Answering Mermin’s Challenge

Georgina,

by writing

"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."

you referred to the 90 degree case. You compared all of its "relevant" cases (the ones that have to change their orientations maximally) with all of the "relevant" cases for 0 degree (the ones that have to change their orientations maximally). Since in the 90 degree case there are 6 maximal changes and in the 0 degree case there are 4 maximal changes, you concluded that this 90 degree angle must be the "most special" of all angles - since it produces the "most adjustment".

Now you say that you didn't refer to the 90 degree angle but "I was talking about what must occur for entangled pairs". No, you simply made a mistake by forgetting to also consider the entangled pairs in your examination.

For the entangled pairs (180 degree angle), there are 8 "relevant" cases of the kind i described above, and - lo and behold! - in your next reply you claimed that you actually had talked about the 180 degree case. But you talked about the 90 degree case, until you realized that this does not work...

You also forgot that there are many other, "not so maximal" cases for each of the 0, 90 and 180 degree relative angles - and in your last post you now come up with those cases by introducing a bunch of inconsistent new guesswork.

The 90 degree case cannot be special in any respect, since you can construct this angle all around the y-axis (axis of flight). The same is true also for the 0 and 180 degree angles - and for all remaining angles. You will always be able to shift these relative angles around the y-axis by simply adding a same amount of change (same amount of degrees in the same direction) to each of both magnets. Since it is always only the relative angles between the two magnets that are responsible for the outcomes at that angle - and not the relative shift of angles as just described, the only conclusion is to accept that the source sends out the particle pairs in the manner i described in my next to last post.

All other distributions of pair orientations (or single particle orientations if you like to abandon your entanglement scheme) will not reproduce the measurement results. That's the wonder of QM entanglement - the particles do not care about their relative angle they initially have with the source - what is also equivalent that they do not care about your scheme and all its possible modifications.

The only reason to be further "entangled" notional with your original scheme is that the relative angles of 0 and 180 degree are the one and only cases that can be explained classically. You may think otherwise, but i know better and know that this notional entanglement enables only a going in circles. Whatever you change to match your scheme with the experimental outcomes of certain angles, these changes automatically will mismatch other angles about which you thought you already have matched them with the experimental outcomes.

Stefan, thank you for your time. I am disappointed that I have not been able to convey my thoughts in a way conducive to development of an acceptable description. I will keep your objections in mind as I work on improvement.

I know you are now out of the conversation but I'd just like to leave the thought that if the two apparatus are moved through 90 degrees in opposite directions they end up at 180 difference of angles from 0 degree difference. And the consequence of that is change in anticorrelated ( for 0) to correlated (for 180) , particle rotation direction. Without communication, just geometry.

If spin gives the magnetic polarity; One pole each sided. There will either be attraction or repulsion at the magnet pole nearest, according to orientation of the particle 'poles'. Repelled at one pole the particle could flip and be attracted by the other.

The split of ups and downs outputs could also be depending on above or below midline between magnet poles the test particles enter their apparatus; relevant to whether attracted by near pole or not.

That may sound like a lot of incoherent rambling but it is my provisional conclusions from many hand-drawn diagrams. I hope to knock' it into a testable, consistent, hypothesis .

Kind regards ,Georgina

PS I've noticed another post by you after drafting a response. I'm not used to having so much difficulty communicating what I mean. I'm not sure if I'm really being incoherent and inconsistent or whether you are being obtuse . I'll take a look and see if your latest criticisms make any sense to me.

I don't see any thing in your latest post worth discussing. Sorry you have found my writing horribly confused and inconsistent. You seem to think I have some kind of agenda that I really don't. I enjoy having my ideas challenged so that I can improve my explanations. I don't like implications of dishonest motive or trying to cover up errors; nor do I enjoy insults. I'm OK with you thinking you know better and leaving it there. ( I know you know you know better, don't just think it -I don't want to argue.)

Georgina,

"I know you are now out of the conversation but I'd just like to leave the thought that if the two apparatus are moved through 90 degrees in opposite directions they end up at 180 difference of angles from 0 degree difference. And the consequence of that is change in anticorrelated ( for 0) to correlated (for 180), particle rotation direction. Without communication, just geometry."

To make a long story relatively short, on Nov. 1, 2020 @ 21:34 GMT you introduced

"The two kinds are called entangled pairs and product pairs."

what you called "product pairs". I argued against these because of being logically inconsistent.

You agreed to that on Nov. 2, 2020 @ 02:03

"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."

On Nov. 8, 2020 @ 20:59 GMT

"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?"

you re-introduced them as a new possibility, although having refused them a couple of days earlier as cited above. Surely your re-introduction of them is slightly different from your first introduction, but nonetheless equivalently logically inconsistent by constantly switching between an entanglement experiment and - metaphorically speaking - an experiment where two ovens produce to non-entangled particles whereby you try to match the resulting paired outcomes with what has been experimentally measured for the entanglement experiment.

You seem to be not aware of that your entanglement scheme, as you originally introduced it, is a correlation scheme that - for at all being deterministic and matching the QM results - in any case must retain a relative relationship between the relative phases of all of your particle and magnet properties (axis, spin, orientation relative to the source and the magnets' fields), - independent of whether or not a new relationship establishes or the current one is retained.

Without introducing non-causal randomness this can only be achieved (if at all!) by deterministic processes for all relative magnet angles. Howsoever these deterministic processes may look like, consequently for every member of a pair in a deterministic process, after the measurement direction is decided, but before it has actually been measured, there has to be an unambigious state for the particle's actual condition as well as for the magnet's actual condition. This is independent of whether or not we can know all these states before the actual measurement or after. Once the measurement is done at one particle, according to your belief, we should theoretically be able to conclude what the other particle's outcome will be (when not measured yet or already measured but we have not been told the result).

On Nov. 7, 2020 @ 03:04 GMT you wrote

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

Yes, you argue that way, but i think you do not grasp that cause and effect is just another term for relative relationship between the interactions of two physical objects and if you want to explain what happens when these two objects encounter each other, then there should be a bijection for all the possible measurement outcomes with all the possible situations of encounter. This has nothing to do with deciding a measurement protocol just as little as it has to do with measurement protocols for other classical, deterministic causes and effects.

I'm taking the board rubber and starting again using analogy to paint a picture of what's going on, and why it must be so.

2X, 2Y and 2Z are the three commonly used same orientations of apparatus. That are 120 degrees different from each other. Inversion of polarity is denoted Xi, Yi. and Zi. An example of a pair with one inverted magnet polarity would be X, Xi.

X =Formal dinner, Y =casual gathering, Z=pool party. Each occasion has two choices of attire. For brevity :X has bow tie or business tie: Y has hoodie or jumper :Z has board shorts or euro. trunks The attire can be likened to measurement out comes.

Pairs of invites sent with opposite instructions ;not to be taken literally but to represent pairs of particles with opposite spin. ( for consistent lets say that is decided ( in principle not practice) by looking at the equator .One is instructed to pick up LH. dress code, the other RH dress code. Which gets which is unknown until they attend the party/complete test. The results will be anticorrelated.

Turning the apparatus from XX to Xi, as an example; is like turning the invitation marque so that exit and entrance are reversed.. The same reversal effect can be obtained by making the invitee enter backwards the normal orientation (not reversed tent).In these cases the participating pair will receive same rather than opposite dress codes. Which is correlated outcome rather than anticorrelated.

If the test apparatus are at 90 degrees to each other that is midway between producing a correlated result and an anticorrelated result. It could go either way. And that is uncorrelated. Whether that is special or not depends on how it is thought about. It looks random, no special relationship shown by that. And yet it is precisely between correlated and anticorrelated and that is special.

As for 'product pairs' (rather than entangled pairs, they are not opposites from the outset, they may or may not end up with opposite attire depending on how they encounter the invitation marque. This gives the real life experimental deviation from 100% of a particular kind of outcome. If just talking about pure theory rather than practice they can be ignored.

Obviously it doesn't matter for the results which of the two magnets is turned 180 degree. And just as well it doesn't matter which of the two magnets is turned to obtain the 0 degree results again. Same is true for the 90 degree case. The 0 and 180 degree cases are the ones that could be explained classically by some hidden variables. The 90 degree case produces results "as if" there would be a "superposition" of the 0 and 180 degree cases present. Quantum mechanically, one surely can construct similar superpositions to also "explain" other angles as superpositions of certain angles. Without quantum mechanical background one could say that the 90 degree case produces random results. For that 50/50 behaviour in the 90 degree case one could further say that the 50/50 is due to the arithmetic mean of 180 0 = 90 degree, what is 50%. I guess one is allowed to calculate that classically, since the outputs of these angles can be explained classically. The big question is what "randomness" means, since it could mean randomness without any physical causation or randomness in the sense of a coin toss.

Invitation type corresponds to magnet orientations . Axes of rotation respond by adjustment of alignment if necessary . It may not be necessary. A gentleman appropriately dressed for a formal dinner does not need to change; but we can not have board shorts attending.

If a random selection of tests are run. For each there are three possible outcomes, correlated, anticorrelated and uncorrelated (could have been with each outcome but probability is that half of the time it is one of the possible (ie. a same outcome) and half of the time the other ie. a different outcome). Each of the kinds can be added to the pool of anticorrelated or correlated results as it matches. Giving 1/3 plus 1/6 anticorrelated and 1/3 plus 1/6 correlated.

The graph plotting angle of inclination of magnet pairs relative to each other, against proportion of results showing correlation and anti correlation (I think that's what that axis is),shows there is more variation of angle producing correlated and anticorrelated results than would be expected for direct proportionality of distribution of the measured outcomes. This is to be expected if the test particles can change their axis of rotation to match the test conditions. Such behaviour means the particles do not have a permanent portfolio of properties that can be expected to comply with Bell's inequalities. Violation of the inequalities is expected.

To be clear;

" Giving 1/3 plus 1/6 anticorrelated and 1/3 plus 1/6 correlated." GW

Meaning by that-

Giving 1/3 anticorrelated, plus 1/6 that are 50:50 random but look indistinguishable from the were certain to be anticorrelated.

And 1/3 correlated plus 1/6 that are 50:50 random but look indistinguishable from the were certain to be correlated.

" The big question is what "randomness" means, since it could mean randomness without any physical causation or randomness in the sense of a coin toss." SW Randomness without any physical causation ? Supernatural then. Such as a pixie overseer operating a mystical random number generator behind the scenes,**Random like a coin toss: Each toss is individual and if one viewpoint was applied throughout and all the forces and sequence of orientations and trajectory and momentum was known, and for uniform catching, then for a set calling protocol each outcome should be (at least in theory) predictable. There is no preferred outcome or set pattern to the sequence of outcomes. However if enough tosses are carried out there will be 50% heads and 50% tails. The same as if a random no. generator was behind it; Even no.= heads. Odd no. = tails.

I wonder in which cases it may not be necessary that one particle's axis of rotation must not respond to magnetic field orientation. Since there are only three variables, namely orientation of axis, magnetic field orientation and spin direction, that case seems to occur for me for the 180 degree case when both axis are perfectly aligned with the magnet orientation, say aligned with the z-axis (vertically). Since the orientation of axis of rotation does only play a role when not aligned with the magnet orientation, or in other words when there is a relative angle between the magnet orientations and the axis or rotation, I conclude that the particles axis of rotation have no other function then reacting when such a relative angle is present.

In my example (s.o.) there is no such relative angle involved. Since there are only two spin combinations possible for one particle pair, namely clockwise-anticlockwise or anticlockwise-clockwise and we define "clockwise" together with magnet field orientation "up" as the side where one of the two test particles is affected by that combination of forces, then the other particle with combination "anti-clockwise" and field orientation "down" is not affected. Let's say the affected particle is on the right side. Affected means it encounters some forces that make it leave its trajectory and should, say, then fly along downwards. But the particle on the left side has not encountered any forces since it has not been affected - and shouldn't neither fly downwards nor fly upwards but should not change its initial direction given to it by the source. Hence, the particle on the left side does neither output "up" nor "down".

But if we instead had defined the particle on the left as being also affected by its situation ("anti-clockwise" and field orientation "down") and leaving the above made definition for the particle on the right untouched (it was "clockwise" and "up"), then that combination of definitions gives the correct outcome of "correlation".

But if we apply these "instead" definitions also for the 0 degree case, then the pair(s) do not return anymore the correct outcomes of "anti-correlation" and thus, are incompatible with the 0 degree case.

Maintenance of same or opposite axis of rotation orientation is important for answering two important questions. 1/ Why can pairs of particles separated by large distances act as if they are coordinating their responses to tests? 2/ Why do particles given the same test as previously act so that it seems the output state is fixed ( as if resulting from a property of the particle), yet if tested at a different angle (as ascertained by many such tests) the outcome state is random , as if it is not related to a fixed property of the particle. Weightless gyroscopes maintain their axes of rotation unless acted upon by twisting forces. If same environment to which it is already aligned it will not change its axis of rotation. If a different environment encountered it will respond to the forces it encounters.

Randomness: There are as many different ways of a coin toss evolving into the situation in which a heads is called ,as there are ways it can evolve into a situation where tails is called; for the same coin state calling protocol. There are many parameters and variables involved in each toss. Over many throws it can be seen that there are as may heads as tails outcomes. Though each toss is ultimately deterministic , because there are very many ways of becoming one or the other outcome, and equal amounts of each possibility-the act of coin tossing gives a random (no pattern to the sequence) 50;50 result.

90 degree difference in magnets orientation. Experiencing different field orientations the particle pair can not maintain opposite axes of rotation orientation. One or both must realign its orientation with the field it encounters. At 90 degrees there are as many ways of evolving into a situation where the outcome states are the same as there are for them being opposite; like the coin toss, that looks random.

I wonder about the case that one isn't interested in answers to these three important questions but first and foremost interested in an answer about what a gyroscope theory would say about the thought experiment in my last post?

Stefan I do not understand your gripe. You have shared some thoughts about a possible theory for what's going on that doesn't work for 0, 90 and 180 degrees as it should according to experimental results. What do you want, congratulations for not giving a viable explanation. What answers to what questions have you provided?

I have explained why preservation of axis of rotation orientation is important. It has explanatory power that makes faster than light communication between particles unnecessary. It also explains the strange semi permanence of propensity to give particular state outcome when a particle is given same orientation test. Random outcome state for different test. Two famous examples of supposed quantum strangeness.

Georgina, I want no congratulations, my gripe is about the illogics with that you arrive at your conclusion that the explanatory power of preserving the axis of rotation orientation is important to put an end to some non-local behaviour and to the strangeness of semi permanence. In my opinion it is logically inconsistent to conclude that importance, since in my opinion my thought experiment shows that your proposed interplay of "axis of rotation/spin" with "magnet field orientation" does only work for one of two cases (0 and 180 degree) that had to be explained. Would it have explained both cases that would be sufficient to deduce that your approach might be important to explain all measurement results. But as I think to have shown in my thought experiment, with your approach one can only explain one of two cases (0 or 180 degree). If only one of these cases can be explained due to logically contradictory requirements for being able to explain both cases, then I think it is more than justified to question the "importance" of your approach.

So my gripe is about claiming something that logically can't be the case and moreover then physically can't be the case. From the point of view of ordinary logics, there exist two mutually exclusive requirements for explaining both cases (0 and 180 degree). If one wants to nonetheless "explain" both cases, one necessarily had to switch (invert) the proposed mapping for the interplay between the three components "axis of rotation", "spin" and "magnet field orientation" on the fly (what would be no more a deterministic approach).

So if one can't even map these three components consistently for the two cases (0 and 180 degree), then I think it is not only illogical to say that your approach is important concerning the issues you mentioned, but the insistence on that importance seems to be merely wishful thinking to me.

All of what I wrote so far would be pointless if I made a mistake in my thought experiment. Everyone is free to prove it is flawed. The most important question for me was whether or not your scheme does say anything about what is going on in the experiment we discussed. Only then it makes sense to me in this context to think about other important questions like randomness, determinism, faster than light influences etc. I will write about that more during the course of the present day for everyone that is interested, but not now because I have to do some work.

Do you now understand my gripe?

Stefan. (drafted prior to your last reply)

'I'll try addressing what you wrote.

" Since the orientation of axis of rotation does only play a role when not aligned with the magnet orientation, or in other words when there is a relative angle between the magnet orientations and the axis or rotation, I conclude that the particles axis of rotation have no other function then reacting when such a relative angle is present." SW

The stability of the axis of rotation (conditionally) preserves the anticorrelation or correlation of particle pairs with same axis orientation antiparallel or parallel respectively.

"In my example (s.o.) there is no such relative angle involved." SW I'm not sure what (s.o.) is referring. "Since there are only two spin combinations possible for one particle pair, namely clockwise-anticlockwise or anticlockwise-clockwise and we define "clockwise" together with magnet field orientation "up" as the side where one of the two test particles is affected by that combination of forces, then the other particle with combination "anti-clockwise" and field orientation "down" is not affected." SW

I'm not convinced that tthe partner will not be affected. If north seeking and south seeking behaviour are due to rotation being like that of the electrons of he near magnet pole, or opposite in rotation, there could be attraction of one spin direction expected and repulsion of opposite. What is requied to get a certain anticorrelated outcome iis that the same field orientation of magnets for both keeps the relatioship of the particles rerlative to each other as it is. I think, rather like the coin toss we may not yet know exactly how all of the parameters and variables work together to give an individual outcome but non theless we can say they must give the expected statistical lresult over many tests.

"Let's say the affected particle is on the right side. Affected means it encounters some forces that make it leave its trajectory and should, say, then fly along downwards. But the particle on the left side has not encountered any forces since it has not been affected - and shouldn't neither fly downwards nor fly upwards but should not change its initial direction given to it by the source. Hence, the particle on the left side does neither output "up" nor "down". SW

Outputting neither up nor down isn't an option .

"But if we instead had defined the particle on the left as being also affected by its situation ("anti-clockwise" and field orientation "down") and leaving the above made definition for the particle on the right untouched (it was "clockwise" and "up"), then that combination of definitions gives the correct outcome of "correlation" .SW

But if we apply these "instead" definitions also for the 0 degree case, then the pair(s) do not return anymore the correct outcomes of "anti-correlation" and thus, are incompatible with the 0 degree case ."SW

So there is something amiss with your supposition

Interesting: "The magnet is de-energized and the axis of the gyroscope is set at an angle 40-50掳 to the direction of the field, and the gyroscope is then set in motion. The magnetic field is then turned on, and the axis is seen to change its position until it is parallel to the magnetic field. "demonstration with conducting gyroscope in a magnetic field K N Baranski沫 漏 1968 American Institute of Physics Soviet Physics Uspekhi, Volume 11, Number 2

Georgina,

"I'm not sure what (s.o.) is referring."

Referring to the beginning of the respective post of me: 180 degree case with axis of fields vertically oriented (z-axis), both axis of particles are in alignment with the z-axis.

The result is just as I described it in this post, without having to fiddle around with some right-hand-rules for electrical current and angular momentum. If one particle's axis of rotation must and does not respond to magnetic field orientation as you suggested, this means that this "gyroscope's" spinning orientation before the measurement (in my example "anti-clockwise") is not switched by the measurement, since the spinning object of a gyroscope is coupled to the axis of rotation. All other statements from me just follow from that.

"I'm not convinced that tthe partner will not be affected. If north seeking and south seeking behaviour are due to rotation being like that of the electrons of he near magnet pole, or opposite in rotation, there could be attraction of one spin direction expected and repulsion of opposite."

Maybe there is some current involved, I do not know, that could be a possibility. One then had to list all possible combinations of variables, namely orientation of axis, magnetic field orientation, spin direction and current (moving charge) and map them to the two possible outcomes for the 180 degree case (up/up, down/down) as well as for the 0 degree case (up/down, down/up) - to see whether or not these 4 variables explain the 0 and 180 degree cases consistently.

So I propose that you may want to do this and if you have a result you may post it here.

Using the right hand rule Key: Anticlockwiswe= antiCl, clocckwise =Cl

Current flow direction correlated with output state.

axis of rotation aligns parallel to field direction

Same viewpoint used for all rotation designations

0 degrees difference in rotation of apparatus

Magnetic field vectors from North top to South bottom

Using right hand rule:

particle pairs anticorrelated are,

Left apparatus; AntiCl (current turn [spin]) Up direction of current flow: Right apparatus; Cl (current turn [spin]), down direction of current flow. Current flow direction correlated with output state.

Left apparatus; Cl(current turn [spin]) Down direction of current flow: Right apparatus; AntiCl (current turn [spin]), Up direction of current flow. Current flow direction correlated with output state.

Maintenance of anti correlation

180 degrees difference in rotation of apparatus

We know field polarity matters as 180 difference gives change from anti correlation to correlation. Fir rotation of one of the apparatus, that one has reversed field direction, having the effect of current turn[spin] reversal. Maybe by flip of particle.

Using righthand rule;

Left apparatus unchanged ;right apparatus inverted 180 degrees

Left apparatus; AntiCl (current turn [spin]) Up direction of current flow: Right apparatus; changed to AntiCl (current turn [spin]), Up direction of current flow. Current flow direction correlated with output state.

Left apparatus; Cl(current turn [spin]) Down direction of current flow: Right apparatus; changed to Cl (current turn [spin]), Down direction of current flow. Current flow direction correlated with output state.

Result correlation instead of anticorrelation.

Same outcome expected if each side was adjusted by 90 degrees in opposite directions from 0 degree start. The pair responding equally but oppositely to their own environment.

90 degrees difference in rotation of apparatus

if 0 and 180 considered parallel /parallel and parallel/ antiparallel to a vertical field (for simplification of explanation -every variation can not be discussed);for comparison, consider two particles anticororelated drawn as balls with central axis of rotation as a stick running vertically through the middle. Drawn thus they represent vertical field alignment. Colour in he top hemisphere of the left hand ball and colour the bottom hemisphere of the right hand ball to represent opposite spin. To align with the 90 degree field the axis must turn towards viewer, top of axis down or bottom of axis up as looked at as a diagram. The choice allows randomness (of the deterministic, many unknowns, coin toss kind) Rotating the apparatus has made up and down outputs, left and right spatially but up and down are just names, they could be called red and green.

There is no maintenance of anticorrelation with vertically aligned partner

There may need to be adjustment to comply with convention, spin being opposite to current turn rather than same as in this illustration.