Georgina,

my goal is not to make you rolling over belly up. My goal is that you and the reader may understand the argument of inconsistency. I will now try to demonstrate this argument from another, more experimental perspective.

There are two options the source can send out particles (or particle pairs, considering your model):

1) The rotational axis of a particle (or the common axis of a particle pair; I do not speak here of the direction of spin rotation!) is always oriented the same relative to the laboratory frame, namely parallel to the magnetic field

2) The rotational axis of a particle (or the common axis of a particle pair; I do not speak here of the direction of spin rotation!) is randomly oriented relative to the laboratory frame

Let's first look at option 1).

By looking at option 1) we first look at the case that the magnet orientation is fixed - like in the original Stern-Gerlach experiment.

Let's label that experiment as "experiment 1".

In experiment 1 it seems one can choose between the usual explanation for how the open-mouth figure came about or your model. Despite the fact that you haven't made it explicit how the force or the combination of forces for option 1) leads to the open mouth figure, it is nonetheless clear that your model does not have the usual explanation for that figure (because that would mean your model would incorporate the same assumptions Quantum theory does make).

Now, due to the trigonometrical dependence for the amounts of classical forces that could be involved for option 1) (namely Lorentz and Faraday) - namely an hitherto unknown combination of these laws that somewhat lead for example to a particle being deflected a little bit upwards and a little bit to the left - the logical consequence would be that if one turns the magnet, say 23 degrees off from the orientation relative to the laboratory frame for witch the original Stern-Gerlach open mouth figure was found, then according to your model this figure must change dramatically, since the trajectories of the particles are angle-dependent. Since such a change of the figure isn't the case experimentally, option 1) has to be excluded as a possibility.

Additionally, option 1) implies something more strange, namely that whenever we make experiment 1, the particle's orientation of axis is always identical to that of the magnetic field lines. For very big distances between the source and the magnets, this would imply non-local adaptions for the source to the actual orientation of the magnet. Therefore possibility 1) has to be excluded - since your model aims to exclude such non-local adaptions.

Now looking at option 2).

By looking at option 2) we first look at the case that the magnet orientation is fixed - like in the original Stern-Gerlach experiment.

Here your model may assume that all the possible combinations of angles between the axis of a particle send out form the source and the magnetic field, when combined with different amounts of Lorentz and Faraday forces, results in the open mouth picture. That assumption can be characterized by saying that this combination of known laws together with the multitude of different particle axis' relative to the fixed axis of the magnet field is an hitherto non-analysed special case such that somehow those particles whose axis' are oriented at certain relative angles apart from the magnet's vertical axis (relative angles means the angles that the particle's axis establish with the vertical orientation of the magnet field) are those that must fly only a little bit upwards and a little bit left for example. In your model, this then would depend on the particle's initial orientation of rotation axis and its direction of rotation (CW or CCW) and maybe on some additional assumptions.

If one now turns the magnet, say 23 degrees off from the orientation relative to the laboratory frame for which the open mouth figure in experiment 1 was found, then in your model this figure should somehow be conserved under such a rotation.

If one assumes this, then consequently, the subtle combinatorics of Lorentz force, Faraday law and a multitude of different particle axis' orientations relative to the laboratory frame together with the discrete parameter of clockwise and anti-clockwise spinning direction (and perhaps some additional assumptions) seems to be responsible for the original Stern-Gerlach results.

The crucial point here is that one can easily experimentally test whether or not these subtle combinatorics with or without some additional assumptions are indeed responsible for the open-mouth figure.

All one has to do in such an extended Stern-Gerlach experiment is to filter all particles that go upwards into a channel and once again start a new Stern-Gerlach experiment with that subset of particles.

We now label this new experiment as "experiment 2".

Experiment 2 will not be done with a horizontal aperture (as has been done for experiment 1), but with a circular one. That alone would lead to a spot in the upper half of the detection screen. If that spot has established, we move the magnet a little bit to the left and wait until enough particles went through it. After that we move the magnet a little bit to the right side (in reference to its initial position before having moved it at all) and again wait until enough particles went through it. We do so systematically until we have sufficiently simulated the whole horizontal (and therefore also vertical) dimension of the original horizontal aperture.

Now, concerning your model, all the particles that came out of the first magnet in experiment 1) have an axis of rotation aligned parallel with those magnet they will go through for experiment 2 (the latter simply being a re-measurement of the subset I described). That subset is composed of particles that may have clockwise as well as anti-clockwise rotation of axis. And according to your model all these particles' orientations and spin directions are maintained when measured again with the same field orientation - these properties are not changed by an identical re-mesurement. That means that the resulting figure on the detection screen should be such that only the upper part of that picture is realizable, since all the particles have been prepared with the net force of "upwards" in the first measurement and re-measuring them with the same procedure that produced that net force will not alter that net force and thus will not alter the trajectories they will follow when re-measured.

Even for the - illogical - case that one claims that the subset of particles is somehow composed of only those particles that give the full open-mouth picture (say, for example only clockwise particles), this open-mouth picture will be distorted when the second experiment is repeated with the second magnet turned, say 23 degree away from its position it had in the first run of the second experiment.

Let's label this 23 degree experiment as "experiment 3".

Quantum mechanics now predicts something other for experiment 3, namely that such a collective re-measurement will result again in the full open-mouth figure - independent of what angle the second magnet has relative to the vertical laboratory frame.

Note the internal contradiction derived here in your model:

An identical re-measurement should neither alter the orientation of axis nor the direction of axis rotation. Hence this would lead to the result that all incoming particles again leave the upper channel and only the upper part of an (unknown) figure will appear on the measurement screen for the second experiment (or alternatively and illogically both parts, what makes no difference to the argument!).

Now note also that experiment 2 in your model is equivalent with assuming option 1) to be true. But we already figured out that option 1) is untenable for your model since it predicts that independent of the open-mouth figure being merely replicated in the upper half or replicated in the upper and lower half of the screen, this figure must change dramatically when experiment 3 is applied to our subset of particles.

So option 1) is untenable for your model to obtain the results of experiment 3 and the only possibility that an identical re-measurement as well as measurement of kind "experiment 3" produces the upper as well as the lower part of the open-mouth picture would be option 2). But for the these two re-measurements we already eliminated option 2) by selecting only particles whose axis' are parallel to the second magnet's field lines. Consequently, your model cannot account for the experimental fact that a full second experimental run of experiment 2, but this time with a changed magnet orientation of 23 degree (called "experiment 3"), will produce the same full open-mouth picture (it cannot account for this result because the deviations from the flight-paths of the particles in your model *depend* on the relative angle of the particles' axis with the orientation of the magnetic field lines and hence the resulting figure must change for experiment 3 - when compared to experiment 2). Thus, the resulting figure predicted by your model wouldn't be any more the quantum mechanically predicted and experimentally confirmed open-mouth picture.

In other words, if your model claims to reproduce all SG experimental results, it must claim to satisfy two mutually exclusive conditions for one and the same subset of particles, namely that each and every particle should be parallel to the magnetic field lines and at the same time being non-parallel to the magnetic field lines. Since this is logically impossible for a non-quantum explanation, your model is either equivalent with quantum mechanics (with all its weirdness) or is simply contradictory and hence false.

Note also that a third option, namely

3) The rotational axis of a particle (or the common axis of a particle pair; I do not speak here of the direction of spin rotation!) is EITHER oriented the same relative to the laboratory frame, namely parallel to the magnetic field OR orthogonal to the magnetic field

does produce the same contradiction I outlined since that option 3) does only encompass two out of the many different axis orientations relative to a given magnetic field direction the source can produce according to option 2).

I hope that with that analysis you better understand why many physicists are not convinced that the results of those particle experiments can be explained by the kind of attempt you gave. The fact that they aren't convinced is not due to some ignorance, but do to the laws of logic.

And I hope that what I wrote here makes clear that experiments with little gyroscopes are totally non-conclusive regarding the question whether or not your model is a feasible explanation for the experimental outcomes.

I additionally hope that this time I was able to more clearly show the internal inconsistency that I see in your model. If you have nonetheless questions, just ask and I will answer.

Concerning the "illogical" alternative to a local dynamics, namely non-locality, faster-than-light influences and non-existent particle properties until measured, I will write something about later when the dust of how one must define "consistency" consistently (instead of defining it inconsistently) has settled a bit more.

Stefan,

1) Re. axis of rotation: They orient themselves 'parallel' to the field, ignoring for now the non homogeneity.

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

The open mouth results from a combination of the additional force (added to translation velocity through the apparatus ) due to particle- field interaction, giving UP /DOWN bit results and the non homogeneity of the field, such that wherein relation to the mid line the particle is moving through the apparatus. GW

"... according to your model this figure must change dramatically, since the trajectories of the particles are angle-dependent. Since such a change of the figure isn't the case experimentally, option 1) has to be excluded as a possibility." SW

No, if the magnet is turned the test particles just align to what they find. ( This kind of angle consideration is only significant if using T/At pairs at different orientations of field.) There wiil still be Up bits, ,top lip and DOWN bits bottom lip. GW

Re. Option 1. I'm not saying the particles emerge from the source aligned to the apparatus, but they become aligned upon meeting it. GW

"Now, concerning your model, all the particles that came out of the first magnet in experiment 1) have an axis of rotation aligned parallel with those magnet they will go through for experiment 2 (the latter simply being a re-measurement of the subset I described). That subset is composed of particles that may have clockwise as well as anti-clockwise rotation of axis. [Your assumption , not mine. GW] And according to your model all these particles' orientations and spin directions are maintained when measured again with the same field orientation.' SW

Rotation direction is maintained giving same output bits. GW "..these properties are not changed by an identical re-mesurement. That means that the resulting figure on the detection screen should be such that only the upper part of that picture is realizable, "SW

Yes just UP bits. That is the result of such quantum experiments. If you find that illogical, it's not my fault but nature's.GW

Return to full "open mouth" /UP and DOWN bits; During a different orientation test the axes of rotation must re-align. I do not know why you have chosen 23 degrees specifically and whether that is enough of a difference to cause the 'shuffling of orientations. If it works for atomic and sub atomic test particles I hypothesize it will be the same for the proposed micro or macro experiments. GW

"Quantum mechanics now predicts something other for experiment 3, namely that such a collective re-measurement will result again in the full open-mouth figure - independent of what angle the second magnet has relative to the vertical laboratory frame." SW Yes and I agree there are once more UP and DOWN bits. GW

"Consequently, your model cannot account for the experimental fact.." "(it cannot account for this result because the deviations from the flight-paths of the particles in your model *depend* on the relative angle of the particles' axis with the orientation of the magnetic field lines and hence the resulting figure must change for experiment 3"SW

No, they re align to the field they find and there is more than just one way to do that, breaking the correlation. And the rotation in that field alignment interacts with the field to produce Up and DOWN bits( the two lips)GW

"... if your model claims to reproduce all SG experimental results, it must claim to satisfy two mutually exclusive conditions for one and the same subset of particles, namely that each and every particle should be parallel to the magnetic field lines and at the same time being non-parallel to the magnetic field lines." SW

No, that is only necessary if the orientation is considered a fixed property. The axes can be exclusively parallel while having the ability to change orientation under different environmental conditions. GW Since this is logically impossible for a non-quantum explanation [ your opinion .GW], your model is either equivalent with quantum mechanics (with all its weirdness) or is simply contradictory and hence false." SW

Nope, just explained why not. GW

Georgina,

you severely misunderstood what my last post was all about. I think a clarification is needed in this post.

citation 1):

"( This kind of angle consideration is only significant if using T/At pairs at different orientations of field.)"

You fundamentally misunderstood what my last post is all about. In that post I am NOT speaking about entangled particle pairs, but about variations of the original Stern-Gerlach experiment. NO entanglement involved, no EPR situation described, but simply an oven, a magnet and measurement screens. I called this "experiment 1".

By having mentioned in my last post particle pairs by having written

"or the common axis of a particle pair; I do not speak here of the direction of spin rotation!"

that mentioning of particle pairs only refers to the two possible properties (option 1 or option 2) of the source to produce particles - regardless of whether nor not particles are entangled.

Citing you again:

"( This kind of angle consideration is only significant if using T/At pairs at different orientations of field.)"

In your model the angle dependence is significant already for an ordinary SG-experiment without any entanglement. And that dependence will destroy the open-mouth figure for your model when the magnet is turned 23 degree.

"There will still be Up bits, ,top lip and DOWN bits bottom lip."

Of course there will be up and down bits, I never said otherwise. Read again in my last post: for option 1) when one changes the magnet's orientation by 23 degree in experiment 1, for your model the open-mouth figure will change dramatically. But not in the sense that this figure now has simply being rotated 23 degrees in the same direction the magnet has been rotated, but in the sense that for your model it can't any more be the geometric figure Stern and Gerlach famously discovered.

Citation 2)

"The open mouth results from a combination of the additional force (added to translation velocity through the apparatus ) due to particle- field interaction, giving UP /DOWN bit results and the non homogeneity of the field, such that wherein relation to the mid line the particle is moving through the apparatus."

Yes, the net result of the forces that act in your model on the particles can be additive or subtractive and as you correctly identified in citation 1) that force is angle dependent! Assuming that it only is angle dependent when we make an experiment with entangled particle pairs would be illogical, so we can apply the angle dependence for experiment 1, 2 and 3.

"Re. Option 1. I'm not saying the particles emerge from the source aligned to the apparatus, but they become aligned upon meeting it. GW"

So we can sort out option 1) and concentrate on what option 2) says about your model.

"Yes just UP bits. That is the result of such quantum experiments. If you find that illogical, it's not my fault but nature's.GW"

So we can concentrate on the fact that only the upper part of the open-mouth picture will be reproduced in your model. At this point there is not yet a contradiction to the predictions of quantum mechanics and the experimental results, since we haven't yet applied experiment 3 (the 23 degree turn of the magnet).

"I do not know why you have chosen 23 degrees specifically and whether that is enough of a difference to cause the 'shuffling of orientations. If it works for atomic and sub atomic test particles I hypothesize it will be the same for the proposed micro or macro experiments. GW"

I should have made it more clear that for experiment 3, according to the angle dependence mentioned above, your model predicts that the resulting figure will no more be the open-mouth picture. In experiment 3 the geometric relationship between the involved force(s) and the orientation of the magnet has changed - and the resulting geometric figure can't be any more the open-mouth figure. Remember that this geometric relationship expresses the angle dependence mentioned above.

The shuffling of orientations you mention is nothing other than what you demonstrated in Citation 2), namely for experiment 3 it is an adding/subtracting of net force to most of the incoming particles. It is clear that this adding/subtracting procedure will not produce an open-mouth picture, and surely not an open-mouth picture which is just 23 degree rotated in the direction the magnet has been rotated. It is easy to see that your model will produce a different output (different figure on the screen) than the experimentally observed one.

"No, they re align to the field they find and there is more than just one way to do that, breaking the correlation. And the rotation in that field alignment interacts with the field to produce Up and DOWN bits( the two lips)GW"

I am not talking about entanglement, but about experiment 1, 2 and 3. Your model has to explain these experiments, since your model is considered to only operate with local forces that only lead to local reactions to these forces.

"No, that is only necessary if the orientation is considered a fixed property. The axes can be exclusively parallel while having the ability to change orientation under different environmental conditions."

It doesn't matter for my argument that the orientation of axis isn't a fixed property. What matters is that a change of orientation in your model is correlated one-to-one with an uniquely defined amount of net force added or subtracted. For experiment 2 there is a uniquely defined set of net forces that are uniquely assigned to each particle and determine the place it will impact on the screen. When comparing experiment 2 with experiment 3, for the latter there will be a different set of net forces that are responsible for the resulting figure on the screen.

Thus, citing you again

"The open mouth results from a combination of the additional force (added to translation velocity through the apparatus ) due to particle- field interaction, giving UP /DOWN bit results and the non homogeneity of the field, such that wherein relation to the mid line the particle is moving through the apparatus."

Yes, the net result of the forces that act in your model on the particle is additive or subtractive and as you correctly identified in citation 1) that force is angle dependent! Thus, for experiment 3, in your model there will be no open-mouth figure on the screen that is merely rotated by 23 degrees in the same direction the magnet has been rotated.

Why? Because for experiment 2, according to your model which says that an identical re-measurement will not alter the present state of the particle, the upper part of the open-mouth figure will emerge on the measurement screen. Now in experiment 3 we apply additive and subtractive forces to the same set of particles and thereby changing the present states of the particles. That set of particles was able to form the upper part of the open-mouth figure in experiment 2 (via identical magnet field orientation and polarity!). Consequently, when we measure that set of particles *not* with the just mentioned identical magnet field orientation, but with a 23 degrees different one, that simply results in additive and subtractive net forces acting on that set of particles, additive or subtractive depending on the position of each particle relative to the mid line you mentioned in the above citation. Thus, adding and subtracting along the mid line will logically result in a figure on the screen that can't be any more the open-mouth picture which is merely 23 degrees rotated.

Why that? That's because the net force of additive and subtractive does not operate orthogonally to the mid line you mentioned when we apply option 1) or 2).

Remember again what your model says

"Re. Option 1. I'm not saying the particles emerge from the source aligned to the apparatus, but they become aligned upon meeting it. GW"

This shows that the net force in your model operates vertically, independent of the incoming orientations of the particles' axis'. For experiment 1, turning the oven by 23 degree and letting the magnet's orientation relative to the laboratory frame of reference untouched will not change that net force to suddenly operate non-vertically. Equivalently, turning a magnet by 23 degree and letting the orientation of the oven relative to the laboratory frame of reference untouched will not change that net force to operate non-vertically. Consequently, for experiment 3 when compared to experiment 2, the 23 degree turn will not alter the direction of the net force relative to a magnet's orientation: it will operate in the same direction it would when the magnet had not been turned by 23 degree.

So, when comparing experiment 3 with experiment 2, one can consider the magnet's orientation for experiment 2 as the orientation of the oven *changed by 23 degree relative to the magnet's orientation for experiment 3* (in other words, the magnet for experiment 2 OR 3 can be considered as the oven outputting particles). Thus, it makes not difference to the direction of the net force for experiment 3 - the net force for experiment 3 will operate in the same direction it would have operated when that magnet had not been turned 23 degrees. Consequently, in your model this will result in a figure on the screen that is neither the open-mouth figure merely turned 23 degree nor the open-mouth figure not turned 23 degree but it will be a figure not predicted by QM and not experimentally observed.

Georgina,

I would propose to equip the measurement screens each with the same coordinate system. I propose the coordinate system for the trigonometric functions. The origin of that coordinate system then would be located at the center of the open-mouth figure. This center is the point where both symmetry axis' for the open-mouth figure meet. One symmetry axis is the x-axis of the coordinate system, indicating the horizontal axis of the laboratory frame of reference. The other symmetry axis is the z-axis, indicating the vertical axis of the laboratory frame of reference. The y-axis in this coordinate system is the axis of flight for the particles.

With that we have the same 4 quadrants as is used for the trigonometric functions.

1) Quadrant 1 is the area between the positive x-axis and the positive z-axis.

2) Quadrant 2 is the area between the negative x-axis and the positive z-axis.

3) Quadrant 3 is the area between the negative x-axis and the negative z-axis.

4) Quadrant 4 is the area between the positive x-axis and the negative z-axis.

To clarify the whole puzzle, it would make sense and would be helpful if you could explain how and which governing laws the particle X undergoes for the experiments 1, 2 and 3 and what temporary properties for the changes of its positions on the screens are needed for that particle.

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 particle's impact on the screen is on the positive x-axis of our coordinate system, thus at the outer right end of the open-mouth picture.

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?

We now make my experiment 2. The magnet for experiment 2 has been moved horizontally (along the x-axis) half the diameter of the circular aperture. Particle X now comes into the magnet. In which of the 4 quadrants of the screen's 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. This magnet has also been moved horizontally (along the x-axis!) half the diameter of the circular aperture. Particle X now comes into that magnet. In which of the 4 quadrants of the screen's coordinate system will particle X make its impact and why?

I think answers to these questions are needed to get a grip on why you assume that particles with adaptive axis and different directions of axis rotation can reproduce the figures for experiments 1, 2 and 3. I think answers to these questions would also safe us a lot of time...

Georgina,

in my last post i forgot to mention that for both experiments 2 and 3, the magnet is moved along the x-axis to the right, half the length of the horizontal aperture. The horizontal aperture was used in experiment 1. So, the magnet is not moved half the diameter of the circular aperture, because with that we would not see the entire figure on the screen, but half the length (not height) of the horizontal aperture.

Stefan,

your experiment 1. Usual Stern Gerlach set up with screen show results. Magnet pair vertical, Input to this first apparatus random electrons from source. Result 'open mouth". your experiment 2.Electrons from experiment 1 can not be used as they hit a screen rather than being collected from an output port. So up bit only producing electrons will have to be specially prepared ass a preliminary step of experiment 2. The moving spot aperture rather than slit is an odd addition. I assume if moved adequately the top lip could be discerned.. Experiment 3, A change of apparatus angle requires adjustment of particle orientation. 90 degrees gives randomization. I do not know if 23 degrees is sufficient to cause some. You have not said why 23 degrees is chosen.

Vertical field = formal dinner. Two dress codes (alignments allowed, parallel and anti parallel) = dinner jacket or smoking jacket.

23 degrees to vertical = fancy dress party. No formal wear allowed. Two dress code face mask and matching T shirt or onesie

Just diner jacket wearers input to Expt. 3. Representing the type of output that would have been collected if there was not a screen showing the result. The partygoers have to get changed, some into onesies, some into masks and Ts. There is no correlation between formal wear option and fancy dress. Shows ther are different ways of f

Shows there are different ways of forming the new field orientation alignment, so that there are both parallel and antiparallel variants.

23 degrees from vertical is a small difference. It would not surprise me if there was much more of one kind of alignment because of that. 90 and 270 are as different to vertical as far as alignment is concerned and as uncorrelated as can be

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.

Doc,

I just checked in, I've been preoccupied. I thought the paper would be in your wheelhouse, and what had immediately struck me was a possible fit with your hypothesis of a three quark electron. The structure visualized, produced three dots rather than previous efforts which displayed concentric rings. I have to admit that it is all well beyond my level of play but am happy to watch and learn. Glad you like it, graphene may well be the energy game changer. Twenty years from now people will be saying, "Can you imagine! they actually burnt the stuff! what a terrible waste of the best source of elemental carbon nature provides! Heavens!" Happy Holidays - stay well, jrc

Write a Reply...