New simulation shows Einstein was correct about hidden variables

[Theoretical]

And the video neatly shows that if you do that you end up with far too many results being different - not the half required.

She only goes over one experiment, but uses two different methods to predict it, showing that the QM method gives correct results and the other doesn't. There's a lot of hidden variable theories. Mine works unless there's a blatant bug in my code.

[Sensei]

First of all, c'mon, select whole Visual Studio project, zip it and attach.

It must works without having to do anything.

Nobody will be writing entire program just for your little snippet of code to work..

 

Secondly, you didn't randomize polarization angle, but you walk through all possible values with constant increment.

Edited January 1, 2015 by Sensei

[Theoretical]

First of all, c'mon, select whole Visual Studio project, zip it and attach.

It must works without having to do anything.

Nobody will be writing entire program just for your little snippet of code to work..

 

Secondly, you didn't randomize polarization angle, but you walk through all possible values with constant increment.

It did have random values at first, but it gives the same results except using rand required a lot more sampling for obvious reasons.

 

 

 

Some of the commenters are saying this is just a coincidence that the sim got the correct results. That seems unfair. It's not like I hunted through thousands of random equations on the net to find some crazy combination that gives 1/2. The sim uses the correct polarization equation. It's straight forward.

 

The best part of the sim is not only that it uses the correct equation regarding polarizers that work regardless if the photons are entangled, but it gets the correct answer without any spooky action at a distant. I think that's what bothered Einstein the most about QM.

[Sensei]

Do you have polarization filters?

Do you have source of polarized light to examine in experiment by yourself?

Did you even see it on your own eyes?

Some of the commenters are saying this is just a coincidence that the sim got the correct results. That seems unfair.

 

If source of light would be already polarized, your code would fail..

Edited January 1, 2015 by Sensei

[imatfaal]

It did have random values at first, but it gives the same results except using rand required a lot more sampling for obvious reasons.

 

 

 

Some of the commenters are saying this is just a coincidence that the sim got the correct results. That seems unfair. It's not like I hunted through thousands of random equations on the net to find some crazy combination that gives 1/2. The sim uses the correct polarization equation. It's straight forward.

 

The best part of the sim is not only that it uses the correct equation regarding polarizers that work regardless if the photons are entangled, but it gets the correct answer without any spooky action at a distant. I think that's what bothered Einstein the most about QM.

 

 

But the answer in the video is that from entangled ELECTRON measuring their SPIN; you are looking at PHOTONS (that seem not be entangled) and are looking at measuring POLARISATION. These are similar concept but there is no good reason they should give the same answer!

 

You need to demonstrate

1. That your process in your simulation requires either entanglement or a hidden variable

2. That it has a hidden variable (which you don't)

3. That the answers for entanglement (ie predicted by QM - which is what you are doing whether you know or not ) and those for a hidden variable are the SAME.

 

And even once you have done that - I can point to many real world experiments that conclusively show that hidden variables CANNOT account for the behaviour of spin in entangled electrons (per the video) nor for the behaviour of polarisation in entangled photons (per Aspect et al).

 

You only need a single instance to prove a theory incorrect - this has been done; the experiments that followed from Bell's Inequality have shown that non-locality is crucial. Therefore a theory which claims that non-locality is impossible cannot be correct. per Elfmotat's previous post - this does not prove QM is correct as stands as there are Bohmian mechanics and other ideas which do not get tested by Bells.

[Theoretical]

But the answer in the video is that from entangled ELECTRON measuring their SPIN; you are looking at PHOTONS (that seem not be entangled) and are looking at measuring POLARISATION. These are similar concept but there is no good reason they should give the same answer!

I'm using polarization. She uses spin. Why would it get different results? Several people in this thread said my sim gets the correct results.

 

In my sim the photon polarization was random, but yet the polarization of both photons are always the same. How could they not be entangled?

 

 

 

 

You need to demonstrate

1. That your process in your simulation requires either entanglement or a hidden variable

2. That it has a hidden variable (which you don't)

3. That the answers for entanglement (ie predicted by QM - which is what you are doing whether you know or not ) and those for a hidden variable are the SAME.

The sim doesn't have a hidden variable? The photon polarizations are known before the polarizers. I believe that's what Einstein was talking about.

 

 

 

And even once you have done that - I can point to many real world experiments that conclusively show that hidden variables CANNOT account for the behaviour of spin in entangled electrons (per the video) nor for the behaviour of polarisation in entangled photons (per Aspect et al).

 

You only need a single instance to prove a theory incorrect - this has been done; the experiments that followed from Bell's Inequality have shown that non-locality is crucial. Therefore a theory which claims that non-locality is impossible cannot be correct. per Elfmotat's previous post - this does not prove QM is correct as stands as there are Bohmian mechanics and other ideas which do not get tested by Bells.

What other experiments conclusively show that hidden variables cannot account for the behaviour of spin in entangled electrons?

[Strange]

What other experiments conclusively show that hidden variables cannot account for the behaviour of spin in entangled electrons?

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bell_test_experiments

 

Perhaps you can explain how every single one of them is wrong?

Edited January 1, 2015 by Strange

[Theoretical]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bell_test_experiments

 

Perhaps you can explain how every single one of them is wrong?

I already simulated a Bell's experiment and see no reason why the probability equation would change regardless if electron or photon detectors are used.

[Strange]

I already simulated a Bell's experiment and see no reason why the probability equation would change regardless if electron or photon detectors are used.

 

So you simply ignore the evidence? Your simulation is obviously worthless compared with real experimental data.

 

If your simulation disagrees with experiment then it is wrong. That is all there is to say.

Edited January 2, 2015 by Strange

[Theoretical]

 

So you simply ignore the evidence? Your simulation is obviously worthless compared with real experimental data.

 

If your simulation disagrees with experiment then it is wrong. That is all there is to say.

You must be referring to the work of other people because so far the evidence shows my sim got the correct answer and it uses correct equations.

Nobody's been able to prove there's an instantaneous link between the two entangled particles. Not instantaneous communication. Nothing. The sim is extremely simple. And it appears to work. I'm now a lot more confident in the sim now than when this thread was created. Until someone shows any error in the sim, I have to say Einstein was correct about entanglement.

[MigL]

A 'hidden variable' is something which changes and affects the outcome of experiments, but which is not accounted for by our Quantum Mechanical model or understanding.

I don't think you've shown that any such thing exists.

And no, that's not what Einstein was talking about.

[Theoretical]

A 'hidden variable' is something which changes and affects the outcome of experiments, but which is not accounted for by our Quantum Mechanical model or understanding.

I don't think you've shown that any such thing exists.

And no, that's not what Einstein was talking about.

I have to disagree. Einstein was opposed to probabilistic nature of QM. Here's a quote from Wikipedia:

"Albert Einstein, the most famous proponent of hidden variables, objected to the fundamentally probabilistic nature of quantum mechanics,[1] and famously declared "I am convinced God does not play dice".[2] Einstein, Podolsky, and Rosen argued that "elements of reality" (hidden variables) must be added to quantum mechanics to explain entanglement without action at a distance."

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hidden_variable_theory

That's what the sim does. It removes the probabilistic nature of the entangled particles by knowing exactly beforehand what the polarization of both photons are.

[david345]

It appears you have written a code that uses the square of the cosine to give you the probability. A 50 cent calculator can do this. No one ever said the probability can not be calculated. You must write a code that shows the path each particle takes from the beginning of the experiment until the end. Your code should not calculate the probabilities. It should find these probabilities as a result of repeated tests. Until then I will stick with my 50 cent calculator.

[MigL]

And that is not a 'hidden' variable, it is simply a 'boundary condition'.

[Theoretical]

You can call it as you wish, but you miss the entire purpose of the sim, which is that it uses equations that do not require spooky action at a distance to correctly predict the outcome of the experiment. If the sim is correct, and it sure appears to be, then Einstein was correct about QM. It is wrong to go through all various different versions of hidden variable theories to show they get wrong results to support this notion that the particles have instantaneous link to each other when it's unnecessary. Of what purpose would it be to invent a hundred theories that incorrectly predicts something? To make your theory appear correct?

 

Fact still remains that a simple equation that works on any type of photon will correctly predict the outcome, and it does not require the particles to be "entangled." To be specific, one could get their 50 cent calculator, grab a random number from it, use that random number to emit two common photons from different sources (not a non-linear crystal) such that these photons have the same polarity. Who cares if they're "entangled." You'll get the exact same results as a Bell's experiment that uses some non-linear crystals to produce "entangled" photons. That proves there's absolutely nothing special going on with these "entangled" photons in the Bell's experiment.

 

So if non-entangled similar photons created by separate sources shows the same results, then the Bell's experiment does not prove anything spooky is happening with the entangled photons.

 

How do I know that the aforementioned non-entangled photon experiment would get the same results of 1/2, and not 5/9? Because that's what the simulation is simulating. It uses the I*cos(angle)^2 equation, which works for normal photons.

 

Like everyone here I too would love to see some prove of this spooky instantaneous action at a distance. Instantaneous communication, faster than light, Bell's experiment that shows only these "entangled" photons exhibit a unique effect. Something. Anything. But nothing. No proof. I'm disappointed, but I must acknowledge the evidence. If I'm wrong, then point it out. Let's not argue about everything else under the sun and a household of technicalities and definitions. The meat of the simulation is about as simple as it gets. Where's the error? Only if Einstein was still alive. He would set you straight lol!

[david345]

No the cos(angle)^2 equation does not work for hidden variables theory. That is the equation used by quantum mechanics which gives answers inconsistent with hidden variables theory. If your result is 1\2 then it is NOT in agreement with hidden variables theory. 1\2 is the result you get when hidden variables theory is wrong. Your simulation needs to show the path the particle takes from the beginning of the experiment to the end. You prove nothing by saying you can calculate cos(angle)^2 without spooky entanglement. I see this argument has been advanced around the internet before. It ALWAYS uses photon polarization and not electron spin. The argument goes like this. I can calculate the probabilities using malus law. Malus law was written in 1809. I calculated the probabilities using a classical law. Classical physics is correct. Malus law was a result of the wave like properties of light. Many of these wave properties were discovered before quantum mechanics was developed. It was these wave properties that were the downfall of classical physics. You can not provide a similar argument for electrons because there is no "classical" malus law for electrons.

Edited January 2, 2015 by david345

[elfmotat]

You miss the entire purpose of our objections. You haven't really simulated anything. What you've done is use known equations to output examples of those equations. You haven't done anything new. If you say you've shown the Bell inequalities to be true then you're just wrong, because reality does not conform to them. You haven't given us a new theory or a new understanding of QM, you've given us precisely nothing.

[swansont]

Knowing the polarizations does not require hidden variables. It merely requires knowing a polarization setting. Having correlated polarizations does not automatically mean entanglement. Those are two errors in your simulation.

[Strange]

No the cos(angle)^2 equation does not work for hidden variables theory. That is the equation used by quantum mechanics which gives answers inconsistent with hidden variables theory.

 

This.

[Theoretical]

Honestly I see no point arguing if my sim is considered another hidden variable theory or not because that's not the point of the sim. I thought to have made it very clear in my previous post the crux of the matter. The Bell's experiment gets the same results regardless if the photons are "entangled" or not. Quote from my previous post, "To be specific, one could get their 50 cent calculator, grab a random number from it, use that random number to emit two common photons from different sources (not a non-linear crystal) such that these photons have the same polarity. Who cares if they're "entangled." You'll get the exact same results as a Bell's experiment that uses some non-linear crystals to produce "entangled" photons. That proves there's absolutely nothing special going on with these "entangled" photons in the Bell's experiment."

[Strange]

You are right. Bell's theorem has nothing to do with entanglement. That is just a useful way of testing it. It is about demonstrating that there are no local hidden variables.

[Theoretical]

You are right. Bell's theorem has nothing to do with entanglement. That is just a useful way of testing it. It is about demonstrating that there are no local hidden variables..

Agreed as far as the entanglement aspect, and therefore there's no experimental evidence of spooky action at a distance. If that's true, and it sure seems like it, then why is everyone on the internet posting videos, blogs, and articles saying Einstein was wrong, that Bell's experiment proves how spooky quantum entanglement is?

 

Honestly, the main reason I wrote the sim is because I'm working on a theory that requires knowing if Einstein was correct about entangled particles. I was expecting to see the weird amazing Bell's experiment results as hyped up so much on youtube, as if the Bell's experiment results could only be proven by spooky action at a distance. In my excitement I shared the results thinking other theorists would like to know. So people can take the sim or ignore it. To each their own.

 

... Actually, in one of the youtube videos a guy, who was obviously very much engrossed in Bell's experiment, said a scientists (gave me the impression he was a notable scientist) said the entangled particles are in agreement with relativity because he believes the entanglement exists outside of spacetime.

Edited January 2, 2015 by Theoretical

[Strange]

Agreed as far as the entanglement aspect, and therefore there's no experimental evidence of spooky action at a distance.

 

There is lots of evidence for entanglement.

 

Honestly, the main reason I wrote the sim is because I'm working on a theory that requires knowing if Einstein was correct about entangled particles.

 

Then it sounds like you have a few years of learning about theoretical physics ahead of you before you are ready.

[Theoretical]

There is lots of evidence for entanglement.

 

 

Then it sounds like you have a few years of learning about theoretical physics ahead of you before you are ready.

I said entanglement with regards to spooky action at a distance. Where's the experimental evidence? Bell's experiment is not such evidence. My sim sets the polarization of both photons from the start. It didn't require any instantaneous communication.

 

 

 

Knowing the polarizations does not require hidden variables. It merely requires knowing a polarization setting. Having correlated polarizations does not automatically mean entanglement. Those are two errors in your simulation.

They're not errors in the sim. The sim uses simple non-entanglement equations and gets the correct answer.

 

 

No the cos(angle)^2 equation does not work for hidden variables theory. That is the equation used by quantum mechanics which gives answers inconsistent with hidden variables theory.

I see nothing special about the I*cos(angle)^2 equation. It took me maybe 30 seconds to derive it myself, later on confirming it to be the correct equation. It's an obvious simple first try.

[Strange]

I said entanglement with regards to spooky action at a distance.

 

What do you think the difference is? "Spooky action at a distance" was just Einstein's characterization of entanglement, because he didn't like the concept.

 

 

I see nothing special about the I*cos(angle)^2 equation. It took me maybe 30 seconds to derive it myself, later on confirming it to be the correct equation. It's an obvious simple first try.

 

What is "special" about it is that cos² is used to calculate the correct value in quantum theory (as opposed to classical probabilities). So by using this you are automatically getting the same results as QM. It is not surprising and doesn't demonstrate anything interesting (unless someone thinks your lack of understanding is interesting).