Recent content by Ben vdP

I had a quick look at this issue. Suppose an electron has a spin orientation that can be any direction. The other electron has exactly the opposite direction. One electron is being measured in the z-direction and the result is positive if the z-component is positive. So all positive...

Thanks for the link.

Indeed that is the difficulty. But it seems we have moved more into Bell's theorem then just entanglement.

OK, I am not familiar with the later papers. When rotating both angles of the two detectors in the same way then the result stays the same. A hidden parameter needs to explain this, that the two photons of a pair will measure in similar ways, regardless of the probability distribution of a...

I need more coffee, I forgot to mention following example: There is no actual spin orientation available for measurement only as mentioned above in the z-direction. If there exists such a variable then conservation laws dictates they are opposite. That could explain some measurements around...

Bell was concerned with determinism. But not everything has to be deterministic. To explain correlations with measurements at an angle then there is still Pauli. If I'm not mistaken then the probability distribution of measuring at an angle θ is : $$ cos ^ 2 ( \frac { θ } {2} ) $$ When...

Hi, yesterday I had a computer free day. So indeed the context was mainly Ballentine.

There is no need for any of that. And Peter Donis is right it is pure speculation. The simplest explanation is in line with Ballentine. In an experiment that involves the creation of photon pairs, spin measurements are made at opposite positions. Subsequently photons are detected and a...

p.s. And with the ingredients I mean those mentioned in note 11. Spin orientation looks like a candidate for the hidden factor.

OK, I still need to look into the consequences and into bell inequalities a bit deeper. But that could be a chapter on its own. My impression is however that the core of the issue has to do with spin. Working in a spin impulse-moment representation might be enough to explain Stern-Gerlach...

A minor note : I do not actually get the metaphor in note 5 above . What is actually the common factor? I would expect that you get higher correlations due to for example having a common taste.

A minor note: Unfortunately the article in Phys. Rev. Lett. mentioned in note 7 was not accessible through the link as it required credentials. There are several other links available like https://faculty.washington.edu/afine/PRL1982.pdf I do not know what would be the most proper one,

The previously provided feedback and references have been helpful and gave some directions to look further into. It was a bit confusing to read about measurements A0, A1, B0, B1 without an explicit statement on what they actually stand for or what relationships exists between them. It makes a...

I should add that roughly at the Chandrasekhar limit the speed of the electrons are already very close to the speed of light. So impulse p is about mc and energy is now about pc according to special relativity.

This could be at least a partial answer. Degenerate stars can only exist up to a maximal mass, the Chandrasekhar mass. There needs to be an equilibrium between the gravitational pull and outward pressure. For very dense stars, like white dwarfs, gas pressure and it's kinetic energy doesn't...