No spooky action at a distance

[FrediFizzx]

Yeah, and his paper is worse than his weird code. He has A(delta, lambda) and B(delta, lambda) with delta = alpha in both cases. No indication of what beta is even.
.

The polarizer setting was beta = alpha+pi/2. With perpendicular polarizer setting there is 100 % coincidence predicted by the model in the paper in accordance with QM and with experiments.

LOL! If that is the case then your model is 100 percent non-local. What equation number is beta = alpha+pi/2 in the paper or what is it near in the paper? I don't see it.
.

[Esail]

Yeah, and his paper is worse than his weird code. He has A(delta, lambda) and B(delta, lambda) with delta = alpha in both cases. No indication of what beta is even.
.

The polarizer setting was beta = alpha+pi/2. With perpendicular polarizer setting there is 100 % coincidence predicted by the model in the paper in accordance with QM and with experiments.

LOL! If that is the case then your model is 100 percent non-local. What equation number is beta = alpha+pi/2 in the paper or what is it near in the paper? I don't see it.
.

Let alpha be the setting of polarizer PA and beta the setting of polarizer PB. Alpha and beta are arbitrary. They cannot be defined by an equation.
We start with the initial photon pair with polarization phi_a = 0° at wing A and phi_b 90° at wing B.
Delta is the angle between the setting of the polarizer and the polarization of the photon.
For wing A we get delta_a = alpha-phi_a = alpha-0° = alpha
If and only if we choose beta = alpha+pi/2 then we get delta_b = alpha+pi/2-90°=alpha again.
Thus equation (8) says for all photons which pass PA at alpha the peer photons pass PB at alpha+pi/2 provided the polarizers are set perpendicular to each other. This is due to the same rules applying to both sides.

[Justo]

Let alpha be the setting of polarizer PA and beta the setting of polarizer PB. Alpha and beta are arbitrary. They cannot be defined by an equation.
We start with the initial photon pair with polarization phi_a = 0° at wing A and phi_b 90° at wing B.
Delta is the angle between the setting of the polarizer and the polarization of the photon.
For wing A we get delta_a = alpha-phi_a = alpha-0° = alpha
If and only if we choose beta = alpha+pi/2 then we get delta_b = alpha+pi/2-90°=alpha again.
Thus equation (8) says for all photons which pass PA at alpha the peer photons pass PB at alpha+pi/2 provided the polarizers are set perpendicular to each other. This is due to the same rules applying to both sides.

I know this is old stuff, but I am trying to understand. Esail says that the initial polarization of photon a is phi_a=0. It seems that after measuring with setting alpha on wing A the polarization changes from 0 to alpha, that's ok, no problem so far. The problem is after measuring on wing A, the initial polarization on wing B changes from 90 to alpha + 90. If this is so, it is a scandalously nonlocal model. Maybe I am not understanding.

[Esail]

Let alpha be the setting of polarizer PA and beta the setting of polarizer PB. Alpha and beta are arbitrary. They cannot be defined by an equation.
We start with the initial photon pair with polarization phi_a = 0° at wing A and phi_b 90° at wing B.
Delta is the angle between the setting of the polarizer and the polarization of the photon.
For wing A we get delta_a = alpha-phi_a = alpha-0° = alpha
If and only if we choose beta = alpha+pi/2 then we get delta_b = alpha+pi/2-90°=alpha again.
Thus equation (8) says for all photons which pass PA at alpha the peer photons pass PB at alpha+pi/2 provided the polarizers are set perpendicular to each other. This is due to the same rules applying to both sides.

I know this is old stuff, but I am trying to understand. Esail says that the initial polarization of photon a is phi_a=0. It seems that after measuring with setting alpha on wing A the polarization changes from 0 to alpha, that's ok, no problem so far. The problem is after measuring on wing A, the initial polarization on wing B changes from 90 to alpha + 90. If this is so, it is a scandalously nonlocal model. Maybe I am not understanding.

Correct, you didn't understand. Pls read the text carefully. There is no change of polarization involved with the initial context before measurement.

[Justo]

Correct, you didn't understand. Pls read the text carefully. There is no change of polarization involved with the initial context before measurement.

Sorry, but I can't understand your model. For instance, you say that your generated photos have only two directions, Horizontal and Vertial. Then then in MA1 you say the polarization is phi. Is phi only 0 and 90? or it is any angle.

[gill1109]

Let alpha be the setting of polarizer PA and beta the setting of polarizer PB. Alpha and beta are arbitrary. They cannot be defined by an equation.
We start with the initial photon pair with polarization phi_a = 0° at wing A and phi_b 90° at wing B.
Delta is the angle between the setting of the polarizer and the polarization of the photon.
For wing A we get delta_a = alpha-phi_a = alpha-0° = alpha
If and only if we choose beta = alpha+pi/2 then we get delta_b = alpha+pi/2-90°=alpha again.
Thus equation (8) says for all photons which pass PA at alpha the peer photons pass PB at alpha+pi/2 provided the polarizers are set perpendicular to each other. This is due to the same rules applying to both sides.

I know this is old stuff, but I am trying to understand. Esail says that the initial polarization of photon a is phi_a=0. It seems that after measuring with setting alpha on wing A the polarization changes from 0 to alpha, that's ok, no problem so far. The problem is after measuring on wing A, the initial polarization on wing B changes from 90 to alpha + 90. If this is so, it is a scandalously nonlocal model. Maybe I am not understanding.

Correct, you didn't understand. Pls read the text carefully. There is no change of polarization involved with the initial context before measurement.

The problem (a very common problem with this kind of work) is that reading the text and reading the formulas tells two different stories.

A computer simulation could clear up all questions here. The computer simulation would have to allow the independent user to submit their own sequences of settings, get to see raw experimental data (times and events and types of events), and then analyse that data using their own statistical algorithms. The user could then check the local character of the simulated model by simple tests.

All over science there is a movement toward *reproducible science*. One does not just publish papers with final results but one also publishes data, programs, lab note-books. Independent scientists must be able to replicate experiments, and must get credit for doing such work.

[Justo]

The problem (a very common problem with this kind of work) is that reading the text and reading the formulas tells two different stories.

A computer simulation could clear up all questions here. The computer simulation would have to allow the independent user to submit their own sequences of settings, get to see raw experimental data (times and events and types of events), and then analyse that data using their own statistical algorithms. The user could then check the local character of the simulated model by simple tests.

All over science there is a movement toward *reproducible science*. One does not just publish papers with final results but one also publishes data, programs, lab note-books. Independent scientists must be able to replicate experiments, and must get credit for doing such work.

I guess you are right. However, I wanted to understand the model but just can't make sense of it.