• Announcements

    • khawk

      Download the Game Design and Indie Game Marketing Freebook   07/19/17

      GameDev.net and CRC Press have teamed up to bring a free ebook of content curated from top titles published by CRC Press. The freebook, Practices of Game Design & Indie Game Marketing, includes chapters from The Art of Game Design: A Book of Lenses, A Practical Guide to Indie Game Marketing, and An Architectural Approach to Level Design. The GameDev.net FreeBook is relevant to game designers, developers, and those interested in learning more about the challenges in game development. We know game development can be a tough discipline and business, so we picked several chapters from CRC Press titles that we thought would be of interest to you, the GameDev.net audience, in your journey to design, develop, and market your next game. The free ebook is available through CRC Press by clicking here. The Curated Books The Art of Game Design: A Book of Lenses, Second Edition, by Jesse Schell Presents 100+ sets of questions, or different lenses, for viewing a game’s design, encompassing diverse fields such as psychology, architecture, music, film, software engineering, theme park design, mathematics, anthropology, and more. Written by one of the world's top game designers, this book describes the deepest and most fundamental principles of game design, demonstrating how tactics used in board, card, and athletic games also work in video games. It provides practical instruction on creating world-class games that will be played again and again. View it here. A Practical Guide to Indie Game Marketing, by Joel Dreskin Marketing is an essential but too frequently overlooked or minimized component of the release plan for indie games. A Practical Guide to Indie Game Marketing provides you with the tools needed to build visibility and sell your indie games. With special focus on those developers with small budgets and limited staff and resources, this book is packed with tangible recommendations and techniques that you can put to use immediately. As a seasoned professional of the indie game arena, author Joel Dreskin gives you insight into practical, real-world experiences of marketing numerous successful games and also provides stories of the failures. View it here. An Architectural Approach to Level Design This is one of the first books to integrate architectural and spatial design theory with the field of level design. The book presents architectural techniques and theories for level designers to use in their own work. It connects architecture and level design in different ways that address the practical elements of how designers construct space and the experiential elements of how and why humans interact with this space. Throughout the text, readers learn skills for spatial layout, evoking emotion through gamespaces, and creating better levels through architectural theory. View it here. Learn more and download the ebook by clicking here. Did you know? GameDev.net and CRC Press also recently teamed up to bring GDNet+ Members up to a 20% discount on all CRC Press books. Learn more about this and other benefits here.

humbleteleskop

Members
  • Content count

    22
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

19 Neutral

About humbleteleskop

  • Rank
    Member
  1.   No, you are mixing initial setup with measurements and results, input with output. When relative angle is 30 degrees (-15,+15), the probability for each polarizer is given by Malus's law equation -> cos(15)*cos(15) = 0.933. It means 93.3% photons will pass through, and 6.7% will get stopped at the polarizer. Therefore, for each photon pair:   INPUT: Case 1. -> Relative angle per polarizer (0, +30) = (A-B)/2, (B-A)/2 = (-15,+15) Case 2. -> Relative angle per polarizer (+30, 0) = (A-B)/2, (B-A)/2 = (+15,-15) Case 1 or 2 -> Malus's law probability per one polarizer = cos(15)*cos(15) = 0.933   OUTPUT: Coin 1 vs Coin 2 = 0.933 : 0.0067 vs. 0.933 : 0.0067 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%       Randomization of angles makes no any difference.       We get 75% by both statistical simulation and exact probability equation, therefore we know that local properties are all that matter.
  2.   Complicating for no reason. Polarization angles do not need to be set at random, it does not make any difference. The experiment can be confirmed in two easy steps 2 or 3, and 4, like this:       3.) 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%     4.) 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 MISMCH: (H1&H2 | T1&T2) = (0.75 * 0.75) + (0.25 * 0.25) = 0.625 Chance of MISMCH: (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%     No paranormal "non-locality" or any mystery here. It's simple local probability just like tossing two coins.         You do not use 75% and 25%, those are results. You use Malus's law to get the probablilty for the relative angle of polarization and the result simply follows from there, see above.     Statistical solution obtained by the algorithm as well as exact solution from the probability equation, clearly demonstrate the simple mechanics of the experimental results and explain why and how they actually come to be, without need to hallucinate any metaphysical, magical or other superstitious crap. It's a simple matter of chances and odds, natural probability and local causality, statistical certainty. We are not living in a Harry Potter movie, this is REALITY. Wake up people!!  
  3.   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?
  4.   That's it. The result is equal to number of ones minus number of zeros in that "agreemnet" sequence.     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.       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.       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.
  5.   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?
  6.   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 Mathematics vs. ignorance? Math wins. Sorry.
  7. The simulation is addressing only one specific type of experiment. It doesn't say anything about electron orbits or GPS, as far as I know. If there is some connection, tell me about it, but otherwise it is irrelevant.
  8.   There is also exact solution given by Hodgman at the beginning of this thred, kind of like flipping two coins and probabilty of matching heads and tails. That's all there is to it. 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
  9.   QM is statistical theory, the equations will work whether they are explained with magic unicorns or correlated photons.       The algorith is real and does what it does. I'm not saying the whole of QM is wrong, but I see with my own eyes they are deffinitivelly wrong about at least this type of experiment. I can only talk about this specific case, I don't have satisfactory information to talk about anything else. See if you can find any objection to what I said here, I don't claim to know anyhting else.       I don't have any theory, it's a self-evident fact. See for yourself: #include <math.h> #include <time.h> #include <stdio.h> void main() { int N_REPEAT= 100000; float P1= 30; // <--- polarizer-1 float P2= 30; // <--- polarizer-2 Init_Setup:; system("cls"); printf("\Repeat #: 100,000"); printf("\nAngle polarizer P1: "); scanf("%f", &P1); printf("Angle polarizer P2: "); scanf("%f", &P2); srand(time(NULL)); int N_MEASURE= 0; int MATCH= 0; int MISMATCH= 0; // relative angle & radian conversion float REL_P1= 0.0174533* (P1-P2)/2; float REL_P2= 0.0174533* (P2-P1)/2; BEGIN:; int L1= ((rand()%201)/2 < ((cos(REL_P1)*cos(REL_P1))*100)) ? 1:0; int L2= ((rand()%201)/2 < ((cos(REL_P2)*cos(REL_P2))*100)) ? 1:0; printf("\n %d%d", L1, L2); if (L1 == L2) MATCH++; else MISMATCH++; if (++N_MEASURE < N_REPEAT) goto BEGIN; printf("\n\n1.)\n--- MALUS LAW INTEGRATION (%.0f,%.0f) ---", P1, P2); printf("\nMATCH: %d\nMISMATCH: %d", MATCH, MISMATCH); printf("\nMalus(%d): %.0f%%", abs((int)((P1-P2)/2)), ((cos(REL_P1)*cos(REL_P1))*100)); printf("\n>>> STATISTICAL AVERAGE RESULT: %.2f%%", (float)abs(MATCH-MISMATCH)/(N_MEASURE/100)); // Exact probabilty equation float T= cos(REL_P1)*cos(REL_P2); float F= 1.0 - T; float MCH= (T*T)+(F*F); float MSM= (T*F)+(F*T); printf("\n\n\n2.)\n--- MALUS LAW PROBABILTY (%.0f,%.0f) ---", (P1-P2)/2, (P2-P1)/2); printf("\nMATCH: %.2f%%\nMISMATCH: %.2f%%", MCH*100, MSM*100); printf("\n>>> EXACT PROBABILTY RESULT: %.2f%%", (MCH-MSM)*100); printf("\n\nPress any key to repeat."); getch(); goto Init_Setup; }
  10.   One one hand you have spoky magic of QM for which there is no explanation or understanding, and on the other you have clasical mechanics which you can simulate and see with your own eyes it's all simply a matter of how the odds go, naturally. Believe what you will.
  11.   I added your equation to my algorithm, like this: // Hodgman's exact probabilty equation float T= cos(REL_P1)*cos(REL_P1); float F= 1.0 - T; float MCH= (T*T)+(F*F); float MSM= (T*F)+(F*T);     printf("\n\n>>> EXACT RESULT: %.2f%%", (MCH-MSM)*100); Hope you don't mind, we'll share Nobel Price money for debunking QM's paranormal mysteries. Thanks!   Marge: - Homer, is this the way you pictured married life? Homer: - Yeah, pretty much. Except we drove around in a van solving mysteries.
  12. All the known variables are taken into equation exactly replicating experimental setup as well as the results. What is more reliable and correct than already correct and reliable result? How do you "simulate" a photon, what is it you are actually suggesting?   edit: my spell-checker doesn't work on this form.
  13. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_nonlocality http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Local_hidden_variable_theory   - "Imagine two experimentalists, Alice and Bob, situated in separate laboratories. They conduct a simple experiment in which Alice chooses and pushes one of two buttons, A0 and A1, on her apparatus, and Bob observes on his apparatus one of two indicating lamps, b0 and b1, lighting. In this case there are four possible events that could occur in the experiment: (A0,b0), (A0,b1), (A1,b0) and (A1,b1). Suppose that after many runs of the experiment, only the events (A0,b0) and (A1,b1) occur; this is good evidence that A has an influence on b."   Here is how the experiment goes:     N= number of discordance (mismatches) N(+30°, -30°) ? N(+30°, 0°) + N(0°, -30°) <- "Bell's inequality"   25%+25% = 50% ??   But, according to QM and physical experiments we will now get 75% discordance!   25%+25% = 75% !!   QM prediction: sin^2(60º) = 75%   ------------------ END -------------------     Apperantly only that last "discordance" of 75% is "paranormal", for some reason.   The mistake they are making must be this assumption: 25%+25% = 50%   Those percentages simply don't add up like that.
  14. We are asking the same question. They call it "correlation", but it can be inverted so that 30% correlation is the same thing as what they sometimes call 70% discordance.  Apperantly it is discribing some instantenous magical entanglement between pothon pairs regardless of distnace. You do something to one photon in Amsterdam, and its twin brother photon in Tokyo instantly does soemthing in response. How is that number supposed to contain or represent such information is beyond me. I wish we could unswer that question here.
  15. You tell me, what's the logic behind this step below? What does result = matches - mismatches mean? Inserting the numbers from the probability above, that gives result = 40.96%... but what is result?   Uh, I missed that, somehow. So, if that is so simple, what about it could possibly posses QM white-coats to interpret those results as a proof of non-locality and spooky action at distance?