Mordred

In order to answer your question you need to understand how the linear polarization states determine the correlation functions. You didn't want to look at my questions in detail to understand any accurate reply I could directly apply This is false as functions can and do have negative values. Depending on each function separately. Get out of the high school math you've been posting for months. Learn how to describe each particle state according to their polarization angles. Then and only then are you getting serious about solving Bells inequality. First step first and foremost understand what each number in Bells inequality represents. Every number is mathematically defined for its valid ranges. So assuming every number must be positive is patently false. Correlation numbers being one example. Particle states describe by a complex conjugate under rotations (polarizations) being another. lets put this into Full physics terminology. A entangled state is one where you cannot completely (factorize) two individual particle states. This is the entangled state. the polarization state is entangled. Now mathematically define the polarization state above. Then we can calculate the correlation coefficient. After we assign the observers that is... Would you like the formula to determine the correlation coefficient? What is the valid ranges of that complex conjugate function? This was your response which I just explained is false. Here is a video on the correlation coefficient. http://www.statisticshowto.com/what-is-the-correlation-coefficient-formula/ See negative correlations are valid just as Swansont answered. Get my point about learning the meaning behind the terminology.

Swansont already did that. You won't look at my questions which would help explain Swansonts previous answer.

He obviously doesn't wish to learn the skills to answer his own questions. example number two, well like I stated I teach people to answer their own questions. I don't do their work for them

Refusal to do the required mathematical steps will get you no where in any physics topic. If you looked at the steps I mentioned you wouldn't need anyone to answer the questions you asked. You would be able to research and calculate the answers yourself. Ah well guess you will always rely on others. Here is a little golden rule on how I help others. I rarely answer their questions directly. I teach them how to properly answer their own questions.

Well its too bad you refuse to learn how Bells inequality works. The advise I gave you was only a start on what is required to change the minds among the professional physics community. Guess you will never make any worthwhile contributions or ever make the required details to ever get a peer review paper regardless of your efforts. By the way you completely got the preparedness wrong. CHSH is Clauser, Horne, Shimony, Holt inequality not the preparedness.

You keep looking at the simple math but miss the key aspects as it refers to functions and states your not familiar with. Lets ask a simple question to demonstrate. 1) How are the entangled particles prepared prior to performing the experiment? Ie what causes the entanglement in the first place. 2) what does question 1 do with the correlation function? Address those two questions first. When you answer that then figure out how QM handles polarization. Then ask why does polarization under guage is a rotation translation. As polarization varies according to observer. Where are you defining your observer in the above? Every question I just asked are required in a mathematical proof of Bells inequality. You cannot arbitrarily ignore them. Another example... [latex]|\psi\rangle[/latex] what does the Dirac symbols mean in the above? Is this a bra or a ket?

I really hate to say this Lazarus but the more I read your posts on Bells inequality the more I can see you simply don't properly understand the experiment. Start with identifying what the correct terminology mathematically means. The is a huge difference between state functions, position functions, phase functions, correlation functions and probability functions. They each have a specific role. Try sitting down and at least learn some statistical mechanics and how they apply to Bells inequality. depends on what numbers your talking about. Try studying the standard model and the mathematics. For example the correlation function with the conservation of energy/momentum via Dirac. Maybe a good idea if you learn how to describe particle states in the first place you might have a better chance. Second step after that learn how the two states are symmetric and the transformation between the two spin states.

according to someone who has yet to demonstrate knowing the correct definition of mass Ie you still haven't figured out why this makes no sense. Lets start with define the complex conjugate. What does it represent? While were at it "What is the formal physics definition of "Field" Do you know the difference between a charged field and an uncharged field? Have you ever used the equation [latex]e^2=pc^2+(m_oc^2)^2[/latex] and applied this equation to calculate the inertial (variant mass) of the photon? Invariant rest mass is your e=mc^2 but that is rest mass. Does not include your momentum. The first equation is tested millions of times everyday in particle accelerators. How do you think they discover particles with combined mass greater than the sum of the two colliding protons? Back to define a field? how can you have a charged field with zero mass with the proper definition of field and using that equation? You can't not on a charged field. Have you never looked at this symbol? [latex]\rho[/latex] ? ie energy/mass density. now apply that to the first equation. in other words you cannot as you don't know the basic formulas involved nor taken the time to understand the article I posted nor the mathematics STudiot did. got it. If you did you would have presented counter mathematics instead of posting from whatever articles you were copy pasting from. I have no idea where morality comes into play when it comes to mathematically modelling a dynamic. Leave God and morals stay where it belongs. Which isn't physics. Stick to what can be mathematically described and defined. notice he specified TOTAL ENERGY>>>>> [math]E = KE + PE = KE + U[/math] now apply the equation I just posted. If you did that you would find this statement is 100% wrong. You want proof look at those particles being produced at the particle accelerators. Go ahead add up the rest mass of two protons. How do they produce particles with rest mass greater than the sum of the two protons rest mass like the top quark. The Schrodinger equations apply the harmonic oscillator equations via the Hamiltonian which accounts for the Planck constant. In fact one unit of action is the Planck constant. As QFT uses action the Planck constant is the Unit of action. So how can it comflict when it is a fundamental in its equations.... The Planck constant is a unit of action in every Langrene and Hamilton formula... Guess again. Might help to actually understand the math . That is one of the first lessons in QED. see this wiki in particular line "Dirac described the quantization of the electromagnetic field as an ensemble of harmonic oscillators with the introduction of the concept of creation and annihilation operators of particles". https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_electrodynamics the creation and annihilation operators is equal to a quanta of action in QED is a unit of action in the Schrodinger. It is also in the Heisenburg picture but there is a difference in the time ordering operator. Here is a little trivial detail to help with the Schrodinger math. the state vectors evolve in time but the operators are constant with respect to time. In the Heisenberg picture the observables are time dependent and state vectors time independent however that is just a coordinate choice of observers and rotations. Passive vs active transformations. Very few posters would recognize that term so here for everyone. Here is the "Schrodinger and Heisenburg picture". http://www.glue.umd.edu/afs/glue.umd.edu/department/phys/courses/Phys622/public_html/ji/lecture11.pdf You will notice Studiot posted some of these equations. By the way there is 3 QM time ordering views. Dirac being the other here is the 3. You will notice it also shows details on the Jaynes Cumming Hamilton I mentioned previously http://uncw.edu/phy/documents/Shafer_09.pdf However Ivy nothing you have said has shown me you were referring to these distinctions nor understood them. You will note there is 3 parts to the Jaynes Cumming equation this corresponds to the three views under QM. 1) the energy contained in the field 2) the energy of atomic transitions 3) the interaction energy of the atom and the field. Full definitions in Article. lol saves me from latexing them. Anyways they are conveniently arranged in that order in the equation.

On a forum discussion it is everyone's turn. Let us know when you understand the proper meaning of mass in physics. Until then we are wasting our time trying to help you. In other words study the difference between rest or invariant mass ie massive particles vs massless particles that has no invariant mass but has inertia mass via the energy momentum equation. Unless your willing to accept that extremely well tested understanding you will never accept GR nor QM. You will always remain stuck thinking of Newtonian physics. Which cannot explain gravitational redshift. We have posted to you the correct models, your refusal to understand how GR and QM works is your issue not ours. You even claim Maxwell is wrong because it uses QM and GR. Thats your problem to figure out. The professional scientific community states you are wrong. Both Studiot and I provided the mathematics showing how the mass term is applied to massless particles. The Schrodinger equation I posted earlier included the mass term. Its your problem if you refuse to understand Studiots post and the article I posted not ours. I agree it is ridiculous but that is what he is claiming. Ivy you also claimed Maxwell equations are wrong. So I challenge you to explain how signal propogation delay works without using Maxwell. That is a clear cut example of how electromagnetic fields interfere with each other and cause delays. So go ahead show us your model without using Maxwell. Go ahead apply your solid point mass term and produce the correct waveform signals without using any waveforms for the two fields. Or are you going to simply claim two massless fields cannot cause signal delays. When every electrical and electronic device tells you your wrong. Fine then show this is true with an inductor or capacitor. Use strictly mass and no waveform and give us your model of propogation delay. Go ahead use no photons as a vector boson and use strictly massive electrons. For that and I will prove it wrong by showing that electrons do not flow through a copper wire at near the speed of light. The mass term of the electron will not allow such speeds in an electrical wire. The only way you can get electrical signals to transmit through a wire at near c is to use massless particles. The photon. A very simple proof is that the proton and electron has two distinctly different masses. So it is impossible for the bi- directional signal in AC current to be at the same speed in any medium. So much for your objection of a massless field being involved in the flow of charge. Those are clear everyday examples of where you are wrong. The flow of charge current is not the flow of electrons and protons. It is the flow of photons that interfere with the spin of the electrons and protons. Massless particles that cause changes to the angular momentum of massive particles. If your idea was correct then AC current would not be at the same speed from negative to positive and vice versa. So much for the electromagnetic field not existing....The mediator being the photon. Now apply the same medium properties to an atom. Include the rate of change. You will find you require a massless mediator. Anyways The Schrodinger equations nor the Maxwell equations are not the end of research. There is far more advanced studies than anything you have posted thus far. Lets list them. 1) Rabi oscillations/resonance 2) Rotating wave approximation (RWA) 3) Optical Bloch equations 4) Jaynes Cumming Hamiltonian 5)Larmors Theorem Oh and lets not forget how good ole parity is also affected. why Rabi oscillations have been directly observed in diamond atoms and they use Schrodinger.... https://www.google.ca/search?client=ms-android-samsung&source=android-browser&biw=360&bih=338&ei=tJ1uWZ9KwfKPA_6-n-AK&q=Rabi+oscillations+pdf&oq=Rabi+oscillations+pdf&gs_l=mobile-gws-serp.3..0.2490.18429.0.19328.47.35.5.1.1.0.222.4297.2j29j1.32.0....0...1.1j4.64.mobile-gws-serp..14.30.3613.3..35i39k1j0i131k1j0i67k1j0i10k1j0i20k1j0i13k1j0i13i30k1j0i22i30k1.9G8q8Dtx5Qg

Thanks Stringy

I am however curious as to what advances we have made.

lol I have two cats, both play fetch. How is that an instictive action? A side note My one Siamese cat literally follows me around the house constantly. One day I was bored and tried seeing how long it would take for her to stop. So I walked around the house for literally two hours. The cat stayed at my feet at in essence the heel position. I got tired before she did.

Hrmm lets see if I remember Lamarckism. A divine programming as the divine knows the future and programmed that knowledge into the genetic code of every species. That correct lol. edit oops no wrong one 😅

Yeah I tried Google as well seems most papers refer to Konrad Lorenz's theory that was developed back in the 50's. Couldn't find much beyond that. Is that still the leading theory on the topic?

So here is a question to stir the pot. What process allows a species to develop instincts regarding an evironmental change? Lets pick a simple example. Take a species that has instincts and knows which foods to gather and eat. Then introduce a new food that is compatible to its diet. How does this new food become part of that species instinctive knowledge without gaining experience with the new food item first ?. Neural hardwiring isn't enough that information must have a genetic hardwiring mechanism of some form in order to be passed down. Concious knowledge must at some point be connected with later gained instinctive knowledge in order for a species to evolve with environmental changes. PS this is one arena where I have zero expertise.

Thats funny when I read Migls post it sounds like he stated. Knowledge and understanding allows one to overcome his instinctive reaction and exercise a concious reaction instead of an instinctive reaction. I don't see anything Migl posted about knowledge changing instincts. However even assuming I am wrong. There is in fact studies that show knowledge can induce genetic memories. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3923835 here is one such study

Not as far as I know. The length on each axis of LIGO is what determines the detection frequency range on GW waves. A circular design would not have the required lengths to pick up a 90 degree phase shift. Which in antenna basics is a quarter wavelength. This is the primary reason each leg is 4 km long at LIGO. However just to be sure I will look closer at the specifications on the above detectors. If I determine its possible I will post a correction.

Agreed most people seldom study the three classes of solutions under GR. 1) vacuum 2) Newton approximation 3) Scwartzchild metric. When you realize that tidal forces are added via the perturbation tensor GR starts to make more sense. Far too often they understand the Principle of equivalence which is the symmetric transforms described by Lorentz and thusly the Minkowskii metric tensor. However they rarely understand tidal force under the perturbation tensor for the Principle of general covariants. Hence coincidently both gravity due to the curvature terms (anistropic) and GW waves are both tidal forces. Now that you know this. You know know the tensor used to describe tidal forces as being the perturbation tensor. The tidal forces is also your deviations from parallel light paths. The Minkowskii tensor itself is strictly parallel paths. Lol by analogy they read the beginning and end of a book but not what occurs in the middle stages. Very similar to laymen knowledge. They know some basics. Hear about some final result and not understand what occurs in the steps to arrive from beginning to end result. Just a side note, that knowledge also allows me to spot personal models trying to solve expansion etc. They usually only post the Minkowsii tensor relations which don't include the curvature terms. That and they get the time dependant and time independant metrics mixed up. PS by the way it was a pleasure just needing to refer to the tensors and knowing your already familiar with them made things far easier and pleasant lol. +1.

Hence why beam scales have a balancing weight on a horizontal rod at the center of the perpendicular rod.

There is a formula one can use to show this. Lets assume we are in the weak field Newton approximation. [latex]g_{\mu\nu}=\eta_{\mu\nu}+h_{\mu\nu}[/latex] Now this formula is commonly used to describe a small perturbation a GW wave or any small non linear perturbation. The linear portion is the Minkowskii tensor [latex]\eta[/latex] this is the Approximately Euclidean tensor. Which for weak gravity such as Earth is approximately accurate only if you ignore the directional density variation described by the perturbation tensor When a GW hits the sum of the GW wave described by the perturbation tensor adds to the Minkowskii tensor giving the metric tensor on the LHS. Now you know the Minkowskii tensor is a scalar uncharged field, with no inherent direction when you look at its ds^2 line element. However when you add the perturbation tensor this is where the non linear portions come into play. In essence the nonlinear perturbation tensor charges our Minkowskii tensor. Now if you recall the above formula is used to describe gravity of planets,stars of non relativistic influence. Hence the Newton approximation. A GW wave uses the identical formula above. The differences between a planet or a GW wave is reflected in the perturbation tensor which will not be identical in the two mentioned scenarios. However both are describing how non linearity mass density curves the flat Euclidean Minkowskii tensor above. (the perturbation tensor is far more complex in the GW case) but how two affect gravity is essentially the same. except for the additional degrees of freedom in the vector components. The stress tensor for a GW wave will have more flux and vorticity in the stress tensor. The same thing occurs with photons. Your photons affect are reflected in the perturbation tensor accorrdingly to the stress tensor components. In essence you apply non linear fields to the perurbation tensor [latex]h_{\mu\nu}=\eta_{\mu\nu}[/latex] Applying the stress tensor to our non linear via [latex] T^{\mu\nu}=(\rho+p)U^{\mu}U^{\nu}+p \eta^{\mu\nu} [/latex] Gives us our resulting perturbation tensor which we can further apply to the metric tensor. (regardless of if previously curved or not) ie approximately Euclidean or curved under [latex]g_{\mu\nu}[/latex] example the Scwartzchild approximation [latex]g_{\mu\nu}=g_{\mu\nu}+h_{\mu\nu}[/latex] Kind of reflects how handy tensors are lol awesome way to sort different vector symmetry translations. In the last equation you have already previously defined the metric and in the last equation you are further perturbing it. Your field perturbation is reflected in the perturbation tensor or combination of perturbations ie polarities. [latex]h_{\mu\nu}=h_+ +h_{\times}[/latex]

Your looking at the harmonic oscillator via the spring inaccurately. I would like to properly show how the spring via Hookes law relates to the QM oscillator but will need to do so tonight. When I have time to properly answer the above. Its too important to cheapen the answer. However for now think of it this way. In the spring there is an equilibrium point in its range of motion. The equilibrium point being determined by the potential and kinetic energy. So when I have time later I will apply this to Hookes law then step it into QM

All field excitations (particles) are potential differences. The amplitude to some baseline. That includes every particle mentioned in the quoted section.

umm no it applies to all fields. Potential energy is ability to perform work due to position in a gradient potential. Kinetic energy ability to perform work due to the momentum term again influenced by observer under relativity. It is inpossible to determine some "absolute energy" as energy requires potential differences and is a consequence of potential differences. So energy does not get created. It is a property or relation denoting the ability to perform work. That is how the universe from nothing models work. The HUP is your source of potential differences initially.

Yes Tar e=mc^2 is involved but I am focussing on what energy is and how energy is a consequence or property. One cannot measure energy without measuring a potential difference between observer and emitter. So if you have a 100% uniform field energy=0 to all observers.

Heisenburg is definitely relevant. You are on the right track. Lets start with field energy=0. Does that truly mean zero. Or does it mean that it is the lowest possible energy density value or vacuum expectation value that can possibly be determined. (disregarding zero point energy with HUP for the moment)