zonde said:
akhmeteli said:
akhmeteli said:
I have tried to incorporate your model in simulation program (basically I have used the one from de Raet mentioned earlier and made it more object oriented). Would you say the code below represents your proposal for the effect of the filter on a particle (I hope it is clear enough)?zonde said:
private void ParticleHitfromZonde(Particle Particle)
{
bool Pass = true;
double HvProbability = Math.Abs(h.Sin(Particle.StaticPhaseDifference)); //Calculate HvProbability
if (HvProbability < h.GetRandom()) //Get a random value between 0 and 1
// and check whether HvProbability is lower
{
Pass=false;
}
if (Pass)
{
//user other proposed formulas:
int WillItPass = Math.Sign(h.SinSquare(this.Angle + Particle.Polarization) - h.CosSquare(Particle.StaticPhaseDifference));
int Detection = Math.Sign(h.CosSquare(Particle.StaticPhaseDifference) - h.SinSquare(h.PiOver8));
if (WillItPass < 0 || Detection < 0)
{
Pass = false;
}
}
Particle.Absorbed = !Pass; //Absorbed is opposite of pass
}ajw1 said:
DrChinese said:
public class Particle
{
public Particle()
{
this.Polarization = h.GetRandomTwoPiAngle();
this.StaticPhaseDifference = h.GetRandomTwoPiAngle();
} //Initiate entangled particles
Particle Particle1 = new Particle();
Particle Particle2 = new Particle();
//polarization relation
Particle2.Polarization = Particle1.Polarization + h.PiOver2; // polarization of particle 2
//Zonde
Particle2.StaticPhaseDifference = Particle1.StaticPhaseDifference + h.PiOver4; // polarization of particle 2Yes, you're probably right:DrChinese said:
The spreadsheet code however seems to be using PiOver4, or maybe I am missing something...zonde said:
DrChinese said:
ajw1 said:
ajw1 said:
The De Raedt et al model uses the time window as a method of varying which events are detected (because that is how their fair sampling algorithm works). That means, the time delay function must be - on the average - such that events at some angle settings are more likely to be included, and events at other angle setting are on average less likely to be included. It actually does not matter what physical model they propose, because eventually they must all accomplish the same thing. And that is: the bias function must account for the difference between the graphs of the QM and LR correlation functions. ) DrChinese said:
ajw1 said:
That is correctDrChinese said:
ajw1 said:
Yes of course. What else I can say.DrChinese said:
It seems to me that there is missing *2 in that row (should be Particle.StaticPhaseDifference*2, not sure about syntax). Everything else seems ok.ajw1 said:
Good argument about addressing loopholes separately. But for that to work experiments should be basically the same. That is not the case with violations of Bell inequalities.DrChinese said:
zonde said:
Two setups don't have to be identical but they should be comparable so that observations in first experiment could be reasonably extended to second experiment.DrChinese said:
I'm surely interested, Maybe you can just attach a spreadsheet file with the significant lines included (all lines filled will produce probably a very large file)zonde said:
ajw1 said:
ajw1 said:
Result does not seem very good. I think it should fluctuate around QM prediction but it is constantly closer to straight line. Isn't it so?DrChinese said:
This can not be seen from graph because reference in the graph is relative polarization angle between two photons and not polarization of individual photons of one side relative to polarizer. The model is silent about that so it can not be judged by that.DrChinese said:
Picture might help. But from what I understood there is nothing wrong with LR model if it can demonstrate different angle settings for one side while keeping the other side intact. That just makes the point about element of reality present.DrChinese said:
zonde said:
