AbstractDreamer

Addressed. The links were to put relevance to my comments. The portability of chemical energy in coal, and the utility of oil and all its refined derivatives makes it surpass any alternative. You would need advanced battery technology to make solar power portable. Any country choosing solar over coal or oil would fall behind in the industrial revolution.

The local function is not indeterminate. I have given an example of what it could be, though admitted not in any proper form (only as a probability). Only i have no idea if it fits QM results, its just a loose demonstration. Along any arbitrary orientation/axis/dimension/direction/pole, one entangled electron could have a variable: [math] P_{up}=\cos ^2\left(\frac{\alpha }{2}\right) P_{down}=\sin ^2\left(\frac{\alpha }{2}\right) [/math] and its entangled partner would have [math] P_{up}=\sin ^2\left(\frac{\alpha }{2}\right) P_{down}=\cos ^2\left(\frac{\alpha }{2}\right) [/math] Where [math] \alpha [/math] is the angle of measure relative to the axis, and P is the probability of being measured in that state. Not sure I understand. The state is a probability function before measurement, so i guess in that sense its not a hidden variable. But what does this have to do with QM being incompatible with locality? Again I don't quite understand. If the particle is measured to be in a certain state [uP], then clearly it could be a different result than if it was not determined (then it could then be [uP] or [DOWN]). Again, how does this make QM irreconcilable with locality Where can I review the QM calculations? The probabilities I describe above allows detectors in the same orientation. In such a situation [math]\alpha=0 [/math] or [math]\pi [/math] the entangled pairs will always be in opposing states. "if electronA is measured at and electronB is measured at then electronA will show 100% UP 0% DOWN and electronB will show 100% DOWN 0% UP" , that is, they will certainly be opposed. Similary for [math] \alpha=\pi [/math] For detectors at different angles: for any single pair of entangled waves/particles you can arbitrarily reset the orientation of the axis. If you don't measure either particle, then their states are not defined. You can similarly see the correlation with a <hidden> probabilistic function, no? That's what I'm trying to say, why do you need action-at-a-distance, if locality can preserved? Surely, I thought, given the two options, preserving locality is a preferable stance to action-at-a-distance?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermal_power_station The initially developed reciprocating steam engine has been used to produce mechanical power since the 18th Century, with notable improvements being made by James Watt https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_power The early development of solar technologies starting in the 1860s was driven by an expectation that coal would soon become scarce. However, development of solar technologies stagnated in the early 20th century in the face of the increasing availability, economy, and utility of coal and petroleum. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydropowerhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydropower In India, water wheels and watermills were built[when?]; in Imperial Rome, water powered mills produced flour from grain, and were also used for sawing timber and stone; in China, watermills were widely used since the Han dynasty. In China and the rest of the Far East, hydraulically operated "pot wheel" pumps raised water into crop or irrigation canals.[when?] Cragside in Northumberland was the first house powered by hydroelectricity in 1878[1] and the first commercial hydroelectric power plant was built at Niagara Falls in 1879. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wind_power Wind power has been used as long as humans have put sails into the wind. For more than two millennia wind-powered machines have ground grain and pumped water. The first windmill used for the production of electric power was built in Scotland in July 1887 So wind power or water power came first, then thermal (coal/wood), then solar. Cant imagine it any other way, order based on utility of coal/oil, and tech advancement. No doubt fire came before all that "Fire! Jane! Uggh! Photovoltaic cells to harness the power of the sun to convert renewable solar energy to electricity! Fire! Jane! Ughh!"

Im not sure if the following analogy is appropriate: The state of the electron, is analogous to the location of a particle in the double-slit-experiment. The hidden variable (state-function) is analogous to the wave function. The state is determined probabilistically by the state-function and orientation. Analogous to the location determined probabilistically by the wave-function and direction. So call it a hidden variable or call it an discoverable function. The point is QM and Locality are not mutually exclusive. I don't think it is different, I'm not sure. I used information in the video and interpreted it. The video presents it differently - confusingly. However I cant be certain that my formulas would give the same results as QM. They were just loose examples to demonstrate the idea of a probabilistic function. But then why does QM imply action-at-a-distance?

Honestly, I'm not aware of the precise details of the different types of experiments. All I have is the pop-science material that is easy to hand such as You-tube, and various linked websites I found. I'm certainly conflating material that I've come across. My ideas only really apply to the experiment presented in You-Tube video at the top of my post, but I hope to have put enough detail in to get my point across. Whether or not they can be generalised across the other experiments, I simply haven't done enough research to comment. Thank you for helping. PS i have just edited photons to electrons in my main post.

got me stumped

bah details just add another water molecule!

Methane from water and carbon dioxide? Cool! You would have 2O2 left over i think. And you would need something to "make it happen"

At first I would like to ask if i understand this topic. ref: http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/87347-why-hidden-variables-dont-work/ https://youtu.be/ZuvK-od647c So Bell's Theorem essentially claims to disprove the existence of hidden local variables in entangled photons/electrons; and it concludes that action-at-a-distance is present (or superdeterminism, global variables). Per experiment, by "repeating the procedure over and over" (4:38) and considering the expected unequal distribution of frequencies (6:31) as if there were hidden variables (Bell's inequalities) or "hidden plans" (5:00), and comparing them to the actual recorded distribution of results that are obtained (6:37), these results show that Bell's inequalities are violated. Experimentally, these actual distributions consistently violate Bell's inequalities and also consistently follow Quantum Mechanics "action at a distance". So my problem is with how these hidden variables are modeled (and thus seemingly always in disagreement with results). They seem to be modeled classically, as if there is some explicit agreement between entangled pairs to precisely (classical precision) what values to hold. That is, for instance, electronA "plans" with electronB: "if we are measured like <such and such>..." (in particular, explicit but different directions) "..then I will show definitely UP and you will show definitely UP" or another plan such as "if we are measured in the same direction, then I will show definitely UP and you will show definitely DOWN". Then the experimenter exposes these plans through frequency analysis of all the possible explicit combinations of hidden variables (6:08), and finds that no such plans can exist. But these electrons are modeled classically as if their hidden variables must explicitly and definitively describe one state or other in a certain measurement. If there is anything I have learnt, it is that before anything is measured nothing is certain (superposition, wavefunction etc). That includes any "hidden plans" or "hidden variables" that entangled electrons might be have. So my conclusion then is that why is it not possible for entangled pairs to have uncertain hidden variables, and that these variables are orientated, symmetrical, opposing, and probabilistic in nature? The orientation allows the pair to agree on a frame of reference with respect to direction (actually this variable need not be uncertain or implicit). The symmetry ensures all arbitrary orientations are equivalent. The opposing nature ensures that when a measurement is made in the same direction, it is certain that the result will be opposite. The probabilistic nature of the hidden variables is such that the distribution of frequencies that the experimenters see are a direct measure of this probable nature! E.G. Along any arbitrary orientation/axis/dimension/direction/pole, one entangled electron could have a variable: [math] P_{up}=\cos ^2\left(\frac{\alpha }{2}\right) P_{down}=\sin ^2\left(\frac{\alpha }{2}\right) [/math] and its entangled partner would have [math] P_{up}=\sin ^2\left(\frac{\alpha }{2}\right) P_{down}=\cos ^2\left(\frac{\alpha }{2}\right) [/math] Where [math] \alpha [/math] is the angle of measure relative to the axis, and P is the probability of being measured in that state. Given that the pair agree on orientation, they are inherently, mutually, symmetrically, opposingly certain when measured along any same arbitrary axis; and internally, symmetrically, opposingly probabilistic otherwise. That is, arbitrarily orientated, the hidden plan could be: "if electronA is measured at [math]\alpha=0[/math] and electronB is measured at [math]\alpha=\frac{\pi}{3} [/math] then electronA will show 100% UP 0% DOWN and electronB will show 25% DOWN 75% UP". They could show both UP if measured at such angles. After many measurements, the individual discrepancies balance out and a probability pattern emerges; and it is this probability that experimenters are comparing to frequency distribution expectations (as long as they are opposing when they must be opposed, such as when measured in the same direction). "if electronA is measured at [math]\alpha=0[/math] and electronB is measured at [math]\alpha=\pi [/math] then electronA will show 100% UP 0% DOWN and electronB will show 0% DOWN 100% UP" "if electronA is measured at [math]\alpha=\frac{\pi}{4}[/math] and electronB is measured at [math]\alpha=\frac{\pi}{2} [/math] then electronA will show 85.35% UP 14.64% DOWN and electronB will show 50% DOWN 50% UP" That is, the electron's themselves do not know precisely what state/value they will be measured at - there's no explicit plan/variable. But they might have an implicit hidden function/variable that tells them how likely they will be measured in any state relative to a given orientation. And it is this likeliness, over repeated measurements, that consistently violates Bell's inequalities! Over many electron pairs, the recorded distribution of frequencies simply describe the hidden probability function and not any hidden explicit values. So to me, Bell's inequality of expected frequency distribution only apply when the hidden variables are explicit. If the hidden variables are implicitly described through a probability function, then violation of Bell's inequality is only proof against explicit hidden variables and not proof against implicit hidden variables. In other words, when we explicitly list all the possible states and calculate the expected frequencies (Bell's inequalties), we are inadvertently collapsing the probability distribution as described by the hidden state function, which in turn would naturally lead to consistent violations with experimentation, as is apparently the case. This is akin to listing all the possible paths of a photon through a double slit, calculating the expected distribution on the detector (particle-like distribution), and then declaring the interference patterns we consistently see are violating the expected distribution. So an orientated, symmetrical, opposing, and probabilistic hidden state function seems to preserve Quantum Mechanics AND Locality! Einstein would be proud! Ok, I'm ready for my schooling. PS This is not intended as speculation, rather this is likely confusion on my part. Please correct me. Just to clarify: I'm not questioning the mathematical derivation of the inequalities. I'm not questioning the accuracy of the experimental methods. I'm not questioning the results of the experiments. I'm not questioning any arguments about loopholes. I'm not questioning Quantum Mechanics predictions. I'm merely querying whether it is appropriate to apply the inequalities to the situation in the experiments, that is, Bell's Theorem.

Happy to get involved i need to learn stuff, but trying to visualise what going on first Area under a curve is found by integration. I'm not sure how you can normalise the result to between 0 and 1. The result of integration can only be a constant if the integrand f(x) is such that x is only raised to the power of 1. This means you only get a non-x-value result (or a constant) if f(x) is a line not a curve. (I think). There are some odd techniques but i don't see how a curved function can have an area (within any significant limits) that doesn't have a variable that changes with respect to x. I don't have mathematica. Also my experience in maths is around 2-3 weeks lol So take your x-axis cone of unit length, where [math] \nu = \frac{\pi}{4} [/math] (i just drew two lines with limits, figuring out how to plot a real right cone with varying \nu) So point D is somewhere on the two lines? The area enlosed between the x-axis, and f(x), between x=1 and x=D_x Would be [math] \int_{D_x}^1 (-x+1)dx [/math]

Ok so what is the difference between (the three coordinate antivector) and (the scalar value of the radius of the sphere)? So summing the coords of the antivector gives you the radius? So say you have the three-3D-direction coords perpendicular to each other [math] L_1 (x_1, y_1, z_1) [/math] [math] L_2 (x_2, y_2, z_2) [/math] [math] L_3 (x_3, y_3, z_3) [/math] Then the antivectors [math] A_x = (x_1 + x_2 + x_3), A_y = (y_1 + y_2 + y_3), A_z = (z_1 + z_2 + z_3), [/math] But then there would be three solutions to the radius? What am i missing? What use does the three-coord-antivector give us?

If i understood you. If A_x is an area, its the area of the base of a right cone. [math] A_x= \pi(x tan(\nu_x))^2 [/math] If its a coordinate the its just the radius of the circle of the base of right cone. [math] A_x = x(tan\nu_x) [/math] pi is the relationship between the circumference and diameter of a circle on a plane. your function is a relationship between what and what? Between alpha and lamda? I can't get my head around these planes.

next time you get on a train or a car... take a look out the window. If you think like a geocentric, then your train is the frame of reference and the train is in the middle. When a tree goes past your window, it is because the Almighty Jedi is pulling the entire universe past your window. This IS the most obvious thing ofcourse. You are not moving (on the train). Therefore the tree must be moving. Its really hard to explain how Jedi is doing this, but all you need is faith. If you think like a scientist, then you realise that there is an alternative! What if the tree is stuck to the Earth, just like it is when I'm not in a train? What if i take the Earth as the frame of reference? Then....erm.... the Earth and the tree is the side that is not moving, and... and... and... I must be on a train moving relative to the Earth! Both frames are equally valid. Cherry pick which ever one you want. The only thing that makes sense of geocentrism is a Creator. This goes back to the thing you haven't given any thought to As why the almighty Jedi unbounded in power, is yet bounded in desire? So I ask you for a third time. Tell me of your Creator.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wyRJZbNmC7U That's part 1. There's 9 parts I'm sure you can find them. That's not my voice, I'm not that condescending. Usually.

No. I made no mention of SR. I only mentioned frames of reference. When Earth is the frame of reference, then by definition it is in the "middle". So by that, I have already proved that earth CAN be in the middle. But when it IS in the middle, its hard to describe the other planets moving relative to it, other than some Jedi moving the planets and stars around in a game of eternal deception. So my choice is to believe in the Jedi, or to try another frame of reference. And when i move my frame of reference to the big firey fireball thing that's really really hot, and really really bright, and really really really hard to miss, then what was hard to describe before becomes a lot simpler - that is, it looks like the planets are orbitting the big firebally thing.

Using the earth as a frame of reference, its hard to describe the motion of the planets. They move in strange patterns and cycles. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geocentric_model Using the sun as a frame of reference, the planets appear to move in not-so-strange orbits. Can you prove Jedi's don't exist? No? Well then, at least I have given it some thought. You don't need a reply, you prefer ignorance it seems.

So you believe in something you never really thought about. That's just blind faith, and religious talk; don't-eat-this-or-else Jediism. That is as loony as egocentrism.

The Creator slipped? That is funny If you are loony, take solace knowing at least you're not alone! I think you're mistaking morality with knowledge. Long ago, we had simpler morals, and there was greater clarity between good and evil. More likely due to rather than in spite of our lack of knowledge. The universe of eternal deception that was Created just for us has but one law: Ask one question, and the answer will make you ask at least one more. Extrapolating this law back in time then, long ago there were less questions to ask. Therefore knowledge and morality was less complex. However because there were less questions, our relative level of understanding (as a ratio of things we thought we understood to things we knew we didn't understand) was higher. So in that sense you could say we were closer to the Creator. You could argue we were happier then, or blissfully ignorant. So now all you have to do is describe the Creator... specifically why he wants to eternally deceive us.

Well not really, if there is a Creator, we have NONE of the story. Because the story then would be all about the Creator, of which we know nothing. Which leads me back to my question #57 What can you tell me of your Creator, other than in his unlimited omnipotence, he is still bound by desires?

Why is the creator seemingly endlessly flexing his omnipotent will only to deceive us?

Unless there's a Creator moving all the things around making it look like were orbiting the sun....just for us.

You read it right. The exclamation makes all the difference.

No. WE are not the center of the universe. "I am the center". "There is only ME".

egocentrism>geocentrism. In my opinion, which ironically, is all that matters exists for egocentrics.

heart? You can google the answers, though I'm not sure precisely what biology means by "paired". Tongue, diaphragm and the transverse arytenoid Apparently sphincters too maybe.