From: bergervo@iae.nl   
      
   On 2/26/2019 11:18 PM, ben6993@hotmail.com wrote:   
   > Sorry, if that garbling of text was my fault.   
      
   Well, it was more the actual meaning that was somewhat puzzling..   
      
   Why do you not believe the electron to be polarized in direction   
   p, if it has been polarized in direction p (by having its spinor   
   associated to direction p via the Hopf fibration, I mean!)   
      
   Do you not believe that it can have a spinor which is some norm   
   times  [ cos(th/2) exp(i phi),  sin(th/2) ], with (th, phi) the   
   polar coordinate angles of p? Why would than not be possible?   
      
   Or do you believe that this spinor can indeed be the state of the   
   electron spin, but that is not equivalent to saying that it is   
   polarized in direction p? Why would you reject that definition?   
      
   > ..   
   > To put the question another way:  if an electron with a hypothetical   
   > exact spin vector p is subsequently prepared by presenting it to   
   > to a detector with vector a (Alice's detector), then does the   
   > electron exact spin axis p become changed to be exactly aligned   
   > with vector a (or vector -a, whichever is appropriate)?   
      
   If you reject quantum mechanics you can ask this question (but   
   who could answer it in that case?) If you accept quantum mechanics   
   then you don't have to ask. We know that it will *of course not*   
   become an exact spinor in direction a (nor -a). Instead we know   
   that it will be an entangled spinor, entangled with the state of   
   the detector that it passed through.   
      
   >   IMO the   
   > electron spin vector after preparation  is either along exact vector   
   > p or along exact vector -p.   
      
   Your opinion then differs from quantum mechanics, which tells us   
   that it isn't a spinor any more. Instead we have an entangled   
   state in a larger space than the spinor.   
      
   >  The outcome of p or -p alignment depends   
   > on which of p and -p is nearest in alignment to vector a.   
      
   The entangled state which is the outcome would usually depend on   
   that alignment, but since you wrote (above) that after preparation   
   your state was "either along exact vector p or along exact vector   
   -p," you did not do an unambiguous preparation at all! If you'd   
   start with a random electron you'd have exactly what you claim to   
   have "prepared".   
      
   --   
   Jos   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)