Breaking Bell's Inequality with Monte Carlo Simulations in Python
1–10 of 64 posts
Re: Breaking Bell's Inequality with Monte Carlo Simulations in Python
#2[flagged]
Re: Breaking Bell's Inequality with Monte Carlo Simulations in Python
#3[flagged]
Why not use numpy's rng?
Re: Breaking Bell's Inequality with Monte Carlo Simulations in Python
#4[flagged]
In which way is python's random module broken, specifically?
Re: Breaking Bell's Inequality with Monte Carlo Simulations in Python
#5"a talented college physics student can do it"
I'm afraid I don't qualify for being able to do that, but I feel like I'm tantalizingly close to understanding this overall - but I'm finding it hard to understand why the lower-right "TT" quadrant is transposed in the S=2.828 example (the red box in the diagram). Maybe it's obvious if one understands it better?
Re: Breaking Bell's Inequality with Monte Carlo Simulations in Python
#6This is closely related to my PhD. It was many years ago but if I remember rightly there is no need for the assumption of determinism - Bell Inequalities hold just as well for random local hidden variables.
Simulating the correlations with computer programs is an interesting idea, partly because it challenges to those who still believe in a "local" reality to demonstrate Bell Inequality violations in distributed classical computer systems. Back in the day there was a crackpot researcher named Joy Christian who kept publishing repetitive papers in the belief that geometric algebras provided a counterexample (it looks like he's still going strong! [0]). Of course, there's nothing about geometric algebras that cannot be modelled in a computer program, so in principle Christian should have been able to demonstrate Bell violations in a distributed scenario. Needless to say, this hasn't happened even though it would be a momentous breakthrough in the foundations of physics.
Re: Breaking Bell's Inequality with Monte Carlo Simulations in Python
#7"a talented college physics student can do it" I'm afraid I don't qualify for being able to do that, but I feel like I'm tantalizingly close to understanding this overall - but I'm finding it hard to understand why the lower-right "TT" quadrant is transposed in the S=2.828 example (the red box in the diagram). Maybe it's obvious if one understands it better?
It requires a chunk of linear algebra to understand, but the Wikipedia page has a slightly more detailed explanation: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bell%27s_theorem#Theorem
It's related to the fact that the expected value of A_1 tensor B_1 is negative 1/sqrt(2), whilst the expected value of all other tensor products are positive 1/sqrt(2).
Re: Breaking Bell's Inequality with Monte Carlo Simulations in Python
#8[flagged]
I would assume the secrets standard library creation might be related to this concern.
Re: Breaking Bell's Inequality with Monte Carlo Simulations in Python
#9The Bell's Inequalities are a test for the capacity for inductive reasoning of the pupil. If the pupil succeed he is not to be admitted to join the ranks of quantum physicist.
You usually show a pupil the problem with classical probabilities, and show that you can't violate Bell's Inequalities, then you show that Quantum Mechanics managed to replicated the observed probabilities using a non-local way, and therefore you conclude that the world is non-local.
But this logic doesn't stand. You need to use inductive reasoning to see it through. Ask yourself the question, what change would it take to your theory to make it local and still replicate the observed probabilities (and still look reasonable).
Solve the riddle (it's quite beautiful once you see it :) ) and you will be rewarded with the awesome title of crackpot physicist, pitted against other dubious crackpot physicist each convinced their loopholes are the ones and only.
Re: Breaking Bell's Inequality with Monte Carlo Simulations in Python
#10The Bell's Inequalities are a test for the capacity for inductive reasoning of the pupil. If the pupil succeed he is not to be admitted to join the ranks of quantum physicist. You usually show a pupil the problem with classical probabilities, and show that you can't violate Bell's Inequalities, then you show that Quantum Mechanics managed to replicated the observed probabilities using a non-local way, and therefore y…
> and therefore you conclude that the world is non-local.
No, Bell's inequality has a few sensible assumtions, like locality. The conclusion is that at least one of them is wrong and real world is a sensible one :(. By the way, there is this crazy thing call QM that nobody likes but gives accurate results.