## Coming Soon!

Foundations of physics and/or philosophy of physics, and in particular, posts on unresolved or controversial issues

### Re: Coming Soon!

@jreed So, where is your non-local model this time? You are claiming the spinorial sign flips are non-local but they are not. They are purely local. Even so, more than 95 percent of the model is local. With Gill's test, 99.998 percent is local. Plus events have to be matched up correctly so they can be analyzed correctly. Trial numbers are created when the events are created. Shared data. We are in fact 100 percent local because the spinorial sign changes are purely local. It is not "disguised" as a spinorial sign flip, it IS a spinorial sign flip.
It's from this equation,

${\mathbf q}(\eta_{{\mathbf s}{\mathbf n}}+\delta\,\pi,\,{\mathbf r})=(-1)^{\delta}\,{\mathbf q}(\eta_{{\mathbf s}{\mathbf n}},\,{\mathbf r})\;\;\text{for}\;\delta=0,1,2,3,\dots$

Just take delta = 1.

${\mathbf q}(\eta_{{\mathbf s}{\mathbf n}}+\,\pi,\,{\mathbf r})=\,-\,{\mathbf q}(\eta_{{\mathbf s}{\mathbf n}},\,{\mathbf r})$

And with delta = 0.

${\mathbf q}(\eta_{{\mathbf s}{\mathbf n}},\,{\mathbf r})=\,\,{\mathbf q}(\eta_{{\mathbf s}{\mathbf n}},\,{\mathbf r})$

No spinorial sign change.
.
FrediFizzx
Independent Physics Researcher

Posts: 2687
Joined: Tue Mar 19, 2013 7:12 pm
Location: N. California, USA

### Re: Coming Soon!

FrediFizzx wrote:@jreed So, where is your non-local model this time? You are claiming the spinorial sign flips are non-local but they are not. They are purely local. Even so, more than 95 percent of the model is local. With Gill's test, 99.998 percent is local. Plus events have to be matched up correctly so they can be analyzed correctly. Trial numbers are created when the events are created. Shared data. We are in fact 100 percent local because the spinorial sign changes are purely local. It is not "disguised" as a spinorial sign flip, it IS a spinorial sign flip.
It's from this equation,

${\mathbf q}(\eta_{{\mathbf s}{\mathbf n}}+\delta\,\pi,\,{\mathbf r})=(-1)^{\delta}\,{\mathbf q}(\eta_{{\mathbf s}{\mathbf n}},\,{\mathbf r})\;\;\text{for}\;\delta=0,1,2,3,\dots$

Just take delta = 1.

${\mathbf q}(\eta_{{\mathbf s}{\mathbf n}}+\,\pi,\,{\mathbf r})=\,-\,{\mathbf q}(\eta_{{\mathbf s}{\mathbf n}},\,{\mathbf r})$

And with delta = 0.

${\mathbf q}(\eta_{{\mathbf s}{\mathbf n}},\,{\mathbf r})=\,\,{\mathbf q}(\eta_{{\mathbf s}{\mathbf n}},\,{\mathbf r})$

No spinorial sign change.
.

I'm sorry you can't understand where the non-locality is. It should be perfectly clear from this example. I can't make it any easier than this.
jreed

Posts: 151
Joined: Mon Feb 17, 2014 5:10 pm

### Re: Coming Soon!

jreed wrote:I'm sorry you can't understand where the non-locality is. It should be perfectly clear from this example. I can't make it any easier than this.

Where is your non-local model this time? I'm sorry that you seem to not be able to understand plain English.
FrediFizzx wrote:In fact I will do the first test. Here is the percentage of events that don't match the original Aa and Bb using 20,000 trials.

https://www.wolframcloud.com/obj/fredif ... tripped.nb

EPRsims/newCS-20-S3quat-stripped.pdf

So, actually less than 5 percent.

So now we take the spinorial sign changes out and the result is,

So, now A and B match the original Aa and Bb perfectly which means the percentage that didn't match is entirely due to the LOCAL spinorial sign changes.

Which means we are 100 percent LOCAL!!!!!!!!!!
.
FrediFizzx
Independent Physics Researcher

Posts: 2687
Joined: Tue Mar 19, 2013 7:12 pm
Location: N. California, USA

### Re: Coming Soon!

Whoops! I had listA3 doing the same thing as listA4 same with listB3 and listB4 so took that redundancy out and relabeled appropriately. Also changed the notation for the spinorial sign changes. Here is the update on the cloud.

https://www.wolframcloud.com/obj/fredif ... -forum2.nb

Here are the files.

EPRsims/newCS-20-S3quat-prodcalc-forum2.pdf
EPRsims/newCS-20-S3quat-prodcalc-forum.nb

Enjoy the awesomeness that kills both Bell and Gill.
.
FrediFizzx
Independent Physics Researcher

Posts: 2687
Joined: Tue Mar 19, 2013 7:12 pm
Location: N. California, USA

### Re: Coming Soon!

gill1109 wrote:When I do my test I’ll find that at least 20% of the trials have been ‘fixed’ in a non-local way. Of course, my definition of local and non-local is not Fred’s definition. Fred hasn’t even told us his definition. So we’ll never agree. Too bad. Fred and Joy will publish their paper and the younger among us will be able to observe what the world of physics makes of it.

Hi Rick! Is there a known universal (distribution free) lower bound for the rate of "no show" events in this kind of pearlesque models which reproduce the QM correlations?

I hope you're in better shape.

Best,

Guest.
Guest

### Re: Coming Soon!

Guest wrote:Hi Rick! Is there a known universal (distribution free) lower bound for the rate of "no show" events in this kind of pearlesque models which reproduce the QM correlations?... ...

What do you mean by "no show" events? If you mean undetected events, all events are detected perfectly in our model.
.
FrediFizzx
Independent Physics Researcher

Posts: 2687
Joined: Tue Mar 19, 2013 7:12 pm
Location: N. California, USA

### Re: Coming Soon!

Guest wrote:
gill1109 wrote:When I do my test I’ll find that at least 20% of the trials have been ‘fixed’ in a non-local way. Of course, my definition of local and non-local is not Fred’s definition. Fred hasn’t even told us his definition. So we’ll never agree. Too bad. Fred and Joy will publish their paper and the younger among us will be able to observe what the world of physics makes of it.

Hi Rick! Is there a known universal (distribution free) lower bound for the rate of "no show" events in this kind of pearlesque models which reproduce the QM correlations?

I hope you're in better shape.

Best,

Guest.

Hi “Guest”, I’m fine! Just turned 70, cycled 60 Km yesterday.

Yes, there is a lower bound. Here’s how you could guess what it might be.

With communication between the two sides of the experiment you could achieve S = 4.0
Bell-CHSH says that without communication you can’t exceed S = 2.0
Spooky quantum entanglement could give S = 2 sqrt 2 = 2.8 approx, needs to be operating on all trials.
Suppose you let Alice and Bob communicate on a fraction p of the trials.
They could then achieve S = 4 p + 2 (1 - p) = 2 + 2 p
So you will need 2 p = 0.8 in order to get 2.8.
p = 0.4
They need to change outcomes, using communication, on 40% of the trials.
That could be 20% of Alice’s outcomes and a different 20% of Bob’s outcomes.

There is a really good recent paper on this by Pavel Blasiak and others, published this year in PNAS.
https://arxiv.org/pdf/2105.09037.pdf
“Violations of locality and free choice are equivalent resources in Bell experiments”
Pawel Blasiak, Emmanuel M. Pothos, James M. Yearsley, Christoph Gallus, and Ewa Borsuk

Of course, getting S = 2 sqrt 2 just fixes the quantum correlations at four pairs of angles. What if you want to fix them at all pairs of angles?

The Pearlesque thing using the detection loophole loses at least 20% of the trials. If you would keep them but replace lost particles by a detection value “0” you would reduce the amplitude of the negative cosine. Replacing “0” by a completely random bit +/-1 is just the same. It is indeed known that in order to generate - (1 - p) cos theta for *all* theta simultaneously with the detection loophole, theta has to be at least this same 20%.

I think this is all connected which is why I’m interested in Fred’s model. I just wish he’d write some short pseudo-code of his complete algorithm. This talk of matching k_A and k_B is “freakin’ nonsense” to use one of his favourite phrases, he’s already admitted that the outcomes from each trial are determined only by the settings and the hidden variable of the same trial. As he says, there are no “no show events” in his model.

Actually, John Reed has simple Mathematica code which reproduces Fred’s outcomes *exactly*. I must use it to compute the proportion of “fixed” trials (fixed by communication).

It’s very interesting that Fred has only one hidden variable per trial. Pearle has two!

It’s also curious that Fred uses formulas taken from Michel Fodje’s detection loophole model, rather than Pearle’s. Fodje gets approximately the negative cosine, Pearle gets it exactly, and moreover uniquely within a certain big class of detection loophole models.
gill1109
Mathematical Statistician

Posts: 2692
Joined: Tue Feb 04, 2014 10:39 pm
Location: Leiden

### Re: Coming Soon!

gill1109 wrote: ... Actually, John Reed has simple Mathematica code which reproduces Fred’s outcomes *exactly*. I must use it to compute the proportion of “fixed” trials (fixed by communication).

It’s very interesting that Fred has only one hidden variable per trial. Pearle has two!

It’s also curious that Fred uses formulas taken from Michel Fodje’s detection loophole model, rather than Pearle’s. Fodje gets approximately the negative cosine, Pearle gets it exactly, and moreover uniquely within a certain big class of detection loophole models.

John Reed doesn't have that non-local strawman any more with the new code. At least he hasn't shown one for a couple of days.

We tried Pearle. It didn't do any better than Michel's for the model. I can tie Pearle to theta the same way for one hidden variable.

Someone screwed up on their calculations because we are better than 95 percent local without the spinorial sign changes. With the LOCAL spinorial sign changes we are 100 percent local and so Bell and Gill's theories bite the dust! Finished! Done! History!
.
FrediFizzx
Independent Physics Researcher

Posts: 2687
Joined: Tue Mar 19, 2013 7:12 pm
Location: N. California, USA

### Re: Coming Soon!

FrediFizzx wrote:We tried Pearle. It didn't do any better than Michel's for the model. I can tie Pearle to theta the same way for one hidden variable.

I know, I tried it too. Could be you have discovered a new class of detection loophole models.

Write that pseudo-code version of your model, so the world can also program your model in Python or Julia or R!
gill1109
Mathematical Statistician

Posts: 2692
Joined: Tue Feb 04, 2014 10:39 pm
Location: Leiden

### Re: Coming Soon!

gill1109 wrote:
FrediFizzx wrote:We tried Pearle. It didn't do any better than Michel's for the model. I can tie Pearle to theta the same way for one hidden variable.

I know, I tried it too. Could be you have discovered a new class of detection loophole models.

Write that pseudo-code version of your model, so the world can also program your model in Python or Julia or R!

There is no detection loophole in our model. Everyday I am making the code even better so don't have time. John said he was going to try to do some pseudo-code.
The analytical definitions have been upgraded to this to match the new code. That is the best you are going to get.

.
FrediFizzx
Independent Physics Researcher

Posts: 2687
Joined: Tue Mar 19, 2013 7:12 pm
Location: N. California, USA

### Re: Coming Soon!

jreed wrote:
FrediFizzx wrote:
jreed wrote: ... Sounds like great fun! A treasure hunt in quaternion land. I'll get right on it. I expect to find the non-local treasure in a few days.

Yo John, I just proved above that we are 100 percent local so you shouldn't waste your time on it.
.

It didn't take as long as I thought it would. The logic is the same as previous versions, except with the added smoke and mirrors of quaternions. Here's what I found:

Here is the Do loop where Alice's part of the non-locality is hiding:

listA4 = Alice's trials where Bob has matching failed trial numbers
qaaq = array of order M1, length = number of Bob's failed trials
listA35 = quaternions, word 5 of Alice's trials to be changed
listA36 = quaternions, word 6 of Alice's trials to be changed
outA5 = holding array for corrected events

Do[If[listA4[[i]][[2]] == listA4[[i]][[4]], qaaq[[i]] = 1,
qaaq[[i]] = Re[listA35[[i]] ** listA36[[i]]]];
outA5[[i]] = {listA4[[i]][[1]], qaaq[[i]]*listA4[[i]][[2]], listA4[[i]][[3]],
listA4[[i]][[4]], listA4[[i]][[5]], listA4[[i]][[6]]}, {i,
M1}] (*spinorial sign change*)

Do loop does the following:
For all Bob's failed trial numbers, if Alice's detector1 equals detector2, qaaq = 1,
else qaaq = -1 (I checked this out by finding the real part of quaternion multiplication
of Alice's listA35 and listA36, it's always -1)
This is the same sign flip, used in earlier versions, but now disguised as a spinorial sign
change.
The output is the input, but with this sign flip added.
The non-locality is obvious, since the sign flips in Alice's trials are controlled by Bob's failed trials. The same procedure is carried out for Bob's trials.

John, that is very enlightening!

Can you find out in a long run of a CHSH experiment: how many trials get a sign flip just of Alice's outcome, just of Bob's outcome, both, neither?

That is one measure of non-local communication. Of course, some communication is needed to decide whether or not to flip either outcome. Can you say how often communication is attempted, from either side? both sides? neither?

I want to compare these results with

https://arxiv.org/abs/2105.09037
https://arxiv.org/pdf/2105.09037.pdf
“Violations of locality and free choice are equivalent resources in Bell experiments”
Pawel Blasiak, Emmanuel M. Pothos, James M. Yearsley, Christoph Gallus, and Ewa Borsuk
PNAS 118 (17) e2020569118 (2021)
DOI: 10.1073/pnas.2020569118
gill1109
Mathematical Statistician

Posts: 2692
Joined: Tue Feb 04, 2014 10:39 pm
Location: Leiden

### Re: Coming Soon!

gill1109 wrote: ... John, that is very enlightening!

Can you find out in a long run of a CHSH experiment: how many trials get a sign flip just of Alice's outcome, just of Bob's outcome, both, neither?

That is one measure of non-local communication. Of course, some communication is needed to decide whether or not to flip either outcome. Can you say how often communication is attempted, from either side? both sides? neither? ...

Looks like you are also having trouble understanding plain English.

In fact I will do the first test. Here is the percentage of events that don't match the original Aa and Bb using 20,000 trials.

https://www.wolframcloud.com/obj/fredif ... tripped.nb

EPRsims/newCS-20-S3quat-stripped.pdf

So, actually less than 5 percent.

So now we take the spinorial sign changes out and the result is,

So, now A and B match the original Aa and Bb perfectly which means the percentage that didn't match is entirely due to the LOCAL spinorial sign changes.

Which means we are 100 percent LOCAL!!!!!!!!!!

I will do the test a different way with the same results in a while.
.
FrediFizzx
Independent Physics Researcher

Posts: 2687
Joined: Tue Mar 19, 2013 7:12 pm
Location: N. California, USA

### Re: Coming Soon!

FrediFizzx wrote:
gill1109 wrote: ... Actually, John Reed has simple Mathematica code which reproduces Fred’s outcomes *exactly*. I must use it to compute the proportion of “fixed” trials (fixed by communication).

It’s very interesting that Fred has only one hidden variable per trial. Pearle has two!

It’s also curious that Fred uses formulas taken from Michel Fodje’s detection loophole model, rather than Pearle’s. Fodje gets approximately the negative cosine, Pearle gets it exactly, and moreover uniquely within a certain big class of detection loophole models.

John Reed doesn't have that non-local strawman any more with the new code. At least he hasn't shown one for a couple of days.

We tried Pearle. It didn't do any better than Michel's for the model. I can tie Pearle to theta the same way for one hidden variable.

Someone screwed up on their calculations because we are better than 95 percent local without the spinorial sign changes. With the LOCAL spinorial sign changes we are 100 percent local and so Bell and Gill's theories bite the dust! Finished! Done! History!
.

I've been working on a quaternion program for a few days. Here is what I came up with.

https://www.wolframcloud.com/obj/ka5qep/Published/Q1.nb

It's the same logic as the vector code, which is what I expected.
jreed

Posts: 151
Joined: Mon Feb 17, 2014 5:10 pm

### Re: Coming Soon!

jreed wrote:
FrediFizzx wrote:
gill1109 wrote: ... Actually, John Reed has simple Mathematica code which reproduces Fred’s outcomes *exactly*. I must use it to compute the proportion of “fixed” trials (fixed by communication).

It’s very interesting that Fred has only one hidden variable per trial. Pearle has two!

It’s also curious that Fred uses formulas taken from Michel Fodje’s detection loophole model, rather than Pearle’s. Fodje gets approximately the negative cosine, Pearle gets it exactly, and moreover uniquely within a certain big class of detection loophole models.

John Reed doesn't have that non-local strawman any more with the new code. At least he hasn't shown one for a couple of days.

We tried Pearle. It didn't do any better than Michel's for the model. I can tie Pearle to theta the same way for one hidden variable.

Someone screwed up on their calculations because we are better than 95 percent local without the spinorial sign changes. With the LOCAL spinorial sign changes we are 100 percent local and so Bell and Gill's theories bite the dust! Finished! Done! History!
.

I've been working on a quaternion program for a few days. Here is what I came up with.

https://www.wolframcloud.com/obj/ka5qep/Published/Q1.nb

It's the same logic as the vector code, which is what I expected.

Thanks. It is now very clear. John Reed's strawman code is non-local, whereas Fred Diether's original code is local. Nice demonstration!
.
Joy Christian
Research Physicist

Posts: 2719
Joined: Wed Feb 05, 2014 4:49 am
Location: Oxford, United Kingdom

### Re: Coming Soon!

jreed wrote: ... I've been working on a quaternion program for a few days. Here is what I came up with.

https://www.wolframcloud.com/obj/ka5qep/Published/Q1.nb

It's the same logic as the vector code, which is what I expected.

Nope! You changed the code in the A and B Do-loops to make your old non-local strawman. I said you weren't allowed to change the code in the A and B Do-loops.

You can't make a non-local strawman now with the new A and B Do-loop code, can you?
.
FrediFizzx
Independent Physics Researcher

Posts: 2687
Joined: Tue Mar 19, 2013 7:12 pm
Location: N. California, USA

### Re: Coming Soon!

FrediFizzx wrote:
gill1109 wrote: ... John, that is very enlightening! NOT!

Can you find out in a long run of a CHSH experiment: how many trials get a sign flip just of Alice's outcome, just of Bob's outcome, both, neither?

That is one measure of non-local communication. Of course, some communication is needed to decide whether or not to flip either outcome. Can you say how often communication is attempted, from either side? both sides? neither? ...

Looks like you are also having trouble understanding plain English.

In fact I will do the first test. Here is the percentage of events that don't match the original Aa and Bb using 20,000 trials.

https://www.wolframcloud.com/obj/fredif ... tripped.nb

EPRsims/newCS-20-S3quat-stripped.pdf

So, actually less than 5 percent.

So now we take the spinorial sign changes out and the result is,

So, now A and B match the original Aa and Bb perfectly which means the percentage that didn't match is entirely due to the LOCAL spinorial sign changes.

Which means we are 100 percent LOCAL!!!!!!!!!!

I will do the test a different way with the same results in a while.
.

Ok, here is the other way of getting the percentage of spinorial sign flips.

https://www.wolframcloud.com/obj/fredif ... ripped2.nb
Scroll to the end.

Files,

EPRsims/newCS-20-S3quat-stripped2.pdf
Scroll to the end.

EPRsims/newCS-20-S3quat-stripped2.nb

Enjoy!
.
FrediFizzx
Independent Physics Researcher

Posts: 2687
Joined: Tue Mar 19, 2013 7:12 pm
Location: N. California, USA

### Re: Coming Soon!

FrediFizzx wrote:
jreed wrote: ... I've been working on a quaternion program for a few days. Here is what I came up with.

https://www.wolframcloud.com/obj/ka5qep/Published/Q1.nb

It's the same logic as the vector code, which is what I expected.

Nope! You changed the code in the A and B Do-loops to make your old non-local strawman. I said you weren't allowed to change the code in the A and B Do-loops.

You can't make a non-local strawman now with the new A and B Do-loop code, can you?
.

Please explain which A and B Do loops you are talking about. There are two. The first where the trials are generated, and the second where they are analyzed. Also tell me why I am not allowed to change the code. Is there some rule I violated? I want to know so the cyber cops don't come after me.
jreed

Posts: 151
Joined: Mon Feb 17, 2014 5:10 pm

### Re: Coming Soon!

jreed wrote:
Also tell me why I am not allowed to change the code.

What a stupid question!

jreed wrote:
Is there some rule I violated?

Of course, you have violated the most basic rule of reasoning: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v5vzCmURh7o.
.
Joy Christian
Research Physicist

Posts: 2719
Joined: Wed Feb 05, 2014 4:49 am
Location: Oxford, United Kingdom

### Re: Coming Soon!

jreed wrote:
FrediFizzx wrote:
jreed wrote: ... I've been working on a quaternion program for a few days. Here is what I came up with.

https://www.wolframcloud.com/obj/ka5qep/Published/Q1.nb

It's the same logic as the vector code, which is what I expected.

Nope! You changed the code in the A and B Do-loops to make your old non-local strawman. I said you weren't allowed to change the code in the A and B Do-loops.

You can't make a non-local strawman now with the new A and B Do-loop code, can you?
.

Please explain which A and B Do loops you are talking about. There are two. The first where the trials are generated, and the second where they are analyzed. Also tell me why I am not allowed to change the code. Is there some rule I violated? I want to know so the cyber cops don't come after me.

You know what you did to make a non-local strawman. Don't pretend like you don't know. If you change the code it is your strawman model not ours. The cyber cops are comin' to get you. Bad boy! Bad boy!
.
FrediFizzx
Independent Physics Researcher

Posts: 2687
Joined: Tue Mar 19, 2013 7:12 pm
Location: N. California, USA

### Re: Coming Soon!

Joy Christian wrote:Thanks. It is now very clear. John Reed's strawman code is non-local, whereas Fred Diether's original code is local. Nice demonstration!

Fred *says* his code is local. He has no evidence, no proof, no argument. Joy can’t read Mathematica, but fantasizes that Fred has understood his *physics* intuition. John and Richard have *proved* that the code is nonlocal, according to any sensible meaning of the word.

Fred may have stumbled upon an interesting new class of detection loophole models but as long as he can’t write decent pseudo-code explaining his algorithm in such a way that interested scientists can program it in other languages, there will be no further progress.
gill1109
Mathematical Statistician

Posts: 2692
Joined: Tue Feb 04, 2014 10:39 pm
Location: Leiden

PreviousNext