Here is why Bell's theory is shot down

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: Here is why Bell's theory is shot down

Re: Here is why Bell's theory is shot down

Post by FrediFizzx » Tue Apr 13, 2021 5:00 pm

Here is another version of Joy's local model using quaternions that shoots down Bell's theory. I've put the hidden variable directly into the singlet quaternion where it belongs. I also identified the two separate singlet particles as Ls1 and Ls2. Plus put in the full polarization for the A and B functions. And this has the plot going from 0 to 360.

Image
Image
Blue is the correlation data and red is the negative cosine curve for comparison. Exact match!

Now, this plus the 7-sphere model demolishes all the so-called Bell "proofs" and I have just shot down Gill's version of Gull's so-called "proof" so that should do it.
:mrgreen:
.

Re: Here is why Bell's theory is shot down

Post by FrediFizzx » Fri Apr 02, 2021 7:51 pm

Joy Christian wrote:.
Fred, is this done by adding a line in the code or manually?
.

Just add 360 to the -acos part.
.

Re: Here is why Bell's theory is shot down

Post by Joy Christian » Fri Apr 02, 2021 7:28 pm

.
Fred, is this done by adding a line in the code or manually?
.

Re: Here is why Bell's theory is shot down

Post by FrediFizzx » Fri Apr 02, 2021 5:48 pm

Image

Re: Here is why Bell's theory is shot down

Post by FrediFizzx » Fri Apr 02, 2021 9:14 am

Joy Christian wrote:
FrediFizzx wrote:
Joy Christian wrote:
FrediFizzx wrote:Yeah, it is from -180 to +180 with zero in the middle.

Here is Chantal's version: https://rpubs.com/chenopodium/516072.
.

Chantal has a=b wrong but I can't tell where it is. 0 degrees should be -1 not +1. Plus neither Chantal nor John Reed had the singlet quaternion involved so not exactly your model.

Yes, I noticed that.

Is it possible to have the range of angles from 0 to 360 in your code?
.

Sure, just shift the -180 to 0 to +180 to 360 by adding +360 to it. The range should actually be -360 to +360 but can't get that using acos.
.

Re: Here is why Bell's theory is shot down

Post by Joy Christian » Fri Apr 02, 2021 8:58 am

FrediFizzx wrote:
Joy Christian wrote:
FrediFizzx wrote:Yeah, it is from -180 to +180 with zero in the middle.

Here is Chantal's version: https://rpubs.com/chenopodium/516072.
.

Chantal has a=b wrong but I can't tell where it is. 0 degrees should be -1 not +1. Plus neither Chantal nor John Reed had the singlet quaternion involved so not exactly your model.

Yes, I noticed that.

Is it possible to have the range of angles from 0 to 360 in your code?
.

Re: Here is why Bell's theory is shot down

Post by FrediFizzx » Fri Apr 02, 2021 8:53 am

Joy Christian wrote:
FrediFizzx wrote:Yeah, it is from -180 to +180 with zero in the middle.

Here is Chantal's version: https://rpubs.com/chenopodium/516072.
.

Chantal has a=b wrong but I can't tell where it is. 0 degrees should be -1 not +1. Plus neither Chantal nor John Reed had the singlet quaternion involved so not exactly your model.
.

Re: Here is why Bell's theory is shot down

Post by Joy Christian » Fri Apr 02, 2021 5:57 am

FrediFizzx wrote:Yeah, it is from -180 to +180 with zero in the middle.

Here is Chantal's version: https://rpubs.com/chenopodium/516072.
.

Re: Here is why Bell's theory is shot down

Post by FrediFizzx » Fri Apr 02, 2021 5:48 am

Yeah, it is from -180 to +180 with zero in the middle.
.

Re: Here is why Bell's theory is shot down

Post by Joy Christian » Fri Apr 02, 2021 5:27 am

FrediFizzx wrote:
Joy Christian wrote:.
Hi Fred,

There is a minor problem with your proof. While the statistics behind the strong correlations is finely displayed by your code, it seems to violate the requirement that when a = b, AB = -1.

That is both an experimental requirement and a prediction of quantum mechanics. Moreover, it was used by EPR as one of the prerequisites in their argument that started this debate.

This is a very minor problem for your code. It can be easily fixed by simply changing the sign on your function A or B, by recalling that bivectors square to -1.
.

Hi Joy,

Not sure what you are seeing because when I run the program with vectorB = vectorA I get all -1's at zero degrees for each event.

As far as I can tell, your plot is upsidedown and shows that correlation is +1 when a = b.

Oh... my bad. I think it looks odd because it is shifted compared to the usual plot.
.

Re: Here is why Bell's theory is shot down

Post by FrediFizzx » Fri Apr 02, 2021 5:01 am

Joy Christian wrote:.
Hi Fred,

There is a minor problem with your proof. While the statistics behind the strong correlations is finely displayed by your code, it seems to violate the requirement that when a = b, AB = -1.

That is both an experimental requirement and a prediction of quantum mechanics. Moreover, it was used by EPR as one of the prerequisites in their argument that started this debate.

This is a very minor problem for your code. It can be easily fixed by simply changing the sign on your function A or B, by recalling that bivectors square to -1.
.

Hi Joy,

Not sure what you are seeing because when I run the program with vectorB = vectorA I get all -1's at zero degrees for each event.
.

Re: Here is why Bell's theory is shot down

Post by Joy Christian » Fri Apr 02, 2021 1:56 am

.
Hi Fred,

There is a minor problem with your proof. While the statistics behind the strong correlations is finely displayed by your code, it seems to violate the requirement that when a = b, AB = -1.

That is both an experimental requirement and a prediction of quantum mechanics. Moreover, it was used by EPR as one of the prerequisites in their argument that started this debate.

This is a very minor problem for your code. It can be easily fixed by simply changing the sign on your function A or B, by recalling that bivectors square to -1.
.

Re: Here is why Bell's theory is shot down

Post by FrediFizzx » Thu Apr 01, 2021 1:10 pm

I've updated the scientific mathematical objective proof that Bell's theory is shot down by Joy's local model using quaternions. I didn't like having the 1's and 2's on the Aq's and Bq's so got rid of that. Now it is just Aq and Bq in the product calculation.

Image

Image

Re: Here is why Bell's theory is shot down

Post by FrediFizzx » Thu Apr 01, 2021 7:24 am

@gill1109 And yet you still don't understand Joy's model after all these years. Pathetic!
.

Re: Here is why Bell's theory is shot down

Post by gill1109 » Thu Apr 01, 2021 3:08 am

FrediFizzx wrote:
Justo wrote:
Joy Christian wrote:
FrediFizzx wrote:
@gill1109 NO! Bell's theory is shot down. Get over it and move on.

He can't move on. He has wasted half of his life defending the junk theorem. None of the Bell-believers can move on. Because if they do, then they look stupid for having wasted their lives.

I believe the same applies to many Bell-deniers and I am not talking of you. So it seems it is hard for some, either deniers or believers, to be scientifically objective.

Pure nonsense concerning Gill. Apparently you haven't been paying close attention to this thread. I've posted scientific mathematical proof that Bell's theory is shot down. And Joy's local model is fairly simple to understand. If there is something you don't understand about the proof, just ask away.

:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:
Indeed, Joy’s “model” is rather simple.

Re: Here is why Bell's theory is shot down

Post by FrediFizzx » Mon Mar 29, 2021 4:16 pm

Justo wrote:
Joy Christian wrote:
FrediFizzx wrote:
@gill1109 NO! Bell's theory is shot down. Get over it and move on.

He can't move on. He has wasted half of his life defending the junk theorem. None of the Bell-believers can move on. Because if they do, then they look stupid for having wasted their lives.
.

I believe the same applies to many Bell-deniers and I am not talking of you. So it seems it is hard for some, either deniers or believers, to be scientifically objective.

Pure nonsense concerning Gill. Apparently you haven't been paying close attention to this thread. I've posted scientific mathematical proof that Bell's theory is shot down. And Joy's local model is fairly simple to understand. If there is something you don't understand about the proof, just ask away.
.

Re: Here is why Bell's theory is shot down

Post by Justo » Mon Mar 29, 2021 2:51 pm

Joy Christian wrote:
FrediFizzx wrote:
@gill1109 NO! Bell's theory is shot down. Get over it and move on.

He can't move on. He has wasted half of his life defending the junk theorem. None of the Bell-believers can move on. Because if they do, then they look stupid for having wasted their lives.
.

I believe the same applies to many Bell-deniers and I am not talking of you. So it seems it is hard for some, either deniers or believers, to be scientifically objective.

Re: Here is why Bell's theory is shot down

Post by Joy Christian » Mon Mar 29, 2021 2:37 pm

FrediFizzx wrote:
@gill1109 NO! Bell's theory is shot down. Get over it and move on.

He can't move on. He has wasted half of his life defending the junk theorem. None of the Bell-believers can move on. Because if they do, then they look stupid for having wasted their lives.
.

Re: Here is why Bell's theory is shot down

Post by FrediFizzx » Mon Mar 29, 2021 9:57 am

@gill1109 NO! Bell's theory is shot down. Get over it and move on.
.

Re: Here is why Bell's theory is shot down

Post by gill1109 » Mon Mar 29, 2021 9:36 am

FrediFizzx wrote:@gill1109 Bell's theory is shot down. Get over it and move on.

You shot at it, but you missed. Couldn’t we please agree to disagree?

Top

cron
CodeCogs - An Open Source Scientific Library