/sci/ - Science & Math

>its wrong...
>trust me I watched a youtube video
Stop it.

This is malus' law. The intensity was known to follow a cosine distribution classically without controversy for atleast a hundred years before Bell wrongly assumed it was linear.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polarizer

>>11687484

There's also the fact that I have a master's degree in material science and studied quantum mechanics at the graduate level at university

>>11687504
My dad works for nintendo.

>>11687468
The linear graph is a correction made to the (semi)classical picture by demanding perfect transmittance correlation when parallel, and perfect transmittance anticorrelation when orthogonal. In fact a true (semi)classical picture would not have such perfect correlations and anticorrelations, as one off-angle photon going through a filter could be transmitted, while another at the same angle in the same filter could be absorbed.
No classical or semi classical picture can replicate the results without nonlocal hidden variables, due to the basic statistical analysis of pairs of events.

>>11687518
>My dad works for nintendo

Fuck you. I was accused of not having credentials to address this issue. I do have the credentials. Eat shit.

These threads are getting incredibly formulaic.

>>11687520
>No classical or semi classical picture can replicate the results without nonlocal hidden variables, due to the basic statistical analysis of pairs of events.

The classical result is the quantum result

>>11687526
>These threads are getting incredibly formulaic

And your breath smells

>>11687530
Wrong. The classical model presumes local hidden variables. If the photons are created with these local hidden variables determined, then certain pairs of detector events must follow Bell's inequalities. These inequalities are violated.

>>11687535
>Wrong. The classical model presumes local hidden variables

Dude, I heard you regurgitate the dogma the first time. You admitted the classic case is misrepresented. I encourage you to follow through and find out what the classical case would predict, then compare it to the experimental results. They are the same

>>11687468
>>>/x/

>>11687468
Watch this video starting at 8:50 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sAXxSKifgtU
Followed by this video
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8UxYKN1q5sI
For a much better explanation.

>>11687549

I already watched them. They make the same mistake. They assume classically the light intensity is a linear function of Angle. It's not. No one ever thought that except Bell .

>>11687546
Classically, the results of one photon passing through two filters is not the same as two photons passing through one of the filters each. But in quantum mechanics the correlations are the same. Just think about this for a few seconds: classically, whether or not one photon makes it though one filter should not affect the odds of the other photon making it through the other filter. It's truly remarkable that your ""graduate QM education"" did not teach this to you.

>>11687552
He doesn't, retard. Go to 12:45 in the first video. That basic event-counting argument doesn't depend on a linear relationship. It's a requirement of predetermined variables.

>>11687557
>Classically, the results of one photon passing through two filters is not the same as two photons passing through one of the filters each

Can you prove this? You forget to mention you start out with anti-parallel polarizations, in which case I still don't see the results being linear with respect to angle

>>11687562
Again, I don't know how else to stress this to you: the linear plot is just one possible semiclassical prediction. It is not essential to Bell's argument. Bell's argument is the event-counting argument at 12:45.

>>11687563
For a better timestamp for the start of the argument, go to 10:30.

>>11687468
Pro-tip: Bell's theorem is about probabilities of binary measurements. Intensity of classical waves is a non-sequitur.

>>11687563
>I don't know how else to stress this to you: the linear plot is just one possible semiclassical prediction

But it's not. That's my point. That's not what would be expected classically. It's being misrepresented. Take the time to derive the real classical prediction. You'll find it matches experiment

>>11687568
>Pro-tip: Bell's theorem is about probabilities of binary measurements. Intensity of classical waves is a non-sequitur.

Ok. That may be true, but the classical prediction still matches experimental results

>>11687574
Then write a classical strategy that wins the CHSH game, if you're so sure you understand it.

>>11687574
Whatever you're calling "the classical result" - which cannot be truly classical because classical electromagnetism does not have discrete photons - cannot have local variables by Bell's argument. For the love of Christ watch the video from 10:30, or you're never going to learn what Bell's argument actually is.

>>11687578

You are Changing the subject. I'm talking about Bells theorem and how it applies to polarizers and how classical physics explains the experimental results perfectly.

>>11687577
The classical prediction you're talking about, of the intensity of light through a polarizer, is 100% irrelevant to the probability of coincidences in a local realistic classical model.

>>11687586
>You are Changing the subject.
The first two words of the first sentence of the OP are "Bells theorem", and somehow the CHSH game is changing the subject?
>I'm talking about Bells theorem and how it applies to polarizers and how classical physics explains the experimental results perfectly.
Bell's theorem applies to coincidence measurements of entangled particles, not to a single beam of light going through a polarizer.

>>11687586
It makes literally no difference what particular classical model you use to derive a prediction of the correlations. The end result is the same: the experimental result directly contradicts the presumption of local determined variables.

>>11687588
>The classical prediction you're talking about, of the intensity of light through a polarizer, is 100% irrelevant to the probability of coincidences in a local realistic classical model

Don't be so fucking dense. Normalized intensity and probability of transmission is a red herring. Like I keep saying. Tell me how the classical prediction deviates from experimental result, when classical physics is applied correctly.

>>11687595
>The end result is the same: the experimental result directly contradicts the presumption of local determined variables.

No it doesn't, because the classical results are the experimental results.

>>11687599
Okay, read very carefully. Malus's law is not even plotting the same quantity as the image in the OP. Malus's law is how much of a beam of light passes through a polarizer. The image in the OP is correlations between entangled pairs. Malus's law is not the classical prediction for correlations of entangled pairs.

>>11687604
Missing the point again. If the classical prediction matches the experimental results, then the classical theory NECESSARILY is not both local and deterministic. This is what Bell's argument demonstrates. If the classical result matches the experiments, as you say, then it CANNOT have local determined variables.

>>11687611
>Malus's law is not the classical prediction for correlations of entangled pairs.

Explain why it isn't. You've got anti-parallel light going through polarizers, so classically you get cosines. Where is the problem?

>>11687614
>classical theory NECESSARILY is not both local and deterministic.

Classical physics is deterministic.

>>11687617
Then it can't be local, by Bell's argument. But it is, reaching a contradiction. So classical physics is inconsistent when applied to entangled photons.

>>11687616
Let's pretend for sake of discussion we're applying Malus's law to a single photon.

In Malus's law, theta is the angle between the photon's polarization axis and the single polarizer's axis.

For Bell-type correlations, there are two photons, and we're measuring both of their polarizations. Theta is the angle between the two polarizers we use. Notice how that's not the same thing as the angle between a polarizer and the photon's polarization axis.

>>11687623
>Then it can't be local

Why would you say that?

>>11687521
So do I.

>>11687644
>For Bell-type correlations, there are two photons, and we're measuring both of their polarizations. Theta is the angle between the two polarizers we use. Notice how that's not the same thing as the angle between a polarizer and the photon's polarization axis

But it is the same thing

How many times a weak is an anon on /sci/ going to claim he personally has disproven a well regarded theory, interpretation, law, or field? We’ve got this guy, “humans are programs and can spot any non looping program, turing btfo” and of course “meditating on the wave function in a double slit experiment affects it meaning that consciousness is essential for collapsing it” Are any of them going to submit their supposed proof for peer review or conduct any experimentations?
What’s next anyway? Thermodynamics?

>>11687654

This is utterly useless.

>>11687648
Because you said it's deterministic. According to Bell's theorem, any theory that matches the experimental outcomes cannot consistently have local determinism.

>>11687652
"The angle between two polarizers" is not "the angle between a photon and its polarizer". This is basic language comprehension.

>>11687658
>Because you said it's deterministic. According to Bell's theorem, any theory that matches the experimental outcomes cannot consistently have local determinism

I don't actually want to get hung up on this quantum voodoo. My statement in the op is all I'm interested in. There is no real mystery to results of light transmitting through a series of polarizers. There is no reason to invent a bunch of bullshit to explain it. It was described classically a hundred years previously.

OP BTFO

/thread

>>11687662
>The angle between two polarizers" is not "the angle between a photon and its polarizer".

Explain Why the plurality of photons and polarizers in parallel is relevant.

>>11687657

I mean that kind of shit happens here a lot, and it's really annoying. To your credit this is probably the least retarded discussion about a controversy I've seen here in a long time because at least the person arguing against this has some level of experience in the topic, although I have no reason to suspect they're correct. To say "Quantum mechanics is wrong" as a blanket statement in a clickbait title is stupid and crock-level but at least he had some level of argumentation, even it it seems to be sourced from misunderstanding a concept.

>>11687652
Factually incorrect.

We have one photon with a polarization angle x going through a polarizer aligned with an angle y. We have another photon with a polarization angle of A, with an unspecified relationship to x for now, going through a polarizer aligned with an angle B. If you wanted to apply Malus's law twice, the relevant angles are (A-B) and (x-y). The angle between the polarizers is (B-y).

>>11687667
If you're going to completely ignore what I'm saying, then there's no point having this argument. Read over this sentence and think about it carefully:
>Any theory that matches the experimental outcomes cannot consistently have local determinism.
I am not telling you that a (misapplied) classical model can't replicate the experimental results. Let's concede for the sake of argument that classical physics replicates the experiments. There. Done. We're past that now. You can stop saying that classical physics explains the results, because it does. Now let's logically move forward from this point. Bell's theorem shows that any theory that matches the observed correlations (which, in our argument, includes classical physics) cannot consistently be both local and deterministic. Since we presume that the classical theory is local and deterministic, we have reached a contradiction. Ergo, classical reasoning cannot consistently be applied to entangled pairs.

>>11687681

I thought you said they were anti-parallel. What happened to that?

>>11687686

Sorry, this is just word salad. I just can't be arsed to parse all this piled up bullshit.

>>11687691
1. That wasn't me
2. Go ahead and plug in whatever polarization angles x and A you want. It doesn't change the fact that (A-B) and (x-y) are not the same as (B-y).

>>11687548
Lmao based quantum skeptic

>>11687700

But I thought the photons were anti-parallel too. Why did you change that?

>>11687697
a implies not(b and c)
a is true
Therefore (b and c) is false

Is that simple enough for you?
a = theory matches the experiment
b = theory is deterministic
c = theory is local

>>11687705
>But I thought the photons were anti-parallel too.
Did you miss the part where I said that wasn't me that said that?

I'm just setting up a geometry problem. I don't particularly care what Bell state we're looking at. I just gave a classical setup with two beams of light which I'm calling photons for sake of argument.

OP really BTFO

/thread

>>11687711

I just don't care.

>>11687733
>I have a master's degree in material science and studied quantum mechanics at the graduate level at university

>>11687716
>Did you miss the part where I said that wasn't me that said that?

Even if you said it or not. I'm sure it was part of the thought experiment. You must assume the photons are anti-parallel. I'm creating a relationship between the classical and quantum systems. If you invent a third system that's not relevant to the discussion.

>>11687736

I did. But I can't be arsed to review all of it here. Try staying on topic.

>>11687740
>"Try staying on topic."
>Topic is boiled down to its essence and spoonfed
>"I just don't care."
Ok.

>>11687740
OP if you really believe you're right then make a video explaining your math and then how it matches up to experiments. It wont take you that long to do and then you'll become world famous and win the nobel and etc. etc.

>>11687757
Even if OP had such a theory, it couldn't be consistently local and deterministic due to Bell's theorem

Everyone's getting lost here. I just want to talk about one thing. You see the picture? In that picture the classical prediction is wrongly assumed to be 75% . Using malus' law it's 85%. 85% is presented in the video in the op to be so strange that is requires quantum bullshit to explain. I'm saying that's not true.

BTW this is a legit YouTube video produce by academics. I not only see this error in this video. I see it in the Wikipedia article and other scholarly presentations.

>>11687737
I don't have to do shit. See my point 2: no matter the relationship between the polarization angles A and x, (A-B) and (x-y) are not the same as (B-y). Go ahead, try it. Try A=x+pi, try A=x, try A=x+pi/2, try whatever you want, the simple geometric fact that the angles are not the same won't change.

>>11687763
"I keep applying Malus's law even though people keep telling me it's not the same thing and this proves other people are making the mistakes.

>>11687752

Good . Fuck off. I don't need your jargon regurgitation

>>11687763
The 75% is not part of Bell's theorem. Watch this video from the 10:30 mark:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sAXxSKifgtU

>>11687768
>keep applying Malus's law even though people keep telling me it's not the same thing and this proves other people are making the mistakes.

Stop getting wrapped around the axle. Relative intensity and probability of transmission aren't two different things. I find it difficult to believe you honestly can't see the connection.

>>11687740
>I did
( X )

>>11687771
>The 75% is not part of Bell's theorem.

I realize that, but the erroneous 75% is used to disprove the classical physics prediction. The problem is no classical physicists would ever predict 75%. It's a straw man, and it's being used to justify inventing something that isn't necessary to describe experimental results

>>11687772
lmao just look at the angles
>>11687766

And try reading the caption on the wikipedia page about how the red curve from the OP is the "best possible local realist imitation for the quantum correlation of two spins in the singlet state (blue), insisting on perfect anti-correlation at zero degrees, perfect correlation at 180 degrees." Notice how it never says it's the prediction of classical E&M but of a local hidden variables theory.

>>11687776
>the erroneous 75%
Nobody has ever argued that that's the prediction of classical electrodynamics. Not Bell, not anyone in this thread.

>>11687776
>the erroneous 75% is used to disprove the classical physics prediction.
No, this is not what ultimately disproves the classical model. The minutephysics video is a popsci video that misrepresents key aspects of Bell's theorem.

>>11687780
>Nobody has ever argued that that's the prediction of classical electrodynamics

They are arguing that in the video and then in other videos I saw and in the Wikipedia article. It's being argued that the cosine function is some mysterious counterintuitive result that flies in the face if classical physics.

>>11687787
It's not the cosine result. It's the implication of the cosine result for local determinism.

>>11687787
>They are arguing that in the video and then in other videos I saw and in the Wikipedia article. It's being argued that the cosine function is some mysterious counterintuitive result that flies in the face if classical physics.
No, it's being argued that the line is the best possible local hidden variables classical prediction. If you actually do the classical E&M calculation, you'll see that no matter the polarizations you can't get the perfect correlation and anti-correlation for all polarizer angles. That'd make for a strictly worse comparison than the line, the best possible local hidden variables model, would.

>>11687787
Actually, and I should have objected to this a lot sooner, but you keep comparing the spin 1/2 singlet correlations to photon correlations. Your arguments would still be wrong if you were making the right comparison, but arguing with the wrong example is starting to get annoying.

>>11687484
Kek

>>11687521
>Eat shit.
Impressive, did you quote that from your PhD?

>>11687521
You posted a youtube video, that means you have no credentials.

>>11687797
>No, it's being argued that the line is the best possible local hidden variables classical prediction.

Ok. That's still wrong. The classical results are the experimental results .

>>11687803
>Actually, and I should have objected to this a lot sooner, but you keep comparing the spin 1/2 singlet correlations to photon correlations.

Off topic. I'm discussing light intensity through series of polarizers, and how the classical prediction is being misrepresented.

>>11688771
>The classical results are the experimental results
Prove it. Stop talking faggot shit on this forum, spend the 1-3 hours it takes to draw up your math and the schematic of the logic, and prove it.

>>11688670
>You posted a youtube video, that means you have no credentials

You posted nothing, so you are an omega semi-moron.

>>11688773
>Prove it. Stop talking faggot shit on this forum, spend the 1-3 hours it takes to draw up your math and the schematic of the logic, and prove it.

I did. Look at the picture. They mistakenly guess 75% would be the classic prediction. I gave you the cos(angle)^2 formula which actually predicts 85% which is tge experimental result. What have you demonstrated?

>>11688773
It's really fucking simple take these numbers from here

>>11687763

And plug them into here

>>11687501

The classical prediction marches the experimental results. This isn't that complicated. The point is the classical results were never linear as all the quantum physicists insist. It was never 75%. From the op picture too. The classical results were never straight lines.

>>11687521
Prove that you have credentials.

>>11687586
>You are Changing the
Uh oh, here comes the schizo capitalization.

>>11687468
Check out the original Bell paper about his theorem before saying "what he was saying".
Those things you are pointing out that are wrong are nowhere to be found in his work. They are made up either by these from yt or someone else.

https://cds.cern.ch/record/111654/files/vol1p195-200_001.pdf

>>11688775
I merely pointed out that you don't actually have an argument, which is highest tier argument possible.

>>11688791
>Prove that you have credentials

Go fuck yourself.

>>11688808
>Check out the original Bell paper about his theorem before saying "what he was saying".
>Those things you are pointing out that are wrong are nowhere to be found in his work. They are made up either by these from yt or someone else.

I agree. Now explain why every physicist who presents the necessity for quantum mechanics when presenting the classical case, presents it wrong

>>11688837
Prove that I haven't already.

>>11688844
>>>/x/

>>11688834
>I merely pointed out that you don't actually have an argument

You did much less than you give yourself credit for retard

>>11688846

Give me a fucking break. If you can't follow simple discussions about polarizers and apply trig formulas to confirm I'm right you are pretty dense.

>>11688778
>I did. Look at the picture
No you didnt.
Draw out a schematic of the experiment AND all the math in the classical case WITH a thorough explanation walking through the math and the experiment telling how the classical case can completely describe the experiment.

>>11688852
See I refute the center point of your argument with one line of post, you call me names in response.

>>11688859
>Draw out a schematic of the experiment AND all the math in the classical case WITH a thorough explanation

I'm doing exactly what's in the video in the op. The only difference is in not retarded and Know classical physics so I'm appropriately applying malus' law instead of assuming the light intensity is linear with angle. How hard is this to follow?

>>11688860
>See I refute the center point of your argument

Keep dreaming, tard. You haven't said shit

>>11688873
>if I doublr down it will make it better
heh

Ironically, you think im a crack pot, but if you actually look through the comments you'll see others have pointed out the error.

>>11688857
>If you can't follow simple discussions about polarizers and apply trig formulas you are pretty dense.
You’re certainly right about that much

Let's step through this really obviously.

X is the quantum physicists classical number

Y is the quantum number

Z is the real classical number given by malus' law


W is experiment

Angle X Y Z. W
0. 1 1. 1. 1
22.5. 0.75. 0.85. 0.85. 0.85
45. 0.5. 0.5. 0.5. 0.5

Then the quantum physicist steps back says "see local entangled hidden couplets information wave packets do exceed the speed of light! This is so mysterious!". My reply is "no! It's just what someone who understands classical physics would expect!"

>>11687468
Don't you need Bells theorem to explain Malus law? Malus law is the macroscopic observation and photon polarisation is the microscopic explanation

>>11689094
>>>/x/

>>11689097
>Don't you need Bells theorem to explain Malus law

No. Malus's law predates the Bell theorem by a few hundred years. There was no controversy regarding it until quantum physicists started talking about polarizers in terms of quantum strangeness, which can be attributed to their own ignorance.

>>11689101

I just laid out what was in the YouTube video that was produce by a couple Ph.ds. I just added a column showing the results with malus's law. Other people in the comments section noticed this too. If you still can't see the issue you are retarded

I don't have the patience to parse all the QM jargon, but if you're interested you can read

Disentangling Entanglement by Anthony Crofts.

He goes over what I'm saying with extreme verbosity.

>>11688772
The graph in the OP is for the spin 1/2 case. It is in no way off-topic to point out that you've been comparing the wrong case from the beginning.

>>11689230
>The graph in the OP is for the spin 1/2 case. It is in no way off-topic to point out that you've been comparing the wrong case from the beginning.

Ok. Fine. Tell me how the classical curve is linear, given that such a distribution violates conservation?

>>11689128
Newton's laws predate GR, your point being?
Malus law is the observed phenomena, 'statistical law', it doesn't explain how polarisation works on a single photon level

>>11689243
>Tell me how the classical curve is linear
Let me redirect you to what's already been said:
>>11687780
>>11687778

>>11689248

Neat analogy. But it's not apt. There are things that Newtonian mechanics can't predict, such as the orbit of mercury to as fine a degree as general relatively. So therefore general relativity is correct. The problem here is that quantum mechanics doesn't tell us more about polarizers than we already knew, since when classical physics is applied correctly it explains all observed phenomena

>>11689255

These responses are incorrect. They try to argue that classical physics is being applied correctly, which it is not .

>>11689274
No, they're not. You just don't understand what I'm saying. The linear curve has never been claimed to be the classical EM prediction, and you have zero evidence to back up your claim that it is. The claim has always that it's the best local hidden variables model that can reproduce the perfect correlation and perfect anticorrelation at the appropriate angles.

You continue passing off the Malus's law prediction as if it's the classical EM prediction. You still haven't actually looked at the angles of the classical case and realized that they're totally not the same: >>11687681

Now, tell me, what polarization angles x and A, or probability distribution over them, can you choose such that if the polarizer angles y and B are equal, a photon passing through the first polarizer implies a 100% chance of a photon passing through the second polarizer? I'll wait.

>>11689301
>The claim has always that it's the best local hidden variables model

But it's not. No classical ( local hidden variable) model will give you straight lines. Straight lines violates conservation . It's not the best , because it's aphysical.

>>11689327
Conservation of what? You realize Bell's theorem is just about sets of two-outcome measurements, right? It doesn't matter if it's angular momentum or anything else.

>>11689348
>Conservation of what?

Energy.

>>11689352
In what way do straight lines violate energy conservation? All of the states could be the same energy for all we care.

>>11689360

Why did Bell’s ‘local realistic’ model fail? It is clear from the above discussion that the
failure could be accounted for simply by the fact that it could not implement the conservation
laws in the vectorial form appropriate to the measurement context. The difference is in the use of
the Pauli principle, and a vectorial representation of orientational possibilities in the quantum
mechanical case, but not in the ‘local realistic’ case. In the predictive sense, the quantum
mechanical treatment gives the experimental result, but the local realistic treatment never could.
The vectorial description allows for calculation of realistic expectations for outcomes measured
using vectorial selection, - the distribution of Heisenberg’s potentialities (1). In this sense, the
predictive success depends on the non-local, indeterminate, common wavefunction through
which the properties are expressed. However, potentialities are not the same as actualities; -
despite Shimony’s prima facie claim, there is nothing in the treatment that precludes the
possibility that the physical state of each pair is that of two complementary but discrete entities.
The orthogonal correlations through which conservation of angular momentum is expressed are
common to both treatments, and both apply conservation of entities.

>>11689370
None of this is relevant to the claim of conservation of energy issues, or to the straight line curve as the best local hidden variables model, or to what the classical EM prediction would be.

>>11689385

I'm truly sorry, but you don't have an IQ high enough to continue this discussion

>>11689398
No, you're actually just posting the nonsensical ramblings of someone who doesn't know what they're talking about.

>>11689352
Wowza, that's unfortunate. You could've at least gone with total angular momentum

>>11689416
>No, you're actually just posting the nonsensical ramblings of someone who doesn't know what they're talking about

Listen. I understand what you are saying. You're asking me to spoon-feed you every step in predicting the classical outcome. I just don't feel like doing it. You can do it yourself of take my word for it that it would never be linear. I've given you great hints. I told you the function for transmission is a cosine and what transmits and is absorbed must obey conservation. You're just going to have to do the reminder by yourself.

>>11689269
Let's back it up a little bit. You agree that a light is both a wave and a particle right?

>>11689435

Looking back. You are correct. Angular momentum is not being conserved in the erroneous classical case.

>>11689440

As a consolation you can read the paper I provided. Anthony Crofts goes into extreme detail about how you setup the classical systems appropriately.

Imagine two polarizers on opposite sides of the entangled photon source. Given an angle theta, define three possible settings for each polarizer: setting A, at angle 0 relative to some reference axis; setting B, at angle theta; and setting C, at angle 2*theta.
Now, if the detectors are set with one A and one B, experimentally the probability that one photon will transmit at A and the other absorb at B is sin^2(theta)/2. Call this "A(B!)" for "pass A, fail B"
Likewise, the probability of B(C!) is sin^2(theta)/2, since the angle between B and C is the same as the angle between A and B.
The probability of A(C!) is sin^2(2*theta)/2.

Therefore, P(A(B!)) + P(B(C!)) = sin^2(theta)
While P(A(C!) = sin^2(2*theta)/2.
These last two lines are crucial for later, keep them in mind. (1/2)

>>11689440
You know what, I'll do the spoon feeding, since you've refused to actually look at the angles and do the calculation that I've repeatedly asked.
Fig. 3 of https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chemphys.2018.04.001
Here's the actual classical EM prediction, which performs strictly worse than best possible local hidden variables models.

>>11689461
Now, assume local determinism. It is an experimental fact that if one photon passes A, the other will pass A. Also, if one photon fails A, the other will fail A. Likewise for B and C.
Therefore, assuming local determinism, each photon pair is created in a state defined by three binary numbers indicating its determined pass/fail status for A, B, and C. For example, the state "000" denotes (A!)(B!)(C!), the state "011" denotes (A!)BC, etc. If the state "011" passed through settings A and B, we would deterministically have the result (A!)B, and if "011" passed through settings B and C, we have result BC.
If physics were nonlocal, then the pass/fail status for one photon could be changed mid-flight depending on the outcome of the other photon. However, presuming locality, this cannot happen.

Now, we simply list out all possible photon pair states. 000, 001, 010, 011, 100, 101, 110, 111.
A(B!) occurs in 100 and 101.
B(C!) occurs in 010 and 110.
A(C!) occurs in 100 and 110.
Thus, we see that every time A(C!) occurs with a photon pair, either A(B!) or B(C!) would also have hypothetically occurred. By uniformly shuffling the detectors between the possible pairs of states, we therefore statistically expect that P(A(B!)) + P(B(C!)) >= P(A(C!)). This is Bell's inequality.
However, there are ranges of theta where sin^2(theta) < sin^2(2*theta)/2. Thus, P(A(B!)) + P(B(C!)) can be less than P(A(C!)) for entangled photons, violating the assumption of local determinism.

>>11689435
>>11689448
Oh, don't get me wrong, I'm just saying that J sounds more 'plausible' in this context

>>11689470
For this particular setup, we see the violating regions from theta=0 through theta=45 deg, and from theta=135 to theta=180 degrees.

>>11689463

This is going in the right direction atleast. Notice the classical systems isn't linear anymore? This plot contradicts the one in the op that's posted on Wikipedia.

>>11687521
>I have a masters degree in not physics
>I have credentials
>most accurate theory of all time is wrong cuz I say so
Go submit your manuscript already if you’re onto something so earthshattering.
Oh wait, you don’t have a manuscript because you’re a fucking retard shitting up the board with your “expertise”.
Sage

>>11689488
>Go submit your manuscript already if you’re onto something so earthshattering.

No. Many people have already noticed the error and submitted it. It would be redundant.

>>11689493
There. The crux of Bell's theorem in these posts:
>>11689461
>>11689470
>>11689480

>>11689484
>This plot contradicts the one in the op that's posted on Wikipedia.
No, it doesn't. Once again, nobody has ever claimed that the classical EM prediction is linear. The claim has always been that the best a classical local hidden variables model can do is linear. I've posted the caption from the wikipedia page already that explains what the "classical" curve is. Not understanding what the plot shows does not mean the plot is wrong.

>>11689497

Do you agree the YouTube and Wikipedia article don't do the classical subject justice. The classical case would never be linear. Your material shows it's a cosine like I've been saying.

>>11689505
Read the posts.

>>11689498
>No, it doesn't. Once again, nobody has ever claimed that the classical EM prediction is linear.

When you have a curve and it's labeled "classical" how can you come to any other conclusion?

>>11689505
>The classical case would never be linear.

The best a classical local hidden variables model can do is linear. People have constructed local hidden variables models that get this best possible case. Nobody has ever claimed that classical EM prediction is linear. People have correctly claimed that the classical EM prediction does worse than the best possible local hidden variables model. Justice is done.

>>11689505
Both curves in that image are experimental. There is no theoretical "classical case" in that image. Read the posts.

>>11689515
By reading the captions and knowing what a classical model of local hidden variables is. Reading the article would help with that part.

>>11689514

I did. How do you explain this discrepancy between the Wikipedia article and what you posted. Especially when it says

Many other possibilities exist for the classical correlation subject to these side conditions, but all are characterized by sharp peaks at 0, 180, and 360 degrees.

The Wikipedia article indeed presents the red line as a classical solution and asserts all classical solutions will have sharp peaks. How do you explain this discrepancy?

>>11689532
My image does not display any classical case. Both curves in my image are experimental results. Read the posts.

>>11689532
Key part:
>subject to these side conditions
Do you know what these side conditions are? Try reading the area around that. They're "insisting on perfect anti-correlation at 0°, perfect correlation at 180°" Notice that classical EM fails to satisfy the perfect correlation and anti-correlation conditions, albeit at different angles once you finally stop comparing to the spin 1/2 singlet case.

Joining this conversation, maybe you can help me out with this.

Get rid of the first polarizer and replace it with a perfect monochromatic laser with a perfect unitary phase distribution. Call this phase 0 degrees. Shining this laser at a 90 degree polarizer, nothing comes out. Stick a 45 degree polarizer in the center, 50% of the power comes out of the 45 polarizer, then 50% of that power comes out of the 90 polarizer. This is Malus' law applied in the classical case.

If any photons are coming out of the 90 degree polarizer, it means the devices themselves must be interacting with the photons and changing their polarization state. We know this because the laser produces no photons that should be able to cross the 90 polarizer yet (unlike these thought experiments where the light is initially 'unpolarized' and therefore a uniform distribution of all possible phase angles) some clearly do. There is no "photon that could make it through A B and C" because all photons under consideration initially cannot make it through the 90 polarizer due to their origin in the laser.

Is this all based on brainlet tier probabilistic modelling? On what grounds are we assuming the probabilities of passing through detector C doesn't depend on the success or failure of passing through a previous detector? We can't just shuffle uniformly and base an inequality off of the independence if the probabilities aren't independent. In other words, why are we assuming the events of transmission are independently random when observation suggests they are dependently random?

>>11689463

Why does this say "classical' then?>>11689543

Besides that there's alot made of the fact that the quantum prediction has a slope if zero at 0 180 and 360. Your graph has a classical curve, and it's got the same features.

>>11689559
That's not my post. This is one of my posts: >>11689480

>>11689550

So you're saying all these graphs represent nothing relevant? It's just made up nonsense? I'm trying to have a discussion about the treatment of the classical case the quantum case is being compared to. You are proving it not even being realistically considered. Quantum physics looks like it's full of strawman arguments

>>11689559
I will link you my posts again. These three are the posts I made, and they are to be read in order.
>>11689461
>>11689470
>>11689480

>>11689557

I think this is a real problem too. If you look at the quantum mechanical video where they present polarizers like locks and keys you'll realize just how out of touch these Quantum physicists are.

>>11689576
Try actually reading: >>11689518
Classical EM does strictly worse than the linear model which gets perfect correlations and anticorrelations at the proper angles. Classical EM is a non-starter for explaining experimental results because it fails so badly.

>>11689589

Which curve is the classical case?

>>11689557
Because the photons dont sequentially travel through multiple polarizers. Instead, two photons travel in opposite directions, and each goes through one polarizer. Presuming local determinism, the pass/fail result at one polarizer cannot change what the pass/fail result is determined to be for the other photon.

>>11689596
>Classical EM does strictly worse than the linear model which gets perfect correlations and anticorrelations at the proper angles. Classical EM is a non-starter for explaining experimental results because it fails so badly.

But now do you know that if you've never analyzed a real classical system? I've heard your dogma, and I've heard it again and again and again. You're just convincing me quantum physicists can't do and can't understand classical physics.

>>11689597
Neither, they're both experimental results. Read the posts to understand what that graph is showing.

>>11689605
>But now do you know that if you've never analyzed a real classical system?
I posted the plot that showed the analysis of a real classical system, dude.
>>11689463
It's been done. Everybody knows it's been done. It fails really badly, and people wanted to look for local hidden variables alternatives.

>>11689609
>Neither, they're both experimental results. Read the posts to understand what that graph is showing

.then why did you post them? I'm only interested in how quantum physicists treat the classical case. I'm guessing not at all

>>11689619
Read. The. Posts. It disproves local determinism.

>>11689557
Thats the point of Bells laws, they disprove any HVT that is local. What you have described is a non local system. Some physicists believe this (looking at you pilot wavists)

>>11689623
Surely meant realism right

>>11689616
>I posted the plot that showed the analysis of a real classical system, dude.

Ok. I'll look at it.

>>11689632
No, they didnt describe a nonlocal system. They described photons traveling through a sequence of polarizers, which is NOT the experiment that violates local determinism. Bell's theorem regards pairs of photons moving in opposite directions to separate detectors. THAT is the setup for violation of local determinism.

>>11689635
Yes

>>11687468
>arguing with retards on the internet
Just publish a paper if you are sure about it.

>>11689643
Yeah you are right, but the post I was referring described a non local system though

>>11689661
Are you talking about the monochromatic laser post? Because that's perfectly local

>>11689667
Okay misread that one.
>>11689550
Then the success or failure of passing through the previous polariser would be considered as a hidden variable right? "I'm tired and cannot think straight anymore

>>11689685
There is no "previous" polarizer in bell experiments. The photons go through separate polarizers simultaneously

>>11689685
The post asked if photons could 'carry' information about whether they'd passed a polarizer

>>11689696
>>11689709
Meant this

>>11689463

This is definitely what I'm looking for, but why isn't the derivation of the equations shown? They just seem to present them from no where. I gave a paper that shows the classical system gives the experimental result and shows every detail of the derivation and simulation.

>>11689709
Well if the photon doesn't pass it's destroyed, and if the photon passes it exists with polarization aligned with that polarizer. So the photon does carry that information, but it isn't hidden, at least locally.

>>11689720
I'd just like to clarify, to make sure we're on the same page: the photons don't travel through two consecutive polarizers. They don't go through filter A, then continue on to filter B. Instead, two photons go in opposite directions, with one photon only going through A, and the other only through B.
Are we on the same page there?

>>11689771

Read Anthony Crofts paper. Everything is explained. He even gives the source code of the simulation.

>>11689720
The paper you're talking about is by someone who admits to being algebraically challenged. It cheats and reweights the probabilities in order to recreate perfect correlation. Whether the author knows he's cheating or is too algebraically challenged to notice, I don't know or care.

As I've said many times, look at the angles involved. I'll repeat my question from here again: >>11689301
What polarization angles of the photons do you think you can pick so that you'd reproduce perfect correlation when the polarizer angles are equal?

If you just actually, for once, go through the work, you'll see why this can't work with Malus's law. With the knowledge that you need a 50% marginal probability of either photon passing through any polarizer, you'll see that you need a probability mixture over the polarizations. A uniform mixture over polarization angles makes this work. If you also want the best possible correlation, you need the two photons to be identically polarized. These two conditions fail to give perfect correlation. You can do the math yourself and get the exact normalization, it's not hard.

>>11689810
I'd just like a yes or no answer. Are we on the same page there?

>>11689819

If you want to play that game. The paper you presented gas no derivation of the formula or code or even description of code. They just ask you to take their word for it.

>>11689840
Dude, do you not know how to do integrals?
https://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=integral+from+0+to+2+pi+of+cos%28x-a%29%5E2+*+cos%28x-b%29%5E2+%2F+%282+pi%29
Probability of passing through polarizer with angle a time probability of passing through polarizer with angle b averaged over all photon polarizations.

>>11689840
Assume two photons have the same polarization theta, strictly between 0 and 90 degrees, and travel in opposite directions to separate detectors. Both detectors are aligned to 0 degrees. Then by Malus' law, the probability of each individual photon passing through is cos^2(theta). Do you agree or disagree?

>>11689847

Yes. A proper derivation includes more than evaluating an integral.

>>11689856
It's simple probability.

>>11689810
Then take his code and write something to win the CHSH game, already, if you're so sure it doesn't cheat.

>>11689862
>It's simple probability

Explain why they multiplied the two transmission vectors

>>11689890
The pass/fail event through filter A is statistically independent of the pass/fail event of the other photon through filter B.

>>11689890
p(A and B) = p(A) p(B) when A and B are independent. The very basis of all classical local theories is that probabilities in spacially separated areas are independent.

>>11689856
Let me hold your hand through this.

A classical model would have some probability distribution f(x,y) over the polarization angles x and y, okay?

The probability of both photons passing through polarizers with angles a (the one photon with polarization x is going through) and b (one with polarization y) is then
P(a,b) = integral over all x and y of cos^2(x-a) cos^2(y-b) f(x,y)
This is simply from the Malus's law that you've insisted upon.

Now we want to know something about the probability of both photons passing through the polarizers if a = b. Let's look at the average over all a, i.e. integrate a from 0 to 2pi and divide by 2pi.
average over a of P(a,a) = 1/(2pi) integral of a from 0 to 2pi of P(a,a)

Let's do the integral over a but leave the integrals over x and y.

average over a of P(a,a) = integral over all x and y of 1/8 (cos[2(x-y)] + 2) f(x,y)

This is just an average over x and y of 1/8 (cos[2(x-y)] + 2). We can put an upper bound on this of 3/8 since that's as large as 1/8 (cos[2(x-y)] + 2) can be. But we do see that that upper bound is saturated when the probability distribution requires x=y.

See how 3/8 doesn't match the quantum prediction of 1/2, and the classical EM prediction based off Malus's law fails to give perfect correlations?

>>11689910

I thought the two were anti-parallel?

>>11689523
OP eternally BTFO yet the thread keeps going for some inexplicable reason. Perhaps local hidden variables?

>>11690023
I've said multiple times now that you keep conflating the photon case with the spin 1/2 singlet case. I specifically denied ever claiming they were anti-parallel.

>>11690023
What do you mean "antiparallel?" We're talking about photon polarization, not spin 1/2 singlets. There's parallel and orthogonal.

>>11690011

This isn't correct. The intensities shouldn't be multiplied. Multiplication would represent a system where one polarizer is cascaded with the other. That's not the case. For the classical case you must add the intensities.

>>11690185
Probability is literally what Bell's theorem is about. If you're not willing to turn Malus's law into a probabilistic formula for photons, then there is zero way to even make a classical EM prediction for entangled photon pairs.

>>11690185
If you flip two independent coins, the probability of heads and heads is 1/2 * 1/2, not 1/2 + 1/2. I think it's time you dropped the pretense of having a graduate education in quantum mechanics.

>>11690205
My bad, I realize you're not doing quantum mechanics. But the math point stands, and is very basic probability.

>>11687504
Kek, I have a masters in physics and also studied quantum mechanics at the graduate level (as a matter of fact it was one of the main focuses of my masters as my research project required an in-depth understanding of it) and you're wrong

>>11687504
Stuart Bell had a PhD in physics if you wanna play the diploma stacking game

>>11690211
Then how come you think the probability of two heads is 1?

>>11690216
Sorry wrong poster, ignore this

>>11690200
>Probability is literally what Bell's theorem is about. If you're not willing to turn Malus's law into a probabilistic formula for photons, then there is zero way to even make a classical EM prediction for entangled photon pairs.

I realize you must turn light intensity into probably for this to conclude, but the equation you present is the intensity of one polarized photon traveling through two polarizers with different angles. That not the same as two independent photons traveling through their own polarizers

>>11690229
No it isn't. The probability of heads and heads with two independent coins is 1/2 * 1/2. The probability of two independent events occurring is their multiplied probabilities. This is very very basic stuff.

>>11690229
>but the equation you present is the intensity of one polarized photon traveling through two polarizers with different angles.
No, it's the probability of one photon with polarization x passing through a polarizer with angle a times the probability of one photon with polarization y passing through a polarizer with angle b.

>>11690236
>No it isn't. The probability of heads and heads with two independent coins is 1/2 * 1/2. The probability of two independent events occurring is their multiplied probabilities. This is very very basic stuff

But malus's law isn't probably to begin with. I understand you can handle probabilities like that, but malus's law is not a probably if to begin with.

>>11690246
If you're not willing to work with probabilities, then you cannot apply malus's law to photons. It does not apply. You can't have fractional intensity of a single photon. This is why there can be no true "classical" model of photons and polarizers, because classical electromagnetism has no discrete photons. There are only semiclassical models.

>>11690239
>No, it's the probability of one photon with polarization x passing through a polarizer with angle a times the probability of one photon with polarization y passing through a polarizer with angle b.

But it's not

(Cos (x-a)*cos(x-b))^2 is the resulting intensity of a photon with polarization x traveling through a polarizers with angle a then proceeding to pass through a relative angle of x-b. It's not the system described in the paper

>>11690255
A photon doesn't have an intensity. It either exists or doesn't.

>>11690252
>If you're not willing to work with probabilities

I'm not saying I'm unwilling to work with probabilities. I'm saying your probably represent a different system than the one you describe.

>>11690261
>A photon doesn't have an intensity. It either exists or doesn't.

Then why is malus's law. A law for light intensity showing up in probably equations?

>>11690255
>(Cos (x-a)*cos(x-b))^2
Never appeared in my post.

>>11690263
P(A) = cos^2(x-a)
P(B) = cos^2(x-b)
P(A and B) = P(A)*P(B).
Sequential polarizers would be cos^2(x-a)*cos^2(a-b), not cos^2(x-a)*cos^2(x-b).

>>11690270
Because someone has been insisting from the beginning of the thread that Malus's law makes a prediction for classical EM that's identical to the quantum mechanical probabilities.

>>11690270
Because it's a semiclassical extension of classical electromagnetism to photons, and in fact is the correct quantum mechanical formula.

>>11690278
Explained further, Malus's Law really says the ratio of intensities (out over in) is cos^2(theta). It turns out this ratio is equivalent to the probability of a photon making it through at that angle. If that cosine is 50%, then 50% of the power is absorbed in the classical wave sense, and 50% of individual photons fail to pass through in the QM / semiclassical sense.

>>11687504
>has master's degree in MatSci
>ignorant of statistical mechanics
You are either the world's best conman or the world's worst.

>>11687468
im actually not gona watch the youtube video, common

but also: do you know that there are like 20 other things that quantum physics describes accurately, while classical physics is not

>>11690270
>>11689097

>>11689440
You and every other schizo on here always demand people see your way or continue on ignorant. If you were truly right you would prove it and be the next Einstein. But you aren't, you are just a retard.

>>11687484
Kek