New simulation shows Einstein was correct about hidden variables

[david345]

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.

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.

[Theoretical]

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.

[Klaynos]

Qm has the entangled parameter undefined (in a superposition) until it is measured not set at the source. Qm also does not require hidden variables nor information exchange. That's what you would find out with further reading on the subject. Shockingly, since Einstein made his famous statement science has moved on.

[studiot]

 

Klaynos

That's what you would find out with further reading on the subject.

 

Can I suggest the substitution of the word studying for reading?

[swansont]

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

 

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.

[studiot]

 

swansont

 

Don't the experiments show that if hidden variables exist, they cannot be the full answer to the observations, i.e. at least some of the hidden variables would also have to display non local- effects?

 

As I understand it, the condition of violation of Bell's inequality is that an observation that displays this violation cannot be explained by hidden variables alone, not that it disproves (or proves) their existence.

[Strange]

As I understand it, the condition of violation of Bell's inequality is that an observation that displays this violation cannot be explained by hidden variables alone, not that it disproves (or proves) their existence.

 

It says that no "local realistic" theory can give the same results as QM. Where "local" means communication is limited to light speed and "realistic" means there are hidden variables (i.e. all the observables have defined values).

 

In other words, you either have to give up hidden variables or you have to allow faster than light communication. (Or both.)

 

Pretty much everyone opts for the first choice. I think there are some attempts at theories with FTL communication, but that breaks causality so I don't really know how that works.

 

Note that the critical point for this thread is ALL the observables having defined values. So just picking one polarization value and showing it can be explained classically does not falsify Bell's theorem.

[studiot]

 

It says that no "local realistic" theory can give the same results as QM. Where "local" means communication is limited to light speed and "realistic" means there are hidden variables (i.e. all the observables have defined values).

 

In other words, you either have to give up hidden variables or you have to allow faster than light communication. (Or both.)

 

Pretty much everyone opts for the first choice. I think there are some attempts at theories with FTL communication, but that breaks causality so I don't really know how that works.

 

Note that the critical point for this thread is ALL the observables having defined values. So just picking one polarization value and showing it can be explained classically does not falsify Bell's theorem.

 

As always, it's what you don't say that's crucial.

 

As I understand the definitions hidden variables are additional variables, not described by the wave function.

 

and faster than light communication means the reach of a change to an observable.

 

This 'change' must include 'no change', a statement which itself implies a paradox.

[Strange]

As I understand the definitions hidden variables are additional variables, not described by the wave function.

 

I guess so - because the wave function implies the values are not just "not known" but don't even exist (not "real") until they are measured.

 

Whereas, hidden variables means that everything that could be measured already has a value (we just don't know what they are). But if you define all these variables as having real values, then you get a different result from that prediced by QM (and therefore that which is measured).

 

 

This 'change' must include 'no change', a statement which itself implies a paradox.

 

I'm not sure why that implies a paradox. Even "no change" is information, and transmitting that information faster than light can break causality.

[Theoretical]

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.

[Strange]

Sigh.

 

You just don't get it, do you.

[Theoretical]

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.

[Strange]

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.

[Theoretical]

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.

[Strange]

So now the sim must have multiple hidden variables

 

Not now; it always required them. If you only measure one variable then you have no way of knowing if it always had that avlue or it only took on the value when you measure it. As your simulation shows: it might have always had the same value. There is little value in demonstrating that.

 

Who made you the judge of theories?

 

No one. I am just explaining to you (again) what Bell's theorem actually says.

What Bell's inequality says is that if you measure multiple related observables you will get a different result if their values are defined in advance than if they take on values when they are measured.

[Mordred]

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

[Strange]

So now the sim must have multiple hidden variables.

 

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

[studiot]

 

Theoretical

A computer simulation I wrote (source code below) correctly predicts Bell's experiment results using hidden variables....................

Please note that I never fudged anything to arrive at this source code or results

 

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.

Edited January 6, 2015 by studiot

[Theoretical]

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.

[andrewcellini]

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:

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

[Strange]

Show the math error.

 

There is no math error (as far as I know). That is not the problem.

 

My sim has to do with the experiment.

 

No it hasn't, for the reasons provided by many people, many times, over many pages.

 

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.

 

Because your program does not relate to any experiment testing Bell's theorem that I am aware of.

[studiot]

 

Theoretical

 

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.

 

 

What exactly is wrong?

 

I did not say your sim (a poor mathematical word) was or was not to do with Bell's.

 

You did.

 

And further I posted your exact words stating this.

 

All I asked was for you to do more than state but to derive.

Stating does not make something true or untrue

 

If I am wrong and you are right you will be able to point to the exact post number in this thread where you have done this.

 

So how can I be wrong or right when all I have done is asked you a polite question about your work?

Edited January 6, 2015 by studiot

[Delta1212]

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

You are literally saying that to an atomic physicist.

[Mordred]

Yes I can read your code and under stand what your doing. Your not the only programmer. Your code is simply polarizing photons. It is not demonstrating entangelement nor spooky action at a distance. As everyone has been telling you.

Edited January 6, 2015 by Mordred

[Theoretical]

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.