david345

Actually that would not work unless the polarizer is literally touching the source. If there is any distance between the polarizer and the source then It's polarization is undetermined until it is measured. The experiment does not get the same result if the sources are not entangled. Bob's signal would not match Alice's at 0 degrees if the signals are not entangled. I have clearly demonstrated an example where the polarization can not be determined when it leaves the source. You respond by saying we should change the experiment. Why don't we just change the experiment to you jumping up and down. That experiment would show no signs of entanglement.

This is a post I made on another forum about solutions to the liar's paradox and problems with those solutions. Even if they solve the liar's paradox there are other similar problems which may infect their system. Problems such as Gödel's proof. The principal of explosion states from a falsehood anything follows. With a single contradiction one could prove anything. One could prove Santa clause exists and the earth is flat. I am not going to explain this but google can do the job. There are a few "solutions" to the liar's paradox. Tarski claimed the truth is undefineable. He claimed only a higher level language could speak of the truth of a lower level language. This avoided self reference because a statement in a language could not speak of it's own truth. This solution comes with some problems. If I say "Joe is telling the truth". That statement must be on a higher level then anything Joe says. If Joe says "David is telling the truth". That statement must be on a higher level then anything I say. It is impossible for me to make a statement on a higher level then anything Joe says and Joe also makes a statement on a higher level then anything I say. Another "solution" is paracomplete logic. Paracomplete logic rejects the law of the excluded middle. It is a three valued logic. Statements can be true, false, and other. The law of the excluded middle is often replaced by the law of the excluded fourth. Paracomplete logic preserves consistency by claiming the liar's paradox is neither true or not true. The problem is that it can not say this. It would have to say that it is true that the liar's paradox is not true and it is true that the liar's paradox is not not true. That would be a contradiction. Another solution is dialetheism. Dialetheism preserves the law of the excluded middle but rejects the principal of explosion. Dialetheism claims the liar's paradox is both true an not true but this does not lead to explosion. This "solution" also has its problems. Joe says something and I say it is false. One could wonder is Joe's statement false or is it dialetheia (both true and false)? I could say his statement is false and it is not dialetheia. One could wonder if what I said is true or is it dialetheia?

My example demonstrated that the polarization can not be determined when the photon leaves the source. If it was determined then the angle of Bob's detector should not affect Alice's results. If it leaves a 1 then Alice should get a 1 no matter what the angle of Bob's detector is. My example showed that if Alice's detector is at 30 degrees then her results with bob at 0 would be different then her results with bob at -30 degrees. The polarization can not be determined when it leaves the source. The polarization is random until it is measured. It doesn't have an exact polarization until it is measured. It should be noted that this can not be used for faster then light communication. Alice's signal will appear as a random string of zeroes and ones no matter what Bob's angle is. The only way they can determine entanglement occurred is if they come together and compare the results. This would involve communication at the speed of light or slower.

Spouting off a bunch of numbers proves nothing. My example was sufficient to demonstrate Bell's argument.

This would only add more ones and zeros. The match percentage is determined by your own cos(angle)^2 equation. Feel free to dig up that 50 cent calculator and plug in 30, -30, and 60.

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.

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.

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.

If you are a felon then you can not vote. The public schools brainwash their students with the religious idea of free will. If you believe someone is at fault for their actions then I will be awaiting your proof.

I live in America. Realistically I must choose between d and r. Both are in a tough battle to get a few percentage points over 50. Voting for neither or not voting at all could send a message that if you want my vote then you better support my policies. The gov\media shoves two plates in your face. You can say "I want neither". That statement is NOT antidemocratic in spit of what they may say.

It should be treated as a right. This actually can be settled with a simple mathematical argument. In many States felons are not allowed to vote. 51% of the total population could vote the other 49% to be felons. Those 49% would no longer be allowed to vote. 2% of the total population could change their mind a year later. This would mean that 51% now say those people are not felons. History has shown that people change their minds like this all the time. If the 49% are not allowed to vote then the difference would be much different. The election would say 96% percent support keeping them felons even though 51% of the total population disagreed.

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.

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.

Without oxygen you could never have been born. You would never observe one single change. You claim change occurs even if you don't observe it. You claim a slope can only exist if you walk up a hill. If a change or motion had 0 magnitude then that change or motion would not exist(it would be 0). Change and motion require magnitude. Does this mean change and motion are just magnitude?

Slope is ∆x/∆y. You claim we can only have a slope if we walk up a hill. Without oxygen you would die and be unable to observe change. You could claim change is required for oxygen. I could argue oxygen is required for change.

To quote the Wikipedia article on Abstraction "For example, many different things can be red. Likewise, many things sit on surfaces (as in picture 1, to the right). The property of redness and the relation sitting-on are therefore abstractions of those objects." A change in time is an instance of the abstraction "change". An instant in time is not an instance of the abstraction "change". When a road changes it's steepness that is an instance of the abstraction "change" and steepness has nothing to do with time. Calculus often deals with change that is not related to time. Change is an abstraction of a change in time, changes that occur over time, and other types of change. Redness is an abstraction of red apples, stop signs, and other red things.

Thanks and good night.

You explain this by saying it was created by an even more miraculous super hero in the sky. You have no proof that the earth must have been created. You act as though things must be created. This is highly unlikely.

Faith fails far more often then evidence. Many have lost their entire life savings because of faith in a unproven scam. I would bet my money on that which is testable and has been tested. I'm not going to waste my life on a wild goose chase.

Is your statement an absolute proven fact? Once again you are playing the unfalsifiable game. Yes it is possible that quantum mechanics is wrong. You are using the unfalsifiable "anything is possible" argument.

There are detectors which can detect electrons. You have no detector which can detect god. Physics is also falsifiable. God is not falsifiable. The claim that we live in the matrix is also unfalsifiable. Many laws of physics have been falsified. I see no reason to waste my time on a unfalsifiable god who has no evidence to support his existence.

Can you prove god is not a superhero with steel armour and a sword?

Does God have concrete evidence to deny the existence of a greater God? A God so powerful he can block all God's attempts to detect him. A greater God who is secretly testing god and his followers to determine whether they deserve to be sent to heaven or hell.

The Minkowski drawings can be misleading. The space time interval is s^2=x^2-(c^2t^2) For c the interval would be 0. The traveling twin had a shorter interval. In the Minkowski diagram the twin on earth would appear to have the shorter world line. The straight world line is actually the longer line. The traveling twin would have a shorter world line between the start of the journey and the end. Michael describes the world line as a train track and the particle as a train. The end of the journey is where the tracks intersect. If both trains are traveling at the same speed then they should not meet at the intersection at the same meta time. The traveling twins path is shorter.

Can you demonstrate that if they both traveled along their world lines at the same speed they would meet up. This would be according to Michaels claims. They would vacate previous positions and not occupy future positions. Is their world lines the same length from the beginning of the journey until the end?