Answering Mermin’s Challenge

OK. The particles are produced as a pair. We have been calling them anti-corelated. I mean they are opposite in some way; now presuming opposite gyroscopic rotation. They have an affinity with the rotation they were produced with that is sensitive to magnetic field orientation. The relation between rotation it was produced with and magnetic field orientation is maintained -so if the field direction is altered the particle adjusts to it, If the field is inverted the particle inverts maintaining their relationship.

Let call the particle pairs twins, and because they are opposites, twin/anti-twin pairs. (T/At). We do not know which is the twin and which the anti, the abbreviation applies to both possibilities.[To try and more clearly differentiate particles and output bit results. ]

0 degrees difference in apparatus angle. North magnet top. T/At pair.

As they were produced as opposites they have different preference of orientation in the same direction of field; such as north magnet top. They will each adjust to the field they encounter. One of the many possible adjustments that could happen is both particles turn head over heels (or heels over head) to achieve their preferred relation with the field. [Not knowing if the anti parallel axes of rotation orientation are the same for every pair or random. My guess is random.] The other extreme is they are already perfectly parallel and anti-parallel to the field and do not need to adjust their orientation. In all cases the twin/anti-twin relation is maintained. Applying the right hand rule, (N)up: (S)down or (N)down: (S)up

180 LHS N top RHS S top T/At pair

LHS same as for 0 degrees. Lets assume for ease that no adjustment is needed and (as we have to chose one of the options for discussion) The LHS particle has antiCl. Turn (rotation) giving by Right hand rule (N) up flow.

The partner finds the opposite field orientation S top. Reminder; With N top this particle, the opposite, with Cl. Rotation, would be (S) down So it maintains its preferred relation with field by inverting. Now by RH rule it is now turning antiCl. Flow (S) up. The bits are matching, up. But although the bits are deemed identical, the magnetic polarity involved in production is different.

Georgina,

thank you again for placing your lines of reasoning to the disposal.

You wrote

"0 degrees difference in apparatus angle. North magnet top. T/At pair.

As they were produced as opposites they have different preference of orientation in the same direction of field; such as north magnet top. They will each adjust to the field they encounter. One of the many possible adjustments that could happen is both particles turn head over heels (or heels over head) to achieve their preferred relation with the field. [Not knowing if the anti parallel axes of rotation orientation are the same for every pair or random. My guess is random.] The other extreme is they are already perfectly parallel and anti-parallel to the field and do not need to adjust their orientation. In all cases the twin/anti-twin relation is maintained. Applying the right hand rule, (N)up: (S)down or (N)down: (S)up"

In the following I again will refer to the case where the axis of rotation of both particles axis' are oriented in the same direction as the magnets field lines are for the 0 degree case.

What I still do not understand in your derivation for the 0 degree angle case is why a pair whose two members have an opposite property right from the start should be able to maintain that opposite relationship when both members encounter identical environments (means same field directions for both magnets). So I do not understand why both particle pairs, namely the "twin" as well as the "anti-twin" pair both should NOT be altered in the 0 degree case (with the special alignment axis' with direction of field lines I am here referring to!) such that one member of that pair does not need to adjust its axis - whereas the other member has to adjust its axis by making an 180 degree turn of its axis.

Please be patient with me since I still cannot see the logic that you have applied in your derivation for concluding that when each member of a pair has an opposite feature, then identical environments at both sides (identical field orientations of the two magnets) should lead to an identical reaction at both sides (for example the 180 degree turn necessary for both members of that pair). Maybe I am blind, but until now I cannot the logical reasons for such a derivation.

So would it be possible that you explain your reasons behind that kind of logical mechanics for each of the two members of that distinctive pair which is considered by you having to turn left side axis as well as right side axis by 180 degree when it encounters the 0 degree case? I think that would be helpful for me. For simplicity you may wish to explain that by referring only to one of the two possible cases for the magnets' orientation, let's say North magnets top.

Thank you very much in advance for taking the time explaining to me your derivation and also thank you again for already having been committed to lay out in more detail the explanatory scheme you have in mind.

Stefan, thank you for your questions, I drafted quite a lengthy reply but think I am now ready to write my thoughts in paper for anyone/everyone to critique as they wish. Your questioning has been helpful in getting me to explain myself clearly and be consistent.. Hopefully that paper, which I will post on viXra, will answer all of your remaining questions.

Georgina,

I will certainly take a look at it when it is available. I already guess what the answer to my last question will be since i remember to have heard it at fqxi already - but i stay tuned for surprises!

Georgina,

Best of Luck in your efforts to associate gyroscopic effects with the electromagnetic spin states. There exists plenty of evidence that at quantum scales gyroscopic behavior might well be essentially "weightless". Beware, of course, that experiment to date only is capable of observing particulate matter in aggregate, and it is a far stretch to treat a clump of n? particles as exhibiting the characteristics of a hypothetical single particle, be it an elementary particle or the std model of atomic structure. That inconvenient truth is why QM treats a particle as being in multiple states, and refrains from speculation as to what realistically constitutes a primal particle.

Orbital and Spin angular momentum differ in magnitude (generally speaking) but both boil down to a measure of response at right angle to direction of motion in relation to velocity. Spin angular momentum of the electron is said to be 'intrinsic' because it is calculable that the surface of the charge radius would have to be moving in excess of light velocity to exhibit the amount of lateral movement in a measured magnetic field. Obviously, what is lacking is the question of "why" rotation one way or another would produce a lateral response anyway! It's not like is has some kind of traction! So... maybe gyros have something to do with it (?) . :-) jrc

Georgi,

A principle problem that confronts efforts to model a realistic elementary particle becomes apparent in such experiments as Stern-Gerlach. It is acknowledged that macro experiments deal with aggregates of n? particles such as neutral Ag silver atoms, so we can deduce only so much applied to single entities. Cutting to the chase, let's look at either a proton or electron. The intrinsic spin, if taken as a real physical rotation would produce a magnetic field with a strength that is coefficient of charge and speed of rotation. If that axil orientation is Up and the rotation is CCW, then when/if flipped so that it is oriented Down, the rotation would be CW. The magnetic field orientation may well be in parallel with the rotational axis but regardless of Up or Down, the right angle deflection on the horizontal plane will always be CW veering towards the right when viewed from overhead of a magnet group with the South pole face of the upper magnet facing upwards. The Up/Down spin does not alter the negative charge response on that horizontal electrical plane. A proton will veer CCW to the left.

So how can we model charge realistically? It really physically behaves as if it were moving in all directions on the surface of the charge radius. Or is there a wobble to a precessing orbital of the rotation axis that is intermediate to the orthogonals of an electron (or proton) moving through an external magnetic field?

Dr. Agnew,

This might be something you would find interesting, I ran across browsing with an eye for practical applications and developmental research. It cross references with physics.org so its a good start point.

https://www.graphene-info.com/researchers-achieve-direct-visualization-quantum-dots-bilayer-graphene

the site also has an investment guide to players in the emerging field. enjoy-jrc

Quantum explanation of entanglement would also have faster than light communication of particles. Gyroscopic motion can do away with faster than light communication. It could also replace faster than light intrinsic spin. A 'conducting' gyroscope has a propensity to rotate a particular way but also responds to the magnetic environment. It can turn and exhibit a different flow direction, Such as when exposed to a 90 degree field or returning to a vertical field afterwards. I now think geometry is important and not accounted for in the statistics. The rotating essence of an electron is not current or 'anti-current' but can act in such a way that the electron responds to the magnetic field by flowing in a direction that needs adding to the velocity through the apparatus.

Here is the paper at viXra Explaining Results of Stern Gerlach Apparatus Experiments with Gyroscopic Motion, Georgina Woodward

https://vixra.org/abs/2011.0188

The gimbals of a supported gyroscope with weight allow it freedom of movements. They are not needed by a free-floating one I'm not proposing that an electron is like the gimbal-ed gyroscopes we are familiar with. Ides for the silver atom in the appendix of the paper. The paper itself concentrates on the electron as the test particle. I put forward the idea that all of the electrons are pairs wit opposite rotations whose angular momenta cancel each other; except for the outer electron which is un-cancelled rotation. Gravity has extremely little force at these scales and conditions (i.e. compared with the magnetic field and strong nuclear force) essentially weightless it moves with the outer electron. Movement due to interaction of the rotation of the 'essence of electron (like but not current in a coil ) with the magnetic field producing force.

The interaction of the gyroscope with the magnetic field in your reference [1] is due to the Lenz law. If that gyroscope would not be mounted by its mass (gravity) and the friction of one pole of the magnet (where it has been put on), but would hover weightlessly between the two poles of the magnet, then the sphere of the electron simply would begin to turn around its center (in the experiment of reference [1] it can't do that because the gyroscope has weight, sits on one pole shoe and the induced force is to weak to turn it!). In any case, the resulting force wouldn't neither be "up", "down" nor would it be "left" or "right" but the sphere of the electron simply would begin to turn around its own center.

If that gyroscope wouldn't float in the outer shell of the silver atom but instead being mounted to that shell in some way, the effect would be the same, just as with the ISS which can change its geodesic around the earth by tilting the axis of rotation of the mounted gyroscope (by some motors) in a certain direction (dictated by the knowledge about gyroscopes to achieve the wished-for new geodesic). The ISS (or the electron's shell) then will change its geodesic, but the earth (or the silver atom) will not be affected by that.

Another problem for the gyroscope model is that in order for the spinning object to avoid an angular velocity that exceeds the speed of light by roughly 10^24 orders of magnitude, the object's radius, mass as well as energy had to be roughly 10^9 in magnitude smaller than what has been experimentally determined. As the author of your reference [1] wrote in his footnote, if the rotation speed greatly exceeds that of the experiment, then anyway the observed effects should become weaker. The rotational speed in these experiments were 1000 rpm. If your gyroscopic spin would have an angular velocity of 10^33 - 10^9 = 10^24, then one can expect that the effects will certainly totally vanish. And i think one cannot make the angular velocity of the electron that small that it behaves as a huge macroscopic gyroscope like it does in the experiments of ref. [1]. But anyway, these effects cannot explain the electron spin, since the dynamics described by Lenz' law is linear and therefore continuous, and not discrete. That means that if electrons behave like kinds of gyroscopes, then everywhere in the interior area of the geometric figure produced by in the Stern-Gerlach experiment there should be the same frequencies of impacts as is the case at the border areas. So, I really do not neither understand how your model will achieve the discrete behaviour of atom impacts nor no I understand how this could be in any way linked to the behaviour of gyroscopes.

Without a viable mechanism that at least demonstrates on the basis of what interactions a single silver atom (or electron) will impact the measurement screen at which area it makes no sense to me to further think about your model. Sorry that I cannot say something other, but without a viable mechanism to produce the outcomes this model in my opinion is rather a ambiguous hypothesis instead of solid theory about what is going on.

Georgina,

beg pard, are you suggesting that the unpaired Ag electron is physically rotating on its own axis and perhaps magnetically aligning at some relevant point(s) in the outer shell dependent on the external field orientation?

That may fit with there being no orbital angular momentum attributed to that electron, but how then does it conform to observation of the equi-partitioned electrical lateral CW or CCW deflection 90* from magnetic polar attitude? The electrical neutrality of the Ag atom doesn't seem to influence the UP/DN splitting of results but must be treated as a superposition of positive (proton) and negative (electron0 charge that exhibits an equal probability of lateral deflections; note: the pattern of the typical S-G plot, its not all in a vertical plane of discrete UP or DN... it fans out on both sides of the center vertical plane. best jrc

Stefan, I only referenced that article because it stated that a gyroscopes orientation could be influenced by a magnetic field. I have not written a paper about gyroscopes but am addressing the Stern Gerlach experiments. If you choose not to read i t because I haven't said something you want said about gyroscopes so be it. Re the sliver atom: the electrons are bound to the atom by the electrostatic force. Although the nucleus and electrons are individual parts they can be thought of as a whole. In that case the effect on orientation of the outer electrons could affect the whole atom; the angular momenta of the other electrons being cancelled out. The paper isn't about silver atoms, that's just in the appendix.

If I Understand your first sentence correctly, the answer is yes. But I don't agree with this bit "at some relevant point(s) in the outer shell" JC I don't see why where it is in the shell matters.

Maybe the motion 9flow) of the unpaired electron, taking the rest of the atom with it is not to do with there electrostatic charge of the atom. But instead the rotation of the essence of electron-ness of that outer electron, acting like but not current in a coil, and un-cancelled by a partners opposite rotation.

Why don't you read the paper and ask me about what I have written. How it might apply to silver atoms is an after thought. Unraveling the issues has to start somewhere. I have chosen to start with the simpler situation involving electrons.

John,

the fan out is not due to a Lorenz force. One can conclude this from how much the atom beam is fanned out at the screen when the SG-experiment does not use a horizontal slit aperture aperture the silver atoms leave before entering the SG magnet, but a circular aperture, hence a tiny circular hole.

So when using a horizontal slit aperture, the resulting original pictures of the experiment with and without a magnetic field being applied to the atom beam look like depicted here:

https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007%2F978-3-642-74813-4_4

That horizontal slit aperture was originally used by Gerlach, not a circular aperture. The latter does block some of the the horizontal parts of the atom beam, resulting in only two spot-like locations of impact - as depicted here:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stern%E2%80%93Gerlach_experiment#/media/File:Stern-Gerlach_experiment_svg.svg

whereas the setup used by SG is schematically shown at this picture:

https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stern-Gerlach-Versuch#/media/Datei:SternGerlach2.jpg

On that picture you can see the horizontal slit aperture. So there is no Lorenz force in play in the SG experiment. Otherwise all the silver atoms would deviate in the same horizontal direction (left or right, depending on the orientation of the magentic field). But that is not what has been observed. So since there is no Lorenz force in play, the silver atom must be considered as electrical neutral. And that neutrality is the reason for that one cannot apply Lenz law in any way as the cause for the silver atoms trajectories (up/down or left/right).

"One can conclude this from how much the atom beam is fanned out at the screen when the SG-experiment does not use a horizontal slit aperture aperture the silver atoms leave before entering the SG magnet, but a circular aperture, hence a tiny circular hole."

Should be more understandable as

"One can conclude this from how much the atom beam is fanned out at the screen when the SG-experiment does not use a horizontal slit aperture. That aperture was the original one the silver atoms left before entering the SG magnet. By using a circular aperture, hence a tiny circular hole, one can see that the deviations at the x-axis you talked about stem from the use of a different slit architecture. There simply are more silver atoms coming from the oven that are able to enter ghe magnet when one uses a horizontal aperture.".

Reminder: For the experiment with the horizontal aperture, some of the silver atoms will not be in vertical alignment with the blade of the magnet, but slightly shifted horizontally. These are the atoms that experience a smaller amount of deviation from the z-axis, since they are in regions where the magnetic field isn't that inhomogenous than at directly at the z-axis of the blade.

Georgina,

I read your paper fully and I also read your comments.

In all of my posts within this thread I talk about what your model says when silver atoms are send through an SG-magnet. Since you claim that the outcome at each of the two SG-magnets is governed by local interactions for each side, I tried to learn about what your hypothesis says about the governing laws leading to the Stern-Gerlach pattern I already referenced above to John, namely the "open-mouth"-shaped pattern Stern and Gerlach obtained in their measurements.

If your model of entanglement enables a local description of the measurement outcomes at each side, then at each side of the entanglement experiment the collected outputs should resemble that Stern-Gerlach pattern. Not until the local governing laws for the local outcomes are defined does it make sense to me to think about whether or not your model could be able to reproduce the statistical distributions for all the angles. Clearly, as you explained in your paper, the statistical distributions for the 0, 90 and 180 degree angles are obtained in your model by partitioning all pairwise possibilities into subsets and the symmetry of all these subsets will give the known statistical results.

But this kind of partitioning does not imply that there has to exist a physical mechanism that is able to determine all outcomes. Partitioning and physical mechanism refer to two different subjects. The partitioning refers to the statistics Quantum mechanics predicts, the physical mechanism refers to the belief that it should be possible in principle to find such a mechanism in nature. Beliefs are not forbidden, but are just beliefs - as long as one hasn't defined such a mechanism and has shown that it is responsible for the known outcomes of the entanglement experiment. If your approach is not able to reproduce the "open-mouth"-shaped pattern, one can say with certainty that it does describe neither the SG-experiments for non-entangled particles nor the SG-experiments for the entangled particles.

I have not found any demonstration of these mechanisms, neither in your paper nor in your hitherto comments. Therefore I wrote that any musings about whether your explanations for the 0, 90 and 180 degree cases are self-consistent or not do in my opinion not make sense to me until you provide a demonstration of the physical interactions that lead to the outcomes. Why should I ponder over the partitioning you offered in your paper when even you yourself are not sure about why and how an assumed changing magnetic moment of an electron does change a silver atoms' trajectory?

Stefan, thank you for reading the paper. I'm disappointed that you didn't find it interesting or thought provoking. Don't you love the 90 degree axis orientations and how different they are from 0 and 180? Your goal posts keep moving. You said I needed to explain the 0, 90 and 180 results and now its the 'open mouth' pattern .My initial thought on the matter is that it could be to do with the non homogeneity of the field. It isn't actually vertical, that assumption is just a simplification. The field fans out, from the smaller pointier magnet to the bigger flatter one. As to what silver atoms do, how they move I've tried to flesh out the basic idea mentioned in the paper on this 'page'. Of course I can not know certainly but I'd rather propose a possibility that would be in keeping with the existence of material reality, at the extremely small scale.