Robert McEachern
The socks, and other examples of correlation given there, already exist. We could call it embodied correlation. The basket scores don't exist, yet will be correlated, because of how the particle pairs are produced, when they are manifest. In that way they are unlike the other examples of correlation.
There is never 'entanglement' whatever the scale.
Quantum Physics and the End of Reality by Sabine Hossenfelder and Carlo Rovelli
they are unlike the other examples of correlation
And precisely because they indeed are, unlike "quantum correlations", they are of no interest, to anyone primarily concerned with identifying, what could ever cause effects that are like, rather than unlike, "quantum correlations".
Robert McEachern
Surfaces like coin face s pre exist measurement . They aren't produced at measurement, The basket scores are unlike the other correlation examples given; socks, caterpillar and leaf, injuries'/obstacle but like quantum correlation, in that newly generated regard.
They aren't produced at measurement
The counts from every detector, are inevitably produced "in that newly generated regard."
Robert McEachern
Some things are as they are found to be, because of what exists, such as the chemical pigment of the socks, that make it appear red, 'looking at it a different way does not alter the pigment. likewise whether a coin is damaged or not, looking this or that way is not causing a change to the material. Whether a basket is scored does matter how the detector (basket) is oriented. I haven't made it clear in the preceding discussion.
Correlation that is within classical expectation may be uninteresting to quantum physicist, as you say. It is the extra correlation that's interesting to them. I'm not convinced the extra is correlation at all, but co-occurrence. Happening together but not because of a factor in common in pair formation , or influence of one upon the other. Or choice by the particles. Rotating a polarize affects how the ‘light’ interacts with the polarize. More ‘light’ passing through will give more detection. Therefore more co occurrence of detection. Different orientation of detector should have different names for positive detection. Emphasizing that all positive detentions, from same orientation tests and different orientation. are not equivalent. This is showing the results of specific kinds of interaction with specialized materials or apparatus occur not general behaviour of sub atomic particles. It is more likely a consequence the specific circumstance of interaction than the particles choosing co-occurrence of particular outcomes.
- Edited
It is the extra correlation that's interesting... Happening together but not because of a factor in common in pair formation...
The "extra correlation" happens, precisely because of what is not "in common in pair formation."
Which would be a logical impossibility, if the pair actually were identical. But the assumption that they are actually identical (AKA indistinguishable), turns out to be false. That is the problem, that has befuddled physicists, for an entire century. The pair are similar (fraternal twins), but not identical (identical twins). A slightly different pattern of noise, on the surface of a pair of "blurry" coins, is all that it takes, to create the "extra correlation."
Robert McEachern
Misidentification, allowing more photons to pass that should be stopped or more to be stopped that should pass ,skewing the results away from random chance is a possibility. but why assume it is due to a feature of the particles themselves. why not due to the variable transmittance of polarizers as they are rotated. The extra correlation actually being co-occurrence rather than correlation .
- Edited
why assume it is due to a feature of the particles themselves.
There is no assumption! That is the entire point, that you consistently fail to understand; In the purely classical experiment, the coins were constructed to have exactly that property - because that is what a bit of information is - a packet of noise, riding upon a carrier.
Just think of what determines the value of any actual coin - it is not the physical "stuff", the metal substance; the metal is just the carrier of the "information" being used to determine the coin's value - but the actual information itself, is encoded, entirely within the markings on the surface - the "noise."
Shannon's greatest discovery, was the realization, that in order to be reliably detected - for any completely deterministic behavior to ever emerge, in a noisy environment - the "information" must be encoded to have, the statistical properties of white noise! In other words, instead of a picture of an actual "Head" and "Tail", you must use two different patterns of white noise, to represent/encode the "Head" and Tail" - because the noise-like encodings can be much more reliably detected, than any actual picture!
Hence, your "extra correlation" arises entirely from the fact that the auto-correlation of noise-like sequences, generate more reliably detectable, large peaks, than any other known type of encoding. Which is why "Mother Nature" appears to use them, to generate deterministic behaviors; and She generates them, out of the very Chaos itself - the noise!
And it can be amazingly easy for deterministic behaviors to emerge from the Chaos; rather than wasting time searching for it; just create it yourself! (“You” being Mother Nature), out of pure noise!
This explains well
Your [Daily Equation #21: Bell's Theorem and the Non-locality of the Universe
](https://)youtu.be/UZiwtfrisTQ
Untested there is no definite spin state as the 'seen this way' relative perspective has not been decided and applied. the particle is spinning though in absolute space as a part of the singular pattern of existence ,that does not have a singular viewpoint. So it is not true that it has a singular (relative) spin in 3d , giving immediate (spooky) correlation. Instead, the same relative perspective is instantly applied to both, when choice of same measurement orientation is chosen. We need not assume that having pre existing states is the macroscopic norm. We are just accustomed to a having a relative perspective of objects or imagining a relative perspective applying to a physics scenario. We assume 3d space is where things happen but it is actually absolute space as any possible viewpoint could be applied giving a different but equally valid state of the observed/measured or even many seemingly contradictory states-each being valid for their own context. This is not many worlds but many possible perspectives. Prior to choosing a singular perspective to apply.
Georgina Woodward
Relativity applies, There really is not one correct or true state description obtainable but the state description obtained for an object or particle depends upon the viewpoint used to obtain it, the 'seen like this; proviso that affixes the outcome to the context in which it was obtained. it is a relative product that can be imagined in 3d product space but that is not where the particle, an actual physical entity exists.
The 3 orientations of detector, when used can be thought of as 3 viewpoints. Each gives an outcome that describes the binary feature investigated as it (most closely) seems from that way.
of 'looking.
- Edited
Georgina Woodward
I mean by relativity applies "defined relative to a frame of reference ['seen this way'] and that space and time are relative rather than absolute concepts:" dictionary.com My addition in brackets.
Georgina Woodward
The space and time of the product is relative, pertaining to the viewpoint and time reckoning of the observer. The existence of the observed or 'measured' is absolute. Time of existence (observer independent) is sequential and uni-temporal.
Interaction of the apparatus with the measured entity, by using apparatus such as Stern Gerlach apparatus or polarizers is unavoidable. Leading to alteration of the absolute condition of the particle in its absolute environment from what it was prior to interaction. For this reason retesting the particles with an orientation of detector used prior to last different orientation does not reproduce the same response as the last time that orientation was used.
Georgina Woodward
To just think of different polarizer or Stern Gerlach apparatus angles as different viewpoints is not enough, the term 'viewpoint' does not really capture what is going on. Its more like 'conclusion' based on received output. The apparatus isn't answering questions about the input. It is producing an output that is different from it. The question; what do we get out when ;looked at; this way?. is more appropriate.. A macroscopic analogy is using 3 different light filters to look at white 'light 'input received by camera detectors beyond the filters. The cameras do not describe the white light input only the different colours of output light . All are correct in their conclusion according to their particular filter used.
Polarizers and Stern Gerlach apparatus can be thought of as very simple reality interfaces. Taking in the input and changing it to a different output. So we are looking at the product not the raw input.
i think writing is wasting everybody's time,start doing drawings instead
- Edited
or do a mix , only writing is a pattern ineffective wash of surfaces,
there is a discovery proving that where seeing a shape, the brain contains the exacly that shape, maybe this discvovery is called placed celsin hipocampal neurons,
i plan, in principle, to invent and use my own visual language ,maybe even to try to uninstall/ forgett already learned verbal language, not with evybody ,with few close people i would trust and design the experience , at this point im suicidal i dont have such people, there are huge interest around communication media control of course but somebody has to start doing visual communication experimentation only , if this is not already practiced in secret by some big data organisations ( honestly i doubt that but stil, this is a pure initiative that drive the progress forward. if i cannot chose persnaly who those people are , logical conclusion is that there is no freedom ,and suicide kdjfsahodijfgsdjfgljkfhaso;ilkfhzkdijfghawleiufh;soi ,
everybody should start doing it(the invention of visual intaraction language) by itself and not be intimidated by empires corporation or governments laws or wathever.
@"Georgina Woodward"#p16729
Measurement is not the correct term, the polarizers and the Stern Gerlach apparatus , it is obtaining a result so conclusion is sort of appropriate as conclusions come after results but modifying intervention is closer in meaning.
22 days later
cristi marcovici
Good health will help get the best from your endeavors. Work at wellness, with help if you need it, with best wishes.
The problematic issues with quantum physics;
Lack of Object permenance,
Lack of observer independent existence ,
Both leading to vulnerability to illusion.
The 'seen this way' relativity of measurement and observation.
The measurement altering the measured so outcome is effected,
superposition of outcome states rather than absolute singular state without yet applied relative perspective.
The illusion of entanglement due to ignoring observer independent existence.
- Edited
suicide society of the third milenium , the same a protein in a cell has a lifespan from seconds to days
the same "human" in the year 3000 will be semiaranged to live more or less a certain amount of time and naturally voluntarly terminate its own life after completions of goals
how could science be better
the competition essay does not specify what's year science, next year or after the sun's death five billions in to the future
the irony is that the data on this forum might last longer than that . a hadd drive if its ssd has an evaporation of the memory cells, if the next backup is made on photonic crystals or something ....
*later edit -no , there is a specification - for decades from now
there are two possibilities, one in witch, i'm a living scientist and one in witch, i am not
if i kill myself tomorrow witch of the two possibility i will check ?
can i be a scientist for a month than make a two years break and return to be a scientist
this reminds me of an other communication idea
namely there is an implicit assumption of the time expected for the reply .
when two or more people talk nobody is saying(specifying) -i will wait for your answer the interval between of 0.2 to 10 seconds and then after that i may change the subject of conversation by saying something more