 |
|
| Science Forum Index » Physics - Research Forum » Alternate Interpretation of Bell's Theorem Experiment... |
|
Page 1 of 1 |
|
| Author |
Message |
| Sandcastle... |
 Posted: Tue Sep 15, 2009 6:53 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Many physicists are not comfortable with the non-local implications of
Bell's Theorem Experiments. I have presented talks on Relativity and
Space-time. Non-local behavior flew in the face of the concept that the
word simultaneous had no meaning for events which were not co-located.
Earlier this year I decided the evidence for Bell's Theorem was too
overwhelming and it was time to accept the paradigm shift and try to
fully understand this new picture of the world. What I found instead
were some inconsistencies in how non-local behavior was arrived at. I
believe these are due to a subtle but significant assumption that was
made as far back as the Stern-Gerlach experiments on spin performed back
in 1922.
I believe the current experiments do not test Bell's Inequality. When I
correct for the assumption mentioned in the previous paragraph, I
consistently see a 50% correlation instead of the 5/9 predicted by Bell.
I talk about my study of Bell's Theorem on my web page at:
http://home.comcast.net/~gdderman/Bell.htm
and that currently provides a link to the second draft (7 page) of a
paper I am writing at:
http://home.comcast.net/~gdderman/Spooky.pdf
The paper is written in layman terms.
I am looking for comments on the paper.
Hopefully, if I am wrong, someone in this group will help me find the
error of my ways.
Alternatively, if the writing has merit, I would appreciate any insight
in how I can make it more clear.
Any ideas on alternative ways to prove or disprove the concept would be
very welcome.
Gary |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Jack... |
| Posted: Fri Sep 25, 2009 4:40 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Sep 16, 12:53 am, "Sandcastle" <g... at (no spam) vipilot.com> wrote:
[quote:a80543efed]http://home.comcast.net/~gdderman/Spooky.pdf
[/quote:a80543efed]
where it says
[quote:a80543efed]If you had to apply the probability expression to derive the spin of the second particle, why was it not needed in the derivation of the spin probability of the first particle? I looked at all of the assumptions that had been made to generate the table, checked my math and so forth. Everything seemed reasonable.
[/quote:a80543efed]
The first particle has a 50% chance to be found in any given direction
because of rotational symmetry; its orientation is unknown.
That same is true of the second particle.
The conditional probability of the second result given the first (or
of the first, given the second; it's the same) is where the cosine^2
comes in.
[quote:a80543efed]Then I zeroed in on the assumption that if the spin were at all in the “Up” direction than it would show as “Up” and vice-versa. While it seemed reasonable, I realized that I had no basis for that assumption. So I proceeded to do a little more research.
[/quote:a80543efed]
There is no such assumption in Felder's explanation
http://www4.ncsu.edu/unity/lockers/users/f/felder/public/kenny/papers/bell.html
[quote:a80543efed]I would suggest running the Stern-Gerlach experiment with a spin filter we can rotate placed between the furnace and the inhomogeneous magnetic field. If, as we rotate the spin filter we see first one dot, then two dots, then the other dot, than back to two dots with their intensities varying sinusoidal, then we have pretty good evidence that the problem is as described above.
[/quote:a80543efed]
That is exactly what conventional quantum mechanics predicts and
exactly what Felder is saying. It is equivalent to putting two
polaroid photon filters back to back and watching the transmission
change as you rotate them.
BTW, I have a simple explanation of Bell's theorem at
http://onqm.blogspot.com/2009/07/simple-proof-of-bells-theorem.html
but it probably won't be any more help to you than what Felder has
written and I have said here. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Sandcastle... |
| Posted: Fri Sep 25, 2009 8:54 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
"Jack" <jackmallah at (no spam) yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:ed4cea4c-6311-4b7a-bf67-dd909674c820 at (no spam) o35g2000vbi.googlegroups.com...
[quote:5907c72e91]On Sep 16, 12:53 am, "Sandcastle" <g... at (no spam) vipilot.com> wrote:
http://home.comcast.net/~gdderman/Spooky.pdf
where it says
If you had to apply the probability expression to derive the spin of the
second particle, why was it not needed in the derivation of the spin
probability of the first particle? I looked at all of the assumptions
that had been made to generate the table, checked my math and so forth.
Everything seemed reasonable.
The first particle has a 50% chance to be found in any given direction
because of rotational symmetry; its orientation is unknown.
That same is true of the second particle.
The conditional probability of the second result given the first (or
of the first, given the second; it's the same) is where the cosine^2
comes in.
[/quote:5907c72e91]
Yes ... according to the Felder paper. However, in deriving the ratio for
Bell's Inequality, he describes a particle as liking or disliking a given
orientation. He then populates tables of likes and dislikes based on random
selection of three orientations. I further expanded the tables to cover the
more general case and also got the 5/9 ratio. I also wrote a software
program which used a separate calculation for each one degree of spin
orientation and again got the 5/9 ratio.
[quote:5907c72e91]Then I zeroed in on the assumption that if the spin were at all in the
"Up" direction than it would show as "Up" and vice-versa. While it seemed
reasonable, I realized that I had no basis for that assumption. So I
proceeded to do a little more research.
There is no such assumption in Felder's explanation
http://www4.ncsu.edu/unity/lockers/users/f/felder/public/kenny/papers/bell.html
[/quote:5907c72e91]
Correct ... there is no such assumption in Felder's explanation. His
explanation clearly describes Bell's Inequality. But he does say that
experiments ran produced the 0.5 result rather than 5/9. So I went looking
for the experiments that violated the 5/9 inequaltiy. The assumption I am
talking about is in the experiment(s), not in Bell's Inequalty.
[quote:5907c72e91]I would suggest running the Stern-Gerlach experiment with a spin filter
we can rotate placed between the furnace and the inhomogeneous magnetic
field. If, as we rotate the spin filter we see first one dot, then two
dots, then the other dot, than back to two dots with their intensities
varying sinusoidal, then we have pretty good evidence that the problem is
as described above.
That is exactly what conventional quantum mechanics predicts and
exactly what Felder is saying. It is equivalent to putting two
polaroid photon filters back to back and watching the transmission
change as you rotate them.
[/quote:5907c72e91]
Yes, in investigating the problem, I did just that. I have been plotting the
results with two and with three filters down my basement. And yes, that is
what Felder is saying to explain the count of the second particle.
I am glad to hear that the test would operate as described. The implication
I got from reading about Stern-Garlich is that, just as we see only two
points for random spins, if we did the experiment suggested in my paper, as
we passed the 90 degree point the beam would jump from up to down or
vice-versa.
[quote:5907c72e91]BTW, I have a simple explanation of Bell's theorem at
http://onqm.blogspot.com/2009/07/simple-proof-of-bells-theorem.html
but it probably won't be any more help to you than what Felder has
written and I have said here.
[/quote:5907c72e91]
I like the simplicity of your link example and it also contains a link to a
more sophisticated explanation.
Now lets look at an alternative. Suppose that one "detector" allows
particles (or waves) to pass to its counter as the cosine of the angle of
spin (or polarization) and the other does the same. If we send random
entangled particles to opposite detectors, our count is no longer quite
random in terms of spin direction. What is particularly interesting about
this model is that we always get a correlation ratio of 0.5.
To quote Albert Einstein, "It is theory which first determines what can be
observed". (taken from Gilder, "The Age of Entanglement", Page 103)
Gary |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
All times are GMT - 5 Hours
The time now is Tue Dec 01, 2009 11:16 pm
|
|