[Graybeard]

Originally Posted by WillieB (Originally by Graybeard) --- (From post 26) “At this exact moment--- without any detection at all my particle also ‘antes up’ and takes on the spin opposite to its partner.” ---End Quote--- Graybeard, I really don’t understand this. How, absent detection, do we know that the “partner” took on an opposite spin? I’m not trying to be a SA I really can’t figure out how we reached that conclusion.

Willie ..... First of all .... you are not trying my patience at all ... nor, I hope, am I yours.

1. If we examine EPR: We know that the particle has a definite spin axis because it 'ante'd up' at the time of its creation or imprinting.
2. If we examine QM: We know the particle has no definite spin about any particular axis, but rather a probability distribution around all possible axis.
3. If point one is correct - we experimentally confirm this with a greater than 55% correlation around random selected axis (math proof only)
4. If point two is correct - we experimentally confirm this with a correlation of 50% around random selected axis (math proof only)

As we know ...

• Experimental proof ALWAYS confirms a 50% correlation.
• Therefore: Mathematical proof is established in support of QM.
• Therefore: We deduce that if we have detected Particle A as having clockwise spin and we do not immediately observe Particle B we know immediately and infallibly that Particle B has counter-clockwise spin.
• Therefore: We now possess this knowledge of Particle B
• Therefore we know that Particle B was forced to declare its spin at the time of Particle A's observation
• It is the obtaining of this knowledge that leads to the discussion of greater than light speed communication.

This instantaneous and enigmatic connection is also displayed in the Double-slit experiment and the Delayed-choice experiment

The problem now is .... Where do we find the logical explanation ... The maths , while making it clear, does not offer any logical explanation.

Willie ... I fear, like all of us, you continue to look for an explanation that suits your thought processes. All the issues that you now express were addressed in the ASPECT experiment which was the most successful of all experiments testing Bell's Theorem. I think it was in the 80's in France. You can check on the Wikipedia.

Willie .... I have added you to my Buddy List .... This will enable you to view a private entry in my blog (graybeards blog) This private entry consists of a single page of short statements ... I use it to remind me not to lose site of what I am trying to understand ... Its very useful to me .... it is by no means complete ... nor does it contain any quantum references yet. it will give you a different observation point of the differences of Science as opposed to our senses. leave me a comment ...

if you can't get into it for any reason let me know ..... greg

[WillieB]

Greg,

After rereading our recent posts I realize that if I am to continue to participate in similar forums that I must learn to be much more precise in my use of language. At this point you probably consider me to be just two steps short of being an idiot. Let me try to clarify my thinking.

First, I completely buy into the accuracy of Aspect’s experiments and, of course Bell's math is correct and the logic is sound – as far as it goes. The difference in my approach lies in my belief in the lack of preference in the polar orientation of the photon’s spin axis. In other words, when the photon enters the field of the detector it is just as likely to align its “north pole” toward the north pole of the sensor as it is to point it towards the south pole. Hence, given a sufficiently large sample, irrespective of the orientation of the poles of the sensor, one will measure precisely 50% of the spins to be counterclockwise and 50% to be clockwise.

I am quite comfortable with this logic as concerns photons for they carry no unbalanced charge. However, I am considerably less comfortable with the same logic when it comes to the electron and I am not sure that similar experiments have been carried out involving “entangled” electrons. Of course any certainty as to this conundrum would necessitate full knowledge of the structure of the electron in its particulate form which is beyond our ken at the present time.

I am so pleased that you are looking at my original paper. It is still very much a “work in progress” and I expect to continue adding to it and editing its content for the rest of my life.

My best, Bill

[Graybeard]

Originally Posted by WillieB In other words, when the photon enters the field of the detector it is just as likely to align its “north pole” toward the north pole of the sensor as it is to point it towards the south pole. Hence, given a sufficiently large sample, irrespective of the orientation of the poles of the sensor, one will measure precisely 50% of the spins to be counterclockwise and 50% to be clockwise.

Well ... Willie ... I am still working thru your paper ... I am having difficulty with the increment .... I have changed your drwg in my mind as it appears that this is only a 2-D rep.

Regards your last reply ..... I don't agree with the 50% ... using your north and south idea cannot equal 50%.

If 50% of the time the detectors come up north/north or south/south then we have already reached 50% correlation because they always agree in this alignment.... for every other time it comes up north/south or south/north it will either correlate or not (50% chance of either ... remember their imprinted .. they cannot change according to EPR) ..... each time they correlate it adds to the total correlation which has already reached 50%..... so your result will always be greater.

However I do agree that we have probably reached the end of this thread ... its been enjoyable and I thank you for the participation.

looked at your new thread but have no ideas ... good luck ... greg

NB: am not sure I understand your new thread so will wait until others make it clearer for me.

[WillieB]

May 20
Greg:

I am just beginning a rewrite on my paper. For me, that is a mammoth undertaking and it will be some time before it is ready. I would love to find a needy graduate student willing to undertake this chore. I would be willing to pay him or her handsomely (well, maybe not handsomely, but certainly adequately). Meanwhile, if you have not completely lost interest I would so appreciate any suggestions or criticisms that you may have.

I haven’t given up on producing a convincing explanation of quantum entanglement. I am still tossing it around in my mind. My present leaning is that it really does not exist and that it is a result of Heisenberg’s disturbance by measurement. But, who knows, it may come out differently.

Again, if you have really read the paper, please let me have any criticisms or comments.

Regards,

WillieB (Bill)

[Graybeard]

Willie (may 24) .... will get bak here soon

greg