/sci/ - Science & Math

>>11766109
OK schizo

>>11766135

Just point out where I made an error in my derivation please.

if Im a schizo then so was Einstein because he was the one that came up with the paradox in the first place, as a mean to disprove QM. Later Bell tried to disprove Einstein, but his work is faulty.

>>11766150
It's already been pointed out to you repeatedly in many threads. What's the point of doing so again if you are not capable of accepting your errors? It's been fun watching a new schizo in the making. Congratulations on your graduation to delusional ignorance.

I'm having trouble with the idea of a 'pair of photons' emitting from an un polarized source of light, how many photons are being emitted at once? what is the surface area of the polarizers? apologies if your a theory crafter, i've been burned in this field alot by a theorists ignoring data and data ignoring theorists. I'd like too trace a surface over this source and determine its divergence, its electrodynamics.

>>11766109
How many times are you going to make this thread?

>>11766180
>how many photons are being emitted at once?

Two. One goes right and one goes left. The both have the same polarization

>>11766198
>>11766169

You just have to demonstrate I made an error, then I disappear.

>>11766201
>That is half, since the source is unpolarized and the incident photon will be horizontal or vertical with equal probability

>Two. One goes right and one goes left. The both have the same polarization

I feel like these two statements do not square but i continue

>>11766217

There's a series of photons emitted by the source. They are emitted in pairs with similar polarization. On half of a pair goes left the other half goes right

>>11766206
That was done in previous threads, and you eventually did disappear when you ran out of excuses for your errors, but then you reappeared with a new thread, completely ignoring those same errors you failed to correct. So in one sense your claim about disappearing is true and in another sense it is a lie.

>>11766228

No

>>11766246
Yes.

I'll give you one error as a test to see if you disappear: Malus's law doesn't give the probability of a photon going through a detector.

>>11766246
Deny harder

>>11766254
>Malus's law doesn't give the probability of a photon going through a detector.

Ill assume you mean polarizer. So the quantum physicist that wrote this paper is wrong? I'd agree, but for different reasons?

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0301010418300648?via%3Dihub#s0030

>>11766223
Is there some quasi crystal or something that you can hook up to a circuit that can demonstrate the creation of two photons of equal polarization?

I feel like this theory is bent in a way on the source of the light. If I perhaps modified your statement to say

A pair of photons, entangled in polarization, pass though separate polarizers simultaneously.

Am i getting closer to your experiment?

>>11766276
>A pair of photons, entangled

Entanglement isn't real. It violates causality. Entanglement necessitates faster than light information transfer.

My derivation never makes any assumption like that

>>11766286
All I mean is that the wave function of the particles can be expressed as [math]
1/\sqrt{2}(\left|00\right\rangle + \left|11\right\rangle)
[/math]

where 0 is polariation up and 1 is polarization right or whatever

if these particles are independent, why aren't both of them just some random polarization for all the degrees in a circle?

>>11766264
How does what I said imply he's wrong?

You didn't disappear and you didn't show Malus's law gives probabilities. I guess you lied.

>>11766286
>Entanglement isn't real.
It's observed.

>It violates causality.
How?

>Entanglement necessitates faster than light information transfer.
It doesn't transfer information at all.

More errors but you won't disappear.

>>11766302
>if these particles are independent, why aren't both of them just some random polarization for all the degrees in a circle?

You could do that but the math gets messy. Its sufficient and there is no loss of generality to represent unpolarized light as equal components of horizontal and vertically polarized light

>>11766318
>You didn't disappear and you didn't show Malus's law gives probabilities. I guess you lied.

The author of the paper contradicts you. Should I trust you or him?

>>11766324
>It doesn't transfer information at all

Then how does one particle know what spin the other has upon measurement?

>>11766326
> C represents the source emitting the same photon left and right

Yes, i would represent this as the probablity of sending an entangled pair of particles opposite.

> Most authors neglect the fact that the source emits the same photon left and right.
See yes this is the entanglement bit i've been trying to express, their inseparable bits of information, if one is up the other is, if one is right the other is.

This source, we must analytically characterize its electro dynamic properties, what is the probability density of polarization of the average emitted photon.

>>11766355

Entanglement violates causality.

The photons are separated. Don't confuse an expression of conditional probability for a physical mechanism.

P(vertical pair)=1/2
P(horizontal pair)=1/2

>>11766337
It doesn't know anything, it just shares a quantum state with the other particle. It transfers no more information than would be transferred if someone split up a left glove and a right glove.

>>11766334
>The author of the paper contradicts you.
Where?

>>11766375

So you believe in local hidden variables? You are a heretic like me then. Bells theorem is supposed to prove we are wrong.

>>11766381
>Where?

The entire semi-classical derivation is in the supplementary text. I suggest you read it

>>11766387
>So you believe in local hidden variables?
Huh? Where did I say that?

And when are you going to disappear?

>>11766390
I didn't see anything in that section that says Malus's law gives the probability of a photon going through a polarizer. You'll have to be more specific than that.

>>11766400
>Huh? Where did I say that?

it sounded like you were saying you were skeptical of information traveling faster than the speed of light. I'm sorry I must have mistaken you.

>And when are you going to disappear?

I'll stop arguing after I lose. No one has a legitimate criticism of my derivation yet

>>11766408
>I didn't see anything in that section that says Malus's law gives the probability of a photon going through a polarizer. You'll have to be more specific than that.

The paper isn't that long. I don't have a docx viewer right now. I'll just have to read it

>>11766410
>it sounded like you were saying you were skeptical of information traveling faster than the speed of light.
Information doesn't travel faster than the speed of light. How does this imply local hidden variables?

>>11766109
>>>/x/

>>11766419
>Information doesn't travel faster than the speed of light. How does this imply local hidden variables?

I don't really feel like explaining modern physics to you. Just Google entanglement and local hidden variables and read the literature.

>>11766424
I'm already familiar with them, so I already know that information no traveling faster than light doesn't imply local hidden variables. I already know you can't explain it, since it's false. Now disappear.

>>11766433

But you don't have a valid criticism of my derivation. It's not my fault you unwittingly agree with me and not modern physics either.

>>11766109
Then find the "cause" asshole.

>>11766441
I already gave you a valid criticism which you failed to counter. Your delusional misrepresentation of modern physics further cements your mental illness. Now disappear.

>>11766109
>P(A|(B and C) isn't the same as P(A|C)
Imagine having this little understanding of local causality.

>>11766286
>Entanglement isn't real. It violates causality.
Imagine having this little understanding of the no communication theorem.

>>11766445

C

>>11766452
>I already gave you a valid criticism

Unlikely.

>>11766453
>>P(A|(B and C) isn't the same as P(A|C)

Of course not. That would imply probabilistic independence, which I adamantly refute.

>>11766470
>That would imply probabilistic independence, which I adamantly refute.
What happened to "my model obeys local causality"? You can't have it both ways.

>>11766466
Straight up denial of what's right in front of your face. Now disappear.

>>11766506
>What happened to "my model obeys local causality"? You can't have it both ways.

Correlation is not causation. Two variables can be probabilistically dependant but not causally linked. Why don't you give me a citation for a paper that proves otherwise, and I'll read it.

>>11766507

I guess you'll just have to reiterate yourself. I don't remember any valid criticisms in this thread.

>>11766515
See >>11766254

>>11766419
>you didn't fucking read it

>>11766520
>>11766412

>>11766516

You contradict published quantum physicists when you say this. You never answered my question. Why should I believe you over a published quantum physicist? I even provided you a citation. Don't be lazy. Do your homework.

>>11766520
Read what?

>>11766512
Once again: Imagine having this little understanding of local causality. You didn't even complete the reading I assigned to you last time.
https://cds.cern.ch/record/980036/files/197508125.pdf

Repeat after me: in a locally causal classical model, any correlation between spacially separated events goes away when you fully specify the intersection of their past lightcones.

>>11766527
>Repeat after me: in a locally causal classical model, any correlation between spacially separated events goes away when you fully specify the intersection of their past lightcones.

Bell is wrong. I won't take a citation from him. My post in the OP proves him wrong.

>>11766526
>>11766412
>>11766264

>>11766527
The only one contradicting quantum physicists is you. It's funny how you claim this without explaining why while you contradict the basis upon which the entire field rests. Not only have you failed to show any such contradiction, you contradict every quantum physicist alive today. Retarded schizo.

>>11766534
>>11766318
>>11766381
>>11766390
>>11766408
You failed to provide a counterargument. Now disappear.

>>11766533
Nice circular reasoning.

>>11766539
>You failed to provide a counterargument. Now disappear

I just don't believe a random idiot on the internet over a Published quantum physicist that contradicts him. You can't expect me to.

Your inability to read the citation doesn't prove me wrong.

>>11766545
You failed to show how he contradicts me. You lose. Now disappear.

>>11766540
>Nice circular reasoning

No. You are arguing in circles. You say I can't contradict Bell because that would mean contradicting Bell. I am fully aware I contradict Bell. I know probabilistic and causal independence and dependence are not synonymous.

>>11766533
>Bell is wrong.
lol
>My post in the OP proves him wrong.
also lol

>>11766549
>You failed to show how he contradicts me. You lose. Now disappear

I can't read the paper for you, retard, but the author clearly contradicts you

>>11766550
>I know probabilistic and causal independence and dependence are not synonymous.
[citation needed]

>>11766552

Prove I am wrong, then.

>>11766558
Three threads of proving you wrong was enough. It's practically bullying at this point.

>>11766550
Not me. He said you failed to counter Bell's argument about causality. Your only response was that "Bell is wrong" but your argument about Bell being wrong depends on that specific argument being wrong. So your argument is circular. It depends on its own conclusion. His argument depends on Bell's argument about causality.

>>11766556
It's so fucking basic its like the third paragraph down on the Wikipedia article about probability.

The concept of conditional probability is one of the most fundamental and one of the most important in probability theory.[2] But conditional probabilities can be quite slippery and require careful interpretation.[3] For example, there need not be a causal relationship between A and B, and they don't have to occur simultaneously

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

This is why you will never believe yourself to be wrong. You provide a paper as a backing for your claims, yet you haven't even read the paper. Keep making threads, and keep getting shut down. eventually your ego will collapse, OP.

>>11766555
The author clearly doesn't. You are free to prove your claim, or disappear. Your choice. Continuing to post without an actual argument is a violation of your promise.

>>11766565
>Not me. He said you failed to counter Bell's argument about causality. Your only response was that "Bell is wrong" but your argument about Bell being wrong depends on that specific argument being wrong. So your argument is circula

The op proves bell is wrong. Also the Wikipedia article I just cited here.

>>11766568

>>11766570
>You provide a paper as a backing for your claims, yet you haven't even read the pape

I have. The author contradicts you. I'm sorry you refuse to read it.

>>11766568
Pointing to a wikipedia page doesn't prove that you KNOW something.

Repeat after me: in a locally causal classical model, any correlation between spacially separated events goes away when you fully specify the intersection of their past lightcones.

>>11766580
>Repeat after me: in a locally causal classical model, any correlation between spacially separated events goes away when you fully specify the intersection of their past lightcones

No. Correlation is not causation. This is Bells original sin. I refuse to believe his bullshit. I noticed that paper was never peer reviewed of Published too.

>>11766574
>The op proves bell is wrong.
The OP suffers from several flaws, such as misinterpreting Malus's law and not understanding Bell's argument about causality. It doesn't prove anything except the author's incompetence. Your response to this is to refer back to the same argument. It's a circular argument.

>>11766598
>such as misinterpreting Malus's law

I'm interpreting it the same way a published quantum physicist does. Why do you refuse to read the citation?

>>11766576
Do I have to urge you on like an insubordinate puppy? I have read it, and I say it doesn't. You were asked to procure evidence as to how this supports your case. AKA WHAT IS THE LINK? But no, you shifted the burden of proof. Now produce results, or I will continue to shut you down for having logical gaps in your argument.
See
>>11766264

>>11766601
>I'm interpreting it the same way a published quantum physicist does.
You have failed aqt every chance to explain how. Such vague claims are a clear sign you've lost the argument. Now disappear.

>>11766585
>No. Correlation is not causation. This is Bells original sin. I refuse to believe his bullshit.
Once again, showing you don't understand local causality.

>I noticed that paper was never peer reviewed of Published too.
If you weren't such a brainlet, you would realize that this was for a seminar, and you could see that Bell cites his earlier published work and other published work. I picked an easily understandable reference for you, and you won't even bother to read that much.

>>11766610
>AKA WHAT IS THE LINK?

Second time providing you a link to an article you refuse to read.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0301010418300648?via%3Dihub#s0030

Their interpretation of malus's law is identical to mine in the supplementary text

>>11766618
>Once again, showing you don't understand local causality

Why does Bell contradict the Wikipedia article? It's pretty clear then it says correlation is not causation.

>>11766626
Because the wikipedia article doesn't say "when you fully specify the intersection of their past lightcones".

Of course, one might think citing wikipedia while simultaneously bashing one article of Bell's for not being peer reviewed and published in a journal is hypocritical, but good to see you're not bound by such things as consistency.

>>11766109
You made this thread a week ago with a slightly different graphic and got BTFO then, what makes you think you'll be right this time?

>>11766624
Smartass, link as in connection between their conclusion and your hypothesis.

>>11766636

Why does obeying Bells rules of causation lead to violation of causality? If Bells constraint is correct then entanglement is real, and that means information travels faster than light.

So either I violate causality, by violating something Bell made up , which is patently false, or Bell violates causality. The only logical solution is that Bell is incorrect. Unless you don't believe in causality yourself.

>>11766644
>You made this thread a week ago with a slightly different graphic and got BTFO then

No.

>>11766671
>Smartass, link as in connection between their conclusion and your hypothesis.

That quantum physicists interpretation of malus's law in a semi-classical context contradicts you. This has nothing to do with me and the author. It's you who contradict established convention.

>>11767721
>more shifting of the burden of proof

>>11767773
>>more shifting of the burden of proof

If you refuse to read the article and understand it, that's on you. I don't feel like spoon-feeding you. I've given you the citation. That should be sufficient if you have an IQ above room temperature

I have a fully classical proof that avoids this issue since you don't believe the conventinal QM interpretation of malus's law.

>>11767789
So you're saying you can't provide specifics as to why the article is relevant.

>>11767805
>So you're saying you can't provide specifics as to why the article is relevant

It's relevant because it contradicts you.

This is an interesting idea. Read it.

Let's say you and your friend are interested in calculating the joint probability of separate coin tosses being heads. You you both get a coin and after the count of 3 toss the coin. Your results follow. You toss 10 times.

Trial, first coin results, second coin
1,H,T
2,H,T
3,H,T
4,H,H
5,T,H
6,T,T
7,H,H
8,H,T
9,H,H
10,T,H

You notice that the answer is 3/10. By seeing that it was H,H 3 times in ten runs.

Then you want to prove it using a probability formula so you apply P(A and B) = P(A|B)P(B)

So P(B)=5/10, then you look at all the row in A conditioned on B

4,H,H
5,T,H
7,H,H
9,H,H
10,T,H

P(A|B)=3/5, so P(A and B)= 3/5*5/10 = 3/10

This agrees so you are pleased, but then your buddy who is also in the special ed class argues against you

"You can't calculate it that way! One coin toss doesn't cause the outcome of the other! You can't use conditional probability! Conditional probability is synonymous with causation! You must not use it!"

"Ok Bell, we'll do it your way" you say

To appease the retard you apply P(A and B)= P(A)*P(B) = 7/10*5/10=35/100

You notice unsurprisingly you get the wrong answer.

The question is, even in cases of obviously causally independent events, why does Bell fail so hard?

>>11767871
You're extrapolating the true probabilities P(A), P(B), and P(A|B) from a finite sample. If we assume that P(A) really is 7/10, P(B) really is 5/10, and the coins are independent, then the correct answer for P(A and B) is in fact 35/100 and not 30/100. You can verify this yourself by running around ten thousand trials based off a random number generator.
Once again, you demonstrate a basic misunderstanding of probability. Probabilities extrapolated from finite samples will deviate from the true probabilities, moreso with smaller sample sizes.

>>11767904
>You're extrapolating the true probabilities P(A), P(B), and P(A|B) from a finite sample.

No I'm not. I'm only interested in how many out of 10.

>>11767908
If we presume that this finite sample is perfectly representative of the true probabilities, then your coins are not independent. This is why statistical analysis exists: based on the small sample size, it is quite likely that independence will appear to be violated even if they are independent. You simply don't have enough coin tosses to conclude anything.

>>11767921
>If we presume that this finite sample is perfectly representative of the true probabilities

What is a "true probability"? The universe and my patience is finite. I'm only interested in a discrete finite case.

>>11767967
>What is a "true probability"?
Read a textbook on intro to probability and statistics.

>>11767989
Well whatever a true probability is I don't care anyways. I am only interested in a discreet case of finite trials. That doesn't seem to be the true probability, so I don't care.

>>11768034

Schizo

>>11767716
>If Bells constraint is correct then entanglement is real, and that means information travels faster than light.
Imagine still having this little understanding of the no communication theorem.

>>11767871
>confusing small sample ratios with probabilities
Haha Jesus.

>>11768291
>Imagine still having this little understanding of the no communication theorem

So you don't believe in the conventinal interpretation of the results of Bells theorem?

>>11768291
>>confusing small sample ratios with probabilities

After what finite number of trials do bells ideas become true?

>>11768321
You mean the pop-sci interpretation.

>>11768323
Lmao pick up a statistics textbook and learn at least what a confidence interval is.

>>11768363
>You mean the pop-sci interpretation.

You are incorrect. The conventinal interpretation is that information travels faster than light. You can read about it in reputable science journals. Ironically we both agree bell is full of shit

>Lmao pick up a statistics textbook and learn at least what a confidence interval is

Why does calculating joint probability according to bell only make sense after a nonsensical number of trials, while calculating joint probability in the conversational way predating bell always lead to correct results regardless of number of trials?

>>11768388
>You are incorrect. The conventinal interpretation is that information travels faster than light. You can read about it in reputable science journals. Ironically we both agree bell is full of shit
Wrong.

>Why does calculating joint probability according to bell only make sense after a nonsensical number of trials, while calculating joint probability in the conversational way predating bell always lead to correct results regardless of number of trials?
You don't even know the difference between a sample ratio and a probability.

Your rambling is not grounded in reality.

>>11768405
So nature it's a reputable science journal?

https://www.nature.com/news/quantum-teleportation-is-even-weirder-than-you-think-1.22321

Sample ratios are the only real thing we can talk about in regards to an experiment. We can't measure a probability.

Why is bells method of calculating that same ratio always wrong? Should we conclude that in a finite sample of independent events there is a causal relationship ?

>>11768436
>So nature it's a reputable science journal?
That's a pop-sci column that nature's hosting for pop-sci people. It's not a peer-reviewed scientific paper.

>Sample ratios are the only real thing we can talk about in regards to an experiment. We can't measure a probability.
Pick up a statistics textbook. Learn about confidence intervals. Maybe even learn a little Bayesian analysis.

>Why is bells method of calculating that same ratio always wrong? Should we conclude that in a finite sample of independent events there is a causal relationship ?
Bell's method isn't wrong. You still conflate ratios and probabilities. Local causality doesn't deal with sample ratios, so applying it to sample ratios is just you being a brainlet. You'd know this if you read anything of Bell's, which you still refuse to do.

>>11768475
>Bell's method isn't wrong. You still conflate ratios and probabilities

Let's just be realistic about it. Let's say I perform an experiment and then I collect my data. Then I was interested about causal relationships between different variables. if I tried to apply Bells ideas about causality and statistical Independence I would always get the wrong result. It's only off in some imaginative extreme realm where Bells ideas become real. That's not very satisfying.

In my example if you evaluated bells condition on causality you'd have to conclude that one coin toss caused the results of another. You'd find that one isolated coin toss effected the results of the other for any finite set if data. How do you explain this?

>>11768545
Learn basic statistics. With a high enough sample size, you can say with a very high degree of confidence that the observed ratios are extremely close to the true probabilities. n=10 is nowhere near enough to have this kind of statistical power. This is the very bread and butter of experimental conduct and analysis.

>>11768545
>In my example if you evaluated bells condition on causality you'd have to conclude that one coin toss caused the results of another.
Still conflating ratios and probabilities.

>>11768622
>n=10
you'd be surprised how often this happens...
Example: climate models

>>11769049
>>11768622

I don't think you quite understand the severity of the problem. To simplify things, Bell assumes that if two events are not causally linked then P(A)=P(A|B). In any real example like the one here

>>11767871

P(A)=7/10=/=3/5= P(A|B)

In general there is no n where P(A)=P(A|B) even for statistically and causally independent events, so for any finite set of data Bells criteria will lead to the conclusion that independent events are causally linked. Therefore Bells causality condition is meaningless in any real situation.

>>11769353
>still conflating sample ratios with probabilities
lmao

>>11769433

Let's say I'm interested in verifying Bells formalism of causality experimentally. How do I go about measuring a probability?

>>11769587
Again: Pick a statistics textbook and learn about things like confidence intervals at the minimum.

>>11769609

This isn't an answer, but I suppose it's what I should expect from someones whose usual reply is "lmao"

>>11769666
Sorry, I'm not going to tutor you on basic statistics for free.

>>11769666
Checked, and why do you refuse to learn math? Aren't you the one touting papers and telling us to learn it? I read your papers, now you read mine. This ain't homeroom anymore, bitch.

>>11769837
>Checked, and why do you refuse to learn math?

I know math.

>Aren't you the one touting papers and telling us to learn it? I read your papers, now you read mine.

What's your paper?

>>11767871

I'd like to continue this, since some people think the issue will just vanish with extra samples

You tell Bell his formula didn't work. He gets really depressed. "I know Bell is right! He wouldn't lie to me! We just need bigger sample sizes!"

So you humor him. You come up with the following. You'll now flip the coins 100 times and see whether the casually Independent formula or the causally linked formula is more accurate .

You flip the coins 100 times and record P(A and B) by inspection.

Bell uses his formula P(A and B)=P(A)P(B)

He's ecstatic. He triumphantly declares "I'm only 2% off this time!"

You congratulate him but the smile leaves his face when you say the casually dependent formula P(A and B) = P(A|B)P(B) is exact. You found no error.

You do the experiment again with more samples, with the same results, then again and again and again. Each time Bell gets more excited because his formula seems to be less of a joke, but your formula is always exactly right.

My question is the following. If the casually dependent formula is not only always more correct than the independent formula, but exact, doesn't it imply that flipping one coin causes the results of the other coin toss, if bell is to be believed?

This leads to other questions. If Bells formulation on causality is not falsifiable, can it really be considered science? It is infact, in all real instances easily proven false, but I'm expected to accept that it's still true.

>>11770557
My paper is any old probability theory and statistics book. Now get reading.

>>11770823
>You flip the coins 100 times and record P(A and B) by inspection.
Still conflating ratios and probabilities. Seriously, confidence intervals.

>>11768034
So this is what all those threads led up to, OP once again outing himself as not being knowledgeable enough to discuss the very topics he is contracting.

>>11766109
See you in the next thread. Don't forget to publish to vixra.

>>11771981
>See you in the next thread. Don't forget to publish to vixra

I'm going to submit to Science next.

>>11766109
I womder if this retard is trolling but I really wonder if he is enjoying himself. Trolling or not, he surely is not enjoying typing out all these debates and being hassled by so many people.