SciPhysicsForums.com

Gordon Watson wrote:...
In my view you should have no reference to cross-products at all: which means, I suppose, no need for chirality??

I'm sure that "...no need for chirality" is not the right thing to say. Please read the section in Jay's long paper that talks about that. The notion that singlets have chirality has nothing to do with cross products. And we successfully demonstrate that QM is local in the EPR-Bohm case if the singlets do have chirality. Cross products or not.
.

Joy Christian wrote:

gill1109 wrote:We have two "new" types of experiment:

(1) the Vienna and NIST experiment with not fully entangled Eberhard states and detection rate just exceeding 66.7%;

(2) the Delft and Munich experiments with three parties (A, B and S; particles travel from A to S and from B to S, there are measurements at all three locations, and post-selection on the outcome at S. S is now a sink, not a source!)

I don't think the RSOS paper takes account of imperfect detection and I don't think it deals with post-selection. It should be easy to extend in these directions.

These are interesting experiments. The question of imperfect detection is also experimentally important. But these issues are not relevant for the advancement of my theoretical model.

To advance your theoretical model ... you might want to get the attention of younger generations of physicists. Young people who are ready to break with tradition. Problem: their "environment" is very different from that of, say, the young physicists of 50 to 40 years ago. I think it should help the advancement by explicitly treating the experiments which everyone is now talking about, and taking account of the issues which those experiments were designed to address.

FrediFizzx wrote:

Gordon Watson wrote:...
In my view you should have no reference to cross-products at all: which means, I suppose, no need for chirality??

I'm sure that "...no need for chirality" is not the right thing to say. Please read the section in Jay's long paper that talks about that. The notion that singlets have chirality has nothing to do with cross products. And we successfully demonstrate that QM is local in the EPR-Bohm case if the singlets do have chirality. Cross products or not.
.

1. Please: What do you mean by Jay's long paper? Chirality is not mentioned in Jay's paper of 31 pages.

2. Also: I'm suggesting that cross-products have no place -- whatsoever -- in the analysis of EPRB. Since spin-half requires only 2 basis-states, it can be addressed in a 2D vector-space containing a and b and trig-functions of the angle (a,b).

3. Note that, in my experiment, the angle (a,b) is constant: but no 2 detector settings are the same.

4. So -- it seems to me -- your demonstration needs to be generalized to include EPRB and Aspect (2004) in the same analysis: and to handle the deliberate "twist" in my experiment.

5. That twist being there to encourage you to drop all reference to cross-products and any need for chirality.

...

Gordon Watson wrote:

FrediFizzx wrote:

Gordon Watson wrote:...
In my view you should have no reference to cross-products at all: which means, I suppose, no need for chirality??

I'm sure that "...no need for chirality" is not the right thing to say. Please read the section in Jay's long paper that talks about that. The notion that singlets have chirality has nothing to do with cross products. And we successfully demonstrate that QM is local in the EPR-Bohm case if the singlets do have chirality. Cross products or not.
.

1. Please: What do you mean by Jay's long paper? Chirality is not mentioned in Jay's paper of 31 pages.
...

Hi Gordon,
I believe Fred is referring to my section 2 regarding the parity i.e. handedness of the singlet state.
Best,
Jay