SciPhysicsForums.com

FrediFizzx wrote:

gill1109 wrote:

FrediFizzx wrote:@gill1109 Ahh..., Of course..., make up your own rules as you go along! Plus you have a 4D vector vs. a 3D quaternion.

Those are not my rules, but Hamilton’s rules. Moreover, I am using standard terminology. Each quaternion is determined by four real parameters. A quaternion has a real part (1 real parameter) and a purely imaginary part (3 real parameters).

That is pure baloney. You need a refresher course on vector and quaternion algebra. Ok, enough of this nonsense. The important thing is that the conspiracy loophole simulation also works with 3D vectors. No quaternions needed.

gill1109 wrote:

FrediFizzx wrote:@gill1109 Ahh..., Of course..., make up your own rules as you go along! Plus you have a 4D vector vs. a 3D quaternion.

Those are not my rules, but Hamilton’s rules. Moreover, I am using standard terminology. Each quaternion is determined by four real parameters. A quaternion has a real part (1 real parameter) and a purely imaginary part (3 real parameters).

FrediFizzx wrote:@gill1109 Ahh..., Of course..., make up your own rules as you go along! Plus you have a 4D vector vs. a 3D quaternion.

FrediFizzx wrote:

Joy Christian wrote:

gill1109 wrote:

FrediFizzx wrote:@gill1109 Hmmm.... i, j and k are real numbers? I could have sworn that they are imaginary components.
.

"i", "j", and "k" are names of the real vectors (0, 1, 0, 0), (0, 0, 1, 0) and (0, 0, 0, 1); "1" is the name of (1, 0, 0, 0).
...

Well..., he got one of them right. I sure would like to see how he gets those real vectors for i, j and k to square to -1.

Joy Christian wrote:

gill1109 wrote:

FrediFizzx wrote:@gill1109 Hmmm.... i, j and k are real numbers? I could have sworn that they are imaginary components.
.

"i", "j", and "k" are names of the real vectors (0, 1, 0, 0), (0, 0, 1, 0) and (0, 0, 0, 1); "1" is the name of (1, 0, 0, 0).
...

gill1109 wrote:

FrediFizzx wrote:@gill1109 Hmmm.... i, j and k are real numbers? I could have sworn that they are imaginary components.
.

"i", "j", and "k" are names of the real vectors (0, 1, 0, 0), (0, 0, 1, 0) and (0, 0, 0, 1); "1" is the name of (1, 0, 0, 0).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quaternion

FrediFizzx wrote:@gill1109 Hmmm.... i, j and k are real numbers? I could have sworn that they are imaginary components.
.

FrediFizzx wrote:@gill1109 Everything in GA is real. There is no imaginary junk to deal with. One wonders if you are every going to learn GA properly.

FrediFizzx wrote:@gill1109 More complete freakin' nonsense from the master of nonsense himself. This simulation model has absolutely nothing to do with Joy's GA model.

FrediFizzx wrote:This conspiracy loophole to Gill's theory also works without the quaternions with 3D vectors. Apparently the real part of the quaternion multiplication is the same as the vector dot product so I've simplified the simulation. I also made the hidden variable, lambda, a function of the x and y coordinates of the singlet vector again. Here is 5 million events at one degree resolution,

...

Enjoy!
.

FrediFizzx wrote:

jreed wrote:I think I have the answer. I generated the classic triangle function using a Mathematica routine I wrote. Then I added this to a cosine function in the proportions I found for the detection loophole part (0.835) and the triangle part (0.165) that I got when I generated that cosine-like curve using your program. When this result is plotted on top of the cosine, it is difficult to find a difference between these curves. Those straight lines are in there, but in the proportions found by the program, can't be distinguished. What you have here is the detection loophole, but the missing events are not discarded, but hidden in the final result.

So, the straight lines are being "washed out" by the overwhelming existance of the negative cosine curve. Sounds reasonable. Goes to what I have been saying about Nature somehow tricking the experimenters. Now, to figure out how to exploit this feature to go all the way so that it is not just a loophole. Keep working and thinking about it. You just might hit the grand prize jackpot.

jreed wrote:I think I have the answer. I generated the classic triangle function using a Mathematica routine I wrote. Then I added this to a cosine function in the proportions I found for the detection loophole part (0.835) and the triangle part (0.165) that I got when I generated that cosine-like curve using your program. When this result is plotted on top of the cosine, it is difficult to find a difference between these curves. Those straight lines are in there, but in the proportions found by the program, can't be distinguished. What you have here is the detection loophole, but the missing events are not discarded, but hidden in the final result.