Talk:Simulated optics experiment/Data analysis: Difference between revisions
Talk:Simulated optics experiment/Data analysis (view source)
Revision as of 14:44, 30 May 2023
, 1 year agono edit summary
No edit summary |
No edit summary |
||
Line 4:
Also, one might wish to examine the "Extra credit" problem. The "credit" is for animating an explanation of where the orthodox reasoning goes awry. "Bell’s Theorem", unless I am wrong, contains an error so great that in most any other field of science, and in all of engineering until recently, it would be laughed out of the room. --[[User:Chemoelectric|Chemoelectric]] ([[User talk:Chemoelectric|talk]]) 12:54, 30 May 2023 (UTC)
Let me make one point more succinctly. It belongs in the Talk section rather than the task, because the task is about using computer programming in the sciences. (A summary of the point of the paper on which the simulation was based was necessary, of course.)
The simulation is '''a purely classical model'''. To argue that I am introducing some (illicit) step to attain "quantum magic" is to miss the point that ''there is no "quantum magic"''. The correlation coefficients are those of ''classical'' optics, not quantum optics. I have done what any physicist would do to analyze such a ''classical'' model. Yet we all get a CHSH contrast that supposedly ''proves'' there is "quantum magic". The supposition ''must'' be wrong, because we Rosetta Codeniks have written a simulation in which there obviously is no "magic".
(This is a tangential matter, but the reason for this is simple: "Bell's Theorem" is wrong. It ''must'' be wrong, because there is this counterexample. But, in fact, it is quite easy to show where Bell made an error that would get you a big '''Zero''' in, say, an electrical engineering Random Processes class: he correctly says things I will paraphrase as "A does not depend on b and B does not depend on a", but he mistakenly assumes that a and b are independent variables rather than ''functions'' of the "hidden variables".) --[[User:Chemoelectric|Chemoelectric]] ([[User talk:Chemoelectric|talk]]) 14:44, 30 May 2023 (UTC)
| |||