Simulated optics experiment/Data analysis: Difference between revisions

# Display the number of "pulse pair events" that were simulated, the four correlation coefficients, and the estimated CHSH contrast. Also display the theoretical value of the CHSH contrast (<math>2\sqrt{2}\approx{2.828427}</math>) and the difference between the estimated CHSH contrast and the theoretical value. Also display what we will call the ''CHSH violation'': the difference between the estimated CHSH contrast and the number 2. Any value significantly greater than zero seems to be ''supposed to'' mean that the simulation is inherently "quantum mechanical" and involves "instantaneous action at a distance". But you can decide for yourself whether it really means that. Just do the calculations and print them. One should get an estimated CHSH contrast that is close to the theoretical value, and thus a relatively "huge" CHSH violation of about +0.8.

Here is a snapshot of that contains a [[wp:Thought_experiment|thought experiment]] I have been working on: http://web.archive.org/web/20230529223105/https://crudfactory.com/Bell-assumes-his-conclusion.pdf The thought experiment concerns the same subject as this task, but more directly addresses the conundrum. It aims to illustrate the fallaciousness (despite their widespread acceptance by people regarded as "experts") of certain arguments underlying the conundrum, and thus to resolve the technical aspects of the conundrum. Whether it succeeds is up to you to decide. I am just a computer programmer, after all. And, even if I succeed in resolving the technical aspects of the conundrum, I have barely touched on the social aspects of it. Nevertheless, the thought experiment begs to be computer-animated, and I am not ''that'' kind of a programmer.

--[[User:Chemoelectric|Chemoelectric]] ([[User talk:Chemoelectric|talk]]) 22:50, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

=={{header|Python}}==