The simplest electric motor has no preferred direction of rotation that isn't designed into it.

Can't edit at the moment - bother I think the diagrams are wrong

. There's more to take account of. 1. that the vibration is two sided, a dipole -out one side is in the other. 2, The two apparatus magnets have opposite poles facing each other.

Try again

To differentiate magnets and particles: A and I for away and into magnet body

Alice's

1 0 1 0 1 ( 1 into magnet body) I A I A I

0 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 Two phases for each end of

1 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 the dipole magnetic moment

1 0 1 0 1 I A I A I

(I into magnet body) So I's moving in the opposite direction to other magnet.

To differentiate A and I for away and into magnet body

Bob's

0 1 0 1 0 A I A I A

0 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 0

1 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1

0 1 0 1 0 A I A I A Opposite direction of first line

If anti correlated ( meaning a pair of opposite orientation of phase) particles is used the anticorrelation is preserved as can be seen by drawing out more phase interaction diagrams, and thinking carefully about what I and O mean on each line.

I think that's right now. I'll leave it there as it's' doing my head in'. -You have to picture what the magnets and particles are doing. '

John, I agree. Blue socks do not classically change into pink socks. A magnetic pole labelled North does not turn into a South .But orientation of the magnet (or a magnetic moment) can change. I'm associating the phase of vibration of particle with the poles to try and explain what is happening. It may be out of the box, but will also explain why magnets come as dipoles. A single electron being the smallest.

Bother again . I didn't check how my post would appear on screen.

Again

Alice's

1 0 1 0 1 ( 1 into magnet body) ..I A I A I

0 1 0 1 0 ..................................0 1 0 1 0

1 0 1 0 1,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,1 0 1 0 1

1 0 1 0 1 ...............................I A I A I

Two middle lines phases for particle magnetic moment ends

(I into magnet body) So I's moving in the opposite direction to other magnet.

To differentiate A and I for away and into magnet body

Bob's

0 1 0 1 0........................... A I A I A

0 1 0 1 0........................... 0 1 0 1 0

1 0 1 0 1........................... 1 0 1 0 1

0 1 0 1 0............................ A I A I A Opposite direction of first line

John,

"An electron is like a 2sphere, there is no cowlick, the hairs on that coconut all stand on end! The orthogonal relationship is freely gimballed, it doesn't matter if the electron is rotating or any surface discrete region is circling an equatorial plane. There are an infinite possible number of possible equatorial planes."

I am not sure if i understood this correctly.

Quantum theory says that there is a 100% anti-correlation for our entanglement experiment when both the magnets have the same field-orientation in space (of course also with the same field forces).

Means, if the spin of the electron referring to magnet A is "down", then the spin of the electron referring to magnet B is "up" - and vice versa. That's the anti-correlation i spoke of. How does this anti-correlation come about if each of the two electrons are

"a 2sphere, there is no cowlick, the hairs on that coconut all stand on end! The orthogonal relationship is freely gimballed, it doesn't matter if the electron is rotating or any surface discrete region is circling an equatorial plane."???

If the measurement devices (magnets) at each side are identical in orientation and strength, the cause for the anti-correlation at a relative angle of 0 degrees must be found in a difference between electron A and electron B. What difference is that???

Sorry, what a pigs ear I've made of that attempt to elucidate. Got muddled with inversion of Alice and Bob's apparatus and the orientation of the magnets in each. The two in each are of course the same orientation and would if able attract. I thought it might have more explanatory power but I end up with just a exceedingly tiny magnet passing through a magnetic field. The inhomogeneity of that field could play a part in selecting which polarity the particle moves towards. In Bob's apparatus the same inhomogeneity is encountered but inverted leading to the same output port, though spatially inverted too.

.I A I A I Alice's............. A I A I A Bob's

A I A I A....................... I A I A I

What would happen if the orientation of the source was altered?

John. maybe they need to be different from your description, if the characteristics and behaviour can not account for experimental results. Reimagining the electron is less of a big deal compared to faster than light communication. Is the idea that something has a definite state or value even if not measured even classically realistic? (Rhetorical). A heads or tails bit cannot be associated with a coin until the measurement protocol has been decided. Read by opening the palm and calling it? Or is the coin to be flipped -giving opposite state? The outcome state associated with a second particle of correlated or anticorrelated pair can only be accurately predicted if the same test x. y or z is selected. The isolated outcome bit is not a particle, or condition of it, pre -testing. The outcome only happens when it happens.

Georgina,

I can follow what you are saying, it's just that there is always that loop-hole of a coin not being associated with a heads or tails bit outcome until a measurement protocol is chosen. From a technical experimentalist perspective, the assumption that two, and only two, individual electrons are selectively prepared as a singlet pair, is itself a theoretical probability. It's a choice to accept that just such a micro-managed sequence of events has been accomplished. In short; we choose to accept that anti-correlation is observed in the initial detection, thence forward.

In refreshing as this discussion has progressed, I realized I was thinking in terms that had simply followed from the usual accepted norms. In particular the induction of a dipolar magnetic moment. And the more I puzzled, the more it became apparent that there are reasons why not only is it not necessary, but there are problems if spin is physically what QM theoretically assumes. To whit; Up and Down are both CCW rotations, yet if that is what physically happens that orients an electron then we have to accept that there is a preferred physical direction for rotation. Shouldn't anti-correlation be CCW, UP, North and CW, UP, North, and CCW, DN, North, and CW, DN, North? (;- jrc

Dear Georgina and John,

it's not a shame that both of you haven't "cracked the puzzle". To the contrary, it is honorable that both of you just confessed to be in error.

I assume that many more anonymous persons, physicists or not, tried to explain things by the same arguments, but neither succeeded. Surely no papers will be published about these failures and i think this is the reason why many proponents for local-realism think that the other camp hasn't thought long and intensive enough about the various issues.

Stefan

Hi dear fqxi friends, john, Stefan, Georgina, I liked a lot your discussions , friendly

John, Stefan, Steve. The dipole magnetic moment idea doesn't seem helpful here. John you said the electron is perfectly gimballed- but it doesn't need gimbals if it is like gyroscope but unsupported. Like a gyroscope in space.

There are some useful behaviours. 1. In the absence of twisting forces, a gyroscope 's axis will always point in whatever direction it was pointing when you started it spinning. Relevant to temporary maintenance of output state if frame test orientation is repeated. And maintenance of 'entangled pair' orientation correlation or anticorrelation. Ie. they do not spontaneously loose their relation when treated the same. This can be demonstrated with pairs of gyroscopes floating freely in space craft.

2. The separation of the pair gyroscopes does not affect their relationship- (so long as they do not collide!)Cf. particle pair members given huge separation, maintaining 'entanglement'.

Push it unsupported in space it maintains its orientation and moves across the cabin. ( It does not show 'circling' precession as it would if on a support of any kind on Earth.) 3. A twist is needed for it to change orientation. Cf. a gyroscopic ion or electron in SG apparatus, exposed to different field orientations. X, y, z.

Assumptions.

a. the particle is produced with a gyroscopic spin orientation.

b. That orientation is either aligned with the magnetic field OR experiences the magnetic field as a local environment exerting a twist. So its orientation adjusts accordingly.

c. the resulting orientation depends on starting orientation AND twists acting on it from the local environment.

TYpo. Should say-Relevant to temporary maintenance of output state if same test orientation is repeated.

Dear Georgina,

"b. That orientation is either aligned with the magnetic field OR experiences the magnetic field as a local environment exerting a twist. So its orientation adjusts accordingly."

Not sure if I understood this correctly. Could you please give a description for how in the case of a relative magnet angle of 0 degrees (perfect anti-correlation) the measurement results do come about with the two gyroscopes?

Georgina,

If the assumption that 'the particle is produced with a gyroscopic spin orientation' is true, and UP and DN are a thumbs up or thumbs down representation of the right-hand rule of thumb (revolving field at right angle to direction of current in a conductor), then there must be universally a physically preferred direction of rotation. If its "turtles all the way down" then we are searching for the last turtle.

The orthogonal relationship is presented a every point in the electromagnetic field, not just the particle(s) central to it. Likewise in the non homogenous region of the magnet group actually between the two shaped magnets, that orthogonal relationship permeates the field. The uniformity of negative charge of an electron will present an alignment of orthogonality whether it is rotating, wobbling, gyrating, tumbling or whatever. Nor would it matter if the unpaired electron of a silver atom is located any particular place on the outermost shell. The electron needn't exhibit a polarity to respond as if it did because there are only two opposite and equal possible physical orientations relative to the orthogonality of the non-homogenous field remaining relative to the direction of the atom's trajectory. On average, half will deflect upward, half downward.

John,

i read your last post and have a question:

If the measurement devices (magnets) at each side are identical in orientation and strength, the cause for the anti-correlation (up/down or down/up, but never up/up or down/down) at a relative angle of 0 degrees must be found in a difference between electron A and electron B. What difference is that???

Stefan,

Find any lab, business, NGO or govt agency that can produce any sort of detection system that can register the incidence of a single atom, electron, proton or photon. There are technologically none. Events are registered as least observable aggregates. And its only when things in aggregate move in unison with each other that we can detect differentiated polarity, whether be it charge or magnetism. ON AVERAGE then, given that an electron with its omnidirectional uniform charge will have its accompanying undifferentiated magnetic field which nonetheless will present an orthogonal relationship in any aspect relative to and aligned with the predominant orthogonality of the manufactured non-homogenous field, half of the registered detections will be UP or DN. It is really that simple, and statistical,

If you register only the DN detections and pass the UP projections through yet another magnet group same as the one they just exited, That projected batch that would register as UP will itself become split in two with half UP and half DN when registered. Resulting in the same 1/4 probability as what is observed by the Mermin 120* detection angle. It's a Bit, not a coin. jrc

John,

you have not answered my question. What is the difference between electron A and B that leads to what Mermin writes in his appendix as

"This probability is unity when phi = 0 [case (a)]"

Phi is the relative angle between the magnets A and B. So what causes the results at a relative angle of 0 degrees?

You can find Mermin's paper - and especially its appendix - at

https://www.informationphilosopher.com/solutions/scientists/mermin/Mermin_short.pdf

If you think you know the answer - write the explanation. If you do not know - write that you do not know. And if you are dishonest - write as if you know something, for example what you wrote in your last post,

"If you register only the DN detections and pass the UP projections through yet another magnet group same as the one they just exited, That projected batch that would register as UP will itself become split in two with half UP and half DN when registered. Resulting in the same 1/4 probability as what is observed by the Mermin 120* detection angle."

what obviously isn't Bohm's version of the Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen experiment and neither is the constellation i asked for to be explained.

"If you register only the DN detections and pass the UP projections through yet another magnet group same as the one they just exited, That projected batch that would register as UP will itself become split in two with half UP and half DN when registered. Resulting in the same 1/4 probability as what is observed by the Mermin 120* detection angle. It's a Bit, not a coin." jrc

Not so John, the spin outcome is temporarily preserved. So unless subjected to a different field orientation between outcomes it will not be changed. All still up.

Stefan,

"Not sure if I understood this correctly. Could you please give a description for how in the case of a relative magnet angle of 0 degrees (perfect anti-correlation) the measurement results do come about with the two gyroscopes?" Stefan

The pair is produced with anti correlated spins and that is preserved unless one or both experience a twist or series of twists that cause them to become out of alignment with each other. 0 and 180 degrees are the same alignment of field though at 180 they have reversed polarity of field compared to each other.