The polarizers need to be set randomly to insure that no classical interaction can happen between the polarizers when the interaction takes place.

Because of this restriction, you need to analyze the resulting data with Bell's Theorem (A statistics theorem, not a physics theorem)

Complicating for no reason. Polarization angles do not need to be set at random, it does not make any difference. The experiment can be confirmed in two easy steps 2 or 3, and 4, like this:

3.) Malus's law probability (30deg) -> cos(15)*cos(15) = 0.933

Coin 1 chance Heads: 93.3%, Tails: 6.7%
Coin 2 chance Heads: 93.3%, Tails: 6.7%
---
Chance of MATCH: (H1&H2 | T1&T2) = (0.933 * 0.933) + (0.067 * 0.067) = 0.875
Chance of MISMCH: (T1&H2 | H1&T2) = (0.067 * 0.933) + (0.933 * 0.067) = 0.125
Correlation = MATCH - MISMCH = 0.875 - 0.125 = 0.755
Discordance = 1 - correlation = 0.245 = 25%

4.) Malus's law probability (60deg) -> cos(30)*cos(30) = 0.75

Coin 1 chance Heads: 75%, Tails: 25%
Coin 2 chance Heads: 75%, Tails: 25%
---
Chance of MISMCH: (H1&H2 | T1&T2) = (0.75 * 0.75) + (0.25 * 0.25) = 0.625
Chance of MISMCH: (T1&H2 | H1&T2) = (0.25 * 0.75) + (0.75 * 0.25) = 0.375
Correlation = MATCH - MISMCH = 0.625 - 0.375 = 0.25
Discordance = 1 - correlation = 0.75 = 75%

No paranormal "non-locality" or any mystery here. It's simple local probability just like tossing two coins.

I can confirm, using that same excel sheet as before, that this is the case. I used 75% and 25% for my tests, and ran them 50 times. The closes I could get to violating was a value of 1.25, which is still below 2.

You do not use 75% and 25%, those are results. You use Malus's law to get the probablilty for the relative angle of polarization and the result simply follows from there, see above.

What this means is that something about our initial assumptions is wrong. Any of the following can be true

1) The photons can share information faster than light

2) The photons only collapse to a single polarization at the polarizer

3) Reality is determined 100%, forwards and backwards. You cannot set the polarizer randomly, and the Photons know the future

4) Information can travel backwards in time, so the settings of the polarizer are known when the Photons are created.

5) Every possible outcome actually happens, but you only experience one at a time (Many Worlds)

Most physicists say 2 is the simplest, and therefore best, explanation. Part of me wonders about 4, because things moving at light speed don't experience time, But that's enough learning on my end for one day.

Statistical solution obtained by the algorithm as well as exact solution from the probability equation, clearly demonstrate the simple mechanics of the experimental results and explain why and how they actually come to be, without need to hallucinate any metaphysical, magical or other superstitious crap. It's a simple matter of chances and odds, natural probability and local causality, statistical certainty. We are not living in a Harry Potter movie, this is REALITY. Wake up people!!

Lets use 20 light pulses

++++ ++++ ++++ ++++ ++++

When both are 0, we get 100% transmission, and we get

A: ++++ ++++ ++++ ++++ ++++ => 100%

B: ++++ ++++ ++++ ++++ ++++ => 100%

D: 0000 0000 0000 0000 0000 => 0%

When A is 30, we get 75% transmission.

A: +++- +++- +++- +++- +++- => 75%

B: ++++ ++++ ++++ ++++ ++++ => 100%

D: 0001 0001 0001 0001 0001 => 25%

When B is -30, we get 75% transmission

A: ++++ ++++ ++++ ++++ ++++ => 100%

B: -+++ -+++ -+++ -+++ -+++ => 75%

D: 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000 => 25%

When A is 30, and B is -30, we get 75% at both sites.

The MAXIMUM POSSIBLE DISCORD happens when A and B blocks happen at completely different times.

A: +++- +++- +++- +++- +++- => 75%

B: -+++ -+++ -+++ -+++ -+++ => 75%

D: 1001 1001 1001 1001 1001 => 50%

Cool! Well, lets use quantum mechanics, and calculate what a pair of entangled particles would do

A: +-+- +++- ++-- +++- +-+- => 60%

B: -+++ --++ -+++ -+-+ -+++ => 60%

D: 1101 1101 1011 1011 1101 => 75%

Great! We have a difference! QM predicts something different from any local variable theory, regardless of what those variables are.

This is why we need to randomize the angles. we can't allow any information from polarizer A to influence the measurement at polarizer B. If we do, all bets are off.

So, we fire off the Photons. Then, while they are in flight, we randomize the polarizers. We then measure before the settings at polarizer A can change any variables local to photon B.

If we get 50% discordance or less, we know that local properties are all that matter.

If we get 51% discordance or more, we know that non-local properties are necessary to describe the behavior.

The photon is getting superluminal information from detector A.

If we get 75% discordance, we know that QM predicted the correct value of the discordance.

So we run the test, and what do we get?

75% Discordance

EDIT:

Hang on, Malus's law doesn't Apply here.

The angle you want is between the light beam and the polarizer, not between the two polarizers.

Basically, a +30 and -30 shift in polarizer A and B is not equivalent to a 0 and 60 degree shift.

Think of it this way: first you do 0/0

A: ++++ ++++ ++++ ++++ ++++ => 100%

B: ++++ ++++ ++++ ++++ ++++ => 100%

D: 0000 0000 0000 0000 0000 => 0%

Then, you do 0/45

A: ++++ ++++ ++++ ++++ ++++ => 100%

B: ++-- ++-- ++-- ++-- ++-- => 50%

D: 0011 0011 0011 0011 0011 => 50%

Then, you do -45/0

A: --++ +--+ ++-- -+-+ +-+- => 50%

B: ++++ ++++ ++++ ++++ ++++ => 100%

D:1100 0110 0011 1010 0101 => 50%

Then, you do -45/45

A: --++ +--+ ++-- -+-+ +-+- => 50%

B: ++-- ++-- ++-- ++-- ++-- => 50%

D: 1111 0101 0000 1001 0110 => 50%

Then, you do 0/90

A: ++++ ++++ ++++ ++++ ++++ => 100%

B: ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- => 0%

D: 1111 1111 1111 1111 1111 => 100%

Remember, your angle is relative to the incoming light, not the other polarizer.

When A is 30, we get 75% transmission.

A: +++- +++- +++- +++- +++- => 75%

B: ++++ ++++ ++++ ++++ ++++ => 100%

D: 0001 0001 0001 0001 0001 => 25%

No, you are mixing initial setup with measurements and results, input with output. When relative angle is 30 degrees (-15,+15), the probability for each polarizer is given by Malus's law equation -> cos(15)*cos(15) = 0.933. It means 93.3% photons will pass through, and 6.7% will get stopped at the polarizer. Therefore, for each photon pair:

INPUT:

Case 1. -> Relative angle per polarizer (0, +30) = (A-B)/2, (B-A)/2 = (-15,+15)

Case 2. -> Relative angle per polarizer (+30, 0) = (A-B)/2, (B-A)/2 = (+15,-15)

Case 1 or 2 -> Malus's law probability per one polarizer = cos(15)*cos(15) = 0.933

OUTPUT:

Coin 1 vs Coin 2 = 0.933 : 0.0067 vs. 0.933 : 0.0067

Chance of MATCH: (H1&H2 | T1&T2) = (0.933 * 0.933) + (0.067 * 0.067) = 0.875
Chance of MISMCH: (T1&H2 | H1&T2) = (0.067 * 0.933) + (0.933 * 0.067) = 0.125
Correlation = MATCH - MISMCH = 0.875 - 0.125 = 0.755
Discordance = 1 - correlation = 0.245 = 25%

This is why we need to randomize the angles. we can't allow any information from polarizer A to influence the measurement at polarizer B. If we do, all bets are off.

Randomization of angles makes no any difference.

If we get 50% discordance or less, we know that local properties are all that matter.

If we get 51% discordance or more, we know that non-local properties are necessary to describe the behavior.

We get 75% by both statistical simulation and exact probability equation, therefore we know that local properties are all that matter.

Sorry to those attempting to engage in a proper discussion, but this is being closed for the following reasons:

• It's not game related in any way. Off-topic discussions are sometimes allowed, but in this case the OP hasn't even expressed an interest in game development.
• The OP is dismissive of just about every response. Sorry to say, but this is classic trolling crackpot behaviour, and it doesn't allow for productive discussions.
• This is really just a rehash of discussions the OP has already had in other forums.