david345

The experiment is intended to determine the polarization. Intensity is irrelevant. The cos equation gives you the expected probability. You cheated by replacing the measured probability with the expected probability. This is why your Sim is not a Sim. Your Sim calculates the expected probability and then you say look my Sim gave the expected probability. Your Sim needs to perform steps 1,2, and 3. Until then your Sim is just a cheater.

The problem with your simulation is it should NOT include the cos(angle)^2 equation. As a simulation it should get it's results using only addition, multiplication, and division. Step 1: simulation fires out several electrons. Step 2: add how many electrons are detected at each angle. Step 3: divide (#electrons at each angle)\(total electrons)we will call this result x Step 4: (2\3)x+(1\3)1=? Step 5: compare ? to 1\2 You cheated by replacing steps 1,2, and 3 with the cos(angle)^2 equation. If the spin was determined then x would be 1\3 Because you cheated x became .25 I do not care if Malus law is classical or not. You used it incorrectly. If your code was a legitimate simulation it would not include that equation. It is nowhere in 1-5 the only place it would be used is to get the .5 number which would then be compared against the result of step 4. Because you already had that .5 number you can COMPLETELY remove cos(angle)^2 from the code and only use the number .5 in step 5. Come back when you have removed this from your code.

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.

Gödel proved this can never happen. I could say the statement "The truth computer can not say this sentence is true". Your truth computer would be unable to correctly answer whether that sentence is true or not.

Quantum mechanics -> unpredictability, and action at a distance-> forces beyond your knowledge which only recursion understands. Goodnight.

From one troll to another. Shorten your posts. No one is reading them. I know exactly what your troll tactic is. You post long fancy sounding comments thinking it will convince people you are some sort of expert. It is not working.

So far we have had the last word.

Wow I just wasted a lot of time reading your post. To sum it up: Quantum mechanics -> uncertainty ->many worlds theory is correct or everything is uncertain ->Everything I say is correct or at least possible. I am bored to sleep good night.

To have free will you must: 1. Be the cause of your actions. 2. Be the cause of yourself. 3. Know what you are doing when you create yourself. If you are not the cause of your actions then why should you be blamed? If you are not the cause of yourself then how are you responsible for what you do? If I didn't build a car should I be responsible when it's brakes fail? If you didn't build yourself then either a. You act the way you were built to act or b. You don't act the way you were built to act. If b is correct then you still are not at fault for your actions because that can only be the case if 2 is true. Otherwise you act for no reason, random reasons, reasons other then you. 2 being true still would not be sufficient for free will to be true. You would have to know what you are doing when you create yourself. If you know nothing when you create yourself then you know nothing of the consequences of creating yourself one way or the other. You know nothing of the consequences of creating or not creating yourself.

God knows this sentence is a lie.

The worst thing you can do is not respond. Science will die if it does not have the last word. These trolls can always be beat. It just takes a little imagination. Disagreeing with them is not immoral. Their dishonesty is immoral.

I stand corrected.

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.

My demonstration proved your claim is impossible. It is no surprise that you can provide no demonstration. Only excuses.

No your Sim doesn't. This is why you keep making excuses and can provide no demonstration.

More excuses. Your code does nothing more then spit out the number 1\2. http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bell%27s_theorem

Your code does not work. This is why you can provide no demonstration. Just excuses.

Everyone except you. Still waiting for that demonstration.

As I clearly demonstrated the photons can not have a polarization until they are measured. It is nonsensical to track their polarization all the way to the detector. You can not track what does not exist. The path they take is the dotted line. The 4 photons are released one after another. As I stated earlier more photons would mean more zeros and ones. The average percentage is given by the cos(angle)^2 equation. It is your code which does not do anything more then spit out the number 1\2. This is why you have not once demonstrated your code in action. Your code does not work. It is worthless and this is why you have provided no demonstration. You can even post a video of your code running on YouTube. This would allow us to watch it track each photon. I expect you to come back with something better then "It works because I say so". I expect your code to do something more then spit out the number 1\2.

I will be waiting.

We will assume 4 "unentangled" photons with matching polarizations are sent out in both directions. Their polarization will be determined when they leave the source. The detectors will read a 0 or 1 depending on the axis of polarization. We will set the polarizations to 1010 for the 4 photons. step 1: Bob and Alice set their detectors at matching angles. They both get 1010. step 2: The same 1010 signal is sent out. Alice rotates detector 30 degrees. The cos(angle)^2 equation says she should get a 25% error rate. Bob gets 1010 Alice gets 1110. A 25% mismatch. step 3: The same 1010 signal is sent out. Alice returns detector to original position and now Bob rotates his detector -30%. The cos(angle)^2 equation says Bob should get a 25% error rate. Bob gets 1000 and Alice gets 1010. A 25% mismatch. Step 4: The same 1010 signal is sent out. Alice rotates her detector 30 degrees. Bob rotates his detector -30 degrees. Alice should get 1110 the same result as step 2. The exact same signal was sent out. Her detector was in the exact same 30 degree position. She should get the exact same result. Bob should also get the exact same 1000 result as step 3. It was the exact same 1010 signal sent out and his detector is in the exact same -30 degree position. Let us compare results. Alice 1110 Bob 1000. This is a 50% mismatch. The cos(angle)^2 equation says there should be a 75% mismatch. The only way you can get this 75% mismatch is if the polarizations are not determined until they are measured and the angle of Bob's detector affected Alice's results and the angle of Alice's detector affected Bob's result. A 75% mismatch can only be explained by spooky action at a distance. You claim you "researched" Bell's theory in hope of finding an example of spooky action at a distance. Here it is.

I demonstrated an experiment where the polarization can not be determined until it is measured. If it was determined before measurement then the mismatch would be 50% and not 75%. Let us assume you are correct. Your non entangled photons with matching polarization get the same 75% mismatch percentage. These "non entangled" photons would still not have an exact polarization until they are measured. You would still need action at a distance to explain the result. The angle of Bob's detector will still affect what Alice detects. If they had a exact polarization when they left the source then you would only get a 50% mismatch.

Actually it does prove spooky action at a distance. My example demonstrated the angle of Bob's detector affects Alice's results. If the polarization was determined when it left the source then the angle of Bob's detector should not effect Alice's results. If it left as 1 then Alice should detect a 1 no matter what Bob's angle is. My example demonstrated that is not the case.

According to you Bell's experiment is only done correctly if it demonstrates Bell's theory to be wrong. The experiment uses a beam splitter which ensures photons are sent out with matching polarazition.

How would Bob and Alice's signal match at 0 degrees if they are not entangled? They would get two different random strings of zeros and ones. There are many things that I can do in video games which can not be done in real life. This is why sims don't prove real life.