Answering Mermin’s Challenge

Stefan, "So for the sake of further discussion let's assume that your theory has only 2 kinds of pairings: down/up up/down This would give 100% anti-correlation at 0 degrees relative angle and 100% correlation at 180 degrees of relative angle..."SW. I refer you to my previous reply in regard to entangled and product pairs.

"Since the axis of rotations can be inverted by the magnet fields, it doesn't matter if both members of a pair have the opposite directions of the magnet's fields they will encounter, they simply get "flipped" (or inverted as your terminology says). I did not mention or intend to imply flipping , though it might occur. Imagine an axis or rotation vertical in a field, field lines vertical between the poles above and below. In regard to twisting forces, it doesn't matter if the gyroscope is upside-down or not. Or the field is 0 or 180 degrees. Change of orientation of the gyroscope depends on twisting forces.

"Consequently it also doesn't matter whether or not the axis of rotation (spin axis) is oriented such that it is in line with the horizontal plane (means it lies in the plane of the tabletop-experiment, in the plane of the board of your desktop). What matters is the same alignment of the spin axis for both pairs ...SW. (yes that is entanglement if precisely the same GW) and that the pairs differ concerning the direction of their rotations." SW (that is the anti-correlation GW)

Stefan , in regard to the final part of your reply.

For 90 degrees.

The individuals of a pair of entangled anti correlated particles enter their own test apparatus. Each aligns to the field it encounters if it needs to. As the field orientations are different the orientation of the axes of rotation of each particle will be different. They each experience the in-homogenous magnetic field and exit. Entanglement has been lost and they exit, as if never entangled -random result.

Georgina,

"It is only the proportion of the mixture of pairs that are entangled that give 100% anticorrelated results."

"Entangled" in your terminology means truly anti-correlated (via some property).

Now look again at the case with relative angle of 0 degrees:

Let's assume in 50% of all the emissions the source emits the kind of pairs you call "truly anticorrelated".

At 0 degrees the measurement results are such that ONLY "up/down" OR "down/up" results have been registered ("anti-correlation").

Now, if your product pairs should not counteract the final result of a 100% anti-correlation, then these product pairs aren't allowed to produce the paired results "down/down" and "up/up".

Consequently your product pairs CANNOT act (as if) random (random means giving the 4 possible pairings with equal probability), but also had to be truly anti-correlated for the relative angle of 0 degrees, otherwise your theory does predict something different from QM.

"The entangled results skew the outcome from the expected random distribution of each kind of result."

This does not make any sense. Either your product pairs react totally random every time OR they are just as "entangled" as your truly entangled pairs are. Mixing these product pairs into the mixture of all pairs to somehow explain the violations of the Bell inequality (and hence to explain the deviations of the Bell curve from the linear graphs) does only make sense when one can give a physical explanation how these product pairs skew the linear curve (at different angles). Since there is only the alternative for these product pairs to act totally random or to obey some physical laws to achieve the mentioned skewing, you neither can explain why a totally random process should lead to a non-linear and symmetric violation of Bell's inequalities nor can you give physical mechanisms for your as-if randomness.

To resume, smuggling in "product pairs" that in the 0 degree case MUST react just like your "truly anti-correlated" pairs is nonsense. Likewise nonsense is to introduce these product pairs to later explain the 90 degree case where the product pairs then should be allowed to be measured in all 4 possible pairings to explain the 90 degree results. You can't built a locally-realistic theory by skipping local-realistic thinking or you arrive at an oxymoron.

Georgina,

"The individuals of a pair of entangled anti correlated particles enter their own test apparatus. Each aligns to the field it encounters if it needs to. As the field orientations are different the orientation of the axes of rotation of each particle will be different. They each experience the in-homogenous magnetic field and exit."

Are you serious??? Pardon me, but you wrote that now for several times. I have understood this. But this does not explain how the Bell curve comes about - it doesn't explain anything. In almost every post of you you add or substract from what you wrote before. Compared to what you claim ("Results will be as are found experimentally.") your writings are - pardon me - meaningless since you have no clue how a locally-realistic theory could physically work. This is dishonest, since "Results will be as are found experimentally." suggests it is worth discussing your ideas and you may tell the debater (and reader) how you arrived at all to the conclusion "Results will be as are found experimentally.".

OK Stefan, I'm sorry you think this has been meaningless. I have been trying to clarify what I mean, to deal with ambiguities as you point them out to me. Sorry it is not to your liking but no dishonesty is intended. I'm not presenting finished work but tying to elucidate what is going on myself.

"Bell carried the analysis of quantum entanglement much further. He deduced that if measurements are performed independently on the two separated halves of a pair, then the assumption that the outcomes depend upon hidden variables within each half implies a constraint on how the outcomes on the two halves are correlated. This constraint would later be named the Bell inequality. Bell then showed that quantum physics predicts correlations that violate this inequality." Wikipedia.

Assuming there is something within each particle, a fixed characteristic causing the outcome gives Bell's inequalities. But that is not what I'm proposing. It is the environment acting upon a temporarily preserve-able orientation, That is not the kind of situation that could be expected to fit the inequalities. What exactly the results would be I can not be certain. However I predict the outcome of testing tiny gyroscopes with very big magnets; in a weightless environment or with neutral buoyancy- (SG experiments simulations)will give the same statistical results as particles and SG apparatus.

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

Entanglement is by correlation of axes of rotation and relative to each other directions of rotation. We could think about those spins and how they compare to the spins of the electrons of the magnet faces- giving north and south seeking behaviour- but that is another matter. Direction changes with viewpoint , so it isn't as straightforward as one might think.

Stefan, the Bell shaped curve seems very important to you."... if the pairs of outcomes are always the same, the correlation is +1; if the pairs of outcomes are always opposite, the correlation is в€'1; and if the pairs of outcomes agree 50% of the time, then the correlation is 0." Bell's theorem Wikipedia

I think the closer the angle gets to 0 the more likely to have anti correlation ( closer to-1 ) Experimental line sags below what would be expected for a fixed characteristic. Less angle less torque difference altering partners differently. At 90 degrees there is max torque difference, giving least similarity of outcomes of all angles. Approaching 180 there is increasing similarity of torques again, but inversion of field polarity acting on one partner compared to the other. This I think will effect behavior re north/couth seeking behavior. The slope rises above expectation for a fixed characteristic because of the changing difference in torque, increasing alignment more so than if orientation was a fixed property. [By torque I mean twisting force acting upon the axis of rotation]

Re. gyroscope experiments it is probably be necessary to have magnetized mass to simulate magnetic effects happening to the test particles.

Typo. north/south seeking

Georgina,

"Stefan, the Bell shaped curve seems very important to you."

Yes, self-evidently, since every local-realistic account must match with that curve. This is totally independent of what Bell wrote or not wrote.

"Sorry it is not to your liking but no dishonesty is intended. I'm not presenting finished work but tying to elucidate what is going on myself."

It's not about liking, it's that claiming things that aren't the case isn't scientifically meaningful. Claiming "Results will be as are found experimentally." when that isn't the case is like i would refuse any account for local-realistic explanations by just saying to you "Your account is inconsistent" - without ever proving that inconsistency. I think you wouldn't like that if i or something other would act this way.

"Assuming there is something within each particle, a fixed characteristic causing the outcome gives Bell's inequalities. But that is not what I'm proposing."

I know. But nonetheless your proposals must reproduce QM probabilities. Up to now your scheme hasn't consistently reproduced a single angle. If something works for 0 degrees, it fails at 90 degrees and vice versa.

"I think the closer the angle gets to 0 the more likely to have anti correlation ( closer to-1 )."

That's not a matter of "i think" but a matter of fact.

"Experimental line sags below what would be expected for a fixed characteristic. Less angle less torque difference altering partners differently."

This only works if the 0 degree case together with the source's orientation relative to the magnets is somewhat a preferred reference frame. Since you assume that it is the relative angle of the magnet's field with an incoming particle's orientation that dictates the outcomes, a preferred reference frame makes it necessary that ALL particle pairs send out from the source have identical orientations relative to the 0 degree case. Otherwise you again do not arrive at the correct probabilities.

This "preferred frame" assumption can easily be tested by subsequently turning both magnets the same amount in the same direction to preserve the 0 degree case but to counteract the "synchronization" with the source. I think these experiments have already been done since it is highly unlikely that there was not a single scientist that tried to falsify QM. In fact there have been many scientists who originally started their work with the assumption that QM must be flawed in some way. The assumption always was that the source sends off the different orientations of all particle pairs with equal frequencies and i think that must have been tested in the past - since it is a vital ingredient of Bell's assumptions.

"At 90 degrees there is max torque difference, giving least similarity of outcomes of all angles."

Although it is true that at 90 degrees there is "least similarity of outcomes of all angles", your explanation with torque isn't locally-realistic. Let's assume for the moment that the left magnet is turned 90 degrees apart from the 0 degree case, the right magnet remains unchanged.

Whatever mechanics (torque etc. this can be generalized to ANY kind of local mechanics) is responsible for the torque on the left side to produce the probabilities you want - for symmetry reasons the same must also be the case for the right side when this side is also turned 90 degrees (in the same direction as the left magnet had been turned).

Having turned both magnets in this manner we then arrive again at the 0 degree case but with the difference that now the outcome should be what we would expect for the 90 degree case!

You may say that due to the anti-correlated features of the particle pair, the right particle will not show this behaviour when we turn the right magnet the way i just decribed but somewhat will preserve the behaviour it had before turning the magnet.

But for "anti-symmetric" and locally-realistic reasons then it should show the same behaviour as the left particle (remember, we have assumed that the left particle is somewhat "randomized" when confronted with a 90 degree change of field) when we turn the right magnet 90 degrees in the opposite direction (means not in the same direction as the left magnet has been turned) to somehow avoid the logical conclusion above.

But by turning the right magnet just as described, we then arrive at a relative angle of 180 degrees for the magnets and our scheme says that we now should expect outcomes that are identical to the original 90 degree case! Again that's not what has been measured.

Stefan, what I have proposed is not local realism, as it does not assume the states output exist s properties of the test particles prior to measurement. That is what has to go.

Georgina, name your proposal as you wish and assume what you want to assume, that is not the issue. The issue is that your proposal does not reproduce experimental and QM results.

Stefan, your list of objections is too long for me to deal with in one go. And honestly I'm feeling it is not worth my time right now. I do not like being told my efforts are time wasting, I'm ignorant, dishonest and now unscientific.

I re-worded my " the results will be....etc. to something like- I predict the results of the experiment I'm proposing will be the same...etc Making clear I am not claiming to know with certainty but am making a reasonable assumption that needs testing. I wonder if you actually read all of my replies. Your assumption that it can not be so seems to be due to your mistaken characterization of the proposal as a local realistic theory.

Have you carried out my experiments!! (rhetorical)

Georgina,

"Your assumption that it can not be so seems to be due to your mistaken characterization of the proposal as a local realistic theory."

No. Since every theory about what happens in those experiments - be it "locally-realistic" or not - must reproduce the experimental and QM results. So the term "local-realistic" is irrelevant here although i used it.

"I predict the results of the experiment I'm proposing will be the same...etc Making clear I am not claiming to know with certainty but am making a reasonable assumption that needs testing."

The "reasonable assumption" you made seems to be that if you assume something different then local realism does (aka Bell and his work), then this is sufficient to deduce from this that the probability of your scheme meeting the experimental results must be very high. I do not find that reasonable since - as i described in my latest longer post - in my opinion this is flawed.

Sorry, but i do find no reasonable assumptions in your proposal that could reproduce what already experimentally has been tested. You may think that one should test your scheme for whether or not these SG entanglement experiments have a preferred reference frame. But i think if tested (maybe already tested) it will not confirm your scheme. So let's end with these different points of view.

Georgina,

"Have you carried out my experiments!! (rhetorical)"

No. But the minimal requirement for an explanation scheme is to be consistent. Since in my latest long post i explained why i think your scheme isn't consistent, i conclude from this that nature isn't inconsistent either and your experiments will not prove what you want to prove.

In that above mentioned long and time consuming post i explained why your "reasonable assumptions" do not work in my opinion. If you think my lines of reasoning in that post are somewhat flawed or illogical, you can show me that and i will think differently about your experiments.

But until now i see no reason to think different about your experiments.

Georgina, regarding your Ag assumption

https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/33021/why-silver-atoms-were-used-in-stern-gerlach-experiment

Stephan,

I don't have a sophisticated search engine, do you know of any reference to an actual produced Mermin Device? I haven't found any, and his brief paper is extremely vague and loads a LOT on any experimenter to figure out. And he includes a fictitious element, suggesting a detector between the source and the magnet group (presumably to check that source angle was sustained) which would not alter the state of the particle, in violation of a prime axiom of QM. And of principle note: what kind of particle would be that! It's like finding Elmo. jrc

John,

Mermin's paper rests on the predictions of QM. As you may know, QM predicts all the results we discussed so far. Mermin, as he wrote in his appendix, refers to the Bohm version of the Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen experiment. Although he writes that his paper is without any reference to the conceptual apparatus of quantum theory, the predictions he makes (cases a and b) surely refers to what QM predicts.

I understand what you want to intend, namely that maybe the experiment we discussed at length never has been carried out until now - and therefore we cannot know whether or not the results match the predictions of QM.

So let's assume that it never has been carried out.

The first alternative is that it does not produce what is predicted by QM. For that case it would be understandable that there is so much difficulty to explain the results predicted by QM and attributed to that experiment - because then one tries to formalize something that has no physical counterpart.

Besides this it is well known that the difficulties we would have with the just mentioned first alternative, re-emerges with spin-1 particles - and the experiments with these spin-1 particles have already been carried out in multiple tests. The results show the same conceptual problems for explaining these results as it would be the case if the original Bohm's experiment would have been carried out and would confirm the predictions of quantum theory.

That alone may not convince, since it could be a coincidence of some kind. But we also know that experiments have been carried out that at least suggest that even atoms can exhibit the strange behaviour you and Georgina want to explain.

I don't mind the fictitous element you mentioned, since in my opinion, they are not needed at all, because in my opinion Mermin intended (justifiable or not) to control with these additional detectors that the pairings that arrive at the magnets are the original pairings send off from the source. This does make sense, but if that experiment never has been carried out, the only alternative left is to assume that IF it had been carried out and IF the pairings had been collected correctly and IF after all of that the predicted results are obtained - what could be the explanation for these results.

In some of the experiments that have been carried out with spin-1 particles, the passage of the particles are thought to be controlled by idle-particles. Surely, anyone that does not subscribe to entanglement would say that until we do not know the "real" mechanisms for the particles to behave like they do, we cannot conclude from an idle particle to its paired partner. This argument then is also valid for all techniques that might controll the passage of a particle: you simply can doubt that this technique is understood well enough to justify the conclusions that are drawn with the help of that technique.

So to adress these issues without uncertainty of actually being carried out (as in the Bohm case some people may argue) one had to discuss equivalent experiments with spin-1 particles.

I have done this several times with other debaters not only here on fqxi and found the same inconsistencies i found within the proposals that have been made here on that page. Concerning the prime axiom of QM, i do not know how Mermin planned to observe the passages of the particles and i have no clue why he thinks that such an observation does not alter the particle's state. Maybe you want to contact and ask him.

These are the reasons why i think the second alternative for the Bohm experiment is that if carried out, it will deliver the results predicted by QM. If it nonetheless wouldn't, in my opinion our discussions would be nonetheless a good exercise to tackle those spin-1 experiments that already had been carried out and confirmed the predictions of QM.

Stefan,

Positives: I have identified a feature that is able to demonstrate temporary preservation of outcome if the environmental challenge is not altered. Once correlation or anti-correlation is lost its lost.

Sorry Stefan I've taken a look at your long list of objections and can not fathom how they apply. Maybe one piece at a time would have been OK. I've lost the will to try and bend my head around it. Thank you for our conversation it has made me think.

I realize that the test particles are affected by inversion of the field, Which seems to be magnetic effect. How exactly that can work is still "work in progress."

Kind regards, Georgina

Stefan,

sorry, I know a guy named Stephan. People call him Steve.

Actually, an experimental physicist would look at what might be wrong with the apparatus or protocols, if the expected results were not at least approximated. It's engineering. Like a 'group' of magnets is more than one magnet that are not all exactly alike, such as an S-G group. A 'set' is one or more of the same thing whether individual magnets or groups. And a 'pair' is two individual magnets or groups that are exactly alike. Mermin proposes essentially two S-G apparatuses in tandem.

So, yes I would agree that atoms and isotopes thereof would have to be culled to find possible attributes that would meet the specs of three distinct properties. One problem is that 'charge' is always deflected by a directed magnetic field and is always in the same direction in the lateral plane relative to the sign of the charge and the polar sign. The spin flip would only throw that 180*. So maybe a light simple molecule such as water could be a candidate in vacuo. The offset of the two hydrogens have a angle of separation of 104.5* producing the weak hydrogen bond that gives water its unique fluid properties. And while it is a polar molecule, its net charge is zero. jrc