Answering Mermin’s Challenge

Georgina,

thanks for your honest replies.

I chose the 23 degree randomly.

The particle I gave as an example will be blocked by the circular aperture of experiment 2 and 3. So we have to choose a particle X that is able to pass that aperture.

There will be always particles that pass the circular aperture and enter experiment 2 and 3. We can choose one of these particles and ask the questions I asked you to answer. Choose as particle X one that in experiment 1 followed a trajectory that makes it pass quadrant 1 of the circular aperture somewhere in the middle between the x- and the z-axis of our coordinate system, let's say 32 degree away from the x-axis on the point of the upper open-mouth figure produced by experiment 1. Surely for experiment 2 and 3 we have to remove the screen of experiment 1 to proceed with experiments 2 and 3. But for experiments 2 and 3 we each have the screen in place. Instead of having a screen for experiment 1, we always have our coordinate system to talk about particle X' location in space.

For both experiments 2 and 3, if these experiments last long enough, there will come along particle X out of the oven that will satisfy the conditions mentioned above.

So we have a particle X that, after having passed the magnet of experiment 1, has a location in space that is 32 degree away from the x-axis in quadrant 1 on the point of the upper open-mouth figure produced by experiment 1. It then enters experiment 3 with that trajectory and goes into a magnet that is turned 23 degree (as described in my other post) and additionally its rotational axis is shifted to the right on the x-axis by an amount that is equal to half the length of the horizontal aperture that was used for experiment 1. For experiment 2 the amount of shift is the same, but the magnet is not turned the 23 degree, but has the same orientation of field lines in space (as well as the same polarity in space) as it is the case for the magnet in experiment 1.

There are once again the following questions to be answered by your model:

Which governing laws does the particle X undergo for the experiments 1, 2 and 3, how do these governing laws affect the changes of position in our coordinate system for particle X and what temporary properties for the changes of these positions are needed for that particle X?

Let's assume that

"2) Randomly oriented electrons from the source are used for initial input to the sequential tests."

With assumption 2) we now make my experiment 1. The location in space of particle X after having exited experiment 1 is just as described above.

The horizontal length of the aperture used for experiment 1 is Y. Half that length then is Y/2.

Question 1):

What orientation of axis and what direction of spin (CW or CCW) does particle X have had before it interacted with the magnet of experiment 1?

We now make my experiment 2. The magnet for experiment 2 has been moved horizontally (along the x-axis) by the amount Y/2. Particle X now enters the magnet. In which of the 4 quadrants of our coordinate system will particle X make its impact and why?

We now make my experiment 3. The magnet for experiment 3 has been turned 23 degree clockwise when looked at in the direction of flight. Additionally, this magnet has been moved horizontally (along the x-axis!) by the amount Y/2. Particle X now enters that magnet. In which of the 4 quadrants of our coordinate system will particle X make its impact and why?

Stefan, I'm sorry I don't understand what you are trying to demonstrate with your series of experiments. They seem totally unrelated to what I've been thinking about. Lateral displacement is not correlated with one bit outcome rather than another. So I don't see the reason for selecting just X. Two kinds of movement are important for my idea to work 1. the alignment with the field 2. the resultant movement of electrons due to rotation ; field interaction. I do think if the gyroscopes are too large the UPS/DOWNS may have to be sorted by direction of induced current ( how to allow that flow is another issue, perhaps to do with the medium. Or Maybe charging a capacitor attached to the axis) rather than movement of the gyroscope. There are things to think about regarding design.

Georgina,

your model needs not to understand what an experimenter has in mind, it just needs to answer the questions about the kinetics of a particle.

If it can't answer these questions for one single particle, it is neither able to explain the frequencies of "up" and "down" impacts in an entanglement experiment for the left side nor for the right side and hence, it explains nothing.

The orientation of axis and direction of rotation, of a random individual electron, prior to going through the apparatus is not knowable.

I don't see how moving the magnet horizontally effects orientation with field or direction of rotation. The particle just enters the field somewhere and responds to what is encountered.

Result from 2 not necessarily the same/correlated with result at 3 because of angle change. If the result was UP it could now give either an Up or Down bit. Once more I don't understand the purpose of the horizontal magnet alteration. Although in some circumstances axis orientation and rotation is preserved, where along an x axis a recycled particle enters an apparatus is snot preserved. I think you have unrealistic expectations of the sequence of scenarios you describe.

Georgina,

you now made it clear as possible with your answers that your model has nothing to do with physics. This has nothing to do with me having expectations or not.

I wish you a nice pre-Christmas time!

Stefan, my answers to your questions about your experiments are to do with how nature is rather than "my model' in particular.

That the rotation and orientation of a random particle can not be known until it has been measured should not be too shocking, More surprising and an important issue is that the Stern Gerlach apparatus does not just measure but alters a characteristic that is important for producing the outcome, Sometimes called an analyzer rather than measuring device for that reason.

Whether UP or DOWN bits are produced is independent of lateral location in the field. When experiencing a new field orientation , the previous relation with former field orientation has to be relinquished. It can not both change and stay the same. So the axis orientation and rotation direction are only semi permanent (Bell's inequalities don't apply).

The experimenter could set up the apparatus in such a way that the collected electrons pass precisely through the next magnet from a precise lateral input location. That precise input is a contrivance of the experimenter, not due to lateral location being a preserved characteristic. As a new field direction causes loss of former alignment it can't be said with certainty whether the new field orientation will give an Up or DOWN output.

Perhaps that is not physics as you would like it to be. I'm still talking about the physics of the universe; how it is .

Georgina,

you claim that in your model the "up" and "down" outcomes at each side of an entanglement experiment are each due to local physical interactions. If that's the physics of the universe, then your model should be able to answer at least the questions I posed for experiment 1.

Ever since I posed these questions, you successfully avoided to even give an answer for experiment 1. If your model cannot infer for experiment 1 from particle X' position in the coordinate system after it went through the magnet to what its properties (particle location in the coordinate system in the horizontal aperture & its orientation of its axis in that coordinate system; direction of rotation) must have been just before it entered the magnet, then your model has not established a local physical explanation. Experiment 1 does not deal with a lateral shift of the magnet.

For establishing a model that exhibits local physical interactions at every point in the coordinate system and at every point in time for experiment 1, every particle that enters experiment 1 must have a unique position in the horizontal aperture. After having exited the experiment, every particle that went through the magnet will have a unique place at the measurement screen due to its local physical interactions.

Every model that aims to exhibit local physical interactions and claims to have determined the involved kinetics which leads to that unique place must be able to infer from that unique place the initial conditions (particle's properties just before the particle entered the magnet). If it can't make that link between that unique place at the screen and the initial conditions, it simply is not a model that is able to make unique mappings of local physical interactions with unique measurement outcomes! It's really that simple!

Since your model cannot make these unique mappings (otherwise please demonstrate it), it's explanations of how a particle's properties together with the local environment it encounters produce a unique outcome is simply inconsistent. That's true even for the case that your model's explanatory scheme neglects macroscopic imperfections of the apparatus as well as microscopic noise that additionally may act on a particle:

in both cases your model simply cannot infer from even one single particle outcome to the temporal properties that particle must have had just before it entered the magnet of experiment 1. Consequently your model also cannot conclude from the particle's temporal properties your model ascribes to it just before it enters the magnet to what it's outcome will be ("up" or "down"). Otherwise please demonstrate it. It's really that simple Georgina.

Once again this is not about me liking something or not, but about logics and consistency.

I don't agree Stefan, you have a strange idea that the precise location of the output bit is directly correlated with the pre-magnet input co-ordinates and orientation. That is not so. For alignment to happen some particles will change their orientation more than others. The process of alignment may also affect how much lateral displacement there is due to the non-homogenous field, prior to alignment. You have the naïve assumption that they are all affected equally and that effect can just be subtracted to get the input 'characteristics'.

It seems to me you are using a model of how you think classical physics should be (that has been shown not to work in these kinds of SG experiment, to discredit an alternative classical explanation.

Georgina,

"For alignment to happen some particles will change their orientation more than others."

as well as

"Two kinds of movement are important for my idea to work 1. the alignment with the field 2. the resultant movement of electrons due to rotation ; field interaction."

are just figments of a human mind, in this case figments of your mind (and maybe also figments of the minds of people that buy into those claims you make). For me there are no reasons to take these claims serious as long as you can't give the full kinetics that would describe why particles impact the screen at a certain location rather than another location. That full kinetics then also should explain why particles never impact at the area inside the open-mouth figure.

You are free to find it strange to ask what governing laws for which particle orientations and spin directions lead to the outcomes your model claims to produce. I do not at all consider that question as being strange. You excluded a magnetic moment from your model to be the property that the governing laws interact with. I ask which governing laws other than magnetic forces then make the particles deviate from their paths to produce "up" and "down" impacts and why these governing laws do prevent impacts at the area inside the open-mouth figure. If you find these questions strange then that's your decision but that decision really does not contribute anything to the quest of how and why the outcomes in your model come about in physical reality rather than in your mind!

"It seems to me you are using a model of how you think classical physics should be (that has been shown not to work in these kinds of SG experiment, to discredit an alternative classical explanation."

I am using no model, I just ask questions. If asking questions should discredit your model, this is not my fault, but the fault of your model.

"you have a strange idea that the precise location of the output bit is directly correlated with the pre-magnet input co-ordinates and orientation. That is not so."

That's another figment of your mind. As long as your model lacks the full kinetics, it cannot definitely state that certain correlations exist or do not exist. Nonetheless doing so is once more a figment of your mind and deeply inconsistent.

The inconsistency of your model simply is to declare all the mentioned figments of your mind to be how the universe factually works. This declaration is itself a figment of your mind. It could be considered as being more than just a figment of your mind if you could give the full kinetics and if you could do so, then one could carefully analyse this kinetics and maybe one then would trace that this kinetics is able to reproduce the correlation statistics of the entanglement experiment (but also maybe one then would trace that this kinetics isn't able reproduce the needed correlations).

But neither your model gives the full kinetics nor has this hypothetical kinetics already been analysed and found to reproduce the QM correlations. None of these requirements are delivered by your model and claims that these requirements are nonetheless delivered would be simply counterfactual reasoning. In other words, you and your model permanently confuse counterfactuals with facts and that is inconsistent reasoning. If you should find it strange that one demands from your model that it should be at all analysable, then your model does no better or different than a quantum mechanical analysis of the "real" facts responsible for the locations of particle impacts would do. It's really that simple Georgina.

This is fun...a combination of boron nitride quantum dot with double layer graphene. They use an over potential to inject charge into one spot and create a quantum dot as a BN+/graph- trapped polaron.

They can then scan the quantum with a lower voltage and show that there is about 1% charge exchange with the scan. By the math, it seems that there are about 50-60 charge pairs trapped in the quantum dot that they showed. There are also a lot of structure and symmetry, which will take many, many papers to more thoroughly model.

Of course, there are a lot of neat things that are possible at 4.8 K but that do not exist at 300 K...but what the heck...have some fun with charge. They do not measure the dephasing rate and that would be interesting as well as the quantum dot lifetime.

There is much discussion, and numerous papers on spin, in relation to Bell inequalities etc. The majority of these discussions refer to the Stern Gerlach apparatus as the detecting device, and arbiter of the EPR paradox. The vast majority of actual experiments use polarizers and PMT's.

If one considers the fact that most discussions and papers only report on gedanken or thought experiments, relating to Stern Gerlach, then one is apt to wonder as to the veracity of these reports. Even the misreporting of the actual shape of the image obtained from the original Stern Gerlach result is astonishing. I have a link to a peer reviewed paper in support of my argument.

https://jumpshare.com/v/WNETrGGUb7UYcoR4YacS

Barry