Bell's theorem: spooky lucky streaks?!

Betting red or black on a roulette is based on 50% chances of wining each bet, which is not true for a lottery.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

False. That is one possible explanation of the observations, but it would require that the "interaction" take place faster than the speed of light allows - no one has yet described how that could happen.

There is no such thing as classical probability. Both quantum theory and classical physics use the mathematics of probability, with the difference here that quantum theory yields accurate predictions of observations and classical physics - using the same mathematics of probability - does not.

False.

Our main disagreement is that you think your imaginary experiment as modeled on your computer is capable of testing or exemplifying Bell's Theorem. You have not yet read up on Bell's Theorem, obviously: nothing you have posted here has anything much to do with it.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

That is the only QM explanation, it's what Bell's theorem and quantum non-locality is all about.

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

Classical physics clearly does predict it, as is demonstrated by the algorithm in the OP, which is classical physics simulation replicating mechanics of the experiment and process of obtaining measurement data, as well as replicating the method of obtaining results by using the same equations used in actual experiments.

Both my probability equation and classical physics simulation of the experiment prove quantum non-locality and Bell's theorem wrong. They can obtain correct results by only considering local interaction between photons and polarizers, thus demonstrating that supposed interaction over distance between entangled photons themselves was simply a misinterpretation of the experimental data.

My experiment is not imaginary, it's a classic from the text-books.

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

 

If you read the link I provided you, you will be informed of at least two other potential QED explanations - not counting the work of David Bohm and similar avenues of possibility.

No, they don't. The experiment you have simulated is not capable of testing Bell's Theorem, and you have built your correlation results into the protocol, rendering them meaningless anyway.

In addition, showing violation of Bell's Inequality indicates that QED is right, not wrong.

Read this, from your link, for example:

You have not simulated that.

Or better, read the link I provided for you. It's likely to be less confusing than all this stuff about cosines and naive calculations of probabilities.

 

I'm talking about Bell's theorem and quantum non-locality.

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

As demonstrated, they obviously do The purpose of the experiment I am talking about and which I simulated is designed to test Bell's theorem, so of course it is capable to do so.

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

http://www.askamathematician.com/20...-god-really-does-play-dice-with-the-universe/

Not if done by classical physics and local variables, in which case it directly proves Bell's theorem and quantum non-locality is wrong.

0 deg. relative angle:
Relative angle per polarizer (0,0) = (A-B)/2, (B-A)/2 = (0,0)
Malus's law probability per one polarizer = cos(0)*cos(0) = 1.0
- classical probability solution ->
Coin 1 vs Coin 2 = 1.0 : 0.0 vs 1.0 : 0.0
Chance of MATCH: (H1&H2 | T1&T2) = (1.0 * 1.0) + (0.0 * 0.0) = 1.0
Chance of MSMCH: (T1&H2 | H1&T2) = (0.0 * 1.0) + (1.0 * 0.0) = 0.0
Correlation = MATCH - MSMCH = 1.0 - 0.0 = 1.0
Discordance = 1 - correlation = 0.0 = 0%


22.5 deg. relative angle:
Relative angle per polarizer (+22.5,0) = (A-B)/2, (B-A)/2 = (+11.25,-11.25)
Malus's law probability per one polarizer = cos(22.5)*cos(22.5) = 0.962
- classical probability solution ->
Coin 1 vs Coin 2 = 0.962 : 0.038 vs 0.962 : 0.038
Chance of MATCH: (H1&H2 | T1&T2) = (0.962 * 0.962) + (0.038 * 0.038) = 0.927
Chance of MSMCH: (T1&H2 | H1&T2) = (0.038 * 0.962) + (0.962 * 0.038) = 0.073
Correlation = MATCH - MSMCH = 0.927 - 0.073 = 0.854
Discordance = 1 - correlation = 0.146 = 15%


45 deg. relative angle:
Relative angle per polarizer (+45,0) = (A-B)/2, (B-A)/2 = (+22.5,-22.5)
Malus's law probability per one polarizer = cos(22.5)*cos(22.5) = 0.8536
- classical probability solution ->
Coin 1 vs Coin 2 = 0.8536 : 0.1464 vs 0.8536 : 0.1464
Chance of MATCH: (H1&H2 | T1&T2) = (0.8536 * 0.8536) + (0.1464 * 0.1464) = 0.75
Chance of MSMCH: (T1&H2 | H1&T2) = (0.1464 * 0.8536) + (0.8536 * 0.1464) = 0.25
Correlation = MATCH - MSMCH = 0.75 - 0.25 = 0.5
Discordance = 1 - correlation = 0.5 = 50%


67.5 deg. relative angle:
Relative angle per polarizer (+67.5,0) = (A-B)/2, (B-A)/2 = (+33.75,-33.75)
Malus's law probability per one polarizer = cos(22.5)*cos(22.5) = 0.691
- classical probability solution ->
Coin 1 vs Coin 2 = 0.691 : 0.309 vs 0.691 : 0.309
Chance of MATCH: (H1&H2 | T1&T2) = (0.691 * 0.691) + (0.309 * 0.309) = 0.573
Chance of MSMCH: (T1&H2 | H1&T2) = (0.309 * 0.691) + (0.691 * 0.309) = 0.427
Correlation = MATCH - MSMCH = 0.573 - 0.427 = 0.146
Discordance = 1 - correlation = 0.854 = 85%

 

You are confused about Bell's Inequality - why are you refusing to read the link I provided?

Classical physical phenomena never violate Bell's Inequality. They can't.

Your simulation is incapable of detecting violations of Bell's Inequality, and in fact produces no meaningful results at all (unless you are checking your random number generator for gross flaws). All it does is demonstrate agreement between two slightly different methods of getting your computer to generate a preselected percentage.

 

Is tossing two coins classical physical phenomena?

Is a photon passing through or being stopped by a polarizer classical physical phenomena?

 

Depends on how they are described - I would recommend classical physics for the coins, and your choice depending on purpose for the photons.

Have you read the link yet? Do you have questions about it?

 

Choice depending on purpose for the photons? The "purpose" of the photons is to travel from the emitter through the polarizer and if manage to pass through be registered at the photo detector. Is this probability of photons passing through the polarizer (Malus's law) classical physics phenomena?

I don't have any questions other than for you to clarify the things you say. I am saying that I understand what is actually happening in quantum entanglement experiments and that it is not quantum non-local phenomena, but classical physics and local probability phenomena. I think you should be asking questions and I am supposed to be able to explain.

 

http://www.peter.ca/article9.7.html
"This is because the probability of passing though polarizer-B is proportional to cos2(900) which works out to be equal to zero. This formula - cos2(theta0) is a shortened version of Malus’s law, the full version of which which states that when a beam of plane-polarized light of intensity X, produced by a polarizer falls on detector, the intensity Y of the transmitted beam varies as the square of the cosine of the angle between the two planes of transmission. Quantum mechanics suggests that the observed yield depends only upon the relative angle between the two main axes of the polarizer, which for ideal (theoretical only) filters gives a normalized angular dependence of cos2(theta0).
In other words, when detector-A is triggered by a photon, we know that since polarizer-A was at 90 degrees photon-A must also have also been at or close to 90 degrees. And since photons A and B are from the same atom and therefore of the same polarisation photon-B must also be polarized at 90 degrees. As a result proton-B cannot penetrate polarizer-B. This has been experimentally verified – no photons are detected in the real world at detector-B but are detected at detector-A when polarizer-A is set to 90 degrees relative to polariser-B. (Actually, this is not quite what happens. In the real world one is dealing with many measurements over millions of photons over time and drawing a statistical conclusion, as well as imperfect polarizers, imperfect radiant sources, imperfect dark rooms, some doubts about the applicability of Malus’s law, and the imperfect-by-definition graduate students performing the measurements. So some photons do get through to detector-B. But only a small number relative to those at detector-A.)"
_______________________
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/phyopt/polcross.html
"The Law of Malus gives the transmitted intensity through two ideal polarizers. Note that it gives zero intensity for crossed polarizers. Calc "
_______________________
http://www.physforum.com/index.php?showtopic=3310&st=240&
" Malus Law only applies when light passes through TWO SUCCESSIVE linear polarizers.
Hence, the light passing through the second linear polarizer inclined at 45 degree to the x-linear polarizer will have an intensity given by Malus Law as:I[2] = I(1).cos(45 deg)^2"
___________________
http://www.physforum.com/index.php?showtopic=3310
Allot of info here on polarizers ,malus law ..allot to read on ,also did search on two sided silver mirror quantum mechanics lasers and macro qm polarizer physics versus micro,dont know if this will help much..if it does send me some c code on it..

 

This mechanism can be used?

 

All true and in accordance with my equations and everything else I've been saying here.

 

Malus law applies to a single polarizer, therefore it also applies to whatever combination of two or more polarizers.