/sci/ - Science & Math

>>11732233
You made this thread last week, anon. I'm excited to see you get BTFO again though.

>>11732295
>I'm excited to see you get BTFO again though

Lol. You sound like a spectator. You don't have an IQ high enough to evaluate arguments on your own?

>>11732371
No, I'm a midwit. That's the only reason I entertained your ideas last thread and you failed to deliver.

>>11732394

Failed to deliver what?

>>11732233
how many times are you going to post this? if you have the credentials you claim then stop submitting this to 4chan and get it peer reviewed and published and make $$$ revolutionizing physics.

>>11732428

I did of of course.

They said I'm wrong because I'm contradictory.

This was their response

In the present case, although your findings may well prove stimulating to others thinking about such questions, I regret that, in light of the broader literature confirming the non-classical nature of quantum mechanics, we are unable to conclude that the work provides the sort of firm advance in general understanding that would warrant publication in Nature Physics.

>>11732435

I've a masters degree in material science. I studied quantum physics for years. My focus was on nano technology. I'm not an amateur.

Damn, where'd all the critics go? C'mon. Don't let this slide. Bells theorem is supposed to be THE thing that PROVED quantum mechanics, and disproved classical physics. It's worth discussing.

The validity of determinism, causality, spooky action, depends on this.

>>11732441
then, you suck

>>11732607

It's not my fault so many people were misguided and decided to believe ridiculous stuff like quantum teleportation, Faster than light information travel, spooky motion at a distance. Einstein tried to warm them.

>>11732233
>The light that passes through the polarizer on the right is the subset of unpolarized light that is polarized along b
No. The light is only polarized along b AFTER it goes through the polarizer. The light going through a is not physically affected by the other light going through b. Until it goes through polarizer a, it retains the original polarization that both a and b had upon creation, which was not aligned with b. This was already thoroughly explained in the other thread.

>>11732637
>it retains the original polarization that both a and b had upon creation,
To be clear, here I mean "light beams a and b", or more exactly, "photons a and b"

>>11732637
why do you even bother with this dude?

>>11732233
take your meds schizo

>>11732637
>. The light is only polarized along b AFTER it goes through the polarizer.

You are correct. The light is polarized after it goes through the polarizer. When evaluating conditional probability only this subset of the incident can be considered. That subsets pairs when they travel left creat a polarizer beam to the left . You can't consider the entire unpolarized light beam going left, otherwise that's not conditional on B

>>11732641
>To be clear, here I mean "light beams a and b", or more exactly, "photons a and b"

Whatever floats your boat

>>11732233
i am a fool who has only heard of Bell's theorem. can you give me a rough gist of it? iirc it has to do with (non)locality.... but i've never been able to get it from reading wikis on my own...

>>11732663
>take your meds schizo

Just show me my error.

>>11732683
>i am a fool who has only heard of Bell's theorem. can you give me a rough gist of it? iirc it has to do with (non)locality.... but i've never been able to get it from reading wikis on my own

The gist is quantum correlation is supposed to be higher than classical correlation, because of entanglement.

>>11732694
"higher"? in terms of what? isn't causation "well-defined" in classical physics, and only probabilistic in QM?

>>11732708
>higher"? in terms of what? isn't causation "well-defined" in classical physics, and only probabilistic in QM?

I don't quite understand your question. Correlation has no units. Also I don't understand why you seem to think causation is an analog of probability.

>>11732715
you say quantum correlation is higher than classical correlation. i don't see what you mean by "quantum correlation", "classical correlation", and "higher"; the latter because higher implies a unit of scale / dimension, unless you can clarify what you mean by this

>>11732678
You misunderstand, probably intentionally. Beam a conditioned on b is no different from beam a unconditioned. They have precisely the same polarization. Polarizer b cannot polarize beam a because beam a does not pass through polarizer b.

>>11732233
Write classical code to win the CHSH game with probability larger than 3/4, already.

But let's go over again why you're wrong.

>The light that passes through the polarizer on the right is the subset of unpolarized light that is polarized along b, so B represents polarized light along the angle b.
What B "represents" is an event. What you need to do is establish what initial polarizations make it through the polarizer with what probability. All you've actually said is that the polarization of the outgoing light is along b, which is true but doesn't address the important point.

>Because the same light travels left and right, the same subset can be found in the light traveling to the left. Only this subset of the light travelling left can be considered.
And here's where you use that answer to the wrong question. The "same" light going left and right have the same initial polarizations, but you're taking the outgoing polarization of one light and saying that's the incoming polarization of the other. That's wrong, and once again, that's where you violate causality. That's saying that the polarization of the light on the left changes based off what's going on with the spacially separated polarizer on the right. We've been over this many times.

>The intensity of light polarized along b that passes through a polarizer at angle a is the following, by Malus's law.
> P(A|B) = cos^2 (a - b)
And here is where you make that same error. Interpreting Malus's law as a probability, this is the probability that light polarized along b passes through a polarizer at angle a. But it's NOT the probability of light passing through the polarizer on the left given that the other light passed through the polarizer on the right.

At least you took your negative probabilities from before seriously. But there's no classical probability mixture over initial photon polarizations that can reproduce your claimed probabilities in a causal way.

>>11732725
>; the latter because higher implies a unit of scale / dimension

This is way above what I want to discuss here. Correlation like probability has no units.

>>11732729
>Beam a conditioned on b is no different from beam a unconditioned.

False. When conditioned on B you are only left with polarized light along b. I never said beam a passes through polarizer b. It's conditioning it on B makes it polarized. You are relating bells mistake. Probabilistic dependence does not imply causation.

>>11732734
>What B "represents" is an event. What you need to do is establish what initial polarizations make it through the polarizer with what probability. All you've actually said is that the polarization of the outgoing light is along b, which is true but doesn't address the important point.

The initial angle make it through unchanged orthogonally polarized components are removed

>>11732734
>. The "same" light going left and right have the same initial polarizations, but you're taking the outgoing polarization of one light and saying that's the incoming polarization of the other

You guys keep making Bells mistake. Probabilistic dependence is not causation. I'm not saying it's travels right then left

>>11732739
>I don't understand why you seem to think causation is an analog of probability.
probability distributions only exist in QM i think?; in classical mechanics there is no need for that since light is modled as particles??

>>11732754
This isn't even classically true. If you shine two flashlights through separate polarizers, and set the two polarizers to the same angle, both intensities are cut by the same amount. You're saying that one of the beams would somehow be 100% transmitted, because a portion of the other beam made it through the other polarizer and became polarized along that axis.

>>11732767
>probability distributions only exist in QM i think?; in classical mechanics there is no need for that since light is modled as particles??

I suppose , but this seems like a tangent that I'm not interested in

>>11732762
Yeah and that means, as I said, that the photon that's about to go through the polarizer on the left is not guaranteed to be polarized at angle b. Almost any initial polarization angle could have made it through the polarizer on the right that's set at an angle b, and it's that initial polarization angle that you need to use to calculate the probability of the photon on the left making it through the polarizer.
>>11732766
No, you keep making the same stupid mistake of your last threads.

>>11732769
>because a portion of the other beam made it through the other polarizer and became polarized along that axis.

Jesus Christ you guys are dense. I put it in the OP an have repeated myself many times. Correlation is not causation. I see why Bell is so popular, since his fallacies are so inviting. A probabilistic dependence does not need a causal mechanism. Stop inventing one ! I'm not saying the light on the left first travels through the right polarizer

>>11732772
i just don't see what you mean by "higher correlation" in your earlier post here:
>>11732694
...much less the fact that you can measure it with probabilities!

>>11732783
You put factually incorrect stuff in the OP and act like we're the people who are wrong when we call you on it. You're violating the very principle of local causality with your supposedly classical local theory of EM.

>>11732789
I think this might actually be a troll

>>11732777
>Yeah and that means, as I said, that the photon that's about to go through the polarizer on the left is not guaranteed to be polarized at angle b

You are correct. But that's not the whole story, we are interested in P(A|B). So the pairs of the photons that didn't make it through the right are remove from the sample spacel , leaving an effectively polrized beam, although physically that's not the case

>>11732786
>i just don't see what you mean by "higher correlation" in your earlier post here:

Bigger number is what I mean.

>>11732795
>leaving an effectively polrized beam, although physically that's not the case
In other words, the procedure laid out in the OP is wrong.

>>11732789
>You're violating the very principle of local causality with your supposedly classical local theory of EM

How?

>>11732783
Then how does it become polarized to the same angle midflight? The component of photon a that's orthogonal to polarizer b can't just disappear into thin air. What physically happens to it? By what physical mechanism does photon a's polarization change? Because if polarizer a is set to a 90 degree angle to the initial polarization, it won't get through, but you're saying it can.

>>11732802
>In other words, the procedure laid out in the OP is wrong.

No. I'm not contradicting myself. I never said a beam goes right them left . You guys keep saying that

>>11732807
By definition.

"A theory will be said to be locally causal if the probabilities attached to values of local beables in a space-time region 1 are unaltered by specification of values of local beables in a space-like separated region 2, when what happens in the backward light cone of 1 is already sufficiently specified, for example by a full specification of local beables in a space-time region 3."

In terms of probabilities, P(x1|x2,X3)=P(x1|X3)

>>11732808
>Then how does it become polarized to the same angle midflight?

Stop thinking like that idiot Bell. Do you always assume correlation = causation? I fucking don't, because I'm not an idiot. What causes A and B is C.

>>11732824
See >>11732818

>>11732801
can someone else explain this, or tell me this guy is trolling? if my question is basic, and my questions are not being addressed directly, i dont see how....

>>11732824
Set polarizer a's angle to 90 degrees from the initial polarization. This means the photon cannot get through. Yet if polarizer b is, for instance, at 45 degrees, cos^2(90-45 deg)/2 says it can.

>>11732818
>A theory will be said to be locally causal if the probabilities attached to values of local beables in a space-time region 1 are unaltered by specification of values of local beables in a space-like separated region 2, when what happens in the backward light cone of 1 is already sufficiently specified, for example by a full specification of local beables in a space-time region 3."

I'm not saying A causes B tho. Correlation =/= causation.

>>11732812
You started from an unpolarized beam, where every polarization angle should be equally represented, and you ended with a 50% probability of being completely polarized along a single angle that's determined by something that happens in a spacelike region. As I say, that's acausal.

>>11732833
Again, in terms of probabilities, P(x1|x2,X3)=P(x1|X3)
You explicitly violate that.

>>11732832
>Set polarizer a's angle to 90 degrees from the initial polarization. This means the photon cannot get through. Yet if polarizer b is, for instance, at 45 degrees, cos^2(90-45 deg)/2 says it can.

Yes, I'm saying that. It happens to be an empirical fact, too

>>11732839
>Source: your ass

>>11732834
>that's determined by something that happens in a spacelike region. As I say, that's acausal

No. I'm not saying that. Correlation =/= causation. Events at the polarizer on the left do not effect event at polarizer on the right or vice versa

>>11732839
So you're saying that if polarizer b is taken away, suddenly photons don't get through polarizer a, even though they did before? Which would mean that polarizer b's presence is having a causal influence on whether photon a can get through or can't?

>>11732835
>Again, in terms of probabilities, P(x1|x2,X3)=P(x1|X3)
>You explicitly violate that

I don't understand what this means In The context we are discussing. What is x1 x2 x3?

>>11732842
>>Source: your ass

Google the experiment by alain aspect he did the experiment outlined by bell. It is empirical fact

>>11732843
Again, see >>11732818

>>11732847
x1 is the event in one system, x2 is the event in the other, X3 is sufficient information about the past, e.g. what the actual initial polarizations of the photons were.

>>11732845
>So you're saying that if polarizer b is taken away, suddenly photons don't get through polarizer a, even though they did before? Which would mean that polarizer b's presence is having a causal influence on whether photon a can get through or can't?

No I'm not saying that. What is so difficult to understand here? Probabilistic dependence does not necessitate a causal relationship. Why can't you retards understand this? It's a fact that's hundreds of years old.

>>11732849
Show me a polarized beam whose polarization is changed in vacuum (without a local polarizer) such that it can pass through an orthogonal polarizer (with respect to its initial polarization). You can't.

>>11732853
>g. what the actual initial polarizations of the photons were

What do you mean initial polarization of the photon? Nothing is magically changing orientation after it's emitted from the source

>>11732857
No, you are saying that. If you take away polarizer b, you're left with the single polarizer setup, which has probability cos^2(a). cos^2(90 deg)=0, so somehow taking away polarizer b means photons stop coming through a entirely, in your scenario.

>>11732859
>Show me a polarized beam whose polarization is changed in vacuum (

Jesus fucking Christ. Nothing is being polarized in a vacuum. When did I say it was?

>>11732863
>If you take away polarizer b, you're left with the single polarizer setup, which has probability cos^2(a). cos^2(90 deg)=0

No. I'm not saying this. If you take away and only want to look at the probability of photons getting through the polarizer on the left you'll have 1/2.

>>11732861
What I mean by initial polarizations is that in classical EM, a given wave has an actual polarization, and "unpolarized light" is just a statistical mixture of fixed polarizations.

>>11732867
As soon as you plugged in b for the polarization of the photon on the left.

>>11732870
You're integrating over all angles prematurely. We're discussing the integrand expression, meaning polarizer a has angle a w.r.t. the initial polarization, and polarizer b has angle b w.r.t. the initial polarization.

>>11732871

This is also what I mean.

>>11732875
>As soon as you plugged in b for the polarization of the photon on the left

Correlation =/= causation

Probabilistic dependence is not causation. Why do you keep forcing this?

>>11732885
Yet again, see >>11732818

>>11732877

I'm not discussing that. I noticed they do it like this in the quantum mechanical derivation too. I'm not considering other systems.

>>11732894
For your integral to be correct, the integrand must first be correct for each particular angle you integrate over. So you have to consider your integrand.

>>11732889

Do you understand I'm not saying A causes B or B causes A. What do you mean?

>>11732897
>For your integral to be correct, the integrand must first be correct for each particular angle you integrate over. So you have to consider your integrand.

there is no integrand and there is no integral. This source is unpolarized light with the uniform distribution of all polarisation angles.

>>11732902
>there is no integrand and there is no integral.
You're beyond hope. You get the unpolarized result by integrating over the polarizations uniformly, as you've said yourself in other threads.

>>11732898
I mean, literally look at the equation that says that local causality requires statistical independence when you sufficiently specify the past state. By refusing to talk about your integral over all polarizations, you're hiding the fact that you don't have a consistent local theory.

>>11732907
>You're beyond hope. You get the unpolarized result by integrating over the polarizations uniformly, as you've said yourself in other threads.

I don't like that approach anymore. I prefer this approach much more. I'm not interested in talking about old threads.

>>11732933
so you just ignore facts when it makes you look bad?

>>11732908
>I mean, literally look at the equation that says that local causality requires statistical independence

Bell really gave you brain damage. Correlation=/= causation.

>>11732937
>so you just ignore facts when it makes you look bad?

No, basically the integral approach is just needlessly complicated. This approach is much more elegant.

>>11732933
>I don't like the correct approach, I'm going to use my own wrong approach to justify my wrong conclusions. And don't bring up my previous mistakes
Bye

>>11732942
>>11732933
>>11732946
Done feeding the troll

>>11732949
>>11732953

Good riddance. Thanks for the bumps. Perhaps someone intelligent will join now

>>11732955
you overplayed your hand and made it too obvious now

>>11732942
Bell agrees that correlation is not causation. Let's look at what you, yourself say:
>>11732824
>What causes A and B is C.
That's literally what the conditioning on past beables accounts for, any potential common causes. As I've said to you many times now, you'd know this if you'd read any of Bell's papers or even anything scientific about Bell's theorem.

Now, I dare you to write out a local model where you make your C explicit instead of waving your hands in misdirection like a magician. Failure to produce an explicit model is a failure of classical EM to reproduce the results of QM.

>>11732233
OP, can you clarify on your background? for example i assume you are either
>a Thunderbolts Project pseud
>an undergrad who is pissed off about an argument you got in with your professor
>some religious zealot who likes to contradict physics because muh miracles are real!

is it one of those? or worse?

>>11733030
he has repeatedly claimed >>11732446 but it’s probably all a troll

>>11732446
what do you do for a living?

>>11733056
even if he is telling the truth, having an MS in anything basically means you were a spoiled brat who wanted 2 extra years of college because you got rejected from real graduate programs, and any degree in materials science is not a qualification to opine on theoretical/mathematical physics. it's basically chemistry. third, statistically the probability is that any given degree comes from a shit school or a poorfag third world school and you can ignore those people (similar to how if you get a MD degree from anywhere on the globe, it won't qualify you to work as an MD in the USA). so even the troll attempt is poor

>>11733092
my favorite part of his story, if it’s real, is when nature physicis called him a retarded schizo politely >>11732441

>>11732601

>disproved classical physics

Lol no

we just use quantum mechanics to describe physics at the quantum scale, since unlike classical mechanics it correctly predicts things

>>11733008
>you overplayed your hand and made it too obvious now

Whatever

>>11733013
>As I've said to you many times now, you'd know this if you'd read any of Bell's papers or even anything scientific about Bell's theorem.

I literally quote bell and his idea that correlation = causation in the op.

>>11733030
>OP, can you clarify on your background? for example i assume you are either

I got a master's in material science from the University of California. I have a corporate laboratory where I research high speed optical signaling now

>>11733056
>it’s probably all a troll

This isn't a troll. Why Can't we just discuss math/science anyways?

>>11733063
>what do you do for a living?

I have a corporate laboratory where I researched high speed optical signaling.

>>11733092
>you were a spoiled brat who wanted 2 extra years of college

Neat. And who the fuck are you , anyways?

>>11733180
>nature physicis called him a retarded schizo politely

It pretty clear they rejected my ideas purely because of their contradictory nature. They said, to paraphrase, there's alot of other publications that agree with Bell, so you aren't allowed to disagree.

>>11733651
>we just use quantum mechanics to describe physics at the quantum scale, since unlike classical mechanics it correctly predicts things

This isn't true. The experiment by alain aspect is not quantum in scale.

>>11732898
>use different definition of "causal" than what's used in Bell's theorem
>get different result about what's "causal"
>look I disproved Bell's Theorem!

>>11734061
>>use different definition of "causal" than what's used in Bell's theorem

This is news. When I read Bells papers I assume causation and causal mean that one thing literally caused another. What does Bell mean? I don't see where he invented a new definition of cause. Please give a citation.

This would change things because he make the same mistakes throughout his work by claiming probabilistic independence between two events, because of no obvious causal mechanism between then.

>>11732441
>Nat Phys
Did you send your manuscript to Stockholm too?
How about you put it on arxiv first in a non-crackpot category

>>11734110

To expound, his lack of understanding that a probabilistic dependence does not necessitate a causal mechanism, leads Bell to invoke quantum Entanglement, and strictly enforce probabilistic independence in the classical world. This is why his inequality it wrong.

What is quantum entanglement anyway? A form of information transfer where there is no mediating particle or wave and that information travels faster than light? That's basically saying fairies are doing it.

The guy just doesn't understand probability.

>>11734132
>How about you put it on arxiv first in a non-crackpot category

Perhaps I will. I do intend to attempt to publish it again. Of course, if someone here can help point out a weak part of my argument or error I'll reformulate or just forget about it.

>>11734013
God help an optical signalling researcher that confuses light polarization with half-integer spin
>but the 180 degree polarization is antiparallel
Literally something you said multiple times in past threads

>>11734291
>God help an optical signalling researcher that confuses light polarization with half-integer spin

So why does the experimental setup use polarizers, if we aren't interested in polarization?

>>11734314
>still confusing it
There's no such thing as "antiparallel" with light polarization. 180 degrees is equivalent to 0 degrees. You would know this like the back of your hand if you weren't a blatant pseud

>>11732233
>>11732446
>This violates the Bell inequality. It does this because Bell's theorem is wrong.
Um, dude, no offense, but:
If: Bell's inequality is violated
then: Bell's theorem is true.

>>11734364
>You would know this like the back of your hand if you weren't a blatant pseud

I do understand this. I was taking to another guy who was saying they were anti-parallel, then. I didn't propose this. I was asking for confirmation.

>>11734465
>Um, dude, no offense, but:
>If: Bell's inequality is violated
>then: Bell's theorem is true

I know. I'm saying the inequality is based on erroneous logic

>>11732233
>>>/x/

>>11734468
>>11687468
Nice cope, but you were the only one saying anything was "anti-parallel." Other anons were talking about the transmittance anti-correlations when orthogonal. "Anti-parallel" is used for spin up vs down.

>>11734598

Fuck you

Here's an irrefutable example of how Bell is wrong. It's really easy to follow. Even midwits can do it . Prove this wrong.

>>11732233
No idea whag exactly you're trying to show here, but anything that deals with polarization is necessarily quantum, since polarization is a quantum mechanic effect.

>>11740842
>No idea whag exactly you're trying to show here, but anything that deals with polarization is necessarily quantum, since polarization is a quantum mechanic effect

I'm demonstrating bells inequality is wrong. Why do you think polarization is a quantum mechanical effect? Malus: had no problem predicting the light intensity through polarizers and series of polarizers hundreds of years before the invention of quantum mechanics.

>>11741495
I mean Malus's law and Bell's inequality are the same thing. The math is identical.

>>11741648
>I mean Malus's law and Bell's inequality are the same thing. The math is identical

I seriously doubt that.

>>11741717
There may be an extra square to compensate for power vs amplitude somewhere, but otherwise they should be equivalent.

>>11741844
>There may be an extra square to compensate for power vs amplitude somewhere, but otherwise they should be equivalent

Bells inequality relates correlations. Malus's law is for light intensity through a polarizer. They really aren't that similar.

>>11741878
Never the less the math should be equivalent.

>>11741918
>Never the less the math should be equivalent

You'll have to demonstrate that

>>11742006
Even the same effect happens with other particles. For example when you take a stream of neutrons, and let only those that measure 0° spin pass, none of them will measure 180° spin, unless you measure them at 90° in between. (The difference in angles is because of the different spin of neutrons vs photons)

You show where it is different.

>>11742196
>You show where it is different

No. I'll throw you a bone, tho. All these equations probably represent continuity equations, so they share some superficial qualities, but that's intangential to the thread.

>>11742253
Too bad for you. I am not a dog.

>>11742310
>Too bad for you. I am not a dog

Self bump

>>11734006
You quote what you don't understand, which indicates that you didn't read but rather quote-mined.

Literally none of Bell's work assumes correlation equals causation. That's why P(X3|x2) doesn't have to be the same as P(X3). But the very definition of X3 was that it was enough information about the past beable to be able to determine all of the conditional probabilities P(x1|X3). From that point, there can be no additional information gained from x2 about the probabilities of x2. Again, that follows from the definitions of X3 and of local causality.

>>11742734

I've asked you before. Make this equation relevant to the system and we can talk about it. X1,x2,x3 are meaningless here without context. Also this is probability. Where is the argument for causation? You think you can prove the presence of a causal mechanism through probability?

>>11742774
And I've already told you what x1, x2, and X3 mean.

>Where is the argument for causation?
Local causality says that knowledge of the causal past is sufficient to fully determine all the probabilities of local beables. Either you contest this definition, or you acknowledge that information about spacelike separated events cannot further change the conditional probabilities. If there's a common cause, that shows up in the causal past.

>>11734006
I say it again: I dare you to write out a local model where you make your C explicit instead of waving your hands in misdirection like a magician. Failure to produce an explicit model is a failure of classical EM to reproduce the results of QM.

>>11742799
>And I've already told you what x1, x2, and X3 mean

It's not sufficient. You just say system 1 system 2 . What systems are you taking about? How do you define them? I can't do this for you.

>>11742814
>I say it again: I dare you to write out a local model where you make your C explicit

I did make C explicit. It's the cause of A and B. C is the source radiating the exact same radiation to the left an right? How can you argue this? In what terms do you want me to express it?

>>11734006
Also, a quote from the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy about Bell's theorem that you don't understand is in no way whatsoever a quote from Bell.

>>11742891
Are you this stupid? Write a locally causal model that gives the probabilities P(A|C) and P(B|C), and make sure your probabilities aren't negative this time.

>>11742887
No, I said x1 is an event in system 1 and x2 is an event in system 2. Since you are already talking about two events A and B, I'm certain you can put your brain cells together and figure this out.

>>11742893
>a quote from the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy about Bell's theorem that you don't understand is in no way whatsoever a quote from Bell.

So the Standford encyclopedia is wrong? They are lying about Bells ideas? Why?

>>11742895
>P(A|C) and P(B|C)

P(A|C) = 1/2
P(B|C)= 1/2

Now what?

>>11742903
>No, I said x1 is an event in system 1 and x2 is an event in system 2. Since you are already talking about two events A and B, I'm certain you can put your brain cells together and figure this out.

No,. I'm not going to setup your systems for you.

>>11742943
Your reading comprehension is as bad as ever. I had two points.
1. It is factually incorrect that it is a quote from Bell, like you claimed. You claimed it was in order to "show" that you had read Bell's work.
2. You clearly didn't understand the quote and didn't read the rest of the article, because you played it off like Bell didn't understand that correlation wasn't causation. If you had read the article, you would have seen this part that actually does quote Bell shortly before the part you quoted:
>Now my intuitive notion of local causality is that events in [space-time region] 2 should not be “causes” of events in [spacelike separated region] 1, and vice versa. But this does not mean that the two sets of events should be uncorrelated, for they could have common causes in the overlap of their backward light cones
It explicitly refutes your nonsense that Bell doesn't understand the difference between correlation and causality and accounts for this mysterious prior cause C that you don't include in any of your calculations.

>>11742949
Okay, so your probabilities violate local causality.

>>11742959
It's your system, and you're refusing to set it up.

>>11742963
>Okay, so your probabilities violate local causality

How so?

>>11742967
Since you're allergic to thinking, I'll use the letters you're comfortable with. If C is sufficient to fully establish the probabilities of events A and B, then local causality demands P(A|B,C)=P(A|C). If C isn't sufficient, then you didn't do what I asked.

>>11742980

I'll think about it, but this seems to imply causation = correlation.

>>11743080
Once again, see the actual quote from Bell:
>Now my intuitive notion of local causality is that events in [space-time region] 2 should not be “causes” of events in [spacelike separated region] 1, and vice versa. But this does not mean that the two sets of events should be uncorrelated, for they could have common causes in the overlap of their backward light cones
And read at least the first few sections of this actual paper from Bell:
https://cds.cern.ch/record/980036/files/197508125.pdf

>>11742963
>Okay, so your probabilities violate local causality

I've been considering you constraints on my local causality. I'm not convinced I violate it. Can you demonstrate that?

>>11743171
Let me repeat myself again.

Local causality says that knowledge of the causal past is sufficient to fully determine all the probabilities of local beables. Either you contest this definition, or you acknowledge that information about spacelike separated events cannot further change the conditional probabilities. If there's a common cause, that shows up in the causal past.

It's literally just the definition of local causality (which classical EM obeys, by the way).

>>11743179

Ok. But you seem to have asked for some values, then you say my system is not locally causal because of some equation you say I'm in violation of. I've been looking at that equation and I'm not convinced I violate it. Can you show your work?

>>11743179
>It's literally just the definition of local causality (which classical EM obeys, by the way).

Really? I didn't realize there was anything probabilistic about classical EM. Where are you getting this stuff?

>>11743212
1 and 0 are valid probabilities, moron.

>>11743201
Yet again: the definition of local causality implies P(A|C) = P(A|B,C) if C is a sufficient list of beables. I asked you to construct a locally causal model that gives such a P(A|C) and P(B|C). You've already said P(A|B,C) = cos^2(a-b), and now you said P(A|C)=0.5. These directly contradict it being a locally causal model.

>>11743257
>You've already said P(A|B,C) = cos^2(a-b)

When? I don't believe this is true. I might have said that in another thread with a different model. But I've changed it since then. You can't mix things I said about A model from a week ago with the model I want To discuss here

>>11743267
You gave P(A|B) here:
>>11732233

You said "C is the source radiating the exact same radiation to the left an right" here:
>>11742891

That condition C is something you always assumed held. Thus, what you're saying is your P(A|B) is actuallyP(A|B,C) since your stated P(A|B) relies on C being true.

>>11743276
>That condition C is something you always assumed held

No.

>>11743284
Yes. Just because you don't understand what you're doing doesn't mean it's not a trivial consequence of what you actually said.

>>11743287

Listen, you are just putting words in my mouth now. I know your expression gives perfectly reasonable results. You can keep shoving you head up your ass, but you aren't quoting me.

>>11743300
I'm not putting words in your mouth, I'm laying out the necessary consequences of what you've said.

Now: do the very basic level of work of actually construct a model that's manifestly locally causal, stop pretending that Bell doesn't understand that correlation isn't causation, and actually read even one of Bell's papers instead of looking at a single paragraph of an article without context.

>>11743330
>Now: do the very basic level of work of actually construct a model that's manifestly locally causal

I did. I evaluated your equation. I got positive results . The system is locally causal.

>>11743341
What's P(C) in your locally causal model? What's P(A|B,C)?

>>11743347
>What's P(C) in your locally causal model?

It's any number between 0 and 1 depending on the day of the week

>>11743354
Nice non-answer. How about P(A|B,C)?

Why not just finally actually construct a classical strategy that wins the CHSH game with a probability greater than 3/4 like I've repeatedly asked?

>>11743369
>Why not just finally actually construct a classical strategy that wins the CHSH game with a probability greater than 3/4 like I've repeatedly asked?

So you are changing the topic now. I thought you were gonna show how I violate local causality? What happened to that?

>>11743382
>So you are changing the topic now. I thought you were gonna show how I violate local causality? What happened to that?
1. It was a topic from the very first thread that you always failed to deliver on
2. A classical strategy to win the CHSH game is the same as an implementation of a locally causal model that violates Bell's inequalities, just with specific notation. Yet again, you don't seem to understand the basics of the subject.
3. How about P(A|B,C)?

>>11743420
>3. How about P(A|B,C)?

P((A|B)|C)P(C). Looking good so far?

>>11743481
Give a formula calculable in terms of a and b, unless you're scared of getting probabilities outside of [0,1] again.

>>11732233
>it violates causality, by traveling faster than light
>trusting some kike who broke the basic laws of physics.

>>11743492
>Give a formula calculable in terms of a and b, unless you're scared of getting probabilities outside of [0,1] again.

I'm getting tired of this. Thanks for showing me my system is locally causal tho.

>>11743515
lmao just like last time, you refuse to actually deliver while claiming you've already shown how everything works

>>11743519
>lmao just like last time

Im sure you're laughing real hard.

>>11743526
Yeah, fairly hard. Maybe one of these days you'll realize what it means to actually give a model that's locally causal, but for now, watching you squirm under pressure is pretty funny.

>>11743532
>you'll realize what it means to actually give a model that's locally causal

We both know it is. And that's why you won't show how you arrived at that conclusion, but continue to insist without proof. You're just waiting for me to make a typo so you can act like a jackass about it

>>11743539
>We both know it is.
lmao

>And that's why you won't show how you arrived at that conclusion, but continue to insist without proof
Bell already supplied the proof that a locally causal model can't reproduce the predictions of quantum mechanics, so either your model fails to reproduce the predictions of quantum mechanics, or it's not locally causal. The only times you've addressed Bell is when you've made up shit and attributed it to him. Since the probabilities you claim to give "agree" with quantum mechanics, well, that means bye bye local causality. If you'd like to talk about actual EM with a probabilistic Malus's law, I showed you in a previous thread how to derive the predictions of that and how they fall short of the predictions of quantum mechanics.

>You're just waiting for me to make a typo so you can act like a jackass about it
It wasn't a typo when you constructed a probability model that gave negative probabilities, it was you not having a clue what you were doing and making stuff up as you go. It was funny to see that your response now is to avoid committing to anything.

>>11743559
>It wasn't a typo when you constructed a probability model that gave negative probabilities,

This is what I'm talking about. If you took the time and had the brains you'd realize this model is equivalent to the last. However you feel you derived negative probability from it and not from this one is beyond me. It's clear whatever i do you'll find some way to twist it into some form of jackasserry. So I'll wait for you to prove its not locally causal, and present your results. I've done it myself and don't find an issue. I'm not going to present it since they would be feeding a troll. I do like the bumps tho.

>>11743598
>If you took the time and had the brains you'd realize this model is equivalent to the last. However you feel you derived negative probability from it and not from this one is beyond me.
For one, the "model" you give now now not the same as last time, because last time your conditioning on C was for a specific polarization and thus your P(A|C) depended on the polarization angle. Go ahead, just look back at what you posted. You've explicitly refused to try that method of looking at the probabilities before integrating over polarizations this time.

You will be happy to know that you have fallen into the improper probability trap if you really commit to local causality i.e. P(A|B,C)=P(A|C). That's why I asked you to give the formula. Let's see how that works.

P(A and B|C) = P(A|B,C) P(B|C) = P(A|C)
Straight from you: P(A|C) = P(B|C) = 1/2
Local causality: P(A|B,C) = P(A|C) = 1/2
Result: P(A and B|C) = 1/4

Straight from you: P(A and B) = 1/2 cos^2(a-b)
Following from the axioms of probability: P(A and B | not C) = [P(A and B) - P(A and B|C) P(C)] / [1 - P(C)], as long as P(C) != 1

Now, let's look at the specific polarizer angles a=b,, which we're free to do.
P(A and B|C) = 1/4 still
P(A and B) = 1/2, go ahead and plug in the angles and check.
Now, the final result:
P(A and B | not C) = 1/2 - 1/4 P(C)] / [1 - P(C)]
You said yourself that P(C) can be any probability between 0 and 1. But if you plug in any probability P(C)>2/3, you get P(A and B | not C)>1.

>>11743654
>P(A and B|C) = P(A|B,C) P(B|C) = P(A|C)
typo, should be = P(A|C) P(B|C)

>>11743654
>You will be happy to know that you have fallen into the improper probability trap

I know. You are just being a troll. You wait for me to say something then spin it and throw it back in my face. Thanks for showing my system is locally causal tho.

>>11743685
>You wait for me to say something then spin it and throw it back in my face.
lmao I don't know why I always find it so funny that you blame me for your inability to create a consistent model but it's reassuring to know I get to keep laughing in every thread

>>11743694
Also it's funny how you call basic probability calculations "spin" but that causes a different sort of laugh.

>>11743694
>lmao I don't know why I always find it so funny
>>11743705
>Also it's funny

Yea, you are really laughing your ass off, totally.

>>11743754
Yeah lol.

this is a very good thread

>178 replies
>20 unique IPs
Stop doing this you fucking retard.

>>11733092
>having an MS in anything basically means you were a spoiled brat who wanted 2 extra years of college because you got rejected from real graduate programs
You're an idiot.

>>11743813

I know, right. Just one intelligent poster could end this. Just show my error. Until then, bumparino. All of the math/physics can be found on Wikipedia. This should not go on like This

Bump

>>11732687
your error was not taking your meds

>>11747267
>Just show my error.
Probabilities outside of [0,1]

>>11749528
I don't present in air outside 0 and 1. You take some things I said a lot of it out of context and misapply it in your own stupid way and get retarded results, but that's your own fault.

>>11749636
>out of context
>misapply it
Learn basic probability theory

>>11749664
>Learn basic probability theory

I know basic probability theory. The problem is you don't. You try to apply my results and fuck it up. Nothing I presented breaks any rule of probability.

>>11749823
Everything I said followed from your own probability assignments, your claim of being causally local, and the axioms of probability. I'm sorry that you don't understand basic probability enough to see that.

>>11749855

No. It was riddled with retarded errors and false conclusions from taking what I said out of context.

>>11749902
Number of errors you pointed out in what I said: 0

>>11749954
>Number of errors you pointed out in what I said: 0

Ok. I had a crazy idea. You say my model is wrong. Ok , let's for the sake of argument assume it is wrong. In that case it would follow logically that I made a mistake defining the system, or applying physical or probabilistic laws. In that case, why don't you point out the error? Or do you concede it just isn't there?

>>11750205

I want to pontificate on this point. It's really your only option. I'll explain it to you since you lack self awareness.

If I haven't made an error:
Then the probabilistic equations you are trying to apply to my results are bullshit, because we live in a classical world where things are real and determined.

If I made an error:
Then that's just that. We live in a probabilistic world of quantum entanglement, but you should be able still to show where I made a mistake, since I contradict reality.

In either case the only thing you can do is show where I'm in error. Applying results from others inability to understand this system, will not invalidate my results.

>>11734035
>It pretty clear they rejected my ideas purely because of their contradictory nature. They said, to paraphrase, there's alot of other publications that agree with Bell, so you aren't allowed to disagree.


AHAAHHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHA

>>11750295
Are you that incapable of reading? I have pointed out the error: it's your set of probability assignments that you put together with no thought.

>>11750352
>it's your set of probability assignments that you put together with no though

Can you be more detailed? It seems pretty clear you don't even understand simple classical physics and rudimentary probability.

>>11750327

How would you paraphrase Nature's reply? Let me guess .... something something schizo something..

>>11732818
How is locality defined just in general?

>>11750420
Let's say I claimed I had a complex function f(z) with the following properties:
1. f(z) is holomorphic
2. f(z)=0 for |z|<1
3. f(z1)=1 for some z1

If someone correctly claimed these three properties were inconsistent but I demanded they point out which one was wrong, I'd be demanding an impossible task. For any two of these three properties, I could find an f(z) satisfying them. It's only if I claim to have all three of them that I've made an error.

This is where we're at. I've pointed out that your set of probability assignments is contradictory, and now you're asking me to point out which one is incorrect. But you haven't produced a specific model that can calculate the probabilities of all possible outcomes. You've just listed certain properties that you claim this model of yours has.

However, on top of that, you do claim your model is actually the predictions of classical EM. I've already shown in a previous thread how classical EM with Malus's law interpreted probabilistically and a statistical mixture of initial polarizations gives a maximum correlation probability of 3/8. So you can either open your eyes to what minimally modified classical EM actually predicts, or you can accept that this fictitious model in your head is not self-consistent. It's up to you.

The polarizer change the light properties or does it just take 'peek' on already distributed light emission?

>>11750574
>The polarizer change the light properties or does it just take 'peek' on already distributed light emission?

Polarizers in a classical sense will pass the component of light parallel to it and block the component that is orthogonal.

>>11750528
>This is where we're at. I've pointed out that your set of probability assignments is contradictory,

You claim my solution is inconsistent with a theory of reality that my solution disproves. Where is the logic in that? You lack self awareness. Your only real option is to show where I've made a mistake and im inconsistent with myself or classical physics.

It's literally been weeks tho and all you try to do it trap me into making some typo you can lampoon me with later.

>>11750838
>You claim my solution is inconsistent with a theory of reality that my solution disproves.
No, your "solution" inconsistent with itself. You need to work on your reading skills.

>>11750953
>No, your "solution" inconsistent with itself.

Prove it. All you keep insisting is that my solution is inconsistent with a constraint thats nonsensical, if we live in a classical world, which my solution proves. This is supremely illogical. It really shows how little credibility anyone should Give you. Your method to address the issue is impotent.

>>11750995
I don't know what "constraint" you're talking. If you mean local causality, again, classical EM and other relativistic classical theories respect it. That's not even controversial to say.

>>11751019
>If you mean local causality, again, classical EM and other relativistic classical theories respect it.

That's not the point. Address the point. What's the use of holding a constraint on a solution, when that solution invalidates the constraint? It's been a few weeks, im just going to conclude I've made no error, or at least if there is an error it's far above your IQ to spot it .

>>11751132
Like I'm saying, I don't know what constraint you're talking about because you can't make a coherent point. But if you are talking about local causality, you kept insisting that your "solution" respected it.

>>11751138
>But if you are talking about local causality, you kept insisting that your "solution" respected it.

Is your IQ this low? Or is my question so damning?

>>11751222
Your question is as nonsensical as your "solution". I'll leave you to your fantasy world.

>>11732233
ITT a brainlet that doesn't even know what Bell's theorem states.

>>11751252
>ITT a brainlet that doesn't even know what Bell's theorem states.

Ok. Explain it to me. I thought it had to do with differences in correlations between classical and quantum physics.

>>11751323

This is for this

>>11751270

>>11751252
>Your question is as nonsensical as your "solution".

You only had to do one thing, man. My derivation is only like 3 lines and only includes basic shit you'd find on Wikipedia. You just had to show my error. I entertained you for weeks. Your failure to demonstrate my fault is not my fault.

Have you discussed this with an actual physicist or is this board the first?

>>11751326
>You only had to do one thing, man. My derivation is only like 3 lines and only includes basic shit you'd find on Wikipedia. You just had to show my error. I entertained you for weeks. Your failure to demonstrate my fault is not my fault.
Today, in bizarro world

>>11751409
>Have you discussed this with an actual physicist or is this board the first?

Yes. I actually came here first with just a suspicion that the classical case was being misrepresented. I kept seeing quantum physicists assume that classically polarizers pass light at the gradient of the relative angle not the cosine squared. Some kind anon was able to point me to some better sources, but they all make the false assumption that since the polarizers are separate in space and not causally linked they must be probabilistically independent, which is a very common fallacy that correlation = causation. Having found No Proper treatment of the classical Bell theorem system, I did the derivation myself. I've since submitted it to Nature, started collaborating with a publishing University professor who is also skeptical of Bell, and joined a working group of academics who are skeptical of Bell.

>>11751474
>Today, in bizarro world

Thanks for the bump.

>>11752289
>false assumption

How sad, he still doesn't understand local causality...

>>11752809
>How sad, he still doesn't understand local causality...

We went through this and you were unable to demonstrate how I violate local causality. You've been unable to demonstrate anything.

Assuming I violate local causality I must have committed an error in my derivation. Show my error.

>>11752809

Since you are just gonna hang around here but not contribute to the discussion, how about you answer another question for me.

Let's assume a photon with random polarization is emitter from a source. If I measured the polarization of the photon before it hit a polarizer would it ever go through?

>>11752872
Already showed your errors repeatedly across multiple threads

>>11752999

Make yourself useful and answer this

>>11752993

>>11753024
I don't tutor people for free, sorry.

>>11753031
>I don't tutor people for free, sorry

Christ, You are just a troll. Just say yes or no, troll.

>>11753035
I could recommend you some textbooks, if you'd like, but my personal policy is not to tutor for free for anyone.

>>11753046
>I could recommend you some textbooks, if you'd like, but my personal policy is not to tutor for free for anyone.

Noice troll response. I just want a yes or no from you. you spend hours trolling me anyway, just type out YES or NO. That doesn't take up anymore time than you already spend trolling me.

>>11753054
You could look up the answer yourself, with the right resources. But I know you have reading trouble.

>>11753057
>You could look up the answer yourself, with the right resources. But I know you have reading trouble

So basically you have no idea how polarises work.

>>11753070
I'm sorry that you lash out due to your ignorance, but I still don't tutor for free.

>>11732441
>In the present case, although your findings may well prove stimulating to others thinking about such questions, I regret that, in light of the broader literature confirming the non-classical nature of quantum mechanics, we are unable to conclude that the work provides the sort of firm advance in general understanding that would warrant publication in Nature Physics.
you know this is a really polite way of calling you a retard right? I’ve written rejection letters before, this is exactly what I would say if someone said something retarded. “may prove stimulating to others thinking about such questions” is a dead give away

In his theorem, Bell treat non-orthogonal states as if they were orthogonal.

>>11753084
>No analytic form has been found for the eigenfunctions of the spin operator
lmao

>>11753078
>I'm sorry that you lash out due to your ignorance, but I still don't tutor for free.

Once again you lack self awareness. You will never tutor for free, not that I'm asking you to, but you will troll for free. What is the sense in that?

>>11753080
>you know this is a really polite way of calling you a retard right?

Great.

>>11753084
>>11753101
>>11732233
>>11753078
>>11753084
I thought I knew this guy! J Tooker is a known hack/fraud and a /pol/ schizo who has spammed reddit, /sci/ and every email he can find! He got arrested last year. claims each year to be part of a new group called “occupy academia” “occupy anti government LCCs” whatever the fuck that is and has a new “occupy” which each month.
Here are his other papers, somehow he’s a physicist, a biologist, an economist, a mathematician, a cosmologist and much much more
Some quotes from his paper “disproving” evolution.
“ If inter-dimensional aliens are trying to enslave and eat humanity, it may be vital for them to crop these regions from our genome because they give us a natural immunity to aliens. Why do people think there is junk DNA? How long before a geneticist asks for a grant to remove the “non-coding” DNA from human genetic material so he may grow experimental children?”

https://vixra.org/author/jonathan_tooker

Now here’s the real interesting thing: He also claims like OP to have graduated with a degree in material science and studied quantum physics!

It’s also known that he some what extensively spray paints graffiti across Atlanta with his bogus math proofs, spams reddit with his insane bullshit that’s exactly like the OP image, and their accounts of how he acts are exactly like what’s seen ITT, and he sends actual mass emails of his “papers” to anyone with .edu on a regular basis. He also seems to have once claimed to have been a time traveler, only he hasn’t time traveled yet, he just recognized himself. He also may have fabricated his time at uni.
He’s also got a nasty criminal record and has been BTFO /sci/ before

https://boards.fireden.net/sci/last/50/9854655/

https://boards.fireden.net/sci/thread/10408016/


tl;dr OP is probably a known schizo who was spamming 4chan after being banned from reddit, recently got out of jail after SWAT got him

>>11753084

Are you tooker? Can you answer my question?

If I measure a photons polarization right before it is incident on a polarizer what is the probability it goes through?

>>11753187
>tl;dr OP is probably a known schizo who was spamming 4chan after being banned from reddit, recently got out of jail after SWAT got him


I'm who I claim to be. Just point out my error and I'll be on my way

>>11753194
Are you Tooker?

>>11753194
Please respond!

>>11753084
Did you get an insanity plea?

>>11753196
>Are you Tooker?
Op is not tooker

>>11753251
>Please respond!

Granted

>>11753266
I don’t believe you.

>>11753266
You both have the same qualifications and the same field of study, you type the exact same, you have the same theories.
Just like the guy who shills for tooker but claims not to be him in Tookers threads.
Are you his alternate personality? Do there just happen to be two guys from georgia with the same background on 4chan who make similar claims and type the same?

>>11753382
>You both have the same qualifications and the same field of study, you type the exact same, you have the same theorie

I wouldn't say we have the exact same theories.

>>11753396
because he’s your alter?
Prost proofs you’re not from or in atlanta

>>11753404
>because he’s your alter?
>Prost proofs you’re not from or in atlanta

No and no. Perhaps we write in the same style because we are both actually academics as we claim. I've read Tookers papers and attest mine and his are different.

>>11753439
>Perhaps we write in the same style because we are both actually academics as we claim.
>Tooker
>Academic
10/10 made me laugh
Tooker try to get a better handle on your alters, take your fucking meds and stay off 4chan for your own health

>>11753452
>Tooker try to get a better handle on your alters, take your fucking meds and stay off 4chan for your own health

Lol. You are accusing me of being a schizo, while claiming im orchestrating a conspiracy against you involving multiple personalities and fraud.

>>11753493
Schizo fucking retard lmfao

>>11753841
>Schizo fucking retard lmfao

I'm sure you are laughing real hard

Bell is wrong

>>11753987
It’s so sad that you feel like you have to hide who you are, J man.

>>11753190
I am Tooker. Honestly, I am not quite sure what a polarizer does. I think it selects a certain range of polarization vectors for transmission and reflects everything else. If that's it, then I think the answer to your question depends on what polarization you measure and how it lines up with the polarizer.

This is my second post in this thread. I like to write my name on stuff. I don't do sock puppets except sarcastically, rarely.

>>11754118
>I think the answer to your question depends on what polarization you measure and how it lines up with the polarizer.

The reason I ask the question is that classically light is divisible. So whatever is incident can be decomposed into parallel and orthogonal components. The problem is if you consider light an elementary particle it can't be divided, and a polarizer can only pass incident light parallel to it, so even if the photon is off by 1 degree it will not pass. I've researched this and haven't found a satisfactory answer. From what I've read the QM solution is to consider the photon not as s particle or wave, but a field! Not being a particle it seems it doesn't have wave-function collapse, and will always be a superposition. This leaves a rather glaring question. If QM just treats light as EM radiation and it changes the interpretation of EM laws, how can Bell claim the QM and classical solutions are different? How is a single photon so critical to the description of the problem, yet as far as I can tell QM doesn't treat EM radiation as a particle, so conceptualizing it as a singular object is incorrect.

>>11753844
Im laughing right now that you take yourself so seriously that you think Id have to make up me laughing at you. Like you arent in a 200+ post thread of science gobbly gook earnestly arguing or trolling with the retards on /sci/. Plus, the schizo graphs and the tooker shit to boot.
If it makes you feel better, I dont want you to take your meds. Youre beautiful as you are sweetie and on meds youd be just another normie.

>>11755024

TL; DR. Thanks for the bump.

>>11754771
>as far as I can tell QM doesn't treat EM radiation as a particle
How sad, he doesn't even know about the quantization of the electromagnetic field.

>>11755143
>How sad, he doesn't even know about the quantization of the electromagnetic field.

Explain it to me then. All the sources are saying the theory for QM is just EM with a different interpretation. Does the quantization assign an indivisible polarization to a quanta of light? Does it's wave function ever collapse? Does it always exist as a superposition? The answers is just a simple Yes or No. It takes as long to type out as snarky troll bullshit. Why come to a discussion forum for science and refuse to actually discuss science? Do you realize how little self awareness you possess?

>>11755170
Bruh, pick up a quantum optics textbook.

>>11755170
itt: OP outs himself as not being knowledgeable enough about physics and doesn't understand why everyone who has explained to him the faults of his ramblings are wrong.

>>11755197

Ad hominem, nice

>>11754118
>>11754771
A man talking to his alter. SAD!
Tooker do the newspapers you write for know you’re schizo?

>>11755201
Mr. "retarded" is big on avoiding ad hominems, of course.

>>11755208
>Mr. "retarded" is big on avoiding ad hominems, of course

That's after I go through a lengthy explanation of why my opponent is wrong. The difference is you never have an argument to begin with.

Here's another write-up of my position. I've taken days to distill this into something you can comprehend. It's painfully explicit and basic.

Show me where I made an error.

>>11755298
Tooker you need to get off 4chan. It’s not healthy for you

>>11755298
>That's after I go through a lengthy explanation of why my opponent is wrong.
Uh huh.
>You're retarded whatever you did it's probably wrong.

>Show me where I made an error.
Yet again, the same place where you fuck up the polarizations that can pass through both slits. "Only vertically polarized light can pass through the polarizers on both sides pairwise"? Only in that little head of yours is this remotely true. If the initial polarization angle is 45 degrees, then a photon can pass through the left polarizer set at 90 degrees while the corresponding photon with the same 45 degree polarization can pass through the right polarizer set at 0 degrees.

>>11755340
>Yet again, the same place where you fuck up the polarizations that can pass through both slits

And where did I write that it did?

>>11755340
>If the initial polarization angle is 45 degrees, then a photon can pass through the left polarizer set at 90 degrees while the corresponding photon with the same 45 degree polarization can pass through the right polarizer set at 0 degrees

The light from the source is unpolarized. What system are you talking about? Not mine

>>11755376
The entire second paragraph.
>>11755383
Yet again: an "unpolarized source" is nothing other than a statistical mixture of all polarizations. Is your brain that tiny that you can't comprehend this after it's been said repeatedly?

>>11755388
>The entire second paragraph

Read it again. Only the vertical passes through the right so the horizontal component on the left can never pass as a pair. We are only interested in the intensity output as pairs. The light is paired by initial polarization angle. I never said the light goes right then left.

>>11755388
>Yet again: an "unpolarized source" is nothing other than a statistical mixture of all polarizations

Yea, i know. What's your point?

>>11755418
>Only the vertical passes through the right so the horizontal component on the left can never pass as a pair.
Wrong. Once again, you don't understand local causality.

>>11755423
Meaning some light from an unpolarized source will have an initial polarization of 45 degrees. In other words, yes, I am talking about your system when I'm talking about 45 degree polarizations.

>>11755423
>>11755418
Hey Tooker, you can put multiple statements in one reply. Just FYI

>>11755434
>Wrong. Once again, you don't understand local causality

Demonstrate how my solution breaks any law of causality.

>>11755434
>Meaning some light from an unpolarized source will have an initial polarization of 45 degrees.

And ?

>>11755454
The horizontal component of light on the left doesn't give two shits about the fact that the polarizer on the right filtered out the horizontally polarized component. That's local causality. Your statement that they can't pass through as a pair is a direct violation of that local causality. Once again, we've been over this, remember?

>>11755455
So your statement "If the left polarizer was at ninety degrees... the answer would be zero" is just factually incorrect on such an elementary level.

>>11755471
>The horizontal component of light on the left doesn't give two shits about the fact that the polarizer on the right filtered out the horizontally polarized component

Yea i know. I've said this before. The events at one polarizer don't effect outcomes at the other.

>>11755471
>So your statement "If the left polarizer was at ninety degrees... the answer would be zero" is just factually incorrect on such an elementary level.

How? if vertically polarized light goes through the right but horizontally polarized life gets through on the left how exactly would the detector count that as a pair of photons sharing same initial angle getting through the polarizers?

>>11755486
So you admit that your statement "Only the vertical passes through the right so the horizontal component on the left can never pass as a pair" is bullshit, good. And you acknowledge then that the polarizers being at 90 degree angles doesn't keep both of them from registering on the same classical "photon pair" as an immediate consequence?

>>11755492
>>11755486
are you genuinely incapable of posting two things in one post

>>11755492
1. Generate a single pair of photons with the same random polarization
2. It just so happens to be a 25 degree polarization angle
3. One 25 degree polarization photon can pass through the polarizer on the left with some non-zero probability
4. The other 25 degree polarization photon can pass through the polarizer on the right with a non-zero probability

It's trivial.

>>11755495
>So you admit that your statement "Only the vertical passes through the right so the horizontal component on the left can never pass as a pair" is bullshit

No. It's 100% correct

>>11755512
lmao you're violating local causality then

>>11755508

I agree it's trivial, but it's also not my system

>>11755519
>lmao you're violating local causality then

You're going to have to demonstrate that.

>>11755520
It's literally exactly your system, a photon pair that shares an initial polarization angle.

>>11755522
Already have, multiple times. But I bet you didn't complete your assigned reading yet, did you?

>>11755534
>Already have, multiple times. But I bet you didn't complete your assigned reading yet, did you?


Let me give you an example of what I'm doing.

Let's say there is a classroom and in it are 20 students. Each student is paired up by the teacher with another student, but the students don't know. The teacher pairs them up by similar last digit of student number. The teacher then gives everyone a test and grades it. She then puts all the papers from one half of a pair in one pile , then one half the papers in another pile. She records the ratio of pass on the right pile. The answer is 50%. She then takes out of the pile on the left the other member of the pairs that failed in the pile on the right. She records the ratio of students who passed in the decimated pile. It's 40%. To know the number of pairs that passed she multiplies the ratios and gets 20%. Did the students in the right pile affect the outcome of the passes in pile to the left? How exactly did they influence each other?

My answer is they didn't.

>>11755619
>here's an example without non-commuting measurements where there's no relevant Bell's inequality
>ch-checkmate
Bruh...

>>11755638
>where there's no relevant Bell's inequality

I keep being accused of violating causality. But the example I outlined is exactly what I'm doing for my classical Bell experiment derivation. I don't see how I'm breaking causality. Can you?

>>11755651
Here is literally the minimum you need to do to create a locally casual model. This is all non-negotiable, because this is what local causality means.
1. Use whatever model of all prior causes λ you want.
2. Give P(A|λ), the probability of the photon on the left passing through a polarizer with angle a, in terms of whatever information you want in the prior causes λ and the angle a only.
3. Give P(B|λ), the probability of the photon on the right passing through a polarizer with angle b, in terms of whatever information you want in the prior causes λ and the angle b only.
4. Local causality demands P(B|A,λ) = P(B|λ) and P(A|B,λ) = P(A|λ).

Notice how you repeatedly fuck this up by talking about angle b when talking about what's happening with event A?

>>11755692
>Here is literally the minimum you need to do to create a locally casual model

What if I don't care? What if I'm satisfied I haven't violated causality, and no one can demonstrate how I have? I notice no one will address the classroom example.

>>11755692
>Notice how you repeatedly fuck this up by talking about angle b when talking about what's happening with event A?

I'm not saying one is effecting the outcome of the other

>>11755713
>What if I don't care? What if I'm satisfied I haven't violated causality, and no one can demonstrate how I have?
Then you're blind lol

>I notice no one will address the classroom example.
"Hurr durr I didn't include non-commuting measurements and thus didn't have to confront any of these issues it must be exactly the same as the case that does include non-commuting measurements."

>>11755718
>I'm not saying one is effecting the outcome of the other
Since you're not enforcing P(B|A,λ) = P(B|λ) being independent of the polarizer angle a, then yes, you are. Again, this is non-negotiable because this is literally what local causality means.

>>11755732
>"Hurr durr I didn't include non-commuting measurements

Ok. Why don't you give me a hint of what exactly you wAnt me to include.

>>11755747
A pair of binary measurements A and A' on one set of students, with another pair of binary measurements B and B' on the other set of students. The outcome of any measurement is specifically either -1 or 1.

Now find a situation where the average value of AB + AB' + A'B - A'B' is greater than 2.

>>11755812

I encourage you to do this on your own, because I don't see how it invalidates my derivation either way. BTW how are students in category B causing the outcome of test scores in category A. I still need an answer to this.

>>11755839
>I encourage you to do this on your own, because I don't see how it invalidates my derivation either way.
Once again shows that you don't know what you're talking about.

>BTW how are students in category B causing the outcome of test scores in category A. I still need an answer to this.
Once again, there's no causality issues until you include non-commuting measurements like in the photon polarization case. Please get some help with your reading problems, I feel bad for you.

>>11755848
>Once again shows that you don't know what you're talking about

Listen, just demonstrate it yourself. I just can't be bothered to follow you into this quantum grave you are digging yourself.

>>11755848
>there's no causality issues until you include non-commuting measurements like in the photon polarization case

What does this mean in terms of a classical derivation on a classical system?

>>11755870
>just demonstrate it yourself
Sorry, Bell proved it can't be done. Why don't you demonstrate it if you're so sure Bell's wrong?
>>11755875
That a locally causal classical system can't reproduce the quantum mechanical results of non-commuting measurements

>>11755899
>>just demonstrate it yourself
>Sorry, Bell proved it can't be done. Why don't you demonstrate it if you're so sure Bell's wrong?
>>>11755875 (You) #
>That a locally causal classical system can't reproduce the quantum mechanical results of non-commuting measurements

You have very low self awareness. You realize that? You are saying I can't disprove Bell because my results don't agree with Bell. You realize this is just circular logic right?

>>11755928
>You have very low self awareness. You realize that? You are saying I can't disprove Bell because my results don't agree with Bell. You realize this is just circular logic right?

You really have to work on that reading problem, you know?

What I've actually been saying from the beginning is that your "work" is at various times nonsensical with improper probabilities and at other times manifestly not locally causal, so what you're doing is irrelevant to Bell's theorem.

When we enter the realm where Bell's theorem is actually relevant, like the student example with multiple possible measurements, then the onus is on you to provide a disproof. You, being a retard, asked me to provide this disproof for you when you said "just demonstrate this yourself".

Throughout three threads, you haven't proved jack shit except that you don't understand anything relevant to Bell's theorem and that you're incapable of even learning about it. Either construct P(B|A,λ) = P(B|λ) that doesn't depend on angle a and P(A|B,λ) = P(A|λ) that doesn't depend on angle b or admit that you're a brainlet.

>>11755979
>Either construct P(B|A,λ) = P(B|λ) that doesn't depend on angle a and P(A|B,λ) = P(A|λ)

Okay, describe to me what's the meaning of the probability that the source is radiating.

>>11756131
So you chose the brainlet path. You'd know what λ meant if you were capable of reading what I've already posted, or reading any of Bell's papers.

>>11756164

λ means the source radiates. Now what is you interpretation of the probability of this event?

>>11756368
>λ means the source radiates.
lmao no

>>11753989
kek