163 views

Skip to first unread message

Oct 10, 2022, 1:20:43â€¯PM10/10/22

to

For background information about this price read this document:

(1) https://www.nobelprize.org/uploads/2022/10/advanced-physicsprize2022.pdf

One of the best documents, mentioned in this document, is the document

(2) https://escholarship.org/uc/item/1kb7660q by Carl Alvin Kocher in 1967.

This brilliant Ph. D. Thesis clearly explains the reaction involved how to

produce entangled photons. What this document indirect shows, is that to

demonstrate polarization correlation, no thought experiment can be used.

This document states: "A measurement made on one particle can affect the

result of a subsequent measurement on another particle of the same system,

even though the particles may be non-interacting and separated in space."

The question is if that is correct.

The point is, first you have to establish this correlation by performing

1000 experiments on both particles. The result will be that this reaction

produces 'always' 2 correlated photons. That does not mean that the

measurement of one affects the other. It is the specific reaction which

causes this correlation.

In document (1) at page 5 is written: "Schroedinger's cat is bizarre".

My first remark is that you can't do this experiment as a thought experiment,

but besides that you should try to perform this experiment as simple as

possible. This is a description:

Take a wooden box and place a cat, alive, in that box. Close the box.

After 5 minutes you open the box, and observe the state of the cat.

But before you open the box, the experimenter declares that the cat

is both alive and dead. It is not clear what he means. Because the state

of the cat is determined by the physical condition of the cat and how long

the cat is in the box. But not by any human involvement.

You can repeat this experiment 1000 times and observe the state of the cat

after 5 minutes, (or any duration) but always is the cat either alive or dead.

You can also replace the wooden box by box made from glass, but that makes

no difference for the final outcome. The only difference is when the cat

dies, you can establish the moment when this happens.

You can also make what happens inside the box more complex, but that does

not make any difference; you can't claim that the cat is in two states

simultaneous.

It also does not make sense to claim, that Schroedinger's cat would be

alive in one world and dead in another. See page 3. Such a statement can't

be tested by means of any experiment.

Nicolaas Vroom

https://www.nicvroom.be/

(1) https://www.nobelprize.org/uploads/2022/10/advanced-physicsprize2022.pdf

One of the best documents, mentioned in this document, is the document

(2) https://escholarship.org/uc/item/1kb7660q by Carl Alvin Kocher in 1967.

This brilliant Ph. D. Thesis clearly explains the reaction involved how to

produce entangled photons. What this document indirect shows, is that to

demonstrate polarization correlation, no thought experiment can be used.

This document states: "A measurement made on one particle can affect the

result of a subsequent measurement on another particle of the same system,

even though the particles may be non-interacting and separated in space."

The question is if that is correct.

The point is, first you have to establish this correlation by performing

1000 experiments on both particles. The result will be that this reaction

produces 'always' 2 correlated photons. That does not mean that the

measurement of one affects the other. It is the specific reaction which

causes this correlation.

In document (1) at page 5 is written: "Schroedinger's cat is bizarre".

My first remark is that you can't do this experiment as a thought experiment,

but besides that you should try to perform this experiment as simple as

possible. This is a description:

Take a wooden box and place a cat, alive, in that box. Close the box.

After 5 minutes you open the box, and observe the state of the cat.

But before you open the box, the experimenter declares that the cat

is both alive and dead. It is not clear what he means. Because the state

of the cat is determined by the physical condition of the cat and how long

the cat is in the box. But not by any human involvement.

You can repeat this experiment 1000 times and observe the state of the cat

after 5 minutes, (or any duration) but always is the cat either alive or dead.

You can also replace the wooden box by box made from glass, but that makes

no difference for the final outcome. The only difference is when the cat

dies, you can establish the moment when this happens.

You can also make what happens inside the box more complex, but that does

not make any difference; you can't claim that the cat is in two states

simultaneous.

It also does not make sense to claim, that Schroedinger's cat would be

alive in one world and dead in another. See page 3. Such a statement can't

be tested by means of any experiment.

Nicolaas Vroom

https://www.nicvroom.be/

Oct 13, 2022, 3:59:07â€¯PM10/13/22

to

On Monday, October 10, 2022 at 6:20:43 PM UTC+1, nicolaa... wrote:

[[Mod. note -- 40 excessively-quoted lines snipped here. -- jt]]

I am an amateur physicist, just at the point of calling it a day. I have

a few days ago put online my final physics paper: on preons and Bell's

experiment. So I hope you allow this post as a swan song.

Of course the experimentalists have worked well for their prizes. But the

theoreticians still have work to do on this topic.

In the late 1960s I read a book about quantum particles on the magical

world of Mr Tomkins. It was very exciting at the time but I now believe

it is very wrong physics. Particle entanglement of states is merely a sign

that calculations and observations cannot separate two items of raw data,

instead only the average is available. The raw data are not available for

entanglement, only the statistical, average value data are available.

Forget dead/alive cats as that is a distraction (and a waste of time).

Consider particles entangled with one another and with unknown spin

states. The most believable assumption in my opinion is that nothing

travels faster than light. Associated with this assumption is that

retrocausality is the key to this problem.

The implication of retrocausality is that quantum computers have no

foundation in physics as particle always have local hidden variables.

Also that time is two-way at the microscopic level. It is possible that

quantum cryptography is supported by retrocausality as there is an

apparent action at a distance despite nothing physically travelling faster

than light locally.

Austin Fearnley

[[Mod. note -- 40 excessively-quoted lines snipped here. -- jt]]

I am an amateur physicist, just at the point of calling it a day. I have

a few days ago put online my final physics paper: on preons and Bell's

experiment. So I hope you allow this post as a swan song.

Of course the experimentalists have worked well for their prizes. But the

theoreticians still have work to do on this topic.

In the late 1960s I read a book about quantum particles on the magical

world of Mr Tomkins. It was very exciting at the time but I now believe

it is very wrong physics. Particle entanglement of states is merely a sign

that calculations and observations cannot separate two items of raw data,

instead only the average is available. The raw data are not available for

entanglement, only the statistical, average value data are available.

Forget dead/alive cats as that is a distraction (and a waste of time).

Consider particles entangled with one another and with unknown spin

states. The most believable assumption in my opinion is that nothing

travels faster than light. Associated with this assumption is that

retrocausality is the key to this problem.

The implication of retrocausality is that quantum computers have no

foundation in physics as particle always have local hidden variables.

Also that time is two-way at the microscopic level. It is possible that

quantum cryptography is supported by retrocausality as there is an

apparent action at a distance despite nothing physically travelling faster

than light locally.

Austin Fearnley

Oct 16, 2022, 8:09:04â€¯AM10/16/22

to

On Thursday, October 13, 2022 at 2:59:07 PM UTC-5, Austin Fearnley wrote:

>...

>...The most believable assumption in my opinion is that nothing

I think I am in general agreement with you. If you assume no

communication of any kind faster than the speed of light then

"retrocausality" or "superdeterminism" are the natural conclusions. If,

on the other hand you accept faster than light coordination between two

distant detection events you necessarily have an ambiguous causality

sequence, which I don't like.

It appears to me that while there are a significant number of physicists

that accept, or are willing to consider, retrocausality, it is still not

a mainstream concept among physicists. I think the hesitation is

related to the idea of free will and the ability to determine your own

future. Unfortunately this is probably on the boarder of proper science

since it may be untestable and unfalsifiable. I would be very

interested in an idea for testing these ideas experimentally in a more

transparent way than the entanglement experiments.

Rich L.

>...

>...The most believable assumption in my opinion is that nothing

> travels faster than light. Associated with this assumption is that

> retrocausality is the key to this problem.

>

> The implication of retrocausality is that quantum computers have no

> foundation in physics as particle always have local hidden variables.

> Also that time is two-way at the microscopic level. It is possible that

> quantum cryptography is supported by retrocausality as there is an

> apparent action at a distance despite nothing physically travelling faster

> than light locally.

>

> Austin Fearnley

Austin,
> retrocausality is the key to this problem.

>

> The implication of retrocausality is that quantum computers have no

> foundation in physics as particle always have local hidden variables.

> Also that time is two-way at the microscopic level. It is possible that

> quantum cryptography is supported by retrocausality as there is an

> apparent action at a distance despite nothing physically travelling faster

> than light locally.

>

> Austin Fearnley

I think I am in general agreement with you. If you assume no

communication of any kind faster than the speed of light then

"retrocausality" or "superdeterminism" are the natural conclusions. If,

on the other hand you accept faster than light coordination between two

distant detection events you necessarily have an ambiguous causality

sequence, which I don't like.

It appears to me that while there are a significant number of physicists

that accept, or are willing to consider, retrocausality, it is still not

a mainstream concept among physicists. I think the hesitation is

related to the idea of free will and the ability to determine your own

future. Unfortunately this is probably on the boarder of proper science

since it may be untestable and unfalsifiable. I would be very

interested in an idea for testing these ideas experimentally in a more

transparent way than the entanglement experiments.

Rich L.

Oct 16, 2022, 6:11:30â€¯PM10/16/22

to

On Monday, 10 October 2022 at 19:20:43 UTC+2, nicolaa...@pandora.be wrote:

<snipped>

rather the gist of Schroedinger's paradox, that *the

theory* says the cat *is in a superposition of states*,

and what the "paradoxical" consequences of taking

the theory at face value, i.e. for serious, may be.

So, it is not clear what *the theory* means: which,

as I have been explaining in another recent thread,

overall is a question and an issue of ontology...

Julio

<snipped>

> But before you open the box, the experimenter declares that the cat

> is both alive and dead. It is not clear what he means.

That is not what "the experimenter declares", that is
> is both alive and dead. It is not clear what he means.

rather the gist of Schroedinger's paradox, that *the

theory* says the cat *is in a superposition of states*,

and what the "paradoxical" consequences of taking

the theory at face value, i.e. for serious, may be.

So, it is not clear what *the theory* means: which,

as I have been explaining in another recent thread,

overall is a question and an issue of ontology...

Julio

Oct 17, 2022, 3:10:38â€¯AM10/17/22

to

On 10/16/22 7:09 AM, Richard Livingston wrote:

> On Thursday, October 13, 2022 at 2:59:07 PM UTC-5, Austin Fearnley

> wrote:

>> [...]
> On Thursday, October 13, 2022 at 2:59:07 PM UTC-5, Austin Fearnley

> wrote:

You are both overthinking this.

Consider a generic experiment on quantum entanglement: Two particles are

created at event A in an entangled state, they are separated and

transported to events B and C, where their individual properties are

measured; B and C are spacelike-separated events.

It is observed that:

a) one cannot predict the outcome of either measurement

b) when the results of the two measurements are brought together

and compared, they are found to have the same correlation as

when the particles remain at A and are measured there

simultaneously.

Why would anyone think "retrocausality" is involved here? The path of

causality is quite clear: from A to B and independently from A to C --

there is no causal link between B and C. The fact that the particles at

B and C have a property that is correlated is curious, and violates

classical notions of locality, but is not any sort of refutation of

causality.

The source of this confusion is clear: thinking these are "individual

properties", when in fact such ENTANGLED properties are not individual

to the two particles.

Tom Roberts

Oct 17, 2022, 11:20:30â€¯AM10/17/22

to

On Monday, October 17, 2022 at 2:10:38 AM UTC-5, Tom Roberts wrote:

> On 10/16/22 7:09 AM, Richard Livingston wrote:

> > On Thursday, October 13, 2022 at 2:59:07 PM UTC-5, Austin Fearnley

> > wrote:

> >> [...]

>

> You are both overthinking this.

> ...
> On 10/16/22 7:09 AM, Richard Livingston wrote:

> > On Thursday, October 13, 2022 at 2:59:07 PM UTC-5, Austin Fearnley

> > wrote:

> >> [...]

>

> You are both overthinking this.

> The source of this confusion is clear: thinking these are "individual

> properties", when in fact such ENTANGLED properties are not individual

> to the two particles.

>

> Tom Roberts

I disagree, I believe there is something to understand about how these
> properties", when in fact such ENTANGLED properties are not individual

> to the two particles.

>

> Tom Roberts

correlations are maintained over such space-time separations.

I believe the point of view of QM is that the two "entangled" particles are

in effect a single thing. Certainly the math treats it that way. Suskind et

al. have speculated that the two particles are connected by a wormhole,

and thus they are able to coordinate their behaviors over spatially

separated space-time distances. I'm skeptical of this idea for several

reasons: 1) wormholes have never been observed, 2) wormholes are

a speculated GR effect and it isn't clear to me that photons can have

the energy density to warp space-time as required, and 3) it treats

photons as localized particles, which I think is a big misconception.

But I don't know, nobody does yet.

The reason I think there is something to understand here is that the

coordination of results is clearly not a local effect. The state of the

detectors have been changed randomly and rapidly in some

experiments and still the required correlations observed. Some

how the correlations were preserved even when the detection

conditions changed after emission. This requires either that the

detection events coordinated their response (at faster than the

speed of light) or that the detection events somehow affected the

properties of the emitted photons (i.e. retro-causality).

These ideas are controversial because they are so counter

to our everyday experience. Just saying that the correlations

happen is ignoring the question of how they happen. While it

appears that many physicists choose to not question the mysteries

of QM, I think that is ignoring the possibility of discovering new

physics. It might be like saying Newtonian gravity is the final

law and ignoring the small unexplained precision of Mercury.

We should ALWAYS wonder if there is another layer to be

discovered.

Rich L.

Oct 18, 2022, 3:30:36â€¯AM10/18/22

to

On Monday, October 17, 2022 at 4:20:30 PM UTC+1, richali... wrote:

...

Richard wrote:

" .... I think the hesitation is related to the idea of free will

framework of deterministic calculations that the universe

appears to need. Chaos can be introduced into calculations

using non linear equations but chaos is not free will? One

would need guided-by-free-will use of non-linear equations.

Anyway, I am hanging up my Physics hat and at 73 years

of age feel that I am now too old to work hard enough on physics.

You mention testing. I have obviously thought, but without

success, about how to test whether antiparticles are

travelling backwards in time. For an antiparticle, under my

assumption, the polarisation vector changes from a random

vector to vector d or -d (= detector setting vector) at

measurement, in the antiparticle's own, reversed time

direction. This appears to be a change from vector d or -d

to a random polarisation in the forward time direction.

Adding extra test measurements before or after the main

measurement would always seem to me to interfere too

much and ruin the test.

I am glad you responded to Tom as I could not have

responded so well.

Tom: "The fact that the particles at B and C have a

Bob: seems darned well spooky to me

My own speculation about Susskind's wormhole

connection is that particles are in dS while antiparticles

are in AdS. This is complicated in my preon model

where each and every particle has both forwards and

backwards-in-time preons within it. Entanglement

(of particle and antiparticle) is probably involved in

construction of spacetime metrics as the metric forms

in the zone where both dS and AdS meet which has

minimal curvature. But that speculation is probably

rubbish. Although most particles are matter, they

overall have an equal number of (my) preons and

antipreons within them. So the loss of antimatter is

caused by spontaneous symmetry breaking in forming

elementary particles from preons.

...

Richard wrote:

" .... I think the hesitation is related to the idea of free will

and the ability to determine your own future. Unfortunately

this is probably on the border of proper science since it
may be untestable and unfalsifiable. I would be very

interested in an idea for testing these ideas experimentally

in a more transparent way than the entanglement experiments. "

I have no ideas about how to introduce free will into a
interested in an idea for testing these ideas experimentally

in a more transparent way than the entanglement experiments. "

framework of deterministic calculations that the universe

appears to need. Chaos can be introduced into calculations

using non linear equations but chaos is not free will? One

would need guided-by-free-will use of non-linear equations.

Anyway, I am hanging up my Physics hat and at 73 years

of age feel that I am now too old to work hard enough on physics.

You mention testing. I have obviously thought, but without

success, about how to test whether antiparticles are

travelling backwards in time. For an antiparticle, under my

assumption, the polarisation vector changes from a random

vector to vector d or -d (= detector setting vector) at

measurement, in the antiparticle's own, reversed time

direction. This appears to be a change from vector d or -d

to a random polarisation in the forward time direction.

Adding extra test measurements before or after the main

measurement would always seem to me to interfere too

much and ruin the test.

I am glad you responded to Tom as I could not have

responded so well.

Tom: "The fact that the particles at B and C have a

property that is correlated is curious"

Alice: curiouser and curiouser
Bob: seems darned well spooky to me

My own speculation about Susskind's wormhole

connection is that particles are in dS while antiparticles

are in AdS. This is complicated in my preon model

where each and every particle has both forwards and

backwards-in-time preons within it. Entanglement

(of particle and antiparticle) is probably involved in

construction of spacetime metrics as the metric forms

in the zone where both dS and AdS meet which has

minimal curvature. But that speculation is probably

rubbish. Although most particles are matter, they

overall have an equal number of (my) preons and

antipreons within them. So the loss of antimatter is

caused by spontaneous symmetry breaking in forming

elementary particles from preons.

Oct 18, 2022, 3:00:38â€¯PM10/18/22

to

Austin Fearnley <ben...@hotmail.com> writes:

>I have no ideas about how to introduce free will into a

What do you mean by "free will"?
>I have no ideas about how to introduce free will into a

Oct 21, 2022, 4:12:16â€¯PM10/21/22

to

Op maandag 17 oktober 2022 om 09:10:38 UTC+2 schreef Tom Roberts:

> Consider a generic experiment on quantum entanglement: Two particles

> are created at event A in an entangled state, they are separated and

> transported to events B and C, where their individual properties are

> measured; B and C are spacelike-separated events.

What I understand is that you perform an experiment which involves

entangeled particles in two ways:

(See https://escholarship.org/uc/item/1kb7660q by Carl Alvin Kocher in

1967. This thesis explains the reaction involved how to produce

entangled photons.)

First local. The two particles are created as event A and local

measured as event A1 and A2. Both particles are correlated in the sense

when event A1 indicates up, event A2 indicates down.

Secondly more global. The two particles are created as event A and

measured at a certain distance as event B and C. Both particles are

correlated in the sense when event B indicates up, event C indicates

down.

> It is observed that:

a distance of 1m or 100m

> Why would anyone think "retrocausality" is involved here? The path of

> causality is quite clear: from A to B and independently from A to C --

> there is no causal link between B and C.

The cause of the the correlation is in the process at A. That is all

what is important.

> The fact that the particles at

> The source of this confusion is clear: thinking these are "individual

> properties", when in fact such ENTANGLED properties are not

> individual to the two particles.

The only thing that is important that both particles, in this special

case, have a spin, and that the spins are correlated.

The word property is misleading.

It is also important to understand that as a result of this specific

reaction, it is not required to perform any measurement to assume that

the two particles are correlated. Based on this concept, when any

particle is measured the spin of the other particle is known.

No physical process, or action, or link is involved.

https://www.nicvroom.be/

Nicolaas Vroom

> Consider a generic experiment on quantum entanglement: Two particles

> are created at event A in an entangled state, they are separated and

> transported to events B and C, where their individual properties are

> measured; B and C are spacelike-separated events.

entangeled particles in two ways:

(See https://escholarship.org/uc/item/1kb7660q by Carl Alvin Kocher in

1967. This thesis explains the reaction involved how to produce

entangled photons.)

First local. The two particles are created as event A and local

measured as event A1 and A2. Both particles are correlated in the sense

when event A1 indicates up, event A2 indicates down.

Secondly more global. The two particles are created as event A and

measured at a certain distance as event B and C. Both particles are

correlated in the sense when event B indicates up, event C indicates

down.

> It is observed that:

> b) when the results of the two measurements are brought together

> and compared, they are found to have the same correlation as

> when the particles remain at A and are measured there

> simultaneously.

In short there is no difference if the particles are measured at
> and compared, they are found to have the same correlation as

> when the particles remain at A and are measured there

> simultaneously.

a distance of 1m or 100m

> Why would anyone think "retrocausality" is involved here? The path of

> causality is quite clear: from A to B and independently from A to C --

> there is no causal link between B and C.

what is important.

> The fact that the particles at

> B and C have a property that is correlated is curious, and violates

> classical notions of locality, but is not any sort of refutation of

> causality.

To mention the concepts locality and causality is not relevent.
> classical notions of locality, but is not any sort of refutation of

> causality.

> The source of this confusion is clear: thinking these are "individual

> properties", when in fact such ENTANGLED properties are not

> individual to the two particles.

case, have a spin, and that the spins are correlated.

The word property is misleading.

It is also important to understand that as a result of this specific

reaction, it is not required to perform any measurement to assume that

the two particles are correlated. Based on this concept, when any

particle is measured the spin of the other particle is known.

No physical process, or action, or link is involved.

https://www.nicvroom.be/

Nicolaas Vroom

Oct 24, 2022, 3:20:29â€¯AM10/24/22

to

the measurement of spin are in the same axis or perpendicular axes. The

results of such measurements can be explained by a simple hidden

variable model.

However, once measurements are made on axes at other angles to each

other, the correlations are no longer explainable that way, and locality

is brought into question.

Sylvia.

Oct 24, 2022, 7:05:14â€¯PM10/24/22

to

Op maandag 17 oktober 2022 om 17:20:30 UTC+2 schreef richali.@gmail.com:

There is also something what is called decoherence

> I believe the point of view of QM is that the two "entangled"

> particles are in effect a single thing.

That can never be part of the QM, because the concept 'a single thing'

is not clear.

> Certainly, the math treats it that way.

Mathematics can consider the two particles as correlated, but that

does not explain any physical interpretation.

by itself creates only a new problem i.e., what is a wormhole?

> I'm sceptical of this idea for several reasons:

okay.

> The reason I think there is something to understand here is that the

> coordination of results is clearly not a local effect.

The cause of the correlations is a local effect.

> These ideas are controversial because they are so counter

> to our everyday experience. Just saying that the correlations

> happen is ignoring the question of how they happen.

Read this document:

This raises certain philosophical thoughts.

Suppose that nobody knows that the two particles are correlated.

1)Suppose that the experiment is performed for the first time and that

one photon is observed.

2)Suppose that the experiment for a second time is performed and that

it is observed that not one but two photons are created and observed.

3) suppose that the experiment is performed for a third (and fourth)

time and now it is established that the two photons are correlated.

The question is now: when any photon is measured, does that measurement

influence the measurement of the other photon?

Suppose in case 2 the experiment is surrounded by a sphere of CCD's.

In that case in each experiment two of these CCD's will be triggered.

I doubt if any of these two events will influence the other one.

IMO there exist no physical link.

In case 3 the measurement equipment is more complex to establish the

correlation between the photons. That means you both have to measure

the fact that there are photons involved and the direction of the spin

in either the x, y or z direction.

Also, in this case there is no reason to assume that the measurement

of the spin-direction of one photon influences the spin-direction

of the other photon.

Suppose, (1) based on multiple experiments, that the direction of the

two photons created is always in one line, but in opposite directions.

Do you think, that (2) when a mirror is placed in one path and the

photon will be reflected, that (3) the direction, of an other photon

(without a mirror) also will be 'reflected'.

IMO the answer is No.

https://wwww.nicvroom.be/

> I disagree, I believe there is something to understand about how these

> correlations are maintained over such space-time separations.

These correlations are not maintained.
> correlations are maintained over such space-time separations.

There is also something what is called decoherence

> I believe the point of view of QM is that the two "entangled"

> particles are in effect a single thing.

is not clear.

> Certainly, the math treats it that way.

Mathematics can consider the two particles as correlated, but that

does not explain any physical interpretation.

> Suskind et al. have speculated that the two particles are connected

> by a wormhole, and thus they are able to coordinate their behaviours
> over spatially separated space-time distances.

Suskind could have introduced a new concept: wormhole. But that
by itself creates only a new problem i.e., what is a wormhole?

> I'm sceptical of this idea for several reasons:

okay.

> The reason I think there is something to understand here is that the

> coordination of results is clearly not a local effect.

> These ideas are controversial because they are so counter

> to our everyday experience. Just saying that the correlations

> happen is ignoring the question of how they happen.

https://escholarship.org/uc/item/1kb7660q by Carl Alvin Kocher in 1967.

What this reaction does: it creates two photons which are correlated.
This raises certain philosophical thoughts.

Suppose that nobody knows that the two particles are correlated.

1)Suppose that the experiment is performed for the first time and that

one photon is observed.

2)Suppose that the experiment for a second time is performed and that

it is observed that not one but two photons are created and observed.

3) suppose that the experiment is performed for a third (and fourth)

time and now it is established that the two photons are correlated.

The question is now: when any photon is measured, does that measurement

influence the measurement of the other photon?

Suppose in case 2 the experiment is surrounded by a sphere of CCD's.

In that case in each experiment two of these CCD's will be triggered.

I doubt if any of these two events will influence the other one.

IMO there exist no physical link.

In case 3 the measurement equipment is more complex to establish the

correlation between the photons. That means you both have to measure

the fact that there are photons involved and the direction of the spin

in either the x, y or z direction.

Also, in this case there is no reason to assume that the measurement

of the spin-direction of one photon influences the spin-direction

of the other photon.

Suppose, (1) based on multiple experiments, that the direction of the

two photons created is always in one line, but in opposite directions.

Do you think, that (2) when a mirror is placed in one path and the

photon will be reflected, that (3) the direction, of an other photon

(without a mirror) also will be 'reflected'.

IMO the answer is No.

https://wwww.nicvroom.be/

Oct 29, 2022, 4:49:53â€¯PM10/29/22

to

Nobel price physics 2022.

Op maandag 24 oktober 2022 om 09:20:29 UTC+2 schreef Sylvia Else:

> > (See https://escholarship.org/uc/item/1kb7660q by Carl Alvin Kocher

> > in 1967. This thesis explains the reaction involved how to produce

> > entangled photons.)

> You've assumed that the only situations of interest are the cases where

> the measurement of spin are in the same axis or perpendicular axes. The

> results of such measurements can be explained by a simple hidden

> variable model.

My main interest is the document mentioned above and to test the reaction,

if spins in the same axis are correlated.

The correlation is such when the spin of one particle in the x direction

is up the spin in the other particle (in the x direction) is down.

That being the case the explanation of the correlation is part of the

reaction as explained in the thesis.

No hidden variable model if required.

Anyway the correlation is not caused by the measurement.

If you think a hidden variable model is required than please explain

what that means for this specific reaction.

> However, once measurements are made on axes at other angles to each

> other, the correlations are no longer explainable that way, and

> locality is brought into question.

In case one particle is measured in the x-direction and the other particle

in the y-direction (or z-direction) there is no correlation in the results.

Please explain when locality is required.

Nicolaas Vroom

https://www.nicvroom.be/

Op maandag 24 oktober 2022 om 09:20:29 UTC+2 schreef Sylvia Else:

> On 22-Oct-22 7:12 am, Nicolaas Vroom wrote:

> > Op maandag 17 oktober 2022 om 09:10:38 UTC+2 schreef Tom Roberts:

> >

> >> Consider a generic experiment on quantum entanglement: Two

> >> particles are created at event A in an entangled state, they are

> >> separated and transported to events B and C, where their

> >> individual properties are measured.
> > Op maandag 17 oktober 2022 om 09:10:38 UTC+2 schreef Tom Roberts:

> >

> >> Consider a generic experiment on quantum entanglement: Two

> >> particles are created at event A in an entangled state, they are

> >> separated and transported to events B and C, where their

> >

> > What I understand is that you perform an experiment which involves

> > entangled particles in two ways:
> > What I understand is that you perform an experiment which involves

> > (See https://escholarship.org/uc/item/1kb7660q by Carl Alvin Kocher

> > in 1967. This thesis explains the reaction involved how to produce

> > entangled photons.)

> You've assumed that the only situations of interest are the cases where

> the measurement of spin are in the same axis or perpendicular axes. The

> results of such measurements can be explained by a simple hidden

> variable model.

if spins in the same axis are correlated.

The correlation is such when the spin of one particle in the x direction

is up the spin in the other particle (in the x direction) is down.

That being the case the explanation of the correlation is part of the

reaction as explained in the thesis.

No hidden variable model if required.

Anyway the correlation is not caused by the measurement.

If you think a hidden variable model is required than please explain

what that means for this specific reaction.

> However, once measurements are made on axes at other angles to each

> other, the correlations are no longer explainable that way, and

> locality is brought into question.

in the y-direction (or z-direction) there is no correlation in the results.

Please explain when locality is required.

Nicolaas Vroom

https://www.nicvroom.be/

Nov 1, 2022, 4:15:51â€¯AM11/1/22

to

In article <jrlron...@mid.individual.net>, Sylvia Else

physicists---such as a disk broken in a "random" way (the jagged edges

of each are "correlated"---yes, I really did see that used as an

example) are too simple and misleading and don't grasp the essential

concept.

Here is something in-between. It's wrong, but more involved than the

simple examples. Showing why real correlation is "more" than this might

help to understand it.

Imagine that a vector can have any orientation between 0 and 360

degrees. If it is between 270 and 90, the measurement result is "up".

If between 0 and 180, "right", 90 and 270 "down" and 180 and 360 "left".

Two correlated vectors have opposite directions.

If I measure one to have "up", then I know that the other is "down", but

can't say whether it is "left" or "right". And so on. But if I measure

it to be "right", I know that the other is "left", but can't say whether

it is "up" or "down". I am also free to choose which 90 degrees

correspond to, say, "up".

That model explains many popular presentations of quantum correlation,

but what is the "more" which is actually observed? Is such a model the

simple hidden-variable model mentioned above?

<syl...@email.invalid> writes:

> On 22-Oct-22 7:12 am, Nicolaas Vroom wrote:

>> Op maandag 17 oktober 2022 om 09:10:38 UTC+2 schreef Tom Roberts:

>>

>>> Consider a generic experiment on quantum entanglement: Two particles

>>> are created at event A in an entangled state, they are separated and

>>> transported to events B and C, where their individual properties are

>>> measured; B and C are spacelike-separated events.

> On 22-Oct-22 7:12 am, Nicolaas Vroom wrote:

>> Op maandag 17 oktober 2022 om 09:10:38 UTC+2 schreef Tom Roberts:

>>

>>> Consider a generic experiment on quantum entanglement: Two particles

>>> are created at event A in an entangled state, they are separated and

>>> transported to events B and C, where their individual properties are

>>> measured; B and C are spacelike-separated events.

>> It is also important to understand that as a result of this specific

>> reaction, it is not required to perform any measurement to assume that

>> the two particles are correlated. Based on this concept, when any

>> particle is measured the spin of the other particle is known.

>> No physical process, or action, or link is involved.

>> reaction, it is not required to perform any measurement to assume that

>> the two particles are correlated. Based on this concept, when any

>> particle is measured the spin of the other particle is known.

>> No physical process, or action, or link is involved.

> You've assumed that the only situations of interest are the cases where

> the measurement of spin are in the same axis or perpendicular axes. The

> results of such measurements can be explained by a simple hidden

> variable model.

>

> However, once measurements are made on axes at other angles to each

> other, the correlations are no longer explainable that way, and locality

> is brought into question.

Reality is complex, but examples---sometimes even from professional
> the measurement of spin are in the same axis or perpendicular axes. The

> results of such measurements can be explained by a simple hidden

> variable model.

>

> However, once measurements are made on axes at other angles to each

> other, the correlations are no longer explainable that way, and locality

> is brought into question.

physicists---such as a disk broken in a "random" way (the jagged edges

of each are "correlated"---yes, I really did see that used as an

example) are too simple and misleading and don't grasp the essential

concept.

Here is something in-between. It's wrong, but more involved than the

simple examples. Showing why real correlation is "more" than this might

help to understand it.

Imagine that a vector can have any orientation between 0 and 360

degrees. If it is between 270 and 90, the measurement result is "up".

If between 0 and 180, "right", 90 and 270 "down" and 180 and 360 "left".

Two correlated vectors have opposite directions.

If I measure one to have "up", then I know that the other is "down", but

can't say whether it is "left" or "right". And so on. But if I measure

it to be "right", I know that the other is "left", but can't say whether

it is "up" or "down". I am also free to choose which 90 degrees

correspond to, say, "up".

That model explains many popular presentations of quantum correlation,

but what is the "more" which is actually observed? Is such a model the

simple hidden-variable model mentioned above?

Nov 1, 2022, 8:04:29â€¯AM11/1/22

to

On Tuesday, November 1, 2022 at 8:15:51 AM UTC, Phillip Helbig (undress to reply) wrote: <snip>

Phillip wrote that: "Two correlated vectors have opposite directions".

In classical calculations the exact correlation between any two vectors

is the cosine of the angle between the two vectors. In a Bell

experiment the angle (between the two detector settings) could be say 45

degrees leading to an expected classical correlation of -0.707. In a

large scale [hidden variables] computer simulation in 2017 based on one

million pairs of particles, I found the correlation to be

[-]0.499454164. So so why did I not obtain the larger correlation of

0.707 rather than the attenuated correlation of 0.5?

The attenuated correlation is caused by the quantised input values of +1

or -1 for the particle pairs orientations which are caused by the QM

nature of the particle measurements. Say the first particle pair had the

electron oriented along 5 degrees and the positron orient along 185

degrees. Then if Alice measures along her detector setting of zero

degrees, her measurement of the electron is exactly +1. But the exact

classical correlation would require an exact measurement or projection

of 5 degrees onto zero degrees. That is near 1.000 but not exactly so

and its exact value is a little less. Using the exact values in 2017

for a million particle pairs gave a correlation of 0.707258632 whereas

using the integer values had given 0.499454164. The exact values are

never known except in a simulation, so in the simulation trying to

reflect a real experiment by using integer measurements the correlation

is attenuated to 0.500.

The real experiments of 2015 however produce correlations significantly

greater than 0.5. That is the 'more' and it does look spooky. I have

my own answer which I have already written about here.

Phillip wrote that: "Two correlated vectors have opposite directions".

In classical calculations the exact correlation between any two vectors

is the cosine of the angle between the two vectors. In a Bell

experiment the angle (between the two detector settings) could be say 45

degrees leading to an expected classical correlation of -0.707. In a

large scale [hidden variables] computer simulation in 2017 based on one

million pairs of particles, I found the correlation to be

[-]0.499454164. So so why did I not obtain the larger correlation of

0.707 rather than the attenuated correlation of 0.5?

The attenuated correlation is caused by the quantised input values of +1

or -1 for the particle pairs orientations which are caused by the QM

nature of the particle measurements. Say the first particle pair had the

electron oriented along 5 degrees and the positron orient along 185

degrees. Then if Alice measures along her detector setting of zero

degrees, her measurement of the electron is exactly +1. But the exact

classical correlation would require an exact measurement or projection

of 5 degrees onto zero degrees. That is near 1.000 but not exactly so

and its exact value is a little less. Using the exact values in 2017

for a million particle pairs gave a correlation of 0.707258632 whereas

using the integer values had given 0.499454164. The exact values are

never known except in a simulation, so in the simulation trying to

reflect a real experiment by using integer measurements the correlation

is attenuated to 0.500.

The real experiments of 2015 however produce correlations significantly

greater than 0.5. That is the 'more' and it does look spooky. I have

my own answer which I have already written about here.

Nov 1, 2022, 10:24:49â€¯AM11/1/22

to

On 31/10/2022 18:08, Phillip Helbig (undress to reply) wrote:

> Reality is complex, but examples---sometimes even from professional

> physicists---such as a disk broken in a "random" way (the jagged edges

> of each are "correlated"---yes, I really did see that used as an

> example) are too simple and misleading and don't grasp the essential

> concept.

>

> Here is something in-between. It's wrong, but more involved than the

> simple examples. Showing why real correlation is "more" than this might

> help to understand it.

>

> Imagine that a vector can have any orientation between 0 and 360

> degrees. If it is between 270 and 90, the measurement result is "up".

> If between 0 and 180, "right", 90 and 270 "down" and 180 and 360 "left".

>

> Two correlated vectors have opposite directions.

>

> If I measure one to have "up", then I know that the other is "down", but

> can't say whether it is "left" or "right". And so on. But if I measure

> it to be "right", I know that the other is "left", but can't say whether

> it is "up" or "down". I am also free to choose which 90 degrees

> correspond to, say, "up".

>

> That model explains many popular presentations of quantum correlation,

> but what is the "more" which is actually observed? Is such a model the

> simple hidden-variable model mentioned above?

>

In a way it is. You only have to specify a probability distribution of
> Reality is complex, but examples---sometimes even from professional

> physicists---such as a disk broken in a "random" way (the jagged edges

> of each are "correlated"---yes, I really did see that used as an

> example) are too simple and misleading and don't grasp the essential

> concept.

>

> Here is something in-between. It's wrong, but more involved than the

> simple examples. Showing why real correlation is "more" than this might

> help to understand it.

>

> Imagine that a vector can have any orientation between 0 and 360

> degrees. If it is between 270 and 90, the measurement result is "up".

> If between 0 and 180, "right", 90 and 270 "down" and 180 and 360 "left".

>

> Two correlated vectors have opposite directions.

>

> If I measure one to have "up", then I know that the other is "down", but

> can't say whether it is "left" or "right". And so on. But if I measure

> it to be "right", I know that the other is "left", but can't say whether

> it is "up" or "down". I am also free to choose which 90 degrees

> correspond to, say, "up".

>

> That model explains many popular presentations of quantum correlation,

> but what is the "more" which is actually observed? Is such a model the

> simple hidden-variable model mentioned above?

>

the hidden variables as Bell did in his famous paper in Physica and

assume "locality". Then you have what he calls a "local realistic

hidden-variable theory".

The point of all the debates on the EPR paper, which is just

philosophical and not science, be cause it doesn't provide any

quantitative prediction which can be tested empirically. This has been

achieved by Bell with his inequality based on a set of spin measurements

on a system of two entangled spins 1/2.

The point, which distinguishes QT from any such "local realistic

theories" is that the measured single-particle spin components are not

taking determined values due to the preparation of the two-particle

system in an entangled "Bell state", which is a pure state such that the

single-particle spin components are maximally uncertain, i.e., the

reduced statistical oparator of each single-particle spin is simply

describing ideally unpolarized particles, i.e., the single-spin density

matrix is 1/2 \hat{1}. Nevertheless the measurement of any combination

of spin components is strongly correlated. If you measure both spin

components in the same direction it's (for the singlet Bell state) 100%

sure that if you measure "spin up" for one particle, the other must come

upt with "spin down" and vice versa.

Choosing a set of measurements of spin components in different

well-chosen directions you find violations of Bell's inequalities and

thus disprove local realistic theories.

My interpretation is that, what you have to give up is "realism", i.e.,

the assumption that there are hidden variables which make all

observables determined no matter in which state the observed system is

prepared in.

On the other hand locality is obeyed by relativistic quantum field

theory. In fact it's one of the important fundamental building blocks

underlying such QFTs, i.e., the assumption that operators that represent

local observables must commute at space-like separation of their

arguments. Particularly all local observables must commute with the

Hamilton density at space-like separation of their arguments and thus

there cannot be any causal connection between space-like separated

events. Particularly if the spin measurements on entangled particles

discussed above are made at space-like separated "measurement events"

("detector clicks") one can be sure that, within local relativistic QFT,

there cannot have been any causal influence of one measurement on the other.

--

Hendrik van Hees

Goethe University (Institute for Theoretical Physics)

D-60438 Frankfurt am Main

http://itp.uni-frankfurt.de/~hees/

Nov 8, 2022, 11:35:21â€¯AM11/8/22

to

Op dinsdag 1 november 2022 om 15:24:49 UTC+1 schreef Hendrik van Hees:

IMO the central question to answer is: what is the cause, that in

certain chemical reactions, the two photons, which as part of the

reaction are created, are correlated. That means that the vectors

(or spins) of both 'particles' are in opposite direction.

IMO the most important document to study is this:

1. A measurement made on one particle can affect the result of a

photon polarization correlation in a two-stage atomic cascade.

3. An isolated atom, optically excited, returns to the ground state

by way of an intermediate state, with the spontaneous emission of

two successive photons.

4. Quantum theory predicts that a measurement of the linear

polarization of one photon can determine precisely the linear

polarization of the other photon.

The most important part is item #3, which at the pages 1-4 describes

the details involved. Specific fig 1 which shows Level scheme for

calcium. The same figure is displayed at page 6(17) of

https://www.nobelprize.org/uploads/2022/10/advanced-physicsprize2022.pdf

The question to ask, if fig 1 is not enough to describe the physical

process involved to create the two correlated photons?

This correlation is part of the moment when the two photons are created.

The most critical item is #1. Because how can one measurement affect

(Simultaneous?) the physical state of the other particle, which are not

physical connected? What is a measurement? It is in general a physical

disturbance. It also happens when a photon hits my eye. This photon

produces certain changes in the nerves of my brain.

But that is something local not global.

What I want to say is that before any measurement is made the state

of both photons is completely determined as described in fig 1.

The only thing that the first measurement will establish is which

photon it is: 5513A or 4227A

To claim that each photon is in a certain type of superposition

of both 5513A and 4227A does not physical make sense.

This claim only describes lack of human information before the

measurement.

Nicolaas Vroom

http://www.nicvroom.be

> On 31/10/2022 18:08, Phillip Helbig (undress to reply) wrote:

>

> > Here is something in-between. It's wrong, but more involved than

> > the simple examples. Showing why real correlation is "more" than

> > this might help to understand it.

> >

> > Imagine that a vector can have any orientation between 0 and 360

> > degrees. If it is between 270 and 90, the measurement result is

> > "up". If between 0 and 180, "right", 90 and 270 "down" and 180

> > and 360 "left".

> >

> > Two correlated vectors have opposite directions.

> >

>

> > Here is something in-between. It's wrong, but more involved than

> > the simple examples. Showing why real correlation is "more" than

> > this might help to understand it.

> >

> > Imagine that a vector can have any orientation between 0 and 360

> > degrees. If it is between 270 and 90, the measurement result is

> > "up". If between 0 and 180, "right", 90 and 270 "down" and 180

> > and 360 "left".

> >

> > Two correlated vectors have opposite directions.

> >

> > That model explains many popular presentations of quantum

> > correlation, but what is the "more" which is actually observed?

> > Is such a model the simple hidden-variable model mentioned above?

> >

> In a way it is. You only have to specify a probability distribution

> of the hidden variables as Bell did in his famous paper in Physica

> and assume "locality". Then you have what he calls a "local realistic

> hidden-variable theory".

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
> > correlation, but what is the "more" which is actually observed?

> > Is such a model the simple hidden-variable model mentioned above?

> >

> In a way it is. You only have to specify a probability distribution

> of the hidden variables as Bell did in his famous paper in Physica

> and assume "locality". Then you have what he calls a "local realistic

> hidden-variable theory".

IMO the central question to answer is: what is the cause, that in

certain chemical reactions, the two photons, which as part of the

reaction are created, are correlated. That means that the vectors

(or spins) of both 'particles' are in opposite direction.

IMO the most important document to study is this:

https://escholarship.org/uc/item/1kb7660q by Carl Alvin Kocher

The article describes (4 items) at page 1:
1. A measurement made on one particle can affect the result of a

subsequent measurement on another particle of the same system, even

though the particles may be non-interacting and separated in space.

2. The experiment described in this thesis is an attempt to observe a
though the particles may be non-interacting and separated in space.

photon polarization correlation in a two-stage atomic cascade.

3. An isolated atom, optically excited, returns to the ground state

by way of an intermediate state, with the spontaneous emission of

two successive photons.

4. Quantum theory predicts that a measurement of the linear

polarization of one photon can determine precisely the linear

polarization of the other photon.

The most important part is item #3, which at the pages 1-4 describes

the details involved. Specific fig 1 which shows Level scheme for

calcium. The same figure is displayed at page 6(17) of

https://www.nobelprize.org/uploads/2022/10/advanced-physicsprize2022.pdf

The question to ask, if fig 1 is not enough to describe the physical

process involved to create the two correlated photons?

This correlation is part of the moment when the two photons are created.

The most critical item is #1. Because how can one measurement affect

(Simultaneous?) the physical state of the other particle, which are not

physical connected? What is a measurement? It is in general a physical

disturbance. It also happens when a photon hits my eye. This photon

produces certain changes in the nerves of my brain.

But that is something local not global.

What I want to say is that before any measurement is made the state

of both photons is completely determined as described in fig 1.

The only thing that the first measurement will establish is which

photon it is: 5513A or 4227A

To claim that each photon is in a certain type of superposition

of both 5513A and 4227A does not physical make sense.

This claim only describes lack of human information before the

measurement.

Nicolaas Vroom

http://www.nicvroom.be

Reply all

Reply to author

Forward

0 new messages

Search

Clear search

Close search

Google apps

Main menu