A new simulation of the EPR-Bohm correlations

[Joy Christian]

So the flatlanders think that they are being deceived. They certainly are --- by their inability to liberate themselves from the flatland, and by their inability to read:

http://rpubs.com/jjc/84238

To be sure, a pre-ensemble M of the pre-states u has been used to build this simulation, but such scaffolding mathematical structures are routinely used in modern physics --- for example, in gauge field theories. The scaffolding structures are eventually "gauged out" to extract the correct physics out of the auxiliary mathematics. Similarly, the true ensemble N of the true states (u, s) has been extracted in my simulation from the pre-ensemble M of the pre-states u, thereby reducing the auxiliary pre-pair {M, u} to the true pair {N, (u, s)}, just as in any modern gauge theory.

PS: I have added calculations of the numbers N and L explicitly in the four Bell-test cases so that no doubt remains. Not surprisingly, N = L in each of the four cases.

[Schmelzer]

So the flatlanders think that they are being deceived. They certainly are --- by their inability to liberate themselves from the flat land, and by their inability to read:
http://rpubs.com/jjc/84238

To be sure, a pre-ensemble M of the pre-states u has been used to build this simulation, but such scaffolding mathematical structures are routinely used in modern physics --- for example, in gauge field theories. The scaffolding structures are eventually "gauged out" to extract the correct physics out of the auxiliary mathematics. Similarly, the true ensemble N of the true states (u, s) has been extracted in my simulation from the pre-ensemble M of the pre-states u, thereby reducing the auxiliary pre-pair {M, u} to the true pair {N, (u, s)}, just as in any modern gauge theory.

PS: I have added calculations of the numbers N and L explicitly in the four Bell-test cases so that no doubt remains. Note surprisingly, N = L in each of the four cases.

Indeed, no doubt remains:

N = n((A * B), a, u, b, u) # The total number of simultaneous +/- events
Ns[i, j] = N # Total number of simultaneous events observed by Alice and Bob
Ls[i, j] = n(s, a, u, b, u) # The number of initial states (u, s) within S^3

As N, as L depends on a and b. That N=L is not surprising at all, given that above depend on a and b.

[Joy Christian]

I see no point in keep responding to the foolish argument being insisted upon by the above flatlander, who has never bothered to read either the simulation or the theoretical paper on which it is based. Like minkwe did, it is best to put him on ignore list. But I hope that other readers are not hoodwinked by his foolish argument.

[Schmelzer]

Here we have not only a defamation, but a really interesting one:

I see no point in keep responding to the foolish argument being insisted upon by the above flatlander, who has never bothered to read either the simulation or the theoretical paper on which it is based. Like minkwe did, it is best to put him on ignore list. But I hope that other readers are not hoodwinked by his foolish argument.

Ok, a cheap accusation. But, think about it: It follows a posting this contains the evidence which proves it wrong, namely, an explicit quote of text from the simulation, with a link to the simulation, and not some arbitrary quote, but a very special one, necessary to make the argument. Moreover, he knows that I will read this, and that I can, yet, respond, thus, make this point and prove him wrong.

What's this? Can anybody explain me the purpose of such behaviour? A defamation which is demonstrably wrong, with all the evidence in the posting before, and knowing the one who is defamed is not yet banned and can answer? Not a "too stupid to understand", which would be defamation too, but hard to prove that it is defamation, but never bothered to read where it is obvious that I have read it given that I have quoted it.

A complete mystery for me. The only theory where this makes at least sense is the following: In an earlier posting, he has used "true believer" for name-calling and supported this with a link to a book of Eric Hoffer "The true believer". Indeed, a remarkable book, I also recommend you to read it. It describes the mind-set of "true believers", and part of it is the thesis that these true believers will be completely disconnected from reality, they simply refuse to question anything what is claimed by the Guru. So, may be this is a sort of sociological experiment, and a test if his supporters are already "true believers" of his theory, so that they do not even care about such obviously wrong, demonstrative defamations?

[Ben6993]

Hi Joy

I have long ago said that it would be impasse because the 3spherists' geometry confounds with cubist non-locality. Can you explain a little more the significance of the flat plane for N/L, please? You earlier agreed that counterfactual realism returns if the data are restricted to the 'good' set, which is excellent. But if the 'good' dataset contains a different allowable range of b values for any given a and theta, then the cubists will see that as non-local information. Don't you need to see the 'good' dataset in the four dimensions (as a sphere, with one centre) to avoid the apparent non-locality (on the ellipsoid where there are two focii leading to flatland non-locality, when the sphere is projected on to flatland)?

[Q-reeus]

Q-Reeus,
I couldn't watch it all the way through, though it was entertaining, as the style of delivery put me off.

Likewise - Gavin's full-on use of 'immersive multimedia experience' needs toning down. (also - pardon please my late response)

Armin, who used to post in the old s.p.f used to have a model where the electron had its own internal time dimension.
I believe the same, too. Black holes have their own internal time dimensions?

Can't speak re electrons, but one basic reason I do not believe in BH's is precisely the temporal disconnect predicted between any (static) R > 2M, and R < 2M. Mathematically formal swapping of t and r Schwarzschild coordinates inside of 'EH' makes no physical sense imo. Resorting to e.g. Kruskal-Szekeres 'rain' coordinates seems like a fix but conveniently ignores 'minor issues' such as infinite time passing for exterior universe once infaller passes R = 2M.

I may have oversimplified it but the s time scale of Greg Egan, in one of the links that Joy has just above posted, is the time in the n+1 dimensions which runs differently to the projected time onto the n dimensions. But t and s are not really fundamentally different, it is just that t is a projection of s? This reminds me of a cubist comment on Joy's new graphic where. ... No.... it is easier to see on http://challengingbell.blogspot.co.uk/2 ... tians.html where the electrons move in the red dimensions but flatland is the table top. The projection of the redland is an ellipse on the table top (which is equivalent to the 'good' data in the old R simulation). The cubist comment is equivalent to saying that the simulations must be run in the circle on the table top where the green area contains the disputed, discarded data. Does that green data exist in real experiments? No, not if real experiment can give the cos curve. Does that green data exist in Joy's model? No, except as trimmed junk. Does that green data exist in flatland simulations? Should it? Impasse again.

Can't say much there. Other than that the blog-spot article's reference to a second time dimension was the impetus for my last post here.

There is a Leonard Susskind lecture at:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yK4rhkcsQDc
The black-hole information paradox, complementarity, and firewalls by Leonard Susskind
(I hope this is the right one!)
In it he mentions five main aspects for quantum gravity which from memory are:
QM, GR, BHs, entropy/thermodynamics, entanglement.
(It is interesting in this quantum gravity connection that JAY has newly reentered thermodynamic territory)
Susskind seems to link BHs to the entanglement. If you have two perfectly entangled BHs, and if Alice and Bob are in two different regions which are beyond each others horizons, then if Alice fell into her BH and Bob fell into his BH then they could eventually meet in the 'middle', despite originally being in regions of space which are disconnected. (Wormhole?) But it requires perfect entanglement. The less perfect the entanglement the less chance Alice and Bob have of meeting up.

More avante garde notions built imo on some shaky foundations.

I have a paper at http://wp.me/p18gTT-26 where the conclusion is "This paper shows that a Rasch analysis compresses its location parameter space according to the level of uncertainty in making judgements within that space. The more uncertain the judgements, the more compressed are the points on the scale." This seems to fit in with Suuskind's claim about entangled BHs leading to close proximity (in some dimensions or other) in that entanglement maximises the chance element, as seen in the 50% chance of A being -1 or +1. However since the A outcome in Joy's model is deterministic, and the chance only arises because of the counfounding of the double cover. I am not sure where that leaves entanglement supposedly being a fifth component to quantum gravity work.

Outside of anything I can meaningfully comment on, other than to say; fascinating ideas!

By analogy one could argue that if it were possible to fall into an electron, like into a BH, one would exit our time dimension and enter the electron's internal time dimension. If Alice and Bob did this in their entangled particles, they could meet in the middle? Treating our universe like a particle, which I am in favour of, then as all particles collapse wavefunction on interaction, which signifies the end of the electron's internal time dimension, our universe could end its time at an interaction cf Penrose's CCC. Penrose's ends of cycle ought, in this logic, to correspond to particle interactions, where the universe is a particle.

I like that Penrose fully acknowledges and offers a possible resolution to the huge issue of initial state re entropy in particular. Not sure what the latest is on his joint-effort search for 'imprints from previous aeon'.

[Q-reeus]

[quote="Yablon"
Please look at my new post on Euclidean space time transformations and quantum gravity. I do indeed have three time dimension for which the observed time is an invariant, up to its Lorentz transformation with space. Jay[/quote]
Interesting! I'd imagine your 3 time dimensions are conceptually different to that of Gavin Wince. I was immediately put off with his seeming identifications based on 'point time', 'rate time', and 'duration time'. Seemed odd if not deranged to put it mildly. Maybe reading everything of his through might start to make sense - big maybe.

[Joy Christian]

Hi Joy

I have long ago said that it would be impasse because the 3spherists' geometry confounds with cubist non-locality. Can you explain a little more the significance of the flat plane for N/L, please? You earlier agreed that counterfactual realism returns if the data are restricted to the 'good' set, which is excellent. But if the 'good' dataset contains a different allowable range of b values for any given a and theta, then the cubists will see that as non-local information. Don't you need to see the 'good' dataset in the four dimensions (as a sphere, with one centre) to avoid the apparent non-locality (on the ellipsoid where there are two focii leading to flatland non-locality, when the sphere is projected on to flatland)?

I will answer your question mathematically so that no ambiguity remains. Not withstanding the argument minkwe is making elsewhere, there are only three traditional ways that non-locality can enter into the model (or the simulation) under discussion. The two obvious ways non-locality can enter the discussion is through the results of Alice and Bob. But it is easy to see from the simulation that Alice's result A does not depend on either Bob's choice of setting b or Bob's result B, and likewise Bob's result B does not depend on either Alice's choice of setting a or Alice's result A:

A = +sign(g(a, u, s))

B = -sign(g(b, u, s)),

where the pair (u, s) is the initial state. Now the only remaining way non-locality can enter the discussion is through a possible dependence of the probability density (u, s) on the settings a and b, in which case it should be expressed as (a, b, u, s). But I have explicitly demonstrated in the simulation that (u, s) is not a function of a and b --- i.e., it is independent of a and b (see the first graph in the simulation: http://rpubs.com/jjc/84238).

Thus the 'good' dataset does not contain a different allowable range of b values for any given a value, and there is no question of any non-local information being exchanged between Alice and Bob.

The flatlanders keep insisting otherwise because they are unable to refrain from referring to the non-existing or auxiliary physical objects like the pre-ensemble M.

With respect to such flatland objects the world does look distorted. But from within S^3, the world is perfectly local-realistic, with no undue dependence on a and b.

[Ben6993]

Joy

Thanks for the clarification.

Joy wrote:
Thus the 'good' dataset does not contain a different allowable range of b values for any given a value ...

Thank you, that is what I wanted to be sure of.

Using your graphic here for a reduced dimensions analogy:
http://challengingbell.blogspot.co.uk/2015/06/a-flatlanders-view-on-joy-christians.html
This seems to me to illustrate what you have written. The complete spherical symmetry in the red circle, or real world, shows that there is no special dependence of any one a with any other b. (Though not exactly sure where the a, b, A, B and theta are in the red circle.) The projection of the red circle onto the flatland gives an ellipse. As the ellipse it is not spherical, there can appear to be asymmetry wrt a and b? Is there a different ellipse for each (a,b) pair? Which is what makes the snipping away of the redundant green data seem biased as that snipping depends on particular values of a and b when viewed from flatland, but not biased when viewed in red S^3.

[Schmelzer]

But I have explicitly demonstrated in the simulation that (u, s) is not a function of a and b --- i.e., it is independent of a and b (see the first graph in the simulation: http://rpubs.com/jjc/84238).

I would suggest a simplification: Prove that L(s,a,u,s,b,u,s) does not depend on a and b simply by plotting L(s,a,u,s,b,u,s)/L(s,a,u,s,b,u,s).

[Heinera]

But I have explicitly demonstrated in the simulation that (u, s) is not a function of a and b --- i.e., it is independent of a and b (see the first graph in the simulation: http://rpubs.com/jjc/84238).

I would suggest a simplification: Prove that L(s,a,u,s,b,u,s) does not depend on a and b simply by plotting L(s,a,u,s,b,u,s)/L(s,a,u,s,b,u,s).

I guess you made a typo here, since that fraction is 1...

[Joy Christian]

Using your graphic here for a reduced dimensions analogy:
http://challengingbell.blogspot.co.uk/2015/06/a-flatlanders-view-on-joy-christians.html
This seems to me to illustrate what you have written. The complete spherical symmetry in the red circle, or real world, shows that there is no special dependence of any one a with any other b. (Though not exactly sure where the a, b, A, B and theta are in the red circle.) The projection of the red circle onto the flatland gives an ellipse. As the ellipse it is not spherical, there can appear to be asymmetry wrt a and b? Is there a different ellipse for each (a,b) pair? Which is what makes the snipping away of the redundant green data seem biased as that snipping depends on particular values of a and b when viewed from flatland, but not biased when viewed in red S^3.

Yes, it does illustrate the idea, but only crudely. It is only an analogy. The geometry and topology of the 3-sphere is of course much more subtle. Nevertheless, the animation does illustrate the fact that the a--b dependence arises only in the flatland projection. Similarly, the flatlanders cannot prove the a--b dependence of the probability density (u, s) in my model without explicitly referring to the flatlandic, auxiliary, unphysical, and gauge-dependent pre-ensemble M of the pre-states u.

PS: I will not be responding to any idiotic comments by the flatlanders.

[Schmelzer]

Similarly, the flatlanders cannot prove the a--b dependence of the probability density (u, s) in my model without explicitly referring to the flatlandic, auxiliary, unphysical, and gauge-dependent pre-ensemble M of the pre-states u.

PS: I will not be responding to any idiotic comments by the flatlanders.

We flatlanders care about what is presented as a counterexample. Once in the counterexample the set which should define the distributed by some probability distribution , and we see that the number of such depends on the a and b, we say that it depends on a and b. How you name this set is nothing we flatlanders would care about.

If you stop responding, no problem. We flatlanders repond to claims where we see errors, that's all.

I would suggest a simplification: Prove that L(s,a,u,s,b,u,s) does not depend on a and b simply by plotting L(s,a,u,s,b,u,s)/L(s,a,u,s,b,u,s).

I guess you made a typo here, since that fraction is 1...

No, this was the point. If you look at the definitions of Ls[i,j] = n(s,a,u,s,b,u,s) and Ns[i,j] = N = n((A*B),a,u,s,b,u,s), you can easily see that what defines these two numbers is the number of TRUE values of the same function t(a,u,s,b,u,s). So, the result is anyway 1 by construction. So, why not simplifying this further? The value of the argument would remain unchanged.

[Joy Christian]

Albert Jan Wonnink has now added a video to his post about my simulation: http://challengingbell.blogspot.co.uk/2 ... tians.html.

And I have upgraded my RStudio, so the Markdown output of the simulation now looks quite different: http://rpubs.com/jjc/84238.

[Heinera]

No, this was the point. If you look at the definitions of Ls[i,j] = n(s,a,u,s,b,u,s) and Ns[i,j] = N = n((A*B),a,u,s,b,u,s), you can easily see that what defines these two numbers is the number of TRUE values of the same function t(a,u,s,b,u,s). So, the result is anyway 1 by construction. So, why not simplifying this further? The value of the argument would remain unchanged.

I see...subtle sense of humor

[Joy Christian]

Yes, it does illustrate the idea, but only crudely. It is only an analogy. The geometry and topology of the 3-sphere is of course much more subtle. Nevertheless, the animation does illustrate the fact that the a--b dependence arises only in the flatland projection. Similarly, the flatlanders cannot prove the a--b dependence of the probability density (u, s) in my model without explicitly referring to the flatlandic, auxiliary, unphysical, and gauge-dependent pre-ensemble M of the pre-states u.

I have edited the comments in the simulation to make this point more clear: http://rpubs.com/jjc/84238.

[Schmelzer]

I have edited the comments in the simulation to make this point more clear: http://rpubs.com/jjc/84238.

N = n((A*B),a,u,s,b,u,s) # Total number of simultaneous events observed
Ls[i,j] = n(s,a,u,s,b,u,s) # The number of initial states (u, s) within S^3
...
# is the ratio N/L of the total number N of events observed by Alice and Bob and the total number L of
# the complete or initial states (u, s) within S^3. This ratio does not depend on the settings a and b,
# as proved by the graph below: N/L = 1, independently of a and b.

Why one cannot simply create some coordinates fo S^3 which do not depend on a and b and work with them?

[Joy Christian]

I see no point in keep responding to the foolish argument being insisted upon by the above flatlander, who has never bothered to read either the simulation or the theoretical paper on which it is based. Like minkwe did, it is best to put him on ignore list. But I hope that other readers are not hoodwinked by his foolish argument.

[Schmelzer]

I see no point in keep responding to the foolish argument being insisted upon by the above flatlander, who has never bothered to read either the simulation or the theoretical paper on which it is based. Like minkwe did, it is best to put him on ignore list. But I hope that other readers are not hoodwinked by his foolish argument.

Demonstrative repetition of an obviously false accusation, which I have considered already in http://www.sciphysicsforums.com/spfbb1/viewtopic.php?f=6&t=168&start=50#p4337. And the application is demonstrably false in this case too.

None of the "true believers" even cares. Remarkable. Thanks for this nice sociological experiment.

[Joy Christian]

This is what minkwe wrote on another thread in response to Ilja Schmelzer: viewtopic.php?f=6&t=75&start=80#p4266

I don't think it is possible to have an intelligent insightful discussion with you, so unfortunately for you, you won't get to see what my argument is. I'm done.

And again minkwe was forced to write

Sorry Ilja, I'm no longer interested in anything you have to say, so I'm adding you to my ignore list.

I even received the following email from a friend after reading some of his comments here:

What's with this Ilja fellow, he spouts a lot of gibberish.

This shows who is prone to endlessly repeating claims that have already been disproved. This shows who is clueless about many things but thinks too highly of himself.

The scientific point here is that Ilja Schmelzer is completely clueless about the geometrical and topological properties of the 3-sphere despite his pretence to the contrary. This is obvious from his foolish comments about my simulation, which he keeps repeating endlessly without understanding the first thing about my model.