A Completelly Local and Realistic Simulation

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: A Completelly Local and Realistic Simulation

Re: A Completelly Local and Realistic Simulation

Post by gill1109 » Thu Mar 04, 2021 3:37 am

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.

Of course! You can base a conspiracy loophole simulation entirely on ordinary vector algebra. No need for anything fancy.

I recently was asked to review a really nice paper showing a quantitative relation between the amount of conspiracy necessary to get a certain amount of Bell violation. It will be very nice to compare your model with that result.

Re: A Completelly Local and Realistic Simulation

Post by FrediFizzx » Thu Feb 25, 2021 5:10 pm

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.
.

Re: A Completelly Local and Realistic Simulation

Post by gill1109 » Thu Feb 25, 2021 1:31 am

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).

Re: A Completelly Local and Realistic Simulation

Post by FrediFizzx » Wed Feb 24, 2021 9:03 am

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

Re: A Completelly Local and Realistic Simulation

Post by gill1109 » Wed Feb 24, 2021 12:43 am

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).
...

:lol:

:lol: :lol: 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. :mrgreen:

By definition!

Re: A Completelly Local and Realistic Simulation

Post by FrediFizzx » Tue Feb 23, 2021 7:42 pm

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).
...

:lol:

:lol: :lol: 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. :mrgreen:
.

Re: A Completelly Local and Realistic Simulation

Post by Joy Christian » Tue Feb 23, 2021 6:02 am

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

:lol:

Re: A Completelly Local and Realistic Simulation

Post by gill1109 » Tue Feb 23, 2021 12:10 am

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

Re: A Completelly Local and Realistic Simulation

Post by FrediFizzx » Sat Feb 20, 2021 4:25 pm

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

Re: A Completelly Local and Realistic Simulation

Post by gill1109 » Wed Feb 17, 2021 1:13 am

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.

I know everything in GA is real. What are you talking about? Complex numbers are pairs of real numbers. Quaternions are quadruples of real numbers. Standard GA is built on real 8-dimensional vectors.

Re: A Completelly Local and Realistic Simulation

Post by FrediFizzx » Tue Feb 16, 2021 10:45 pm

@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.
.

Re: A Completelly Local and Realistic Simulation

Post by gill1109 » Tue Feb 16, 2021 9:26 pm

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.

I know. Unlike Joy’s model, your simulation model is quite interesting. You are learning, Fred!

You are the one who said "The real part of the quaternion multiplication is the same as the vector dot product"

Re: A Completelly Local and Realistic Simulation

Post by FrediFizzx » Tue Feb 16, 2021 12:22 pm

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

Re: A Completelly Local and Realistic Simulation

Post by gill1109 » Tue Feb 16, 2021 10:13 am

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!
.

Yes. "The real part of the quaternion multiplication is the same as the vector dot product". That's exactly all there is to Joy Christian's models! No more and no less. https://www.math.leidenuniv.nl/~gill/IEEE_Access_paper-rev2.pdf. Fred, you are approaching the state of complete enlightenment.

Re: A Completelly Local and Realistic Simulation

Post by FrediFizzx » Sun Feb 14, 2021 8:58 am

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,

Image

Here is a PDF of the Mathematica simulation along with the notebook file in case anyone is interested.

EPRsims/prod_calc_quat-forum.pdf
EPRsims/prod_calc_quat-forum.nb

Enjoy!
.

Re: A Completelly Local and Realistic Simulation

Post by FrediFizzx » Sat Feb 13, 2021 9:56 am

This conspiracy loophole to Gill's theory also works with 3D vectors and quaternions. It takes a really long time to run 1 million quaternion trials but it looks good enough at one degree resolution.

Image

Here is a PDF of the Mathematia simulation along with the notebook file for those that might be interested.

EPRsims/prod_calc_quat-forum.pdf
EPRsims/prod_calc_quat-forum.nb

Enjoy!
.

Re: A Completelly Local and Realistic Simulation

Post by FrediFizzx » Wed Feb 10, 2021 3:04 pm

@gill1109 Yada! Yada! Yada! You should already be doing some of that since Bell's theoy is shot down. All you have left is Gill's theory which remains just a theory since you have no proof. Some day you will realize you are in denial.
.

Re: A Completelly Local and Realistic Simulation

Post by gill1109 » Tue Feb 09, 2021 11:32 pm

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. :D

Indeed, if you can reproduce this feature while accepting Bell's constraints of a loophole-free experiment you will win a very big jackpot. I will also publicly eat my hat, resign from the Royal Dutch Academy of Sciences, and retract 20 highly cited papers. All textbooks in quantum physics will have to be rewritten. A whole lot of mathematics and computer science will have to be rewritten too. Whoever does it, will be the toast of the town! Academia will be in turmoil, all the quantum computing start-ups will collapse. It will be possible to perform Shor's algorithm extremely fast on a *classical* computer and internet security will collapse. The stock markets will collapse. Civilisation might even break down completely. :oops:

Re: A Completelly Local and Realistic Simulation

Post by FrediFizzx » Tue Feb 09, 2021 4:00 pm

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. :D
.

Re: A Completelly Local and Realistic Simulation

Post by jreed » Tue Feb 09, 2021 2:10 pm

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.

Top

CodeCogs - An Open Source Scientific Library