proof of Bell's theorem (quantum physics)

-
Assume we have some source of electrons with entangled spins. This means that if A and B are a pair, if I choose to measure them both in the same axis, one will be up and other down.
 Now, A and B are sent off to two boxes very far from each other, which we will call Trump and Biden. Trump and Biden can each measure the spin of their electron in three different axes.
These are the 3 axes and we choose them so that they are 120 degrees apart from each other. When A arrives at Trump, Trump randomly chooses an axis to measure A's spin in, and Biden does the same thing with B. But they do it independently from each other, so Trump could measure spin around 2 and Biden around 3, for example. If the boxes measure their electron to be spinning, then they flash red, or if it spins down they flash white.
Someone notes if they're the same colour or not. This experiment has been repeated many times. The question is, what fraction of the time will their colour be different? The answer is actually half, let's say Trump measured around axis 1, and happened to get spin down. Let's see how likely Biden is to measure spin down as well.The reason I can just pick a particular case like this is because all the other cases will work in the same way, to the same result.
 Well, 1/3 of the time, Biden will choose axis 1 as well, since A and B are entangled, Biden's particle will definitely have spin up in that direction so the colours don't match
What about if Biden measured around axis 2? Because A is down in the first axis, so we just have to figure out how much of this spin is pointing in the 2nd direction. Actually as you can see, this vector is partly pointing in the negative direction of axis 2. What does this mean? It means that if you measure the spin in axis 2,it is either going to be up or down, but more likely to be down. So in this case A and B are more likely than not going to have the same spin and the colours are more likely to be the same. 

What about axis 3? This is really similar to 2. As you can say, this vector is pointing in the negative direction of axis 3,so most of the time B will be down if it is measured in axis 3, so again they A and B will most likely have the same colour. 

Let's review those 3 cases again: If Biden is on axis 1, Trump and Biden definitely won't have the same colour. If Biden is on axis 2 or 3 though, more often than not Trump and Biden will have the same colour. It works out so that overall there's an exactly 50 percent chance that Trump and Biden have the same colour and 50 percent chance they don't.

Local theory 
Firstly, let's think about what happens when Trump and Biden happen to pick the same axis. A and B have to be opposite spins. We know that if nothing goes faster than light than light, the only way this can happen is if the particles decided their spin while they were in contact. We don't know how they decide who gets which spin, but the awesome thing about this argument is that it doesn't matter. All that matters is that each particle A and B decide what spins there are in each of the 3 directions beforehand.

There are 8 possibilities: we will look at the case where A is spun up in axis 1 and 3 and spun down in 2 and the case where A is spun up in every axis. Why can we get this? Because we can get the other cases either by swapping which particle we call A and B, which doesn't matter, or swapping the names of the axes, which also doesn't matter.

Let's consider the case that A is all spin up. If so, what's the chance that Trump and Biden will have the same colour? No matter which axes get picked, A is always up, and B is down, so they're always different spins whenever they adopt this plan. What about the other plan? This is A's spin in each and underneath is B's.

Trump and Biden randomly pick axes, and there are a few possibilities for what happens: Trump could pick then Biden could pick as well, so they are different colours or he could pick 2, which means that they would have the same colour etc, and we just go through and tally up all 9 possibilities and find that they are different colours.

So that means that whether or not A and B picked a plan like this or like the previous type, they will always be more likely to have the same colour. But as we already know, this isn't the right result. So you see, local theories just don't have the right tools to explain I think that's because spin is a crazy phenomena that is nothing like the classical properties of matter that we are used to on the other hand any local theory is quite classical because it assume particle can't ffect each other instantly over distances which really limits. How weird it can be and in this case, it's just too classical to explain something like spin. So, that's Bell's theorem. 

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

The Quantum Internet Will Blow Your Mind. Here’s What It Will Look Like

-
Image
The Quantum Internet Will Blow Your Mind. Here’s What It Will Look Like The next generation of the Internet will rely on revolutionary new tech — allowing for unhackable networks and information that travels faster than the speed of light. By  Dan Hurley Oct 4, 2020 4:30 AM (Credit: Jurik Peter/Shutterstock) Newsletter Sign up for our email newsletter for the latest science news SIGN UP   This article appeared in the November 2020 issue of  Discover  magazine as "The Quest for a Quantum Internet."  Subscribe  for more stories like these. Call it the quantum Garden of Eden. Fifty or so miles east of New York City, on the campus of Brookhaven National Laboratory, Eden Figueroa is one of the world’s pioneering gardeners planting the seeds of a quantum internet. Capable of sending enormous amounts of data over vast distances, it would work not just faster than the current internet but faster than the speed of light — instantaneously, in fact, like the teleporta...
Read more

Libet Experiment,Quantum Mechanics, Determism And Free Will.

-
Image
You went to vote and thought about whether it is better to vote for Trump or Biden. Later that then caused Biden to win. That's how it seems, but Benjamin Libette's experiment in the 1980's cast some doubts on that in his Neuroscience lab he wired up the subject to an EEG machine measuring brain activity via electrode on their scalps and then asked them to choose to perform a simple hand movement like you were supposed to choose trump or Biden.  When they felt like it, he also got them to record the time at which they made a conscious decision to move their hands disconcertingly. He found evidence of brain activity initiating the movement hundreds of milliseconds before the individual willed anything to happen. Some people think this is proof that free will is an illusion that our conscious decisions are more like reports on what is already happening than the cause of our action. Libbette didn't go that far. He thought that we mig...
Read more

Does a chair exist if nobody sees it? Relational quantum mechanics says ‘NO! ’

-
Image
Imagine you sit down and pick up your favorite book. You look at the image on the front cover, run your fingers across the smooth book sleeve, and smell that familiar book smell as you flick through the pages. To you, the book is made up of a range of sensory appearances. But you also expect the book has its own independent existence behind those appearances. So when you put the book down on the coffee table and walk into the kitchen, or leave your house to go to work, you expect the book still looks, feels, and smells just as it did when you were holding it. Expecting objects to have their own independent existence – independent of us, and any other objects – is actually a deep-seated assumption we make about the world. This assumption has its origin in the scientific revolution of the 17th century and is part of what we call the  mechanistic worldview . According to this view, the world is like a giant clockwork machine whose parts are governed by set laws of motion. ...
Read more