need to. By my way of thinking they just need same as each other (or similar as for 180 case) or not. The particles do not care how that same similar or not relation is attained.

Maybe to say there was nothing special about 90 degrees was misleading . Of all possible angles it requires the most adjustment of angles of rotation; whether achieved by adjustment of the axis of one or both partners. They each respond to the forces they individually find-no communication between them needed.

Proof of the pudding is in the eating. I have outlined a possible experiment. Scale may be an issue. I don't know if strength of the magnets can compensate for difference in scale of the constituents. Electron Cf. magnet is a big difference of scale. Comparability of electron rotation and that of the electrons of the magnets may be relevant. Perhaps all of the apparatus and variables could be modelled on computer to evaluate promise,

Georgina,

thanks for your reply.

You wrote

"Of all possible angles it requires the most adjustment of angles of rotation; whether achieved by adjustment of the axis of one or both partners."

This implies that the source sends out "entangled" (your definition of entanglement!) particle pairs with different orientations of axis' relative to the source such that all possible orientations in space for all pairs (a pair has the same orientation of both its axis' in space) are equally likely to encounter the experimental setup (magnets).

Consequently, in the 90 degree case, if that setup is not changed during many tests with incoming particle pairs, there will be many particle pairs whose BOTH axis do NOT require "the most adjustment" of angles of rotation. So your statement does not constitute any "speciality" of the 90 degree case.

"Proof of the pudding is in the eating."

Yes, but only when the theory is consistent.

Thank-you for that informative comment, Doc,

that's really what I come here for. Incidentally, precession plays an important part in aggregate rotations of polarized magnetic fields. That ubiquitous equilibrium that begets the quantum probabilities is displayed by common bar magnets at right angles. A linear sweep will meet repulsion at one end and attraction at the other, but an arcing sweep introduces angle and separation change which along with a precession of relative position introduces the pole without resistance, and backs its proximity away from attraction at the planar end of the sweep. So, rotating quarks generating uniform charge fields sounds plausible to me. thanks jrc

Stefan,

"Of all possible angles it requires the most adjustment of angles of rotation; whether achieved by adjustment of the axis of one or both partners. "GW.I may not have made it clear, I was talking about what must occur for entangled pairs. I must admit in hindsight that is not well expressed. I mean there is the largest total adjustment that has to happen, compared to any other field orientation combination, for that kind of pair. As the fields of the analyzers are at their most dissimilar in orientation.

"This implies that the source sends out "entangled" (your definition of entanglement!) particle pairs with different orientations of axis' relative to the source ..." SW, I said I don't know, but that is a possibility. The entangled pairs start out with same orientation of their axes of rotation . That can not be preserved at the 90 degree test.

"..such that all possible orientations in space for all pairs (a pair has the same orientation of both its axis' in space) are equally likely to encounter the experimental setup (magnets)." SW. (Only entangled pairs have same orientation of axes.)A. Maybe so.

"Consequently, in the 90 degree case, if that setup is not changed during many tests with incoming particle pairs, there will be many particle pairs whose BOTH axis do NOT require "the most adjustment" of angles of rotation." SW. Yes there may be unentangled pairs perfectly out of parallel with each other so they match the orientation of the field exactly as they are. Probability of that if each particle can have any orientation of axis of rotation? For entangled pairs the total difference in angle has to go from 0 to 90 degrees , however achieved. Both may gave to move though 45 degrees or one may have to turn more than the other. The other extreme is one turned 90 degrees the other 0 degrees.

Georgina,

"I may not have made it clear, I was talking about what must occur for entangled pairs. I must admit in hindsight that is not well expressed. I mean there is the largest total adjustment that has to happen, compared to any other field orientation combination, for that kind of pair. As the fields of the analyzers are at their most dissimilar in orientation."

Not well expressed is an understatement as well as your belief that you may made it not clear whereof you are talking about: you talked about the 90 degree case and expressed this very clearly.

Sorry Georgina, but i cannot further discuss with somebody who is such confused as you are. You are writing horribly inconsistent things, not only concerning your scheme, but also concerning what you consider a clear line of thought.

Georgina,

by writing

"Maybe to say there was nothing special about 90 degrees was misleading. Of all possible angles it requires the most adjustment of angles of rotation; whether achieved by adjustment of the axis of one or both partners."

you referred to the 90 degree case. You compared all of its "relevant" cases (the ones that have to change their orientations maximally) with all of the "relevant" cases for 0 degree (the ones that have to change their orientations maximally). Since in the 90 degree case there are 6 maximal changes and in the 0 degree case there are 4 maximal changes, you concluded that this 90 degree angle must be the "most special" of all angles - since it produces the "most adjustment".

Now you say that you didn't refer to the 90 degree angle but "I was talking about what must occur for entangled pairs". No, you simply made a mistake by forgetting to also consider the entangled pairs in your examination.

For the entangled pairs (180 degree angle), there are 8 "relevant" cases of the kind i described above, and - lo and behold! - in your next reply you claimed that you actually had talked about the 180 degree case. But you talked about the 90 degree case, until you realized that this does not work...

You also forgot that there are many other, "not so maximal" cases for each of the 0, 90 and 180 degree relative angles - and in your last post you now come up with those cases by introducing a bunch of inconsistent new guesswork.

The 90 degree case cannot be special in any respect, since you can construct this angle all around the y-axis (axis of flight). The same is true also for the 0 and 180 degree angles - and for all remaining angles. You will always be able to shift these relative angles around the y-axis by simply adding a same amount of change (same amount of degrees in the same direction) to each of both magnets. Since it is always only the relative angles between the two magnets that are responsible for the outcomes at that angle - and not the relative shift of angles as just described, the only conclusion is to accept that the source sends out the particle pairs in the manner i described in my next to last post.

All other distributions of pair orientations (or single particle orientations if you like to abandon your entanglement scheme) will not reproduce the measurement results. That's the wonder of QM entanglement - the particles do not care about their relative angle they initially have with the source - what is also equivalent that they do not care about your scheme and all its possible modifications.

The only reason to be further "entangled" notional with your original scheme is that the relative angles of 0 and 180 degree are the one and only cases that can be explained classically. You may think otherwise, but i know better and know that this notional entanglement enables only a going in circles. Whatever you change to match your scheme with the experimental outcomes of certain angles, these changes automatically will mismatch other angles about which you thought you already have matched them with the experimental outcomes.

Stefan, thank you for your time. I am disappointed that I have not been able to convey my thoughts in a way conducive to development of an acceptable description. I will keep your objections in mind as I work on improvement.

I know you are now out of the conversation but I'd just like to leave the thought that if the two apparatus are moved through 90 degrees in opposite directions they end up at 180 difference of angles from 0 degree difference. And the consequence of that is change in anticorrelated ( for 0) to correlated (for 180) , particle rotation direction. Without communication, just geometry.

If spin gives the magnetic polarity; One pole each sided. There will either be attraction or repulsion at the magnet pole nearest, according to orientation of the particle 'poles'. Repelled at one pole the particle could flip and be attracted by the other.

The split of ups and downs outputs could also be depending on above or below midline between magnet poles the test particles enter their apparatus; relevant to whether attracted by near pole or not.

That may sound like a lot of incoherent rambling but it is my provisional conclusions from many hand-drawn diagrams. I hope to knock' it into a testable, consistent, hypothesis .

Kind regards ,Georgina

PS I've noticed another post by you after drafting a response. I'm not used to having so much difficulty communicating what I mean. I'm not sure if I'm really being incoherent and inconsistent or whether you are being obtuse . I'll take a look and see if your latest criticisms make any sense to me.

I don't see any thing in your latest post worth discussing. Sorry you have found my writing horribly confused and inconsistent. You seem to think I have some kind of agenda that I really don't. I enjoy having my ideas challenged so that I can improve my explanations. I don't like implications of dishonest motive or trying to cover up errors; nor do I enjoy insults. I'm OK with you thinking you know better and leaving it there. ( I know you know you know better, don't just think it -I don't want to argue.)

Georgina,

"I know you are now out of the conversation but I'd just like to leave the thought that if the two apparatus are moved through 90 degrees in opposite directions they end up at 180 difference of angles from 0 degree difference. And the consequence of that is change in anticorrelated ( for 0) to correlated (for 180), particle rotation direction. Without communication, just geometry."

To make a long story relatively short, on Nov. 1, 2020 @ 21:34 GMT you introduced

"The two kinds are called entangled pairs and product pairs."

what you called "product pairs". I argued against these because of being logically inconsistent.

You agreed to that on Nov. 2, 2020 @ 02:03

"Stefan, re. product pairs vs. entangled pairs. This is new to me but I thought it was something that might be useful to incorporate. In real life the 100% anti-correlation is really just there about. The entanglement process is not exact. I think you are right after exposure to a particular field orientation many not previously entangled particles will take up same alignment and by results be indistinguishable from those emitted entangled."

On Nov. 8, 2020 @ 20:59 GMT

"Yes there may be unentangled pairs perfectly out of parallel with each other so they match the orientation of the field exactly as they are. Probability of that if each particle can have any orientation of axis of rotation?"

you re-introduced them as a new possibility, although having refused them a couple of days earlier as cited above. Surely your re-introduction of them is slightly different from your first introduction, but nonetheless equivalently logically inconsistent by constantly switching between an entanglement experiment and - metaphorically speaking - an experiment where two ovens produce to non-entangled particles whereby you try to match the resulting paired outcomes with what has been experimentally measured for the entanglement experiment.

You seem to be not aware of that your entanglement scheme, as you originally introduced it, is a correlation scheme that - for at all being deterministic and matching the QM results - in any case must retain a relative relationship between the relative phases of all of your particle and magnet properties (axis, spin, orientation relative to the source and the magnets' fields), - independent of whether or not a new relationship establishes or the current one is retained.

Without introducing non-causal randomness this can only be achieved (if at all!) by deterministic processes for all relative magnet angles. Howsoever these deterministic processes may look like, consequently for every member of a pair in a deterministic process, after the measurement direction is decided, but before it has actually been measured, there has to be an unambigious state for the particle's actual condition as well as for the magnet's actual condition. This is independent of whether or not we can know all these states before the actual measurement or after. Once the measurement is done at one particle, according to your belief, we should theoretically be able to conclude what the other particle's outcome will be (when not measured yet or already measured but we have not been told the result).

On Nov. 7, 2020 @ 03:04 GMT you wrote

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

Yes, you argue that way, but i think you do not grasp that cause and effect is just another term for relative relationship between the interactions of two physical objects and if you want to explain what happens when these two objects encounter each other, then there should be a bijection for all the possible measurement outcomes with all the possible situations of encounter. This has nothing to do with deciding a measurement protocol just as little as it has to do with measurement protocols for other classical, deterministic causes and effects.

I'm taking the board rubber and starting again using analogy to paint a picture of what's going on, and why it must be so.

2X, 2Y and 2Z are the three commonly used same orientations of apparatus. That are 120 degrees different from each other. Inversion of polarity is denoted Xi, Yi. and Zi. An example of a pair with one inverted magnet polarity would be X, Xi.

X =Formal dinner, Y =casual gathering, Z=pool party. Each occasion has two choices of attire. For brevity :X has bow tie or business tie: Y has hoodie or jumper :Z has board shorts or euro. trunks The attire can be likened to measurement out comes.

Pairs of invites sent with opposite instructions ;not to be taken literally but to represent pairs of particles with opposite spin. ( for consistent lets say that is decided ( in principle not practice) by looking at the equator .One is instructed to pick up LH. dress code, the other RH dress code. Which gets which is unknown until they attend the party/complete test. The results will be anticorrelated.

Turning the apparatus from XX to Xi, as an example; is like turning the invitation marque so that exit and entrance are reversed.. The same reversal effect can be obtained by making the invitee enter backwards the normal orientation (not reversed tent).In these cases the participating pair will receive same rather than opposite dress codes. Which is correlated outcome rather than anticorrelated.

If the test apparatus are at 90 degrees to each other that is midway between producing a correlated result and an anticorrelated result. It could go either way. And that is uncorrelated. Whether that is special or not depends on how it is thought about. It looks random, no special relationship shown by that. And yet it is precisely between correlated and anticorrelated and that is special.

As for 'product pairs' (rather than entangled pairs, they are not opposites from the outset, they may or may not end up with opposite attire depending on how they encounter the invitation marque. This gives the real life experimental deviation from 100% of a particular kind of outcome. If just talking about pure theory rather than practice they can be ignored.