Answering Mermin’s Challenge

John,

never mind, i know that you adressed me.

"

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."

I don't think that these are valid arguments. I do not know what the experimental physicists expected, but the results matched the predictions of QM. If it would be true that there is a bias due to SG magnets not being identical (what surely is true), then it would be astonishing that all devices used to operate all the entanglement experiments do not totally mess the expected results (QM results). Especially when many devices for one experiment are used. But be it as it may, you are free to investigate the role of not-so-identical magnets etc. For now, i take that suspicion only with a shrug.

"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."

I can't say anything to that. Maybe you are right, maybe not, i do not know.

Georgina,

i messed up the last passage i wrote to you.

To not confuse you with inconsistent logic, i re-write it correctly:

One at least can make a gedankenexperiment by simply re-measuring both particles at an angle of 180 degrees with magnet fields pointing in the same direction (the former direction of these fields was 0 degrees in the same direction). With that strategy one could test your assumption that

"Entanglement is by correlation of axes of rotation and relative to each other directions of rotation."

since all your correlations should be preserved by that re-measurement.

Biased detectors could also be tested with this procedure, but only for different conceptual schemes than yours.

Stefan,

No, no... you missed the point. The QM predictions would be expected. By 'not the same' I'm referring to the distinctive shaped magnets that make up an S-G group. Technologically they can be very closely balanced in strength and still produce the 'dovetail' cross-section of flux density. If the QM predictions aren't at least approximated, a practical experimentalist would look at the bench-top not the theory. jrc

Stefan, At 0 degrees angle of difference between magnets of each apparatus; ie. the same for both tests; The anti correlated entangled pair can be imagined with same alignment of axes of rotation and opposite spin directions relative to each other. The alignment of the axes preserving the relationship of the particles to each other, so long as the forces encountered by each that would twist the axis of rotation are the same (to the particles). And the spin 'enabling' the relationship with the magnetic field polarity. So experiencing same field orientation, the anti-correlation is preserved.

If one of the SG apparatus is inverted, so the magnet pairs of the two apparatus are 180 degrees to each other. For a new anti-correlated entangled pair ( or retest of pair as you suggest), one experiences an opposite environmental polarity to the other, interacting with their opposite spins.. What exactly the particles do in this situation I don't know. The gyroscopic effect I imagine resisting flip of the particle but reversal of spin without flip also seems unlikely. Predicted outcome: The relationship between the axes of rotation is preserved as the orientation of the fields in space is the same if polarity is ignored. But the change of polarity in this test affects the particles (just one if just one of the apparatus is rotated, such that the pair go from anti-correlated to correlated. Due to spin and magnetic field polarity interaction.

What exactly is going on might be ascertainable using the suggested gyroscope experiments.

I have often wondered in all the arguments about spin if people were abstracting 's and -'s, or if they had spent much time familiarizing the long established experimentally defined rules of behavior of magnetic influence. If we are going to discus any Stern-Gerlach type device, the characteristics of RH and LH induction should be essential. And there are a bunch of really terrific videos of charged particles in a magnetic field that are fun to watch. Lot's of SfX, like in the movies, there. And that's what all those expensive magnets in the detectors at CERN are for. Just keep in mind that for the sake of continuity, and by happy historical accident, when you look at a diagram of a magnetic field with rows and columns of X's you are looking at the south end of a magnet, like the fletching (fins) at the back end of an arrow. By convention, magnetic field direction is from N(orth) to S(outh).

Also keep in mind as per Maxwell, the induced motion on an electric charge is a magnitude greater than that induced on its attendant magnetic moment. If you are looking at the south face of an S-G magnet, the trajectory of a positively charged silver ion would be on the plane parallel to that south face and would deflect in a CCW arc, not on the plane perpendicular to the south face as does the magnetic vector. Hence, Stern and Gerlach settled on the electrically neutral Silver atom with its lone electron in its outer shell. An ion would likely exit the air gap sideways before getting very far.

John, I apologize, I was wrong about silver ions being generally used rather than atoms. I don't know why that idea got stuck in my head.

Re. change of axis of rotation of an unsupported weightless gyroscopes (or a particle acting as an an unsupported weightless gyroscope); it resists turning so that its orientation is un-altered unless it experiences forces that exert a twisting to the axis. A push will give a translation with out alteration of orientation. Picture a gyroscope floating across the cabin of the space station, without altering its orientation. I don't see how the right hand rule helps as it won't give a twisting that alters the orientation of the axis of rotation.

John, you mention deflection of the magnetic vector. If that corresponds to the gyroscopic axis of rotation that is useful. It could provide the difference in outcomes; difficult to account for using magnetic attraction and repulsion,

Georgina,

Reply to your post on Nov. 3, 2020 @ 01:23 GMT

Thanks for evaluating what i wrote.

You are right with your objections. According to your scheme, my test does not make any difference to the statistics.

Nonetheless i think that your scheme suffers from a contradiction in the assumptions that have to be made to cover at least the 0 degree and the 90 degree cases. Let's resume this again:

On the one hand (for the 0 degree case) it is irrelevant in which directions the pairs' shared axis points - as long as it points in the same direction for each pair and the rotation of each pair ("polarity") is opposite. So it doesn't matter what relative angle each pair's initially shared axis has with the magnet's fields before they are measured. Both pairs simply become "latched" in an anti-correlated manner.

But in the case of 90 degrees that relative angle seems to matter since in your scheme the outcomes in that case are suddenly a function of the angles between the pairs' shared axis and the orientation of the fields. For the 0 degree case such a function was not at work and it was as if the particle pair had no spin properties at all until getting "latched". Therefore, in my opinion there is a contradiction between "latching" and the function that dictates the outcomes for the 90 degree case. I think this could only be circumvented when the source produces only pairs with the same shared orientation relative to the magnets, but that would be a nonsensical coincidence and i think has already been ruled out experimentally.

Georgina,

I can understand your captivation with gyroscopic effects, they are fascinating and teasingly suggestive of gravitation in a closed system. How that is coupled with the magnetic and electric fields I haven't a clue. I suspect that it would be yet another order of magnitude (c) lesser than magnetic induction, and might only become effective at relativistic velocities. But that is purely speculative and conjectural on my part. Pay no mind, pay no mind, as a Monty Python character would say.

Every time I return to puzzling over incidence of electro-magnetic induction I have to go back to school! It gets so blasted convoluted. This direction is that way in one frame and the obverse in the reverse frame. I have to refresh the basics and internalize them to visualize, but then there comes a few glimpses of "oh! Okay!" now I see it, type of thing.

But how the gyro stabilization of the attitude of a particle or atom might effect how its dipole magnetic moment presents to an external field direction, I can only hypothesize. If there has been definitive authoritative determination I have not run across any. So its yours to run with, and good luck. :-) jrc

Georgi and Stefan,

Here is a tid bit that I always come back to in Electro-magnetic induction a-la Maxwell, because at first it seems implausible that such a huge factor of difference in field strengths could ever make the reversible motor/generator possible. But to get a 'feel' for the magnitude, there was an old 'shade-tree mechanic's' trick if you had the loosen the nut holding the pulley onto the rotor shaft of a car's alternator. These days you shouldn't leave the key on in the 'Run' position without the engine running because the voltage regulator is electronic and built into the internal circuitry of the alternator and a uninterrupted current for more than 10 to 15 seconds can burn it out (there are modern circuitries that protect it if the engine is running off the battery).

But in the old days of voltage regulators bolted to the firewall, you could take that lead off and switch on the system to 'Run' and energize the field windings and it would lock the rotor. So without an air impact wrench you could put a boxend wrench on the nut and whail on it with a hammer til it broke loose. You couldn't turn it with a 18 inch pipe wrench on the pulley. Put a four foot cheater pipe on the handle and you could do chin-ups! And that's with only 12 Volts of potential difference, 1/10th of what you plug your toaster into.

So how could 'charge' induce that high a magnetic strength yet that proportionately lower magnetic potential turn around and propel 'charge' in an electric current. The reason is that the energy compressed into the charge radius is really dense (in cgs ergs, a non dimensional factor of 3 followed by 10 zeroes) compared to the magnetic density, so its reactance to induction of motive force is of an equal proportion. In electrical circuits its called 'inductance reactance' and constitutes one of the components of resistance in a conductor as a backwards potential contributing to the overall heat loss of power in a circuit.

Georgina and John,

John, you are a man of practice, i am only a theoretician - with very poor knowledge in physics other than the bits i am interested in. Your knowledge about electro-motors/generators is impressive and maybe relevant for Georgina, i don't know. Since i am not familiar with all these electro-magnetic details and moreover had to heavily use leo.org to translate your technical terms.

My general problem with all attempts to explain all these entanglement experiments by physical forces and effects is how to reconcile randomness that did not came about by causes and effects (but by *no* forces) with causes and effects that should govern the enhancements and sags of the Bell curve. It does not matter whether or not something is violated with that Bell curve if one thinks that there is a classical explanation for its shape.

If i compare the case of 0 degrees relative angle with the case of 90 degrees relative angle, i can safely say for Georgina's entanglement concept that the magnet that has been turned 90 degrees must act randomly to contribute to the known result. The known result for 90 degrees is that *each* of the 4 possible pairings occur with equal frequency ( 1/4 each for up/up, down/down, up/down, down/up).

According to Georgina's theory, the magnet that hasn't been turned will not only produce the same results as it did when we looked at the 0 degrees case, but it also will do so according to the same rules of cause and effect, just as it was the case for the 0 degrees. This magnet will have an output of 50% "up" and 50% "down".

The question now is how the magnet that has been turned can complete the set of pairings i mentioned above. Since this magnet has only two output states, namely "up" and "down", both states surely had to occur with equal frequencies (50/50) to complete distribute the set of pairings equally (with 1/4 probability).

Does this happen randomly, without causes and effects? If yes, why does it happen at 90 degrees and not at 145 degrees or else? And if not, then in my opinion this question cannot be answered by a local physical mechanism that acts such that for the same cause the same effect will follow.

I deduce this from 4 possible cases:

1) the local physical mechanism outputs "up" when the other particle was in the state "up" before its measurement (result is "up/up")

2) the local physical mechanism outputs "down" when the other particle was in the state "up" before its measurement (result is "down/up")

3) the local physical mechanism outputs "up" when the other particle was in the state "down" before its measurement (result is "up/down")

4) the local physical mechanism outputs "down" when the other particle was in the state "down" before its measurement (result is "down/down")

Since one hopefully can see, two of the 4 cases are inconsistent with "same causes always giving same effects". One of two possible explanations in the context of Georgina's entanglement framwork is that the particle's "spin" (or "polarity") is randomly generated without a cause or that there is a physical disturbance at work that regularly occurs with a 50/50 chance and tampers the "original cause and effect relationship". If true, we would have a new "cause and effect relationship", a tampering effect whereof we would like to know how it works.

But if we assume that this tampering process works according to "same causes always giving same effects", then we arrive at where we started. If it does not work according to "same causes always giving same effects" then it is at least non-linear. But if it is non-linear, how then could it regularly occur with a 50/50 chance? And how many non-linear events can one imagine to "explain" the 90 degree case (and moreover all the rest of the relative angles, except 0 and 180 degrees).

Well, that are my concerns with all attempts to explain entanglement "more rationally" than orthodox QM can or does. And last but not least my concerns from the beginning and something more to puzzle about:

Why does that tampering process only occur at 90 degrees and not at 145 degrees or else? If one wouldn't knew which of the two magnets has been turned from 0 degrees to 90 degrees, one could reason that the one of which "we know that it had been turned" is the one that wasn't turned - and the tampering process would occur on the other magnet. Or maybe it could occur on both magnets... and not only for the 90 degrees...

And now i need a rest. In the meantime, solutions are always welcome!

Stefan,

at 0 degrees both particles experience the same field orientation but with opposite polarity. They may experience adjustment of alignment but it happens to both such that anti-correlation is preserved.

90 degrees the particles have experiences as different as can be. They respond individually to the different orientations of field and that means the former anti-correlation certainty is lost.

180 degrees; I think I have clear now. Inversion of one particle or change of spin direction is not necessary. What matters (in regard to the individual response) is the relationship of particle to field. Thinking about it that way; the particles themselves retain their relationship to each other-that was giving anticorrelation at 0 degrees. Now though the changed relationship to the external field's polarity is giving an outcome, as if the particles responsible were correlated.

Correction.

At 0 degrees both particles experience the same field orientation but with their own opposite polarity, due to their opposite spins.

Stefan,

I need a break too! I've been getting nowhere. jrc Hey, its election night! maybe I'll just relax and watch the returns

Stefan, John, Steve,

unsupported weightless gyroscopes are different from supported weighted gyroscopes. Not only do they not precess, I think less force will bee needed to alter orientation as there will be less energy loss due to not having to work against gravity, and no region/point of friction where gyroscope meets support. There will still be air resistance or liquids resistance, which can be removed from the simulation by having the tests conducted in vacuum instead of air or liquid.

There are some calculations that can be done that would add evidence for or against the prediction made.

Only by experiencing the same spatial orientation of field are the forces on the particles such that correlation or anticorrelation (depending on how the pairs are produced for this experiment) is preserved and reflected by the state outcomes.

By keeping the orientations of the field the same but inverting one of the apparatus- the relationship is altered in the same way as if the particle rotations was reversed and the environmental field orientation of polarity was kept the same. In these two cases the two particles of a pair are experiencing the inhomogeneous field in same, or similar ways.

At 90 degrees they are experiencing the field very differently and the difference/similarity of orientation and spatial position evolves as each particle passes through the inhomogeneous field according to the forces acting upon it. Not being acted upon in same or similar ways as their partner particle

Georgina,

thanks for your replies and your efforts. Sorry that the discussion is that exhaustive, i think that is hard to avoid since communication misunderstandings can't be avoided.

I understand how you want to explain the 0 degree and 180 degree cases, otherwise i hadn't written that my test does not work, since it does not alter the probabilities.

Maybe you misunderstood that sentence form me in one of my recent posts

"Nonetheless i think that your scheme suffers from a contradiction in the assumptions that have to be made to cover at least the 0 degree and the 90 degree cases."

Surely your scheme would explain the 0 degree and the 180 degree cases WHEN one presupposes that "They may experience adjustment of alignment but it happens to both such that anti-correlation is preserved."

Consequently, whatever the relative angle between the spinning axis of both particles (as you mentioned that axis has the same orientation in space for each particle pair but is distributed evenly over 360 degrees for all pairs send out from the source and hence, the relative angle of that orientation WITH the spatial orientation of the magnets is different for almost every pair) and the spatial orientation of field of the magnets is (in the 0 or 180 degree cases), "They may experience adjustment of alignment but it happens to both such that anti-correlation is preserved."

I think they not only "may" experience that adjustment, but they MUST, because for the overwhelming majority of incoming pairs the environmental conditions aren't such that no alignment would be necessary.

My point is that whatever rules that alignment, it cannot also rule the outcomes in the 90 degree case. In that case it can rule the particle whose magnet was not turned, but not the particle whose magnet was turned.

I know that as it stands up to now, you haven't really mentioned the physical details that is responsible for the experience of adjustment of alignment. But my point is that whatever that will be, it is incompatible with the 90 degree case and also incompatible with the rest of the angles.

Sorry that i claim that although it is not even clear how the physical details look like. But on the other side, if it is not even clear how the physical details look like, it is hard to decide what we are talking about and that may have caused some heavy misunderstandings.

Be it as it is, in any way, i apologize for having been so grumpy to you in some of my posts, hope that you forgive me and are able to clear misunderstandings, since if not cleared, they mess up all conclusions.

For avoiding probable misunderstandings. I wrote

and the spatial orientation of field of the magnets is (in the 0 or 180 degree cases), "They may experience adjustment of alignment but it happens to both such that anti-correlation is preserved."

This does not mean that for the 180 degree case i would think that anti-correlation is the result. I know that the result for 180 degrees would be correlation.

I write that only because it could be misunderstood.