[austintorn@aol.com]

Entanglement is sort of like sex in a way that the lovers remain connected when far apart, but I think that the measurement of one of the twin particles, say by polarization, produces a random result that corellates to the other particle's random result.

[dleviwing]

Hi Willie;
One of my goals is to put the complex terminology of today’s science into a common language that can be understood by the majority. Though this does not mean that an individual will be able to design quantum computers, it will however, remove the mystery and obscure interpretations that appear as complex gibberish; similar to the language of Austin’s post when he refers to something existing in another dimension. My thread on “Dimensions and Entities” was intended to help remove this type of confusion of terminology.

Reality is PHYSICAL and thus all that exists is the interactions and motions of a physical entity. Don’t accept magic as an explanation of phenomena. The only nonphysical entity of the universe is the place that everything exists in and the place does not have physical attributes of interaction, only volume.

[WillieB]

Thanks David. I certainly will look at the thread you recommend. I reread Greene's analysis of Bell's Theory and another conundrum popped into my head which only serves to further complicate this issue. At least it does for me. .......... What would be the results if a particle, a photon or an electron, was endowed with the capability of simultaneously possessing spin about more than one axis?

This is complicated enough without me adding addition al factors!

[Graybeard]

something is wrong with my posts ??? moderators ... any ideas ???

[Graybeard]

DAVE:

Thanks Dave ... As usual your explanation is succinct, and logical. Sorry to hear that you have had surgery, glad to hear that you are recovering .. hope all is well. I like your idea of the event ...

You have been so quiet of late I thought you had drifted off into other endevours.

WILLIE:

I don't know why my last post never appeared ???

Dave or Austin ... did you see it ??

Willie ...Yes ... I looked it up ... it is the book you mentioned... the part I am referring to is Chapter 4 ... and the footnote I am referring to is in the appendix Number 18. (not number 7 as I initially said.)

If you understand the Maths in the footnote (I didn't at first) .. it soon becomes apparent that Einstein's explanation can not be considered valid, QM's can. Altho .. once again ... as Dave says, this is a matter for interpretation by the individual ... but the Maths, however, are clear.

If you need a more down to earth explanation of this, (Dave is a bit of a polymath and leaves us lesser mortals behind at times .. no offence intended Dave .. quite the opposite) I have revised it and feel I can do a reasonable Layman's explanation of the Maths.

AUSTIN:

Good to here from you again. I can't totally agree with your attempt at a fuzzy subject. While in the main your theme follows conventional QM, that is, the observer and the observed both play a part in the observation.

Bell's Theorem answers the EPR Paradox by a more subtle explanation. If you accept that there no way to know all the properties of a particle with 100% certainity, nor will there ever be, then the question posed is by the Paradox is:

If you cannot know all these properties, then QM must necessarily be an incomplete theorem ... Einstein accepted that QM was better at explaining the 'imprint' ...his main contention was that the Theory (QM) was necessarily incomplete and THEREFORE a better theory would eventually be found!!

That is ... because we necessarily interfere with the properties of the particle by our act of observation ergo: we can never know the true state of the particle ... THEREFORE says EPR it cannot be said that the particles DO NOT have ascertainable properties ... just that we cannot observe them simultaneously !!

Bell's Theorem was a stunning insight that allowed this to be statistically proved wrong..

That is ... The uncertainity is in the particles themselves .. That is, uncertainty is part of the fabric of matter ... regardless of our observations. (Please note the word statistical )

Of course, this is an interpretation... I myself do not believe that the Moon does not exist if no one is observing it ... But the Maths of Bell's Theorem is perfectly clear. It was certainly enough to put the final nail in the coffin of EPR as far as mainstream science was concerned.. But, as I say, it is a statistical proof that has proved incredibly accurate to the nth-most degree. This does not mean it can be interpreted as reality.

WILLIE:

I will post the explanation of Greene's Book, footnote 18 here. I will attempt this tonite

cheers .... today is Friday here ... altho I am on call tonite .. this afternoon I will be sitting on my balcony and downing a few cold ASAHI Beers .... I am an old bastard (53) too ... but there is a good chance, or should I say probability, that the rest will follow too

greg

[Graybeard]

It appears that I have, after 2 years, just earned my first black star ... as well someone .... a good, kind and wise person, I am sure ... added to my rep power.....

Thank you whoever it is


greg

[mkirkpatrick]

Originally Posted by Graybeard It appears that I have, after 2 years, just earned my first black star ... as well someone .... a good, kind and wise person, I am sure ... added to my rep power.....

It will be a long time before you get a gold one mate,so be grateful you A>B>?
regards michael.

[dleviwing]

Originally Posted by Graybeard It appears that I have, after 2 years, just earned my first black star ... as well someone .... a good, kind and wise person, I am sure ... added to my rep power.....

Hi Greg;
Your posts are meaningful and have contributed to the forum. I find your one black star has greater value than the 10 black stars acquired through frivolous posting of meaningless one liners. (I won’t mention names though) You deserve a gold star for the efforts and progress you’ve made in comprehending true science over the past two years. Well done mate!
I’m surprised that you hung in there so long.

[Graybeard]

Michael ... you pommy poet ... I presume >A>B = Aussie Bastard ??

Willie:

This is how I see Bell's Theorem Mathematically.

Things we need to know in order to proceed. (I'm a pompous bastard arn't I ? )

Willie ... it would help if you refer to greene's book as you peruse this post.

SPIN:

Originally Posted by WillieB What would be the results if a particle, a photon or an electron, was endowed with the capability of simultaneously possessing spin about more than one axis? ... This is complicated enough without me adding addition al factors!

Spin about ALL possible axis is EXACTLY what I will try to describe. If we take a tennis ball and drive a 6" nail dead through the centre we will have something similar to a child's spinning top. (I was going to use a 150mm nail .. but I suddenly remembered that you Yanks are still only inching your way into the 21st century )

If we now spin this Top on the floor or table we will be able to observe its rotation from all available angles. ie: from the top, from the side, etc.

In the weird world of the Quantum ... this does not happen ... whenever we attempt to detect the particles spin axis .. guess what ... we only ever see it from the top (one end of the nail). Its as tho the particle knows the exact instant that we peek and quickly aligns its axis vertical towards our line of sight. It does not matter from which angle we try to peek ... its is ALWAYS vertical to our perception. (Don't take this as a correct description of spin ... its simply an analogy)

This is what gave Bell the idea that the EPR paradox could be resolved and also why your first post in this thread is incorrect. We need to bear this description of SPIN in our mind as we proceed.

DETECTORS:

As you can see from the drawing each Detector Rack can observe the spin of the particle from 3 different angles. if we observe (both you and me) from the same Axis eg: A,A, or B,B or C,C .... we will always see a correlated spin. it does not matter for our purposes that one is clockwise and the other counter clockwise.



As all possible paired random combinatory positions for our detectors are

A.A .. A.B .. A.C ...... B.A .. B.B .. B.C ...... C.A .. C.B .. C.C

where your detector is the first letter of each pair and my detector is the second letter of each pair

Bell realised that a particle's Spin has the same inherent uncertainty as Location and velocity, and that this could be used to test the EPR paradox.

Now, if we replace clockwise and counter clockwise with colours it will be much easier to describe this test. Whenever our observations are correlated we will agree that we both observed the same colour. When our paired observations do not correlate we will agree that we see different colours

PROGRAM: (imprinting)

If you rack your detector into position A we will assume you always see BLACK.
If you rack your detector into position B you always see Blue
And if rack your detector into position C you will see Black.
Therefore A, B, C = Black, Blue, Black

We only need 2 colours because there are only 2 options clockwise, counterclockwise. This test works no matter what the order of the colours.

This will also be the same for me... Why ... Because the colours are imprinted when the two singlet particles are created according to EPR.

Now ... we will both observe numerous particles and we will observe them from randomly selected rack positions independent of each other. We will both keep a list of what we see and compare the lists afterwards .... Ready ... OK go ..... good

Now send me your list by PM .... OK .. Thanks .. I got it ... That was very quick ...... here is the comparison..

Willies Rack A = Black ------ Gregs Rack C = Black *
Willies Rack B = Blue ------- Gregs Rack A = Black
Willies Rack A = Black ------ Gregs Rack C = Black *

Willies Rack B = Blue ------- Gregs Rack B = Blue *
Willies Rack B = Blue ------- Gregs Rack A = Black
Willies Rack C = Black ------ Gregs Rack C = Black *

Willies Rack C = Black ------ Gregs Rack B = Blue
Willies Rack B = Blue ------- Gregs Rack A = Black *
Willies Rack A = Black ------ Gregs Rack C = Black *

and so on, and so on ... for as long as you like. In the test above we agreed six out of nine times (*). That is we agreed more than 50% of our random selections .... WHY ?? Did I hear you ask WHY ?

Well .... whenever we both randomly select the same position (A,A) we will always see the same colours because EPR says this is imprinted in the particles properties. So that will equal 33% of all random selections..

Accounted for so far = A,A -- B,B -- C,C = 33%

That leaves six of the nine random rack selections to account for
A,B -- A,C -- B,A -- B,C -- C,A -- C,B

Of the above six we can account for A,C and C,A because both these positions = Black. Therefore our observations from these 2 random selections had to correlate.

ERGO: we will always agree on five or more out of every nine selections. That means if we conduct the test numerous times for numerous runs we will always agree GREATER than 50% of the time.

CONCLUSION: If the properties of a particle are imprinted in the particle, regardless of the inadequacies of our own observations then random observations about the spin axis of singlet particles will ALWAYS correlate greater than 50%. On this statement EPR (and Willie, your first post) stands or falls.

Well, Willie ..... its been one hell of an effort to get this far. I hope I didn't lose you some where along the way ... because I have bloody well near lost myself.

I am stopping for a Beer Break .... and will continue with a new post ... In which I will post the Quantum interpretation of this test and prove that when this test is conducted at the Quantum Level the above conclusion is destroyed..

Stay tuned Willie, and if perchance you read this and have a question to ask, prior to my posting the absolutely stunning follow on post, then I suggest you slip it in quick time before I forget where I am. PM it if you like.

Cheers Mate .... Greg

[Graybeard]

Originally Posted by dleviwing Hi Greg; Your posts are meaningful and have contributed to the forum. I find your one black star has greater value than the 10 black stars acquired through frivolous posting of meaningless one liners. (I won’t mention names though) You deserve a gold star for the efforts and progress you’ve made in comprehending true science over the past two years. Well done mate! I’m surprised that you hung in there so long.

Dave ... Coming from you I take this as a true compliment indeed .... Thank you very much ....

Greg

PS: I hope i don't ruin it with my following explanation