Theoretical

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.

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.

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

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?

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?

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 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?

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. 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)?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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. 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. 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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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? 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).

Let me say it another way. The sim is for Bell's experiment, an experiment where people commonly analyze it using two different methods, one of which is QM. My intent from the start of writing the sim was to not use the QM method. Rather, I wanted to see if the sim would get the correct QM results by making the polarizations know for both photons from the moment they are emitted, and to make the polarization of both photons the same. Simply stated, the sim is for an entangled experiment, but with the intent of analyzing it using a non-QM method.

It's an interesting article. They make a big claim: "Measurement of one photon affects the polarisation of the other, even if they are separated by huge distances." Unfortunately I didn't see where they proved that. Also make statements such as, "This means the polarisation of a photon can be determined by measurement of it's energy, providing the dreaded which-path information that is well know to destroy entanglement." If there's presently no evidence of the instantaneous link between photons or particles, then I don't think they should make such statements. Perhaps I'm being overly critical, but it's a sensitive topic for me now lol. Again, interesting work they're doing! BTW why put this thread in the speculation section. What claims are being made that are speculation? I think most of the users here agree there's no experimental proof of any kind of instantaneous communication between the photons. My simulation uses well established appropriate equations, and it gets the correct results. Oh well it's your forums lol. I think the issue you have is regarding the title. I agree the title should be changed.

Wikipedia: "Experiments have been performed involving measuring the polarization or spin of entangled particles in different directions, whichby producing violations of Bell's inequalitydemonstrate statistically that the local realist view cannot be correct. This has been shown to occur even when the measurements are performed more quickly than light could travel between the sites of measurement: there is no lightspeed or slower influence that can pass between the entangled particles.[6] Recent experiments have measured entangled particles within less than one part in 10,000 of the light travel time between them.[7] According to the formalism of quantum theory, the effect of measurement happens instantly." Maybe someone should tell them that there experiments have absolutely nothing to do with particles communicating instantly because as stated the experiment gets the same results if the particles are emitted from different sources without entanglement. No there's no evidence of instantaneous communication. The fact that the particles always have the same (or always opposite) polarity only proves that's the way they were created. At low temperatures I could emit two photons at say 100GHz from the same source that will have the same polarity. And what does that prove? One could say they're, entangled, linked, in love, or whatever, but what's the purpose if you can't prove they communicate instantaneously with each other after they have been created? We don't know they are truly "entangled." Maybe they should use a different word other than entanglement. Actually I'm extremely pleased with my sim, if I don't say so myself lol. It shows me that there's nothing special about with these so-called entangled photons in the experiment. No evidence of instantaneous link or communication. That non-entangled photons get the same results. So I'm beginning to wonder of entanglement isn't anything so special. No disrespect to QM.

Our conversation has become circular because you keep misstating my words and keep correcting you. Enough. Thanks for the info. I'll take a look at those. If I see even a remote chance that they prove spooky action at a distance, then I'll try to simulate them. Again, it's my understanding that the Bell's experiment only disproves whatever hidden variable theories that give wrong results, but that none of those theories were created by Einstein. It's my understanding that: 1. Einstein believed QM needed hidden variables so we can do away with the spooky action at a distance notion. 2. Bell's experiment does not prove spooky action at a distance since non-entangled particles give the same results of 1/2. 3. Nobody has proven Einstein's idea of hidden variables is wrong. All that's been proven is that existing hidden variable theories are wrong. 4. Over the years I've seen numerous science documentaries where academic scientists talk about how spooky QM.