Simulated optics experiment/Simulator: Difference between revisions

→‎Extra "credit": Better explanation?
(Added an alertbox.)
(→‎Extra "credit": Better explanation?)
Line 61:
All but a few physicists either claim photons-containing-hidden-variables cannot possibly explain actual experimental results, or take the word of other physicists for this. There supposedly is a "mathematical" proof of it. Our simulation should end up contradicting that claim, indicating that the "mathematics" ''must be'' incorrect in some fashion. How to interpret that result that I leave to the individual.
 
(It is not necessary to have an experimentally proven model of photons-containing-hidden-variables, for the simulation to achieve its goal. InSuch a model probably would explain deterministically why some photons get "re-emitted" and some do not, whereas we are assuming that polarizing beam splitters respond in some unknown fashion. But, in the realm of ''mathematics'', even a ''facetious'' counterexample iswould be absolute disproof of athe "theorem".)
 
===See also===
1,448

edits