New simulation shows Einstein was correct about hidden variables

[Strange]

I remember answering that. The intent of the sim is to get the results WITHOUT using QM or entanglement.

 

And without modelling Bell's Theorem.

 

 

My sim has to do with the experiment.

 

Let's try a different approach: you say "the experiment" so can you provide a reference to where this experiment is described (i.e. NOT a video) so we can see the conditions used, the calculations performed and the results obtained in "the experiment" and compare all of these with what your program does. Thank you.

[Theoretical]

Let's try a different approach: you say "the experiment" so can you provide a reference to where this experiment is described (i.e. NOT a video) so we can see the conditions used, the calculations performed and the results obtained in "the experiment" and compare all of these with what your program does. Thank you.

Not off hand except for my first post in this thread. Because it's simple. Before writing the sim I spent days reading articles and watching videos on Bell's exoerent. I ended up using the experiment outlined by the girls video except I used photons as the particle, but I've read plenty of papers using photons with the same polarization angles.

 

If you have some differnt angles or conditions then let me know and I could run it for you.

[studiot]

 

Theoretical

 

I remember answering that. The intent of the sim is to get the results WITHOUT using QM or entanglement.

 

So to be straight and end with the statement Result: 0.5

 

Is your contention that I can use any process, unconnected with QM or entanglement to disprove or prove Bells inequality?

 

For instance flipping a coin Result: probability of heads 0.5

 

or

 

drawing a ball from a bag containing one blue ball and one red, Result: probability 0.5 Edit probability of a blue ball.0.5

 

 

 

Was there some reason you didn't bother to reply to my post#222?

Edited January 6, 2015 by studiot

[Strange]

Not off hand except for my first post in this thread. Because it's simple. Before writing the sim I spent days reading articles and watching videos on Bell's exoerent.

 

There is no "Bell's experiment". There are many different experiments that test Bell's theorem.

 

Part of the problem seems to be that you have not taken a single, well-defined experiment and written a simulation of it. Instead you have used your rather confused understanding of a number of experiments based on vague descriptions (e.g. yootoob). As such, you have missed the important detail of actually simulating Bell's Theorem.

 

However, you don't seem to care about accuracy. All you care about is bolstering your beliefs, even if it is by an inaccurate simulation. This is both dishonest and rather sad.

 

 

If you have some differnt angles or conditions then let me know and I could run it for you.

 

I do. I have asked you several times to simulate an experiment where three different polarizations are tested. I have even given you a link to a "no maths" but very detailed description of the experiment. Please let me know when you have the results.

Edited January 6, 2015 by Strange

[Theoretical]

 

There is no "Bell's experiment". There are many different experiments that test Bell's theorem.

 

Part of the problem seems to be that you have not taken a single, well-defined experiment and written a simulation of it. Instead you have used your rather confused understanding of a number of experiments based on vague descriptions (e.g. yootoob). As such, you have missed the important detail of actually simulating Bell's Theorem.

 

However, you don't seem to care about accuracy. All you care about is bolstering your beliefs, even if it is by an inaccurate simulation. This is both dishonest and rather sad.

I'm not interested ad hominem. Show the math errors.

[andrewcellini]

I'm not interested ad hominem.

if you believe you are being personally insulted (which from the looks of things you aren't) then you can report posts and have moderators look.

 

strange brings up a valid point; you have not yet cited a single experiment. if your simulation is based on an actual experiment then i'm sure you would have no problem locating and posting the proper literature.

 

i'm still confused as to where "hidden variables" come in in your simulation.

Edited January 6, 2015 by andrewcellini

[Strange]

I'm not interested ad hominem. Show the math errors.

 

THERE ARE NO MATH ERRORS. I have said this several times. (Although, to be honest, I am taking your word for this. Which I am quite content to do, because the problem is not the maths.)

 

 

 

If you have some differnt angles or conditions then let me know and I could run it for you.

 

I do. I have asked you several times to simulate an experiment where three different polarizations are tested for a single photon. I have even given you a link to a "no maths" but very detailed description of the experiment. Please let me know when you have the results.

 

Note that I *think* your simulation potentially has an advantage here as you don't have to worry about entanglement - in a simulation you can measure the three polarizations on a single photon. We can't do this in reality and so we have to resort to entanglement to measure two at a time.

Edited January 6, 2015 by Strange

[Theoretical]

if you believe you are being personally insulted (which from the looks of things you aren't) then you can report posts and have moderators look.

 

strange brings up a valid point; you have not yet cited a single experiment. if your simulation is based on an actual experiment then i'm sure you would have no problem locating and posting the proper literature.

It's called ad hominem. Look it up to see why people use it in debates. I could care a less about reporting people.

 

The video I referenced goes over the experiment. It's not my problem if you discriminate agaists videos. If that's the case then prove the error in the experiment I used.

 

THERE ARE NO MATH ERRORS. I have said this several times. (Although, to be honest, I am taking your word for this. Which I am quite content to do, because the problem is not the maths.)

 

 

 

I do. I have asked you several times to simulate an experiment where three different polarizations are tested for a single photon. I have even given you a link to a "no maths" but very detailed description of the experiment. Please let me know when you have the results.

 

Note that I *think* your simulation potentially has an advantage here as you don't have to worry about entanglement - in a simulation you can measure the three polarizations on a single photon. We can't do this in reality and so we have to resort to entanglement to measure two at a time.

You referred to the three angles but I'm not going to study a paper to do a sim for you. I said if you want I would run a sim with whatever angles you want, but because of your ad hominem has wasted more of my time I'm expiring that offer. So you have the code for my sim. You can run it yourself.

[Strange]

It's called ad hominem.

 

So, as well as not knowing what Bell's Theorem is, you don't know what ad hominem means either. Not too surprising.

 

 

You referred to the three angles but I'm not going to study a paper to do a sim for you.

 

That is a shame, because if you were willing to study, you might learn something. Oh well. It is your own time you are wasting.

[studiot]

It's not only downright rude, it's also contrary to the rules of this forum to ignore properly posed questions.

 

In post 55 I offered you two classic real world experiments that had been conducted into the subject of your thread.

 

 

studiot, on 02 Jan 2015 - 7:09 PM, said:

studiot

Can you show that your algorithm reproduces either the Strapp experiment (with probability) or the Hardy experiment (without probability) ?

Theoretical

Thanks for the info. I'll take a look at those. If I see even a remote chance that they prove spooky action at a distance, then I'll try to simulate them.

 

I have heard nothing more about my question on comparing your algorithm to Strapp and Hardy.

If I missed your response then I'm sorry please point it out.

 

In post219 you stated that a question I asked was "wrong"

So in post 222 I asked how can a question be right or wrong and what exactly was wrong?

If I missed your response then I'm sorry please point it out.

 

Edit, my apologies to Mr Stapp. I have been mis-spelling his name with an extra r.

Edited January 6, 2015 by studiot

[andrewcellini]

It's called ad hominem. Look it up to see why people use it in debates. I could care a less about reporting people.

 

The video I referenced goes over the experiment. It's not my problem if you discriminate agaists videos. If that's the case then prove the error in the experiment I used.

i know what an ad hominem is. no one is attacking you personally. it seems that people are frustrated because you seem to be unable to answer their questions or are just ignoring them. in general, people are questioning what you have posted.

 

the video in question goes over one experiment to test bells theorem. you didn't model that experiment, so i don't see how going back to it would help anything. perhaps there is a paper on an experiment exactly like the one you've simulated. it would be helpful to see that.

[Strange]

Nobody's been able to prove there's an instantaneous link between the two entangled particles. Not instantaneous communication.

 

I just watched the video you linked in your first post. It starts with the assumption of instantaneous communication and argues that Bell's Theorem shows that is happening. This is a valid interpretation: Bell's theorem says you have to give up either locality or hidden variables. The author of the video gives up locality. That is what Einstein was not happy about.

So I remain slightly confused about what you think you have proved...

i know what an ad hominem is. no one is attacking you personally.

 

And that is not what an ad hominem is, anyway.

OK. Watching more of this video (it is painfully slow; I wish there were a transcript so I could read it in 30 seconds instead of having to sit through ten minutes ...)

 

At 1:40, she notes that Alice and Bob can each measure the spin of the electrons in THREE DIFFERENT AXES 120 degrees apart - they randomly choose which angle to measure, and then compare the results.

 

This is not what you program does but it IS exactly what I have been requesting you to do. You just come up with a series of excuses not to actually simulate the experiment that you reference.

 

From 5:00 she describes what would happen in a hidden variables theory and shows why this would give different results. Ideally, you would also simulate this to demonstrate that your model is accurate (or, as you believe, to show it gets the same results).

 

Note that what your program actually does, as several people have pointed out, is take a long-winded route to calculating the QM prediction (which is, as the video shows, incompatible with hidden variables).

[Theoretical]

I no longer will respond to posts that make claims such as "that's not what you're doing" without clear evidence. It's a waste of time. I modeled the sim after the video except I used photons as the particle.

[studiot]

Apparently you like to break rules. -1

Edited January 6, 2015 by studiot

[Strange]

I no longer will respond to posts that make claims such as "that's not what you're doing" without clear evidence.

 

By the rules of the forum, you are the one who needs to provide evidence.

 

The video uses pairs of randomly chosen measurements 120 degrees apart. Perhaps you can show the lines in your code where that happens? That would be good evidence that your code matches the video.

Edited January 6, 2015 by Strange

[Theoretical]

 

By the rules of the forum, you are the one who needs to provide evidence.

 

The video uses pairs of randomly chosen measurements 120 degrees apart. Perhaps you can show the lines in your code where that happens? That would be good evidence that your code matches the video.

I already said that the first version used random numbers. It gets the same results as scanning through, but scanning is more accurate and faster.

[Strange]

BTW, I am not doing this to attack you for any reason. I just want to help you understand:

 

a) What Bell's theorem is; and

 

b) Why you are not simulating the experiment in the video (which is exactly the experiment I asked you to simulate).

I already said that the first version used random numbers. It gets the same results as scanning through, but scanning is more accurate and faster.

 

That is NOT what the experiment in the video does, though. Therefore you are not simulating the experiment in the video.

 

Why not just modify your program to do what the video does?

Edited January 6, 2015 by Strange

[andrewcellini]

And that is not what an ad hominem is, anyway.

 

 

 

what is it then?

 

"means responding to arguments by attacking a person's character, rather than to the content of their arguments"

 

that seems similar to "attacking one personally"

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem

 

edit: as this may be off topic, feel free to explain in pm.

Edited January 7, 2015 by andrewcellini

[Strange]

"means responding to arguments by attacking a person's character, rather than to the content of their arguments"

 

that seems similar to "attacking one personally"

 

The difference (as I understand it) is the reason. Just insulting someone is not an ad hominem (argument). I don't think I made a personal attack on Theoretical but if I did, it wasn't an attempt to show his argument is wrong.

 

I think he is misguided, foolish and ridiculously closed-minded and stubborn. But his arguments can be shown to be wrong based on logic and evidence, not because of his character.

[andrewcellini]

 

The difference (as I understand it) is the reason. Just insulting someone is not an ad hominem (argument). I don't think I made a personal attack on Theoretical but if I did, it wasn't an attempt to show his argument is wrong.

ah okay that's an important distinction.

[studiot]

This thread is about ripe for closure anyway.

[Theoretical]

BTW, I am not doing this to attack you for any reason. I just want to help you understand:

 

a) What Bell's theorem is; and

 

b) Why you are not simulating the experiment in the video (which is exactly the experiment I asked you to simulate).

 

 

That is NOT what the experiment in the video does, though. Therefore you are not simulating the experiment in the video.

 

Why not just modify your program to do what the video does?

I keep telling you the sim does NOT use non entangled photons. And I keep telling you why it does not. Enough already.

[Strange]

I keep telling you the sim does NOT use non entangled photons. And I keep telling you why it does not. Enough already.

 

That is not my objection. The sim does not do what the video does.

 

The video has two detectors which can make measurements of polarization angles 120 degrees apart. Your program does not do this. Therefore you are not simulating the experiment in the video. Therefore you are not simulating a test of Bell's theorem.

 

(The video uses entangled photons because, in the real world, you can only make one measurement on a photon. You can make two measurements on one photon in your simulation, if you wish. So there is no need to use entangled photons, or even a pair of photons.)

Edited January 7, 2015 by Strange

[Theoretical]

 

 

This thread is about ripe for closure anyway.

I would agree since nothing's happening. In that case here's my final statement:

 

To date my sim stands error free, as nobody has been able to find any math errors in it. The sim is extraordinarily simple, and uses the correct equation, Malus' law, which is a well tested equation founded in the 1700's, an equation that works with entangled or non-entangled photons. The sim proves what is commonly called Bell's experiment gets the same results with non-entangled photons by producing two photons with the same polarity. Again, when non-entangled photons are used in a "Bell's experiment," the results are the same as a "Bell's experiment" that uses entangled photons. The reason I wrote the sim is to see if there was evidence of spooky action at a distance. I conclude there is no evidence of spooky action at a distance in the "Bell's experiment" since the experiment can show no distinction between entangled and non-entangled photons.

 

Close the thread.

 

That is not my objection. The sim does not do what the video does.

 

The video has two detectors which can make measurements of polarization angles 120 degrees apart. Your program does not do this. Therefore you are not simulating the experiment in the video. Therefore you are not simulating a test of Bell's theorem.

 

(The video uses entangled photons because, in the real world, you can only make one measurement on a photon. You can make two measurements on one photon in your simulation, if you wish. So there is no need to use entangled photons, or even a pair of photons.)

Incorrect. You obviously don't know how to code. The code has three polarizer angles: 0, 120, and 240 degrees as shown in the video.

[andrewcellini]

The reason I wrote the sim is to see if there was evidence of spooky action at a distance. I conclude there is no evidence of spooky action at a distance in the "Bell's experiment" since the experiment can show no distinction between entangled and non-entangled photons.

as a simulation is not evidence but a prediction against which we can compare an actual experiment, your conclusion is invalid.