swansont

We know enough about the photon that there are things that cannot be described classically. That you are unfamiliar with these details carries no weight, but that's something that can be rectified.

No, they don't have to occupy the same space. Fermions can't, even though e.g. electrons are indistinguishable from each other.

Deceleration is an acceleration in the negative direction. But if you speed a charge up, you will also get radiation. The change in energy of bound states is not associated with an acceleration.

Angular momentum is not KE. Momentum is not energy. Spin is a vector, so negative spin is that with the spin axis in the opposite direction of positive spin. From a vector standpoint, negative spin should make perfect sense.

Periodic bump to remind you to please read the rules and etiquette guide in case haven't already done so. Also to remind you not to respond to spam posts — please just report them. (Spam is actually easier to spot in the new content queue if there are no responses; a reply suggests a legitimate inquiry was posted)

Still not relevant to the discussion.

We're not talking about building a purposefully crappy detector, though. Photon polarization detectors don't measure like that. How do you do that? Ah, the firm conviction of ignorance. This is the crux of the matter: there is no classical analogue. Classical states and quantum states are inherently different. Not knowing the state and not having a definite state are not the same thing.

Photons travel at c. Light travels as slow as you can make it.

Your rectangular hole detector depends on how it's put together. I can talk about polarization or spin detection without that. Besides, I can snap a picture of the bowling pins and determine their orientation to an arbitrary degree of precision.

! Moderator Note Not what I was hoping for; you're flailing. (and failing) First of all, arguments about time can't rest on flawed/incomplete recording systems (time stamps and clocks that don't read the day and year) Radioactive decay will proceed in isolation. Or simple de-excitation. Memory falls under point 1. The effect of the passage of time did not begin when people sprang up with the ability to remember. "Interaction with surroundings" is not the same as memory. Further, "Are not all increases in entropy the result of interactions among objects, and not the passage of time?" implies that you think time is some sort of force or action, yet you have provided no evidence for this; that is not part of mainstream physics. (it can be two things) You have no model, you have no evidence. To your credit, you did bring up a test, but unfortunately your idea fails that test, since radioactive decay/de-excitation is spontaneous. If you have questions about these ideas you are free to post them (new thread, please. No hijacking other discussions), but take care not to assert anything without supporting evidence. No more "I believe..." on this subject.

When you claim to understand something, I take you at your word. Bust such claims make it hard to identify what it is that you need explained to you. That would be relativity. Time is relative to the frame in which the observer is in. And in this context it might be better to simply say "precede", since "determine" seems to be causing problems, and to bring it up in an appropriate thread.

Show what the result will be with a perfect detector, if the detector is not aligned with the bowling pins.

Yes. There are phenomena that classical physics does not predict or explaon. Such as entanglement.

They are not related. The change in energy of bound states leading to fluorescence is not associated with an acceleration, which is the hallmark of bremsstrahlung. Which comes from free, not bound, charged particles.

Not enough information to proceed. "Relative velocity" can simply mean a difference in direction. You need to clarify.

! Moderator Note What you're presenting does not rise to what we call speculation, as outlined here. If you aren't up to a discussion at that level, then this will be closed.

Not from a classical perspective — you have a field with a spatial extent, so it can't not interact with the medium, which has a different permittivity and permeability (which affect electric and magnetic fields). From a QM perspective you could say it's possible, but the odds are vanishingly small. There are a lot of atoms with which it might interact, even for a small amount of matter (which would then have a correspondingly small effect on the light) A microgram of material is still going to be somewhere of order 10^15 atoms.

Different definition of determine. You neglected to italicize the sentence following that clarifies the details. To determine: to ascertain or establish as opposed to to cause (def 2 vs def 1 in my dictionary) I can determine that a coin is heads up by looking at it, but I did not cause it to be heads up by looking at it. The measurement in QM only removes the superposition. No, as I pointed out above. Precisely. And that precludes a claim that we don't know when it had a definite spin, it only limits the precision with which we can make it, but that's true of all experimental physics. And the theory, of course, removes that issue.

! Moderator Note You have no knowledge upon which to base any speculation at all. Whatever they are doing is undoubtedly secured by NDAs, so all you have is guesswork and argument from personal incredulity. And on top of that, you throw conspiracy into the mix. (along with absolutely no links to anything) Sorry, that's not going to fly. You need to back up your argument.

The two statements do not address the same issue, and don't even have the same context. Classical and quantum are not trying to solve the same problem — classical has determined states while QM doesn't. However, that does not mean that we can't show this, and doesn't mean the paper in question omits the QM analysis — it goes through both a classical and QM treatment. They are shown to disagree. Direct? Probably, but it's early and nothing pops into mind at the moment. But science does not always rely on direct tests. Insisting on a narrow scope of results is to categorically reject certain scientific evidence without justification or inspection. The results that immediately come to mind are interferometric results that depend on superposition of states. You can compare them, but they won't agree.

! Moderator Note Wonderful. However, posting just to show videos or other forms of blog-like advertising are against the rules. You are free to discuss things here, though.

Yes, you did suggest something else. You suggested that we can't tell if a particle has a definite spin before detection. This experiment contradicts that claim. The correlations predicted by QM are that there are no local hidden variables. That there is no definite spin before detection. i.e. the opposite of what you had suggested. Oh, bullshit. You keep saying there is no way to tell when the particle attains the spin it was measured to have. Since it has to have that spin once we've measured it, the only other option is that it already had that spin. And if it's an entangled pair, we can measure the second particle to confirm its spin (though we know it already)with an arbitrarily short delay between measurements, so we can confirm that it has its spin at that time. So again, the only other option is that it already had that spin before the measurement. Which is excluded by the Bell test. So if you agree with that, why is it you have insisted that we can't tell when a particle attains the spin we measure it to have? What is the other option here? It doesn't matter which one is measured first. That's the whole crux of the weirdness of entanglement. We already know that the results are acausal — any purported signal that might have been sent between particles would have to exceed c. From what I can tell, what this experiment shows is that same effect but in a different way. The experiment is cast in terms of the particles' frames. The observer is in only one frame, and once the observer measures one spin, s/he has determined both spins. This experiment is demonstrating a separate effect, as I just explained.

How does that experiment contradict what I said? Not confirming is not the same as contradicting — a physics experiment is designed to test specific aspects of physics, not all of them. The experiment is consistent with what I was saying. Well, yes it is. You don't appear to recognize it, though. Stop moving the goalposts around. You asked several things. It's disingenuous to take an answer to one question and complain that it's not the answer to another one. Bell tests are all about whether the particle has a definite spin, and further, you asked me to provide experiments in response to "Because we can do the experiments to confirm this. It's always spin down in that basis. If measured in another basis, the statistics are consistent with it being spin down in the original basis. Plus, angular momentum is conserved." Several (if not all) of those experiments show precisely this. And it's how we know entangled spins were not determined before the measurement. That they are correlated, and the way they are correlated, tells us a lot. Does the article claim to violate the Bell test (such that there are hidden variables)? No, it doesn't. So, in summary: Bell experiments tell us that the spins are not determined before measurement. Conservation of angular momentum and experimental confirmation tell us that the spins are determined when any particle is measured.

So, that's a "no" for my question? Citations are in the references https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bell_test_experiments

That's the measurement effect, and is distinct from other phenomena.