Answering Mermin’s Challenge

Georgina,

thank you also for your conversation and the time you invested into it. I understand that one cannot bend one's head around those very filigree details more than a certain amount of time without loosing the will to go on. This is also the case for me. All the more i have some general respect towards professional scientists that are full-time concerned with these issues.

The difficulty in the kind of conversation we had (and scientists surely also have) is regularily the proper and complete description of what one wants to say. At least in my opinion. One thing is to use the same terminology, the other thing is what meaning one attaches to that terminology and the problem that the other debater has attached something other to the same terminology. Or one has compressed a thought incompletely into a sentence etc.

At the end a short note about entanglement, since you wrote

"Once correlation or anti-correlation is lost its lost."

It is believed that entanglement is lost in the moment one member of an entangled pair has been registered. Besides this, your claim can be tested for spin-1 as well as for spin-half particles. For the latter one at least as a gedankenexperiment by simply re-measuring both particles at a different angle of 120 degrees with magnet fields pointing in the same direction. If the known QM results are obtained, then a "detector bias" at the detectors may be involved in our puzzle. If the results are according to Bell's predictions then i think one can exclude such a detector bias. For spin-1 particles an equivalent test is possible.

Be it as it will, great that you found temporary preservation of outcome that can be visualized classically as a gyroscope.

Best wishes for your further investigations,

Sincere greetings

Stefan

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.

Georgina and Stefan,

I've befuddled myself, and am worrying myself with questions, so I want to dig into what I can find on open source references about the historical details of Stern and Gerlach's research and experiments before making more of a fool of myself.

Part of the reason for this is that apart from Mermin, S-G used the 'neutral' Silver atom, but that doesn't mean that the positive and negative charges of protons and electrons in any way neutralize each other. The electrostatic field still pervades the atomic volume and maintains separation of atomic centers. They can only be said to equalize. But that means that in the orthogonal reference frame in the air gap of S-G magnets, both the magnetic and electrostatic axial directions would be expected to flip. And right now, I can't see how in a strict causal account, that there would be expected anything accept a 50/50 probability no matter what the angle of magnet groups would be relative to the source.

Georgi, your point about earth bound versus weightless gyros is well taken, and given the axiom of inertia there is a good argument that a (generic) particle would preserve its relative spatial orientation prepared in the source. But size also matters and that orientation might well become lost as the particle enters the concentrated magnetic field region. This then goes to a question for Stefan.

I am quite okay with your focus on the theoretical and statistics, so in Mermin's scheme of 1, 2, 3, positions of detector angles, does it matter if the detector angle progresses CW or CCW? A magnetic reaction will take the path of least rotation. An oriented particle at 0* will tumble one direction to align with position 2, and the other direction for position 3. Does Mermin's matrix of results take that into account or does it not matter?

Bye for a while, we are entering a rare November spell of dry, cool weather and I'll feel better after a few days of meaningful outdoor work. Thanks All, jrc

Stefan, it is important to remember that the output bits are not the same as particles themselves. One could say they represent behavior when field and particle interact. This is a break away from the idea that the particle has the state that will be found or has instructions that allow it to carry the outcome prior to the measurement process.

Reversing the spin of a particle can be achieved either by (1.) stopping it and restarting it in the opposite direction , or (2.) by inverting it; ie. turning it over. If either of those were to happen and the extremal field polarity stay the same-then the relation between particle and external field has changed. It can be changed in the same way if instead (3.) the field is inverted and the particle left alone. If the external field is ignored the anticorrelation remains .the changed relation to the field produces results as if there is correlation of particles. ie. 1. or 2. -remember as far as relationship between particle and external field polarity is concerned 1, 2. or 3. are all the same.

Georgina,

"Stefan, it is important to remember that the output bits are not the same as particles themselves. One could say they represent behavior when field and particle interact. This is a break away from the idea that the particle has the state that will be found or has instructions that allow it to carry the outcome prior to the measurement process."

If you wouldn't think that one can conclude from the output bits to the outputs of the magnets (at least in the 0 degree and 180 degree cases), you would not have constructed your entanglement scheme in the first place. But i agree that thinking one can conclude something from something other is one story, another story is whether or not the physics that is concluded by you to exist - and is concluded by you to be responsible for the experimental results - follows these conclusions. If that physics does not follow your conclusions, your entanglement scheme is simply wrong.

So what should we do now, stop thinking about your entanglement scheme, since we concluded we do not know most of the details that lead to the experimental results? If yes, then your explanations how spin might react to some environment is not different from any other attempt to explain what is going on at the magnets and with the particles. In fact, as you surely know there have been proposed other schemes here on fqxi and elsewhere to account for the physics of such experiments.

Consequently, if there is indeed some well defined physics behind the experimental results, then the challenge is to find the one and only scheme which explains all the hitherto unknown details of what is physically going on. Surely and theoretically, there may "exist" more than one scheme, each of them telling a different story about what is going on physically. But that is not what you wanted in the first place.

According to the citation above, it is not even clear that finding "the one and only scheme" is at all a logical possibility. My point here is that it simply is logically impossible, but not because one cannot test the candidates for such schemes, but because if each of them, when checked for its internal logical consistency, will reveal its logical inconsistency. The point here is that the main assumption of that falsifying-scheme is that there does not exist such a scheme.

That's the reason why i wrote my long posts, trying to explain what i consider logical inconsistencies in your scheme. I am really not sure whether or not you understood what i wrote about your 90 degree case. Or what i wrote about the source and how it should distribute the angles of each pair's axis in your scheme to be consistent not only with the 0 and 180 degree cases, but also with your 90 degree case.

You didn't take a stand yet to these objections and i think it's a pity that i took my time to write them and constantly reply to your own objections without getting a feedback whether or not you grasped the inconsistencies i described.

I think there are reasons for that absend feedback, namely that my arguments prove that the falsifying-scheme i just mentioned has done its job. If you don't think so, please explain to me why you conclude that it didn't the job. So i would like you to consider my arguments already made - before advancing to another issue of the experiments we discuss here.

Thanks and have a recreative break from heavy discussions! If you need some longer time to reply and i do not check that discussion page ever day, simply write me a message on my latest essay-contest page and i get informed per Mail that you replied.

The extensive discussion shows once again that quantum versus classical precursors and outcomes are no clearer with the Mermin device. The Mermin challenge was:

"To explain in simple language quantum superposition and entanglement by using simple language to explain how the Mermin device works."

My simple explanation is that the Mermin device Case B reveals the nature of quantum phase incoherence. It is not clear to me if there has been a simpler explanation here yet or not.

Of course, the Mermin device adds a particle entanglement to the Stern-Gerlach experiment and, of course, entanglement adds yet another quantum phase puzzle and so really does not help at all with the SG quantum puzzle. The entanglement of two quantum particles simply means that measuring one of the two particle spins immediately reveals the other particle spin without the need for a measurement of the second particle at all.

However, the basic quantum puzzle still exists: before measurement, the particle spin did not exist in a knowable single spin, but rather in an incoherent superposition of the two spin states. The magnetic file gradient of the SG device actually produced two discrete quantum spin states and not a continuum of two classical spin states expected from classical spin.

This simple quantum puzzle has been told and retold thousands of times and yet somehow the quantum truth of physical reality is just not acceptable to the classical determinism of gravity relativity.

It is certainly true that quantum spin outcomes always have quantum spin precursors. However, there is an uncertainty in the superpositions of all quantum spin precursor phases and quantum phase superposition simple does not exist for classical spin precursors.

So once again, the simple explanation for the quantum puzzle is quantum phase incoherence. Since there is no classical role for quantum phase at all, classical spin outcomes never reveal classical spin precursors.

There is some mention of the SG spinning up a silver atom gyroscope and that gyroscope and therefore quantum spin did not exist before the SG spin up. Of course, there are many different manifestations of the quantum spin of silver atoms and so a classical gyroscope model is therefore limited. If you include quantum phase incoherence, you can use a gyroscope model, but the electron spin gyroscope is always spinning.

The two isotopes Ag-107 and Ag-107 both also have spin = 1/2 and so there is a hyperfine splitting in the Ag spectra shows the electron-nuclear spin coupling even without an external magnetic field. Another is that the NMR or EPR measurements both show the electron-nuclear coupling as well. Both NMR and EPR use a linear magnetic field with radio signal excitations of the initially incoherent spin states.

Dr. Agnew,

There are many gaps, lapses and contradictions that have compiled in the classical run-up to Quantum Mechanics. One lapse in particular you point out as classical assuming a single spin state. I quite agree, and it relates to the electron-nucleon spin coupling without displaying an external magnetic field. 45 to 40 years ago I was playing with magnets and constructed a number of rotary devices to play with equilibrium. I kept a couple of them because they were interesting enough that I added a light fixture to one used as a art deco table lamp. But it is quite easy to rotate magnet groups through continuously varying angular orientations and separations as if there were no magnets there at all! nada! Bring a strip o steel in proximity and it will be evident, but that isn't how fields at quantum level are made observable.

Similarly, the net zero charge of the silver atom doesn't mean that there exists no electro-static or attendant magnetic field, just one that is not differentiated until subject to the massively predominant orthogonal directed region of the S-G field. The electron-nucleon coupling equalizes the charges but they still exist. So on the two axel directions perpendicular to the direction of the particles travel, the quantum precursor for the proton direction of deflection exists in equal proportion to the opposite direction of deflection for the electron -, and that direction of travel is not established along the longitudinal vertical plane of the magnet group, until the particle is injected. So the horizontal plane of the orthogonal field zone is in superposition also. The precursor is there, but it would be the experimenter's choice the send the particles down the length of the air gap, or across its width. Only then would the direction relative to the magnet group be established for the electro-static axis in the external field. And that axis is itself in superposition of positive and negative charge. It is a bit-flip as much as is the North and South. Classicism should come to accept that. jrc

Here's a thought,

maybe the role of a neutron in atoms with more than one electron is because its necessary to modulate bit-flips. Have you read anything about 3-phase alternating current transmission? it incorporates a 'neutral line' that carries no current but without it the phasing can get out of sych and the power factor suffers. I'll brush up and maybe get back on that. jrc

Local realism assumes that the output states pertain to the kind of particle. It assumes there are two kinds of particle in the SG experiments, that only need separating by 'measurement'; like red and blue socks. Using coins for analogy, this is like saying there are heads only and tails only coins. However to ascertain heads or tails state of a normal two sided coin, the protocol used to call it has to be decided. Palm open upon catching or flipping onto opposite hand. Likewise there can not be a definite state of the particles (even if unknown) prior to deciding how each will be 'measured'. It is particle and environmental field interaction that is producing the output states. Not the inherent nature of the particles alone. This is no longer like sock colours and so Bell's inequalities do not apply. Violation of the inequalities is expected.

Re. entanglement: This is where there is a correlated or anticorrelated relation between the particles produced during formation of the pair, at the source. If both are treated the same, from then on, that relation of particle orientations to each other is preserved. If treated the same but for inversion of one particles external field exposure, output states are correlated rather than anticorrelated. Because of the equivalence of that change of environmental exposure with particle spin reversal and environment unchanged. In these 0 and 180 degree cases each individual particle is acted upon by its local environment; the similarity of experience maintaining the relation of particle orientations to each other. At 90 degrees each particle will be effected by its local environment, according to such things as where it entered the field and its orientation on doing so. That experience of field is not necessarily but could be by chance matched by the partner

Georgina,

thanks for your reply. Let's now make the consistency-test.

Let's label the axis of flight of the particles with "y". Let's label the vertical axis with "z" and the remaining axis with "x".

Let us first look at the case where both magnets have a relative angle of 0 degree around the y axis so that they are oriented in space like depicted in figure 6.2 of that paper (although there is just one magnet scribbled)

https://physics.mq.edu.au/~jcresser/Phys301/Chapters/Chapter6.pdf .

Let us now analyse one particle pair. According to your scheme, every pair send out from the source has a shared orientation of their (gyroscopic) axis. So for each of the two particles of that pair its axis points in the same direction in our coordinate system as the partner's axis does.

Let us now assume that our particle pair's both axis' are in alignment with the z axis when sent out from the source (oriented vertically).

Since in your scheme the particles coming form the source have opposite spin direction, the test series will give anti-correlated results. As you wrote, each individual particle is acted upon by its local environment.

Let us now assume that for this test series the magnets hadn't been oriented as we have defined it above (called SCENARIO A), but both had been oriented 90 degrees relative to what we defined above (called SCENARIO B) whereby maintaining their relationship of field orientation. So in scenario B, the magnets are in alignment with the x axis, and hence have a 90 degree angle to the z axis - although we always assume that the particle pair's orientation and spin direction is left unchanged.

Now according to your scheme, that difference between the original angle of 0 degree and the alternative angle of 90 degree for both magnets does not alter your statement that "each individual particle is acted upon by its local environment.". So the local conditions for each particle in this alternative case are

"At 90 degrees each particle will be effected by its local environment, according to such things as where it entered the field and its orientation on doing so. That experience of field is not necessarily but could be by chance matched by the partner"

Consequently, according to your introduction of chance when one locally changes a 0 degree angle situation to a 90 degree angle situation at one magnet, the local outputs at that magnet now should come about by chance. Since in scenario B both sides have been altered by 90 degree, consequently your rule of chance is realized for both sides and that alternative scenario should give 50% anti-correlation and 50% correlation. But that is a contradiction to what you predicted when both magnets have the same orientation - what is exactly the case in my alternative scenario. Don't bother about me ignoring your rule of anti-correlation or your rule that only one magnet is allowed to be turned 90 degree for "activating" your rule of chance, i will soon come to that issue.

I now have to cite myself as i wrote above

"Consequently, according to your introduction of chance when one locally changes a 0 degree angle situation to a 90 degree angle situation"

Take care of what is meant here by me: DON'T CONFUSE the angles in my citation (0 and 90 degree) with the relative angles between the two magnets. The angles in my citation are the angles when ONE magnet's LOCAL output for 0 degree RELATIVE to the source IS COMPARED to its output if that one magnet's angle RELATIVE to the source is changed by 90 degree (NOTE that the orientation of axis and spin direction of that incoming particle stays exactly what we assumed it to be for the 0 degree relative angle to source). It DOESN'T matter how the other magnet is oriented, since we are examining LOCAL behaviour at one magnet - independent of the orientation of the other magnet:

the magnet we examine cannot know how the other magnet is oriented - even if the other magnet is oriented identical - what scenario B covers. But that other magnet could also well be oriented in a variety of angles and that's the reason why one should not confuse the angles in my citation with the relative angles BETWEEN the two magnets. And that is also the reason for why one cannot apply your anti-correlation rule for my alternative scenario.

As a result we have a scenario where the magnets have 0 degree relative angle (SCENARIO A) to each other and your anti-correlation rule should apply. And we have an alternative scenario where we compared this rule for the case when your rule of chance should apply (90 degree). That scenario (SCENARIO B) was the change of orientation of both magnets relative to the source by the same amount (90 degree) and in the same direction, whereby we assumed for both scenarios that the test particle's orientation of axis and spin directions have in no way altered in scenario A compared to scenario B and vice versa. The result is that your two rules are inconsistent with each other since they predict different results for scenario B.

KEEP IN MIND that scenario A and scenario B AREN'T to be understood that these are TWO runs that should factually be conducted one after the other in an experiment. Since it is clear that for such a test sequence we would need TWO particle pairs - that could well have different orientations and spin directions compared to each other. We assume instead that we have ONE particle pair with well defined axis of orientation and spin directions before measurement, no matter whether we then apply scenario A or scenario B to that pair. With that we examine what would happen to that particle pair if we had measured it differently than scenario A would have done. It doesn't matter that we cannot predict the outcome of just one particle pair being tested. The statistics does matter and the statistics that is produced by your rule of chance is different than the one produced by your rule of anti-correlation.

So, if you do not focus on your anti-correlation rule but instead focus on ONE magnet oriented in one scenario (scenario A) at 0 degree relative angle to the scource and in the second scenario (scenario B) the same magnet oriented 90 degree different from scenario A - but for both scenarios with the same particle with the same initial orientation and spin rotations unchanged entering the magnet of scenario B (so as if the first scenario hadn't happened but instead scenario B was applied to that identical particle) - then you hopefully will grasp that your anti-correlation rule and your introduction of chance at 90 degree are inconsistent with each other. They simply predict contradictory results for scenario B, since:

if you only focus on ONE magnet as just described, you may say that your rule of chance should apply for scenario B. But if you also focus on the other magnet in scenario B(that is oriented identical to the first magnet you focused on, namely with a 90 degree change compared to scenario A), then your rule of anti-correlation should apply. So two rules that predict different outcomes for one and the same scenario (scenario B) should apply for scenario B. That's the inconsistency i spoke of.

Stefan,

Re. "your rule that only one magnet is allowed to be turned 90 degree for "activating" your rule of chance," SW. I have not specified such a rule but was merely talking about ubiquitous 'everyday' chance, as in probability. Nor is there a rule of anticorrelation applying to singular apparatus. It matters not whether one or the other magnet is inverted or both adjusted 90 degrees. I was trying to keep it simple and not overly wordy for the reader by not addressing each possible variant.

What matters for 'entanglement is that the particles produced from the source share a relation that is same spatial x,y,z orientation of axis of rotation -nothing to do with the analyzers yet. As they are like gyroscopes they keep their orientation until acted upon by forces that twist the axis of rotation. Each particle adjusts to the local environment it encounters. They (environments) are the same but opposite each other( they could be placed diagrammatically next to each other, then it easier to see how the anti correlation of the particles is preserved.)The adjusted ( if it was necessary) orientation is then maintained . And could be retested with same apparatus orientation. Because they were exposed to the same environment the relation of the particles to each other is preserved.

For 90 degrees : again we do not know the precise orientation of the axes of rotation , only that they are the same. They enter the apparatus and each experience a different field orientation from each other. There is nothing special about the 90 angle of one magnet - the particle will respond to whatever it encounters. What matters is has the relation of the particles to each other been preserved or not. As for the particles there is a lot of variation in up-ness or down-ness possible- that give the clear cut up and down bit outputs.

Georgina,

"There is nothing special about the 90 angle of one magnet - the particle will respond to whatever it encounters."

The angle is not special, but the statistical results are.

"I have not specified such a rule but was merely talking about ubiquitous 'everyday' chance, as in probability."

If ubiquitous everyday chance is responsible for the coutcomes at 90 degree, then please explain to me why and how a particle that encounters the 90 degree magnet is measured "up" instead of "down". Surely, for your explanation you can choose the necessary features for that particle like spin direction, orientation of axis and field orientation in the x,y,z coordinate system.

If ubiquitous everyday chance is NOT responsible for the coutcomes at 90 degree, please nonetheless explain the "up" outcome.

I want to request from you please not to answer with inexpressively statements like

" They enter the apparatus and each experience a different field orientation from each other."

what is TRIVIALLY TRUE under the assumptions you already made for the 180 degree case, or statements like

"Nor is there a rule of anticorrelation applying to singular apparatus."

what is also trivially true under the assumptions you already made for the 0 and 180 degree cases. By the way i never claimed that the rule of anticorrelation applies to singular apparatus. Hope that you don't think that i claimed that in my last post or elsewhere.

Just like it is not possible to give the heads or tails coin before the measurement protocol is decided, so too for up or down bits produced by the analyzers. The entanglement can not be explained just by considering the individuals alone but requires the relation of the particles to each other. Now the particles are not considered as up or down at production as how they will develop depends on their (unknown) axes of rotation orientation, spin and which apparatus orientation is selected and hoow the particles respond. I do not know the finer details of pair production to know if there are preferred orientations of axes of pairs produced or not. By not, meaning any orientations but just the same. Nevertheless if x, y or z orientation of analyses is selected at random, that alone will introduce chance. If the field orientation is the same for both, they react tin similar ways and anti-correlation is preserved, despite the chance selection of a same particular field challenge for both. Chance is involved but the output does not look random.

At 90 degrees difference of orientation of analyzers AT LEEAST one of the particles will experience a change of axis of rotation. It can not keep the same orientation as the other even if they both move. What can be said is the certainty of anticorrelated outcome no longer applies. For each individual the result could be up or down and which depends upon the relation of particle too field. Over many test their will be equal or approx. equal numbers of each- the more tests the more accurate; same as random. The force from fields acting on moving charge mentioned by John is important,,, spin direction is important ;affecting outcome as shown by the difference of 0 and 180 difference results. In all tests where the particles enter the analyzer, and the inhomogeneity of the fields plays a part. I do think if all the unknowns were known the output could be predicted for each individual. But those unknowns are not known and they are treated statistically.

Please excuse the many typos.. I accidentally hit submit before finishing spell check.

Georgina,

thank you for your reply. Typos are excused :-)

"The entanglement can not be explained just by considering the individuals alone but requires the relation of the particles to each other."

That is only true for how you explained the 0 and 180 degree cases (if one believes that this explanation is what actually happens physically). I see not the slightest reasons so far in your hitherto made statements why the citation above should be also true for all the other angles.

Quite the contrary, it is not even clear to me from your hitherto made statements like

"At 90 degrees difference of orientation of analyzers AT LEEAST one of the particles will experience a change of axis of rotation. It can not keep the same orientation as the other even if they both move. What can be said is the certainty of anticorrelated outcome no longer applies. For each individual the result could be up or down and which depends upon the relation of particle too field."

how you wish to explain that 90 degree case deterministically so that your assumption

"if all the unknowns were known the output could be predicted for each individual."

matches reality.

Surely, in that 90 degree case both magnets produce their "up" and "down" with equal likelihood such that the result over many tests will look the same as random. But from your hitherto made statements AT LEAST the magnet that had NOT been turned 90 degrees will produce its outcomes according to the logic you already declared applicable for the 0 degree case for this magnet. Consequently, the individual that encounters that magnet which had not been turned 90 degrees cannot know whether or not its partner encounters a 90 degree difference, and therefore that individual will react in the same manner as if the other magnet hadn't been turned 90 degree. If that would not be true logically, then also your whole explanation for the 0 and 180 degree cases cannot be true either!

That the individual i spoke of above cannot know whether nor not its partner encounters a 90 degree difference is not just a rethorical statement, but the serious question about whether or not the relationship between the two individuals does play the same important role in explaining the 90 degree results as it did in explaining the 0 and 180 degree cases.

Moreover, that important question additionally makes me doubt that your explanation for the 0 and 180 degree cases says at all something true about what is physically going on in the experiments. Since there is nothing special about the 90 degree angle, the physical mechanisms for its outcomes shouldn't be that special either - or one had to explain why the 90 degree case is physically that special.

I'm using the same word as quantum physics but mean by it something different. In the quantum explanation the particles do not have up or down property but exist as superposition of both AND the pair are a singular system in which it is presumed that the partners communicate faster than light to co-ordinate the outcomes they produce. My way of thinking is that up or down of particles can not be assigned prior to measurement. Each is not both outcomes together, it is just logically impossible to make the call. "My particles do not communicate with each other but at 0 and 180 degrees the same treatment (0 degrees) or similar treatment(180 degrees) preserves the same axis of rotation orientation of both; no communication between particles necessary. I have previously said , if the particles of a pair are not treated in the same way 'entanglement'( giving 100% one kind of output-all same, or all opposite) is lost.

"If the unknowns were known the output could be predicted for each individual. "GW That is what I think but we do not have all of the unknowns. I do not believe the particles are communicating each other at any relative angles of analyzers. They do not conspirer to give random output at 90 degrees. The particles know nothing . It matters not to the particle what the history of the field it encounters. Changed or unchanged it just responds to what it encounters. The output could be up or down as we know nothing about the individual; unless it is being retested with same field orientation. Yes the particle a knows nothing of particle b's field exposure. It does not need to. By my way of thinking they just need same as each other (or similar as for 180 case) or not. The particles do not care how that same similar or not relation is attained.

Maybe to say there was nothing special about 90 degrees was misleading . Of all possible angles it requires the most adjustment of angles of rotation; whether achieved by adjustment of the axis of one or both partners. They each respond to the forces they individually find-no communication between them needed.

Proof of the pudding is in the eating. I have outlined a possible experiment. Scale may be an issue. I don't know if strength of the magnets can compensate for difference in scale of the constituents. Electron Cf. magnet is a big difference of scale. Comparability of electron rotation and that of the electrons of the magnets may be relevant. Perhaps all of the apparatus and variables could be modelled on computer to evaluate promise,

...sounds like you want to eat your quantum cake and have it as well...The neutral Ag atom is extremely polarizable and so you are right that there is therefore a significant dispersive attractive force to charge or even to another neutral atom. In fact, there is a whole spectroscopy associated with Ag atom polarizability on conducting surfaces called surface-enhanced Raman spectroscopy, SERS.

You are spot on about the role of the neutron in the nucleus to moderate spin angular momentum among charged protons. Charge motion in the nucleus results in nuclear spin magnetism and the neutrons moderate that effect since their motion does not generate spin magnetism. Of course, neutrons do have spin = 1/2, just like a proton, and neutrons are also are much more polarizable than protons.

Notice that quarks only have 1/3 or 2/3 of charge and so do form a three phase gluon current. That three-phase gluon current differentiates protons and neutrons...and I believe that electrons are also made up of three quarks as well. Electrons are no more fundamental than neutrons or protons and it is really quark gluon current that is the basic action that makes up all matter.

Georgina,

thanks for your reply.

You wrote

"Of all possible angles it requires the most adjustment of angles of rotation; whether achieved by adjustment of the axis of one or both partners."

This implies that the source sends out "entangled" (your definition of entanglement!) particle pairs with different orientations of axis' relative to the source such that all possible orientations in space for all pairs (a pair has the same orientation of both its axis' in space) are equally likely to encounter the experimental setup (magnets).

Consequently, in the 90 degree case, if that setup is not changed during many tests with incoming particle pairs, there will be many particle pairs whose BOTH axis do NOT require "the most adjustment" of angles of rotation. So your statement does not constitute any "speciality" of the 90 degree case.

"Proof of the pudding is in the eating."

Yes, but only when the theory is consistent.

Thank-you for that informative comment, Doc,

that's really what I come here for. Incidentally, precession plays an important part in aggregate rotations of polarized magnetic fields. That ubiquitous equilibrium that begets the quantum probabilities is displayed by common bar magnets at right angles. A linear sweep will meet repulsion at one end and attraction at the other, but an arcing sweep introduces angle and separation change which along with a precession of relative position introduces the pole without resistance, and backs its proximity away from attraction at the planar end of the sweep. So, rotating quarks generating uniform charge fields sounds plausible to me. thanks jrc

Stefan,

"Of all possible angles it requires the most adjustment of angles of rotation; whether achieved by adjustment of the axis of one or both partners. "GW.I may not have made it clear, I was talking about what must occur for entangled pairs. I must admit in hindsight that is not well expressed. I mean there is the largest total adjustment that has to happen, compared to any other field orientation combination, for that kind of pair. As the fields of the analyzers are at their most dissimilar in orientation.

"This implies that the source sends out "entangled" (your definition of entanglement!) particle pairs with different orientations of axis' relative to the source ..." SW, I said I don't know, but that is a possibility. The entangled pairs start out with same orientation of their axes of rotation . That can not be preserved at the 90 degree test.

"..such that all possible orientations in space for all pairs (a pair has the same orientation of both its axis' in space) are equally likely to encounter the experimental setup (magnets)." SW. (Only entangled pairs have same orientation of axes.)A. Maybe so.

"Consequently, in the 90 degree case, if that setup is not changed during many tests with incoming particle pairs, there will be many particle pairs whose BOTH axis do NOT require "the most adjustment" of angles of rotation." SW. Yes there may be unentangled pairs perfectly out of parallel with each other so they match the orientation of the field exactly as they are. Probability of that if each particle can have any orientation of axis of rotation? For entangled pairs the total difference in angle has to go from 0 to 90 degrees , however achieved. Both may gave to move though 45 degrees or one may have to turn more than the other. The other extreme is one turned 90 degrees the other 0 degrees.