Unghostly entanglement

[Lazarus]

The length of the pin is less than the long dimention of the rectangle and greater than the width of it. With the rectangle in the long derecttion vertical, a vertical pin will always go through. A horizontal pin will always hit the side of the rectangle. When the rectangle is rotated a bit the horizontal distance becomes greater and a hoizontal pin has a better chance of making it through without hitting the side.

[swansont]

That's a purely classical measurement. Very different from measuring polarization.

[Lazarus]

The Bell Inequality proof makes the unwarranted assumption that rotating the measuring device two degrees would necessarily limit the number of misses to twice the number of misses of a one degree rotation.

 

That assumption is not only unjustified but contrary to experimental evidence.

 

The Bowling Pin description demonstrates one example that does not fit Bell’s proof.

 

An interesting comment by Bell was made.

Later in his life, Bell expressed his hope that such work would "continue to inspire those who suspect that what is proved by the impossibility proofs is lack of imagination”.

[swansont]

The Bell Inequality proof makes the unwarranted assumption that rotating the measuring device two degrees would necessarily limit the number of misses to twice the number of misses of a one degree rotation.

 

That assumption is not only unjustified but contrary to experimental evidence.

 

The Bowling Pin description demonstrates one example that does not fit Bell’s proof.

 

An interesting comment by Bell was made.

Later in his life, Bell expressed his hope that such work would "continue to inspire those who suspect that what is proved by the impossibility proofs is lack of imagination”.

 

You have it backwards. You have violated an assumption that the Bell example made. If I'm understanding your point, your detection scheme is not the same. The example can't be shown wrong unless you follow the assumptions that are part of it.

 

What experimental evidence contradicts this? I don't recall you citing any.

 

The bowling pin description still fits within the Bell inequality. You just have to do a proper analysis of it, which you have not done. I hinted at one in post 11, and you immediately acknowledged how your description fails.

[Lazarus]

Regardless of whether or not the Bowling Ball model is a valid demonstration of the failure of the assumption that doubling the angle of rotation of a measuring device can’t more than double the misses, what justifies Bell’s assumption that it is impossible for a physical situation to more than double the number of misses.

[swansont]

Regardless of whether or not the Bowling Ball model is a valid demonstration of the failure of the assumption that doubling the angle of rotation of a measuring device can’t more than double the misses, what justifies Bell’s assumption that it is impossible for a physical situation to more than double the number of misses.

 

I don't think you've read that right, or didn't understand what's going on. As you change the angle of the detector, you start getting wrong answers. Classically it depends on the sine of the angle. For small angles, doubling the angle doubles the sine. But QM gives a different answer, which is how we know the classical analysis is wrong.

[Lazarus]

You see black, I see white. I greatly respect your knowledge, intellect, experience and willingness to share your knowledge. In this case I just cannot agree with your perspective. If I can come up with an analysis that I think would be more acceptable to you I will post it. You have always given helpful responses to any post and I am grateful for your help.

[swansont]

You see black, I see white. I greatly respect your knowledge, intellect, experience and willingness to share your knowledge. In this case I just cannot agree with your perspective. If I can come up with an analysis that I think would be more acceptable to you I will post it. You have always given helpful responses to any post and I am grateful for your help.

 

You aren't going to do away with Bell inequalities and the quantum nature of entanglement by coming up with a different example. The physics doesn't depend on a particular system being used — it's generally applicable. It only the examples used to explain it that are specific systems. The tactic of just coming up with a more clever scenario isn't going to change this. (It's a tactic used in relativity examples, too). Math works, and ultimately for thought problems, it's all math.

 

You are wrong, if that helps adjust your perspective. You might focus your efforts on understanding why you are wrong, instead of trying to justify why you are right.

[Lazarus]

Your last reply persuaded me to post a very simple explanation of why Bell’s assumption that doubling the angle doubles the wrong way photons has a problem.

 

The rectangular measurement devices are 2.5 meters long and 2 meters wide and both of the measurement devices are rotated the same amount. . The polarized photons are 2.0001 meters long. When the photons are aligned parallel or perpendicular 100% are opposite. Successive photons have a random location spread of .1 meters. When one of the measuring devices is rotated 1% the length available to a wrong way photon increases to 2.000304656 meters. That allows some of the wrong way photon to get through. Rotating the measuring device 2 degrees makes the available length 2.001219088 meters. The slack allowing some of the wrong way photons to get through is .000304656 meters for a 1% rotation and .001219088 meters for a 2% rotation. The slack is not double but close to 4 times which implies that 4 times as many wrong way photons can get through. So it is NOT impossible to conceive of a correct physical interpretation.

 

[swansont]

Your last reply persuaded me to post a very simple explanation of why Bell’s assumption that doubling the angle doubles the wrong way photons has a problem.

 

The rectangular measurement devices are 2.5 meters long and 2 meters wide and both of the measurement devices are rotated the same amount. . The polarized photons are 2.0001 meters long. When the photons are aligned parallel or perpendicular 100% are opposite. Successive photons have a random location spread of .1 meters. When one of the measuring devices is rotated 1% the length available to a wrong way photon increases to 2.000304656 meters. That allows some of the wrong way photon to get through. Rotating the measuring device 2 degrees makes the available length 2.001219088 meters. The slack allowing some of the wrong way photons to get through is .000304656 meters for a 1% rotation and .001219088 meters for a 2% rotation. The slack is not double but close to 4 times which implies that 4 times as many wrong way photons can get through. So it is NOT impossible to conceive of a correct physical interpretation.

 

simple.JPG

 

If your example is different than the other example, there are different assumptions involved. You can't blindly compare the two.

 

I have no idea what you're trying to show. Your example of photons makes no sense. The length isn't what matters. The transmitted intensity depends on cos²(Ω) if Ω is the angle between the polarizer axis and the polarization direction. A classical measurement depends on cos(Ω). Plug in some small-angle numbers. You will see the variations are different by about a factor of two. e.g. 1- cos²(1º) = 0.000305 but 1- cos(1º) =0.000152

[Lazarus]

Whether this example uses photons or sticks, the resultant pattern is comparable to the experimental results and to Quantum theory predictions.

 

IMPOSSIBLE is a very strong condition but the Bell’s Inequality theory makes a questionable assumption about the relationship of the angle of rotation of one of the measuring devices and the number of wrong way protons detected. The assumption justification claims that no more than twice as many wrong way photons will be detected at 2 degrees of rotation than at 1 degree of rotation.

 

Look at the way you and Bell justify it.

 

“The length isn't what matters. The transmitted intensity depends on cos²(Ω) if Ω is the angle between the polarizer axis and the polarization direction. A classical measurement depends on cos(Ω). Plug in some small-angle numbers. You will see the variations are different by about a factor of two. e.g. 1- cos²(1º) = 0.000305 but 1- cos(1º) =0.000152”

 

What is the evidence of a linear correlation between the cosine of the angle and the number of wrong way photons?

[swansont]

 

“The length isn't what matters. The transmitted intensity depends on cos²(Ω) if Ω is the angle between the polarizer axis and the polarization direction. A classical measurement depends on cos(Ω). Plug in some small-angle numbers. You will see the variations are different by about a factor of two. e.g. 1- cos²(1º) = 0.000305 but 1- cos(1º) =0.000152”

 

What is the evidence of a linear correlation between the cosine of the angle and the number of wrong way photons?

It's not linear, as I just explained. The evidence is about two hundred years of studying the effects. Malus's law.

[Lazarus]

If doubling the angle = doubling the wrong way photons is not linear, it doesn’t matter. There has to be an excuse for assuming that to be the relationship. Also, 2 hundred years ago nobody cared about entanglement. The cosine thing does nothing to justify the assumption.

 

It is fair to ask for a reason for assuming that doubling the angle doubles the wrong way photons.

[swansont]

Because that's how polarization works. Maybe you should look into that before you tackle entanglement.

[Lazarus]

Please, if you would, answer the double assumption question.

[swansont]

Please, if you would, answer the double assumption question.

 

I did. Polarization measurement is very well established, quite independent of its use in entanglement experiments. The justification question is actually in the opposite direction, seeing as you own the burden of proof: why would you assume that polarization would suddenly start working differently than it's known to have worked for 200 years? That doesn't seem the kind of thing that one should hang their objection on.

[Lazarus]

The mesurement is not in question. The Bell's contention that it is impossible to have a physical explanation is dependent upon his assumption that doubling the angle of rotation cannot cause more than double the wrong way photons. That is the point of contention.

[swansont]

The mesurement is not in question. The Bell's contention that it is impossible to have a physical explanation is dependent upon his assumption that doubling the angle of rotation cannot cause more than double the wrong way photons. That is the point of contention.

 

Bell's explanation is for the example that Bell gave. You can't substitute in an arbitrary measurement directly. You would have to re-do the analysis.

 

In the example Bell gave, the classical measurement is that it depends directly on the angle. You double the angle (according to the small angle approximation) and you double the counts in the orthogonal axis. But the QM solution depends on cos², and the number of counts goes up by ~4x. If you want to debunk that, you have to use Bell's example. Good luck, because it's spot on. And your analysis shouldn't include anything like "polarized photons are 2.0001 meters long" because that's utter nonsense.

[Lazarus]

Swansont said:

polarized photons are 2.0001 meters long" because that's utter nonsense.

 

Lazarus said:

A photon with a frequency of149992500.3749812509374531 Hertz has a wavelength of 2.0001 meters, microwave range.

 

 

Swansont said: said:

You double the angle (according to the small angle approximation) and you double the counts in the orthogonal axis.

 

Lazarus said:

Why would that necessarly translate to twice as many wrong way detections. The difference in the length of the unorthogonal axis quadruples, which matches QM's numbers.

 

The still is a "leap of faith" in the theory.

[swansont]

Swansont said:

polarized photons are 2.0001 meters long" because that's utter nonsense.[/size]

 

Lazarus said:

A photon with a frequency of149992500.3749812509374531 Hertz has a wavelength of 2.0001 meters, microwave range.

The calculation isn't the problem. It's irrelevant to the issue if detecting them through a polarizer. Polarizers do not filter according to wavelength (assuming the material transmits light at the wavelength in question) That's why it's nonsense. It literally makes no sense to bring it up in this context.

 

Swansont said: said:

You double the angle (according to the small angle approximation) and you double the counts in the orthogonal axis.

 

Lazarus said:

Why would that necessarly translate to twice as many wrong way detections. The difference in the length of the unorthogonal axis quadruples, which matches QM's numbers.

No. The length of the orthogonal part varies as sin(x). That's basic trig. sin(2x) = ~2sin(x) for small values of x

 

The still is a "leap of faith" in the theory.

Only for those who don't know the science. But that's a solvable problem.

[Lazarus]

Rule # 92: If you can't answer a question, invoke "Authority".

[swansont]

Rule # 92: If you can't answer a question, invoke "Authority".

It's not invoking authority. It's pointing you to well-established physics that you can go learn. Or not.

[Lazarus]

The reason to assume that doubling the angle doubles the wrong way photons is that probabilities add if they are not independent of each other. A measuring device can be constructed to match that assumption. The measuring device can be constructed to match Quantum Theory or something entirely different.

 

To match the probability assumption, using orthogonal bowling pins fired at the device with a slight random spread, construct an ellipse with a door on the side that opens as the device is rotated. The long axis is slightly longer than the length of the bowling pin. The short axis is slightly shorter than the length of the pin. A pin that passes through is considered detected. A pin that hits the device is considered undetected. So doubling the angle will double the wrong way pins.

 

 

 

 

To match the Quantum Theory result, use a flat sheet with a rectangular hole. Same rules, passing through hole is considered detected. The long dimension of the hole is slightly greater than the pin and the short dimension is slightly shorter than the pin. The distance available for wrong way pin to pass through quadruples when the angle is doubled.

 

 

 

The relationship between the angle and the number of misses is dependent on the construction of the device so the assumption that doubling the angle always doubles the misses is flawed.

[swansont]

I will point out, yet again, that if you change the conditions of the experiment, the analysis is no longer valid. You're comparing apples and oranges.

[Lazarus]

The measuring device’s design determines the relationship between the angle of rotation and the results, not probability theory.

 

Since s measuring device can be constructed that will match Quantum Theory results, Bell’s impossibility claim is wrong and Spooky Entanglement does not exist. Einstein’s contention that “Hidden Variables” really exist is consistent with this scenario. Schroeder’s cat is out of the bag. (or box)