Talk:Simulated optics experiment/Data analysis: Difference between revisions

no edit summary
No edit summary
No edit summary
Line 12:
 
-- I will take the quantum reference out of the example. The point is the extra correlation, even in a fully classical simulation, happens because of the left-right switch. --[[User:Wherrera|Wherrera]] ([[User talk:Wherrera|talk]]) 17:13, 30 May 2023 (UTC)
 
-- There is no "extra correlation"! And this experiment has actually been done with radio waves (which are basically the same as light waves), and come up with the predicted results. (Evdokimov N V, Klyshko D N, Komolov V P and Yarochkin V A, Bell’s Inequalities and EPR-Bohm correlations: working classical radio frequency model, Physics-Uspekhi 39 (1969) 83–98.)
 
The left-right switch is necessary to compute the correlation coefficient correctly. How is one supposed to compute the correlation coefficient of electromagnetic fields at the outputs of polarizers, without accounting for the geometry of the EM fields coming ''into'' the polarizers? It cannot be done. If I did not account for geometry, I would be doing the calculation not only incorrectly, but ''obviously'' incorrectly. And we are doing the calculation using only information that plainly could be available in a fully classical experiment.
 
Ask an antenna engineer, who would have no urge to deny their knowledge of electromagnetism, merely to defend prevailing doctrine in other people's field. And who would be a tangible failure at their job if they did deny it, rather than published in ''PRL'' and ''Science''.
 
However, I am aware that ''nothing'' can get adherents to change their minds, much as I could not possibly convince the Pope to convert to Judaism, even if I had a letter from the Eternal One, signed in glowing script that floated a centimeter above the page. --[[User:Chemoelectric|Chemoelectric]] ([[User talk:Chemoelectric|talk]]) 12:53, 1 June 2023 (UTC)
1,448

edits