robinpike

I would like to hear opinions on an idea that attempts to model the atom without using quantum mechanics. The model is different to the standard model, but rather than just reject it out of hand, I would like to know if the model’s logic is self-consistent, or if not, where it fails. As far as I am aware the model has not been documented previously, so it needs a fair amount of detail up front [apologies if it seems a lot to go through]. Mathematically the model would be classed as a system of shapes that stretch and move, although I have no maths for the model. Summary… The model contains photon-like, electron-like and proton-like particles. These are compound particles built up from a much smaller fundamental particle. The model does not include quarks but instead constructs the proton as a positron sandwiched between two neutral particles [referred to as neutral rings in the model]. These neutral particles are essential to the model if the electron and proton are to form the atom. Firstly, the attraction between the electron and positron follows the standard inverse square law. So in the model, electrons and positrons do not form atoms because there is nothing to stop them getting closer and closer until they eventually collide and change into gamma rays. However this is not the case for the electron and proton. The proton has the neutral rings and these introduce a second force on the electron, a strong short range repulsive force. So the electron feels an attractive force towards the proton, but on nearing the proton it is pushed away. This creates a potential well around the proton, the conditions for a rudimentary atom. 1. The model in detail… This part details how there are three forms of stuff: photons, electrons and protons The easiest way to describe the photon, electron and proton in the model is that they are like a flexible coil, like the Slinky toy. A coil has 3 forms [each with two variants, because a coil can be either left-handed or right-handed]. Form one: an open ended coil – like a normal Slinky. Form two: a simple torus – like a Slinky bent into a ring. Form three: a composite torus, where a left-handed coil is inside a right-handed coil (or vice-versa) – like a Slinky squeezed inside another Slinky, bent into a ring. Form one: in the model an open ended form on its own is equivalent to the neutrino, in that it cannot easily interact with matter. Neutrinos of the same handiness can join together head to tail, one in front of the other, to form a spectrum of neutrinos of different physical lengths. A photon is an identical pair of left and right-handed neutrinos joined side by side. [Remember, the model is not a copy of the standard model per se.] Form two: the simple torus leads to the electron and positron and in the model these have a fixed amount of mass, charge and spin. When matter and antimatter particles combine, their rings break open, creating a gamma ray photon from the matching pair of neutrinos. Form three: the composite torus leads to the neutral ring, which also has a fixed amount of mass, charge and spin, although the charge is hidden as the positive and negative amounts are equal. In the model, the proton is a positron sandwiched between two neutral rings. To make it more readable, I'm going to put the rest into parts following this post. Here are some pictures to give an idea of the different forms. 2. The electron and its electric field This part details how the electron has a fixed amount of charge and how an electric field makes the electron move. In the model, charge originates from whether the fundamental particle is coiled to the left or to the right. [Part 5 Photons details how photons interact with electric fields.] Imagine taking a Slinky toy and cutting it into say 10 equal parts and straightening out those parts – what you would end up with would be 10 identical straight pieces. It would not matter whether you started with a left-handed or a right-handed Slinky, you would end up with a set of identical straight strands. The model’s fundamental particle starts with that shape. The model’s fundamental particle is a strand of movement and it moves at a fixed speed against a single, fixed frame of reference. [Remember, the model is not a copy of the standard model per se.] The head and tail of the strand are the parts that move at the fixed speeds, with the strand’s head moving faster than its tail and the body of the strand being able to stretch and compress. The strand grows until a point is reached where the head breaks free and becomes a particle in its own right. This is the base form of the electric field particle. With a new head, the original strand grows again and repeats the process. A basic property of the strands is that they are ’sticky’ and remain in contact while together. When the base form of an electric field particle runs along the body of a strand, the different speeds of their surfaces causes the strand to curl. If the strand curls onto itself and the strand’s own electric field particle doubles back inside the coil, compressing the inside of the strand, then the strand will stay in that shape. In this state, the strand is like a short Slinky toy, and the strand’s own electric field particles exit from the rear of the particle, in a coiled state too. This is the neutrino and it can be either a left-handed neutrino or a right-handed neutrino. In the model a neutrino, despite its name, is a fragment of charge. When neutrinos of the same handiness join together, very long neutrinos can be produced. Neutrinos of very long lengths produce intense electric fields and these can interact with the surface of another long neutrino and bend the neutrino into a simple torus. Once in this form, the electric field no longer has an exit to escape from the particle. The electric field builds up inside the torus, compressing its internal surface and shrinking the radius of the torus until it can reduce no further. At this point, the increasing electric field produces gaps on the torus’s surface and the electric field particles escape. The gaps then close and the field builds up again, and so the process repeats. Only very long neutrinos are able to flex into a torus. When first formed, the escaping electric field is dense enough to drag strands from the torus. This continues until a balance is reached between the number of strands in the torus and the density of the electric field. In this way, all simple tori end up with the same number of strands of movement, even though they may have started from neutrinos with different lengths. This simple torus is the electron / positron, the two differentiated by the handiness of the coils in the torus. When an electron is in a positive field, contact with the positive field particles causes the side of the torus that is moving towards the source of the field to bunch up, and stretch out on the side that is moving away. This bias of its internal movement causes the electron to move towards the source of a positive field. The opposite happens when an electron is in a negative field and the electron moves away from the source of a negative field. For a positron with its opposite handiness to the electron, the opposite happens, it moves away from a positive field and towards a negative field. 3. The neutral ring and its electric field This part details how a neutral ring has a fixed amount of positive and negative charge and how the neutral ring’s electric field particle has a longer length than the electron’s electric field particle. A composite torus is formed when a long left-handed neutrino and a long right-handed neutrino meet head on and one passes through the other while the pair are bent into a torus by an intense electric field particle. Once the torus is formed, the escaping electric field strips out strands from the longer of the two original neutrinos, until the two are reduced to the same length. After that, both have their strands stripped out in equal amounts until a balance is reached and no more strands are lost from the torus. In this way all neutral rings end up with the same number of strands of movement as each other, with the number of left-handed strands always equal to the number of right-handed strands. Because overlapping neutrinos are less flexible than a single neutrino, longer neutrinos are required when forming a composite torus than for a simple torus. And because the two neutrinos overlap inside the torus, the balance point when no more strands are pulled from the torus is reached sooner. In this way the mass of a neutral ring is greater than the mass of an electron. In addition, the electric field particles from a neutral ring are physically longer and are produced more frequently than those from an electron. When the electric field escapes from a neutral ring, the positive part and the negative part escape in different directions. So although neutral, when an electron is near a neutral ring it encounters positive and negative fields. 4. Mass This part details how particles of matter have inertia and why this enforces the photon’s involvement in the motion of matter. Left on its own, a particle of matter is a perfectly round torus of movement. For the particle as a whole to move a force has to distort its shape and cause its internal movement to bunch up on one side of the torus. Distortion is required because the strands in the torus move at a single speed against a fixed frame of reference. Once that distortion is removed, the torus will return to its perfectly round shape and the particle will stop moving forward. So the electron, positron and neutral rings have mass in the sense that they have inertia – but they do not have momentum. (Remember, the model is not a copy of the standard model per se.) In the model it is only the photon and neutrino that have momentum. Particles with mass obtain momentum by absorbing a photon (not a neutrino as neutrinos cannot latch onto particles). When an electron absorbs a photon, the photon stays in existence, it does not disappear. Although to be clear, a better description would be that the photon absorbs the particle of matter, since it is the particle of matter that is wedged in the head of the photon. Once the particle is attached to the photon, the photon pushes the particle along while still being a photon in its own right. 5. Photons This part details how photons are initially produced and how photons are influenced by the neutral ring’s electric field but not by the electron’s electric field. Inside a long neutrino, the electric field particles increase in number as they pass down the neutrino. Fluctuations in the stream of particles produce pulses along the neutrino’s body, the highest frequency occurring at the tail end of the neutrino, and the longest neutrinos having the highest frequencies. This pulsation makes it difficult for neutrinos of opposite spin but with different lengths to stick to each other. And even when a neutrino is paired with one of the same length, they have to combine with their heads exactly in line with each other in order to stick together. This makes it difficult for neutrinos to pair up and change into photons (except perhaps for neutrinos that have a short length). Instead, in the model photons are initially formed by the route of matter and antimatter particles changing into light. Electrons and positrons are exact mirror copies of each other and when they touch their rings can split open, allowing the perfectly aligned neutrino pair to form a gamma ray photon. The electric field particle from a neutral ring is long enough to wrap around a photon, something that the electron’s shorter electric field particle cannot do. When a photon is near a neutral ring, the separate positive and negative fields are able to influence the path of the photon, the positive field altering the path of the photon in the opposite direction to the negative field. The electric field particle wraps itself around the photon, spiraling around and down the length of the photon. This bunches up one side of the photon while stretching out the other side (because the sides have opposite spin), causing the photon to bend and change direction. If the angle of the electric field particle to the photon approaches the perpendicular (like a T), then the electric field particle is no longer able to wrap itself around the photon and the electric field particle loses its ability to effect the photon. At macro distances, the individual positive and negative field particles tend to pair together and this causes them to lose their ability to alter the path of light, so this is a short range effect that occurs near atoms. When a photon is in the electric field of an electron or a positron (i.e. the positron inside a proton), the electric field particles are too short to wrap around the photon. The path of a photon is not altered by these fields, even when the field is a powerful macro field. When a long electric field particle wraps around a neutrino, it affects all sides of the neutrino by the same amount (the sides have the same direction of spin) and so has no effect on the path of the neutrino. Neutrinos are not affected by any kind of electric field. 6. Summary of the particles, mass, charge and electric fields Summary of the model [this takes a bit of getting used to since it is different to the standard model]. Strand of movement: this is the model’s fundamental particle, everything that happens in the model is a consequence of this particle and the shapes that it forms. Neutrino: has no mass but has momentum, forms a spectrum of particles that are fragments of charge, not affected by any kind of electric field. Photon: has no mass but has momentum, forms a spectrum of neutral particles, is affected by the neutral ring’s electric field but not by the electron / positron’s electric field. Electron / positron: has a fixed amount of mass but no momentum, absorbs photons to gain momentum, has a fixed amount of charge, is affected by any kind of electric field. Neutral ring: has a fixed amount of mass but no momentum, absorbs photons to gain momentum, has a fixed amount of equal positive and negative charge, is not affected by any kind of electric field. Electric field: causes electrons and positrons to move by interacting with their internal movement, compressing / stretching the bodies of their internal strands. There is the question as to how particles accelerated by an electric or gravitational field are able to gain photons to give them their increase in momentum, and perhaps easier to explain, when de-accelerated are able to lose photons. For example, if a Frisbee is thrown it doesn’t just stop in mid-air after the point of leaving the thrower’s hand; the thrower overcomes the Frisbee’s inertia / momentum and the Frisbee gains / loses momentum. It is taken for granted that inertia and momentum are the same thing but that is not so obvious when trying to provide the mechanism. One possible method could be via the absorption / emission of background heat or perhaps background neutrinos in some way. But anyway, from a practical point of view if nothing else, always present is the background movement from orbiting the galaxy at approximately 200 kilometres per second. So a typical particle under consideration will have a photon attached by whatever the mechanism turns out to be. I’ll leave it there as a part of the model not yet resolved. 7. The atom Using the information from the previous sections, here is how the model forms the atom without using quantum mechanics. First of all, a photon is attached to the electron. When the electron is in the vicinity of the proton, the proton’s overall positive charge causes the electron to move towards the proton. The proton also has the positive and negative fields from its two neutral rings, of which each are in the order of 900 times greater than the proton’s overall positive field. [This is based on the comparison of the positron and proton masses. In the model, mass in a particle relates to charge in the particle.] These positive and negative fields affect the electron and add a zigzag element to the electron’s progress, but overall they neither hinder nor help the electron towards the proton. However those fields also affect the photon that is attached to the electron, and that causes a different behaviour. Basically, whatever the photon’s current path is, the electric fields from the neutral rings bend the photon and take the photon (and the electron) off that path. So, if the electron is moving head-on or in a near head-on approach to the proton, then the fields from the neutral rings will always turn the photon (and the electron) away from the proton. This is regardless as to whether the positive or the negative fields from the neutral rings interact with the photon. Even when the approach is not head on, because the fields bend the photon in its vertical plane, there is only a small chance that the photon and the electron will end up being directed towards the proton. And if that were to happen, then the next interaction with the fields will always turn the photon (and the electron) away from the proton. This results in the electron being kept in an orbit that is at a distance from the proton. When the electron is moving perpendicular to the proton (like a T), then the electron has missed the proton and the electron will be on a trajectory away from the proton. Now the opposite happens, the fields from the neutral rings pull the photon (and the electron) back into an orbit around the proton. Initially this will be in a sweeping arc as the electron is not like a bob on a pendulum, it cannot slow, stop and swing back along its previous path since the electron has constant momentum due to its photon. Note that when the electron is in the perpendicular phase of its orbit, the electric fields do not interact with the photon (although they will continue to interact with the electron itself). Overall the electron ends up in an orbit around the proton and when the electron strays into an orbit that would collide with the proton, the electron is pushed into a non-colliding orbit, thus producing an atom-like system. What is more, the mechanism is not simply a passive electron ‘orbiting’ the proton; it is an active force that provides the atom with a resistance to being crushed. This mechanism also suggests that, when a moving free electron is altered by a macro electric field, the electron might radiate photons because the field alters the path of the electron but not the path of the photon that is pushing the electron along, and so part of the photon might slip off the electron. Whereas in this model of the atom, it is the path of the photon that is altered, providing a reason as to why electrons in atoms do not likewise continually radiate photons.

I am beginning to understand this better now - having gone through lots of different web sites discussing this type of experiment. One thing I didn't realise before, and keeping the discussion to the entangled photon experiments, is that when the photons are orthogonally correlated and the filters are also at right angles to themselves... then the detectors ALWAYS register either both photons of the pair making it though the filters, or both photons of the pair not making it through the filters. This result on its own seems to defy a classical explanation, since with a classical polarization, each photon pair will be at a random angle to the filters (not perfectly aligned to the filters) and so for some angles sometimes one of the photon pair would make it through while its partner does not. Here is a link to a pdf document discussing the above written by Alain Aspect... http://arxiv.org/ftp/quant-ph/papers/0402/0402001.pdf Since the reason for my posts on this subject is to understand whether a classical explanation could be at all feasible, have I got the above experimental outcome correct?

I’m still struggling with some of this. To summarise what I think I understand so far… Polarizers, whether absorbing or beam splitters, are not 100% efficient. But that can be taken into account and an absorbing polarizer can be considered as filtering out 50% of a beam of photons with random orientations. For ‘photon pairs’ going through a pair of absorbing filters (one filter either side of the source), individual photons - on average - will make it through the filters 50% of the time. This is regardless as to the orientation of the filters to the beam of photons, and regardless as to the orientation of the filters relative to each other. This average behaviour applies to both classical and QM interpretations. The difference between classical and QM arises when individual pairs of photons are considered - and the two filters are orientated at an angle to each other, with certain angles giving the greatest discrepancy between classical and QM predictions as to whether both of the paired photons make it through the filters, or not. When a photon’s polarization is not aligned to the filter, there is a statistical probability of whether that photon makes it through the filter, or not, based on the angle between the photon’s polarization and the filter. And that statistical behaviour complicates the analysis. (I’m assuming that is why Bell’s Inequality is required, rather than being able to use the direct percentage of photon pairs that get through the filters at those angles?) When Alain Aspect performed this type of experiment with the filters several kilometres apart, the results were no different to when the filters were just a few metres apart. This seems to suggest that the mechanism IS classical – for a classical explanation is not affected by the distance between the filters. (If the filters were at opposite ends of the universe, it would be of no consequence to a classical mechanism.) I am wondering if there are any assumptions not mentioned, as to how a photon makes it through a polarizing filter, which could have an impact on the analysis (and conclusions with Bell’s Inequalities). For example, as well as the photon’s angle of polarization to the filter, what other local variable could be involved that decides whether a photon makes it through a filter or not? Does that probability involve the particular position that the photon arrives at the atom lattice on the surface of the filter, which in essence is a random local variable?

Okay, let's forget my attempt to understand the experiments and go back to EPR, before Bell's Inequality Theorem. Einstein, Podolsky and Rosen - information from Wikipedia... It was known from experiments that the outcome of an experiment sometimes cannot be uniquely predicted. An example of such indeterminacy can be seen when a beam of light is incident on a half-silvered mirror. One half of the beam will reflect, and the other will pass. If the intensity of the beam is reduced until only one photon is in transit at any time, whether that photon will reflect or transmit cannot be predicted quantum mechanically. The routine explanation of this effect was, at that time, provided by Heisenberg's uncertainty principle. Physical quantities come in pairs called conjugate quantities. Examples of such conjugate pairs are position and momentum of a particle and components of spin measured around different axes. When one quantity was measured, and became determined, the conjugated quantity became indeterminate. Heisenberg explained this as a disturbance caused by measurement. The EPR paper, written in 1935, was intended to illustrate that this explanation is inadequate. It considered two entangled particles, referred to as A and B, and pointed out that measuring a quantity of a particle A will cause the conjugated quantity of particle B to become undetermined, even if there was no contact, no classical disturbance. The basic idea was that the quantum states of two particles in a system cannot always be decomposed from the joint state of the two. Heisenberg's principle was an attempt to provide a classical explanation of a quantum effect sometimes called non-locality. According to EPR there were two possible explanations. Either there was some interaction between the particles, even though they were separated, or the information about the outcome of all possible measurements was already present in both particles. The EPR authors preferred the second explanation according to which that information was encoded in some 'hidden parameters'. The first explanation, that an effect propagated instantly, across a distance, is in conflict with the theory of relativity. They then concluded that quantum mechanics was incomplete since, in its formalism, there was no room for such hidden parameters. Violations of the conclusions of Bell's theorem are generally understood to have demonstrated that the hypotheses of Bell's theorem, also assumed by Einstein, Podolsky and Rosen, do not apply in our world.[2] Most physicists who have examined the issue concur that experiments, such as those of Alain Aspect and his group, have confirmed that physical probabilities, as predicted by quantum theory, do exhibit the phenomena of Bell-inequality violations that are considered to invalidate EPR's preferred "local hidden-variables" type of explanation for the correlations to which EPR first drew attention. ============================================================================ So without applying Bell's Inequality Theorem, do both the classical explanation and the quantum mechanical explanation predict the same outcome in experiments that measure the polarization of 'entangled' photon pairs? If there is a difference between the two predictions, then what is that difference?

My understanding of how this experiment works doesn't seem to be right? If the percentage of the right photons passing through filter B was really effected by the left photons passing through filter A, then this could easily be shown by counting the photons passing through filter B WITHOUT filter A present for the left photons, and then without changing the rate of the photons, counting them through filter B when the left photons have filter A present. If the act of measuring the random polarization of the left photons meant that the orientation of the right photons became biased towards the orientation of the A filter, then the above would cause a different number of the right photons to be counted in each situation. So what is it that I have misunderstood?

I've been having at look at the table for the three detector settings and (if I've got this right) it would seem that the analysis needs only two detectors, set at an angle of 120 degrees to each other. I'm taking it that the cosine squared probabilities of a photon making it through a detector at various angles is from experiment? Say by passing photons through a vertical polarizing filter first and then passing those photons - now of known polarization - through a second filter, setting the second filter at the various angles. So the experiment can be performed for coupled photons i.e. with opposite spins / polarization but of an unknown, random angle, with one photon going left to the vertical 'A' polarizing filter and the other going right to the 120 degree 'B' polarizing filter (which say is slightly further away from the photon source). If the photon pairs are taken as being quantum coupled, then... When a left photon reaches the vertical 'A' polarizing filter, if it makes it through the filter - which 50% of them will - it is then of known polarization (vertical). This causes the paired quantum coupled photon to 'collapse its wave function' to the vertical polarization too - which on reaching the 120 degree 'B' filter, the photon has a 25% chance of making it though the filter. Whereas if the photon pairs are taken as being classically coupled, then... The left photon behaves the same as above for the quantum left photon - that is 50% of them will make it through the 'A' polarizing filter - which is then of known polarization (vertical). But this time the paired classical photon remains with its original orientation, and on reaching the 120 degree 'B' filter, has various chances of making it through the filter - listed in column G. So the probability of when a coupled pair of photons make it through both the 'A' filter and the 'B' filter, is different for quantum couple photons (12.5% i.e. 12.5% = 1/4 of 50%) to classical coupled photons (18.9%) - for the 120 degree setting. And this difference can be measured by experiment. So first point, before moving on to applying Bell's Inequalities, is the above simplification correct?

Imatfaal, thanks for explaining the meaning of the "++" agreement and the "--" agreement. In my table, I only calculated the probability of both detectors letting the paired photons through: the "++" agreement. I haven't included the probability of both detectors stopping the paired photons: the "--" agreement. I will update the table and see what the new values come out to.

I have put into a table the probabilities of photons with known polarization angles (to the vertical) when they go through three detectors A, B and C at their 0, 120 and 240 angle settings (table as below). Also included in the table is the probability of photon pairs at those known polarization angles going through one of the detectors each, when their detectors are not at the same angle as each other. What I haven't figured out is how to go from these values to the "++" and "--" pairings (A+, B+, C+, A-, B-, C-) that are used in the table from Dr Chinese's web site (table as above). What does Dr Chinese mean when he says that a measurement at one detector agrees with the measurement at one of the others? For example, this being marked as "A+" and "B+" in the table.

Thanks, that is nice and clear as well. So to state this completely when several filters are used in series, and the filters are at various angles to each other... For the electrons that pass through the first filter (at 0 degrees), these can be considered as electrons with 'up' spin. If these filtered electrons are then passed though a second filter: When the second filter is also at 0 degrees, then 100 % will go through.Whereas if the second filter is at 90 degrees, then only half of the filtered electrons would make it through.And if the second filter were to be at 180 degrees, then none of the filtered electrons would make it.

That is very clear to understand - thanks. Your first point on the distinction between particle spin and photon polarization is a very good point to have made - discussions on Bell's inequalities quite often switch between referencing experiments with photons and experiments with particles, without highlighting that difference. Yes please continue.

I would like to understand classical spin and quantum spin with regards to particle spin filters - I seem to be missing something fundamental on how they are used / work. Starting with the classical understanding of spin, the set up is as follows... A particle has an axis of spin along the vertical z-axis and it passes horizontally through a particle filter that only allows particles through with a vertical axis of spin, say to an accuracy of 5 degrees either side of the vertical. After passing through that filter, the particle goes through the same type of spin filter, but this time the filter is set at 45 degrees from the vertical z-axis (but the filter is still at right angles to the x-axis, which is the path of the particle). I would expect the the particle with classical spin to fail to make it through the second filter. Is that correct? Next take the quantum understanding of spin. If the same set up as above is used for a beam of quantum particles with a mixture of angles of spin and as yet un-measured axis of spin, what is the expected outcome? - for the first vertical filter - and then for filtered beam through the second filter On the basis of the above, what is the first spin filter actually doing to a particle with quantum spin? Thanks

I don't seem to be able to grasp what is going on here at all. The example table was for the measurement of the polarization of photons, but the polarizers don't seem to have much accuracy, which doesn't help. So suppose electrons are used instead, with filters of much better accuracy, say ones that are able to filter the electrons which have spin within 5% of the angle of the filter? So using the set up of the first filter vertical and the second filter at 45 degrees... When the beam of electrons of different angles of spin pass through the first filter, the electrons that get through have the same angle of spin, or very close to the same angle of spin, which is quantised as either an up spin or a down spin. But when those filtered electrons get to the second filter, I don't see how any of the electrons make it through that filter? It's not a case of 85% or even 50%, why isn't it 0%?

Thanks, in that explanation it lists a table of combinations of pairs of measurements for three detectors at 120 degree angles. Permutations of A, B and C with likelihood of matches (++ or --). All we have done is list all the possibilities, and calculated the averages of random tests of the pairs [AB], [bC] and [AC] for each of them. That is, IF we had some way to actually test 2 settings simultaneously for one photon. Can a way be found to do this? OK, now here is the really hard part (just kidding): it is pretty obvious from the table above that no matter which of the 8 scenarios which actually occur (and we have no control over this), the average likelihood of seeing a match for any pair must be at least .333! I don't understand what the average column is calculating? It appears to be calculating the number of combinations for a 'match' by two detectors - rather than the probability of the combination for a 'match' by two detectors? Or have I misunderstood this?

I'm definitely confused - the 85% and 50% values must be based on something - it is not obvious to me! Also, referring back to the extract, it shows the electron / particle under test travelling in a straight line through detector 1 and 2. Is this really the case? And how is an electron stopped at each filter based on its spin? Thanks The figure to the right shows a measurement first at 0 degrees and then at 45 degrees. Of the electrons that emerge from the first filter, 85% will pass the second filter, not 50%. Thus for electrons that are measured to be spin-up for 0 degrees, 15% are spin-down for 45 degrees.

I find descriptions that apply Bell's Theorem difficult to follow. For example, below is an extract from this link http://www.upscale.utoronto.ca/PVB/Harrison/BellsTheorem/BellsTheorem.html and I fall at the first hurdle! For example, where does the 85% and 50% come from in this part of the explanation? But if we try to measure the spin at both 0 degrees and 45 degrees we have a problem. The figure to the right shows a measurement first at 0 degrees and then at 45 degrees. Of the electrons that emerge from the first filter, 85% will pass the second filter, not 50%. Thus for electrons that are measured to be spin-up for 0 degrees, 15% are spin-down for 45 degrees And here is the context of the above text... APPLYING BELL'S INEQUALITY TO ELECTRON SPINConsider a beam of electrons from an electron gun. Let us set the following assignments for the three parameters of Bell's inequality: A: electrons are "spin-up" for an "up" being defined as straight up, which we will call an angle of zero degrees. B: electrons are "spin-up" for an orientation of 45 degrees. C: electrons are "spin-up" for an orientation of 90 degrees. Then Bell's inequality will read: Number(spin-up zero degrees, not spin-up 45 degrees) + Number(spin-up 45 degrees, not spin-up 90 degrees) greater than or equal to Number(spin-up zero degrees, not spin-up 90 degrees) But consider trying to measure, say, Number(A, not B). This is the number of electrons that are spin-up for zero degrees, but are not spin-up for 45 degrees. Being "not spin-up for 45 degrees" is, of course, being spin-down for 45 degrees. We know that if we measure the electrons from the gun, one-half of them will be spin-up and one-half will be spin-down for an orientation of 0 degrees, and which will be the case for an individual electron is random. Similarly, if measure the electrons with the filter oriented at 45 degrees, one-half will be spin-down and one-half will be spin-up. But if we try to measure the spin at both 0 degrees and 45 degrees we have a problem. The figure to the right shows a measurement first at 0 degrees and then at 45 degrees. Of the electrons that emerge from the first filter, 85% will pass the second filter, not 50%. Thus for electrons that are measured to be spin-up for 0 degrees, 15% are spin-down for 45 degrees. Thus measuring the spin of an electron at an angle of zero degrees irrevocably changes the number of electrons which are spin-down for an orientation of 45 degrees. If we measure at 45 degrees first, we change whether or not it is spin-up for zero degrees. Similarly for the other two terms in this application of the inequality. This is a consequence of the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle. So this inequality is not experimentally testable. In our classroom example, the analogy would be that determining the gender of the students would change their height. Pretty weird, but true for measuring electron spin. However, recall the correlation experiments that we discussed earlier. Imagine that the electron pairs that are emitted by the radioactive substance have a total spin of zero. By this we mean that if the right hand electron is spin-up its companion electron is guaranteed to be spin-down provided the two filters have the same orientation. Say in the illustrated experiment the left hand filter is oriented at 45 degrees and the right hand one is at zero degrees. If the left hand electron passes through its filter then it is spin-up for an orientation of 45 degrees. Therefore we are guaranteed that if we had measured its companion electron it would have been spin-down for an orientation of 45 degrees. We are simultaneously measuring the right-hand electron to determine if it is spin-up for zero degrees. And since no information can travel faster than the speed of light, the left hand measurement cannot disturb the right hand measurement. So we have "beaten" the Uncertainty Principle: we have determined whether or not the electron to the right is spin-up zero degrees, not spin-up 45 degrees by measuring its spin at zero degrees and its companion's spin at 45 degrees. Now we can write the Bell inequality as: Number(right spin-up zero degrees, left spin-up 45 degrees) + Number(right spin-up 45 degrees, left spin-up 90 degrees) greater than or equal to Number(right spin-up zero degrees, left spin-up 90 degrees) This completes our proof of Bell's Theorem. The same theorem can be applied to measurements of the polarisation of light, which is equivalent to measuring the spin of photon pairs. The experiments have been done. For electrons the left polarizer is set at 45 degrees and the right one at zero degrees. A beam of, say, a billion electrons is measured to determine Number(right spin-up zero degrees, left spin-up 45 degrees). The polarizers are then set at 90 degrees/45 degrees, another billion electrons are measured, then the polarizers are set at 90 degrees/zero degrees for another billion electrons. The result of the experiment is that the inequality is violated. The first published experiment was by Clauser, Horne, Shimony and Holt in 1969 using photon pairs. The experiments have been repeated many times since. The experiments done so far have been for pairs of electrons, protons, photons and ionised atoms. It turns out that doing the experiments for photon pairs is easier, so most tests use them. Thus, in most of the remainder of this document the word "electron" is generic.

Thanks Mordred for adding that link. When Swansont posted that video I still wasn't able to follow every part of how Bell's Theorem was being applied, so maybe this post will help others as well as myself. Part of the explanation requires an understanding of how particle spin detectors work, so maybe someone could describe how they measure the spin of a particle. The ones I need to understand are the particle spin detectors, rather than photon spin detectors. I have seen descriptions of the Stern-Gerlach set up, but is that actually used in these kind of experiments? I understand that it is used to measure the spin of an unpaired electron in a silver atom and when a beam of silver atoms is passed through the device, the outline of a circle is produced on the detector screen. In principle, the hypothetical particle that I have chosen to step through Bell's Theorem, would it seems, also produce a circular outline if a beam of the particles were to pass through such a device. A lot of the discussions that I have seen on Bell's Theorem use 'paired particles' and three detectors, angled equally between themselves at 0 degrees, 120 degrees and 240 degrees.

From Wikipedia: Bell's Theorem draws an important distinction between quantum mechanics (QM) and the world as described by classical mechanics. In its simplest form, Bell's theorem states: “No physical theory of local hidden variables can ever reproduce all of the predictions of quantum mechanics.” When trying to understand why the above is true, I find it difficult to follow the explanations without a classical particle to use as an example. I would like to step through Bell’s Theorem using a classical particle, albeit a hypothetical classical particle, but nonetheless a classical particle. The purpose of this post is to understand how Bell’s Theorem proves that all classical particles must, at some point, give a different experimental result to a quantum particle. The experiment that I would like to focus on is the spin measurement of a particle. The hypothetical particle that I have in mind has internal movement that is at a fixed, single speed. The particle is structured like a Slinky toy that is bent around into a circle. If you take a Slinky toy and stretch it out, it is just a long strand that has been coiled up. It is the same for this particle; the particle is basically a long strand that moves at a fixed speed, with the strand coiled up and then the whole thing bent around into a circle to form a torus. The particle as a whole has spin because of the movement around the torus (or ring). If the plane of the ring is horizontal, then the particle’s axis of spin is vertical. The particle’s axis of spin can be at any angle to a chosen x, y and z axis – these angles being the ‘hidden local variables’ mentioned in Bell’s Theorem. However, for this particle we can SEE these angles at all times. Unlike light, which moves at the same fixed speed to all frames of reference, the circular movement of the particle has to be against just one frame of reference, a universal frame of reference. (Otherwise which frame of reference is the circular movement, circular to? Overall the particle is stationary – stationary to whom?) This highlights a problem, for the fixed speed to a single frame of reference makes it difficult for the particle as a whole to move in any direction at all. To get around this, a slightly more complex structure is required, one that consists of multiple strands rather than a single strand (rather like joining together many short Slinkys into one long Slinky). And in addition, the fixed speed only applies to the head and tail of each strand, allowing the body of each strand to stretch and compress. This set up allows the particle to bunch up on one side and stretch out on the other side of the ring (say by an electric field, without going into detail), allowing the particle as a whole to move in a direction that is in the plane of its ring. Note that it is difficult for the particle to move in a direction that is not in the plane of its ring. For example, if the plane of the ring is horizontal, then to keep this orientation and move upwards would be difficult: the opposite sides of each coiled strand would need a different distortion and this distortion would need to be applied in the same manner to each and every coiled strand in the ring. It is easier for the particle to swivel the plane of its ring into the vertical position, and then move upwards. This behaviour means that in a beam of these particles, the axis of spin of every particle is at right angles to the direction of movement. In the picture below, for a beam moving in the x-axis direction, the particles can have any axis of spin in the y-z plane, but not an axis of spin outside of that y-z plane, i.e. the axis of spin is at right angles to the x-axis. Bell’s theorem applies to any classical particle, so it must apply to this hypothetical classical particle as well. I would like to use this particle to step through Bell’s Theorem so that I can understand why any classical particle must disagree with what is found experimentally.

Thanks Swansont, those are good links - hadn't really thought about 'electron degeneracy' - always wondered how the star could collapse so quickly.

Can the sequence causing the collapse be explained a bit more please? If it is the escaping light that is keeping the atoms in the star hot - and therefore keeping the star from collapse - doesn't light typically take thousands of years (if not millions) to escape from the star? And yet a supernova for a large star occurs as a catastrophic event - how does the collapse happen so quickly?

There was a previous topic that involved radiation from an accelerated electron. The thing that puzzled me was what controlled how often the electron radiated a photon? The explanations confused me a bit (from what I remember) and the answer involved how quick the acceleration occurred for the electron and that the path of the electron was near a nucleus. However with an electrostatic field, the scenario seems to be simpler. For example, if an electron is accelerated in a straight line (without hitting any atoms) down say a 10 foot vacuum tube, accelerated by an electrostatic field... My question is how often does the electron radiate? Is it from moment from moment? In which case, what defines the size of that 'moment'. For example, does the electron radiate the lowest possible energy photon - and so a lot of them? Or does the electron radiate just a few high energy photons? I'm posting these questions again here, in case they are relevant to your questions Lazarus.

In the conversion process, is the W- particle a real particle? Wikipedia has the mass of the W- boson as being much greater than that of a proton or a neutron.

Isn't it a little odd that the elementary down quark can shed a -1 of electric charge if the quark is indeed elementary? Does this suggest that electric charge is separate to an elementary particle? If not, how can the change of down quark (-1/3) --> up quark (+2/3) and W (-1), simply start with that step?

I was wondering if in the case of a very thin polarizing filter, whether there was a thickness that allowed more light through - presumably yes, and more interestingly, if when this happened, if the angle of polarization started to 'spread'?

Does anybody know the results for when a successively thinner and thinner polarizing filter is used for the second filter? Using the above example, i.e. passing the light through one (thick) polarizing filter to produce light that is 100% polarized, and then passing that 100% polarized light through a very thin polarizing filter at a 30 degree angle. Is there a thickness (thinness) at which more than 75% of the light makes it through the second filter? And if so, is there variation in the angle of polarization of the light?

I'm not sure that I fully understand the basic Concepts of modern science. Therefore, Please advice if you agree with the following descriptions:. Observation / evidence: Whatever we see. For example we see redshift of farthest galaxies. Evidence: Inference / conclusion: a direct outcome from this observation that had been proved by agrees with a confirmed theory or physics law. For example based on the redshift observation and Doppler Effect we knowfor sure conclude that all the farther galaxies accelerating from us. Therefore, this is evidence a conclusion / explanation. Theory: Any unconfirmed/unproved Idea or Speculation which can give a feasible explanation/ solution for that observation or evidence. Confirmed Theory: A theory which had been fully confirmed. However, it is forbidden to use the same original evidence for confirmation. Different evidence or a fully proved lab test is needed to confirm a theory. No Math: It is also forbidden to confirm theory by Math. (unless it is based on a proven physics law or confirmed theory.) For example It is perfectly O.K. to develop a formula in order to get a theory of the dark energy in the universe, but this math can't be used as an approval for that theory. Hypothesis: any theory which had been accepted by our elite scientists. For example Dark energy. Argument: any idea or speculation which had been offered by any one of us. Illogical argument: Any unrealistic argument which had been disapproved by confirmed theory or real evidence. Trash must be the only place for those arguments Logical argument: Any argument which can't be disapproved by confirmed theory or real evidence. It is forbidden to disapprove an argument by Hypothesis. Physics law: Fully confirmed thesis. However, we must use this law for its specific scale. For example Newton law is applicable for objects but not for particles. A better description above referred to as evidence might be inference / conclusion. Also, a conclusion, while agreeing with an accepted theory, does not mean that the conclusion is proved for sure. Explanations / conclusions are very difficult to show as proved for sure.