Dedicated to the sci.physics.* UseNet groups of yesteryear
Skip to content
by FrediFizzx » Sat Oct 29, 2016 10:47 am
guest wrote:OK. But then the left hand side = +/-1 while the right hand side equals - a.b - L(axb, lambda)
by Joy Christian » Sat Oct 29, 2016 10:42 am
guest wrote:So it seems we actually get A(a,lambda)B(b, lambda) = L(a, lambda)L(b, lambda)
by guest » Sat Oct 29, 2016 10:27 am
FrediFizzx wrote:guest wrote:FrediFizzx wrote:Joy Christian wrote:***For the future reference, the following is a geometrical identity [cf. eqs. (68) and (72) of this paper]:***Isn't this an identity also given eq. (56)?I'm not sure why you have the limits even in there when they aren't used. They are only needed for eqs. (54) and (55).I think the limits were needed to get A(a, lambda) = +/-1, B(b, lambda) = -/+1So it seems we actually get A(a,lambda)B(b, lambda) = L(a, lambda)L(b, lambda)That is correct. You can consider the equation I wrote to be the next step after the equation Joy wrote. The limits aren't used so they can just come out..
guest wrote:FrediFizzx wrote:Joy Christian wrote:***For the future reference, the following is a geometrical identity [cf. eqs. (68) and (72) of this paper]:***Isn't this an identity also given eq. (56)?I'm not sure why you have the limits even in there when they aren't used. They are only needed for eqs. (54) and (55).I think the limits were needed to get A(a, lambda) = +/-1, B(b, lambda) = -/+1So it seems we actually get A(a,lambda)B(b, lambda) = L(a, lambda)L(b, lambda)
FrediFizzx wrote:Joy Christian wrote:***For the future reference, the following is a geometrical identity [cf. eqs. (68) and (72) of this paper]:***Isn't this an identity also given eq. (56)?I'm not sure why you have the limits even in there when they aren't used. They are only needed for eqs. (54) and (55).
Joy Christian wrote:***For the future reference, the following is a geometrical identity [cf. eqs. (68) and (72) of this paper]:***
by FrediFizzx » Sat Oct 29, 2016 10:05 am
by guest » Sat Oct 29, 2016 9:50 am
by FrediFizzx » Sat Oct 29, 2016 9:31 am
by Joy Christian » Sat Oct 29, 2016 7:10 am
by FrediFizzx » Sun Oct 16, 2016 10:43 am
FrediFizzx wrote:Ok, that seems right. It would be,to model the polarizer correctly. That would just replace the lambda^k in L(s1, lambda^k) so you would have,which is the same thing as you have. But the limits don't even matter in the correlation calculation anyways because you cancel out L(s1)L(s2) before detection.As it should be..
by FrediFizzx » Sun Oct 16, 2016 10:24 am
Joy Christian wrote:FrediFizzx wrote:So the limit function should actually be,Or simply,If you don't want to bother with initial and final..The correct limit is as I have it in the paper. All sign changes are accounted for, and encoded in lambda.If we have it like then no correlations would be observed. Correlations would average out to zero. ***
FrediFizzx wrote:So the limit function should actually be,Or simply,If you don't want to bother with initial and final..
by thray » Sun Oct 16, 2016 8:21 am
by Joy Christian » Sun Oct 16, 2016 1:16 am
by FrediFizzx » Sun Oct 16, 2016 1:05 am
by FrediFizzx » Sun Oct 16, 2016 12:55 am
Joy Christian wrote:I suppose one can have two meanings, or two separate definitions of the word "initial", one for the decay event --- which is what is meant by "initial" in the Bell literature --- and one for the detection event as you have it. But why bother with all such complications when I have explained clearly in the paper what is happening physically, with words, equations, and even a very illustrative figure?***
by Joy Christian » Sun Oct 16, 2016 12:35 am
FrediFizzx wrote:Joy Christian wrote:Sure, there are polarizers. But all of that is just part of the measurement set up, confined locally to the labs of Alice and Bob, who are space-like separated from one another. There is nothing in-between for the spins to deviate from free evolution, until they hit the polarizers. So physically s1_i --> s2_f = a is not what is happening.***Sure it is. "a" is the angle of the polarizer wrt some reference frame. That means when the particle is going thru the polarizer, its spin is aligned to "a" by the magnetic field and it is either "up" (+1) or down (-1). So surely s1_f = a after the polarizer and before the detectors. Well, actually s1_f is "a" or "-a" depending if aligned up or down. And s1_i (initial) is not necessarily equal to s1_f (final) but it could be.
Joy Christian wrote:Sure, there are polarizers. But all of that is just part of the measurement set up, confined locally to the labs of Alice and Bob, who are space-like separated from one another. There is nothing in-between for the spins to deviate from free evolution, until they hit the polarizers. So physically s1_i --> s2_f = a is not what is happening.***
by FrediFizzx » Sun Oct 16, 2016 12:10 am
by Joy Christian » Sat Oct 15, 2016 11:23 pm
FrediFizzx wrote:Joy Christian wrote:Actually, I take it back. Specifying s1_i --> s1_f = a and s2_i --> s2_f = b gives the wrong impression. It gives the impression that initial spin s1_i is somehow evolving into final spin s2_f, which just happens to be equal to a. But that is wrong. After the initial decay of the neutral pion there is no interaction between the spin and the detector, or between the two spins, until the spin hits the detector. The spins are evolving freely until detection. Only the conservation of the initial spin-0 remains in force during the evolution, so that s1 = s2 is maintained. It is only at the detector that the components of the two spins along the two respective directions a and b are measured by Alice and Bob, just as Bell has it in his own local model of 1964. So at least physically specifying s1_i --> s2_f = a is wrong. What is happening physically is the detection process s1 --> a, which picks out the normalized component of s1 along a, just as I have it in the paper. PS: Something is still wrong with the site. It takes ages to load. Or is it just my browser that is slow?That is not true. There are always polarizers (in the EPR-Bohm case it would be Stern-Gerlach devices) before the detectors and they direct the particle via its spin to either the up (+1) detector or the down (-1) detector. So s1_i --> s2_f = a is correct. "a" is the action of the polarizer via its angle setting. s1_i does go to s2_f at the polarizer.It is not your browser; it is the hosting company that I can't do anything about until Monday..
Joy Christian wrote:Actually, I take it back. Specifying s1_i --> s1_f = a and s2_i --> s2_f = b gives the wrong impression. It gives the impression that initial spin s1_i is somehow evolving into final spin s2_f, which just happens to be equal to a. But that is wrong. After the initial decay of the neutral pion there is no interaction between the spin and the detector, or between the two spins, until the spin hits the detector. The spins are evolving freely until detection. Only the conservation of the initial spin-0 remains in force during the evolution, so that s1 = s2 is maintained. It is only at the detector that the components of the two spins along the two respective directions a and b are measured by Alice and Bob, just as Bell has it in his own local model of 1964. So at least physically specifying s1_i --> s2_f = a is wrong. What is happening physically is the detection process s1 --> a, which picks out the normalized component of s1 along a, just as I have it in the paper. PS: Something is still wrong with the site. It takes ages to load. Or is it just my browser that is slow?
by FrediFizzx » Sat Oct 15, 2016 11:14 pm
by Ben6993 » Sat Oct 15, 2016 11:10 pm
by Joy Christian » Sat Oct 15, 2016 10:40 pm
FrediFizzx wrote:Joy Christian wrote:Specifying s1_i --> s1_f = a and s2_i --> s2_f = b is harmless. It is purely cosmetic, because s_1 and s_2 are not hidden variables to being with. Only lambda is. ***Good. Then why not do it? You can get rid of the A and B limit process on eqs. (69) thru (71). Actually you could go directly from (68) to (72) but you might want to retain some of the steps for clarity.
Joy Christian wrote:Specifying s1_i --> s1_f = a and s2_i --> s2_f = b is harmless. It is purely cosmetic, because s_1 and s_2 are not hidden variables to being with. Only lambda is. ***
by FrediFizzx » Sat Oct 15, 2016 1:55 pm
Top