## A question on Joy Christian's S^3 model

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

### A question on Joy Christian's S^3 model

As most of you know, forum member Joy Christian has proposed what he claims to be a local realistic model capable of reproducing the correlations of quantum mechanics in the form of a violation of Bell inequalities, which are by the scientific mainstream taken to be valid for any local realistic model. My question is, specifically, about the simulation of this model as given by this R program. For convenience, I reproduce some pertinent parts of the code below.

First, the preamble, which serves to define various variables, functions and definitions that the program later needs:
Code: Select all
Angles = seq(from = 0, to = 360, by = 7.2) * 2 * pi/360K = length(Angles) # The total number of angles between 0 and 2picorrs = matrix(nrow = K, ncol = K, data = 0) # Container for correlationsNs  = matrix(nrow = K, ncol = K, data = 0) # Container for events A and BLs  = matrix(nrow = K, ncol = K, data = 0) # Container for initial states# A canvas of auxiliary pre-ensemble (analogous to pre-reduced phase space):M = 10^5 # Size of the pre-ensemble. Next one can try 10^6, or even 10^7r = runif(M, 0, 2*pi) # M uniformly distributed numbers between 0 and 2piz = runif(M, -1, +1) # M uniformly distributed numbers between -1 and +1h = sqrt(1 - z^2)x = h * cos(r)y = h * sin(r)e = rbind(x, y, z)  # A 3xM matrix, with M columns of e-vectors representing# the x, y, z coordinates of uniformly distributed points on an S^2. In what# follows these M number of pre-states will define an auxiliary pre-ensemble# Defining the metrical and topological structures on S^3:# So far we have set the variables in R^3. We now construct a metric on S^3s = runif(M, 0, pi) # Initial states of the spins are the pairs (e, s) within S^3f = -1 + (2/sqrt(1 + ((3 * s)/pi))) # For details see the paper arXiv:1405.2355g = function(u,v,s){ifelse(abs(colSums(u*v)) > f, colSums(u*v), 0)}# g(u, v, s) is non-vanishing only if |u.v| > f(s)# Defines an inner product on S^3, thus changing the space from R^3 to S^3# colSums(u * v) = u.v = the standard inner product between u and v in R^3# u and v are orthogonal to each other in S^3 when abs(colSums(u * v)) < ft = function(u,v,s){abs(sign(g(u,v,s))) > 0} # Ensures sign(g) = +1 or -1# The pair {g, t} defines together a metric on S^3 constraining its topologyn = function(Q,u1,v1,s1,u2,v2,s2){length(Q[t(u1,v1,s1) & t(u2,v2,s2)])}# Calculates the number of occurrences of 'Q' while respecting the metric {g, t}

With these, the actual computation of the correlations between Alice's observations along measurement directions denoted by a, and Bob's measurements along directions denoted by b, is performed in the following part:
Code: Select all
# Computing the "quantum" correlations:for (i in 1:K) {    alpha = Angles[i]    a = c(cos(alpha), sin(alpha), 0)  # Measurement direction 'a'    for (j in 1:K) {        beta = Angles[j]        b = c(cos(beta), sin(beta), 0)  # Measurement direction 'b'                A = +sign(g(a,e,s))  # Alice's measurement results A(a, e, s) = +/-1                  B = -sign(g(b,e,s))  # Bob's measurement results B(b, e, s) = -/+1                # Metric {g, t} forbids the results (0,+), (0,-), (+,0), (-,0), and (0,0)                # Probabilities for (0,+), (0,-), (+,0), (-,0), and (0,0) vanish exactly                 Cuu = length((A*B)[A > 0 & B > 0])   # Coincidence count of (+,+) events                Cdd = length((A*B)[A < 0 & B < 0])   # Coincidence count of (-,-) events                Cud = length((A*B)[A > 0 & B < 0])   # Coincidence count of (+,-) events                Cdu = length((A*B)[A < 0 & B > 0])   # Coincidence count of (-,+) events                corrs[i,j] = (Cuu + Cdd - Cud - Cdu) / (Cuu + Cdd + Cud + Cdu)                # There are no "0 outcomes" within S^3: Cou = Cod = Cuo = Cdo = Coo = 0                # ----------------------------------------------------------------------                N = n((A*B),a,e,s,b,e,s)  # Total number of simultaneous events observed                # corrs[i,j] = sum(A*B)/N   # Alternative calculation of the correlation                # corrs[i] = sum(A)/N  # Verifies < A > = 0 for all 'a' regardless of 'b'                # corrs[j] = sum(B)/N  # Verifies < B > = 0 for all 'b' regardless of 'a'                # ----------------------------------------------------------------------                o = x[t(a,e,s) & t(b,e,s)]        p = y[t(a,e,s) & t(b,e,s)]         q = z[t(a,e,s) & t(b,e,s)]                w = rbind(o,p,q) # N vectors representing the complete state (e, s) within S^3                a.w = colSums(a*w) # Standard dot product in R^3 between the vectors a and w        b.w = colSums(b*w) # Standard dot product in R^3 between the vectors b and w                # corrs[i,j] = sum(-sign(a.w)*sign(b.w))/N # Another way of calculating E(a, b)                # -----------------------------------------------------------------------------                Ns[i,j] = N # Total number of simultaneous +/- events observed by Alice and Bob                Ls[i,j] = n(s,a,e,s,b,e,s) # The number of initial states w = (e, s) within S^3    }}

Now, my problem with the program is the following. As it is, the measurement outcomes provided by the functions A(a,e,s) and B(a,e,s), where (e,s) are respectively a random unit vector sampled uniformly from the 2-sphere and an angle between zero and pi, produce zero outcomes; in fact, for each pair (e,s), there exists an a (or b) such that A(a,e,s) = 0 (or B(b,e,s) = 0). This fact is readily demonstrated by noting that the function to compute A(a,e,s) is effectively

$A(a,e,s)=\mathrm{sign}(a\cdot e)\,\mathrm{if}\,\,\,|a\cdot e|>-1+\frac{2}{\sqrt{1+\frac{3s}{\pi}}},$
while A(a,e,s) = 0 otherwise (as can be readily seen from inspecting the code).

Thus, for any a such that $|a\cdot e|\leq-1+\frac{2}{\sqrt{1+\frac{3s}{\pi}}}$, there will be a zero outcome. The function $f(s)=-1+\frac{2}{\sqrt{1+\frac{3s}{\pi}}}$ is monotonically decreasing from 1 to 0 as s varies from 0 to pi. Hence, for any $s<\pi$, f(s) will be a finite positive number, and there exist an infinite number of a's such that $|a\cdot e|\leq f(s)$, for which thus A(a,e,s) = 0. For the case $s=\pi$, $f(s) = 0$, any a orthogonal to e will do.

However, the actual outcomes of the experiment are always equal to A(a,e,s) = +/-1. To the best of my ability to understand it, this is remedied in the simulation by considering the randomly drawn pairs (e,s) to be an unphysical pre-ensemble, from which the physical states are supposed to be determined by the properties of S^3.

My problem is now with the way this determination works in the simulation. The physical states are, in the code above, the vectors denoted w=(o,p,q)^T, whose components are calculated as follows:
Code: Select all
        o = x[t(a,e,s) & t(b,e,s)]        p = y[t(a,e,s) & t(b,e,s)]         q = z[t(a,e,s) & t(b,e,s)]

Here, the function t, defined as
Code: Select all
t = function(u,v,s){abs(sign(g(u,v,s))) > 0} # Ensures sign(g) = +1 or -1

picks out those triples (a,e,s) such that A(a,e,s) (or B(b,e,s)) is either +1 or -1. This poses, however, a dilemma for an allegedly locally realistic model: in order to decide the physical hidden variable values, knowledge of the detector orientation is used---that is, the physical states are effectively defined as those states that do not generate a zero outcome, given the measurement direction. Using this definition, it is clear that no longer any zero outcomes occur; however, the knowledge about the detector orientations is not available at the spacetime point that the hidden variable choice must be made---for instance, the source could have produced a Bell pair four years ago on Alpha Centauri, with the experimenter only making her choice of measurement direction today. Hence, at the point the pair was produced, the information about the experimenter's choice simply didn't exist, and thus, there does not seem to be a possible way such that the hidden variable choice could have been made in such a way as to ensure no zero outcome exists.

The only way to circumvent this would seem to be to introduce explicit retrocausality, and have the future choice of the experimenter influence the hidden variable choice at the source; however, not only is this in itself a form of nonlocality in a relativistic world, it also introduces a nonlocal dependence of Bob's measurement outcomes on Alice's measurement settings, since Bob could not detect a particle if Alice's detector orientation is such that she would have gotten a zero outcome, as this particle pair is retrocausally prohibited from ever being sent out by the source. Hence, as it stands, this is not a local realistic model. (However, if I have misrepresented anything about the model, it goes without saying that I welcome any corrections.)

Now, Joy insists that my way of thinking is confused, since I'm stuck in a 'flatland' perspective and thus, fail to engage the model on its proper S^3 terms. This may well be the case, although I don't know how to make sense of it (but then, I presumably wouldn't, would I). Anyway, and this brings me at long last to my question: if there is a S^3 perspective such that the physical hidden variables, the w vectors, can be computed without knowing the measurement directions of Alice and Bob, then it should be possible to provide a formula implementing this calculation. This is what I would like to see, either as an explicit equation, or, even better, in the form of a simulation that manifestly computes the physical hidden variables without ever appealing to the measurement directions of Alice and Bob, that is, a simulation that could in principle be implemented on separate computers sharing only the list of pre-computed hidden varable values, and which each get a separate list of measurements, and show 100% detector efficiency.

Unfortunately, Joy has declared that he no longer considers me worth speaking to; I hope he'll reconsider, since this seems to be a issue that should be very simple to settle definitively. However, several other forum members, e.g. FreddiFizzx, have expressed their support of Joy's model, and thus, are presumably capable of seeing beyond the flatland perspective, so they should likewise be capable of giving an answer.

Needless to say, without a way to compute the physical hidden variables that does not depend on Alice's and Bob's measurement directions, the model as it is simply fails in its goal to produce a local realistic violation of a Bell inequality, and thus, Bell's theorem continues to stand unchallenged.
Jochen

Posts: 79
Joined: Sat Jun 27, 2015 2:24 am

### Re: A question on Joy Christian's S^3 model

Jochen wrote:

Unfortunately, Joy has declared that he no longer considers me worth speaking to; I hope he'll reconsider, since this seems to be a issue that should be very simple to settle definitively. However, several other forum members, e.g. FreddiFizzx, have expressed their support of Joy's model, and thus, are presumably capable of seeing beyond the flatland perspective, so they should likewise be capable of giving an answer.

Needless to say, without a way to compute the physical hidden variables that does not depend on Alice's and Bob's measurement directions, the model as it is simply fails in its goal to produce a local realistic violation of a Bell inequality, and thus, Bell's theorem continues to stand unchallenged.

Maybe I can offer you a little support. About a year or so ago, I went through more or less the same experience of programming some of these simulations in Mathematica. At that time I came to the conclusion that the results were due not to the "parallelized 3 sphere", but the detection loophole. I learned about the detection loophole from Richard Gill's postings. It is an interesting subject. Richard has since been barred from this forum and is no longer able to post messages, which I consider a bad decision. I stopped posting anything here since the answer to what is going on with the simulations should be obvious to anyone after doing some investigation, yet I could not get the point across. Maybe you'll have better luck.

Best wishes,
John Reed
jreed

Posts: 71
Joined: Mon Feb 17, 2014 5:10 pm

### Re: A question on Joy Christian's S^3 model

Jochen, John,
I won't speak for anyone here. I have my own views about non-detections/loopholes etc which I've made very clear elsewhere. QM is a theory about measurements, and only makes predictions about results of measurements. The EPRB correlations predicted by QM are predictions for expectation values of coincident measurements. Coincident measurements refer only to outcomes (++), (+-), (-+), (--). That is why the experimental expectation values are calculated using only those terms. I believe the obsession with non-detection is actually misguided. I have absolutely no qualms with accepting that in my own simulation 'epr-simple' not all particles result in a (+) or (-) outcome. I have never claimed otherwise. All I have claimed is that my simulation reproduces the QM expectation values for coincidences, and does so in a completely local realistic manner without in anyway using disturbances, conspiracy or non-local influences.
Therefore it is simple logic to recognize that my simulation "epr-simple", is clearly a counter-example to Bell's theorem as stated by Bell himself as follows:

Bell wrote:In a theory in which parameters are added to quantum mechanics to determine the results of individual measurements, without changing the statistical predictions, there must be a mechanism whereby the setting of one measuring device can influence the reading of another instrument, however remote, and the signal involved must propagate instantaneously, so that a theory could not be Lorentz invariant.

Now if anyone who loves "loopholes" wants to claim that my simulation "exploits" a loophole in order to that, that is their prerogative, then they will have to explain and justify first, why they think the QM predictions imply 100% detection, secondly provide experimental support for that claim, and finally amend Bell's theorem to incorporate the requirement of 100% detection:

Bell Should Have wrote:In a theory in which parameters are added to quantum mechanics to determine the results of individual measurements, without changing the statistical predictions, there may be a mechanism whereby the setting of one measuring device can influence the reading of another instrument, however remote, and the signal involved must propagate instantaneously, so that a theory could not be Lorentz invariant, provided all emitted particles are detected.

If this is what Bell's theorem is all about, then "epr-simple" not a counter example. However, my other simulation "epr-clocked" would be a counter-example of not only this amended version of Bell's theorem, but also the original one. In "epr-clocked", 100% of emitted particles are detected. But we know that Bell believers are expert goal-post shifters and "loophole" lovers, so they may now invoke a new loophole and claim that my simulation "exploits" the coincidence-time loophole. Note, I have never claimed that time delays are not part of my simulation. All I have claimed is that my simulation "epr-clocked" reproduces the QM expectation values for coincidences, and does so in a completely local realistic manner without in anyway using disturbances, conspiracy or non-local influences, and every emitted particle is detected. There are 2 crucial features in "epr-clocked":

1) The source sometimes emits a single particle instead of 2. This is not a bug, or a defect or an imperfection. It is part of the model.
2) Completely local angle dependent delays are introduced into the detection times of each particle.

Those two features, imply that it is impossible to match pairs without doing coincidence matching during data analysis. In fact, I use the exact routines used by experiments to do the coincidence matching, and I obtain the same results as they do. Therefore, "epr-clocked" reproduces the experimental results, and matches QM just as the experiments do.

Now if anyone who loves "loopholes" wants to claim that my simulation "exploits" a loophole in order to that, that is their prerogative, then they will have to explain and justify first, why they think the QM predictions imply no time delays, secondly provide experimental support for that claim, and finally amend Bell's theorem to incorporate the requirement of no time delays detection:

Bell Should Have wrote:In a theory in which parameters are added to quantum mechanics to determine the results of individual measurements, without changing the statistical predictions, there may be a mechanism whereby the setting of one measuring device can influence the reading of another instrument, however remote, and the signal involved must propagate instantaneously, so that a theory could not be Lorentz invariant, provided all emitted particles are emitted in pairs, all emitted particles are detected, and no time-delays are introduced during detection, and all pairs can be accurately matched after detection.

Now if Bell-believers agree to those amendments, then I will admit that none of my simulations is a counter-example to the final amended "goal-shifted" Bell's theorem. Until then, I continue to claim that I have provided 2 counter-examples to Bell's theorem.
Last edited by minkwe on Wed Jul 08, 2015 12:53 pm, edited 1 time in total.
minkwe

Posts: 1118
Joined: Sat Feb 08, 2014 10:22 am

### Re: A question on Joy Christian's S^3 model

I have already expressed my point of view in great detail elsewhere (e.g., see below), as I have been doing for the past eight years. I have nothing further to add.

As for Richard Gill, he has been banned from several forums and blogs, not just this one, as I have detailed on my blog: http://libertesphilosophica.info/blog/.

Actually, there is something I will add: I will ignore Jochen's misrepresentation of my model, but his question has already been answered in this paper [cf. Eq. (B10)].

Joy Christian wrote:An often repeated claim by the Bell-devotees in this thread is that there are "0 outcomes" in the simulation I have presented at the beginning of the thread:

This claim is completely vacuous. But not surprisingly, Bell-devotees are simply unable to see the vacuity of their claim. So now I have revised the simulation slightly and included explicit calculations showing that "0 outcomes" simply do not exist within S^3. Here is the essential part of the code, specifying A(a, L) = +/-1 = B(b, L):

Code: Select all
        A = +sign(g(a,e,s))  # Alice's measurement results A(a, e, s) = +/-1                  B = -sign(g(b,e,s))  # Bob's measurement results B(b, e, s) = -/+1                Cuu = length((A*B)[A > 0 & B > 0])   # Coincidence count of (+,+) events                Cdd = length((A*B)[A < 0 & B < 0])   # Coincidence count of (-,-) events                Cud = length((A*B)[A > 0 & B < 0])   # Coincidence count of (+,-) events                Cdu = length((A*B)[A < 0 & B > 0])   # Coincidence count of (-,+) events                corrs[i,j] = (Cuu + Cdd - Cud - Cdu) / (Cuu + Cdd + Cud + Cdu)

The above calculation produces the strong EPR-B correlation, as can be seen in the simulation. But the persistent claim is that A(.) and B(.) also produce "0 outcomes."

So now, in the revised version, I have added the following new lines in the code, for the benefit of the flatlanders:

Code: Select all
(Cou = length((A*B)[A == 0 & B > 0]))  # Number of (0,+) events within S^3                     (Cod = length((A*B)[A == 0 & B < 0]))  # Number of (0,-) events within S^3        (Cuo = length((A*B)[A > 0 & B == 0]))  # Number of (+,0) events within S^3        (Cdo = length((A*B)[A < 0 & B == 0]))  # Number of (-,0) events within S^3(Coo = length((A*B)[g(a,e,s) & A == 0 & B == 0])) # Number of (0,0) events(CoB = length(A[g(a,e,s) & A == 0]))   # Number of A = 0 events within S^3(CAo = length(B[g(b,e,s) & B == 0]))   # Number of B = 0 events within S^3

We can now see in the simulation that the above calculations explicitly prove Cou = Cod = Cuo = Cdo = Coo = 0.

Thus there are simply no "0 outcomes" within S^3, contrary to the claim by the Bell-devotees. The simulation thus decisively refutes the so-called "theorem" by Bell.

Joy Christian
Research Physicist

Posts: 2076
Joined: Wed Feb 05, 2014 4:49 am
Location: Oxford, United Kingdom

### Re: A question on Joy Christian's S^3 model

jreed wrote:Richard [Gill] has since been barred from this forum and is no longer able to post messages, which I consider a bad decision.

John, I would not question the decision of the forum owners to ban Richard Gill, that is their right to do so, and given what I know about some of his activities after speaking to other well respected members of the foundations community, as well as my own experiences with him, I would have banned him if this was my forum. I would give you one example which you can verify for yourself:

I outlined above the two features of my "epr-clocked" simulation. The reason for those features is very simple and I have repeatedly made them clear to Gill -- if an experimenter is not absolutely sure exactly 2 particles were emitted each time, and if time delays are introduced during the detection process, like is customary with the use of electro-optical modulators, then it may be impossible for experimenters to reliably match pairs during data analysis. Note that the matching of pairs is an activity which is carried out well after the experiment has been concluded and it is made precisely because you do not know which particle on Alice's side corresponds to which particle on Bob's side. In EPR-CLOCKED, all particles are detected, ie the detection efficiency is 100%, all emitted particles produce a +1/-1 result, but only 99.99% of particles are emitted in pairs. This is a feature of the simulation.

If I give you two lists A and B, of numbers of roughly equal length close to 1 million and I tell you that 99.99% of the elements in each list has a counterpart in the other list, and the elements are in sequential order, that is if one element comes after another on one list, it's counterpart, if it exists also comes after the counterpart of the other element in the other list. Will you be able to reliably pair the elements in both lists? These are real questions which experimenters deal with, often lost in discussions like this. My simulation was aimed precisely to expose such sloppiness. It provides a wake-up call to those who tacitly assume the pairs have been pre-matched for them, an assumption that fails woefully in actual experiments. Secondly it forces them to do the matching, and to make explicit assumptions about the criteria used for matching, such as detection times and time-delays between detection times.

In fact, I simply adopted one of the routines used by experimenters, written by one of Gill's friends and co-authors to do the matching of the output from my simulation. And I encouraged others to not rely on my own data analysis code, but to write their own, hoping that they would face the same obstacles and perhaps have an epiphany in the process.

Gill, realizing that the model did not allow him to assume apriori that pairs were already matched, decided to modify the simulation to remove those two features. Despite my complains, he claimed he was fixing a bug in it viewtopic.php?f=6&t=23&start=20#p624, that he was making it perfect. Not only that, he continued to claim that the fixed simulation was still "epr-clocked" and he continues to associate his modifications to my name up to this day. In addition, he claims that the detection efficiency of "epr-clocked" is close to 50% contrary to fact. A claim he repeated this month. The simulation simply produces 2 files of outcomes +/-1, one row for each particle detected. All particles emitted are detected as can be seem by comparing the number of particles in the input files with the number of particles in the output files and verifying that all outcomes are +1 or -1. Yet Gill continues to claim my simulation has 50% detection efficiency up to this day. Which is a lie. It is not my simulation's fault that his assumptions about how particles are supposed to be matched has failed woefully, nor is it my fault that he has been unable to find a way to match the pairs? I've shown that if you use the routines traditionally used by experimenters, you get the same results like they do, and the results match the QM predictions.

So the situation is simple. Anyone can download the simulation from https://github.com/minkwe/epr-clocked, run it on separate computers, convince themselves that
1) there is no non-locality
2) there is no conspiracy
3) ALL emitted particles are detected and produce only +1/-1 outcomes
Then write their own data analysis routines to do the matching and calculate the the expectation values and tell me whether the results match QM or not.
Then I will encourage you to apply the same analysis routine to actual data from EPRB experiments, and tell me whether the results match QM or not, all I ask is that the goal-post not be shifted.

Hopefully, now you understand that Gill's latest effort in which he claims to be analyzing data from my simulation is not only misguided, but actually intellectually dishonest, especially given what I have already explained to him about it a year ago right here on this forum viewtopic.php?f=6&t=23

If you are interested, I have a similar story about Gill's response to "epr-simple", which again shows not only the naive assumptions often made in such discussions, but also the duplicitous nature of Gill's activities as related to his response to my simulations.[hint: the use of random number seeds.]
minkwe

Posts: 1118
Joined: Sat Feb 08, 2014 10:22 am

### Re: A question on Joy Christian's S^3 model

minkwe wrote:Now if anyone who loves "loopholes" wants to claim that my simulation "exploits" a loophole in order to that, that is their prerogative, then they will have to explain and justify first, why they think the QM predictions imply 100% detection, secondly provide experimental support for that claim, and finally amend Bell's theorem to incorporate the requirement of 100% detection:

100% detection is not needed; 83% detection will suffice to rule out models such as yours. This has already been achived in experiments. By the way, since no one is using CHSH to analyze experimental data anymore, did you check your simulated data against the CH formula I showed you?
Heinera

Posts: 675
Joined: Thu Feb 06, 2014 1:50 am

### Re: A question on Joy Christian's S^3 model

Heinera wrote:because Bell (as well as CHSH), in his/their proof assumes a simulation where all particles are detected.

Heinera wrote:100% detection is not needed; 83% detection will suffice to rule out models such as yours.

As usual, the emptiest containers make the loudest noises since they do not think before speaking. Please state for us the amended version of Bell's theorem which you claim my simulations are not counter-examples to and we can talk.
Heinera wrote:This has already been achived in experiments. By the way, since no one is using CHSH to analyze experimental data anymore

because, ... goal-post shifting.

Why would somebody who claims that the CHSH was derived with an assumption that "all particles" are detected, continue to apply it to an experiment in which only 83% of particles were detected, unless there is goal-shifting involved. And if said experiment actually demonstrated true violation of the CHSH, why would they shift to another inequality in order to claim spookiness? Years ago, Jaynes already gave a much more direct and potent test of non-locality. Unfortunately for Bell believers, nobody wants to use it because it is too direct and does not have any crevises in which they may hide mathematical and logical errors. The more obscure the inequality, the more the Bell believers will love it. Once the inequality is well studied and all the logical problems have been revealed, it is time to shift to another one.
Heinera wrote:did you check your simulated data against the CH formula I showed you?

No I did not. Did you? If you did, as you claimed in the past, please post the code and the results.

I wonder what will be next after the CH is shown to be just as much a fraud as the CHSH. Where will they go next? We shall see.
minkwe

Posts: 1118
Joined: Sat Feb 08, 2014 10:22 am

### Re: A question on Joy Christian's S^3 model

minkwe wrote:Please state for us the amended version of Bell's theorem which you claim my simulations are not counter-examples to and we can talk.

It is called the CH-inequality. You can Google it. No need to talk.
minkwe wrote:
Heinera wrote:did you check your simulated data against the CH formula I showed you?

No I did not. Did you? If you did, as you claimed in the past, please post the code and the results.

I certainly did, since otherwise I obviously wouldn't bring it up. You should do it too.
Heinera

Posts: 675
Joined: Thu Feb 06, 2014 1:50 am

### Re: A question on Joy Christian's S^3 model

Heinera wrote:I certainly did, since otherwise I obviously wouldn't bring it up. You should do it too.

I see you have learned well from your master Richard Gill, he would give you a pat on the back. I won't put it past you to claim you did when you didn't. So post the code and results or stop lying about it.

Please state the amended version of Bell's theorem which you claim my simulations are not counter-examples to and we can talk.

I will ignore all further outbursts and noises from you until such a time when you state clearly the amended version of Bell's theorem you claim my simulations are not valid counter-examples to, and also post the code and results you claim to have done with my simulation and the CH, and address all 8 points of my argument you pretended to contest in the other thread. Time to put up or shut up.

Obviously my simulations are valid counterexamples of Bell's theorem as stated by Bell himself.

You don't have to like it, it is a fact and you know it, just like your master Gill.

Some loopholes to save quantum nonlocality
Luigi Accardi, http://dx.doi.org/10.1063/1.1874552
minkwe

Posts: 1118
Joined: Sat Feb 08, 2014 10:22 am

### Re: A question on Joy Christian's S^3 model

minkwe wrote:Some loopholes to save quantum nonlocality
Luigi Accardi, http://dx.doi.org/10.1063/1.1874552

Since nothing can violate the Bell inequalities, do "loopholes" even matter? They don't.
FrediFizzx
Independent Physics Researcher

Posts: 1671
Joined: Tue Mar 19, 2013 7:12 pm
Location: N. California, USA

### Re: A question on Joy Christian's S^3 model

jreed wrote:Maybe I can offer you a little support. About a year or so ago, I went through more or less the same experience of programming some of these simulations in Mathematica. At that time I came to the conclusion that the results were due not to the "parallelized 3 sphere", but the detection loophole. I learned about the detection loophole from Richard Gill's postings. It is an interesting subject. Richard has since been barred from this forum and is no longer able to post messages, which I consider a bad decision. I stopped posting anything here since the answer to what is going on with the simulations should be obvious to anyone after doing some investigation, yet I could not get the point across. Maybe you'll have better luck.

Best wishes,
John Reed

Yes, I've essentially gone down the same path. I think you're exactly correct: it is the ex post facto rejection of zero outcomes that yields the violation of the CHSH-inequality. However, I set this up so that Joy can follow a very simple course of action to put this to bed: simply post how he derives the hidden variables without knowledge of Alice's and Bob's measurement direction, and my criticism would be baseless. Of course, I don't expect this to happen; rather, I expect more waffling and anti-flatlander rhetoric.

minkwe wrote:Jochen, John,
I won't speak for anyone here. I have my own views about non-detections/loopholes etc which I've made very clear elsewhere. QM is a theory about measurements, and only makes predictions about results of measurements

I think you need to appreciate that Bell was concerned with in-principle differences between the predictions of QM and local realistic theories. Thus, he used the exact expectation values as computed by quantum theory. So Bell's theorem as such is concerned with the difference between local realistic theories and QM if we had complete access to the predictions of quantum theory. Now, in any experiment, these expectation values can only be approximated, up to both statistical and systematic errors. Hence, we don't have this access; and thus, versions of Bell's original inequalities have been developed to take this into account, thus translating the original theorem---which was, again, at the level of theoretical prediction---to one amenable to experiment, i.e. on the level of observation. Hence, your simulations do not refute Bell's theorem, as in those, one does not have access to the theory's predictions, but merely to experimental observations, which differ from the theoretical predictions in a systematic way due to your use of various loopholes. Therefore, you need to compare the statistics you produce to versions of the theorem that are explicitly derived with observations in mind; and in these cases, you won't find any violation anymore.

So in other words, Bell was asking the question "could any local realistic theory reproduce the predictions of quantum mechanics in principle?", and answered it negative; while you are showing that there exists cases in which in practice, one can be prevented from knowing the predictions of the theory in such a way that Bell's in-principle reasoning no longer applies. Now don't get me wrong, I think that's an important point, and something that hasn't been sufficiently appreciated in the quantum community for many years, and is only now getting the attention it deserves, so if you're merely trying to point out that as of now, there is no experimental test that conclusively establishes a difference between local realistic theories and QM, then I'm right there with you. And I'd find it fascinating, although unlikely, that maybe such a test can't in principle be performed, say because quantum mechanics isn't exactly right, but only an approximation to some nonlinear collapse theory. But I think your inference that your models show a problem with Bell's theorem as such is misguided.

Anyway, this isn't what I opened this thread to discuss. I'm happy to continue this, but I'd prefer it if you'd open a new thread for it; let's at least try and keep this one on topic for a couple of posts more.

Joy Christian wrote::)
I have already expressed my point of view in great detail elsewhere (e.g., see below), as I have been doing for the past eight years. I have nothing further to add.

A shame, since it would be so easy to lay all these concerns to rest: simply show how to calculate your physical hidden variables without taking into account data not locally available to the particle source, e.g. the measurement directions of Alice and Bob. If there is some S^3 way to do that, this should be a trivial exercise to you; hence, your continued failure to do so seems highly suspicious.
Jochen

Posts: 79
Joined: Sat Jun 27, 2015 2:24 am

### Re: A question on Joy Christian's S^3 model

Jochen wrote:A shame, since it would be so easy to lay all these concerns to rest: simply show how to calculate your physical hidden variables without taking into account data not locally available to the particle source, e.g. the measurement directions of Alice and Bob. If there is some S^3 way to do that, this should be a trivial exercise to you; hence, your continued failure to do so seems highly suspicious.

It's a shame that you have continued failure to realize what is going on in parallelized 3-sphere terms with the simulation. If you can't see it by now, most likely you never will. And... it is actually quite simple.
FrediFizzx
Independent Physics Researcher

Posts: 1671
Joined: Tue Mar 19, 2013 7:12 pm
Location: N. California, USA

### Re: A question on Joy Christian's S^3 model

Jochen wrote:
Joy Christian wrote:
I have already expressed my point of view in great detail elsewhere (e.g., see below), as I have been doing for the past eight years. I have nothing further to add.

A shame, since it would be so easy to lay all these concerns to rest: simply show how to calculate your physical hidden variables without taking into account data not locally available to the particle source, e.g. the measurement directions of Alice and Bob. If there is some S^3 way to do that, this should be a trivial exercise to you; hence, your continued failure to do so seems highly suspicious.

Joy Christian wrote:Actually, there is something I will add: I will ignore Jochen's misrepresentation of my model, but his question has already been answered in this paper [cf. Eq. (B10)].

Joy Christian wrote:Jochen, we are done here. I have already answered all your questions many times before. I am off to Vatican City to convert the Pope to Islam. That would be easier.
Joy Christian
Research Physicist

Posts: 2076
Joined: Wed Feb 05, 2014 4:49 am
Location: Oxford, United Kingdom

### Re: A question on Joy Christian's S^3 model

FrediFizzx wrote:
Jochen wrote:A shame, since it would be so easy to lay all these concerns to rest: simply show how to calculate your physical hidden variables without taking into account data not locally available to the particle source, e.g. the measurement directions of Alice and Bob. If there is some S^3 way to do that, this should be a trivial exercise to you; hence, your continued failure to do so seems highly suspicious.

It's a shame that you have continued failure to realize what is going on in parallelized 3-sphere terms with the simulation. If you can't see it by now, most likely you never will. And... it is actually quite simple.

If it's so simple, then just provide the answer to my question: how are the physical hidden variables, the w vectors in the simulation, computed without using knowledge about the measurement directions?

Anybody is cordially invited to read your 'refutations' in that thread, and draw their own conclusions. But ultimately, it will be your failure to answer my question that speaks the loudest.

Joy Christian wrote:Actually, there is something I will add: I will ignore Jochen's misrepresentation of my model, but his question has already been answered in this paper [cf. Eq. (B10)].

First of all, there has been no misrepresentation of your model: everything works exactly as I have detailed it, as anybody can confirm via the code snippets I have provided.

Second, equation (B10) says nothing about the computation of your physical hidden variable states; it merely shows that if you restrict the outcomes of Alice and Bob to +/-1 instead of the values +/-1 and 0 that your simulation provides, then you can recover the quantum correlations. But the question is exactly how this restriction is done without knowledge of the measurement directions. And of course, it can't, since for any value of the hidden variables, as shown above, one can find measurement directions that yield a zero outcome; hence, there is no subset of your 'pre-ensemble' that can be chosen independently of the measurement settings that won't yield zero outcomes.

But again, one simple equation that computes the w vectors ($s^k$ in the above paper) without knowledge of the measurement directions and still serves to produce a violation refutes all that, so instead of wasting all that time waffling, it should be a trivial effort for you to show that you're right.
Jochen

Posts: 79
Joined: Sat Jun 27, 2015 2:24 am

### Re: A question on Joy Christian's S^3 model

Jochen wrote:
Joy Christian wrote:
I have already expressed my point of view in great detail elsewhere (e.g., see below), as I have been doing for the past eight years. I have nothing further to add.

A shame, since it would be so easy to lay all these concerns to rest: simply show how to calculate your physical hidden variables without taking into account data not locally available to the particle source, e.g. the measurement directions of Alice and Bob. If there is some S^3 way to do that, this should be a trivial exercise to you; hence, your continued failure to do so seems highly suspicious.

Joy Christian wrote:Actually, there is something I will add: I will ignore Jochen's misrepresentation of my model, but his question has already been answered in this paper [cf. Eq. (B10)].

Joy Christian wrote:Jochen, we are done here. I have already answered all your questions many times before. I am off to Vatican City to convert the Pope to Islam. That would be easier.
Joy Christian
Research Physicist

Posts: 2076
Joined: Wed Feb 05, 2014 4:49 am
Location: Oxford, United Kingdom

### Re: A question on Joy Christian's S^3 model

So, more waffling it is, then!
Gee, a casual observer could almost come to the conclusion that in fact you don't have an answer to my question, and are merely playing for time in the hopes that this'll blow over eventually...
Jochen

Posts: 79
Joined: Sat Jun 27, 2015 2:24 am

### Re: A question on Joy Christian's S^3 model

Jochen wrote:So, more waffling it is, then!
Gee, a casual observer could almost come to the conclusion that in fact you don't have an answer to my question, and are merely playing for time in the hopes that this'll blow over eventually...

You are welcome to your incessant trolling and to your ad hominem attacks. And "a casual observer" is welcome to whatever conclusion they wish to conclude.

As I noted, answers to all of your flatland questions have already been provided to you many times over. The arguments I have presented speak for themselves:

http://arxiv.org/abs/1405.2355 (the detailed theoretical analysis which the original simulation implements),

http://rpubs.com/jjc/84238 (the actual simulation, which has been deliberately misrepresented by Jochen),

http://arxiv.org/abs/1211.0784 (an experimental proposal to test the spinorial properties of the S^3 space),

http://arxiv.org/abs/1501.03393 (see Eq. (B10) -- a reply to even bigger and politically more powerful troll),

http://libertesphilosophica.info/blog/ (extensive discussion of my entire program transcending Bell's errors).
Joy Christian
Research Physicist

Posts: 2076
Joined: Wed Feb 05, 2014 4:49 am
Location: Oxford, United Kingdom

### Re: A question on Joy Christian's S^3 model

Joy Christian wrote:As I noted, answers to all of your flatland questions have already been provided to you many times over. The arguments I have presented speak for themselves:

http://arxiv.org/abs/1405.2355 (the detailed theoretical analysis which the original simulation implements),

http://rpubs.com/jjc/84238 (the actual simulation, which has been deliberately misrepresented by Jochen),

http://arxiv.org/abs/1211.0784 (an experimental proposal to test the spinorial properties of the S^3 space),

http://arxiv.org/abs/1501.03393 (see Eq. (B10) -- a reply to even bigger and politically more powerful troll),

http://libertesphilosophica.info/blog/ (extensive discussion of my entire program transcending Bell's errors).

None of the links you give provides an answer to the question I'm asking in this thread, which is, again: How are the vectors w, the physical hidden variables, computed without using knowledge about the experimenters' measurement directions?

And please, if you claim that I have deliberately misrepresented your simulation, show where I did so. Otherwise, this is just a baseless accusation.
Jochen

Posts: 79
Joined: Sat Jun 27, 2015 2:24 am

### Re: A question on Joy Christian's S^3 model

Jochen wrote:None of the links you give provides an answer to the question I'm asking in this thread, which is, again: How are the vectors w, the physical hidden variables, computed without using knowledge about the experimenters' measurement directions?

Joy Christian wrote:As I noted, answers to all of your flatland questions have already been provided to you many times over. The arguments I have presented speak for themselves:

http://arxiv.org/abs/1405.2355 (the detailed theoretical analysis which the original simulation implements),

http://rpubs.com/jjc/84238 (the actual simulation, which has been deliberately misrepresented by Jochen),

http://arxiv.org/abs/1211.0784 (an experimental proposal to test the spinorial properties of the S^3 space),

http://arxiv.org/abs/1501.03393 (see Eq. (B10) -- a reply to even bigger and politically more powerful troll),

http://libertesphilosophica.info/blog/ (extensive discussion of my entire program transcending Bell's errors).
Joy Christian
Research Physicist

Posts: 2076
Joined: Wed Feb 05, 2014 4:49 am
Location: Oxford, United Kingdom

### Re: A question on Joy Christian's S^3 model

Jochen wrote:So in other words, Bell was asking the question "could any local realistic theory reproduce the predictions of quantum mechanics in principle?", and answered it negative; while you are showing that there exists cases in which in practice, one can be prevented from knowing the predictions of the theory in such a way that Bell's in-principle reasoning no longer applies.

This is BS, the quantum mechanical predictions are for practical measurements. QM is completely silent about what might exist apart from measurements. In fact, the theory goes to great lengths to prevent simultaneous predictions about incompatible measurements. You need to appreciate the fact that measurement plays a more crucial role in QM than any other theory, therefore the suggestion that Bell was only focused on "principle" is simply BS. My simulations show that coincidence expectation values match those predicted by QM, period. If you want to claim my simulations do things which are forbidden by QM, it should be up to you to show exactly what you are talking about and provide the experimental results to back it up.

The point is relevant to the topic because it illustrates the fact that double standards are used. A different set of standards are used for QM than for other models trying to reproduce the QM correlations. The responses so far bear that out. If you want to talk about "loopholes", demonstrate that such loopholes are forbidden by QM, or that QM does not "exploit" those same "loopholes" as well. Unless you can do so, your efforts here are akin to goal-post shifting.

My simulations are clearly counter-examples of Bell's theorem as outlined by Bell himself. If Bell's inequalities and theorem were full-proof, it won't be necessary to amend it with new inequalities. Feel free to post an amended Bell's theorem for which my simulations are not counter-examples.
Last edited by minkwe on Thu Jul 09, 2015 9:03 am, edited 1 time in total.
minkwe

Posts: 1118
Joined: Sat Feb 08, 2014 10:22 am

Next