Is it apparent the OP here has absolutely no idea of quantum mechanics what-so-ever. I'm very much unsurprised that people on physics forums ignored your arguments Humbleteleskop!

One one hand you have spoky magic of QM for which there is no explanation or understanding, and on the other you have clasical mechanics which you can simulate and see with your own eyes it's all simply a matter of how the odds go, naturally. Believe what you will.

Is it apparent the OP here has absolutely no idea of quantum mechanics what-so-ever. I'm very much unsurprised that people on physics forums ignored your arguments Humbleteleskop!

One one hand you have spoky magic of QM for which there is no explanation or understanding, and on the other you have clasical mechanics which you can simulate and see with your own eyes it's all simply a matter of how the odds go, naturally. Believe what you will.

You do know that a lot of our modern technology depends on quantum mechanics in one way or the other, right? Nanotechnology such as modern processors could not work without an understanding of quantum tunnelling, so the computer you are typing this post on is a (successful) product of the (successful) research that's gone into quantum mechanics. Precise timekeeping depends on quantum mechanics and the theory of relativity. Some medical scan technologies rely on an understanding of quantum mechanics to give accurate results, for instance. You and I live in a quantum-mechanical world - literally.

So allow me to flip your argument around: quantum mechanics has been very successful in predicting small-scale phenomena and giving scientists an understanding of how particles behave at this scale. It allowed teams of engineers to build devices which could not have even been conceived a few decades earlier. Every time I look at a computer or pull out my phone or use a GPS, that's a very real and tangible outcome of quantum mechanics. Seems to work fine, wouldn't you agree? Now what does your "experiment" tell us, that scientists were in fact completely wrong, and that the whole theory can be disproved by a layman experiment and is therefore bogus? (and as I understand it Bell's theorem is kind of the heart of quantum mechanics - if it is shown to be incorrect, the entire theory falls apart).

On one hand we have your "theory", which just claims all our modern technology works on fairy dust with no explanation or understanding behind them, and also offers no alternative whatsoever, on the other hand we have quantum mechanics, developed over decades of work by many of the brightest scientists of all time, and incredibly sophisticated technology that exists and works today, in the real world. What do you honestly expect people to think? If you truly had something worth considering you would be discussing it with actual scientists and presenting conferences about your ideas, not making crackpot threads on a game development website. Please. You're not the first crank on the internet and you won't be the last, and the reason nobody listens to you is not because of a planetwide conspiracy to "cover up the truth", it's just because you are making no sense and you don't even realize it. Now, you are free to keep rambling on - it's your life to waste - but perhaps this forum is not the best place to do so, as Bell's theorem (or crackpot theories thereof) has, as far as I know, absolutely nothing to do with game programming, or even programming in general.

You do know that a lot of our modern technology depends on quantum mechanics in one way or the other, right?

QM is statistical theory, the equations will work whether they are explained with magic unicorns or correlated photons.

So allow me to flip your argument around: quantum mechanics has been very successful in predicting small-scale phenomena and giving scientists an understanding of how particles behave at this scale.

The algorith is real and does what it does. I'm not saying the whole of QM is wrong, but I see with my own eyes they are deffinitivelly wrong about at least this type of experiment. I can only talk about this specific case, I don't have satisfactory information to talk about anything else. See if you can find any objection to what I said here, I don't claim to know anyhting else.

On one hand we have your "theory",

I don't have any theory, it's a self-evident fact. See for yourself:

#include <math.h>
#include <time.h>
#include <stdio.h>

void main()
{
    int         N_REPEAT= 100000;
    float       P1=                  30;        // <--- polarizer-1
    float       P2=                  30;        // <--- polarizer-2

    Init_Setup:;
    system("cls");
    printf("\Repeat #: 100,000");
    printf("\nAngle polarizer P1: "); scanf("%f", &P1);
    printf("Angle polarizer P2: "); scanf("%f", &P2);

    srand(time(NULL));
    int         N_MEASURE= 0;
    int         MATCH= 0;
    int         MISMATCH= 0;

// relative angle & radian conversion
    float       REL_P1= 0.0174533* (P1-P2)/2;
    float       REL_P2= 0.0174533* (P2-P1)/2;

    BEGIN:;
        int L1= ((rand()%201)/2 < ((cos(REL_P1)*cos(REL_P1))*100)) ? 1:0;
        int L2= ((rand()%201)/2 < ((cos(REL_P2)*cos(REL_P2))*100)) ? 1:0;

        printf("\n %d%d", L1, L2);
        if (L1 == L2) MATCH++; else MISMATCH++;
        if (++N_MEASURE < N_REPEAT) goto BEGIN;

    printf("\n\n1.)\n--- MALUS LAW INTEGRATION (%.0f,%.0f) ---", P1, P2);
    printf("\nMATCH: %d\nMISMATCH: %d", MATCH, MISMATCH);
    printf("\nMalus(%d): %.0f%%", abs((int)((P1-P2)/2)), ((cos(REL_P1)*cos(REL_P1))*100));
    printf("\n>>> STATISTICAL AVERAGE RESULT: %.2f%%", (float)abs(MATCH-MISMATCH)/(N_MEASURE/100));

// Exact probabilty equation
    float T= cos(REL_P1)*cos(REL_P2);
    float F= 1.0 - T;

    float MCH= (T*T)+(F*F);
    float MSM= (T*F)+(F*T);

    printf("\n\n\n2.)\n--- MALUS LAW PROBABILTY (%.0f,%.0f) ---", (P1-P2)/2, (P2-P1)/2);
    printf("\nMATCH: %.2f%%\nMISMATCH: %.2f%%", MCH*100, MSM*100);
    printf("\n>>> EXACT PROBABILTY RESULT: %.2f%%", (MCH-MSM)*100);


    printf("\n\nPress any key to repeat.");
    getch(); goto Init_Setup;
}

I didn't read all the posts and don't know about quantum mechanics, but you know that the numbers returned by rand() aren't very random, right? You'd probably want a better pseudorandom generator, or maybe a (physical) random source.

White noise would be such thing. But how to get it into the computer without giving it a "color"?

I didn't read all the posts and don't know about quantum mechanics, but you know that the numbers returned by rand() aren't very random, right? You'd probably want a better pseudorandom generator, or maybe a (physical) random source.

There is also exact solution given by Hodgman at the beginning of this thred, kind of like flipping two coins and probabilty of matching heads and tails. That's all there is to it.

Heads = cos(REL_P1)*cos(REL_P2)
Tails = 1.0 - Heads

MCH= (Heads * Heads) + (Tails * Tails)
MSM= (Heads * Tails) + (Tails * Heads)

EXACT RESULT = (MCH - MSM) * 100

use a GPS, that's a very real and tangible outcome of quantum mechanics

Use a GPS isn't the best example. The corrections used for GPS (to allow for the weaker gravitational field strength in orbit) are from the field equations of general relativity, a classical theory. Gravity is the big force in nature that is not yet quantized.

Quantum theory correctly predicts all kinds of stuff though, including quantized electron orbits, the behavior of liquid helium, photon's behaviour... Pretty much anything you can name in the natural world other than gravity and dark energy.

The simulation is addressing only one specific type of experiment. It doesn't say anything about electron orbits or GPS, as far as I know. If there is some connection, tell me about it, but otherwise it is irrelevant.

It isn't irrelevant. Read this article to (hopefully but I doubt it somehow) get a grasp on how a set of rules purely related to probability maths can be shown to be violated by measurements of experiments in the quantum domain.

The fact that these mathematically-proven inequalities are violated by experiment is the proof that classical mechanics cannot apply i.e. hidden variables.

Its not that complex. I'm a total monkey and I get it.

The fact that these mathematically-proven inequalities are violated by experiment is the proof that classical mechanics cannot apply i.e. hidden variables.

A simple probability formula for matching heads and tails of two coins replicates the experimental results exactly.

Heads = cos(REL_P1)*cos(REL_P2)
Tails = 1.0 - Heads

MCH= (Heads * Heads) + (Tails * Tails)
MSM= (Heads * Tails) + (Tails * Heads)

EXACT RESULT = (MCH - MSM) * 100

Mathematics vs. ignorance? Math wins. Sorry.