Theoretical Posted January 5, 2015 Author Share Posted January 5, 2015 More excuses. http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bell%27s_theoremThat talks about hidden variable theories. You need to keep up with the thread. QM can't handle my sim because QM would collapse into a classical theory. Bell's theorem has nothing to do with using non-entangled photons. My sim shows that non-entangled Bell's experiment gives same results as one that uses entangled photons. Sorry but that clearly shows Bell's experiment does not prove spooky action at a distance. More excuses. Your code does nothing more then spit out the number 1\2. http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bell%27s_theoremIf you believe that, then you need to improve your coding skills lol. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
david345 Posted January 5, 2015 Share Posted January 5, 2015 That talks about hidden variable theories. You need to keep up with the thread. QM can't handle my sim because QM would collapse into a classical theory. Bell's theorem has nothing to do with using non-entangled photons. My sim shows that non-entangled Bell's experiment gives same results as one that uses entangled photons. Sorry but that clearly shows Bell's experiment does not prove spooky action at a distance. If you believe that, then you need to improve your coding skills lol. No your Sim doesn't. This is why you keep making excuses and can provide no demonstration. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Theoretical Posted January 5, 2015 Author Share Posted January 5, 2015 No your Sim doesn't. This is why you keep making excuses and can provide no demonstration.Ah, so now you can see the future to know that? Or maybe you think you're a psychic haha? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
david345 Posted January 5, 2015 Share Posted January 5, 2015 Ah, so now you can see the future to know that? Or maybe you think you're a psychic haha?My demonstration proved your claim is impossible. It is no surprise that you can provide no demonstration. Only excuses. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Theoretical Posted January 5, 2015 Author Share Posted January 5, 2015 My demonstration proved your claim is impossible. It is no surprise that you can provide no demonstration. Only excuses.Your demonstration doesn't qualtfy as physics or a simulation. Sorry I have to leave for the night. See you later. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Klaynos Posted January 5, 2015 Share Posted January 5, 2015 Theoretical, you're argument about polarisation ignores superposition and entanglement, which is what you're trying to investigate. It's not a personal attack to suggest you read a more formal text on these things, I'm hoping it'll help you. Until you read further into the area you'll continue to have the same arguments which will frustrate and annoy everyone including you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Theoretical Posted January 5, 2015 Author Share Posted January 5, 2015 Theoretical, you're argument about polarisation ignores superposition and entanglement, which is what you're trying to investigate. It's not a personal attack to suggest you read a more formal text on these things, I'm hoping it'll help you. Until you read further into the area you'll continue to have the same arguments which will frustrate and annoy everyone including you.Please don't tell me what I know. I'm fully aware of what you said. As for frustration, I only get frustrated when you people rely upon ad hominem. Can we please stick to the topic? Are you aware that the polarization of light going through a polarizer can approach 100%? In terms of radio waves, I can assure you that nearly 100% of the photons emitted by a vertical dipole antenna are vertical. Pass that through an array of horizontal dipoles and you get no measurable horizontal photons from the vertical antenna. If you doubt this, and don't have the equipment to test it, then you can use NEC (Numerical Electromagnetics Code) engine created by Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory. It's been around for at least 3 decades. Used probably by everyone who's ever designed an antenna. Extremely accurate. I used to have a technical book on the math aspect of NEC. About 1/2 inch think. Nearly all math. I'm away from my desktop now, but if you necessary I could show you the results of a vertical dipole antenna giving the horizontal far field. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
david345 Posted January 5, 2015 Share Posted January 5, 2015 (edited) Please don't tell me what I know. I'm fully aware of what you said. As for frustration, I only get frustrated when you people rely upon ad hominem. Can we please stick to the topic? Are you aware that the polarization of light going through a polarizer can approach 100%? In terms of radio waves, I can assure you that nearly 100% of the photons emitted by a vertical dipole antenna are vertical. Pass that through an array of horizontal dipoles and you get no measurable horizontal photons from the vertical antenna. If you doubt this, and don't have the equipment to test it, then you can use NEC (Numerical Electromagnetics Code) engine created by Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory. It's been around for at least 3 decades. Used probably by everyone who's ever designed an antenna. Extremely accurate. I used to have a technical book on the math aspect of NEC. About 1/2 inch think. Nearly all math. I'm away from my desktop now, but if you necessary I could show you the results of a vertical dipole antenna giving the horizontal far field. More big talk. Why don't you use the NEC to provide us with a demonstration. (If you wish to create an infinity thread, so be it. Eventually both of us will die. I doubt anyone will show up to defend your code. It is not because one of us is better. It is because you are not correct. You are dishonest. (We both know you are a closet religious troll. You have no interest in learning any science. You are only interested in "proving" it wrong. You are not fooling me. I can not prove this but the evidence is there.1. Provides a difficult to decipher "proof" that physics is wrong. (His code) 2. Refuses to demonstrate his "proof" 3. Claims he is interested in learning physics but is actually only interested in "proving" it wrong. 4. When the problem with his proof is discovered he responds with: a. spouting out a bunch of random numbers. b. Using a bunch of big fancy sounding words. c. Uses nonsensical statements in an attempt to confuse. d. Claims entanglement is a cash cow for physics. e. Claims those who disagree with him are morally wrong internet bullies. f. Claims science agrees with him. 4. Posts links to religious websites. 5. Even his name is a buzzword for religious people who oppose physics. I can't prove any of this. The evidence is definitely there.)) I am not trying to indict anyone. If theoretical wishes to respond then I will be waiting. Just don't think you can fool me. Edited January 5, 2015 by david345 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Strange Posted January 5, 2015 Share Posted January 5, 2015 You couldn't possibly expect any physicist to believe that. Pretty much all physicists believe that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
david345 Posted January 5, 2015 Share Posted January 5, 2015 Pretty much all physicists believe that.I stand corrected. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swansont Posted January 5, 2015 Share Posted January 5, 2015 As stated, my sim is all about emitting photons where the polarization is known beforehand. It makes absolutely no difference if the photon polarity is guaranteed the moment the antenna or whatever emitted it or if we want to put it through a polarizer. Everyone here knows we can produce photons of a specific polarization. Which is moot, because the Bell experiment is about a photon with an undetermined (to us) polarization state having a hidden variable that secretly determines it. Producing photons of a known polarization is just run-of-the mill optics. At some point you seemed to acknowledge this, so why are we still arguing about this? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Theoretical Posted January 5, 2015 Author Share Posted January 5, 2015 More big talk. Why don't you use the NEC to provide us with a demonstration. (If you wish to create an infinity thread, so be it. Eventually both of us will die. I doubt anyone will show up to defend your code. It is not because one of us is better. It is because you are not correct. You are dishonest. (We both know you are a closet religious troll. You have no interest in learning any science. You are only interested in "proving" it wrong. You are not fooling me. I can not prove this but the evidence is there. 1. Provides a difficult to decipher "proof" that physics is wrong. (His code) 2. Refuses to demonstrate his "proof" 3. Claims he is interested in learning physics but is actually only interested in "proving" it wrong. 4. When the problem with his proof is discovered he responds with: a. spouting out a bunch of random numbers. b. Using a bunch of big fancy sounding words. c. Uses nonsensical statements in an attempt to confuse. d. Claims entanglement is a cash cow for physics. e. Claims those who disagree with him are morally wrong internet bullies. f. Claims science agrees with him. 4. Posts links to religious websites. 5. Even his name is a buzzword for religious people who oppose physics. I can't prove any of this. The evidence is definitely there.)) I am not trying to indict anyone. If theoretical wishes to respond then I will be waiting. Just don't think you can fool me. I'm certain that's ad hominem. Pretty much all physicists believe that.Your position is unclear. I was saying we can produce photons of known polarizations where the certainty of knowing the polarization approaches 100%. Which is moot, because the Bell experiment is about a photon with an undetermined (to us) polarization state having a hidden variable that secretly determines it. Producing photons of a known polarization is just run-of-the mill optics. At some point you seemed to acknowledge this, so why are we still arguing about this?Because some people are claiming Bell's experiment proves spooky action at a distance. If two non-entangled photons are emitted, we get the same results of 1/2. *Therefore Bell's experiment does not prove spooky action at a distance.* Furthermore I merely gave the benefit of the doubt that my sim did not qualify as a hidden variable because someone said it would collapse QM. Regarding what you just said, I believe my sim qualifies as a hidden variable where the sim could determine the polarization the moment it is required, which would be at the polarizer. My sim is not a theory, but it proves that a hidden theory could get the correct results. Again, the sim is predetermining the polarization of both photons. So it seems that in order to make this a complete theory one would merely have to show the math to prove Malus' law. How difficult is that? Here's a copy and paste results of antenna field polarization from NEC2: Antenna type: single dipole in free space Frequency: 30MHz Dipole length: 4.836m Horizontal field: 5.9932E-03 v/m Vertical field: 2.4193E-11 v/m As you can see dipole antennas radiate only in one plane. The vertical field is really zero in such an antenna. NEC is a numerical program. The above results is without a polarizer. It's directly from the radiating antenna. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swansont Posted January 5, 2015 Share Posted January 5, 2015 I'm certain that's ad hominem. Another thing you're wrong about. Because some people are claiming Bell's experiment proves spooky action at a distance. If two non-entangled photons are emitted, we get the same results of 1/2. *Therefore Bell's experiment does not prove spooky action at a distance.* Furthermore I merely gave the benefit of the doubt that my sim did not qualify as a hidden variable because someone said it would collapse QM. Regarding what you just said, I believe my sim qualifies as a hidden variable where the sim could determine the polarization the moment it is required, which would be at the polarizer. My sim is not a theory, but it proves that a hidden theory could get the correct results. Again, the sim is predetermining the polarization of both photons. So it seems that in order to make this a complete theory one would merely have to show the math to prove Malus' law. How difficult is that? There is no single Bell's experiment. Rather, there are a multitude of experiments that can be used to test Bell's theory. And yes, entanglement ("spooky action") has been demonstrated. Remember, the basic idea of Bell's theorem is that "No physical theory of local hidden variables can ever reproduce all of the predictions of quantum mechanics." (meaning some results can be reproduced) Thus, the fact that someone might recreate one prediction of QM with hidden variables does not allow one to make any definitive statement. The theorem does not exclude some local hidden variable ideas from working. The trick, then, is to find where there is disagreement, not agreement — agreement does not differentiate the ideas. You have, in essence, done the science backward. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Theoretical Posted January 5, 2015 Author Share Posted January 5, 2015 Another thing you're wrong about. There is no single Bell's experiment. Rather, there are a multitude of experiments that can be used to test Bell's theory. And yes, entanglement ("spooky action") has been demonstrated. Remember, the basic idea of Bell's theorem is that "No physical theory of local hidden variables can ever reproduce all of the predictions of quantum mechanics." (meaning some results can be reproduced) Thus, the fact that someone might recreate one prediction of QM with hidden variables does not allow one to make any definitive statement. The theorem does not exclude some local hidden variable ideas from working. The trick, then, is to find where there is disagreement, not agreement agreement does not differentiate the ideas. You have, in essence, done the science backward. We disagree. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swansont Posted January 5, 2015 Share Posted January 5, 2015 We disagree. But one of us is right. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Theoretical Posted January 5, 2015 Author Share Posted January 5, 2015 The difference in our posts is that I have consistently provided data. Example, NEC results which proves it's possible to emit polarized photons. Malus' law, which has been proven since the 1700's. I've provide the code for the sim, which is basically a few lines of code at its heart. Very simple sim. Someone has converted my sim to a math equation, which confirms the sim is getting the correct results of 1/2. Sure isn't looking so good for your spooky action at a distance. I contend Einstein was correct about QM. Albert Einstein, wow I have so much more respect for that man. And I had a world of respect for him before. What a genius of geniuses. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Strange Posted January 5, 2015 Share Posted January 5, 2015 The difference in our posts is that I have consistently provided data. On the other hand, multiple posters have provided detailed explanations of what Bell's theorem really is and information about experiments that confirm Bell's theorem (all supported with copious links to reference material). You have a toy program which tests one case does not even appear to be relevant to Bell's theorem. You are, of course, entitled to your opinion but you are labouring under the, not insignificant, disadvantage of being wrong. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Theoretical Posted January 5, 2015 Author Share Posted January 5, 2015 On the other hand, multiple posters have provided detailed explanations of what Bell's theorem really is and information about experiments that confirm Bell's theorem (all supported with copious links to reference material). You have a toy program which tests one case does not even appear to be relevant to Bell's theorem. You are, of course, entitled to your opinion but you are labouring under the, not insignificant, disadvantage of being wrong. I've shown a video where the author goes over a few hidden variable theories. Why would you say all theories have been already been tested? Did Einstein produced those hidden variable theories? No. I think someone could easily produce a hidden variable theory based on my sim, which we already know gets the correct results. Please, can we agree to disagree? I really have to get back to working on my GUT. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Strange Posted January 5, 2015 Share Posted January 5, 2015 (edited) Please, can we agree to disagree? This isn't a matter of opinion. You are simply wrong. You might as well be claiming the sky is green. So, no. I really have to get back to working on my GUT. Based on no maths and little understanding? I can see that working really well. 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 This isn't a matter of opinion. You are simply wrong. You might as well be claiming the sky is green. Saying I'm wrong doesn't prove anything. You need to quote me, and be specific why I'm wrong. And try to stay on topic. I'm not interested if by chance some minor thing I said was wrong. I'm not interested in other peoples hidden variable theory. Prove my sim has a math error. Prove Malus' law is wrong. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swansont Posted January 5, 2015 Share Posted January 5, 2015 The difference in our posts is that I have consistently provided data. Example, NEC results which proves it's possible to emit polarized photons. Malus' law, which has been proven since the 1700's. I've provide the code for the sim, which is basically a few lines of code at its heart. Very simple sim. Someone has converted my sim to a math equation, which confirms the sim is getting the correct results of 1/2. Sure isn't looking so good for your spooky action at a distance. I contend Einstein was correct about QM. Albert Einstein, wow I have so much more respect for that man. And I had a world of respect for him before. What a genius of geniuses. All of which are part of classical physics. You aren't showing anything regarding entanglement. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Theoretical Posted January 5, 2015 Author Share Posted January 5, 2015 Prove that the experiment cannot be performed with non-entangled photons. All of which are part of classical physics. You aren't showing anything regarding entanglement. The topic has obviously gone over your head. You don't understand what's being discussed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swansont Posted January 5, 2015 Share Posted January 5, 2015 Saying I'm wrong doesn't prove anything. You need to quote me, and be specific why I'm wrong. And try to stay on topic. I'm not interested if by chance some minor thing I said was wrong. I'm not interested in other peoples hidden variable theory. Prove my sim has a math error. Prove Malus' law is wrong. You haven't done anything that includes hidden variables. Your variables are quite unhidden, and quite classical in nature. Hidden variables are an inherently quantum effect (or would be, if they worked). The error we're talking about is not one of math, it's about the applicability of the math. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Theoretical Posted January 5, 2015 Author Share Posted January 5, 2015 (edited) You haven't done anything that includes hidden variables. Your variables are quite unhidden, and quite classical in nature. Hidden variables are an inherently quantum effect (or would be, if they worked). The error we're talking about is not one of math, it's about the applicability of the math. Nonsense. If they were hidden they would be of no use to a math equation. Edited January 5, 2015 by Theoretical Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Strange Posted January 5, 2015 Share Posted January 5, 2015 Saying I'm wrong doesn't prove anything. You need to quote me, and be specific why I'm wrong. It has been explained soooo many times. You obviously don't want to learn and are happy in your little bubble. Prove that the experiment cannot be performed with non-entangled photons. You have been provided with long lists of experments that test Bell's Theorem. Why do you ignore them? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts