Theoretical

 

But, in general, it doesn't.

 

Try simulating an experiment that actually tests Bell's theorem. For example, measuring 3 different polarizations on the same photon.

 

 

No I didn't. Please stop lying.

The video that described the Bell's experiment that I modeled my sim after is for testing Bell's theorem.

 

The URL had scholar.google.com

 

Stop the personal insults and stay on topic:

 

Please respond to my math and stay on topic.

 

You claim bells experiment proves spooky action at a distance. I'm claiming that bells experiment, produced with non-entangled photon, gets the same results. Therefore you claim non-entangled photons produce spooky action at a distance. Disprove my simulation.

 

It's rather interesting that even though spooky action at a distance clearly implies instantaneous communication, that to date not one single experiment that shows instantaneous communication of information has ever been discovered.

 

So far Einstein was correct about QM.

 

I don't just claim it, I gave you a list of experiments that demonstrate it.

 

 

If there is a disagreement between reality and your "simulation". I am going to go with reality. Sorry.

You gave a google search results. As stated, I went through the list and saw no evidence of spooky action at a distance.

If I'm following this correct. The only way to test spooky action at a distance is to use entangled particles. Classical models doesn't demonstrate spooky action at a distance. Even if the end result is the same. The cause of that coincidence is via a different process. Spooky action at a distance is a non locality process. It's an influence that does not necessarily depend on particle a's environment. An influence on particle b in a completely seperate locality invokes the change upon particle a.

Yes, but I'm pointing out that the experiment whereby spooky action is claimed also gets the same results without entangled photons. Do you see the point?

Truth be told the thread is getting difficult to follow. particularly when your trying to ignore the non related commentary.

That I agree with!

[snip] what is required for a entangled system [snip]

No offense intended, but you clearly do not understand what my claim has boiled down to. I don't want to take the time to retype it yet again. Please read my past few post

 

 

Your still not understanding. Entangled particles is when a single photon splits into two photons. Whose total wavelength between the two is the sum of the original. If I recall the spin is opposite on each.

 

This site has a quick breakdown. Note the collapse with the split. Not the only type of collapse that can occur.

 

http://davidjarvis.ca/entanglement/quantum-entanglement.shtml

Please note not the best site but it's a basic explanation.

I'm fully aware of that lol. You're not following the thread.

You people aren't even reading The most recent posts. Please read:

 

Please respond to my math and stay on topic.

 

You claim bells experiment proves spooky action at a distance. I'm claiming that bells experiment, produced with non-entangled photon, gets the same results. Therefore you claim non-entangled photons produce spooky action at a distance. Disprove my simulation.

 

Because it is 100% precise and accurate.

 

But here you go again: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bell_test_experiments

 

 

There is no such thing.

 

That is what is so bizarre: you talk with great confidence about things you barely understand and things that don't even exist.

Just more vague non mathematical statements filled with ad hominem.

 

Please respond to my math and stay on topic.

 

You claim bells experiment proves spooky action at a distance. I'm claiming that bells experiment, produced with non-entangled photon, gets the same results. Therefore you claim non-entangled photons produce spooky action at a distance. Disprove my simulation.

 

 

You have been provided with long lists of experments that test Bell's Theorem. Why do you ignore them?

Why would you say such a vague incorrect statement. I post the link to a video that goes over such experiments. Anyhow I'm no longer interested your posts until you can post the error in my sim, using math to prove its wrong.

 

This has been explained multiple times as well: the problem is not the maths. YOU ARE NOT SIMULATING ANYTHING TO DO WITH BELL'S THEOREM. Your sim is not wrong; it is irrelevant.

Just another claim by you lol.

 

In case you haven't noticed, we're talking about what is commonly called Bell's experiment. Not his theorem.

 

It has been explained soooo many times. You obviously don't want to learn and are happy in your little bubble.

Prove it. Show one quote where someone proved my sim is wrong by means of math. Saying its wrong is not proof.

 

You haven't done anything that includes hidden variables. Your variables are quite unhidden, and quite classical in nature. Hidden variables are an inherently quantum effect (or would be, if they worked). The error we're talking about is not one of math, it's about the applicability of the math.

Nonsense. If they were hidden they would be of no use to a math equation.

Prove that the experiment cannot be performed with non-entangled photons.

 

 

 

All of which are part of classical physics. You aren't showing anything regarding entanglement.

The topic has obviously gone over your head. You don't understand what's being discussed.

This isn't a matter of opinion. You are simply wrong. You might as well be claiming the sky is green.

Saying I'm wrong doesn't prove anything. You need to quote me, and be specific why I'm wrong. And try to stay on topic. I'm not interested if by chance some minor thing I said was wrong.

 

I'm not interested in other peoples hidden variable theory. Prove my sim has a math error. Prove Malus' law is wrong.

 

On the other hand, multiple posters have provided detailed explanations of what Bell's theorem really is and information about experiments that confirm Bell's theorem (all supported with copious links to reference material).

 

You have a toy program which tests one case does not even appear to be relevant to Bell's theorem.

 

You are, of course, entitled to your opinion but you are labouring under the, not insignificant, disadvantage of being wrong.

I've shown a video where the author goes over a few hidden variable theories. Why would you say all theories have been already been tested? Did Einstein produced those hidden variable theories? No. I think someone could easily produce a hidden variable theory based on my sim, which we already know gets the correct results.

 

Please, can we agree to disagree? I really have to get back to working on my GUT.

The difference in our posts is that I have consistently provided data. Example, NEC results which proves it's possible to emit polarized photons. Malus' law, which has been proven since the 1700's. I've provide the code for the sim, which is basically a few lines of code at its heart. Very simple sim. Someone has converted my sim to a math equation, which confirms the sim is getting the correct results of 1/2.

 

Sure isn't looking so good for your spooky action at a distance. I contend Einstein was correct about QM.

 

Albert Einstein, wow I have so much more respect for that man. And I had a world of respect for him before. What a genius of geniuses.

Another thing you're wrong about.

 

 

There is no single Bell's experiment. Rather, there are a multitude of experiments that can be used to test Bell's theory. And yes, entanglement ("spooky action") has been demonstrated.

 

Remember, the basic idea of Bell's theorem is that "No physical theory of local hidden variables can ever reproduce all of the predictions of quantum mechanics." (meaning some results can be reproduced)

 

Thus, the fact that someone might recreate one prediction of QM with hidden variables does not allow one to make any definitive statement. The theorem does not exclude some local hidden variable ideas from working. The trick, then, is to find where there is disagreement, not agreement agreement does not differentiate the ideas. You have, in essence, done the science backward.

We disagree.

More big talk. Why don't you use the NEC to provide us with a demonstration. (If you wish to create an infinity thread, so be it. Eventually both of us will die. I doubt anyone will show up to defend your code. It is not because one of us is better. It is because you are not correct. You are dishonest. (We both know you are a closet religious troll. You have no interest in learning any science. You are only interested in "proving" it wrong. You are not fooling me. I can not prove this but the evidence is there.

1. Provides a difficult to decipher "proof" that physics is wrong. (His code)

2. Refuses to demonstrate his "proof"

3. Claims he is interested in learning physics but is actually only interested in "proving" it wrong.

4. When the problem with his proof is discovered he responds with:

a. spouting out a bunch of random numbers.

b. Using a bunch of big fancy sounding words.

c. Uses nonsensical statements in an attempt to confuse.

d. Claims entanglement is a cash cow for physics.

e. Claims those who disagree with him are morally wrong internet bullies.

f. Claims science agrees with him.

4. Posts links to religious websites.

5. Even his name is a buzzword for religious people who oppose physics.

I can't prove any of this. The evidence is definitely there.))

 

I am not trying to indict anyone. If theoretical wishes to respond then I will be waiting. Just don't think you can fool me.

I'm certain that's ad hominem.

 

 

 

Pretty much all physicists believe that.

Your position is unclear. I was saying we can produce photons of known polarizations where the certainty of knowing the polarization approaches 100%.

 

 

 

Which is moot, because the Bell experiment is about a photon with an undetermined (to us) polarization state having a hidden variable that secretly determines it. Producing photons of a known polarization is just run-of-the mill optics. At some point you seemed to acknowledge this, so why are we still arguing about this?

Because some people are claiming Bell's experiment proves spooky action at a distance. If two non-entangled photons are emitted, we get the same results of 1/2. *Therefore Bell's experiment does not prove spooky action at a distance.*

 

Furthermore I merely gave the benefit of the doubt that my sim did not qualify as a hidden variable because someone said it would collapse QM. Regarding what you just said, I believe my sim qualifies as a hidden variable where the sim could determine the polarization the moment it is required, which would be at the polarizer. My sim is not a theory, but it proves that a hidden theory could get the correct results. Again, the sim is predetermining the polarization of both photons. So it seems that in order to make this a complete theory one would merely have to show the math to prove Malus' law. How difficult is that?

 

 

 

Here's a copy and paste results of antenna field polarization from NEC2:

 

Antenna type: single dipole in free space

Frequency: 30MHz

Dipole length: 4.836m

Horizontal field: 5.9932E-03 v/m

Vertical field: 2.4193E-11 v/m

 

As you can see dipole antennas radiate only in one plane. The vertical field is really zero in such an antenna. NEC is a numerical program.

 

The above results is without a polarizer. It's directly from the radiating antenna.

Theoretical, you're argument about polarisation ignores superposition and entanglement, which is what you're trying to investigate. It's not a personal attack to suggest you read a more formal text on these things, I'm hoping it'll help you. Until you read further into the area you'll continue to have the same arguments which will frustrate and annoy everyone including you.

Please don't tell me what I know. I'm fully aware of what you said.

 

As for frustration, I only get frustrated when you people rely upon ad hominem. Can we please stick to the topic?

 

 

Are you aware that the polarization of light going through a polarizer can approach 100%? In terms of radio waves, I can assure you that nearly 100% of the photons emitted by a vertical dipole antenna are vertical. Pass that through an array of horizontal dipoles and you get no measurable horizontal photons from the vertical antenna. If you doubt this, and don't have the equipment to test it, then you can use NEC (Numerical Electromagnetics Code) engine created by Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory. It's been around for at least 3 decades. Used probably by everyone who's ever designed an antenna. Extremely accurate. I used to have a technical book on the math aspect of NEC. About 1/2 inch think. Nearly all math. I'm away from my desktop now, but if you necessary I could show you the results of a vertical dipole antenna giving the horizontal far field.

My demonstration proved your claim is impossible. It is no surprise that you can provide no demonstration. Only excuses.

Your demonstration doesn't qualtfy as physics or a simulation. Sorry I have to leave for the night. See you later.

No your Sim doesn't. This is why you keep making excuses and can provide no demonstration.

Ah, so now you can see the future to know that? Or maybe you think you're a psychic haha?

More excuses. http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bell%27s_theorem

That talks about hidden variable theories. You need to keep up with the thread. QM can't handle my sim because QM would collapse into a classical theory. Bell's theorem has nothing to do with using non-entangled photons.

 

My sim shows that non-entangled Bell's experiment gives same results as one that uses entangled photons. Sorry but that clearly shows Bell's experiment does not prove spooky action at a distance.

 

 

More excuses. Your code does nothing more then spit out the number 1\2. http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bell%27s_theorem

If you believe that, then you need to improve your coding skills lol.

 

 

Everyone except you.

 

Still waiting for that demonstration.

You need to learn physics 101:

 

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polarizer

"A polarizer or polariser is an optical filter that passes light of a specific polarization and blocks waves of other polarizations."

Your code does not work. This is why you can provide no demonstration. Just excuses.

I provided source code. And someone in this thread created a math equation of it.

 

As stated, my sim is all about emitting photons where the polarization is known beforehand. It makes absolutely no difference if the photon polarity is guaranteed the moment the antenna or whatever emitted it or if we want to put it through a polarizer.

 

Everyone here knows we can produce photons of a specific polarization.

As I clearly demonstrated the photons can not have a polarization until they are measured.

You couldn't possibly expect any physicist to believe that. Emitting polarized photon is extremely easy even in radio wavelenthgs. Nearly every antenna emits polarized photons, and that is a fact.

 

And who cares if it's been measured? You have a black box that emits the photons.

Thank you. I love to see a video you create as well. Just please do me a favor: while creating your video, go over every single statement you make and show, making sure there are no assumptions because remember people aren't mind readers. Also a lot of non-technical people view these videos.

EPR1J.jpg EPR2J.jpg

We will assume 4 "unentangled" photons with matching polarizations are sent out in both directions. Their polarization will be determined when they leave the source. We will set the polarization to 1010.

 

step 1: Bob and Alice set their detectors at matching angles. They both get 1010.

 

step 2: The same 1010 signal is sent out. Alice rotates detector 30 degrees. The cos(angle)^2 equation says she should get a 25% error rate. Bob gets 1010 Alice gets 1110. A 25% mismatch.

 

step 3: The same 1010 signal is sent out. Alice returns detector to original position and now Bob rotates his detector -30%. The cos(angle)^2 equation says Bob should get a 25% error rate. Bob gets 1000 and Alice gets 1010. A 25% mismatch.

 

Step 4: The same 1010 signal is sent out. Alice rotates her detector 30 degrees. Bob rotates his detector -30 degrees. Alice should get 1110 the same result as step 2. The exact same signal was sent out. Her detector was in the exact same 30 degree position. She should get the exact same result. Bob should also get the exact same 1000 result as step 3. It was the exact same 1010 signal and his detector is in the exact same -30 degree position. Let us compare results. Alice 1110 Bob 1000. This is a 50% mismatch. The cos(angle)^2 equation says there should be a 75% mismatch. The only way you can get this 75% mismatch is if the polarizations are not determined until they are measured and the angle of Bob's detector affected Alice's results and the angle of Alice's detector affected Bob's result. A 75% mismatch can only be explained by spooky action at a distance. You claim you "researched" Bell's theory in hope of finding an example of spooky action at a distance. Here it is.

Please do yourself a favor and look at your drawings to see how they show no details and consist of assumptions.

 

What I would suggest is that you go all out like I did and track every single photon to each of their polarizer, use the only equation that works in real life for this: cos(angle)^2, do this for at least a few hundred photons, compute the average percentage of time the photons are go to the same path (that includes photons that reflect off the polarizer as well), and verify that non-entangled photons also result in 50%.

 

 

If you keep this up then eventually I'm going to produce a clear cut video of my sim, which clearly shows non-entangled photon Bell's experiment results in 1/2. And I'll also include details of NEC radio wavelength experiment which shows the same results. So look out my friend lol. ;-)