4 ms·

It's just an expression of the conservation of energy. Much in the same way the double slit experiment conflates a particle transporting itself through two wind

It's just an expression of the conservation of energy. Much in the same way the double slit experiment conflates a particle transporting itself through two windows at once, so too, do these experiments conflate the polarizers as causing the effect. Ask yourself: if you construct a gun, with two diametrically opposed barrels, with exactly opposed rifling twists, and you aim the gun at two opposing (but identical) abrasive knurled metal rasp targets, such that if the bullet spins one way, the ricochet off rasp target will send it to a blue target, but if the bullet spins the other way, the grain of the rasp target is such that the bullet is sent to an orange target, will you be surprised to find that the behavior of the projectiles remains consistent? Fire those bullets out of that gun, and as the bullets leave the opposing twists of the barrel, and the spin of the bullets encounters the friction of the knurled surface, they will consistently be sent in whichever direction the spin of the barrels rifling puts them. When one side sends spins the bullet to hit the blue target, the other barrel's twist always puts the other corresponding bullet onto the orange target, by bouncing it off the polarizer rasp. So, now, to shrink downward to the realm of particle physics, what we find is that the ballistic particle guns are such that the emitter source is an array of many guns with varying rifling twists, but like pulling a lever on a slot machine, we cannot know which of the guns embedded in the radiation source will fire next. We won't know the turn of the rifling of the gun's barrel prior to whichever one happens to go off. We stick out our rasp target to have it send the bullet to a colored target, and we declare that the polarizer rasp directed the bullet particle, but not really. The emitting source's gun barrel imparted the spin. The polarizers induced behavior on particles that would have behaved as reciprocals anyway.

danbruc 8y ago
No, no, no. There is almost half a century of experimental evidence against you. The experimental results of Bell test experiments are incompatible with the assumption that the states of both particles are fixed when the pair is generated and are only classically correlated because of the way their states are fixed. All your analogy attempts are flawed and bound to fail exactly because entangled pairs of quantum particles do not behave like pairs of classical particles. You are making up classical experiment and assume that quantum particles will behave in the same way, but they don't. And that's the entire point. EDIT: I just came across an illustration which might be helpful. I will place three coins on a table and cover them so that you can not see whether they are heads or tails. You get to pick two of them and I will reveal them for you but you can never look at the third one. Your task is to figure out by which rule I am placing the coins on the table. In the first round you pick coins one and two, I reveal them to be heads and tails. In the second round you pick coins one and two again, now they are tails and heads. You continue picking coins one and two for a few thousand rounds and always see heads and tails or tails and heads, they are never the same. Then you switch to picking coins two and three for a few thousand rounds and again they are always heads and tails or tails and heads, they are also never the same. Now you have figured out what I am doing, I am randomly choosing between heads, tails, heads and tails, heads, tails for coins one, two, and three. So in the next round you pick coins one and three and I reveal them to you. Heads and tails. WtF?!? They should have been the same if I always choose between heads, tails, heads and tails, heads, tails. You try again. Heads and tails. Again. Tails and heads. No matter what you try, you never get to see two coins with the same side up. That's ridiculous, you think. There are only two sides to a coin but three coins on the table. At least two of the coins have to have the same side up in each round and if you select the two coins to reveal at random, then you should at least sometimes get to see two coins with the same side up no matter which rule I use to place them. But you don't. Assuming that I choose heads and tails for each of the coins when I placed them on the table and before you make your choice is incompatible with your observation that you never see two coins with the same side up. But if you assume that I can magically turn the coins around at the moment you tell me which two coins to reveal, then you can explain your observation. It may however trouble you because your explanation now involves magic. And that is roughly how entangled pairs in Bell test experiments behave. Or more formally, classically P(1=2) + P(2=3) + P(3=1) >= 1, at least two coins always have the same side up no matter what the underlying distribution is. Entangled pairs in Bell test experiments violate this inequality, the probability of two coins having the same side up is less than 1. Not 0 as I portrayed it but 0.75.
- bomberFighter 8y ago
  Except you can't tell me what the spin is without polarizers. This is like telling me I have to measure the orientation of a fidget spinner with a fitness club's treadmill set to the brisk pace of an uphill jog. None of the experiments don't use polarizing lenses to make a determination of results on both sides. This is where the experiments are fundamentally flawed and propose weak evidence. To simply read about the fundamentals of light polarization is to understand that quantum wave function collapse is much ado about nothing, and it becomes obvious that all this contention is total bullshit, and none of it is magic. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polarizer https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polarizer https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polarizing_filter_(photography) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polarizing_filter_(photography... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photon_polarization https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photon_polarization
- breadAndWater 8y ago
  Except you can't tell me what the spin is without polarizers. This is like telling me I have to measure the orientation of a fidget spinner with a fitness club's treadmill set to the brisk pace of an uphill jog. None of the experiments don't use polarizing lenses to make a determination of results on both sides. This is where the experiments are fundamentally flawed and propose weak evidence. To simply read about the fundamentals of light polarization is to understand that quantum wave function collapse is much ado about nothing, and it becomes obvious that all this contention is total bullshit, and none of it is magic. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polarizer https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polarizer https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polarizing_filter_(photography) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polarizing_filter_(photography... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photon_polarization https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photon_polarization
  - danbruc 8y ago
    If you read through the list of Bell test experiments [1], you will discover that not all of them are done with photons, for example »Violation of Bell’s inequality in Josephson phase qubits« [2]. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bell_test_experiments#Notable_experiments https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bell_test_experiments#Notable_... [2] https://web.physics.ucsb.edu/~martinisgroup/papers/Ansmann2009.pdf https://web.physics.ucsb.edu/~martinisgroup/papers/Ansmann20...

danbruc 8y ago

No, no, no. There is almost half a century of experimental evidence against you. The experimental results of Bell test experiments are incompatible with the assumption that the states of both particles are fixed when the pair is generated and are only classically correlated because of the way their states are fixed. All your analogy attempts are flawed and bound to fail exactly because entangled pairs of quantum particles do not behave like pairs of classical particles. You are making up classical experiment and assume that quantum particles will behave in the same way, but they don't. And that's the entire point. EDIT: I just came across an illustration which might be helpful. I will place three coins on a table and cover them so that you can not see whether they are heads or tails. You get to pick two of them and I will reveal them for you but you can never look at the third one. Your task is to figure out by which rule I am placing the coins on the table. In the first round you pick coins one and two, I reveal them to be heads and tails. In the second round you pick coins one and two again, now they are tails and heads. You continue picking coins one and two for a few thousand rounds and always see heads and tails or tails and heads, they are never the same. Then you switch to picking coins two and three for a few thousand rounds and again they are always heads and tails or tails and heads, they are also never the same. Now you have figured out what I am doing, I am randomly choosing between heads, tails, heads and tails, heads, tails for coins one, two, and three. So in the next round you pick coins one and three and I reveal them to you. Heads and tails. WtF?!? They should have been the same if I always choose between heads, tails, heads and tails, heads, tails. You try again. Heads and tails. Again. Tails and heads. No matter what you try, you never get to see two coins with the same side up. That's ridiculous, you think. There are only two sides to a coin but three coins on the table. At least two of the coins have to have the same side up in each round and if you select the two coins to reveal at random, then you should at least sometimes get to see two coins with the same side up no matter which rule I use to place them. But you don't. Assuming that I choose heads and tails for each of the coins when I placed them on the table and before you make your choice is incompatible with your observation that you never see two coins with the same side up. But if you assume that I can magically turn the coins around at the moment you tell me which two coins to reveal, then you can explain your observation. It may however trouble you because your explanation now involves magic. And that is roughly how entangled pairs in Bell test experiments behave. Or more formally, classically P(1=2) + P(2=3) + P(3=1) >= 1, at least two coins always have the same side up no matter what the underlying distribution is. Entangled pairs in Bell test experiments violate this inequality, the probability of two coins having the same side up is less than 1. Not 0 as I portrayed it but 0.75.

bomberFighter 8y ago
Except you can't tell me what the spin is without polarizers. This is like telling me I have to measure the orientation of a fidget spinner with a fitness club's treadmill set to the brisk pace of an uphill jog. None of the experiments don't use polarizing lenses to make a determination of results on both sides. This is where the experiments are fundamentally flawed and propose weak evidence. To simply read about the fundamentals of light polarization is to understand that quantum wave function collapse is much ado about nothing, and it becomes obvious that all this contention is total bullshit, and none of it is magic. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polarizer https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polarizer https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polarizing_filter_(photography) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polarizing_filter_(photography... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photon_polarization https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photon_polarization
breadAndWater 8y ago
Except you can't tell me what the spin is without polarizers. This is like telling me I have to measure the orientation of a fidget spinner with a fitness club's treadmill set to the brisk pace of an uphill jog. None of the experiments don't use polarizing lenses to make a determination of results on both sides. This is where the experiments are fundamentally flawed and propose weak evidence. To simply read about the fundamentals of light polarization is to understand that quantum wave function collapse is much ado about nothing, and it becomes obvious that all this contention is total bullshit, and none of it is magic. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polarizer https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polarizer https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polarizing_filter_(photography) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polarizing_filter_(photography... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photon_polarization https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photon_polarization
- danbruc 8y ago
  If you read through the list of Bell test experiments [1], you will discover that not all of them are done with photons, for example »Violation of Bell’s inequality in Josephson phase qubits« [2]. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bell_test_experiments#Notable_experiments https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bell_test_experiments#Notable_... [2] https://web.physics.ucsb.edu/~martinisgroup/papers/Ansmann2009.pdf https://web.physics.ucsb.edu/~martinisgroup/papers/Ansmann20...