humbleteleskop - I think the fundamental problem is that you think you are offering proofs of your theory, but what you are actually offering are proofs that you have no understanding of the subject matter.

I hope that I have cleared that up for you. I'm feeling very positive that this message is going to get through and you'll completely understand.

You forgot to include any reason or explanation to support your statements.

A simple probability formula for matching heads and tails of two coins replicates the experimental results exactly:

Heads = cos(REL_P1)*cos(REL_P2)
Tails = 1.0 - Heads

MCH= (Heads * Heads) + (Tails * Tails)
MSM= (Heads * Tails) + (Tails * Heads)

EXACT RESULT = (MCH - MSM) * 100

======

What part do you not understand?

I'm going to try to rewrite his complaint, because I just tried something in excel, and I think I can make it more clear.

As far as I understand it:

A photon is shot at a screen. the screen will randomly allow 75% of the photons fired at it through.

If a photon gets through, we'll call that "1", and if it doesn't, we'll call that 0.

Now, lets get two people, with two screens. we'll fire two photons, one at each screen. We'll do this over and over, and generate a stream of data.

(copied from excel)

Person 1 sees: 1100101110001111111111101101111

Person 2 sees: 1101111011110111010111101110011

Agreement: 1110101010000111010111111100011

Bell's claim (as I understand it)

According to the mystery, a traditional probability analysis will say that the odds of data being shared between two streams like this is 50%

When we run the experiment, they share data at a rate of 75%

Therefore, classical probability breaks down, and no classical variable can account for the behavior.

Quantum mechanics does account for this, and accurately predicts it.

The problem, as I see it, is when I try to generate 2 random streams of true and false values at a rate of 75% odds for true and then compare the streams, I get ~60% agreement between the streams, which is more than the 50% that bell assumed would take place. Basically, Bell's assumptions on how the agreement would add together is wrong, and that a final agreement of more than 50% is perfectly classical.

I'm probably missing something in my understanding of the experiment, but I can't deny that if I generate a huge stream of these random associations, I don't get Bells classical "50%" agreement.

A photon is shot at a screen. the screen will randomly allow 75% of the photons fired at it through.

If a photon gets through, we'll call that "1", and if it doesn't, we'll call that 0.

Now, lets get two people, with two screens. we'll fire two photons, one at each screen. We'll do this over and over, and generate a stream of data.

(copied from excel)

Person 1 sees: 1100101110001111111111101101111

Person 2 sees: 1101111011110111010111101110011

Agreement: 1110101010000111010111111100011

That's it. The result is equal to number of ones minus number of zeros in that "agreemnet" sequence.

According to the mystery, a traditional probability analysis will say that the odds of data being shared between two streams like this is 50%

They are not using any probabilities at all. They measure 25% when polarizer angles are 30 degrees relative, so for 60 degrees they simply use plain math and say: 25% + 25% must equal to 50%. Kind of like adding apples and oranges, a mistake to begin with.

The problem, as I see it, is when I try to generate 2 random streams of true and false values at a rate of 75% odds for true and then compare the streams, I get ~60% agreement between the streams, which is more than the 50% that bell assumed would take place.

You should get much closer to 75% if you increase the number of measured photons to 100,000 and more. They have to do the same thing in actual experiments to achieve certain accuracy of the result.

Basically, Bell's assumptions on how the agreement would add together is wrong, and that a final agreement of more than 50% is perfectly classical.

Instead of calculating probabilty they are just doing normal addition, as if that is supposed to represent classical result. But it doesn't, it's just wrong type of math that simply doesn't even apply to the problem in the first place.

I'm afraid tossing 100 coins each then claiming that because you both got around 70 heads you have a robust deconstruction of the entire foundation of modern science is a little fallacious, guys.

EXACT result for ANY relative angle.

Malus's law probability (30deg) -> cos(15)*cos(15) = 0.933

Coin 1 chance Heads: 93.3%, Tails: 6.7%
Coin 2 chance Heads: 93.3%, Tails: 6.7%
---
Chance of MATCH: (H1&H2 | T1&T2) = (0.933 * 0.933) + (0.067 * 0.067) = 0.875
Chance of MISMCH: (T1&H2 | H1&T2) = (0.067 * 0.933) + (0.933 * 0.067) = 0.125
Correlation = MATCH - MISMCH = 0.875 - 0.125 = 0.755
Discordance = 1 - correlation = 0.245 = 25%

Malus's law probability (60deg) = cos(30)*cos(30) = 0.75

Coin 1 chance Heads: 75%, Tails: 25%
Coin 2 chance Heads: 75%, Tails: 25%
---
Chance of (H1&H2 | T1&T2) = (0.75 * 0.75) + (0.25 * 0.25) = 0.625
Chance of (T1&H2 | H1&T2) = (0.25 * 0.75) + (0.75 * 0.25) = 0.375
Correlation = MATCH - MISMCH = 0.625 - 0.375 = 0.25
Discordance = 1 - correlation = 0.75 = 75%

Try any other angle and it will always produce correct answer. Coincidence?

*Note, I'm saying "I found something inconsistent...where did I go wrong?" I'm not crazy...

I missed the link the first time. Sorry. After reading it, I think I see the issue that's being missed:

What is being tested is whether or not a polarization exists before the measurement of the polarization

We don't care what the polarization is, only whether or not it exists.

1) In classical descriptions, Light has a polarization that either passes through the polarizers or doesn't.

2) In quantum Mechanical descriptions, Light "Collapses" to a single polarization only when it is forced to by passing through the polarizers.

The entangling allows us to test the difference between these two situations.

1) Entangled photons always "have" the same polarization (either classically always, or QM they collapse to the same polarization. Either works)

2) If classical is correct, then the setting of one Polarizer will have no effect on the other.

3) If QM is correct, since both photons collapse when necessary, and they are entangled, then the settings of the two polarizers will effect each other.

The experiment is as follows:

Assume classical descriptions are correct.

The polarizers are set randomly for every experiment.

This creates 4 sets of unknowns:

1) Polarizer 1 setting

2) Photon 1 detection

3) Polarizer 2 setting

4) Photon 2 detection

The polarizers need to be set randomly to insure that no classical interaction can happen between the polarizers when the interaction takes place.

Because of this restriction, you need to analyze the resulting data with Bell's Theorem (A statistics theorem, not a physics theorem)

Bell's theorem lets you look at partial tests of a system, and make predictions about the whole of the system.

This is where I myself start to loose understanding, but basically, there are some additional inequalities that should be satisfied by choosing subsets of the data.

Abandoning the 25% + 25% = 50% < 75% stuff, as far as I can tell the easiest to reproduce is the CHSH inequality.

In this case, it says that p(a,b) + p(a,b') + p(a',b) - p(a',b') < 2, where p(1, 2) is the agreement percentage between two different settings.

For this, choose two settings for

I can confirm, using that same excel sheet as before, that this is the case. I used 75% and 25% for my tests, and ran them 50 times. The closes I could get to violating was a value of 1.25, which is still below 2.

According to the tests of QM, the value they get is ~2root2, or 2.828. This violates Bell's Theorem.

What this means is that something about our initial assumptions is wrong. Any of the following can be true

1) The photons can share information faster than light

2) The photons only collapse to a single polarization at the polarizer

3) Reality is determined 100%, forwards and backwards. You cannot set the polarizer randomly, and the Photons know the future

4) Information can travel backwards in time, so the settings of the polarizer are known when the Photons are created.

5) Every possible outcome actually happens, but you only experience one at a time (Many Worlds)

Most physicists say 2 is the simplest, and therefore best, explanation. Part of me wonders about 4, because things moving at light speed don't experience time, But that's enough learning on my end for one day.

I've attached what I did in excel to get my "less than 2" result, for what it's worth.

[attachment=22181:Bells Theroem.zip]