/sci/ - Science & Math

[Anonymous No.14505120]

A manufacturer makes lefthand and righthand threaded bolts. The manufacturer also includes a nut to every bolt and twists it in place. The bolts are put in a single box, such way there is 50:50 both handness. I pick one without looking. With iron saw I cut between the nut and head. I send the head part at my pal at Australia and nut part at my pal at UK. I say with time 12:00:00.0 GMT+0 they must look the handedness. Both report right hand threads.
Faster than light.

This is muh QuAnTuM enTangLeMEnT

[Anonymous No.14505127]

You can give head to my nuts, op

[Anonymous No.14505138]

>>14505120
>I cut between the nut and head
I cut between your head and nut OP cause you're a fag

[Anonymous No.14505144]

>>14505127
>>14505138
QM shitters mad I exposed their faggy little scam and fantasy story

Captcha : 8jjj8
Coincidence, pure.

[Anonymous No.14505146]

interesting idea about trying to use sorting to send a bit of information faster than light using quantum entanglement. I'll have to think about that some more that's pretty neat

[Anonymous No.14505148]

>>14505120
You see handedness of the thread visually and feel it with the saw when you cut the bolt, that way doing a measurement.

And BTW you don't need a nut, you can just cut a bolt in a multiple parts and send it to multiple friends. It can also be not a bolts but a pieces of plastic of different colors.

[Anonymous No.14505153]

>>14505120
And of course, as with quantum entaglement, none of your friends sends any information to each other by just measuring the items.

[Anonymous No.14505159]

>>14505146
Heres a picture of you trying to think

[Anonymous No.14505163]

>>14505159
Here is a high-resolution photograph of you saying a thing I disagree with.

[Anonymous No.14505176]

>>14505148
dice are rolled and cut down the middle. then the boxes are sent across the world. The rolled value is the intact face of the cube. Business model? RNG arbitrage for dnd. I'll collect my inventor's check now.

[Anonymous No.14505179]

I prefer the torodial photon theory myself

[Anonymous No.14505180]

>>14505176
Failed business. Go back to school.

[Anonymous No.14505204]

>>14505120
i would say the outcome is deterministic being that the state of one is determined by the state of the other. therfore you know the effect of an observation and all possible states of the objects. like if you have a pool table and the order of the balls in each pocket you can determine the games states but not how the balls were arranged.

[Anonymous No.14505207]

>>14505120
>iron saw

What is wire EDM?

>>14505120
Did sci-fi get quantum wrong?

[Anonymous No.14505292]

>>14505120
A nut and bolt aren't single entangled particles you tard.

The experiments have been done time and time again, in many different ways, under many different conditions, by many different people.

There is no arguing that it is fake, it has been proven.

[Anonymous No.14505301]

>>14505292
Yes as my valid entanglement of thread and nut shows. Photon polarisation comes with a twist too.

[Anonymous No.14505303]

>>14505148
I use a blindfold and let a robot handle the bolt. I just saw it twine. Perfect randomness.

[Anonymous No.14506345]

>>14505120
> they must look the handedness. Both report right hand threads.
>Faster than light.

You can't see something faster than the light bouncing off of it reaches you. They both don't report faster than light. The odds that they would report simultaneously is pretty low as well. Same goes for any electronics you'd use.

[Anonymous No.14507594]

>>14505120
OP, I thought this too for a long time, but actually it's not the case and there is hard evidence that something fucky is happening with QM. What you are suggesting is called a "local hidden variables" theory, and all such theories have been mathematically disproved by Bells Theorem. I suggest you go read about it since the math involved is actually not that complex. The problem is that pop science content regarding QM usually glosses over this important point and just says "The values were the same even though they didn't communicate! Waow!" and expects their subhuman low IQ audience to take such statements at face value without making the logical assumption as you are that something more simple is happening behind the scenes. What it basically boils down to is that the probabilities you would expect don't match up. Imagine you do the experiment you described many times and you're sure that the probability of left vs. right was 50-50 but your pals report 60% left 40% right. You'd have to assume something weird is going on, which is the case with QM. That example is a bit more simple than what happens with Bells Theorem, but not by much.

[Anonymous No.14507688]

>>14507594
>hard evidence that something fucky is happening with QM

I see it too. And the answer is the fucky scientist that gains more profit for more mysteric explanation of things.

[Anonymous No.14507696]

>>14507594
>probability of left vs. right was 50-50 but your pals report 60% left 40% right

this is not even the point? This can be explained just so the box actually contained 60% and 40%, a mistake of the manufacturer or a probabilistic curiosity. The outcome that both report same handed threads is marketed as the mystery.

[Anonymous No.14507739]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zcqZHYo7ONs

this is your brain after quantum shitted

simple wave polarization goes some abnormal as you think it abnormally. Or normally now, as retard have mainstreamed QM.

[Anonymous No.14507784]

>>14507688
Well either Bell's Theorem is correct or there's a big conspiracy going on because it seems as though the probabilities have been verified plenty of times by different people.
>>14507696
Fine, say that you then changed something that should not effect the probability, like the day of the week it's performed on, and using the same lot of screws you get 40-60 odds instead. The point is that it's possible to construct a probability that should hold regardless of how the underlying system works, and yet QM consistently gives a different probability. Just go read about it if you want to see the actual calculation.

[Anonymous No.14507835]

>>14507784
What probabilities are you talking about?

https://theses.gla.ac.uk/38977/1/2018MorrisPhD.pdf

>>14506471

There is a thread about entangled "ghost" image. Clearly the engtangled photons just have the same/mirror properties as their pairs. No "spooky action at distance" by Einstein, just plain Bohr's viewpoint.

[Anonymous No.14507880]

>>14505120
That's how Everett's interpretation works. Entanglement is when you have several such states in superposition, but each state in isolation works like you described.

[Anonymous No.14507939]

>>14507880
So, whats the mystery? Or is there no mystery, just popsci mystification?

[Anonymous No.14508002]

>>14507939
There's no mystery. Only clickbaits necessitated by attention economy.

[Anonymous No.14508138]

>>14507696
>>14507835
OP prepares a bunch of boxes containing 3 bolts each. Each bolt is either left handed or right handed. OP then cuts each box in half down the middle and sends one half to the britbong and the other half to the aussie. Each person can only examine one out of the three half-bolts in each box - maybe as soon as they've checked the threading of one bolt, the other two disintegrate or something, whatever. If they both look at the left bolt, they'll both see the same direction of threading. Same with middle bolt, and right bolt. This is obvious, as the original OP stated, and does not suggest anything remarkable. What is remarkable is what happens when they examine different bolts, for example, the britbong checks the leftmost one and the aussie checks the middle one. Then next the britbong checks the rightmost and the aussie checks the leftmost. They continue doing this for a thousand boxes, say they roll dice and randomly decide to check left, middle, or right bolt for each of 1000 boxes. Now, regardless of what the original distribution of bolts was, or any funny tricks OP tried to pull while sorting them into the boxes, for any given box, the probability of the brit and the aussie seeing the same type of bolt MUST be at least 1/3. There's only two types of bolts, and each box contains 3 bolts, so there are necessarily AT LEAST two of the same type of bolt in each box. No matter what bolts they look at, they should always be guaranteed to find dups at least a third of the time. But in QM, this doesn't hold. Doing an experiment equivalent to this finds the same type only 1/4 of the time. That probability is impossible to accomplish using OP's setup, regardless of how he tries to rig it. The only way he can accomplish it is by looking to see which screw the brit examined, and then flying to Australia and changing the contents of the other guy's box to skew the results.

[Anonymous No.14508184]

>>14508138
1/4<1/3

So you are telling me now that the propability of finding two entangled particles goes lower than expected.

Im finding a pattern here. Ask for Quantum x, then you are guaranteed that two distinct scientist are going to give different story each time, even more probable than anyone could have ever guessed from the possible explanation combinations.

[Anonymous No.14508203]

>>14507880
Fuck many worlds thats not good theory just stupid

[Anonymous No.14508222]

>>14508203
It works, so it's a good theory.

[Anonymous No.14508282]

>>14508184
It's the fact that an event that should happen with a minimum chance of 1/3 no matter how you look at it is happening at a frequency of 1/4 that's notable, whether that event is "particles with same charge" or "particles with different charge" or "screws with the same threading" or whatever the fuck is obviously irrelevant. If you can't realize that you're a brainlet dude. Depending on the experiment the "bolts" and "threading" is electron spin, or photon polarization, and so forth, and "getting the same type" might be replaced by "getting the opposite type". All that matters is that it's an event for which there are two possible outcomes.

[Anonymous No.14508300]

>>14508203
By the way MWI explains the behavior I mentioned here >>14508138 by positing that both aussie and britbong experience multiple outcomes, and in the future the versions of them who experienced the outcomes that create the "correct" probability distribution are the ones who end up meeting each other when they eventually communicate to share their results. Thus the mechanism that creates the "weird" probability is deterministic and only goes into effect once the subjects are close enough that there are no FTL shenanigans. As far as I can tell MWI is the only quantum interpretation that actually makes internal sense instead of just handwaving or invoking magic.

[Anonymous No.14508461]

>>14505120
Do you really think that's all there is to it and nobody has thought of your simple interpretation all this time?

[Anonymous No.14508598]

>>14508461
No, in just dollowing 4chan practise and make good provocative to have maximum amount of talking. Lame ass start would have made lame ass thread

[Anonymous No.14508603]

>>14508300
Bulshit
>>14508282
The spin is not deeply binary. In a sense. Its just projection to some measure axis. There is a simple answer to everything. We havent just found it.

[Anonymous No.14508683]

>>14508138
Angular momentum cannot be three way, two ways split anyhow. The measuring aligns the particle first. Then the out come is either up or down.

Angluar momentum has a continous probabilty to point somewhere in space. Should the measuring device ve at "z" direction its sucks the particle and aligns same way it best possibly can. This is why we get the different number than 1/3

[Anonymous No.14508894]

>>14508138
>Doing an experiment equivalent to this finds the same type only 1/4 of the time.
What? How?

[Anonymous No.14509392]

>>14508603
>Bullshit
None of the other theories offer a satisfying explanation.
>The spin is not deeply binary
Doesn't matter, there still isn't any way to have a system that recreates those outcomes without either FTL, losing free will, or doing something 'weird' like MWI. Just think about it dude.

[Anonymous No.14509586]

>>14508683
See >>14509392, it literally does not matter if the device moves the particle or changes its properties or whatever. It doesn't even matter if the device is completely broken and gives results that aren't related to the state of the particle at all. There is no way to program the device to achieve that correlation of 1/4 with the other device as long as the choices of left/middle/right are made external to the device, the only input is the particle, and the two devices cannot communicate. It's simply can't be done, just think about it and try to come up with a way, you cannot.

[Anonymous No.14509628]

>>14508894
The experiment in question is this photon measuring one:
https://drchinese.com/David/Bell_Theorem_Easy_Math.htm
There are three settings for the machine at angles 0, 120, and 240. Photons either pass through the machine and get detected or they don't. The photons are "entangled" and then separated in such a way that if you set the machine to 0 and the other guy sets his to 0, you both see the same result 100% of the time. If you set your machine to 0 and he sets his to 120, you see the same result 25% of the time. Same with 120 vs 240 and 240 vs 0. The three settings are equivalent to picking one of the three bolts, and seeing matching threading is equivalent to seeing the same results on your detector machine as the other guy. No matter how you twist it, there is no mechanism you can ascribe to the photons and the machine that will produce these probabilities. For each setting of the machine, each photon must either get detected or not get detected. That's three binary values. Two of them must be the same. Picking from them must give you the same value as your partner at least 1/3 of the time, unless you coordinate with your partner.

[Anonymous No.14509634]

>>14509586
>There is no way to program the device to achieve that correlation of 1/4 with the other device
To be fair, I should have said, to achieve that correlation of 1/4 with the other device, while also maintaining the property that the correlation is 100% when the same settings are chosen for each device. If you don't care about the latter then obviously you could just have one device always output zeros and the other output zeros 25% of the time. The 100% chance of getting the same output when the settings are the same for both devices is the constraint that makes the task impossible to do without quantum shit.

[Anonymous No.14509820]

>>14505120
entanglement is just a statistical formalism. Stop trying to turn a statistical model with aphysical formalisms into something physical.

[Anonymous No.14509898]

>>14509820
>don't think about it just trust the science and calculate goy
brainlet tier

[Anonymous No.14509932]

>>14509586
>>14509628
It matters. You are making something continous into something discrete. There are factors and you just dismiss them.

If the math fails then there is something we dont know, not that we need to break math.

[Anonymous No.14509981]

>>14509932
I'm sorry Anon but you're wrong, it does not matter. Try to describe a scenario that reproduces those results using continuous values. It can't be done. It's like trying to solve one of those how-to-keep-an-autist-busy utility puzzles.

[Anonymous No.14510028]

>>14509981
No. You dont even know polarizers. Only 90 degree apart two polarizers wont pass any light. As 0, 120 and 240 degrees have each others components they pass some.

Photon polarisation doesnt of course have three components. Its has the angle and magnitude.


Neither does angular momentum have three components.

It too has (stereo) angle and magnitude.

[Anonymous No.14510036]

If you have 0 and 90 degree polarizers, no light should not pass t. QM.

Wrong. T. Light expert. Just put a 45 degree polarizer between. Its like it twists the light so it can pass the sharp 90 deg corner.

[Anonymous No.14510039]

>>14510028
>You dont even know polarizers
You're still missing the point and you still haven't addressed my challenge: explain some system that recreates the experimental findings. The details do not matter, if you can come up with such a system using any details you like, then you've beaten quantum physics. Go ahead and describe a system that produces those results based on "angle and magnitude" or any other internal mechanism. It can't be done.

[Anonymous No.14510041]

>>14510039
The system you have used.

Lol. Its just as physical system as anyone else. You just labelled it with the QM (trademark) stamp.

[Anonymous No.14510042]

>>14510036
Just to be clear, the experiment in question entangles two photons and then passes one through each polarizer. It doesn't pass the same photon through 2 polarizers in succession, that's different.

[Anonymous No.14510045]

>>14510039
The three bolts analogy would be bad. As they are separate beings. Good analytic would be some painted cube where you measure it by slicing the corners.

[Anonymous No.14510049]

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

[Anonymous No.14510051]

>>14510042
Its not much different. The photon, that is a wave, will have polarisation in that direction. But it will have a component to +120 and +240 too as they arent 90 degrees apart.

[Anonymous No.14510052]

>>14510041
I'm sorry, maybe I misunderstood you. I agree, QM does reproduce the results, as verified by experiments (that's where the results came from in the first place). My point was that the results cannot be reproduced by any "common sense" system like OP was proposing, or what physics people call a "local hidden variables" system. The system that produces these results must have either FTL behavior, or it must abandon some element of "realism", "free will", "counterfactual definiteness", or whatever you want to call it (e.g. it must make the claim that certain combinations of experimenter choices and outcomes can't happen because... because they just can't okay?), or, it must do something fucky with the fabric of reality like MWI does. And out of those choices, MWI is the least stupid.

[Anonymous No.14510055]

>>14510052
>My point was that the results cannot be reproduced by any "common sense" system like OP was proposing, or what physics people call a "local hidden variables" system
read >>14510049

[Anonymous No.14510063]

>>14510052
Or then if you insists there doesnt happen anything /x/ tier its just is a wave polarization, or a spin measure. As spinning top has quite constant z-angular momentum, it can still spin circle in xy-wise.

[Anonymous No.14510085]

>>14510055
I did. Adding in the 1/2 makes it such that the probability will be 50% when the angle of the two thingies is the same, and 12.5% when the angle is 120 degrees apart. The same argument still applies - no classical system can recreate those numbers.

[Anonymous No.14510094]

>>14510085
>I did. Adding in the 1/2 makes it such that the probability will be 50% when the angle of the two thingies is the same, and 12.5% when the angle is 120 degrees apart. The same argument still applies - no classical system can recreate those numbers.
are you referencing a famous experiment? I've read most of your posts and have no clue what you are trying to reference. where does 120 degrees come from? theres no need to talk about anything not in the 0-90 degree range. do you understand what polarization is?

[Anonymous No.14510111]

>>14510085
>The same argument still applies - no classical system can recreate those numbers.
so confused. are you saying I didn't outline a classical system?

[Anonymous No.14510119]

>>14510094
I'm referencing the experiment described in the post I linked in >>14509628:
https://drchinese.com/David/Bell_Theorem_Easy_Math.htm
I'm not sure what the official name for this experiment is but I've seen it or similar experiments used frequently to describe Bell's Theorem, as I'm trying to do so now.

[Anonymous No.14510123]

>>14510111
You did not, because the system uses photons, which don't have classical behavior. You can't write a computer program that will recreate that behavior without cheating.

[Anonymous No.14510243]

>>14510123
oops:

import java.util.Random;
public class MyQMPolarizer {
public static void main(String args[]) {
Random rd=new Random();
double rndouble=rd.nextDouble();
double rnangle=Math.PI*rndouble;
double rnpolarizarion=Math.pow(Math.cos(rnangle),2)/2;

System.out.println("Polarization: "+rnpolarizarion);
}
}

[Anonymous No.14510275]

>>14509628
That's off topic. Rotation of basis tests superposition, not entanglement. OP's example is a correct analogy of entanglement, it's just not an analogy of superposition.

[Anonymous No.14510297]

The commutation relation of angular momentum operator
is [J_x, J_y]=i*h-bar*J_z.

If the spins would carry exactly the opposite spin encoding one could measure J_x and other would measure entangled particles J_y. You would get the perfect measure! This is not the case though. There is something fundamentally we don't know.

[Anonymous No.14510448]

>>14510243
That's not the same at all. Here, I didn't feel like working today anyway so I've taken the time to write it out as a Java programming challenge:
https://www.online-java.com/q5iE37nuPr
>>14510275
OP's analogy does not account for Bell correlations, therefor it's not an accurate model of entanglement. Whatever other details there might be are at a lower level of abstraction and irrelevant unless you can somehow manipulate them to get the desired outcome.

[Anonymous No.14510466]

>>14510448
But you just take rd.nextInt from the pool 0 1 2.
My small example took from pool 0 to Pi.

Of course, my pool is just pseudocontinous. Double contains at most 64 bits where the fraction part is 52 bits.

[Anonymous No.14510499]

>>14510466
Yes, you're supposed to change that part. My code is just a trivial way to get the optimal result. The point is you can't do any better with doubles or pi or cosines or whatever other fancy math you want to use, unless you break the rules.

[Anonymous No.14510507]

>>14510049
>the condition B and C necessitate a vertically polarized photon incident on the left polarizer
Why? Just because a photon can pass the right polarizer doesn't mean it was vertically polarized

[Anonymous No.14510512]

>>14510499
Im not breaking the rules. I just want to use the polarizer equation, not one two three.

The problem is that what counts as 0, 120 and 240 polarized photon?

[Anonymous No.14510548]

>>14510512
Then try it. Change the parts marked @FIXME and run the program. Say the settings A, B, and C are orientations of the detectors 0, 120, and 240.

[Anonymous No.14510573]

>>14510548
No, the programming is the easy part as a good programmer you know this.

The setup: say a light wave has 0 degree polarization. 120 degrees off, or -60 degrees off polarizer passes intensity component cos^2(-60)=cos^2(120)=1/4.

How you deal with this?

[Anonymous No.14510694]

>>14510573
Here's something closer to what you want maybe:
https://www.online-java.com/djAlOYoZyR
But we've lost the 100% correlation when the settings are the same (which should happen because the particles are entangled).We lose it because we're doing the random check to see if the particle passes the filter twice, once for each person.

Anyway, the point of this is that you can't manipulate this program to output 100% and 25% at the bottom without cheating. I believe the program accurately models the behavior of the experiment I was talking about, and the experiment gets 100% 25% (or so we're told), so QM must be doing something wacky.

There are other experiments too, there's one with electron spin I think where you get 85% chance of an event happening when the detectors are offset by 45 degrees but only 50% chance when they're offset by 90 degrees - here the paradox is that 85 hits for 0 vs. 45 and 85 hits for 45 vs 90 means you should see more than 50 hits for 0 vs. 90. And there's the CHSH one detailed on the Bells Theorem wikipedia page. Either of these could be modeled in a similar way as a programming puzzle and similarly be impossible to solve without "cheating".

[Anonymous No.14510726]

>>14510448
In your example discrepancy is not due to entanglement, but due to rotation of basis, which is entirely different phenomenon, it's not related to entanglement at all and happens without entanglement too.

[Anonymous No.14510768]

Where's your refutation of >>14510507, poster #14510049? This completely invalidates your image.

[Anonymous No.14510817]

>>14510726
Yes, however entanglement is necessary for the experiment in order to allow two of the three possible outcomes to be tested per particle. Otherwise they could only test 1. As for the programming puzzle, having the constraint that the outcome must be 100% correlated when the choices of measurement setting are the same makes it impossible to trivially game the system as I suggested here >>14509634. I believe the original experiment will behave this way so putting that constraint on the program seems reasonable.

[Anonymous No.14510829]

>>14510573
>>14510694
Here's one more Java sir:
https://www.online-java.com/RN07Q5VBdn
I think this is closer to the spirit of the problem: the particles are entangled, so the outcome should be the same for alice and bob when the choose the same settings. Here it precalculates all the possible outcomes and assigns from that pool. As you can see it still won't go to 25%, as should be expected.

[Anonymous No.14510839]

>>14510817
Testing 1 is fine, OP will still have nowhere to take cos^2(120) from. Entanglement isn't need at all.

[Anonymous No.14510867]

>>14510829
double diffDegrees = Math.abs(particle.polarizationDegrees - machineOrientation);
// probability of passing the thing
double probability = Math.cos(Math.toRadians(diffDegrees));
probability = probability * probability;
// did we pass the thing?
return ThreadLocalRandom.current().nextDouble() < probability;


This is the problem. Malus' law is not probabilistic. It cuts the photon wave such way the component towards polarisation remains, and the components 90 degress off, vanishes.

[Anonymous No.14510887]

>>14510867
I'm honestly not sure if the math is correct I just tried to implement what >>14510573 wrote, but regardless it can't be made to give the correct answer anyway.

[Anonymous No.14510901]

>>14510887
That would be me.

The reasoning of photons being single particles just doesn't appeal to me.

The polarized passes just about everything, only excatly 90 degrees off polarized light won't pass.

[Anonymous No.14511206]

>>14510123
>You did not, because the system uses photons, which don't have classical behavior.
I used the semi-classical model of light. For a full classical treatment see pic related. It has a computer program inside the PDF that violates Bell inequality.

[Anonymous No.14511208]

>>14510507
>Just because a photon can pass the right polarizer doesn't mean it was vertically polarized
yes. it does, because it can only he horizontal or vertical and the horizontal will necessarily be blocked and not pass through to be detected. it's called logic. learn it.

[Anonymous No.14511218]

>>14511208
>because it can only he horizontal or vertical
LOOOOOOOOLLL
Answer this moron: are the photons coming out of the left polarizer polarized horizontally or vertically?

[Anonymous No.14511236]

>>14511218
>are the photons coming out of the left polarizer polarized horizontally or vertically?
yes. You are only highlighting the failure of the semi-classical model. I could give you a dozen additional reasons it makes no sense. Why don't you read >>14511206
Which contains a classical model with the same results, which can't be falsified.

[Anonymous No.14511249]

>>14511236
>You are only highlighting the failure of the semi-classical model.
So you admit that your trash 'model' is a total failure and yet you keep posting it. Give me one good reason why I should bother reading your schizo paper when you've already demonstrated that you're incapable of making correct statements about the things you're talking about.

[Anonymous No.14511260]

>>14511249
>So you admit that your trash 'model' is a total failure and yet you keep posting it
no. My model is perfect within the semi-classical assumption about light. The reality is photons don't exist.

[Anonymous No.14511268]

>>14511260
No you fucking moron. Your model is a total failure because you're saying that all photons are either vertically or horizontally polarized when "vertical" and "horizontal" are defined only relative the orientation of a specific polarizer.

[Anonymous No.14511273]

>>14511268
>Your model is a total failure because you're saying that all photons are either vertically or horizontally polarized when "vertical" and "horizontal" are defined only relative the orientation of a specific polarizer.
no. That isn't logical. I defined the source. It is unpolarized. It satisfies the experimental setup. It gets the forbidden correlation. Your protests to it are nonsensical and illogical.

[Anonymous No.14511274]

>>14511268
>screeching insults and profanities
you are massively triggered and on the verge of a chimpout, you have the emotional control of a young child.
why don't you take a time out from the board, you can come back when you're ready to discuss science on a rational basis like an adult? 4chan is an 18 and over website, no screeching crybabies permitted

[Anonymous No.14511275]

>>14511206
The program in that paper seems to be fundamentally misunderstanding the intent behind the CHSH inequality, which by the way isn't the same formulation of Bell's inequality as we were discussing before. It's trivial to write a program that "violates" CHSH as yours does (although I think even then the math at the bottom looks kind of suspect). The inequality won't be violated when you are forced to assign a +1 or -1 value to all four events at every run of the system, which is what a classical system would have to do (since in any classical system you would have a choice between choosing any one of the four events, and all four events would have a well defined outcome).

[Anonymous No.14511279]

>>14511273
>It gets the forbidden correlation
No it doesn't you absolute imbecile. Because you've defined horizontal and vertical arbitrarily, if you turn both polarizers by the same angle, your model will predict a completely wrong probability. Absolute fucking retard
>>14511274
Shut up you braindead donkey.

[Anonymous No.14511356]

>>14511279
>Because you've defined horizontal and vertical arbitrarily
So? How is this relevant. If it's evidence for anything it's evidence for the non-existentence of photons. And the falsification of semi-classical physics itself.

[Anonymous No.14511389]

>>14511356
>So? How is this relevant. If it's evidence for anything it's evidence for the non-existentence of photons.
Haha wow you're hopeless

[Anonymous No.14511392]

>>14511206
Uh oh. Nice pdf. Shame if it would be ignored by the mainstream physics community being too reality bound.

[Anonymous No.14511423]

>>14511389
>Haha wow you're hopeless
Well you could try to answer the question. Why in the model are absolute angles so relevant when in reality they aren't? Perhaps the semi-classical photon doesn't model reality? Light is a transverse EM wave as described by Maxwell.

[Anonymous No.14511446]

>>14511423
>Why in the model are absolute angles so relevant when in reality they aren't?
Because your model is retarded, invalid nonsense you fucking schizo

[Anonymous No.14511470]

>>14505120
t. This whole thread

[Anonymous No.14511479]

>>14511470
>both sides are bad!!!
>i am... le smart!
t. (You)

[Anonymous No.14511488]

>>14511446
>Because your model is retarded, invalid nonsense you fucking schizo
It's faithful to the semi-classical assumptions. Are you saying semi-classical physics is wrong?

[Anonymous No.14511497]

>>14511488
Replying to you anymore will give me an aneurysm. You are a waste of life and should kill yourself at the earliest. Regards.

[Anonymous No.14511499]

>>14511479
t. seething

[Anonymous No.14511515]

>>14511497
But seriously tho. The semi-classical assumption is the following. It's invented by Einstein BTW. Light is composed of particles of light. They travel through space at the speed of light. They interact discretely with the environment. How did i violate any of these principles? Personally i know light is an EM wave.

[Anonymous No.14511604]

Photon just cant be quanta. Halving the intensity doesnt mean there is half the photon particles. Half the photoelectric electrons maybe. Electrons are discrete, not photons.

There are no eight choises (pass/nopass) in polariser with three settings. There is only one possibility, EM wave goes through all the polarizers, it has zero chance to be perfectly aligned. Probability one for 1 1 1 rest is zero. But the polarizer always cuts the em wave. cos^2(theta). Qed.

[Anonymous No.14511613]

If the java guy is here i would like him to alter his code (if you have time) that for each "photon" you dont give one or zero given the separation of polarizer. You give them cos^2(theta) where theta is the angle between polarization and the polarizer angle. When accumulating, there should be the experimentally measured probability.

[Anonymous No.14512131]

>>14511275
I don't care if I "misunderstood the intent of the inequality". The point is it is a model that explains experimental results.

[Anonymous No.14512688]

>>14511613
I'm not sure I follow, but I think you're suggesting to change the return type of "doTheThing" from bool to double or something? The return type has to be bool in order to model the experiment. The bool doesn't represent some property of the "photon" or "wave" or "electron" or whatever it is. It simply represents a lamp on the technician's detector that is either on or off. The experiment is really only concerned with the lamp and the correlations between counts of "lamp is on" and "lamp is off". Whether these counts are generated by photons, or waves, or little machine elves who occasionally reach into the detector when nobody is looking and short out the wires, is completely irrelevant. The detector is a black box - a setting A, B, or C plus some opaque arbitrary input (which we're calling a "particle" but really it could be anything at all) goes in, lamp state being on or off comes out.

[Anonymous No.14512694]

>>14512131
That's like someone says "write a program that proves 2+2=5" and you write a program that when given the input "2+2" outputs the string "5". So what?

[Anonymous No.14512706]

>>14512694
>That's like someone says "write a program that proves 2+2=5" and you write a program that when given the input "2+2" outputs the string "5". So what?
not an argument.

[Anonymous No.14512800]

>>14512706
>writing a program that outputs "5" in response to "2+2" is good evidence that 2+2=5

[Anonymous No.14512889]

>>14512800
what is your argument? your analogy is retarded. I wrote up a physical model using physical classical principles then wrote a program to simulate that system and got the experimental results. Do you have a criticism or just memes?

[Anonymous No.14513034]

>>14512889
My argument is that your program doesn't correctly model the CHSH problem as it's described here:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bell%27s_theorem
There are two people making measurements, and two settings per person. Each measurement returns either 1 or -1. I don't see that logic in your program, which is why I said it's effectively the same as printing "2+2=5". I rewrote the Java program from yesterday to use the CHSH setup instead:
https://www.online-java.com/Jmoi6BhAtY
I wrote two versions of the detector function, one that's a dummy example and one that cheats by letting bob examine alice's outcome and then outputs a value such that the QM expected result of 2 * sqrt(2) (about 2.8) gets generated. If you can change the dummy function to generate the same output as the cheating function, without cheating, then you win, but that should be impossible.

[Anonymous No.14513539]

But what if they change in specific order the selection? Bob goes ABCABC and Alice goes CBACBA?


This is just statistics. The statistics breaks in single measurement.

[Anonymous No.14513741]

>>14513539
If you have to constrain the order of the choice of settings that would be form a cheating yes, similar to snooping the RNG to figure out what order the settings will come in ("superdeterminism"). The experimenters are assumed to have "free will" to pick whatever settings they want without having the elves who move the photons around read their minds.

[Anonymous No.14513751]

>>14505120
Mmm no, because in quantum entanglement they are in a superposition of states before observation.

[Anonymous No.14513828]

>>14513034
>Each measurement returns either 1 or -1. I don't see that logic in your program
its right here retard
A=sign(cos(photon-a))*(rand<sqrt(abs(cos(photon-a))));
B=-sign(cos(photon-b))*(rand<sqrt(abs(cos(photon-b))));
A is Alice B is Bob. they take the initial polarization angle, photon, then after it goes through a polarizer at a and b respectively, they have some probability of detection based on the intensity of the resulting amplitude of the wave modeled by shot noise. why dont you actually read the paper moron?

[Anonymous No.14513853]

>>14513828
1. You're missing the "two settings per person" part, in your program the a and b inputs stay constant over the entire loop. They're supposed to vary randomly.
2. It looks like pp, nn, np, and pn are supposed to correspond to the 4 terms of the CHSH equation (or maybe not?), but they're not being tallied as such. They're supposed to be based on the combination of a and b that got chosen out of 4 possible choices.
Read https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bell%27s_theorem and look at the program I posted here >>14513034. It looks like your program generates a nice looking curve but that doesn't constitute "recreating the correlation seen in the Bell type experiments" or "simulating the classical CHSH violation". The explanation on Wikipedia just doesn't map to your program.

[Anonymous No.14513871]

>>14513853
>in your program the a and b inputs stay constant over the entire loop. They're supposed to vary randomly.
dude, those are the polarizer settings, NO they are not supposed to randomly change. E(a,b) is the correlation for Alice and Bob setting the polarizers at a, and b. You don't understand at all what you are looking at. You could have just asked some simple questions instead of leaping to assumptions and making an ass of yourself.

[Anonymous No.14513880]

>>14513871
>NO they are not supposed to randomly change
>Alice and Bob stand in widely separated locations. Victor prepares a pair of particles and sends one to Alice and the other to Bob. When Alice receives her particle, she chooses to perform one of two possible measurements (perhaps by flipping a coin to decide which).
>perhaps by flipping a coin to decide which

[Anonymous No.14513910]

>>14513880
Once again. what is your argument? You insist the polarizer settings are supposed to change randomly during a calculation of the correlation? NO. THAT IS NOT TRUE. what happens in the experiment and in the simulation is that Alice and Bob set a and b. Then thousands of particles are sent through to the detectors and their correlation is computed. This is EXACTLY what happens in the function. Perhaps, what is throwing you off is you don't realize this is a function and if you want to see the results in terms of all the correlations at all relative settings of a and b you'll have to have a program that calls E(a,b) at different setting that Alice and Bob could make, then collect those correlations and make a graph. Regardless, try actually reading the paper and the code. You'll see you have no understanding, and no real criticism.

[Anonymous No.14514068]

>>14513910
My argument, as I stated before, is that you're not modeling the scenario in the "Theorem" section here:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bell%27s_theorem
My program models that scenario, and I stand by the idea that if that scenario describes something that can really happen, then QM must have "weird" non classical behavior. However, from your last post I see that you are actually trying to model the experiment described here:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bell_test
>A typical CHSH (two-channel) experiment
This isn't as straight forward as the scenario I was looking at. I'll have to think about it for a while, but I do notice that your program has "zero outcomes" which don't get included in the total count. I'm not so sure the significance of that, but according to this:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CHSH_inequality
>The occurrence of zero outcomes, though, means it is no longer so obvious how the values of E are to be estimated from the experimental data.
And here:
https://academickids.com/encyclopedia/index.php/Talk:Bell%27s_theorem
>We all seem agreed the CHSH inequality holds equally when there are some zero values, but it is clear that it assumes the use full value for 'N' in estimates based on formula (2). It assumes we divide by the number of pairs we attempt to measure, not the number that we measure and which give a non-zero outcomes for both Alice and Bob. [The notation is still, incidentally, very confusing!] This, of course, is what lies at the heart of the detection loophole and I don't understand the explanation given of how to get around it -- how to justify use of formula (2) using the total observed coincidences (i.e. just the non-zero outcomes when both sides are non-zero at once) instead of N.

[Anonymous No.14514125]

>>14514068
>I'll have to think about it for a while, but I do notice that your program has "zero outcomes" which don't get included in the total count
Well let's discuss this. You get an EM wave or an "electron wave". You put it through a polarizer which can also attenuate the wave to anything approaching zero. Then you try to detect it. There are going to be cases where whatever remains of the incident radiation is too small to be detected. This is a celebrated and entrenched principle of QM and makes absolute sense from a classical perspective. I'd say it's much more strange to expect you can measure the polarization or spin on an electron with zero uncertainty and get binary outcomes each time. There must be a 0 or null result that must be discarded.

[Anonymous No.14514199]

>>14514125
Okay, I've made my program throw out zero outcomes and I can indeed get a result above 2 after playing with it for a while:
https://www.online-java.com/vOoFuWPCb2
If I remove the "if (product != 0) ..." condition so that the counts are incremented even when there was no result, the outcome falls back below 2. That matches up with "It assumes we divide by the number of pairs we attempt to measure, not the number that we measure and which give a non-zero outcomes". Note that I've made it calculate the rate of outcomes that were non-zero, which is about 60% for the CHSH violating pattern. According to Wikipedia's Bell Theorem page:
>Detection loophole
>A common problem in optical Bell tests is that only a small fraction of the emitted photons are detected... This was first noted by Pearle in 1970,[68] who devised a local hidden variable model that faked a Bell violation by letting the photon be detected only if the measurement setting was favourable.
>>To do away with this assumption it is necessary to detect a sufficiently large fraction of the photons. This is usually characterized in terms of the detection efficiency n, defined as the probability that a photodetector detects a photon that arrives at it. Garg and Mermin showed that when using a maximally entangled state and the CHSH inequality an efficiency of n > sqrt(2) ~= 0.83 is required for a loophole-free violation.[69]
My guess would be that's what's happening, but this admittedly isn't as intuitive as the simple examples I was raising before.

[Anonymous No.14514262]

>>14514199
>>Detection loophole
I've been accused of exploiting "loop-holes" before. My response is i don't believe physics that has loop-holes in the first place.

[Anonymous No.14515535]

>>14514262
I wouldn't say you're "exploiting" anything, nor would I say there's a loop-hole in the "physics". The loophole is a problem with the way the idealized thought experiment maps to experiments that are actually carried out in reality. Now that I understand what you've been trying to say, I think that you make a good point. I do suspect that your point has been addressed by the "detection loophole" greentext above, but I don't have a good enough gut understanding of the detection problem to argue that point with absolute confidence. I would have to resort to "noooo it says they've calculated the bound to be 0.83 and surpassed it, just trust the heckin science" which is a shitty argument I don't want to make.

I would suggest that in the future you paraphrase your argument differently. The reason I got caught up memeing you with "2+2=5" is because I thought you were trying to say that you had designed a classical model that actually does violate the CHSH inequality under the ideal conditions of the thought experiment where every particle is measured. The thought experiment is simple enough that one can understand it intuitively in its entirety and quickly see that such a thing would be impossible. Thus if that was your argument then you must be making a mistake. What you're actually arguing is that there is an amount of error in the actual real experiments that allow the CHSH inequality to appear as if it was violated, when in fact if this error didn't exist it would not be violated. You then show that given this error, it is possible to devise a classical model that produces the same result. If the error were accounted for and all particles could be measured, your model would not violate CHSH, but neither would QM.

[Anonymous No.14516798]

I found a solution. The photon doesnt come in quanta. The electrons in the phototube are quanta. So photon doesnt have the pass/ nopass discretization. Only the electrons after the polarizer.

[Anonymous No.14517157]

>>14516798
>found a solution. The photon doesnt come in quanta. The electrons in the phototube are quanta. So photon doesnt have the pass/ nopass discretization. Only the electrons after the polarizer.
This is exactly the premise of the PDF i posted. You'll find that the correct correlation can be achieved with this assumption.

[Anonymous No.14517689]

>>14505120

Jaynes pointed this out years ago. Quantum smurfs and filthy kikes like Aaronson refuse to accept that they've been memed hard.

https://bayes.wustl.edu/etj/articles/cmystery.pdf

[Anonymous No.14518449]

>>14517157
Yes. It all makes sense now. Apply for Nobel!

[Anonymous No.14518572]

https://www.online-java.com/OPkbIMGWiv

I made alternation to anon's code. Instead of binary choise, I pass the photonic wave each anfd every time, just with cos^2(delta-angle). Then I check if the result is same, comparing passed wave intensity difference, for which i assume the difference must be less than 0.333. Then I get that passed photons in both detectors is 25%.

I don't believe that photons have just two choises in the polarizer. I believe that the choise is made at the photosensitive tube after the polarizer.

[Anonymous No.14518603]

>>14518572
See >>14512688, regardless of what goes on internally, the result that the detector displays is yes or no, not a continuous value. The correlation is based on those yes/no results. So you can't change the types like that.

[Anonymous No.14518613]

>>14518603
Yup, but the though process that the choise is made in the polarizer, is wrong. Depending the intensity of light that has passed polarizer (0 to 1 of original intensity), the photomultiplier tube has some chance to give away an electron that is multiplied and signal is gained.

If the polariser gives 40-60% of original intensity, photomultitube has a thought choise to give or not to give an electron.

[Anonymous No.14518625]

>>14518603
and if the system if a black box, you dont mind if I add something to that box and call the "imporved" box a black box too.

My addition: should the phototube signal be 1, with 75% of times I give 1, otherwise 0. should the phototube signal be 0 with 75% of times I give 0, otherwise 1.

[Anonymous No.14518802]

>>14518613
>>14518625
I don't know what you're babbling about, but the outcomes have to be boolean. You can add angles and doubles and whatever all you want internally, as long as you reduce them to a boolean outcome in the end.

[Anonymous No.14519258]

>>14518802
>I don't know what you're babbling about, but the outcomes have to be boolean
in reality the outcomes of detections in a Bell type experiment are not Boolean see >>14514199
>A common problem in optical Bell tests is that only a small fraction of the emitted photons are detected... This was first noted by Pearle in 1970

stop believing myths and be critical and do research.of course you can't always detect the polarization of a wave that can be attenuated to the limit of zero.

[Anonymous No.14519309]

>>14519258
Why are you still replying to this schizo seriously? I had already pointed out the detector efficiency error in his code several months ago but he still keeps spamming his schizophrenia here.

[Anonymous No.14519320]

>>14518802
Well boolean at the end. Yes. Its just random.nextBoolean() if the intensity is around 0.5. This is compensated if the detectors are at same selection, eg B. Then they have most likely same outcome.

[Anonymous No.14519335]

>>14519309
>I had already pointed out the detector efficiency error in his code several months ago
address the lack of detector efficiency in the actual tests now as noted by Pearle.