This Post is a direct follow on from Post Number 19:
To summarise, we have found that Einstein, Podolsky and Rosenberg (I hope I got that right) alias
EPR have claimed the following:
EPR's CLAIM: Quantum Mechanics, while an excellent theory, can not be the final explanation because it cannot prove that 2 singlet particles are not 'imprinted' with their properties at their time of creation. And yet it claims that this 'imprinting' cannot happen due to the 'uncertainity' of a particles's properties until those properties are measured (detected). Therefore QM is flawed and cannot be the final explanation !! EPR makes no claim as to how this imprinting occurs, but we note that it is crucial to our claim.
EPR's PROOF: We back our claim with the following proof. If the properties of a particle are imprinted in the particle at time of creation then random observations about the spin axis of singlet particles will ALWAYS correlate greater than 55%. On this statement we (EPR) stand or fall. [see post 19]
(this is my own personal interpretation of the EPR claim ... Greg)
Well... this was a very serious challenge and the Quantum Supporters response was very low key. Most of their replies could be summarised as ......"Well.. you know .... you can't really ask that sort of question... it's not fair"
However ... we move on .... Willie, I hope you are there .... have you paid your internet bill.. ?? we can have a quick whip-around here if you're a bit short, mate ?
QM CLAIM: The properties of a particle are not determined until the particle is detected. The final state of a particle's properties until detection are uncertain. Each one has a probability ... none a certainty.
QM PROOF: We back our claim with the following proof. If the properties of a particle are uncertain until detection then random observations about the spin axis of singlet particles will ALWAYS correlate to 50% give or take a flyshit. On this statement we (QM) stand or fall.
(this is my own personal interpretation of the QM claim ... Greg)
Why does EPR claim greater than 55% ?
Why does QM claim 50% or near enough ?
Its really quite simple. Both sides agreed that Singlet particles with spin along the same axis will always be detected, one with Spin-Up, the other with Spin-Down 100% of the time. Both sides agreed that the method that achieved this outcome could not be proved by either. Both claimed to be right. Both realised that they could not be proved wrong !! The rest of the world did not even know what language they were arguing in !
This argument appears insoluable. But it wasn't, a special kind of genius, named Bell, removed himself from the shouting, the hubbub, and the name-calling by either side and quietly thought it through. He realised that the outcome would always be the same provided the measurements were taken along the same axis .... but what if they were not ... what if they were taken along different axis ??? That is ... one detector is at 12 o'clock, the other at 4 o'clock.
He realised that they would NOT always agree. As we have seen, [post 19] Classical maths predicts a correlation of the singlet pair greater than
55% of the time. Never, Never less !! Whereas, QM predicts an outcome of
50%, give or take a fly shit. Eureka ... They
cannot be tested on their predictability ...
they can be tested on their un-predictability. Lets test the real particles and see what correlations we achieve. Why had none of the magnificent involved realised this. Perhaps it is the way of all great discoveries.
But before we do this test we need to know WHY QM predicts 50%. Willie ... follow me closely here. I am stealing Maths from Dr Greene's book.
An elementary equation from QM says that if the angle between the axis of the two detectors = 0 degrees (they are aligned) = 120 degrees (they are non-aligned) or any other angle you care to align too then if we call that angle 'Theta' then calculating the probability of correlation between 2 singlet particles is
33% of the time our axis are aligned. We achieve 100% correllation or 1/3 of our random selections
33% of the time we are non-aligned at +120 deg. We achieve 25% correllation of this or 1/4 of 1/3 = 1/12 = 1/6 of our random selections
33% of the time we are non-aligned at -120 deg. We achieve 25% correllation of this or 1/4 of 1/3 = 1/12 = 1/6 of our random selections
CONCLUSION: ( 1/3 + 1/12 + 1/12) = ( 4/12 + 1/12 + 1/12) = 6/12 = 1/2
EQUALS 50%
Now guess what we have ... One theory predicts 55% correllation or greater ... the other 50% give or take a flyshit .... when the tests are done .... guess who romps home a winner.... you got it mate QM was declared the all time winner. The tests have been conducted many many times and EVERY time they support QM with spectuclar accuracy.
Now Willie , I have reached the end of my story, and I believe I have proved to your satisfaction the answer to your first post in this thread. What does all this imply ?
For some, it means nothing exists prior to its observation. To others, Space is just not the place we think it is ... I tend to side with the latter... in the end these are only interpretations which we are free to muse on.
Hope this helped you WillieB
best of luck ... greg