david345 Posted January 3, 2015 Posted January 3, 2015 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.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.
Theoretical Posted January 3, 2015 Author Posted January 3, 2015 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.How about this as a start:Polarizers set at 0 deg: Photons emit as 3.7374 degrees Photons emit as 86.073 degrees Photons emit as 21.838 degrees .............thousands of differnt angels Polarizers set at 120 degrees. Repeat the thousands of differnt angles that the photon will emit at. .............. Polarizers set at 240 degrees. Repeat the thousands of differnt angles that the photon will emit at. .............. Each step above yields differnt numbers. You need to either formulate a math equation to solve the entire experiment, or write code to simulate it.
david345 Posted January 3, 2015 Posted January 3, 2015 How about this as a start: Polarizers set at 0 deg: Photons emit as 3.7374 degrees Photons emit as 86.073 degrees Photons emit as 21.838 degrees .............thousands of differnt angels Polarizers set at 120 degrees. Repeat the thousands of differnt angles that the photon will emit at. .............. Polarizers set at 240 degrees. Repeat the thousands of differnt angles that the photon will emit at. .............. Each step above yields differnt numbers. You need to either formulate a math equation to solve the entire experiment, or write code to simulate it. Spouting off a bunch of numbers proves nothing. My example was sufficient to demonstrate Bell's argument. 1
Strange Posted January 3, 2015 Posted January 3, 2015 I've lost count how many times you've said the same thing. Can we agree to disagree? We can. As long as you accept that that is because you are wrong. But let's try something else. How about you answer the question I have asked several times: what do you think the difference is between entanglement and "spooky action at distance"?
swansont Posted January 3, 2015 Posted January 3, 2015 BTW why put this thread in the speculation section. What claims are being made that are speculation? That hidden variables work.
Theoretical Posted January 3, 2015 Author Posted January 3, 2015 Spouting off a bunch of numbers proves nothing. My example was sufficient to demonstrate Bell's argument.You didn't even have the photons being emitted at different angles. You only show the polarizer at 3 angles. That's not a correct assessment of the experiment. And then there are just as important other aspects you left out.
imatfaal Posted January 3, 2015 Posted January 3, 2015 You didn't even have the photons being emitted at different angles. You only show the polarizer at 3 angles. That's not a correct assessment of the experiment. And then there are just as important other aspects you left out. Theoretical - you are still not getting it; David's experiment showed a circumstance in which hidden variables must give an incorrect answer. It shows that in at least one situation you cannot explain the results of an experiment without resorting to non-locality - ie Quantum Mechanics and entanglement. That is enough, he doesn't need to show that this always applies (although it does) - EPR stated that there was no such thing as non-locality and that hidden variables could ALWAYS account for what seemed to be non-locality. This is a universal claim and can be shown to be false by ONE counter example. This is what has been done.
Theoretical Posted January 3, 2015 Author Posted January 3, 2015 (edited) We can. As long as you accept that that is because you are wrong.Wrong with what? I keep saying things such as the entanglement has not been proven with regards to spooky action at a distance and you keep coming back saying entanglement has been proven. I've never said all aspects of entanglement are wrong. But let's try something else. How about you answer the question I have asked several times: what do you think the difference is between entanglement and "spooky action at distance"?I believe the entanglement aspects of the particles are known immediately after they are created, and continue as such until measured. A less likely senario is that there could be some hidden variable embedded in the particles that determine their polarity/spin when measured. I don't buy into the spooky action at a distance, that the polarizations are unknown until one is measured, thereby forcing the particles to chose a polarization simultaneously through some connection that exists between them even though they could be at other ends of the galaxy. Theoretical - you are still not getting it; David's experiment showed a circumstance in which hidden variables must give an incorrect answer. It shows that in at least one situation you cannot explain the results of an experiment without resorting to non-locality - ie Quantum Mechanics and entanglement. That is enough, he doesn't need to show that this always applies (although it does) - EPR stated that there was no such thing as non-locality and that hidden variables could ALWAYS account for what seemed to be non-locality. This is a universal claim and can be shown to be false by ONE counter example. This is what has been done. Since I've taken the time to write a sim, I can say with confidence he left out important aspects. Could someone please tell me why it's not considered a hidden variable if there's information being sent along with the photons that will determine their polarity when measured? Edited January 3, 2015 by Theoretical
Bignose Posted January 3, 2015 Posted January 3, 2015 The sim doesn't need to go through all the QM equations in order to simulate an experiment. Theoretical, Let me start with saying that it is awesome that you took your coding skills and turned them into a simulation. There are a very large number of people who don't have the skills to do that, and even if they had or could learn the skills, they don't have the will or motivation to do it. You are way ahead of most people, certainly most of the people who join this forum to talk about an idea they had. You may have heard the scientific process described as "confrontational". Like many things, this has a common use definition, and scientific use definition. In common use, confrontational typically means fighting, strong disagreements, etc. Typically, this means a conflict of some sort. However, in the scientific use, conflict is rarely there. The confrontational part is that scientists are always challenging each other's models to find cases where they don't work, or cases where they predict something wrong. As much as anything, they are exploring the capabilities of the model and seeing just how useful. Remember that in science, the usefulness of a model is almost wholly based on how many accurate predictions that model can make. So, I think what you are seeing in this thread is people being scientifically confrontational about your model. They are trying to point out where it does and doesn't many accurate predictions. They are finding out its range of validity. I think you are taking this a little like the common definition of being confrontational, when that really isn't intended to be that way. I have given many presentations at conferences about simulations I have written, and there are always many, many questions that are confrontational in the scientific sense. Other scientists are going to suggest possible problems, possible improvements, and generally do their best to test the model that is presented. What I always did was take their comments to heart and do my best to learn why they said what they did. No matter what, I always learned something more. I suggest you take some time and look deeper into what the people are saying here. Because by doing so, you are only going to make your level of understanding deeper and stronger, and that will lead to a better model. I think that is all any of us want, most of all you, right? 1
Theoretical Posted January 3, 2015 Author Posted January 3, 2015 (edited) Theoretical, Let me start with saying that it is awesome that you took your coding skills and turned them into a simulation. There are a very large number of people who don't have the skills to do that, and even if they had or could learn the skills, they don't have the will or motivation to do it. You are way ahead of most people, certainly most of the people who join this forum to talk about an idea they had. You may have heard the scientific process described as "confrontational". Like many things, this has a common use definition, and scientific use definition. In common use, confrontational typically means fighting, strong disagreements, etc. Typically, this means a conflict of some sort. However, in the scientific use, conflict is rarely there. The confrontational part is that scientists are always challenging each other's models to find cases where they don't work, or cases where they predict something wrong. As much as anything, they are exploring the capabilities of the model and seeing just how useful. Remember that in science, the usefulness of a model is almost wholly based on how many accurate predictions that model can make. So, I think what you are seeing in this thread is people being scientifically confrontational about your model. They are trying to point out where it does and doesn't many accurate predictions. They are finding out its range of validity. I think you are taking this a little like the common definition of being confrontational, when that really isn't intended to be that way. I have given many presentations at conferences about simulations I have written, and there are always many, many questions that are confrontational in the scientific sense. Other scientists are going to suggest possible problems, possible improvements, and generally do their best to test the model that is presented. What I always did was take their comments to heart and do my best to learn why they said what they did. No matter what, I always learned something more. I suggest you take some time and look deeper into what the people are saying here. Because by doing so, you are only going to make your level of understanding deeper and stronger, and that will lead to a better model. I think that is all any of us want, most of all you, right? Thanks for taking the time to write a reply. Most of the people here are considerate. Only a few irritating people lol, but I'm just biting my tongue. Although I see no point in people arguing. If they can't agree, then they should take a break from each other. That's awesome that you're a sim coder as well. Maybe we could keep in contact if you're working on a theory. If you are, then I hope you win the Nobel prize. I'd like to just drop this thread because it's very distracting, but it's not easy to read posts where people are saying things about you and your work that are wrong. Edited January 3, 2015 by Theoretical
Bignose Posted January 3, 2015 Posted January 3, 2015 but it's not easy to read posts where people are saying things about ... your work that are wrong. But, take to heart what I wrote above. There are reasons people are saying they think what you are claiming about your simulation and what you've actually written are different. You need to dive deeper and do your best to understand their point of view. I never wrote a simulation that was 100% correct. I never wrote a simulation that someone didn't completely justly point out errors and limitation in them, or even things I got just plain wrong. I never wrote a simulation that didn't take many months of in-depth research and understanding of the problem. So, it isn't that I think you should drop this conversation. I think you should do a lot more reading and learning about why everyone is saying what they are saying. My knowledge in QM is very limited, but from what I've read, I think they raise very good points. They have good reasons for writing what they wrote. To make your model and your understanding better, you should take the time to understand why they are saying what they are saying.
Theoretical Posted January 3, 2015 Author Posted January 3, 2015 But, take to heart what I wrote above. There are reasons people are saying they think what you are claiming about your simulation and what you've actually written are different. You need to dive deeper and do your best to understand their point of view. I never wrote a simulation that was 100% correct. I never wrote a simulation that someone didn't completely justly point out errors and limitation in them, or even things I got just plain wrong. I never wrote a simulation that didn't take many months of in-depth research and understanding of the problem. So, it isn't that I think you should drop this conversation. I think you should do a lot more reading and learning about why everyone is saying what they are saying. My knowledge in QM is very limited, but from what I've read, I think they raise very good points. They have good reasons for writing what they wrote. To make your model and your understanding better, you should take the time to understand why they are saying what they are saying. A good question is: what are they saying? The only person who said anything about the sim itself was that it didn't use random numbers, but I replied back saying that the first version did. One point they make that I'm on the fence about is that the sim isn't a hidden variable model, but I didn't see why they believe that. But that's not so important to me since I wrote the sim to see what the results would be given my understanding of physics. It got the correct real life results. There are numerous hidden variable theories. Honestly I'm not so interested in those. But would like to know in specific details why they don't consider my sim hidden variable.
imatfaal Posted January 3, 2015 Posted January 3, 2015 But would like to know in specific details why they don't consider my sim hidden variable. Because you set the polarization of the photons to be identical (or I think you also considered orthogonal). If you know the polarizations you must have measured them, there will be no entanglement, no quantum effects and a purely classical experiment. If you cannot know the polarizations then your hidden variable cannot be the polarization. QM says because the particles are entangled such that when one is measured then the other will be found to be in an certain state - ie if Photon_s is measured parallel at polarizer_1 in position_a then there is a calculable probability that Photon_i is measured parallel at polarizer_2 in position_b - similarly for position all the positions of polarizers for both photons. EPR says that there is a hidden variable that is predetermined at or before the point the photons are separated saying what the photons will do under all certain circumstances - ie Photon_s is parallel at polarizer_1 in position_b and Photon_i is perpendicular to polarizer_2 at position_b etc. What Bell's Inequality showed was that no matter how well the hidden variable was chosen the laws of probability put an upper limit to how well a hidden variable could possibly perform. I can explain this bit in another post if you need. Quantum mechanics predicts a higher performance than the upper limit. When Alain Aspect and others did experiments similar but not the same (crucially not the same) as your sim - they found a performance higher than the limits possible with hidden variable. === If you wish we can try and work a way of properly simulating the two versions of the experiment - but this will be tough.
Theoretical Posted January 3, 2015 Author Posted January 3, 2015 QM says [snip] Your post added a lot of clarity. It seems your above sentence is the focus of our disagreement. As I understand it, you're basing what can and cannot be a hidden variable according to what QM says, but yet that's the entire issue. Right? Einstein is doubting the spooky action at a distance aspect of entanglement. Bell's experiment occurred after Einstein's death. So he did not get a chance to reply. Is the problem that it's asking too much of QM to even consider that the photon polarizations are known just prior to the polarizer? Remember that Einstein said QM needed changing.
Strange Posted January 3, 2015 Posted January 3, 2015 Look, sorry if I was abrupt before but it is a bit frustrating when someone claims to have shown decades of scientific theory and experiment to be wrong, based on a simulation but, anyway ... Is the problem that it's asking too much of QM to even consider that the photon polarizations are known just prior to the polarizer? The problem is that you are only measuring the polarization of a photon at a single angle. It is possible that assuming this single angle is defined when the photon is created (i.e. a single hidden variable) will work. (Although I am fairly sure it doesn't, in general.) But the problem Bell highlighted is when you assume that the polarization (of one photon) at three different angles are all defined in advance. Now, in reality, you can only measure one polarization angle for a photon because, if it passes the filter, it will be polarised at that angle (so the polarization at the other angles will be zero). But using entangled photons, you can measure two different polarizations at a time (one angle on each photon). Now, if you work out (or simulate) the probability for each pair of polarizations by assuming that they are defined in advance you will get a different result than QM predicts. So that is what your program needs to simulate in order to prove your point. Is that clearer?
imatfaal Posted January 3, 2015 Posted January 3, 2015 Your post added a lot of clarity. It seems your above sentence is the focus of our disagreement. As I understand it, you're basing what can and cannot be a hidden variable according to what QM says, but yet that's the entire issue. Right? Einstein is doubting the spooky action at a distance aspect of entanglement. Bell's experiment occurred after Einstein's death. So he did not get a chance to reply. Is the problem that it's asking too much of QM to even consider that the photon polarizations are known just prior to the polarizer? Remember that Einstein said QM needed changing. If the photon polarizations are known (or can be known) - then QM will automatically collapse to the classical model; there's the rub! The only way you can know the states is to measure them - and measuring collapses the waveform, or breaks the entanglement. But, in that delicate situation, strange and wonderful things happen - and these can be repeated in experiment, in technology, in nature; it is the most tested and most accurate of our theories This bit was not argued by Einstein - nor by the proponents of QM - you could easily stop any spookiness. The trick was to keep a situation in which something strange happened, either by entanglement or by a hidden variable, and investigate that.
hoola Posted January 3, 2015 Posted January 3, 2015 wouldn't it be a good idea to presume temporarily that hidden variables exist, then formulate a possible source for these variables?
Strange Posted January 3, 2015 Posted January 3, 2015 wouldn't it be a good idea to presume temporarily that hidden variables exist, then formulate a possible source for these variables? Why? When the evidence shows that they cannot exist.
Theoretical Posted January 3, 2015 Author Posted January 3, 2015 Look, sorry if I was abrupt before but it is a bit frustrating when someone claims to have shown decades of scientific theory and experiment to be wrong, based on a simulation but, anyway ... The problem is that you are only measuring the polarization of a photon at a single angle. It is possible that assuming this single angle is defined when the photon is created (i.e. a single hidden variable) will work. (Although I am fairly sure it doesn't, in general.) But the problem Bell highlighted is when you assume that the polarization (of one photon) at three different angles are all defined in advance. Now, in reality, you can only measure one polarization angle for a photon because, if it passes the filter, it will be polarised at that angle (so the polarization at the other angles will be zero). But using entangled photons, you can measure two different polarizations at a time (one angle on each photon). Now, if you work out (or simulate) the probability for each pair of polarizations by assuming that they are defined in advance you will get a different result than QM predicts. So that is what your program needs to simulate in order to prove your point. Is that clearer? It's no problem. I can tell you're passionate about QM and know a lot. I tried to understand what you're saying above but I think it went over my head. It would probably be easier for me to create a video animation showing my simulation shooting the entangled photons, polarizer angles, and the paths the photons take. That will have to wait, if it's even worth doing. I don't know. I kind of feel like we're talking about two different experiments lol. I can attempt to go over it using different words, but it's best to create a video. In my sim, two photons are emitted. They both have the same polarity. They could be orthogonal, but that would get the same result. So this polarities is random, anywhere be between 0 and 360 degrees (2pi). The sim starts both polarizers at 0 degrees, and shoots thousands of entangled photons. Then it changes one of the polarizers to 120 degrees. So now one polarizer is 0 degrees and the other is 120 degrees. Again thousands of photons are emitted. Then polarizer is changed to 240 degrees, and emits thousands of photons. I know there are various types of Bell's experiments. That's just the one I used because it was well defined in that girls video and she clearly states the results.
Strange Posted January 3, 2015 Posted January 3, 2015 It's no problem. I can tell you're passionate about QM and know a lot. I tried to understand what you're saying above but I think it went over my head. That is why I suggest you read this: http://www.drchinese.com/David/Bell_Theorem_Easy_Math.htm He works through it step by step, showing exactly what is predicted by a hidden variables model and by QM. And there is no complicated mathematics (apart from pointing out that the QM prediction is cos2). I understand exactly what your simulation is doing, that is why I keep trying to explain that it has nothing to do with Bell's theorem.
Theoretical Posted January 4, 2015 Author Posted January 4, 2015 If the photon polarizations are known (or can be known) - then QM will automatically collapse to the classical model; there's the rub! The only way you can know the states is to measure them - and measuring collapses the waveform, or breaks the entanglement. But, in that delicate situation, strange and wonderful things happen - and these can be repeated in experiment, in technology, in nature; it is the most tested and most accurate of our theories This bit was not argued by Einstein - nor by the proponents of QM - you could easily stop any spookiness. The trick was to keep a situation in which something strange happened, either by entanglement or by a hidden variable, and investigate that. I agree QM does a great job predicting results. What's considered spooky is probably a point of view. QM's great, but I look forward to it's successor haha. It's not that there's evidence the spooky action at a distance does not exist, but so far I see no evidence it does exist. Bell's experiment ended up being a great disappointment for me in terms of proving any spooky action, but yet my sim gave me my answer, that I don't need to pursue a spooky action at a distance theory. At least not yet. So just out of curiousity. What are your thoughts that if we built a Bell's experiment with the exception that instead of using a non-linear crystal to emit entangled photons, we use two sources that each emits a single photon such that they are not entangled and the polarization is known. Furthermore the polarizations are orthogonal. So it's basically the same setup except the user controls what the polarization of the photons will be before they're emitted. So before each set of photons are emitted, the user sets the polarization of the photons to some random value. That's my sim. Only unique thing is that we know beforehand the photon polarizations. The interesting part for me is that we get the exact same results as we would get if we used the non-linear crystals to emit "entangled" photons. That is why I suggest you read this: http://www.drchinese.com/David/Bell_Theorem_Easy_Math.htm He works through it step by step, showing exactly what is predicted by a hidden variables model and by QM. And there is no complicated mathematics (apart from pointing out that the QM prediction is cos2). I understand exactly what your simulation is doing, that is why I keep trying to explain that it has nothing to do with Bell's theorem. Yeah that's a great page! I now understand that scientists don't consider my sim as having a hidden variable. As the other user said, QM would collapse into a classical theory if the polarizations are known beforehand. If I may ask, do you know anyone who's working on a grand unified theory (GUT)? 3
imatfaal Posted January 4, 2015 Posted January 4, 2015 Yeah that's a great page! I now understand that scientists don't consider my sim as having a hidden variable. As the other user said, QM would collapse into a classical theory if the polarizations are known beforehand. If I may ask, do you know anyone who's working on a grand unified theory (GUT)? +1 It has been a great thread and I hope you have learnt as much as I have about Bell during it. I would still like to see someone do a nice sim with the nice and intricate delicacies of entanglement vs hidden variables; but I think it would be a long job
Mordred Posted January 4, 2015 Posted January 4, 2015 If I may ask, do you know anyone who's working on a grand unified theory (GUT)? I have a good understanding of numerous GUT models if you wish to SIM GUT I'm game to help provide you assistance. I would recommend looking at the SO(10) GUT models and perhaps N Body codes GUT theories http://arxiv.org/pdf/0904.1556.pdfThe Algebra of Grand Unified Theories John Baez and John Huerta http://pdg.lbl.gov/2011/reviews/rpp2011-rev-guts.pdf http://pdg.lbl.gov/2011/reviews/rpp2011-rev-guts.pdfGRAND UNIFIED THEORIES Here is the info on various models
Theoretical Posted January 4, 2015 Author Posted January 4, 2015 I have a good understanding of numerous GUT models if you wish to SIM GUT I'm game to help provide you assistance. I would recommend looking at the SO(10) GUT models and perhaps N Body codes GUT theories http://arxiv.org/pdf/0904.1556.pdfThe Algebra of Grand Unified Theories John Baez and John Huerta http://pdg.lbl.gov/2011/reviews/rpp2011-rev-guts.pdf http://pdg.lbl.gov/2011/reviews/rpp2011-rev-guts.pdfGRAND UNIFIED THEORIES Here is the info on various models I was reading on Wikipedia about a bunch of theories that connect gravity to the other forces. I believe the superstring theories are attempts. But the wiki page is saying that all of them have issues, such providing incorrect results at certain levels or not being able to provide experiments to test the theory. What do you think?
Mordred Posted January 4, 2015 Posted January 4, 2015 The older models suffer the most, atm I would place the SO(10) models as the strongest possibilities. There are some variations. Much of the Experiments are ongoing though the initial data looks highly promising. The main area needing further research is the Higgs metastability By the way I also have you +1 it isn't often someone presents a model then accepts it as being in error. More often than not they ignore the evidence and comments that conflict with said model
Recommended Posts