/sci/ - Science & Math

>>15103954
>>15103974
simple classical systems violate Bells inequality

>>14558248
QM is just shitty statistics and this thread proves how easy simple questions stump midwits. Pic related.

>>14510039
>explain some system that recreates the experimental findings.
like this? pic related

Anything with quantum in the name.

Pic related

>>12248879
>Also, why do two entangled photons change polarity at the same time even when separated by very long distances?

They don't. Quantum physicists just can't into dependent probability. Pic related.

>>12162779

This can be explained. Classically. Posted.

>>12143655

Quantum mechanics is wrong anyway.

>>12080431

>>12000918

The results of bells experiment can also be explained classically.

>>11918075

Op is right. I posted this derivation and the thread was deleted for being a troll post. My sin I suppose is not believing Bell.

>>11908568
>You seem smart Anon. With this in mind, what are the odds that all so called quantum phenomenon are really the result of botched experimental design and poor modeling

All. Here's a classical derivation for the results of the Bell experiment.

Bell claimed that the failure of semi-classical physics to predict the correlation in his experiment solved the EPR paradox in favor of quantum mechanics. Bell is wrong. Attached is a semi-classical derivation that predicts the results of that experiment exactly.

Bell and his followers error is continually making the fallacy that correlation =causation. A quote from them follows

On the assumption that the experimental settings can be treated as free variables, whose values are determined exogenously, if the choice of setting on one wing is made at spacelike separation from the experiment on the other, a dependence of the probability of the outcome of one experiment on the setting of the other would seem straightforwardly to be an instance of a nonlocal causal influence. The condition that this not occur can be formulated as follows.