## A new simulation of the EPR-Bohm correlations

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

### Re: A new simulation of the EPR-Bohm correlations

Schmelzer wrote:
Joy Christian wrote:But I have explicitly demonstrated in the simulation that $\rho$(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...
Heinera

Posts: 408
Joined: Thu Feb 06, 2014 12:50 am

### Re: A new simulation of the EPR-Bohm correlations

Ben6993 wrote: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 $\rho$(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.
Joy Christian
Research Physicist

Posts: 1633
Joined: Wed Feb 05, 2014 3:49 am
Location: Oxford, United Kingdom

### Re: A new simulation of the EPR-Bohm correlations

Joy Christian wrote:Similarly, the flatlanders cannot prove the a--b dependence of the probability density $\rho$(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 $\lambda$ distributed by some probability distribution $\rho(\lambda) d\lambda$, and we see that the number of such $\lambda$ 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.

Heinera wrote:
Schmelzer wrote: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.
Schmelzer

Posts: 123
Joined: Mon May 25, 2015 1:44 am

### Re: A new simulation of the EPR-Bohm correlations

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.
Joy Christian
Research Physicist

Posts: 1633
Joined: Wed Feb 05, 2014 3:49 am
Location: Oxford, United Kingdom

### Re: A new simulation of the EPR-Bohm correlations

Schmelzer wrote: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
Heinera

Posts: 408
Joined: Thu Feb 06, 2014 12:50 am

### Re: A new simulation of the EPR-Bohm correlations

Joy Christian wrote: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 $\rho$(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.
Joy Christian
Research Physicist

Posts: 1633
Joined: Wed Feb 05, 2014 3:49 am
Location: Oxford, United Kingdom

### Re: A new simulation of the EPR-Bohm correlations

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

http://rpubs.com/jjc/8423 wrote: 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?
Schmelzer

Posts: 123
Joined: Mon May 25, 2015 1:44 am

### Re: A new simulation of the EPR-Bohm correlations

Joy Christian wrote: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.
Joy Christian
Research Physicist

Posts: 1633
Joined: Wed Feb 05, 2014 3:49 am
Location: Oxford, United Kingdom

### Re: A new simulation of the EPR-Bohm correlations

Joy Christian wrote:
Joy Christian wrote: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.
Schmelzer

Posts: 123
Joined: Mon May 25, 2015 1:44 am

### Re: A new simulation of the EPR-Bohm correlations

This is what minkwe wrote on another thread in response to Ilja Schmelzer: viewtopic.php?f=6&t=75&start=80#p4266
minkwe wrote: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
minkwe wrote:Sorry Ilja, I'm no longer interested in anything you have to say, so I'm adding you to my ignore list.

... wrote: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.
Joy Christian
Research Physicist

Posts: 1633
Joined: Wed Feb 05, 2014 3:49 am
Location: Oxford, United Kingdom

### Re: A new simulation of the EPR-Bohm correlations

Joy Christian wrote:
minkwe wrote:I don't think it is possible to have an intelligent insightful discussion with you...

... wrote: ...spouts a lot of gibberish.

... is completely clueless ... his foolish comments...

In nice correspondence with the theory presented in Hoffer's "The true believer": Fighting the enemy is an important part of such movements. It shows the "true believers" what they have to expect in case of a failure of subordination. That the accusations are completely off does not matter at all. To the contrary, if one would use only justified accusations, the deterrent effect would be zero. And it is also important that it is the collective of the "true believers" which acts in a unified way.
Schmelzer

Posts: 123
Joined: Mon May 25, 2015 1:44 am

### Re: A new simulation of the EPR-Bohm correlations

Joy Christian wrote: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.
Joy Christian
Research Physicist

Posts: 1633
Joined: Wed Feb 05, 2014 3:49 am
Location: Oxford, United Kingdom

### Re: A new simulation of the EPR-Bohm correlations

In addition to the calculations for the four Bell-test angles showing violations of the CHSH inequality, I have now included calculations for the same four angles showing violation of the more general Clauser-Horne (or CH) inequality in the simulation: http://rpubs.com/jjc/84238.

Note that for the Bell-test angles quantum mechanics predicts CH = -1.207, and so does my model, as verified in the simulation.

This completes the numerical verification of the local-realistic and deterministic 3-sphere model presented in this paper: http://arxiv.org/abs/1405.2355.
Joy Christian
Research Physicist

Posts: 1633
Joined: Wed Feb 05, 2014 3:49 am
Location: Oxford, United Kingdom

### Re: A new simulation of the EPR-Bohm correlations

So I've got one question about the simulation: can you run it, on two different computers, one of which gets Alice's inputs, while the other gets Bob's, such that the simulated measurement outcomes that are produced violate a Bell inequality?

If so, then I would be impressed, because it seems a trivial matter to prove that no such computer program can exist, and we don't need to think about any topological subtelties to do so, because deep down, Bell inequalities are just conditions that must hold in order for there to be a joint probability distribution that marginalizes to the correct (i.e. experimentally observed) probability distributions for each pair of observables.

So suppose we have four random variables $A$, $B$, $C$ and $D$ taking values in $\{+1,-1\}$. There exists a joint probability distribution $P(A,B,C,D)$ which can be sampled in order to produce the experimental outcomes given the measurement directions. So our program must, given the freely chosen input, produce an outcome according to $P(A,B,C,D)$. Such outcomes will never violate a Bell inequality, for the following simple reason.

For each pair of variables, their joint probability distribution can be obtained by marginalizing the PD for all variables, e.g. $P(A,B)=\sum_{c,d=\pm 1}P(A,B,C,D)$. Every correlator between two variables can then be written as $\langle AB \rangle=\sum_{a,b=\pm 1}abP(A,B)=\sum_{a,b,c,d=\pm 1}abP(A,B,C,D)$. Thus we can form the following expression:

$\langle AB \rangle + \langle BC \rangle + \langle CD \rangle - \langle AD \rangle = \sum_{a,b,c,d=\pm 1}(ab+bc+cd-ad)P(A,B,C,D)$

But clearly, $ab+bc+cd-ad = a(b-d) + c(b+d)\leq 2$, since all of those values are either $+1$ or $-1$. But then, with $\sum_{a,b,c,d=\pm 1}P(A,B,C,D)=1$, we get:

$\langle AB \rangle + \langle BC \rangle + \langle CD \rangle - \langle AD \rangle \leq 2$.

This inequality, which the careful observer will realize is the Bell-CHSH inequality, must hold for every program, if we give each copy access only to some (arbitrary) $P(A,B,C,D)$---no matter how this is arrived at---and draw values for $A$ and $C$ on one, and values for $B$ and $D$ on the other. It should be noted that this is not really a new discovery: George Boole already in the 1860s derived such inequalities (or equivalent ones) as 'conditions of possible experience', reasoning that only if some experimentally obtained quantities obeyed these inequalities, then they have a simultaneous probabilistic model and thus, could actually be obtained in an experiment. Note again that this derivation doesn't make any of the allegedly questionable assumptions Bell made---the only assumption is the existence of a joint probability distribution, and the only way this assumption can fail is via some form of influence of the outcome of one measurement on that of another.

So, where do you propose this goes wrong? How do you build a program---whose outputs can after all always be described as a joint probability distribution in the above way---that violates the inequality without any covert influences?
Jochen

### Re: A new simulation of the EPR-Bohm correlations

Jochen wrote:So I've got one question about the simulation: can you run it, on two different computers, one of which gets Alice's inputs, while the other gets Bob's, such that the simulated measurement outcomes that are produced violate a Bell inequality?

It doesn't matter. Nothing can violate the Bell inequalities; not even QM. Please see the thread where minkwe has explained it.
FrediFizzx
Independent Physics Researcher

Posts: 1157
Joined: Tue Mar 19, 2013 6:12 pm
Location: California, USA

### Re: A new simulation of the EPR-Bohm correlations

Jochen wrote:So I've got one question about the simulation: can you run it, on two different computers, one of which gets Alice's inputs, while the other gets Bob's, such that the simulated measurement outcomes that are produced violate a Bell inequality?

A good question, but I am not interested in what a computer program can or cannot do. I am interested in explaining the EPR-B correlation we observe in Nature in a local-realistic manner, something that Bell and his followers claim to be impossible. The simulation I have linked provides an event-by-event numerical verification of the theoretical model cited in the first line of the simulation. If the simulation cannot run on two different computers, then so be it. That does not bother me at all, because Nature does not use two different "computers" --- i.e., two different event structures of spacetime --- to produce the observed correlation. She uses only one.
Joy Christian
Research Physicist

Posts: 1633
Joined: Wed Feb 05, 2014 3:49 am
Location: Oxford, United Kingdom

### Re: A new simulation of the EPR-Bohm correlations

FrediFizzx wrote:
Jochen wrote:So I've got one question about the simulation: can you run it, on two different computers, one of which gets Alice's inputs, while the other gets Bob's, such that the simulated measurement outcomes that are produced violate a Bell inequality?

It doesn't matter. Nothing can violate the Bell inequalities; not even QM. Please see the thread where minkwe has explained it.

Could you at least provide a link to the argument?

Joy Christian wrote:
Jochen wrote:So I've got one question about the simulation: can you run it, on two different computers, one of which gets Alice's inputs, while the other gets Bob's, such that the simulated measurement outcomes that are produced violate a Bell inequality?

A good question, but I am not interested in what a computer program can or cannot do. I am interested in explaining the EPR-B correlation we observe in Nature in a local-realistic manner, something that Bell and his followers claim to be impossible.

See, I'm used to thinking about this in operational terms. You have two boxes, each of which takes either of two inputs, and produces one of two outputs. This is the level at which Bell inequalities are derived---whatever mechanism gives rise to the outcomes is irrelevant. If (and only if) those boxes can generate a violation of some Bell inequality without knowing about each other's inputs, you'll have shown that there is a local realistic model that can reproduce quantum mechanical predictions. But, seeing as how Bell inequalities are necessarily obeyed by boxes that don't influence one another, and thus, can be ascribed a joint probability distribution $P(A,B,C,D)$---since this is in fact the only assumption necessary to derive Bell inequalities, as shown above---, I'd seriously doubt it's possible. It'd be trivially easy to convince me otherwise, however: give me code that can be executed on two computers, such that one gets Alice's, the other Bob's inputs, and if that violates some Bell inequality, then I'll convert.
Jochen

### Re: A new simulation of the EPR-Bohm correlations

Jochen wrote:
FrediFizzx wrote:
Jochen wrote:So I've got one question about the simulation: can you run it, on two different computers, one of which gets Alice's inputs, while the other gets Bob's, such that the simulated measurement outcomes that are produced violate a Bell inequality?

It doesn't matter. Nothing can violate the Bell inequalities; not even QM. Please see the thread where minkwe has explained it.

Could you at least provide a link to the argument?

viewtopic.php?f=6&t=75&p=4528#p4528
FrediFizzx
Independent Physics Researcher

Posts: 1157
Joined: Tue Mar 19, 2013 6:12 pm
Location: California, USA

### Re: A new simulation of the EPR-Bohm correlations

FrediFizzx wrote:[quote="Jochen"Could you at least provide a link to the argument?

viewtopic.php?f=6&t=75&p=4528#p4528[/quote]
The argument hinges on a couple of elementary misconceptions; however, Schmelzer seems to have dispensed with most of them quite handily, so I don't really know what I could add to the discussion there.
Jochen

### Re: A new simulation of the EPR-Bohm correlations

Jochen wrote:See, I'm used to thinking about this in operational terms. You have two boxes, each of which takes either of two inputs, and produces one of two outputs. This is the level at which Bell inequalities are derived---whatever mechanism gives rise to the outcomes is irrelevant. If (and only if) those boxes can generate a violation of some Bell inequality without knowing about each other's inputs, you'll have shown that there is a local realistic model that can reproduce quantum mechanical predictions.

I find this argument very strange, if not simply wrong.

Neither quantum mechanics nor local realism has anything to do with such boxes. Quantum mechanics or its local-realistic alternative has to do with correlations observed in Nature. It takes only half a page of elementary calculation to show that these correlations can be explained within a manifestly local-realistic model:

http://arxiv.org/abs/1103.1879.

If, however, the refutation of Bell's theorem presented in the above paper (or any other refutation of Bell's theorem for that matter) is not backed up by a computer simulation of boxes and outputs you describe, then that says nothing whatsoever about Nature. It only proves limitations of computers, programs, and programmers.
Joy Christian
Research Physicist

Posts: 1633
Joined: Wed Feb 05, 2014 3:49 am
Location: Oxford, United Kingdom

PreviousNext