## Simulation with non-local behavior

### 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

### Re: Simulation with non-local behavior

minkwe wrote:
Heinera wrote:Nope. Even with Richard's model, there is no way that Alice can signal to Bob (or vice versa) by using detector settings. No matter what setting Alice chooses, the probability distribution on Bob's end will still be 50/50. And of course if you had known even a whiff about quantum mechanics you would know that entanglement requires a distribution that depends on both a and b, but still is consistent with the no-signalling theorem.

For this model implemented in R see https://rpubs.com/heinera/16727

Of course you don't understand what it means to send information. It means the mutual information between Alice's setting and Bob's outcome and vice versa is significantly non-zero. Which means Bob can learn something about Alice's settings just by looking at his outcomes and vice versa. Which is obviously the case for Richard's model and yours.

My model has zero mutual information between Alice's setting and Bob's outcome.

### Re: Simulation with non-local behavior

Heinera wrote:
FrediFizzx wrote:I don't think it is possible to construct A and B measurement functions that make any physical sense for non-local behavior. Does the "entanglement" of the particles all of a sudden jump to include the measurement apparatus? If so, it is pure silliness.
.

I don't think anyone would take this model seriously as an explanation of what the actual physical mechanism is. After all, it's just a numerical sampling af the QM joint distribution, so it provides no deeper understanding than what can be gained from the QM distribution itself. But it was not meant to be providing a deeper physical understanding, it was a response to minkwe's claim:
...

I was just talking in general terms not about your model specifically.
.

### Re: Simulation with non-local behavior

FrediFizzx wrote:I don't think it is possible to construct A and B measurement functions that make any physical sense for non-local behavior. Does the "entanglement" of the particles all of a sudden jump to include the measurement apparatus? If so, it is pure silliness.
.

I don't think anyone would take this model seriously as an explanation of what the actual physical mechanism is. After all, it's just a numerical sampling af the QM joint distribution, so it provides no deeper understanding than what can be gained from the QM distribution itself. But it was not meant to be providing a deeper physical understanding, it was a response to minkwe's claim:
minkwe wrote:For a while the Bell proponents have been asking for local simulations that match QM but nobody has asked them to produce non-local simulations that match QM and all the required conditions like no-signalling. I think looking at what they come up with and the difficulties they face will be instructive.

The model clearly matches QM and all the required conditions like no-signalling. And we faced no difficulties.

### Re: Simulation with non-local behavior

minkwe wrote:So for the last time, I don't need to develop or explain how Alice and Bob can use this to communicate. All I have to demonstrate is that the mutual information in your so-called quantum model is non-zero and that kills it.

So far you have demonstrated exactly nothing.

### Re: Simulation with non-local behavior

I don't think it is possible to construct A and B measurement functions that make any physical sense for non-local behavior. Does the "entanglement" of the particles all of a sudden jump to include the measurement apparatus? If so, it is pure silliness.
.

### Re: Simulation with non-local behavior

Heinera wrote:
minkwe wrote:Please, do you know what mutual information means? Do you understand what it means for the mutual information to be significantly non-zero?

Do you understand anything about information theory at all, except what you've learned from pop-sci books? Since you are clearly incapable of answering the question of how Bob can extract information about Alice's settings "just by looking at his outcomes," this discussion has come to an end.

Good riddance! Like I told you before. No-signalling means Bob can't learn ANYTHING about Alice's settings just by looking at his outcomes and vice versa. Mathematically, this means the mutual information between Bob's outcomes and Alice's settings should not be significantly different from zero. This is a precise mathematical fact. The mutual information quantifies the amount of information Bob(Alice) can learn about Alice's (Bob's) settings just by looking at their own outcomes. I don't expect that you will ever understand this as usual, since the only thing you know about for sure is trolling.

So for the last time, I don't need to develop or explain how Alice and Bob can use this to communicate. All I have to demonstrate is that the mutual information in your so-called quantum model is non-zero and that kills it. So keep deluding yourself that I must first use your model to communicate before you will accept the argument. That is irrational and illogical.

### Re: Simulation with non-local behavior

minkwe wrote:Please, do you know what mutual information means? Do you understand what it means for the mutual information to be significantly non-zero?

Do you understand anything about information theory at all, except what you've learned from pop-sci books? Since you are clearly incapable of answering the question of how Bob can extract information about Alice's settings "just by looking at his outcomes," this discussion has come to an end.

### Re: Simulation with non-local behavior

Please, do you know what mutual information means? Do you understand what it means for the mutual information to be significantly non-zero?

Don't speak about things you don't understand. It is embarrassing.

### Re: Simulation with non-local behavior

minkwe wrote:I don't have to. You should learn some information theory. All I have to show is that the mutual information between Bob's settings and Alice's outcomes is significantly non-zero. This means information has been transmitted. The mutual information exactly quantifies the amount of information transmitted.

Dodging the question again? You wrote "Which means Bob can learn something about Alice's settings just by looking at his outcomes and vice versa. Which is obviously the case for Richard's model and yours." So, what "obvious" analysis does Bob have to do to learn something about Alice's settings just by looking at his outcomes?

I think that it is you who need to learn some information theory. There is no information about Alice's settings in Bob's results, and vice versa.

### Re: Simulation with non-local behavior

I don't have to. You should learn some information theory. All I have to show is that the mutual information between Bob's settings and Alice's outcomes is significantly non-zero. This means information has been transmitted. The mutual information exactly quantifies the amount of information transmitted.

### Re: Simulation with non-local behavior

minkwe wrote: Which means Bob can learn something about Alice's settings just by looking at his outcomes and vice versa. Which is obviously the case for Richard's model and yours.

And exactly how can Bob learn about Alice's setting just by looking at his outcomes? Can you show us a protocol Bob can follow to gain this information?

### Re: Simulation with non-local behavior

Heinera wrote:Nope. Even with Richard's model, there is no way that Alice can signal to Bob (or vice versa) by using detector settings. No matter what setting Alice chooses, the probability distribution on Bob's end will still be 50/50. And of course if you had known even a whiff about quantum mechanics you would know that entanglement requires a distribution that depends on both a and b, but still is consistent with the no-signalling theorem.

For this model implemented in R see https://rpubs.com/heinera/16727

Of course you don't understand what it means to send information. It means the mutual information between Alice's setting and Bob's outcome and vice versa is significantly non-zero. Which means Bob can learn something about Alice's settings just by looking at his outcomes and vice versa. Which is obviously the case for Richard's model and yours.

### Re: Simulation with non-local behavior

minkwe wrote:
gill1109 wrote:
minkwe wrote:For a while the Bell proponents have been asking for local simulations that match QM but nobody has asked them to produce non-local simulations that match QM and all the required conditions like no-signalling. I think looking at what they come up with and the difficulties they face will be instructive.
I'm in the process of coming up with a straight-forward full-proof test of no-signalling.stay tuned

Exciting!

Want to see a *non-local* simulation that matches QM and all required conditions? It goes like this
Code: Select all
Repeat N times     Pick two settings a, b however you like     Pick two outcomes x, y from the joint probability distribution  p(x, y | a, b) according to QM's EPR-B model.

Sorry, but in case you did not know, QM does not permit signalling like that. You can't use (a,b) together at any station to obtain outcomes. Otherwise, Alice and Bob can easily communicate using entanglement, which is forbidden. Go back to the drawing board.

Nope. Even with Richard's model, there is no way that Alice can signal to Bob (or vice versa) by using detector settings. No matter what setting Alice chooses, the probability distribution on Bob's end will still be 50/50. And of course if you had known even a whiff about quantum mechanics you would know that entanglement requires a distribution that depends on both a and b, but still is consistent with the no-signalling theorem.

For this model implemented in R see https://rpubs.com/heinera/16727

### Re: Simulation with non-local behavior

gill1109 wrote:
minkwe wrote:For a while the Bell proponents have been asking for local simulations that match QM but nobody has asked them to produce non-local simulations that match QM and all the required conditions like no-signalling. I think looking at what they come up with and the difficulties they face will be instructive.
I'm in the process of coming up with a straight-forward full-proof test of no-signalling.stay tuned

Exciting!

Want to see a *non-local* simulation that matches QM and all required conditions? It goes like this
Code: Select all
Repeat N times     Pick two settings a, b however you like     Pick two outcomes x, y from the joint probability distribution  p(x, y | a, b) according to QM's EPR-B model.

Sorry, but in case you did not know, QM does not permit signalling like that. You can't use (a,b) together at any station to obtain outcomes. Otherwise, Alice and Bob can easily communicate using entanglement, which is forbidden. Go back to the drawing board.

### Re: Simulation with non-local behavior

minkwe wrote:For a while the Bell proponents have been asking for local simulations that match QM but nobody has asked them to produce non-local simulations that match QM and all the required conditions like no-signalling. I think looking at what they come up with and the difficulties they face will be instructive.
I'm in the process of coming up with a straight-forward full-proof test of no-signalling.stay tuned

Exciting!

Want to see a *non-local* simulation that matches QM and all required conditions? It goes like this
Code: Select all
Repeat N times     Pick two settings a, b however you like     Pick two outcomes x, y from the joint probability distribution  p(x, y | a, b) according to QM's EPR-B model.

### Re: Simulation with non-local behavior

FrediFizzx wrote:
minkwe wrote:Remember that QM must obey no-signalling. So models like these must also pass no-signalling to be valid. Do they?

Probably not. It is pretty hokey anyways since only station B knows both A's angle and A's outcome. I mean, how could it know A's outcome with no-signaling? And why only B?
.

It is possible to convert it into a variant that does not require knowledge of outcomes but just knowledge of settings. But that does not take away the difficulty of no-signalling which is not permitted by QM. Too often people present such non-local models thinking it reflects what is happening in QM. But that couldn't be further from the truth. For a while the Bell proponents have been asking for local simulations that match QM but nobody has asked them to produce non-local simulations that match QM and all the required conditions like no-signalling. I think looking at what they come up with and the difficulties they face will be instructive.

I'm in the process of coming up with a straight-forward full-proof test of no-signalling. Stay tuned.

### Re: Simulation with non-local behavior

minkwe wrote:Remember that QM must obey no-signalling. So models like these must also pass no-signalling to be valid. Do they?

Probably not. It is pretty hokey anyways since only station B knows both A's angle and A's outcome. I mean, how could it know A's outcome with no-signaling? And why only B?
.

### Re: Simulation with non-local behavior

Remember that QM must obey no-signalling. So models like these must also pass no-signalling to be valid. Do they?

### Re: Simulation with non-local behavior

Guest wrote:
FrediFizzx wrote:It looks like to me that with Bell's configuration, you will get straight lines event by event instead of the negative cosine curve. Bell's HV is just the particle spin vector. You need this function,
$\text{If}\left[\lambda <\sin ^2\left(\frac{1}{2} {}^{\circ} (b-a)\right),B=A,B=-A\right];$
with lambda random 0 to 1 to produce the negative cosine curve. But it is complete nonsense anyway. Not only does station B know A's angle, but it also knows A's outcome. Very un-Natural.

I like your model, Fred. It's elegant, one of the most elegant of this type that I have seen.

Some other people with models like this, but much more complex, are Anthony Crofts (Illinois) and David Oaknin (Haifa).
http://www.life.illinois.edu/crofts/
http://www.life.illinois.edu/crofts/Bell_Ineq/
https://www.researchgate.net/profile/David_Oaknin
https://arxiv.org/abs/1411.5704

Thanks. It is probably the most simple non-local HV model that can produce the negative cosine curve event by event and completely predictable if you know all the 4 variables. The simple function is adapted from Vongehr's QRC quantum model. I had to divide (b - a) by 2 to get it to work properly. You can see from the plot that the tails of the curve didn't quite come in all the way. I suspect that is just due to there not being enough data for complete averaging as you can see from what I did at the end of the code. But this gives me some ideas to try for a local HV model.

Oaknin's model is ridiculously complex and it looks like the HV's depend somewhat on (b - a). I will check out what Crofts did.
.

### Re: Simulation with non-local behavior

FrediFizzx wrote:It looks like to me that with Bell's configuration, you will get straight lines event by event instead of the negative cosine curve. Bell's HV is just the particle spin vector. You need this function,
$\text{If}\left[\lambda <\sin ^2\left(\frac{1}{2} {}^{\circ} (b-a)\right),B=A,B=-A\right];$
with lambda random 0 to 1 to produce the negative cosine curve. But it is complete nonsense anyway. Not only does station B know A's angle, but it also knows A's outcome. Very un-Natural.

I like your model, Fred. It's elegant, one of the most elegant of this type that I have seen.

Some other people with models like this, but much more complex, are Anthony Crofts (Illinois) and David Oaknin (Haifa).
http://www.life.illinois.edu/crofts/
http://www.life.illinois.edu/crofts/Bell_Ineq/
https://www.researchgate.net/profile/David_Oaknin
https://arxiv.org/abs/1411.5704

Top