Theoretical Posted January 5, 2015 Author Share Posted January 5, 2015 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swansont Posted January 5, 2015 Share Posted January 5, 2015 Prove that the experiment cannot be performed with non-entangled photons. That's moving the goalposts. Maybe someone could devise an experiment with non-entangled photons. But that says nothing about whether your simulation tests hidden variables. The topic has obviously gone over your head. You don't understand what's being discussed. I missed where you mentioned where you got your physics degree. Where was that, again? Because from your posts I would have guessed you haven't studied it in all that much depth. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Strange Posted January 5, 2015 Share Posted January 5, 2015 Prove it. Show one quote where someone proved my sim is wrong by means of math. Saying its wrong is not proof. 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Theoretical Posted January 5, 2015 Author Share Posted January 5, 2015 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Strange Posted January 5, 2015 Share Posted January 5, 2015 (edited) Why would you say such a vague incorrect statement. Because it is 100% precise and accurate. But here you go again: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bell_test_experiments In case you haven't noticed, we're talking about what is commonly called Bell's experiment. Not his theorem. 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. Edited January 5, 2015 by Strange Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Theoretical Posted January 5, 2015 Author Share Posted January 5, 2015 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Klaynos Posted January 5, 2015 Share Posted January 5, 2015 Entanglement has been shown by many experiments. Superposition of states has been shown by even more. Your sim ignores both of these. Whilst out is of course possible to generate radiation with well defined polarisation that isn't what is required for a entangled system where you need (photons used as an example) two photons which are entangled together each being in a superposition of states. Oh and nothing in my previous posts was a personal attack, just an honest statement on how I thought or was best to resolve the problem. I was basing my recommendation on the apparent misconceptions you have about entanglement and constant mentioning of videos. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mordred Posted January 5, 2015 Share Posted January 5, 2015 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Theoretical Posted January 5, 2015 Author Share Posted January 5, 2015 [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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mordred Posted January 5, 2015 Share Posted January 5, 2015 Truth be told the thread is getting difficult to follow. particularly when your trying to ignore the non related commentary. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Theoretical Posted January 5, 2015 Author Share Posted January 5, 2015 Truth be told the thread is getting difficult to follow. particularly when your trying to ignore the non related commentary. That I agree with! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mordred Posted January 5, 2015 Share Posted January 5, 2015 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Theoretical Posted January 5, 2015 Author Share Posted January 5, 2015 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? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Strange Posted January 5, 2015 Share Posted January 5, 2015 You claim bells experiment proves spooky action at a distance. I don't just claim it, I gave you a list of experiments that demonstrate it. Disprove my simulation. If there is a disagreement between reality and your "simulation". I am going to go with reality. Sorry. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Theoretical Posted January 5, 2015 Author Share Posted January 5, 2015 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Strange Posted January 5, 2015 Share Posted January 5, 2015 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? 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. You gave a google search results. No I didn't. Please stop lying. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Theoretical Posted January 5, 2015 Author Share Posted January 5, 2015 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Strange Posted January 5, 2015 Share Posted January 5, 2015 As stated, I went through the list and saw no evidence of spooky action at a distance. You have already demonstrated that you are not competent to make any such assessment. It's rather interesting that even though spooky action at a distance clearly implies instantaneous communication No it doesn't. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Theoretical Posted January 5, 2015 Author Share Posted January 5, 2015 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Strange Posted January 5, 2015 Share Posted January 5, 2015 The video that described the Bell's experiment that I modeled my sim after is for testing Bell's theorem. Then you obviously did it wrong. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Theoretical Posted January 5, 2015 Author Share Posted January 5, 2015 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mordred Posted January 5, 2015 Share Posted January 5, 2015 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 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Theoretical Posted January 5, 2015 Author Share Posted January 5, 2015 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 acheYes 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mordred Posted January 5, 2015 Share Posted January 5, 2015 That analogy alone could get the QM ppl screaming at me lol The rate of influence between the two is indeterminate. We cannot examine one or the other ftl. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Theoretical Posted January 5, 2015 Author Share Posted January 5, 2015 (edited) That analogy alone could get the QM ppl screaming at me lolWell 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. Edited January 5, 2015 by Theoretical Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts