Last evening I derived the "quantum correlation" for the two channel optical Bell experiment, right here on my Mastodon account. But I did so WITHOUT quantum mechanics, and I did so in a way that makes it clear there is only classical Newtonian motion.
Go see it for yourself: https://masto.ai/@chemoelectric/115805620208576148
It is not a "quantum" anything. It is the ordinary correlation function for ordinary behavior. Yet "Physics" and "Science" channels will go on announcing MAGIC.
#physics #science #quantumComputing
I think I shall both demonstrate converting the Aspect experiment to an equivalent one, AND show that mathematics actually IS consistent. I will do the latter by deriving the same correlation function as quantum mechanics does, even though physicists claim this can be derived only if you use quantum mechanics.
Which would mean using quantum mechanics gives a different answer than the rest of math, so math is internally inconsistent. Physicists claim nothing less.
Letβs to it
#physics #science
If you haven't muted me yet, here's a debunking of John Bell's "Heart attacks in Lille and Lyon".
Bell tells us the same logic applies to heart attack rates in Lille and Lyon as does to EPR-B, so he can ignore the rules of probability theory. Because, he says, neither city's causal influences can AFFECT the other's.
Note we are writing PROBABILITY THEORY. What can AFFECT does not matterβit is what is CORRELATED that matters!
So a counterexample is trivial to make...
#physics #science
I am struck again by the unwillingness of people who believe in "entanglement" and "non-locality" to actually PERFORM A TEST that I suggest. They merely want to debate. They simply WILL NOT run an experiment, nor will they go through Bell's logic with some other problem that proves Bell had no idea what he was doing.
THEY ARE NOT SCIENTISTS.
Scientists are people eager to perform tests! These people not only do not show eagerness, they resist, resist, resist.
#Science #physics
How to write a program that experimentally debunks "entanglement"
This is easy. You simply write a computer program that does what the Aspect experiment does. The hard part is calculating the probabilities by quantum mechanics, to see that QM predicted the outcomes and not some magically different result.
There is a way around having to do this (using detections to estimate a value of the correlation, -cos 2(a-b)), but it would complicate the program.
Here is how to...
#physics #Science
A summary of the experimental proof that the 2022 Nobel Prize in Physics is a load of garbage
The content warning has probably already driven off a lot of potential readers. That shows you how bad the situation is. You would think actual scientists would be curious to know if such experimental proof existed, but instead many assume anyone going against authority is a crank spouting nonsense.
My actual computer codes are in my GitHub. Also
https://pypi.org/project/Quantum-Correlations-Visualized
#physics #quantumPhysics
Last evening I derived the "quantum correlation" for the two channel optical Bell experiment, right here on my Mastodon account. But I did so WITHOUT quantum mechanics, and I did so in a way that makes it clear there is only classical Newtonian motion.
Go see it for yourself: https://masto.ai/@chemoelectric/115805620208576148
It is not a "quantum" anything. It is the ordinary correlation function for ordinary behavior. Yet "Physics" and "Science" channels will go on announcing MAGIC.
#physics #science #quantumComputing
I think I shall both demonstrate converting the Aspect experiment to an equivalent one, AND show that mathematics actually IS consistent. I will do the latter by deriving the same correlation function as quantum mechanics does, even though physicists claim this can be derived only if you use quantum mechanics.
Which would mean using quantum mechanics gives a different answer than the rest of math, so math is internally inconsistent. Physicists claim nothing less.
Letβs to it
#physics #science
Footnote: The experiments are fake but probably by extremely strong experimenter bias rather than deliberate fraud.
I think I shall both demonstrate converting the Aspect experiment to an equivalent one, AND show that mathematics actually IS consistent. I will do the latter by deriving the same correlation function as quantum mechanics does, even though physicists claim this can be derived only if you use quantum mechanics.
Which would mean using quantum mechanics gives a different answer than the rest of math, so math is internally inconsistent. Physicists claim nothing less.
Letβs to it
#physics #science
With regard to the Aspect experiment, physicists both solve the problem incorrectly when they attempt to use probability theory (Bell and Clauser inequalities, all of which are botched mathematics), and run their experiments without actually checking them against the predictions of quantum mechanics. The results obtained by Aspect are impossible, according to quantum mechanics, but no one bothers to check. The experiments are fake.
Quantum physicists are the sloppiest βscientistsβ in the world.βͺ
οΈ
Footnote: The experiments are fake but probably by extremely strong experimenter bias rather than deliberate fraud.
This is impossible if mathematics were consistent, so what physicists are claiming is that mathematics is inconsistent and therefore useless.
(Which they will deny, of course, but that is because they do not understand what they are doing. If they did, they would not do it.)
They are wrong.
So the proof here is that ANY mathematical method can be used to solve ANY supposedly βquantumβ word problem. Therefore there is nothing βquantumβ about the problem. It is an ordinary physics problem.
With regard to the Aspect experiment, physicists both solve the problem incorrectly when they attempt to use probability theory (Bell and Clauser inequalities, all of which are botched mathematics), and run their experiments without actually checking them against the predictions of quantum mechanics. The results obtained by Aspect are impossible, according to quantum mechanics, but no one bothers to check. The experiments are fake.
Quantum physicists are the sloppiest βscientistsβ in the world.βͺοΈ
In particular, no matter what mathematical method I use to solve a given word problem, I MUST arrive at THE SAME EXACT ANSWER. This is an example of what is meant by the internal consistency of mathematics.
But what physicists are claiming is precisely this: that, if you solve, say, the Aspect experiment, also called the two-channel optical Bell test (look it up on Wikipedia), by a method called βquantum mechanicsβ, you will get a different answer than if you use, say, probability theory.
This is impossible if mathematics were consistent, so what physicists are claiming is that mathematics is inconsistent and therefore useless.
(Which they will deny, of course, but that is because they do not understand what they are doing. If they did, they would not do it.)
They are wrong.
So the proof here is that ANY mathematical method can be used to solve ANY supposedly βquantumβ word problem. Therefore there is nothing βquantumβ about the problem. It is an ordinary physics problem.
THEREFORE YOU COULD PROVE THAT THE LANGUAGE WAS CONSISTENT!
But it isnβt, it is inconsistent. So any proof of its consistency from within a programming language itself is worthless. It was never worth even considering the possibility that one could exist.
So, then, mathematics may or may not be consistent. But we will assume it is. Why?
BECAUSE, WERE IT NOT, IT WOULD BE USELESS. Were mathematics inconsistent, what use would it be for designing bridges? For electric power systems? Etc.
In particular, no matter what mathematical method I use to solve a given word problem, I MUST arrive at THE SAME EXACT ANSWER. This is an example of what is meant by the internal consistency of mathematics.
But what physicists are claiming is precisely this: that, if you solve, say, the Aspect experiment, also called the two-channel optical Bell test (look it up on Wikipedia), by a method called βquantum mechanicsβ, you will get a different answer than if you use, say, probability theory.
There is this βGΓΆdel-Escher-Bachβ book, which I have read, and a whole lot of stuff, and a big deal is made of it all, but in fact the matter is so plain obvious as to be pathetic. We realize that now. One feels sorry for the mathematicians and logicians of GΓΆdelβs time, that they were so naΓ―ve.
You see, suppose a programming language were mathematically inconsistent. Say it let you say β0=1β and have that be βtrueβ. It is known that in such a language you could prove ANYTHING...
THEREFORE YOU COULD PROVE THAT THE LANGUAGE WAS CONSISTENT!
But it isnβt, it is inconsistent. So any proof of its consistency from within a programming language itself is worthless. It was never worth even considering the possibility that one could exist.
So, then, mathematics may or may not be consistent. But we will assume it is. Why?
BECAUSE, WERE IT NOT, IT WOULD BE USELESS. Were mathematics inconsistent, what use would it be for designing bridges? For electric power systems? Etc.
The second proof is by the internal consistency of mathematics.
First let me put aside a myth that it was proved by GΓΆdel or others that mathematics is inconsistent. This certainly is not the case. What was proven is what you might describe thus: that a computer programming language cannot prove itself mathematically consistent. But this does not mean the language is inconsistent! It merely means that you cannot write a proof of that consistency in the language itself.
This is what was proven.
There is this βGΓΆdel-Escher-Bachβ book, which I have read, and a whole lot of stuff, and a big deal is made of it all, but in fact the matter is so plain obvious as to be pathetic. We realize that now. One feels sorry for the mathematicians and logicians of GΓΆdelβs time, that they were so naΓ―ve.
You see, suppose a programming language were mathematically inconsistent. Say it let you say β0=1β and have that be βtrueβ. It is known that in such a language you could prove ANYTHING...
Therefore there is no possibility that the original problem had any special βquantumβ quality to it.
In particular, there is no possibility that it could not be solved by ordinary mathematical means. Neither is there any possibility it could exhibit spooky behaviors such as instantaneous action at a distance, because then so would the messenger relay problem display such behaviors--which of course it doesnβt.
Physicists certainly have erred. I have proven this just now.
Now the second proof.
The second proof is by the internal consistency of mathematics.
First let me put aside a myth that it was proved by GΓΆdel or others that mathematics is inconsistent. This certainly is not the case. What was proven is what you might describe thus: that a computer programming language cannot prove itself mathematically consistent. But this does not mean the language is inconsistent! It merely means that you cannot write a proof of that consistency in the language itself.
This is what was proven.
One is a proof by the content-agnosticism of mathematics.
Take ANY word problem in βquantumβ physics. Once written down, it is no longer physics as such, but mathematics. This is simply a fact and cannot be disputed unless you believe in word magic.
But mathematics is itself without content. This word problem has infinite exact logical equivalents in other problem domains. The Aspect experiment, for example, is easily converted to a (contrived, but so what?) messenger relay problem! ...
Therefore there is no possibility that the original problem had any special βquantumβ quality to it.
In particular, there is no possibility that it could not be solved by ordinary mathematical means. Neither is there any possibility it could exhibit spooky behaviors such as instantaneous action at a distance, because then so would the messenger relay problem display such behaviors--which of course it doesnβt.
Physicists certainly have erred. I have proven this just now.
Now the second proof.
Barry Schwartz π«