Mordred

You didn't specify that did you. Instead you allowed that to discount that at some point that there is more than one polarity state involved in the experiment. Ie after the beam splitter

No I am responding directly to the quotes and not even applying the EPR experiment as I have no way of knowing for sure if he is even referring to that experiment specifically.

again there is incongruities in the statements your quoting. Misaligned filters can and do affect polarizations. What is the title of the book your reading he has several

Well if there traveling in opposite direction is at odds with the polarization vs helicity left and right handedness of circular polarization. This is the the primary cause for the photons travelling in different directions.

This isn't a situation where one statement applies to all cases. You have to examine where the statements Maudlin makes applies and when they don't. I don't have his full book so I can't help there. However the mistake you appear to be making is assuming certain statements apply in every case. We only wish that were true the Universe is far more complex than that.

Well try this for a non technical image. The two polarizations involved in the EPR experiment will be specifically the Linear vertical and horizontal. The superposition state will involve a combination of the two. If you had just one polarization state there would be no need for Superposition of the entangled particles.

I had to read closely what you had written here, lol At first glance I thought you missed a polarization state. Anyways this arxiv may provide insight https://www.google.ca/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://arxiv.org/pdf/quant-ph/0402001&ved=0ahUKEwitm5K1gJXYAhUBmoMKHYTCA0wQFggiMAE&usg=AOvVaw2MyGvbkcvUFwmP4FAdZHAU Don't worry too much about the full article on Supplementary parameter theory. The first section helps explain Swansonts reply.

He is reading the earlier chapters of volume 1 of the Feymann lectures which is a bit confusing until you get into the later chapters. In the earlier chapters Feyman is stepping the reader into how QM would describe the atom. Albeit it will cause some confusion. He is currently on the first 5 chapters of volume 1 http://www.feynmanlectures.caltech.edu The way Feymann put these chapters together in its attempt to simplify is a little sketchy on details. He clarifies and refines the more complete and accurate physics involved later on

Ok that is an understandable impression he delivers in the earlier chapters with regards to atoms. He will later explain that it isn't the complete picture. Matter link volume 1 He is stepping you away from the old image of the atom and into seeing the probablistic nature which are modelled via wavefunctions and later on fluctuations and excitations. He will later on add the strong and weak forces but largely everyday matter is comprised of the EM field.

Wrong again so much for your vaulted logic. Of course I do how can you accurately apply logic without understanding the technical details. Wild blooming guess work? Thank you for wasting my time

Seriously Dalo The beginning of this thread I discussed correlation functions. Why dont you look back to the first page. Instead of claiming we haven't been attempting to answer your questions. Take the time to understand the answers provided in you numerous threads on the same topic. Albeit different routes.

Lol at least your trying to understand. Not to imply the OP isn't. Just that some things are near impossible to explain accurately with just verbal words and images.

Yes but the key is getting defining the ducks in the first place

Well some things cannot be correctly answered to those that won't take the time to understand the mathematics involved. This isn't our fault its simple reality philosophy cannot address physics because physics requires understanding the math while philosophy largely ignores it. It is precisely why I don't place any faith in metaphysics

Here is what your asking us to explain to you in simple terms without teaching you the math. https://www.google.ca/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=http://www.pas.rochester.edu/~howell/mysite2/Tutorials/Beamsplitter2.pdf&ved=2ahUKEwisl9OtwZPYAhUH4mMKHQsQD8oQFjAAegQICBAB&usg=AOvVaw0YoChVlnfxmEPdeK8xx1Lr This is the formulas involving a 50 50 beam splitter. Yes the link includes single particle states. This is the application of Malus law in practicum.

Have you ever considered the answer requires understanding the mathematics? Or literally understanding a sinusoidal waveform itself ? IE on an oscilloscope? Let me ask a relevant question. Have you ever studied Antenna basics for radios? If you cut the antenna at the wrong length you get a reflected wave that decreases the wattage. The antenna must be cut to a length to correspond to a 1/4 wave if you cut it at 1/2 a wave you will get zero wattage. It is literally the same fundamental process with a beam splitter. Both involve constructive and destructive interference. Both involve polarization. Both signals are dipolar meaning there is not one but two (di) (polar) angles to the signal. One positive the other negative. in a beam splitter the angle will affect one polarity angle ( transmit )while reflecting the other polarity. Now ask yourself how can we explain how this works in a 50-50 lossless beamsplitter when you don't understand the math (the fully accurate answer requires the use of an RR-TT matrix. Which correlates to a Pauli matrix. ie taught in QM basics.

Uh oh there is a first day limit on new accounts to avoid spam. You should have waited a day to continue rather than make a new account. Actually magnetohydrodynamics is in fact a field of study and is considered a mathematical theory. https://www.google.ca/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=http://battista.web.unc.edu/files/2014/02/introMHD.pdf&ved=2ahUKEwjU2sWpxJLYAhVHy2MKHfzKAVAQFjABegQICRAB&usg=AOvVaw0d26-ZQY9FiYNxJk1OJH9w It has its own range of equations that should be applied with your modelling. The above is an intro paper.

When applied to a particular system I agree, however one should always be aware that what applies in one context may not be applied in another. Particularly when you make a metaphysical statement which should include all possibilities ( though I rarely see any that truly do) Lol remember I did stress the importance of cross examinations lol always stay objective. Never set your mind in stone on a given topic. I once mentioned this on another forum to a Ph.D in QFT when I questioned his usage of the term Real. He wasn't particularly receptive.

How about sonething along the lines of. The term local is itself an abstract device whose definition will depend upon the system being described, it in itself does not define a fundamental reality as its usage depends upon how the term is applied.

Well that in itself is a little grey when you stepped into your metaphysics arguments. There is one blanket cover all statement that can be accurately applied to the term local. I'm hoping you will see it.

That would have to depend on how your describing the terms in accordance to which type of treatment or system your defining the terms under. If your sticking to QM/QFT then include those points and avoid any cover all blanket statements. I would certainly hope you picked up on one essential detail however on those two terms that is common to all definitions. (as applied in metaphysics)

Some interesting discussion going on now. Particularity Studiot who demonstrated that local can have numerous definitions. Well done. Here is another as applied to Cosmology which is completely different than QFT or QM. Local is an anistrophy deviation from the global homogeneous and isotropic distribution. Which can be further described as a seperate causality system. Examples include large scale structure formation. Stars, planets, galaxies. The temperature deviations of the CMB. Certainly stresses the point of understanding in what context (system) the terms local and non local are being applied to

I've come across flux tubes before with regards to weather. Like I stated this isn't my experrtise which is cosmology applications. Anyways You will still need some form of paper to validate yoir research. Thats something that is pretty much unavoidable. The other links is more to provide examples. As well as to demonstrate that there is most likely far better references to use than the ones you posted.

That is precisely my point, and yes there is such papers that apply to Mars. Here is a 161 page dissertation paper on how Titan affects Saturn with some details on MHD simulations. There is a huge body of papers most of these took me less than 30 seconds a piece to locate. There is literally specialized software codes developed just to apply MHD on different atmospheres. CO^5BOLT being one of them. https://www.google.ca/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://helda.helsinki.fi/bitstream/handle/10138/23333/hybridmo.pdf%3Bsequence%3D2&ved=2ahUKEwi4pMHSkpLYAhVX9WMKHZNtA0gQFjAFegQIAxAB&usg=AOvVaw1GTc9H48vldhivpaNQrqOh This is what your competing with. You stated your a researcher, the information is available on the Web. Look through the available papers and study the mathematical techniques and physics that went into developing these techniques. (this isn't even my field of study but it is already apparent I know more about the advances of MHD in terms of atmosphere influences than you have shown)

Its already known it can be done, there is already a huge body of researchers already doing so. Which is precisely my point. How does your modelling add to the studies already available. How does it differ? https://www.google.ca/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://www.duo.uio.no/bitstream/handle/10852/53852/Golding-2016-ApJ-817-125.pdf%3Fsequence%3D1&ved=2ahUKEwjcjoDZjpLYAhVL8mMKHR0hBII4ChAWMAF6BAgIEAE&usg=AOvVaw1V58LlCE8ynm0vaxl5OGmK Here is an example, each atmosphere contains different compositions. These composition variations and densities are also involved. for example ask the question. How would electronagnetism affect the atmosphere of Mars compared to Earth or Jupiter. Every charged particle species will be affected on its helicity via the Poynting vector as to how it will respond to an electromagnetic field. You asked how you can advance your research that is one approach. Looking at how atmospheric compositions are affected in terms of the charged particles that make up said atmosphere.