n 1887 J.J. Thomson discovery of the electron was a significant step that led to a much deeper understanding of the microscopic properties of Nature. In this entry, I will discuss the famous Millikan Oil drop experiment which was done in 1909.
But recall that in his characterization of the properties of the electron he could only determine the charge to mass ratio, given by -1.76 times ten to the 11th Coulombs per kilogram. Was this ratio a result of two big values or two small values?
Robert Millikan was able to separate the ratio in order to show that the ratio was that of two small numbers and in this way he was able to extract the elementary charge and the electron mass. Comparing the electron mass to that of the lightest element, Hydrogen, it is found that the mass of an electron is 1800 times smaller. Indeed at that time this was the smallest particle known.
In this entry I will present the evidence that shows that Bell’s inequalities have no consequences for understanding quantum vs. classical correlations. I will also show that spin is a two dimensional anyon. After a summary, two recent proofs are presented that show BELL’S INEQUALITIES are incorrect due to an over simplistic treatment of spin by Bell. Finally I relate these approaches to my sub-quantum 2D spins which are identified as anyons.
Discussion of the discovery of the electron by J. J. Thomson in 1897 using a cathode ray tube. He was able to obtain the charge to mass ratio, but not the actual mass or charge. Later Millikan was able to separate the two. Indeed Thomson found a new state of matter which laid the foundations for quantum mechanics and a huge range of technologies
It is important to be able to use mathematics, which is the logic of the LHS of the brain, to visualize what is going on, using the RHS of the brain. The two must be consistent. Heisenberg said that we observe our natural surroundings and intuitively develop a visualization of what is going on. We do not need a mathematical description macroscopically, unless we need precision, and Classical Mechanics works extremely well.
A sub-quantum theory is presented which accounts for the EPR correlations with a product state with no entanglement and no nonlocality. In addition the anomalies found in EPR data of Gregor Weihs and as analyzed by Adenier and Khrennikov, are explained by the product states of the bi-particles getting out of sync as they separate. The sub-quantum theory treats the ontic particles that form the ensembles or the quantum states. Whereas quantum states are hermitian, the sub-quantum spin state is fundamentally non-hermitian.
A spin is found to have a two dimensional structure rather than the point particle of quantum mechanics and in the absence of a probe, a spin is in a state of zero angular momentum.
A sub-quantum theory should resolve, or disentangle, the superposition principle into ontic states. That is the statistical ensembles of quantum mechanics is replaced in a sub-quantum theory by individual ontic particles that make up the ensemble.
Only the statistical-ensemble interpretations, as discussed in that paper by Ballentine, allows for a sub-quantum theory to complete quantum mechanics with properties that satisfy local realism, causality and determinism. That a suitable sub-quantum theory has not been found is a human failing and nothing more.
In my last entry I talked a bit about reality and introduced the ideas of Ontology (the philosophy of being) and Epistemology (the philosophy of knowledge). In this entry we move down to the microscopic level where things are quite different. Our intuition in the macroscopic Naïve Reality in which we live changes dramatically.
Although the following overview of how scientists think is quite general, in the next few entries to this blog I will be discussing primarily what is involved in acquiring data about the microscopic world and understanding how scientists think about what they measure and what those measurements mean.