Theoretical

BTW, I am not doing this to attack you for any reason. I just want to help you understand:

 

a) What Bell's theorem is; and

 

b) Why you are not simulating the experiment in the video (which is exactly the experiment I asked you to simulate).

 

 

That is NOT what the experiment in the video does, though. Therefore you are not simulating the experiment in the video.

 

Why not just modify your program to do what the video does?

I keep telling you the sim does NOT use non entangled photons. And I keep telling you why it does not. Enough already.

 

By the rules of the forum, you are the one who needs to provide evidence.

 

The video uses pairs of randomly chosen measurements 120 degrees apart. Perhaps you can show the lines in your code where that happens? That would be good evidence that your code matches the video.

I already said that the first version used random numbers. It gets the same results as scanning through, but scanning is more accurate and faster.

I no longer will respond to posts that make claims such as "that's not what you're doing" without clear evidence. It's a waste of time. I modeled the sim after the video except I used photons as the particle.

if you believe you are being personally insulted (which from the looks of things you aren't) then you can report posts and have moderators look.

 

strange brings up a valid point; you have not yet cited a single experiment. if your simulation is based on an actual experiment then i'm sure you would have no problem locating and posting the proper literature.

It's called ad hominem. Look it up to see why people use it in debates. I could care a less about reporting people.

 

The video I referenced goes over the experiment. It's not my problem if you discriminate agaists videos. If that's the case then prove the error in the experiment I used.

 

THERE ARE NO MATH ERRORS. I have said this several times. (Although, to be honest, I am taking your word for this. Which I am quite content to do, because the problem is not the maths.)

 

 

 

I do. I have asked you several times to simulate an experiment where three different polarizations are tested for a single photon. I have even given you a link to a "no maths" but very detailed description of the experiment. Please let me know when you have the results.

 

Note that I *think* your simulation potentially has an advantage here as you don't have to worry about entanglement - in a simulation you can measure the three polarizations on a single photon. We can't do this in reality and so we have to resort to entanglement to measure two at a time.

You referred to the three angles but I'm not going to study a paper to do a sim for you. I said if you want I would run a sim with whatever angles you want, but because of your ad hominem has wasted more of my time I'm expiring that offer. So you have the code for my sim. You can run it yourself.

 

There is no "Bell's experiment". There are many different experiments that test Bell's theorem.

 

Part of the problem seems to be that you have not taken a single, well-defined experiment and written a simulation of it. Instead you have used your rather confused understanding of a number of experiments based on vague descriptions (e.g. yootoob). As such, you have missed the important detail of actually simulating Bell's Theorem.

 

However, you don't seem to care about accuracy. All you care about is bolstering your beliefs, even if it is by an inaccurate simulation. This is both dishonest and rather sad.

I'm not interested ad hominem. Show the math errors.

Let's try a different approach: you say "the experiment" so can you provide a reference to where this experiment is described (i.e. NOT a video) so we can see the conditions used, the calculations performed and the results obtained in "the experiment" and compare all of these with what your program does. Thank you.

Not off hand except for my first post in this thread. Because it's simple. Before writing the sim I spent days reading articles and watching videos on Bell's exoerent. I ended up using the experiment outlined by the girls video except I used photons as the particle, but I've read plenty of papers using photons with the same polarization angles.

 

If you have some differnt angles or conditions then let me know and I could run it for you.

as this was asked on the first page and i don't think it got an answer, can you show where this simulation is taking into account entanglement? what are the hidden variables in your code? maybe you can bold it in your code:

 

long i;

long double PI = 3.1415926535897932384626433832795L;

long double TWO_PI = 3.1415926535897932384626433832795L * 2.0L;

long double HALF_PI = PI / 2.0L;

long double photon_polarization, probability1, probability2, probability_same, probability_same_total=0;

long double polarizer_angle2; // polarizer_angle1 is always 0 deg.

long double total_polarizer_incs = 3.0L;

long double polarizer_angle2_inc = TWO_PI / total_polarizer_incs;

long double total_photon_incs = 10000.0L;

long double photon_polarization_inc = TWO_PI / total_photon_incs;

 

// draw bottom line, 0%

for(i=10;i<10+TWO_PI*100.0L;i+=3) {

pDC->SetPixel(i,500,0xff0000);

}

// draw top line, 100%

for(i=10;i<10+TWO_PI*100.0L;i+=3) {

pDC->SetPixel(i,200,0xff0000);

}

// draw center line, 50%

for(i=10;i<10+TWO_PI*100.0L;i+=3) {

pDC->SetPixel(i,350,0xff0000);

}

 

 

// code that does the simulation starts here

 

for(polarizer_angle2=0; polarizer_angle2 < TWO_PI; polarizer_angle2 += polarizer_angle2_inc) {

for(photon_polarization=probability_same=0; photon_polarization < TWO_PI; photon_polarization += photon_polarization_inc) {

probability1 = powl(cosl(photon_polarization), 2.0L); // photon #1

probability2 = powl(cosl(photon_polarization - polarizer_angle2), 2.0L); // photon #2

// calc probility of photon #1 & #2 both being a 1

probability_same += probability1*probability2;

// calc probility of photon #1 & #2 both being a 0

probability_same += (1.0L - probability1)*(1.0L - probability2);

}

probability_same_total += probability_same/total_photon_incs;

 

// draw result for this polarizer angle

pDC->MoveTo(10+polarizer_angle2*100.0L, 500);

pDC->LineTo(10+polarizer_angle2*100.0L, 500-probability_same/total_polarizer_incs*300);

}

probability_same_total /= total_polarizer_incs; // Result: 0.5

I remember answering that. The intent of the sim is to get the results WITHOUT using QM or entanglement.

You know it's amazing no one agrees with your conclusion on your program. They have tried every means possible to show you different. For good reason. Your understanding is wrong.

 

Yet you still refuse to acknowledge this. Several of the posters telling you your wrong are accredited physicists with degrees. Yet you still don't listen. Not much more we can do for you

Show the math error. Saying someone's wrong accomplishes nothing.

 

 

Why are you not willing to extend the simulation to do this? Afraid it might show that you are wrong after all your posturing?

Nonesense. I won't write a sim that has nothing to do with why I created my sim in the first place.

 

I have not seen any mathematical derivation of your theoretical experiment (simulation), starting from Bell's inequality, supplied to date in this thread.

You are the one who introduced Bell's inequality so you are the one who needs to establish the link between your work and Bell's.

 

 

It should be simple for you to do the job formally (mathematically).

 

1) Define your variables/symbols

 

2) State Bell's inequality in terms of your defined quantities alone

 

3) Use any other theorems (explicitly stating them) you consider appropriate to develop the formulae you calculate with in your program.

 

4) State your results in terms of the Bell's quantities alone and compare them with the inequality condition.

 

You will then have proved your case (or not).

 

I see no reason to expect us to do this for you.

Wrong. My sim has to do with the experiment. Although the thread title contsins hidden variable, as stated from the start I wrote the sim to see if spooky action from a distance was provable.

Again:

 

Status update: To date my sim stands error free, as nobody has been able to find any math errors in it. The sim is extraordinarily simple, and uses the correct equation, Malus' law, which is a well tested equation founded in the 1700's, an equation that works with entangled or non-entangled photons. The sim proves Bell's experiment gets the same results with non-entangled photons by producing two photons with the same polarity.

You are not performing a valid test of Bell's theorem. You need to change your simulation to test multiple simultaneous values and show that they all have real values (hidden variables). Testing just one (hidden) variable will not work.

So now the sim must have multiple hidden variables. Who made you the judge of theories? Your stance is highly debatable. It's pointless to discuss.

 

My sim makes the entire Bell's experiment and theorem pointless because it demonstrates there's nothing special or different with the non entangled photons in this experiment since the experiment gets the exact same results with non-entangled photons that are emitted by two different sources such that they have the same polarity.

 

By the way, my sim does not show what is occurring in "entangled" photons, if anything.

Sigh.

 

You just don't get it, do you.

Pointless statement. Mathematical proof is preferred, rather than personal claims about people.

 

 

And please stay on topic. I'm not the topic. Bell's theorem is not the topic. Bell's experiment is the topic. There's a difference.

And my sim with regards to Bell's experiment is the topic.

Which takes us back to the fact that people have done the experiments (actual ones, not simulations) that show that local hidden variables don't exist. Ignoring them doesn't mean that they don't exist.

Quote, "The present status is that no conclusive, loophole-free Bell test has been performed."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bell's_theorem

 

Furthermore, I've read somewhere on Wikipedia that it's impossible to close all loopholes.

 

Status update: To date my sim stands error free, as nobody has been able to find any math errors in it. The sim is extraordinarily simple, and uses the correct equation, Malus' law, which is a well tested equation founded in the 1700's, an equation that works with entangled or non-entangled photons. The sim proves Bell's experiment gets the same results with non-entangled photons by producing two photons with the same polarity.

You keep saying this but you have yet to prove this. Your code does nothing more then spit out the number 1\2. This is why you continue to make excuses when ever you are asked to demonstrate your code. Your code does not work. My example showed that it is mathematically impossible for your code to track the polarization of the photons from the source to the detector and get the cos(angle)^2 result. You have showed nothing more then the statement. "You are wrong because my code says so". I have mathematically proven you and your code wrong. It is no surprise that you only have excuses when asked to demonstrate your code. Your code is good for nothing more then spitting out the number 1\2.

Thanks but I'm not interested in arguing with you my friend. Have a nice day.

That's a false dichotomy. We already know of models with no hidden variables where no information is exchanged: namely quantum mechanics.

A number is information. If you're saying QM doesn't get any info from its entangled particle when they're separated then I would agree because I'm convinced there's no such spooky action. Maybe that's why QM works. Maybe that's why non-entangled particles get the same results.

That is, of course the source must set the polarity of the non entangled particles.

That's a different argument. Swansont didn't say that the state of each particle is determined at their creation, he said the correlation between particle states is determined at their creation.

I agree, but we're discussing if info is exchanged. If not then there's a hidden variable.

 

But you measure it (locally), after which it is known. By measuring one, you instantly know the other. There's no information transferred from the remote particle, since you already know the states had to be correlated. That correlation is determined when they were created.

This is an argument occurring amongst scientists to date. I'm not interested in it because I've already taken sides that no matter how you sugar coast it, the particles go from not knowing to knowing. There are letters written written by Einstein about this. And he debated this a lot.

 

As far as we can tell, the effect is instantaneous. That's why Einstein had a problem with it he thought it implied superluminal communication, and thus violated relativity. But since no information travels faster than c, it doesn't.

 

 

That's a follow-on to action-at-a-distance. It is irrelevant here.

Indeed. But there is information transferred. According to QM the polarity is unknown. At some point both of the photons must pick the *same* polarity. That's information.

 

If the event of both entangled photons becoming the same polarity of each other is not instantaneous, then how long is it lol?

Quote, "According to Albert Einstein's theory of special relativity, instantaneous action at a distance was seen to violate the relativistic upper limit on speed of propagation of information. If one of the interacting objects were to suddenly be displaced from its position, the other object would feel its influence instantaneously, meaning information had been transmitted faster than the speed of light."

 

The above Einstein is referring to entanglement.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Action_at_a_distance#Einstein

 

No one agrees with instantaneous communication.

 

Why don't you modify your simulation to actually model a test of Bell's theorem. Then you might have an argument worth listening to. I have given you a link to Dr Chinese's "easy math" version. Dave345 has given you another (equivalent) example.

 

Just code that up and then come back.

Nobody said that meant *people* have access to instantaneous communication. QM says the entangled partlcles exhibit such instantaneous communication. It's called spooky action at a distance. I'm not interested in arguing you.

 

I'm not interested in disproving a bunch of hidden variable theories. I'm interested in proving that the bells experiment does not prove spooky action at a distance.

 

Can you quote any reference by Einstein to instantaneous action, in relation to his physics?

 

If you know anything about relativity you would know that the combination is a contradiction of terms.

 

Wikipedia page says "According to Albert Einstein's theory of special relativity, instantaneous action at a distance was seen to violate the relativistic upper limit on speed of propagation of information. If one of the interacting objects were to suddenly be displaced from its position, the other object would feel its influence instantaneously, meaning information had been transmitted faster than the speed of light."

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Action_at_a_distance#Einstein

 

There are lot of quotes of Einstein talking about how spooky action at a distance is wrong.

 

 

By the way I'm the one who says Einstein did not agree with instantaneous communication.

Using math and redshift I can show cows are blue. Does that mean cows are blue?

This is why the textbooks become important

Just because a math can demonstrate a model isn't proof the model is 100% correct. Or that a postulate is correct. You still need experiments and evidence

I agree with you. It's not final until an experiment shows it. Although the cos(angle)^2 equation is so well proven and I've seen it in NEC engine that I'm very confident my sim is correct.

Pop media learning is highly misleading. I found that out the hard way. Nothing replaces the actual mathematics and textbooks

True! Media exaggerates. But still the math shows spooky action at a distance according to most scientists I've heard from.

That analogy alone could get the QM ppl screaming at me lol

Well anyone who gets personal over this isn't worth talking to, which is why I'm going to try hard to ignore them. Ok I might on occasion post that they're off topic. Anyhow just ignore uncivilized people.

 

Edit: word correction.

Instantaneous communication is the pop media misunderstanding. Entanglement cannot be used for ftl communication. Instead you need to treat two entangled particles as one particle with two localities. If that makes sense. I'll let a QM expert go beyond that. This is one area of QM that makes my teeth ache

Yes but I've seen many academic scientists on science tv documentary shows state that there is instantaneous action between the particles when they decide their polarity or spin. Einstein knew very well what QM was claiming: Spooky action at a distance.

You have already demonstrated that you are not competent to make any such assessment.

Pointless statement. That's a personal statement and it is your opinion.

 

Then you obviously did it wrong.

Prove it or move on. I have provided the math and code.