by gill1109 » Sun Jul 21, 2019 11:02 pm
FrediFizzx wrote:Wise guy, huh. Want's to waste our time with junk.
Let's see some actual A and B measurement functions for QM. No HV required. You won't be able to predict individual event by event outcomes for A and B. Not so trivial after all, is it?
.
Fred, aren't you contradicting Joy's claims here? Joy claims that he has functions A(a, lambda) and B(b, lambda) which take the values +/-1, and which reproduce the quantum correlations which you average over many repetitions, ie, when many, many times nature picks a new value of lambda. The experimenter doesn't get to see those values of lambda - it's a hidden variable. But it is there, in reality. So in principle, a computer programmer can play God - can play being Nature - and can "see" the hidden variable'; indeed, not only sees it, but actually creates it too.
Moreover, Joy claims that he can arrange this with lambda being a fair coin toss - so it also just takes the values +/- 1 and in the long run, each value occurs equally often. There is a problem here, that he does not do computer programming himself. He needs friends to do it for him. I think it was Albert-Jan Wonninck who first came up with your present and successful event-based computer simulation, but A(a, lambda) and B(b, lambda) do not only take the values +/- 1, they are geometric algebra bivectors, they are both square roots of 1, and you multiply them before averaging over many outcomes of lambda, in an order each time depending on the value of lambda. It is brilliant, but it breaks the rules of the game. That's why it can violate Bell inequalities, of course.
But so far nobody has been able to program this model for him, without deviating dramatically from the rules of the game. Though Joy does not agree with what I say here. And probably I am getting some details mixed up (vectors, bivectors; +1, -1, ...).
[quote="FrediFizzx"][quote="Heinera"][quote="FrediFizzx"] It's not QM. It's just some non-local junk.
.[/quote]
:lol: :lol: :lol:[/quote]
Wise guy, huh. Want's to waste our time with junk. :D
Let's see some actual A and B measurement functions for QM. No HV required. You won't be able to predict individual event by event outcomes for A and B. Not so trivial after all, is it?
.[/quote]
Fred, aren't you contradicting Joy's claims here? Joy claims that he has functions A(a, lambda) and B(b, lambda) which take the values +/-1, and which reproduce the quantum correlations which you average over many repetitions, ie, when many, many times nature picks a new value of lambda. The experimenter doesn't get to see those values of lambda - it's a hidden variable. But it is there, in reality. So in principle, a computer programmer can play God - can play being Nature - and can "see" the hidden variable'; indeed, not only sees it, but actually creates it too.
Moreover, Joy claims that he can arrange this with lambda being a fair coin toss - so it also just takes the values +/- 1 and in the long run, each value occurs equally often. There is a problem here, that he does not do computer programming himself. He needs friends to do it for him. I think it was Albert-Jan Wonninck who first came up with your present and successful event-based computer simulation, but A(a, lambda) and B(b, lambda) do not only take the values +/- 1, they are geometric algebra bivectors, they are both square roots of 1, and you multiply them before averaging over many outcomes of lambda, in an order each time depending on the value of lambda. It is brilliant, but it breaks the rules of the game. That's why it can violate Bell inequalities, of course.
But so far nobody has been able to program this model for him, without deviating dramatically from the rules of the game. Though Joy does not agree with what I say here. And probably I am getting some details mixed up (vectors, bivectors; +1, -1, ...).