z3rg Posted January 17, 2015 Posted January 17, 2015 (edited) A double-slit quantum eraser http://arxiv.org/pdf/quant-ph/0106078v1.pdf One possible solution:backward causality #include <stdio.h> #include <stdlib.h> #include <math.h> #include <X11/Xlib.h> Display *dpy; Window win; GC gc; double radian=(180.0/M_PI); void pixel(int x,int y,int color) { XSetForeground(dpy,gc,color); XDrawPoint(dpy, win, gc, x,y); } void line(int x1,int y1,int x2,int y2,int color) { XSetForeground(dpy,gc,color); XDrawLine(dpy, win, gc, x1,y1,x2,y2); } double sqr(double n) // x^2 { return n*n; } double doublerand() //random szam 0.0-tol 1.0-ig { return (double)(rand()%10000)/10000.0; } struct vec2d { double x,y; vec2d() {x=0;y=0;} }; void add_amp(vec2d *v,double phase,double ax,double ay) { v->x += sin(phase)*ax; v->y += cos(phase)*ay; }; void add_polarizer(vec2d *v,double phase) { v->x *= sin(phase); v->y *= cos(phase); }; double dot(vec2d *v1,vec2d *v2) { return v1->x*v2->x + v1->y*v2->y; } void add_quarterwaveplate(vec2d *v,double phase,double dist,double qwp,double ax,double ay,double dphase) { vec2d axis_fast,axis_slow,input_wave; add_amp(&axis_fast,qwp,1.0,1.0); add_amp(&axis_slow,qwp+90.0/radian,1.0,1.0); add_amp(&input_wave,phase,1.0,1.0); double amp_fast=dot(&axis_fast,&input_wave); double amp_slow=dot(&axis_slow,&input_wave); amp_fast=cos(dist+dphase)*amp_fast; amp_slow=sin(dist+dphase)*amp_slow;//-+90 phase shift v->x += (axis_fast.x*amp_fast + axis_slow.x*amp_slow)*ax; v->y += (axis_fast.y*amp_fast + axis_slow.y*amp_slow)*ay; }; double probalbility(vec2d *v) { return (sqr(v->x) + sqr(v->y)); } int main() { dpy = XOpenDisplay(0); win = XCreateSimpleWindow(dpy, DefaultRootWindow(dpy), 0,0, 800, 550, 0,0,0); XSelectInput(dpy, win, StructureNotifyMask); XMapWindow(dpy, win); gc = XCreateGC(dpy, win, 0, 0); for(; { XEvent e; XNextEvent(dpy, &e); if (e.type == MapNotify) break; } for(int x=0;x<400;x++) { pixel(x,500,0x008800); pixel(x,300,0x008800); pixel(x,100,0x008800); } for(int ds_x=0;ds_x<400;ds_x++)//Ds position -+4mm { int photon_counter=0; int maxphoton=600; int maxwide=10; int qwplate_on=0; int eraser_on=0; double eraser_alpha=0*45.0/radian;//0,1,2 // if(eraser_on) maxphoton*=4;//lathatosag for(int p=0;p<maxphoton;p++)// max number of photon { double dphase=M_PI*2*doublerand(); #if 1 double photon_pol_a=M_PI*2*doublerand(); double photon_pol_b=photon_pol_a+M_PI/2; #else double photon_pol_a=0; //polarized lightsource if(doublerand()>0.5) photon_pol_a=M_PI/2; double photon_pol_b=photon_pol_a+M_PI/2; #endif double ds_distance=1250.0-420.0;//mm 125-42 cm double dp_distance=980.0; //98 cm double wavelength=702.2e-6;//mm e-9m double k=2.0*M_PI/wavelength; vec2d amp_dp,amp_ds; if(eraser_on) { if(doublerand()>0.5) { photon_pol_a=eraser_alpha;//backward causality photon_pol_b=eraser_alpha+90.0/radian; } else { photon_pol_a=eraser_alpha+90.0/radian; photon_pol_b=eraser_alpha; } } double hole_dist=0.2;//0.2 double hole_wide=0.2;//200 micrometer wide double ds_pos=4.0*(double)(ds_x-200)/200.0;//+-4mm Ds position int side=rand()%4; for(int w=0;w<maxwide;w++)//slit wide { double hole1x=hole_dist/2.0 + hole_wide*(double)w/maxwide;//hole double hole2x=-hole_dist/2.0 - hole_wide*(double)w/maxwide; double dist1=sqrt(sqr(ds_pos - hole1x) + sqr(ds_distance)); double dist2=sqrt(sqr(ds_pos - hole2x) + sqr(ds_distance)); if(qwplate_on) { if(side==0) { add_amp(&_dp,photon_pol_a ,0.5,0.5); add_amp(&_dp,photon_pol_a ,0.5,0.5); add_quarterwaveplate(&_ds,photon_pol_b , dist1*k,-45.0/radian,0.5, 0.5,dphase); add_quarterwaveplate(&_ds,photon_pol_b , dist2*k, 45.0/radian,0.5, 0.5,dphase); } if(side==1) { add_amp(&_dp,photon_pol_b ,0.5,0.5); add_amp(&_dp,photon_pol_b ,0.5,0.5); add_quarterwaveplate(&_ds,photon_pol_a , dist1*k,-45.0/radian,0.5, 0.5,dphase); add_quarterwaveplate(&_ds,photon_pol_a , dist2*k, 45.0/radian,0.5, 0.5,dphase); } if(side==2) { add_amp(&_dp,photon_pol_a ,0.5,0.5); add_amp(&_dp,photon_pol_b ,0.5,0.5); add_quarterwaveplate(&_ds,photon_pol_a , dist1*k,-45.0/radian,0.5, 0.5,dphase); add_quarterwaveplate(&_ds,photon_pol_b , dist2*k, 45.0/radian,0.5, 0.5,dphase); } if(side==3) { add_amp(&_dp,photon_pol_b ,0.5,0.5); add_amp(&_dp,photon_pol_a ,0.5,0.5); add_quarterwaveplate(&_ds,photon_pol_b , dist1*k,-45.0/radian,0.5, 0.5,dphase); add_quarterwaveplate(&_ds,photon_pol_a , dist2*k, 45.0/radian,0.5, 0.5,dphase); } } else { if(side==0) { add_amp(&_dp,photon_pol_a ,0.5,0.5); add_amp(&_dp,photon_pol_a ,0.5,0.5); add_amp(&_ds,photon_pol_b +dist1*k ,0.5,0.5); add_amp(&_ds,photon_pol_b +dist2*k ,0.5,0.5); } if(side==1) { add_amp(&_dp,photon_pol_b ,0.5,0.5); add_amp(&_dp,photon_pol_b ,0.5,0.5); add_amp(&_ds,photon_pol_a +dist1*k ,0.5,0.5); add_amp(&_ds,photon_pol_a +dist2*k ,0.5,0.5); } if(side==2) { add_amp(&_dp,photon_pol_a ,0.5,0.5); add_amp(&_dp,photon_pol_b ,0.5,0.5); add_amp(&_ds,photon_pol_a +dist1*k ,0.5,0.5); add_amp(&_ds,photon_pol_b +dist2*k ,0.5,0.5); } if(side==3) { add_amp(&_dp,photon_pol_b ,0.5,0.5); add_amp(&_dp,photon_pol_a ,0.5,0.5); add_amp(&_ds,photon_pol_b +dist1*k ,0.5,0.5); add_amp(&_ds,photon_pol_a +dist2*k ,0.5,0.5); } } } if(eraser_on) add_polarizer(&_dp,eraser_alpha);// polarizer before Dp amp_dp.x/=maxwide;//normalized amp_dp.y/=maxwide; amp_ds.x/=maxwide; amp_ds.y/=maxwide; if((probalbility(&_dp))>doublerand()) if((probalbility(&_ds))>doublerand()) photon_counter+=1; } pixel(ds_x,500-photon_counter,0xffff00); } /* double dist1=0.0; for(int p=0;p<1000;p++)//quarterwaveplate { vec2d amp_dp,amp_ds; add_quarterwaveplate(&_ds,0.0/radian , dist1*M_PI/100.0,-45.0/radian,0.5, 0.5,0.0); line(200,200,200+200.0*amp_ds.x,200+200.0*amp_ds.y,0x00ff00); dist1+=5.0; XFlush(dpy); getchar(); }*/ XFlush(dpy); getchar(); return 0; } Edited January 17, 2015 by dochow
Strange Posted January 17, 2015 Posted January 17, 2015 Do you expect us to reverse-engineer your code, or are you going to explain it?
imatfaal Posted January 17, 2015 Posted January 17, 2015 Do you expect us to reverse-engineer your code, or are you going to explain it? Ditto. Could you at least explain how you are simulating the entanglement of the signal and idler photons? The experimental set up has a polarization correlation (measureable on the idler) between slit one passage and slit two passage thus destroying the interference (that was obtained without the quarterwave plates). The entanged nature of the signal and idler means that a linear polarizer is placed in the way of the idler and the which-way information is lost - and the interference is regained. How are you simulating this entanglement? With great regret (after a previous claim that a simulation provided evidence for EPR) I will ask whether you tested using Bell's inequalities to see if your simulation of entanglement was working - you will have noted that the experimenters in the paper presented did this.
z3rg Posted January 17, 2015 Author Posted January 17, 2015 How are you simulating this entanglement? http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/22442-so-youve-got-a-new-theory/ "Math is precise and has a very high information density — it is very powerful. " You can read on this site. Well language of physics is math. There is the equation. and the result is good. And it is not really crackpot. www.youtube.com/watch?v=--BdgqH7pjI Alain Aspect Speaks on John Wheeler's Delayed Choice Experiment "Thus one decides the photon shall have come by one route or by both routes after it has already done its travel." "Within a naïve classical word view, quantum mechanics can even mimic an influence of future actions on past events," says Anton Zeilinger. www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/04/120423131902.htm Crackpot is when somebody say: thereh is connection with infinite speed between photons.
imatfaal Posted January 17, 2015 Posted January 17, 2015 OK - so you have dodged the simple question. I will try again. How have you simulated the entanglement of the signal and the idler photon - and have you checked that this entanglement simulation actually provides the correct results. Please post the explanation here - a link to a youtube video will not suffice.
z3rg Posted January 17, 2015 Author Posted January 17, 2015 (edited) First, it is a simple case Know you the equation when a photon passes through two polarizers? physics.wisc.edu/undergrads/courses/spring08/208/Lectures/lect21.pdfMalus Law: I1 = I0/2 I2= I1 cos2 (45º) = 0.5 cos2(p2-p1)optics.rochester.edu/workgroups/lukishova/QuantumOpticsLab/2013/OPT_253/GroupC_Lab1_Sam.pdfpage 4: 1/2 cos2(beta- alpha) This is the same equation as the equation of entangled photons. Whereas one of the photons goes backwards in time. (presupposition) Edited January 17, 2015 by dochow
imatfaal Posted January 17, 2015 Posted January 17, 2015 First, it is a simple case Know you the equation when a photon passes through two polarizers? physics.wisc.edu/undergrads/courses/spring08/208/Lectures/lect21.pdf Malus Law: I1 = I0/2 I2= I1 cos2 (45º) = 0.5 cos2(p2-p1) optics.rochester.edu/workgroups/lukishova/QuantumOpticsLab/2013/OPT_253/GroupC_Lab1_Sam.pdf page 4: 1/2 cos2(beta- alpha) This is the same equation as the equation of entangled photons. Whereas one of the photons goes backwards in time. (presupposition) Are you sure you are not Theoretical? You are making the same assumptions and the same errors. Haave a read of david345's final post in this thread http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/87157-new-simulation-shows-einstein-was-correct-about-hidden-variables and Strange had a lovely link to Dr Chinese which I will continue to search for with a text based explanation It is a nice example which shows that you cannot just assume a congurence between quantum mechanical systems and their classical counterparts. Which is what Theoretical did in his never explained simulation which purported to disprove the violation bell's inequalities - and it is what you are doing in your yet unexplained simulation which seems to be challenging another famous experiment of QM
Sensei Posted January 17, 2015 Posted January 17, 2015 The problem with your source is such, it's for Unix/Linux, not for Windows.. So we can't compile and see how it's working. It would be easier if you would include Windows compatible version..
z3rg Posted January 18, 2015 Author Posted January 18, 2015 you cannot just assume a congurence between quantum mechanical systems and their classical counterparts Backward causality is not classical solution. Nothing wrong with the Bell inequality It would be easier if you would include Windows compatible version.. Sorry I will not use windows again. But you have time friends and internet. Do some work for truth. You have one life.
swansont Posted January 18, 2015 Posted January 18, 2015 Backward causality is not classical solution. Nothing wrong with the Bell inequality Sorry I will not use windows again. But you have time friends and internet. Do some work for truth. You have one life. It's your claim, so you own the burden of proof.
imatfaal Posted January 18, 2015 Posted January 18, 2015 Third time lucky - how do you simulate entanglement? Your first attempt at an answer was a hand wave at a video and a one line quote, the second attempt mentioned malus' law (intensity of light is not exactly quantum - we want probability) and the correct probability that one linearly polarized photon will pass through a polarizer at an angle; but neither of these come even close to answering the question of how you simulated entanglement. So I will ask a third time - how did you simulate entanglement? BTW - you are not allowed to just dodge questions and continue to soapbox.
Mordred Posted January 18, 2015 Posted January 18, 2015 Imatfall you were looking for Dr Chinese website. http://www.drchinese.com/Bells_Theorem.htm Good reference site covering Bells theorem 1
Sensei Posted January 18, 2015 Posted January 18, 2015 (edited) Sorry I will not use windows again. But you have time friends and internet. Do some work for truth. You have one life. Nobody is forcing you to switch to Windows entirely. But you have to provide Windows compatible version of your source code, otherwise it's useless to people reading this thread. We have no idea what your code is generating! It's kinda like you would wrote nothing. Edited January 18, 2015 by Sensei
Strange Posted January 18, 2015 Posted January 18, 2015 But you have to provide Windows compatible version of your source code, otherwise it's useless to people reading this thread. Speak for yourself! It's kinda like you would wrote nothing. That I can agree with.
Sensei Posted January 19, 2015 Posted January 19, 2015 Speak for yourself! Did you bothered compiling it on Linux to see how it's working.. ? I don't think so. Otherwise, you would not write this: "Do you expect us to reverse-engineer your code, or are you going to explain it?"
Strange Posted January 19, 2015 Posted January 19, 2015 Did you bothered compiling it on Linux to see how it's working.. ? No. But I could. It would still be useless without some explanation which is why I won't.
z3rg Posted January 19, 2015 Author Posted January 19, 2015 But you have to provide Windows compatible version of your source code, otherwise it's useless to people reading this thread. Oke not matter. It is only a crackpot from who can not speak right in this language. Forget all.
Recommended Posts