A real EPR-Bohm scenario

[FrediFizzx]

OK, new interpretation for modelling the "real EPR-Bohm scenario". That "e" is zero always is correct since the polarizers take "e" --> +/-a and "e' " --> +/-b. Then the sign function is simply the polarizer action. Simple is usually better.

Fred,

With the limits s1 --> +/-a and s2 --> +/-b you have been suggesting, what is the prediction for the product A(n, h)B(n, h) with those limits included in the GA model?

In other words, what is AB for the a = b case?

***

A(n, h)B(n, h) = -1 as it should be. What has changed is that now the polarizer action is just determined by cos(a) and cos(b) by the sign function of those. I kind of like the other way better but this more simple way works also. At least it works in the Mathematica simulation. I am waiting to see if it also works in Michel's Python sim. I am currently trying to get it to work in your R sim without much success yet.
.

And the complete state function is also just being determined by cos(a) and cos(b) and f now.

[FrediFizzx]

Something very strange is going on with the R simulation. If I take the sign function off so that we have,

A = cos(alpha)*g(a,e1)
B = -cos(beta)*g(b,e2)

I still get 1, -1 and 0 for A and B outputs. ??? The g-function is just doing the regular complete states selection and outputting 1 or 0. It is like alpha and beta get stuck at 0 or 2pi for every iteration.

[FrediFizzx]

Something very strange is going on with the R simulation. If I take the sign function off so that we have,

A = cos(alpha)*g(a,e1)
B = -cos(beta)*g(b,e2)

I still get 1, -1 and 0 for A and B outputs. ??? The g-function is just doing the regular complete states selection and outputting 1 or 0. It is like alpha and beta get stuck at 0 or 2pi for every iteration.

Here is a sample of the A output after several iterations in the "for" iterations using print(A).

Code: Select all

 [1] 0 0 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 0 1 0 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 1 1 1 1 0 1 0 1 0
  [48] 0 1 1 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 0 1 1 0 0 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 0 1 0 0
  [95] 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 1 0
 [142] 1 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 0 0 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 1 1
 [189] 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 0
 [236] 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 0 1 1 0 1 1 1 0 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 1
 [283] 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 1

You would think those "1's" should be the cosine of alpha instead. ???
.

[FrediFizzx]

Never mind. I didn't let it run long enough. It has to go through 51 x 1000 iterations of alpha = 0 to get to the other values of alpha.

Code: Select all

 [1] 0.9921147 0.9921147 0.0000000 0.9921147 0.9921147 0.0000000 0.9921147 0.9921147 0.9921147
  [10] 0.0000000 0.9921147 0.9921147 0.9921147 0.9921147 0.9921147 0.0000000 0.0000000 0.0000000
  [19] 0.9921147 0.9921147 0.0000000 0.9921147 0.9921147 0.9921147 0.0000000 0.0000000 0.9921147
  [28] 0.9921147 0.9921147 0.0000000 0.9921147 0.0000000 0.9921147 0.0000000 0.0000000 0.9921147
  [37] 0.0000000 0.0000000 0.9921147 0.9921147 0.9921147 0.9921147 0.9921147 0.9921147 0.0000000
  [46] 0.9921147 0.9921147 0.9921147 0.9921147 0.9921147 0.9921147 0.0000000 0.9921147 0.9921147
  [55] 0.0000000 0.0000000 0.9921147 0.0000000 0.9921147 0.9921147 0.9921147 0.9921147 0.0000000
  [64] 0.0000000 0.0000000 0.9921147 0.0000000 0.9921147 0.9921147 0.9921147 0.9921147 0.9921147
  [73] 0.9921147 0.9921147 0.0000000 0.0000000 0.9921147 0.9921147 0.9921147 0.0000000 0.0000000
  [82] 0.9921147 0.9921147 0.9921147 0.9921147 0.0000000 0.9921147 0.0000000 0.9921147 0.9921147
  [91] 0.0000000 0.9921147 0.0000000 0.9921147 0.9921147 0.0000000 0.9921147 0.9921147 0.9921147