Nobelkommittén för fysik har förbjudit det här programmet.

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Herein find materials that demonstrate the 2022 Nobel Prize in Physics
was given for junk pseudoscience.

----------------------------------------------------------------------

This repository all began with the Ada program, which is a simulation
of a signal processing problem logically equivalent to one of Alain
Aspect’s Bell-test experiments. The simulation reproduces the
statistics predicted by quantum mechanics, but entirely
classically. Which OF COURSE it does, because it is LOGICALLY
EQUIVALENT.

There is no trick to it. The mathematics that won the Nobel Prize is
fake. It is not real mathematics. John Stewart Bell and others made up
their own mathematics rather than use the real thing. This is obvious
to anyone who knows the definition of the conditional probability is
P(a|b)=P(a∧b)/P(b), AND THAT THERE IS NO OPPORTUNITY PROVIDED FOR
REDEFINITION--mathematics simply does not DO that. Yet John Bell went
ahead and added ‘P(a|b)=P(a) if b has no causal influence on a’ to
that definition.

Anyone who is enough familiar with ACTUAL mathematics can tell you
this is a license to declare anything proved that one desires. Given
Bell’s redefinition of the conditional probability, one can prove that
thirty divided by zero equals ten to the power square root of minus
one. A first step in that--proving 1=0, so division by 0 becomes
possible--is trivial.

Suppose I put a red ball and a white ball in a hat and mix them up. I
cover my eyes and pull a ball from the hat, handing you the ball and
asking you to set it aside. Now we look together in the hat and see
the white ball. I now KNOW FOR A FACT that the ball you set aside was
the red one. Were the two balls ‘entangled’? Did my act of looking in
the hat CAUSE the ball you set aside to become the red one? Of course
not. According to John Bell’s fake mathematics, however, this is what
happened.

Physicists would call this a ‘loophole’ in Bell’s reasoning, but we
know better. It is not a ‘loophole’. It is that the mathematics is
fake. Real probability theory never makes such mistakes. It has no
‘loopholes’. It is always consistent.

It is plain fact that ‘science’ is NOT ‘self-correcting’, as the
robotic talking heads would have it. Rather, physicists have
instituted a self-reinforcing incompetence in probability theory and
random process analysis. They have built up a taxonomy of ‘loopholes’
rather than accept they do not know mathematics and must go back for
remedial education. They accept fake mathematics as if it were real
mathematics, and have turned physics into a pseudoscience.

----------------------------------------------------------------------

There are also in here:

* Translations of the Ada program to other languages.

* The source repository for the Python animation at
  https://pypi.org/project/Quantum-Correlations-Visualized/

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Let me finish this README with a trap for Bell apologists.

This is a proof Einstein, Podolsky, and Rosen were right that SHOULD
have occurred to electrical engineers long ago. However, nowadays the
IEEE is ‘Quantum This’ and ‘Quantum That’, so I have no idea WHAT is
occurring to electrical engineers. I cannot join an IEEE society
anymore. They are all corrupted.

The trap goes as follows.

Take your favorite Bell-test experiment. Convert it step by step to a
signal processing problem. Take the particles and convert them to
signals. Take the beam-splitting polarizers or the Stern-Gerlach
magnets and convert them to receiver-transmitter relay stations,
applying equivalent algorithms. Do any other necessary transformations
of the sort.

The result will be a signal processing experiment that is, step by
step, logically equivalent to the Bell-test experiment. And it will
be, without question, a classical experiment, fully action by contact.

Therefore the Bell-test experiment is classical and action by contact.

At this point, the Bell apologist objects, perhaps, that the signal
processing experiment is NOT, in fact, logically equivalent, because
it left out ENTANGLEMENT. The signals are not, like the particles,
entangled.

So now what you do is you SOLVE for the correlation coefficient of the
signal processing problem, using random process analysis methods. One
obtains, of course, the same solution as QM obtains for the Bell-test.

The Bell apologist is now trapped. Most likely they will not switch
sides, but rather resort to a series of selections from this list:
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_fallacies&oldid=1171695814#Informal_fallacies

It is likely that the solution method used by the signal processing
engineer will be more complicated than necessary (as was mine when I
first employed this approach), but the principle is sound.

----------------------------------------------------------------------