New simulation shows Einstein was correct about hidden variables

[Theoretical]

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.

I predict you would get the same results using electrons. That is, if the electrons are emitted from separate sources and are not "entangled," you get the same results, 1/2.

 

 

 

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).

Funny how that equation works for non-entangled particles as well. Why wouldn't QM use it? It's a very simple equation that shows the obvious. I bet there are countless macro scale experiments that would show the same cos(angle)^2 curve. Shoot marbles at a paddle that can rotate from being parallel to the marbles to being perpendicular.

 

 

In my opinion the modern debates about hidden variable theories have fallen off track. The following Wikipedia quote, which quotes Einstein, states what EPR was about:

"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."

Where did Einstein say that hidden variables are required in order for QM to give correct answers? Einstein said the hidden variables must be added to *explain* entanglement *without action at a distance*.

 

 

If Einstein clearly stated the hidden variables are necessary for QM to produce correct answers, then I stand corrected. Actually I read a quote from Einstein where he said QM gives correct results.

[Strange]

Where did Einstein say that hidden variables are required in order for QM to give correct answers?

 

Right there. In that sentence you quoted. Here it is again: "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."

 

I now have absolutely no idea what you are on about. I suspect that this is because you have absolutely no idea what you are on about.

[Theoretical]

I now have absolutely no idea what you are on about. I suspect that this is because you have absolutely no idea what you are on about.

I've already explain the purpose of the sim and this thread:

 

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.

 

So if there was experimental evidence of spooky action at a distance, then that would definitely change the path of my theoretical research.

[Strange]

So if there was experimental evidence of spooky action at a distance, then that would definitely change the path of my theoretical research.

 

There is a lot of evidence for entanglement. It is a fundamental part of quantum theory. every experiment and the thousands of practical applications conform that quantum theory works.

Edited January 2, 2015 by Strange

[studiot]

Can you show that your algorithm reproduces either the Strapp experiment (with probability) or the Hardy experiment (without probability) ?

[MigL]

Einstein did not like the concept of entanglement because he considered it 'action at a distance'.

That was the crux of the EPR paradox.

Einstein postulated that there must be other unknown variables that affect the outcome of our experiments. These 'hidden' variables, once found, would get rid of all the strange, probabilistic properties of Quantum theory.

That has never happened, and, as a matter of fact, Bell's inequality proves no hidden variables exist.

 

That is what we understand from your Wiki quote.

What do you understand ?

Edited January 2, 2015 by MigL

[Theoretical]

There is a lot of evidence for entanglement. It is a fundamental part of quantum theory. every experiment and the thousands of practical applications conform that quantum theory works.

Our conversation has become circular because you keep misstating my words and keep correcting you. Enough.

 

 

 

Can you show that your algorithm reproduces either the Strapp experiment (with probability) or the Hardy experiment (without probability) ?

Thanks for the info. I'll take a look at those. If I see even a remote chance that they prove spooky action at a distance, then I'll try to simulate them.

 

 

 

Einstein did not like the concept of entanglement because he considered it 'action at a distance'.

That was the crux of the EPR paradox.

Einstein postulated that there must be other unknown variables that affect the outcome of our experiments. These 'hidden' variables, once found, would get rid of all the strange, probabilistic properties of Quantum theory.

That has never happened, and, as a matter of fact, Bell's inequality proves no hidden variables exist.

 

That is what we understand from your Wiki quote.

What do you understand ?

Again, it's my understanding that the Bell's experiment only disproves whatever hidden variable theories that give wrong results, but that none of those theories were created by Einstein. It's my understanding that:

 

1. Einstein believed QM needed hidden variables so we can do away with the spooky action at a distance notion.

 

2. Bell's experiment does not prove spooky action at a distance since non-entangled particles give the same results of 1/2.

 

3. Nobody has proven Einstein's idea of hidden variables is wrong. All that's been proven is that existing hidden variable theories are wrong.

 

4. Over the years I've seen numerous science documentaries where academic scientists talk about how spooky QM.

[Strange]

Our conversation has become circular because you keep misstating my words and keep correcting you.

 

You keep claiming that there is no evidence for entanglement (aka "spooky action at a distance"). I keep pointing out that there is. I have already provided some, here are more: http://scholar.google.co.uk/scholar?q=experimental+evidence+for+entanglement

 

I fail to see what I am "misstating".

 

You seem to be under the misapprehension that "spooky action at a distance" means something different from entanglement. It doesn't:

Einstein later famously derided entanglement as "spukhafte Fernwirkung"^[17] or "spooky action at a distance."

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

Edited January 2, 2015 by Strange

[swansont]

 

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

 

That's the error. You don't appear to be simulating the experiment you want to simulate.

[Theoretical]

Wikipedia:

"Experiments have been performed involving measuring the polarization or spin of entangled particles in different directions, whichby producing violations of Bell's inequalitydemonstrate statistically that the local realist view cannot be correct. This has been shown to occur even when the measurements are performed more quickly than light could travel between the sites of measurement: there is no lightspeed or slower influence that can pass between the entangled particles.[6] Recent experiments have measured entangled particles within less than one part in 10,000 of the light travel time between them.[7] According to the formalism of quantum theory, the effect of measurement happens instantly."

 

Maybe someone should tell them that there experiments have absolutely nothing to do with particles communicating instantly because as stated the experiment gets the same results if the particles are emitted from different sources without entanglement.

 

 

No there's no evidence of instantaneous communication. The fact that the particles always have the same (or always opposite) polarity only proves that's the way they were created. At low temperatures I could emit two photons at say 100GHz from the same source that will have the same polarity. And what does that prove? One could say they're, entangled, linked, in love, or whatever, but what's the purpose if you can't prove they communicate instantaneously with each other after they have been created? We don't know they are truly "entangled." Maybe they should use a different word other than entanglement.

 

 

That's the error. You don't appear to be simulating the experiment you want to simulate.

Actually I'm extremely pleased with my sim, if I don't say so myself lol. It shows me that there's nothing special about with these so-called entangled photons in the experiment. No evidence of instantaneous link or communication. That non-entangled photons get the same results. So I'm beginning to wonder of entanglement isn't anything so special. No disrespect to QM. Edited January 2, 2015 by Theoretical

[Strange]

No there's no evidence of instantaneous communication.

 

Correct.

 

Actually I'm extremely pleased with my sim, if I don't say so myself lol.

 

So you keep saying. Why bother telling people about it when you are going to ignore any constructive feedback and continue on the path of blind ignorance?

[Mordred]

Here use these particle entanglement diodes that can and are used. If you look at the links on the same page they also have single photon detectors. I'd say entanglement is real.

http://www.toshiba-europe.com/research/crl/qig/entangledled.html

By the way entanglement is NOT instant communications. That's a pop media myth

[timo]

I cannot really say I found the feedback given in this thread so far particularly constructive. At least I do miss the part where improvement proposals suitable for Theroetical were made. "Do an experiment" is not such a proposal. "Dismissive" or "arrogant" seem to describe the comments better. Not taking myself out from this criticism. To be helpful I'd first have to re-watch the video very carefully and try decipher its meaning. And this leads to a common problem in science forums: If any topic requires serious work, then unless you happen to have a personal interest in the topic or lots of free time any serious researcher is better off doing their own research or putting the time into guiding their own students, instead.

 

Sorry for being off-topic, but the tone towards Theoretical by at least a few posters annoyed me for a few pages now. In case someone was offended by Theoretical coming in with the stereotypical "I revolutionized physics and it has something to do with Einstein": Don't be so over-reactive to simple forum red-flags and maybe also consider the quote in my signature.

Edited January 3, 2015 by timo

[Theoretical]

Here use these particle entanglement diodes that can and are used. If you look at the links on the same page they also have single photon detectors. I'd say entanglement is real.

http://www.toshiba-europe.com/research/crl/qig/entangledled.html

By the way entanglement is NOT instant communications. That's a pop media myth

It's an interesting article. They make a big claim:

 

"Measurement of one photon affects the polarisation of the other, even if they are separated by huge distances."

 

Unfortunately I didn't see where they proved that.

 

Also make statements such as, "This means the polarisation of a photon can be determined by measurement of it's energy, providing the dreaded which-path information that is well know to destroy entanglement." If there's presently no evidence of the instantaneous link between photons or particles, then I don't think they should make such statements. Perhaps I'm being overly critical, but it's a sensitive topic for me now lol. Again, interesting work they're doing!

 

 

BTW why put this thread in the speculation section. What claims are being made that are speculation? I think most of the users here agree there's no experimental proof of any kind of instantaneous communication between the photons. My simulation uses well established appropriate equations, and it gets the correct results. Oh well it's your forums lol.

I think the issue you have is regarding the title. I agree the title should be changed.

[Strange]

"Measurement of one photon affects the polarisation of the other, even if they are separated by huge distances."

 

Unfortunately I didn't see where they proved that.

They didn't prove that. It is just an example of pop-science journalism.

 

There is a correlation between the properties of entangled particles. The probabilities cannot be explained by assuming that both values are fixed at the start. The way to demonstrate this is to look at, for example, the polarization of a single photon at two different angles. The probabilities of the two polarizations will be different from that predicted by assuming the values are fixed when the photon is created. (This is not what your simulation does.)

If there's presently no evidence of the instantaneous link between photons or particles, then I don't think they should make such statements.

 

There is a lot of evidence for entanglement.

 

I think most of the users here agree there's no experimental proof of any kind of instantaneous communication between the photons.

 

Correct.

 

My simulation uses well established appropriate equations, and it gets the correct results.

 

Your simulation has nothing to do with entanglement.

Edited January 3, 2015 by Strange

[Theoretical]

Your simulation has nothing to do with entanglement.

Let me say it another way. The sim is for Bell's experiment, an experiment where people commonly analyze it using two different methods, one of which is QM. My intent from the start of writing the sim was to not use the QM method. Rather, I wanted to see if the sim would get the correct QM results by making the polarizations know for both photons from the moment they are emitted, and to make the polarization of both photons the same.

 

Simply stated, the sim is for an entangled experiment, but with the intent of analyzing it using a non-QM method.

[Mordred]

That company isn't out to prove entanglement. They use the process, they have also built single photon emitters and detectors. If you look at their technical details the majority is concerned with how to maintain the entanglement. These components are being designed for quantum communications. (Not faster than light lol). That's another myth.

 

The components work, and it's not the only company in this market.

 

As Strange mentioned its about examining the properties or polarization. Through the process a form of communication is possible at the quantum level. If you can develop a quanta per quanta communication. The rate of communication and amount of data per packet is greatly increased. Note this is not the same as quantum computing though this technology may advance such.

 

Entanglement has undergone numerous tests, As far as I know they were able to maintain entanglement up to a 100 miles. However that was several years ago.

[Strange]

The sim is for Bell's experiment ...

 

Your simulation has nothing to do with either Bell's theorem (which has been tested by real experiments) or with entanglement (which has also been confirmed by real experiments). It simply starts with an equation which is the same as that used by QM and (surprise!) comes up with the same result as QM. What it does not show is the reality (or otherwise) of non-commuting operators.

 

Read the article I posted earlier and write a simulation of that, if you want to model an experiment that tests Bell's theorem..

http://www.drchinese.com/David/Bell_Theorem_Easy_Math.htm

 

To put it another way: how would you modify your simulation to show the classical behaviour that predicts a different result from QM?

[Mordred]

Lol I know the owner of that site that happens to be his online name as well. He is brilliant when it comes to entanglement.

[david345]

I predict you would get the same results using electrons. That is, if the electrons are emitted from separate sources and are not "entangled," you get the same results, 1/2.

Funny how that equation works for non-entangled particles as well. Why wouldn't QM use it? It's a very simple equation that shows the obvious. I bet there are countless macro scale experiments that would show the same cos(angle)^2 curve. Shoot marbles at a paddle that can rotate from being parallel to the marbles to being perpendicular.

This is completely false. Imagine two detectors which measure if a baseball is curving up or down. They say 1 if they detect up they say 0 if they detect down. If the angle of the two detectors match then they will agree 100% of the time. If a is tilted 30° the the equation says there will be a 25% mismatch. A is returned to its original position and b is now tilted -30°. The equation says there should be once again a 25% mismatch. b is now returned to it's original position. We now rotate a 30° and b -30° at the same time. According to hidden variable the mismatch should be 50% or less. 50% comes from 25% + 25%. The equation gives a 75% mismatch. 25%+25%=75%. This equation does not work for hidden variables or baseballs. Edited January 3, 2015 by david345

[Theoretical]

Your simulation has nothing to do with either Bell's theorem (which has been tested by real experiments) or with entanglement (which has also been confirmed by real experiments). It simply starts with an equation which is the same as that used by QM and (surprise!) comes up with the same result as QM. What it does not show is the reality (or otherwise) of non-commuting operators.

The sim doesn't need to go through all the QM equations in order to simulate an experiment. The sim showed me exactly what I needed to see. That the experiment can be explain using no spooky at a distance model. The equation cos(angle)^2 equation I'm using is Malus law discovered by Étienne-Louis Malus in the 1700's. It can be easily simulated using macro scale setups. It's seen in radio wave antennas and its effect is easily understood without QM. It works on non entangled photons.

 

I've lost count how many times you've said the same thing. Can we agree to disagree?

 

 

This is completely false. Imagine two detectors which measure if a baseball is curving up or down. They say 1 if they detect up they say 0 if they detect down. If the angle of the two detectors match then they will agree 100% of the time. If a is tilted 30° the the equation says there will be a 25% mismatch. A is returned to its original position and b is now tilted -30°. The equation says there should be once again a 25% mismatch. b is now returned to it's original position. We now rotate a 30° and b -30° at the same time. According to hidden variable the mismatch should be 50% or less. 50% comes from 25% + 25%. The equation gives a 75% mismatch. 25%+25%=75%. This equation does not work for hidden variables or baseballs.

Your example above is wrong. You're leaving out a lot. It's more than just the angle different of two photons. Remember there are two polarizers as well. And the photons polarizations relative to both polarizers are random (cover all angles). Edited January 3, 2015 by Theoretical

[david345]

The sim doesn't need to go through all the QM equations in order to simulate an experiment. The sim showed me exactly what I needed to see. That the experiment can be explain using no spooky at a distance model. The equation cos(angle)^2 equation I'm using is Malus law discovered by Étienne-Louis Malus in the 1700's. It can be easily simulated using macro scale setups. It's seen in radio wave antennas and its effect is easily understood without QM. It works on non entangled photons.

I've lost count how many times you've said the same thing. Can we agree to disagree?Your example above is wrong. You're leaving out a lot. It's more than just the angle different of two photons. Remember there are two polarizers as well. And the photons polarizations relative to both polarizers are random (cover all angles).

No my example is not wrong. http://quantumtantra.com/bell2.html

The page also explains the spooky action at a distance. If the results of detector a did not depend on the rotation of b then the error should be 50% or less. It is 75% because the results of a depend on the rotation of b.

Edited January 3, 2015 by david345

[Theoretical]

No my example is not wrong. http://quantumtantra.com/bell2.html

The page also explains the spooky action at a distance. If the results of detector a did not depend on the rotation of b then the error should be 50% or less. It is 75% because the results of a depend on the rotation of b.

Photon A and B can be any angle. You can count the same results when photon B goes one path and when it goes the other path. Your example didn't even include the other path. Your example is missing a lot. That's why computers are so awesome. They can compute thousands of equations in a fraction of a second. My sim for example does tens of thousands of steps. You only show a few. You're not correctly simulating real life experiment and that's probably why your answer disagrees with real life results.

[david345]

Photon A and B can be any angle. You can count the same results when photon B goes one path and when it goes the other path. Your example didn't even include the other path. Your example is missing a lot. That's why computers are so awesome. They can compute thousands of equations in a fraction of a second. My sim for example does tens of thousands of steps. You only show a few. You're not correctly simulating real life experiment and that's probably why your answer disagrees with real life results.

Look at the above picture. It includes both paths. The detector detects which axis the polarization is.

It gives a response of 1 or 0

When the angles are the same you could get 1 0 0 0 from 4 photons both detectors would agree. A rotates 30 and now you get 1 0 1 0 and 1 0 0 0 a 25% mismatch. B rotates -30 and you get 1 0 0 0 and 1 1 0 0 a 25% mismatch. Now a rotates 30 and b rotates -30. If hidden variables is correct you should get 1 0 1 0 and 1 1 0 0 a 50% mismatch. Instead you get a 75% mismatch. Spooky action at a distance has occured.

[Theoretical]

Spooky action at a distance has occured.

Well we're just not going to agree, now are we. I don't agree with any of your post. Come back showing at least a few hundred steps for this experiment. Not as simple/short like you think.