SciPhysicsForums.com

Dedicated to the sci.physics.* UseNet groups of yesteryear

Skip to content

How to generate correlations of ANY strength: Linear to Box

Post a reply


This question is a means of preventing automated form submissions by spambots.
BBCode is ON
[img] is ON
[flash] is OFF
[url] is ON
Smilies are OFF
Topic review
   

Expand view Topic review: How to generate correlations of ANY strength: Linear to Box

Re: How to generate correlations of ANY strength: Linear to

Post by gill1109 » Mon Mar 17, 2014 6:21 am

Heinera wrote:
gill1109 wrote:PS Florin Moldoveanu wrote me the following (note: I disagree with his correction of equation 22)

I double checked Pearl's computations, and I found many problems. All checks out until formula 16 (including 16 and including appendix A and B) Then it goes downhill. (17) has a typo, the correct formula is:

mu(x) = - 1/(1-x^2)^{1/2} d/dx [(1-x^2)^{1/2} / 4x d/dx g(x) x^2]

Equation (19) is messed up big time, 1/2 g(x) is the sum of the 2 integrals over [(1-x^2)^{1/2} + x] and not the first integral over (1-x^2) + the second integral over x^2. As a consequence Eq. 23 is wrong as well, but 23 does follow from the incorrect 19. Section V of the paper is based on (23) and is invalid.

I could not obtain Eq. 20 (I got a similar slightly more complex one-I am still working on it and maybe it will simplify to 20)

Eq. 21 has a typo and should read:

h(x) = 1/4 C pi 1/(1+x)^3

Eq. 22 has a typo and should read:

rho(r) r^2 = 1/3 sin (1/2 pi r) / (1+cos(1/2 pi r))^3

It was a major pain to straighten out the math on page 1421 because it is a sloppy paper and there are many false trails one need to explore to understand the intention. On Eq. 20 I got a very similar expression but I am lacking the overall 1/1-x^2 factor outside the square brackets, and in the second integral I have an additional term of (1-z^2)^{1/2}. The first integral in the square bracket is equal with g(0)/2.


I think Florin is actually right about Eq. 22 here. If we take Richard's cdf integral

4/3 . ( -1 / 4 + 1 / (1 + cos pi r / 2) ^2 )

and check by differentiating it back to get the distribution, we get Florin's Eq. multiplied by 4 pi.

Yes you're right and I was wrong. I had forgotten a factor pi/2 from the transformation from r in [0, 1] to an angle theta = r pi/2 in [0, pi/2]

Re: How to generate correlations of ANY strength: Linear to

Post by Heinera » Mon Mar 17, 2014 6:12 am

gill1109 wrote:PS Florin Moldoveanu wrote me the following (note: I disagree with his correction of equation 22)

I double checked Pearl's computations, and I found many problems. All checks out until formula 16 (including 16 and including appendix A and B) Then it goes downhill. (17) has a typo, the correct formula is:

mu(x) = - 1/(1-x^2)^{1/2} d/dx [(1-x^2)^{1/2} / 4x d/dx g(x) x^2]

Equation (19) is messed up big time, 1/2 g(x) is the sum of the 2 integrals over [(1-x^2)^{1/2} + x] and not the first integral over (1-x^2) + the second integral over x^2. As a consequence Eq. 23 is wrong as well, but 23 does follow from the incorrect 19. Section V of the paper is based on (23) and is invalid.

I could not obtain Eq. 20 (I got a similar slightly more complex one-I am still working on it and maybe it will simplify to 20)

Eq. 21 has a typo and should read:

h(x) = 1/4 C pi 1/(1+x)^3

Eq. 22 has a typo and should read:

rho(r) r^2 = 1/3 sin (1/2 pi r) / (1+cos(1/2 pi r))^3

It was a major pain to straighten out the math on page 1421 because it is a sloppy paper and there are many false trails one need to explore to understand the intention. On Eq. 20 I got a very similar expression but I am lacking the overall 1/1-x^2 factor outside the square brackets, and in the second integral I have an additional term of (1-z^2)^{1/2}. The first integral in the square bracket is equal with g(0)/2.


I think Florin is actually right about Eq. 22 here. If we take Richard's cdf integral

4/3 . ( -1 / 4 + 1 / (1 + cos pi r / 2) ^2 )

and check by differentiating it back to get the distribution, we get Florin's Eq. multiplied by 4 pi.

Re: How to generate correlations of ANY strength: Linear to

Post by gill1109 » Sat Mar 15, 2014 4:15 am

Joy Christian wrote:Amusing that at other junctures you have stressed quite stressfully that one and the same mathematical structure can describe many different physical phenomena.

Touché!

Re: How to generate correlations of ANY strength: Linear to

Post by Joy Christian » Sat Mar 15, 2014 3:40 am

gill1109 wrote:
Joy Christian wrote:Let me also stress once again that my model has nothing whatsoever to do with detection loophole, or any other loophole for that matter.

Amusing that your computer simulation of your model is "lifted" straight from publications about the detection loophole.


Amusing that at other junctures you have stressed quite stressfully that one and the same mathematical structure can describe many different physical phenomena.

Two apples and two bananas have the number 2 in common. Therefore apples must be bananas?

Those who are more serious and less cynical about my work may find the supposed "coincidence" not so surprising, especially after reading this paper: http://libertesphilosophica.info/blog/w ... hapter.pdf. After all, both publications are trying to explain the same number , namely the EPR-Bohm correlation.

What is more, as I have stressed many times before, a simulation of an analytical model is not the model itself. It is merely a simulation of the model.

Finally, the initial or complete state in the publications about detection loophole is a lonesome vector ,

whereas the initial or complete state (in one of the representations of my 3-sphere model) is a pair .

Apples versus oranges.

Re: How to generate correlations of ANY strength: Linear to

Post by gill1109 » Sat Mar 15, 2014 2:35 am

Joy Christian wrote:Let me also stress once again that my model has nothing whatsoever to do with detection loophole, or any other loophole for that matter.

Amusing that your computer simulation of your model is "lifted" straight from publications about the detection loophole.

Re: How to generate correlations of ANY strength: Linear to

Post by Joy Christian » Fri Mar 14, 2014 5:26 am

gill1109 wrote:...the really interesting things in the real world experiments like Aspect's, Weihs', and so on, is that we never appear to violate the Tsirelson bound 2 sqrt 2.


The reasons for this fact have been explained by me in exquisit details in this paper: http://arxiv.org/abs/1101.1958.

Let me also stress once again that my model has nothing whatsoever to do with detection loophole, or any other loophole for that matter.

I have shown in the above paper why, not only the EPR-Bohm correlation, but also no quantum correlation can exceed the strength of .

The true reason for the existence of this bound has to do with the torsion in our physical space on the one hand, and the parallelizability of the four spheres corresponding to the four normed division algebras on the other hand. More information about this can be found on my blog: http://libertesphilosophica.info/blog/

The observation of the Linear to Box correlation I made in my previous posts is interesting to me in the light of these results. In particular, it is interesting from my perspective that the exact geometrical ratio , and only the exact geometrical ratio , is responsible for the quantum correlations. This further supports my view that they have nothing to do with non-locality or non-reality. Quantum correlations are simply correlations among the points of the non-trivially parallelized spheres.

Re: How to generate correlations of ANY strength: Linear to

Post by gill1109 » Fri Mar 14, 2014 2:49 am

Joy Christian wrote:Now I find this observation very interesting, but so far it has not attracted much interest.

Actually it is well known among those who study the detection loophole, that one essentially can get any correlation one likes from classical *through quantum* all the way to the Rohrlic-Popescu local boxes. In other words, the Tsirelson bound is no bound anymore. Many people have remarked that the really interesting things in the real world experiments like Aspect's, Weihs', and so on, is that we never appear to violate the Tsirelson bound 2 sqrt 2.

Actually a colleague of mine in Leiden, a well known, senior, respected experimenter in quantum optics (e.g.: member of the Royal Dutch Academy of Sciences), did recently publish an experiment with experimental violation of the Tsirelson bound. He thought he had established stronger forms of entanglement than previously observed, hence his experiment was better than earlier ones, when in fact, taken at face value, he had disproved quantum mechanics. Amusing that such a paper gets published in one of the best journals, and no one notices that there is something odd about the result.

Re: How to generate correlations of ANY strength: Linear to

Post by Joy Christian » Wed Mar 12, 2014 11:59 pm

The above ratios are for the "initial" function .

Re: How to generate correlations of ANY strength: Linear to

Post by Joy Christian » Wed Mar 12, 2014 11:39 am

FrediFizzx wrote:Ok, you all. Thread has gone off topic. Let's get back to the main topic of this thread or I will lock it.


Sorry, Fred. Let me try to get back to the main topic.

A better way of stating what I have stated in the first post of this thread is that the ratio can be varied to produce correlation of any strength, from Linear to Box:


Linear: Box.


This further supports my view that quantum correlations are purely geometrical and topological effects. They have nothing to do with non-locality or non-reality.

Now I find this observation very interesting, but so far it has not attracted much interest.

Re: How to generate correlations of ANY strength: Linear to

Post by FrediFizzx » Wed Mar 12, 2014 11:27 am

Ok, you all. Thread has gone off topic. Let's get back to the main topic of this thread or I will lock it.

Re: How to generate correlations of ANY strength: Linear to

Post by Joy Christian » Wed Mar 12, 2014 10:53 am

gill1109 wrote:
Joy Christian wrote:In particular, Lucien Hardy, David Hestenes, Manfried Faber, Azhar Iqbal, Bryan Sanctuary, and many other competent physicists and mathematicians fully agree with my algebraic arguments and clearly see where you have blundered.

Splendid. We look forward to their own publications citing your work and building further on your contributions.


No need to wait. Here is but one example of a paper citing some of my work on the subject: http://arxiv.org/abs/1101.3619 ; cf. Refs. 31 and 32.

There are plenty more citations to my papers, which can be easily found by searching in http://adsabs.harvard.edu/index.html. So splendid, indeed.

Re: How to generate correlations of ANY strength: Linear to

Post by gill1109 » Wed Mar 12, 2014 10:23 am

Joy Christian wrote:In particular, Lucien Hardy, David Hestenes, Manfried Faber, Azhar Iqbal, Bryan Sanctuary, and many other competent physicists and mathematicians fully agree with my algebraic arguments and clearly see where you have blundered.

Splendid. We look forward to their own publications citing your work and building further on your contributions.

Re: How to generate correlations of ANY strength: Linear to

Post by Joy Christian » Wed Mar 12, 2014 5:50 am

Heinera wrote:Interesting. Could you elaborate a bit on that, e.g. give a link or something?


Why don't you ask him yourself? You seem to have had no difficulty finding the other link.

Re: How to generate correlations of ANY strength: Linear to

Post by Heinera » Wed Mar 12, 2014 5:37 am

Joy Christian wrote:
Heinera wrote:
Joy Christian wrote:Even the computer tutor Scott Aaronson and the nonlocalist Adrian Kent now realize that they were misled about my work by your erroneous and confused arguments.


Has Scott Aaronson said anything about your work since this?


Yes, he has.


Interesting. Could you elaborate a bit on that, e.g. give a link or something?

Re: How to generate correlations of ANY strength: Linear to

Post by Joy Christian » Wed Mar 12, 2014 5:30 am

Heinera wrote:
Joy Christian wrote:Even the computer tutor Scott Aaronson and the nonlocalist Adrian Kent now realize that they were misled about my work by your erroneous and confused arguments.


Has Scott Aaronson said anything about your work since this?


Yes, he has.

Re: How to generate correlations of ANY strength: Linear to

Post by Heinera » Wed Mar 12, 2014 4:59 am

Joy Christian wrote:Even the computer tutor Scott Aaronson and the nonlocalist Adrian Kent now realize that they were misled about my work by your erroneous and confused arguments.


Has Scott Aaronson said anything about your work since this?

Re: How to generate correlations of ANY strength: Linear to

Post by Joy Christian » Wed Mar 12, 2014 4:15 am

gill1109 wrote:Yes I know that you, Fred and others claimed that my analysis was false and pointed out alleged errors numerous times. I could not make any sense of any of their criticisms.


Let me then point out your errors to you once again, especially because you confessed in this post that you are "algebraically challenged." Here is the paper where I systematically list all of your algebraic errors, misrepresentations, and confusions: http://arxiv.org/abs/1203.2529. I hope that it finally helps you to see your errors.

gill1109 wrote:On the other hand, a lot of other people agreed with my analysis (Lucien Hardy, Scott Aaronson, Adrian Kent, Florin Moldoveanu, David Hestenes, Manfried Faber, Azhar Iqbal, Bryan Sanctuary, to name but a few).


This is a patently false claim. No one apart form Mr. Moldoveanu agrees with your "analysis." In particular, Lucien Hardy, David Hestenes, Manfried Faber, Azhar Iqbal, Bryan Sanctuary, and many other competent physicists and mathematicians fully agree with my algebraic arguments and clearly see where you have blundered.

Lucien Hardy, in particular, reproduced the correlation derived in my one-page paper in explicit details, with his considerable theoretical and mathematical talents.

Even the computer tutor Scott Aaronson and the nonlocalist Adrian Kent now realize that they were misled about my work by your erroneous and confused arguments.

That leaves Mr. Moldoveanu, who is an unqualified individual without any academic attachment, and who has never been able to publish a single paper in any journal in his entire lifetime. Moreover he demonstrably lacks intellectual capacity and mathematical competence to understand arguments as physically and mathematically sophisticated as those presented in my papers. Therefore his opinion about my work is not worth a penny. He was also forced to apologize to me publicly by both the FQXi and arXiv administrations for falsely accusing me and my work of various unspeakable things.

gill1109 wrote:So I do not think my persistence in claiming that my analysis was *not* a straw-man attack does not constitute any kind of dishonesty.


I recognize a straw-man argument when I see one.

I recognize a mathematical fallacy when I see one.

I recognize a logical fallacy when I see one.

I recognize dishonesty when I see one.

I recognize a rant when I see one.

Re: How to generate correlations of ANY strength: Linear to

Post by gill1109 » Wed Mar 12, 2014 3:08 am

Joy Christian wrote:
gill1109 wrote:
Joy Christian wrote:It is not a personal attack. Your argument IS dishonest, as explained in the linked video. Please watch the video to appreciate how dishonest your argument really is.

My argument would be dishonest, if (a) it really was a "straw man" argument, and (b) it was knowingly a straw-man argument.

You may believe (a) if you want to (I believe you would be wrong). But even if you know my argument is a straw man argument, you cannot know (b) that I was fully aware of that. Please withdraw the word "dishonest". It has no place here. You may attack my scientific competence indirectly, through attacking my arguments, but not my scientific integrity.


The dishonesty of (b)-kind started to occur in your argument when you continued to use your incorrect argument even after your errors were pointed out to you by several people, at least 85 times, to be exact. For example, it was pointed out to you that you have inserted an error in your equation (2), and then falsely claimed that your erroneous equation (2) is actually my equation. That is deliberate deception, according to the video I have linked above. What is more, it is not only I who has pointed out to you that your equation (2) is not my equation, but also Fred and Edwin Klingman, among several others---at least 85 times, to be exact. And yet you continue to insist that your erroneous equation (2) is actually my equation. Can you explain to us why that is not deliberate dishonesty in your modus operandi?


Yes I know that you, Fred and others claimed that my analysis was false and pointed out alleged errors numerous times. I could not make any sense of any of their criticisms. On the other hand, a lot of other people agreed with my analysis (Lucien Hardy, Scott Aaronson, Adrian Kent, Florin Moldoveanu, David Hestenes, Manfried Faber, Azhar Iqbal, Bryan Sanctuary, to name but a few. Some of whom actually had a strong interest in hoping that you were right, and some of whom are far more competent in this particular branch of algebra than you or I).

So I do not think my persistence in claiming that my analysis was *not* a straw-man attack does not constitute any kind of dishonesty. Your criticasters read what you write. They discover inconsistencies. They are forced to "reconstruct" what you probably meant, since what you actually wrote appears to them clearly to be plain nonsense. Garbled text? Typos? Missing definitions? They might be wrong in their reconstructions, since obviously you are the sole person who knows what the intended "sense" of what appears nonsense to others, might be. I did not find Edwin's or Fred's explanations of any help at all. In fact from their "explanations" I got the impression they were a good deal less competent in algebra than you or I are. I have plenty of good reasons to believe that no scientific "sense" can be made of your models at all. It's just poetry. Science Fantasy. It could also be a fantastic new long-running Sokal-like hoax.

I'm interested in the limits of local realist simulation models for EPR-B experiments, and I'm interested in science outreach. I have yet to meet a science journalist who had a clue what Bell was all about. Many experimenters do fantastic experiments but actually are also rather shaky in the "metaphysical" implications of what they are doing. A famous Leiden colleague of mine in quantum optics published, in one of the top journals, an experimental violation of the Tsirelson inequality, without anyone noticing that QM had thereby been destroyed (unless there was a mistake in the experiment. There was.) Another famous Leiden colleague of mine in quantum optics told journalists that his GHZ experiment proved with onlhy finitely many runs, just by a logical deduction, that local realism was impossible. His own experiment did not actually reproduce the GHZ predictions exactly so his own logic would have destroyed his own paper! There has been a conspiracy of silence around the famous loopholes. It is only now that the experimenters suddenly see a loophole free experiment in reach, that it has become politically correct to discuss them seriously. Caroline Thompson did wonderful work and was shamelessly treated by the establishment. They are now silently adopting many of her suggestions and at last trying to take account of her criticisms, but you won't hear them mention her name or publications.

http://freespace.virgin.net/ch.thompson1/Papers/The%20Record/TheRecord.htm

Re: How to generate correlations of ANY strength: Linear to

Post by Joy Christian » Wed Mar 12, 2014 1:17 am

gill1109 wrote:
Joy Christian wrote:It is not a personal attack. Your argument IS dishonest, as explained in the linked video. Please watch the video to appreciate how dishonest your argument really is.

My argument would be dishonest, if (a) it really was a "straw man" argument, and (b) it was knowingly a straw-man argument.

You may believe (a) if you want to (I believe you would be wrong). But even if you know my argument is a straw man argument, you cannot know (b) that I was fully aware of that. Please withdraw the word "dishonest". It has no place here. You may attack my scientific competence indirectly, through attacking my arguments, but not my scientific integrity.


The dishonesty of (b)-kind started to occur in your argument when you continued to use your incorrect argument even after your errors were pointed out to you by several people, at least 85 times, to be exact. For example, it was pointed out to you that you have inserted an error in your equation (2), and then falsely claimed that your erroneous equation (2) is actually my equation. That is deliberate deception, according to the video I have linked above. What is more, it is not only I who has pointed out to you that your equation (2) is not my equation, but also Fred and Edwin Klingman, among several others---at least 85 times, to be exact. And yet you continue to insist that your erroneous equation (2) is actually my equation. Can you explain to us why that is not deliberate dishonesty in your modus operandi?

Re: How to generate correlations of ANY strength: Linear to

Post by gill1109 » Wed Mar 12, 2014 12:44 am

Joy Christian wrote:It is not a personal attack. Your argument IS dishonest, as explained in the linked video. Please watch the video to appreciate how dishonest your argument really is.

My argument would be dishonest, if (a) it really was a "straw man" argument, and (b) it was knowingly a straw-man argument.

You may believe (a) if you want to (I believe you would be wrong). But even if you know my argument is a straw man argument, you cannot know (b) that I was fully aware of that. Please withdraw the word "dishonest". It has no place here. You may attack my scientific competence indirectly, through attacking my arguments, but not my scientific integrity.

Top

Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group
CodeCogs - An Open Source Scientific Library