I think I am going to try to make an actual experimental device THAT JOHN STEWART BELL COULD HAVE MADE though of course he was at CERN and could have programmed a computer and so experimented more straightforwardly.
This device will disprove the stupid #quantum #entanglement #non-locality #irreducibility claptrap superstitious pseudoscience cult doctrine.
It will be a sort of quarter-circle pan, with an adjustable radial baffle, into which go little colored beads.
That is it.
Hmm, I may have the area wrong for the sections.
I mean, this doesn’t actually affect the electronic qubit design, I think. You would make up for that in the reference voltage. But it makes a difference in the design of the experiment.
You could CERTAINLY do it with an experiment using square sections made from cosine and sine values. But I have to work out something else.
(I DO for the first time see that there is a simple way to do state transitions of a kind BTW.)
Let’s see. The proportions of area for angle x are
P=2x/pi, Q=1-2x/pi
I have migraine and my thoughts are slow. Let’s get out the CRC Handbook of Math. Sciences.
By definition cos x and sin x are the sides of a right triangle whose hypotenuse is at angle x. The Pythagorean theorem says the area of the hypotenuse equals the sum of the areas of those sides.
But exactly how does this relate to the circular wedge? That’s the problem to be solved.
Okay. Let us use a semicircle.
Aside, because here we are going to be using the double-angle formula.
Kracklauer used to say that optical experiments didn’t really count because photons weren’t ‘quantum’ like 1/2-spin particles, and gave some mathematics as justification for this.
No doubt there was some superficial merit to this argument, but I think we can say now that the merit was, indeed, COMPLETELY superficial.
There is, in fact, NO SUCH THING AS ‘QUANTUM’ PHYSICS.
Quantum mechanics is like statistical mechanics. It is a method used to solve physics problems. It is NOT itself a branch of physics.
Now back to the problem. I will use a semicircle instead of a quarter circle. I think that will solve the problem. It will use the Bell test angles for 1/2-spin particles, methinks.
In the process we will also prove that Kracklauer was wrong and that there is nothing whatsoever ‘quantum’ about spin 1/2 particles.
(I’m pretty sure W. A. Hofer can also tell you this, simply by showing you his model of the electron, in which spin is explained as an electromagnetic field phenomenon.)
Alfred Korzybski was reading Scientific American or whatever too much. ‘Science and Sanity’ is full of nonsense and quotes complete nutballs such as Niels Bohr as if they were making sense.
E. T. Jaynes, too, thought he could make sense out of Bohr’s words. Bohr was merely trying to impress people with word salads. The man was a poseur.
(I mean, ‘Science and Sanity’ has great stuff in it, but I have decades of experience to see what’s correct and what’s incorrect and also how much he was affected by experimenter bias, etc.
I can see also how, 73 years after AK’s passing, his Institute is a self-help semi-cult headquarters. Completely by accident. He had no intention that this should be. But he was very sloppy and I suspect had untreated psychiatric illness of some sort not then recognized.)
(Anyway, so does mine, but my illness is recognized and under treatment. Also I get chatty when I take Imitrex. And my head still hurts despite the Imitrex.
Back to my task.)
Ah, I have it on paper now.
With the semicircle, the test angle of 2x cuts the diagonal of the circle into 2cos²x and 2sin²x. It is a simple geometric construction you can do with drafting tools. So the valve actually should be RECTANGULAR, not circular.
Please revise my earlier statements.
Barry Schwartz 🫖