Pages Menu
Categories Menu

Posted by on Jun 29, 2011 in Quantum Crackpots | 0 comments

Quantum Crackpot Randi Challenge Taken: Part 1

In answering the Crackpot Randi Challenge, I following Crackpot rules to obtain results which agree with the experimental data of Gregor Weihs and Alain Aspect, without entanglement.

Before starting, we need to agree on the rules and the way to proceed.

The Rules are presented in the Challenge under “Hidden Variable Madness“. These are extracted first and clarified:

1.  “8000 pairs of tennis balls are each prepared, say some instructions are written on them, and then split. One ball is always thrown to Alice on the left; the second flies to Bob on the right.”

The instructions written on the balls are LHV (Local Hidden Variables) and time stamps.

I deal with one pair at a time, like the experiment. So I will not treat 8000 pairs, only 1.  However what works for one pair will work for 8000 pairs.

One pair coming from a singlet state is called an EPR pair.  By definition the LHV must always be the same for the two particles that make up an EPR pair.

2.  “Every of the 8000 trials starts with the preparation of a pair.”

I will give the initial state for each pair as a product in terms of LHV, one for the particle going towards Alice and the other towards Bob.

3.  “When the left going ball is about half way to Alice, Alice randomly rotates a setup, called her “crystal”, either so that it is at an “angle” a=0 or a=1.”

Why only two angles?  I will use any random angle at Alice and Bob that lies between 0 and 360 degrees.

4. “After a ball enters a crystal, the ball exits through one of two exits out of that crystal: either exit “0” or exit “1”.

I will use the outcomes to be +1 or -1 (rather than 0 and 1).  There is no middle ground. The particle has been filtered into either a +1 or a -1 state.

I want to stop here because I need feedback.

Since I see nothing controversial in this Part 1, if  you have any serious comments or want clarification, please let me know.  Otherwise I will move on to Part 2 and talk about coincidences.


Post a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *