FrediFizzx wrote:Heinera wrote:FrediFizzx wrote:Sorry I edited my post. Sure but a and b relative to s are going to influence the outcomes.
Of course. But hidden variables are restricted to properties of the particles themselves, so
a and
b are excluded.
But anyway, now it is at least plausible that your formulas can produce something like the classical triangle correlations. It cannot produce the quantum correlations. To convince anyone of the opposite, you would have to encode the two formulas as computer code and run a simulation.
How can
a and
b be excluded if the outcomes depend on them relative to the spin vector of the particles.
a,
b and
s are all just perfectly normal random variables.
.
This is just terminology of what Bell meant by a "hidden variable". He did not include the detector settings, because the determination of those are not part of the physical model. They are supposed to be the result of a free choice by the experimenters.
FrediFizzx wrote:We have already done the computer code with GAViewer for Joy's model and it works perfectly to obtain -a.b. No sense in repeating it.
.
The GA-viewer code is not a simulation of the experiment. The only convincing code would be one where the computer functions for A and B output -1 or 1 for each instance of the inputs. Why should this be so difficult? Your functions look easy enough. There is no GA in them, so why should anyone need GA-viewer?