Theoretical

you seem to mix in the "Twins Paradox".

That's it. It led me to the Wikipedia article on the Twin paradox, which clarified my question. Thanks a lot.

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

+1

I'll have to learn about this +1. I'd give a lot of people +1's if I knew how. Or maybe it's posting a +1 lol. I always access this forum with a mobile phone.

Ok. One confusing thing. All of the articles on GR provide equations saying it must be in an inertial frame. Inertia itself doesn't change c or time dilation, right? Because velocity changes time dilation. So I thought about the experiment of synchronized clocks, where one clock went on a trip, but when it returned the clock that went on the plane was slow. It's interesting because one could say that the planet was moving relative to the clock on the plane, but yet the clock on earth didn't slow down. So the only difference I see is that the clock on the plane experienced momentary inertial forces as it accelerated, while the clock on earth did not. Is that what the inertial frames is all about in GR because I don't see inertia (an accelerating object cause by the movement in 3D space) in the equations? I mean, if we made an object spin around a small radius at a high rate causing high g-forces at low velocities, that doesn't cause time dilation, right? Thanks!!

Clarification: I know a spinning object experiences time dilation because of its speed. My question was regarding the inertial forces itself. If we made the spin radius even smaller, then the g-forces increase at the same velocity. But I don't think that changes the time dilation.

The local speed of light in vacuum is invariant.

The coordinate speed of light is variant. The crank is talking about the coordinate speed of light, an entity that is devoid of any physical meaning. This thread belongs in the Trash.

I agree the author of that page seems ridiculous with all the religious nonsense. But I read on Wikipedia that the coordinate system means they're measuring from their (relative to an implied observer) point of view.

 

So it's true that we could see, from our perspective, other objects traveling faster than 3E+8 m/s?

 

And is it true that a free falling rocket toward a sun that suddenly turns on the rocket such that it's no longer falling toward the sun will go from measuring the local speed of light from 299792458 m/s to over 299792458 m/s?

 

Reference: http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coordinate_time

No need for you people to insult me just because I don't agree with you. Those kind of comments are just personal and insulting. It's okay if people don't agree. Let other people make up their own mind.

 

1. You can't tell me I can't send two photons at the same time from two different sources that according to QM are not entangled photons. One could even do this with radio wavelength photons. I've created thousands of antenna experiments using the world known NEC (Numerical Electromagnetics Code) radio wave engine created by Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory. Cool two horizontally polarized antennas. A vertical antenna does not pick up horizontally polarized photons, but yet a horizontal antenna will. Furthermore it's extremely simple to build a radio polarizer. An array of horizontal dipoles reflects horizontal photons, while allowing vertical photons to pass through.

 

2. You can't tell me the results of such non-entangled photons in a Bell experiment setup does not results in the same polarization hits half of the time, which is what QM predicts for entangled photons. You can't tell me that because I've go through this by showing on paper the path each photon takes using the well known cos(angle)^2 equation discovered in the 1700's. I could create a video that clearly shows the path of each photon, counting each 0 and 1. The video would show this results in 1/2.

 

Honestly I'm done trying to convince people of the obvious. It's not my fault there's no evidence of spooky action at a distance. I get it that a lot of people are heavily invested in this spooky action at a distance notion. It makes a lot of money for research scienctists. The medium eats it up alive.

 

If you want to see this sim for yourself, then please by all means get out a piece of paper, *literally* track the paths of each photon using the cos(angle)^2 equation, count all the times both photons take the same path. See for yourself.

 

 

Also photons do "care" if you put polarisers in the way,

Sorry to have to point this out, but the above is an example of how my words are consistently being twisted. I never said the above. I clearly did not say that. Here's my quote:

 

Photons don't care ***when*** they go through the polarizers.

I get it that this spooky action at a distance rings in mega bucks for QM.

 

 

Ok I'm going back to my research. Please by all means feel free to misquote me lol. Peace, and hopefully will see you all soon.

Actually it does prove spooky action at a distance. My example demonstrated the angle of Bob's detector affects Alice's results. If the polarization was determined when it left the source then the angle of Bob's detector should not effect Alice's results. If it left as 1 then Alice should detect a 1 no matter what Bob's angle is. My example demonstrated that is not the case.

You miss that the experiment gets the same results with non-entangled photons that have the same polarities as well.

I'm only saying Bell's experiment gives same results for entangled or non-entangled photons so long as the setup is such that photon polarization are the same, which is not difficult, and does not prove spooky action at a distance. That's all.

How would Bob and Alice's signal match at 0 degrees if they are not entangled? They would get two different random strings of zeros and ones. There are many things that I can do in video games which can not be done in real life. This is why Sims don't prove real life.

Ah, so you're saying QM doesn't work because entering data on a calculator is not real life.

You're not correctly doing a Bell's experiment if you think the entangled photons are always the same polarity. And yes, the setup I described can make both non-entangled photons any polarity they want.

Actually that would not work unless the polarizer is literally touching the source. If there is any distance between the polarizer and the source then It's polarization is undetermined until it is measured. The experiment does not get the same result if the sources are not entangled. Bob's signal would not match Alice's at 0 degrees if the signals are not entangled. I have clearly demonstrated an example where the polarization can not be determined when it leaves the source. You respond by saying we should change the experiment. Why don't we just change the experiment to you jumping up and down. That experiment would show no signs of entanglement.

Photons don't care when they go through the polarizers. Yes it does get the same results. My sim shows that.

My example demonstrated that the polarization can not be determined when the photon leaves the source. If it was determined then the angle of Bob's detector should not affect Alice's results. If it leaves a 1 then Alice should get a 1 no matter what the angle of Bob's detector is. My example showed that if Alice's detector is at 30 degrees then her results with bob at 0 would be different then her results with bob at -30 degrees. The polarization can not be determined when it leaves the source. The polarization is random until it is measured. It doesn't have an exact polarization until it is measured. It should be noted that this can not be used for faster then light communication. Alice's signal will appear as a random string of zeroes and ones no matter what Bob's angle is. The only way they can determine entanglement occurred is if they come together and compare the results. This would involve communication at the speed of light or slower.

Sure it can. Just put a polarizer right after the photon emitter. That's what I was saying. Bell's experiment using non-entangled photons gets the same result as Bell's experiment with entangled photons.

Then the ression velocity can exceed c? This Wikipedia article is interesting:

 

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faster-than-light#Space-time_distortion

 

"...general relativity does allow *the space between distant objects to expand* in such a way that they have a "recession velocity" which exceeds the speed of light, and it is thought that galaxies which are at a distance of more than about 14 billion light-years from us today have a recession velocity which is faster than light."

 

What exactly does it mean by space expanding? Is this analogous to stretching a balloon?

Correct it is invariant in a vacuum.

What about space itself? I was reading astronomers are aware of objects that appear to be moving faster than c. I understand the object itself isn't moving faster than c, but what about the fabric of space?

The author, Raef Fanous, is a well known crank who has some other weird claims about the Khoran predating Einstein's relativity.

Ok. Not surprised. I was like, what the frick is this all about lol. I guess the admins can move this to speculation.

 

So to get this straight, gravity does not change the speed of light in any way shape or form, right?

Is what this guy is saying true? I've searched the internet for an answer. So far haven't found anything on this. Thanks!

 

http://www.speed-light.info/speed_of_light_variable.htm

I have a good understanding of numerous GUT models if you wish to SIM GUT I'm game to help provide you assistance. I would recommend looking at the SO(10) GUT models and perhaps N Body codes

GUT theories

 

http://arxiv.org/pdf/0904.1556.pdfThe Algebra of Grand Unified Theories John Baez and John Huerta

http://pdg.lbl.gov/2011/reviews/rpp2011-rev-guts.pdf

http://pdg.lbl.gov/2011/reviews/rpp2011-rev-guts.pdfGRAND UNIFIED THEORIES

 

Here is the info on various models

I was reading on Wikipedia about a bunch of theories that connect gravity to the other forces. I believe the superstring theories are attempts. But the wiki page is saying that all of them have issues, such providing incorrect results at certain levels or not being able to provide experiments to test the theory. What do you think?

 

If the photon polarizations are known (or can be known) - then QM will automatically collapse to the classical model; there's the rub!

 

The only way you can know the states is to measure them - and measuring collapses the waveform, or breaks the entanglement. But, in that delicate situation, strange and wonderful things happen - and these can be repeated in experiment, in technology, in nature; it is the most tested and most accurate of our theories

 

This bit was not argued by Einstein - nor by the proponents of QM - you could easily stop any spookiness. The trick was to keep a situation in which something strange happened, either by entanglement or by a hidden variable, and investigate that.

I agree QM does a great job predicting results. What's considered spooky is probably a point of view. QM's great, but I look forward to it's successor haha. It's not that there's evidence the spooky action at a distance does not exist, but so far I see no evidence it does exist. Bell's experiment ended up being a great disappointment for me in terms of proving any spooky action, but yet my sim gave me my answer, that I don't need to pursue a spooky action at a distance theory. At least not yet.

 

So just out of curiousity. What are your thoughts that if we built a Bell's experiment with the exception that instead of using a non-linear crystal to emit entangled photons, we use two sources that each emits a single photon such that they are not entangled and the polarization is known. Furthermore the polarizations are orthogonal. So it's basically the same setup except the user controls what the polarization of the photons will be before they're emitted. So before each set of photons are emitted, the user sets the polarization of the photons to some random value. That's my sim. Only unique thing is that we know beforehand the photon polarizations. The interesting part for me is that we get the exact same results as we would get if we used the non-linear crystals to emit "entangled" photons.

 

That is why I suggest you read this:

http://www.drchinese.com/David/Bell_Theorem_Easy_Math.htm

He works through it step by step, showing exactly what is predicted by a hidden variables model and by QM. And there is no complicated mathematics (apart from pointing out that the QM prediction is cos²).

 

I understand exactly what your simulation is doing, that is why I keep trying to explain that it has nothing to do with Bell's theorem.

Yeah that's a great page! I now understand that scientists don't consider my sim as having a hidden variable. As the other user said, QM would collapse into a classical theory if the polarizations are known beforehand.

 

If I may ask, do you know anyone who's working on a grand unified theory (GUT)?

Look, sorry if I was abrupt before but it is a bit frustrating when someone claims to have shown decades of scientific theory and experiment to be wrong, based on a simulation but, anyway ...

 

 

The problem is that you are only measuring the polarization of a photon at a single angle. It is possible that assuming this single angle is defined when the photon is created (i.e. a single hidden variable) will work. (Although I am fairly sure it doesn't, in general.)

 

But the problem Bell highlighted is when you assume that the polarization (of one photon) at three different angles are all defined in advance. Now, in reality, you can only measure one polarization angle for a photon because, if it passes the filter, it will be polarised at that angle (so the polarization at the other angles will be zero). But using entangled photons, you can measure two different polarizations at a time (one angle on each photon).

 

Now, if you work out (or simulate) the probability for each pair of polarizations by assuming that they are defined in advance you will get a different result than QM predicts. So that is what your program needs to simulate in order to prove your point.

 

Is that clearer?

It's no problem. I can tell you're passionate about QM and know a lot. I tried to understand what you're saying above but I think it went over my head. It would probably be easier for me to create a video animation showing my simulation shooting the entangled photons, polarizer angles, and the paths the photons take. That will have to wait, if it's even worth doing.

 

I don't know. I kind of feel like we're talking about two different experiments lol. I can attempt to go over it using different words, but it's best to create a video. In my sim, two photons are emitted. They both have the same polarity. They could be orthogonal, but that would get the same result. So this polarities is random, anywhere be between 0 and 360 degrees (2pi). The sim starts both polarizers at 0 degrees, and shoots thousands of entangled photons. Then it changes one of the polarizers to 120 degrees. So now one polarizer is 0 degrees and the other is 120 degrees. Again thousands of photons are emitted. Then polarizer is changed to 240 degrees, and emits thousands of photons. I know there are various types of Bell's experiments. That's just the one I used because it was well defined in that girls video and she clearly states the results.

QM says [snip]

Your post added a lot of clarity. It seems your above sentence is the focus of our disagreement. As I understand it, you're basing what can and cannot be a hidden variable according to what QM says, but yet that's the entire issue. Right? Einstein is doubting the spooky action at a distance aspect of entanglement. Bell's experiment occurred after Einstein's death. So he did not get a chance to reply. Is the problem that it's asking too much of QM to even consider that the photon polarizations are known just prior to the polarizer? Remember that Einstein said QM needed changing.

But, take to heart what I wrote above. There are reasons people are saying they think what you are claiming about your simulation and what you've actually written are different. You need to dive deeper and do your best to understand their point of view.

 

I never wrote a simulation that was 100% correct. I never wrote a simulation that someone didn't completely justly point out errors and limitation in them, or even things I got just plain wrong. I never wrote a simulation that didn't take many months of in-depth research and understanding of the problem.

 

So, it isn't that I think you should drop this conversation. I think you should do a lot more reading and learning about why everyone is saying what they are saying. My knowledge in QM is very limited, but from what I've read, I think they raise very good points. They have good reasons for writing what they wrote. To make your model and your understanding better, you should take the time to understand why they are saying what they are saying.

A good question is: what are they saying? The only person who said anything about the sim itself was that it didn't use random numbers, but I replied back saying that the first version did.

 

One point they make that I'm on the fence about is that the sim isn't a hidden variable model, but I didn't see why they believe that. But that's not so important to me since I wrote the sim to see what the results would be given my understanding of physics. It got the correct real life results.

There are numerous hidden variable theories. Honestly I'm not so interested in those. But would like to know in specific details why they don't consider my sim hidden variable.

Theoretical,

 

Let me start with saying that it is awesome that you took your coding skills and turned them into a simulation. There are a very large number of people who don't have the skills to do that, and even if they had or could learn the skills, they don't have the will or motivation to do it. You are way ahead of most people, certainly most of the people who join this forum to talk about an idea they had.

 

You may have heard the scientific process described as "confrontational". Like many things, this has a common use definition, and scientific use definition. In common use, confrontational typically means fighting, strong disagreements, etc. Typically, this means a conflict of some sort. However, in the scientific use, conflict is rarely there. The confrontational part is that scientists are always challenging each other's models to find cases where they don't work, or cases where they predict something wrong. As much as anything, they are exploring the capabilities of the model and seeing just how useful. Remember that in science, the usefulness of a model is almost wholly based on how many accurate predictions that model can make.

 

So, I think what you are seeing in this thread is people being scientifically confrontational about your model. They are trying to point out where it does and doesn't many accurate predictions. They are finding out its range of validity. I think you are taking this a little like the common definition of being confrontational, when that really isn't intended to be that way.

 

I have given many presentations at conferences about simulations I have written, and there are always many, many questions that are confrontational in the scientific sense. Other scientists are going to suggest possible problems, possible improvements, and generally do their best to test the model that is presented. What I always did was take their comments to heart and do my best to learn why they said what they did. No matter what, I always learned something more.

 

I suggest you take some time and look deeper into what the people are saying here. Because by doing so, you are only going to make your level of understanding deeper and stronger, and that will lead to a better model. I think that is all any of us want, most of all you, right?

Thanks for taking the time to write a reply. Most of the people here are considerate. Only a few irritating people lol, but I'm just biting my tongue. Although I see no point in people arguing. If they can't agree, then they should take a break from each other.

 

That's awesome that you're a sim coder as well. Maybe we could keep in contact if you're working on a theory. If you are, then I hope you win the Nobel prize. I'd like to just drop this thread because it's very distracting, but it's not easy to read posts where people are saying things about you and your work that are wrong.

We can. As long as you accept that that is because you are wrong.

Wrong with what? I keep saying things such as the entanglement has not been proven with regards to spooky action at a distance and you keep coming back saying entanglement has been proven. I've never said all aspects of entanglement are wrong.

 

 

 

But let's try something else. How about you answer the question I have asked several times: what do you think the difference is between entanglement and "spooky action at distance"?

I believe the entanglement aspects of the particles are known immediately after they are created, and continue as such until measured.

A less likely senario is that there could be some hidden variable embedded in the particles that determine their polarity/spin when measured.

I don't buy into the spooky action at a distance, that the polarizations are unknown until one is measured, thereby forcing the particles to chose a polarization simultaneously through some connection that exists between them even though they could be at other ends of the galaxy.

 

 

Theoretical - you are still not getting it; David's experiment showed a circumstance in which hidden variables must give an incorrect answer. It shows that in at least one situation you cannot explain the results of an experiment without resorting to non-locality - ie Quantum Mechanics and entanglement.

 

That is enough, he doesn't need to show that this always applies (although it does) - EPR stated that there was no such thing as non-locality and that hidden variables could ALWAYS account for what seemed to be non-locality. This is a universal claim and can be shown to be false by ONE counter example. This is what has been done.

Since I've taken the time to write a sim, I can say with confidence he left out important aspects.

 

 

Could someone please tell me why it's not considered a hidden variable if there's information being sent along with the photons that will determine their polarity when measured?

Spouting off a bunch of numbers proves nothing. My example was sufficient to demonstrate Bell's argument.

You didn't even have the photons being emitted at different angles. You only show the polarizer at 3 angles. That's not a correct assessment of the experiment. And then there are just as important other aspects you left out.

This would only add more ones and zeros. The match percentage is determined by your own cos(angle)^2 equation. Feel free to dig up that 50 cent calculator and plug in 30, -30, and 60.

How about this as a start:

Polarizers set at 0 deg:

Photons emit as 3.7374 degrees

Photons emit as 86.073 degrees

Photons emit as 21.838 degrees

.............thousands of differnt angels

Polarizers set at 120 degrees.

Repeat the thousands of differnt angles that the photon will emit at.

..............

Polarizers set at 240 degrees.

Repeat the thousands of differnt angles that the photon will emit at.

..............

Each step above yields differnt numbers. You need to either formulate a math equation to solve the entire experiment, or write code to simulate it.

Spooky action at a distance has occured.

Well we're just not going to agree, now are we. I don't agree with any of your post. Come back showing at least a few hundred steps for this experiment. Not as simple/short like you think.

No my example is not wrong. http://quantumtantra.com/bell2.html

The page also explains the spooky action at a distance. If the results of detector a did not depend on the rotation of b then the error should be 50% or less. It is 75% because the results of a depend on the rotation of b.

Photon A and B can be any angle. You can count the same results when photon B goes one path and when it goes the other path. Your example didn't even include the other path. Your example is missing a lot. That's why computers are so awesome. They can compute thousands of equations in a fraction of a second. My sim for example does tens of thousands of steps. You only show a few. You're not correctly simulating real life experiment and that's probably why your answer disagrees with real life results.

Your simulation has nothing to do with either Bell's theorem (which has been tested by real experiments) or with entanglement (which has also been confirmed by real experiments). It simply starts with an equation which is the same as that used by QM and (surprise!) comes up with the same result as QM. What it does not show is the reality (or otherwise) of non-commuting operators.

The sim doesn't need to go through all the QM equations in order to simulate an experiment. The sim showed me exactly what I needed to see. That the experiment can be explain using no spooky at a distance model. The equation cos(angle)^2 equation I'm using is Malus law discovered by Étienne-Louis Malus in the 1700's. It can be easily simulated using macro scale setups. It's seen in radio wave antennas and its effect is easily understood without QM. It works on non entangled photons.

 

I've lost count how many times you've said the same thing. Can we agree to disagree?

 

 

This is completely false. Imagine two detectors which measure if a baseball is curving up or down. They say 1 if they detect up they say 0 if they detect down. If the angle of the two detectors match then they will agree 100% of the time. If a is tilted 30° the the equation says there will be a 25% mismatch. A is returned to its original position and b is now tilted -30°. The equation says there should be once again a 25% mismatch. b is now returned to it's original position. We now rotate a 30° and b -30° at the same time. According to hidden variable the mismatch should be 50% or less. 50% comes from 25% + 25%. The equation gives a 75% mismatch. 25%+25%=75%. This equation does not work for hidden variables or baseballs.

Your example above is wrong. You're leaving out a lot. It's more than just the angle different of two photons. Remember there are two polarizers as well. And the photons polarizations relative to both polarizers are random (cover all angles).