## Joy's 7-sphere 3D 2-Particle Simulation

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

### Joy's 7-sphere 3D 2-Particle Simulation

Here is the GAViewer code for Joy Christian's 7-sphere with 3D vectors for the two particle simulation that validates the math in the product calculation event by event for,

https://arxiv.org/abs/1806.02392
"Quantum correlations are weaved by the spinors of the Euclidean primitives"

Code: Select all
`//Adaptation of Albert Jan Wonnink's original code based on GAViewer for Joy Christian's S^7 Model of the 2-particle //Correlations: http://challengingbell.blogspot.com/2015/03/numerical-validation-of-vanishing-of.htmlfunction getRandomLambda() {   if( rand()>0.5) {return 1;} else {return -1;}}function getRandomUnitVector() //uniform random unit vector:                                //http://mathworld.wolfram.com/SpherePointPicking.html{   v=randGaussStd()*e1+randGaussStd()*e2+ randGaussStd()*e3;    //3D Vectors   return normalize(v);}   batch test(){   set_window_title("3D Test of Joy Christian's Local-Realistic S^7 Model for the 2-particle correlations");   default_model(p3ga);   N=1000;                               //number of iterations (trials)   I=e1^e2^e3;   s=0;   t=0;   u=0;   for(nn=0;nn<N;nn=nn+1)                  //perform the experiment N times   {          ar=getRandomUnitVector()/(sqrt(2));          ad=normalize(ar.(e1*e2+e2*e3+e3*e1))/(sqrt(2));          Da=((I ar) + (ad e0));          br=getRandomUnitVector()/(sqrt(2));          bd=normalize(br.(e1*e2+e2*e3+e3*e1))/(sqrt(2));          Db=((I br) + (bd e0));          lambda=getRandomLambda();        //lambda is a fair coin, giving the +1 or -1 choice           A=(-Da)*(lambda*Da);             //eq.(188) of https://arxiv.org/abs/1806.02392          B=(lambda*Db)*(Db);              //eq.(189) of https://arxiv.org/abs/1806.02392          LA=A/(-Da);          LB=B/(Db);                       //implements the twist in the Hopf bundle of S^3          q=0;          if(lambda==1) {q=(LA LB);} else {q=(LB LA);}          s=s+q;          print(corrs=scalar(q), "f");     //Output the correlations          p_ar=atan2(scalar(Da/(e3^e1)), scalar(Da/(e2^e3)));          p_br=atan2(scalar(Db/(e3^e1)), scalar(Db/(e2^e3)));          p_ad=atan2(scalar(Da/(e2^e0)), scalar(Da/(e1^e0)));          p_bd=atan2(scalar(Db/(e2^e0)), scalar(Db/(e1^e0)));          t_ar=acos(scalar(sqrt(2)*Da/(e1^e2)));          t_br=acos(scalar(sqrt(2)*Db/(e1^e2)));          t_ad=acos(scalar(sqrt(2)*Da/(e3^e0)));          t_bd=acos(scalar(sqrt(2)*Db/(e3^e0)));          calc128_nr=-(sin(t_ar)*cos(p_ar)*sin(t_br)*cos(p_br)+sin(t_ar)*sin(p_ar)*sin(t_br)*sin(p_br)+cos(t_ar)*cos(t_br))/2;          calc128_nd=-(sin(t_ad)*cos(p_ad)*sin(t_bd)*cos(p_bd)+sin(t_ad)*sin(p_ad)*sin(t_bd)*sin(p_bd)+cos(t_ad)*cos(t_bd))/2;          calc128=calc128_nr+calc128_nd;          print(calc128, "f");            //eq. (128) of https://arxiv.org/abs/1806.02392          t=t+A;          u=u+B;      }      mean=s/N;      print(mean, "f");    //shows the vanishing of the non-scalar part      aveA=t/N;      print(aveA, "f");    //verifies that individual average < A > = 0      aveB=u/N;      print(aveB, "f");    //verifies that individual average < B > = 0      prompt();}`

Typical output is,

Code: Select all
`corrs = 0.798286calc128 = 0.798286corrs = 0.332107calc128 = 0.332107corrs = 0.637114calc128 = 0.637114corrs = -0.069266calc128 = -0.069266corrs = 0.700589calc128 = 0.700589corrs = -0.149366calc128 = -0.149366corrs = 0.221621calc128 = 0.221621corrs = -0.474967calc128 = -0.474967corrs = 0.381021calc128 = 0.381021corrs = 0.944316calc128 = 0.944316corrs = -0.764949calc128 = -0.764949corrs = -0.835346calc128 = -0.835346corrs = 0.730391calc128 = 0.730391corrs = -0.097801calc128 = -0.097801corrs = -0.077297calc128 = -0.077297corrs = -0.698316calc128 = -0.698316corrs = 0.611270calc128 = 0.611270corrs = -0.007254calc128 = -0.007254corrs = 0.346173calc128 = 0.346173corrs = 0.034606calc128 = 0.034606corrs = -0.949863calc128 = -0.949863corrs = 0.548855calc128 = 0.548855corrs = -0.994516calc128 = -0.994516corrs = 0.866160calc128 = 0.866160corrs = 0.367073calc128 = 0.367073corrs = 0.638515calc128 = 0.638515corrs = 0.676131calc128 = 0.676131corrs = 0.611254calc128 = 0.611254corrs = -0.542694calc128 = -0.542694corrs = 0.370916calc128 = 0.370916corrs = 0.498773calc128 = 0.498773corrs = -0.501780calc128 = -0.501780corrs = 0.911976calc128 = 0.911976corrs = 0.864084calc128 = 0.864084corrs = 0.017605calc128 = 0.017605corrs = 0.233319calc128 = 0.233319corrs = 0.713419calc128 = 0.713419corrs = -0.346062calc128 = -0.346062corrs = -0.709437calc128 = -0.709437corrs = -0.584237calc128 = -0.584237corrs = 0.006714calc128 = 0.006714corrs = -0.267126calc128 = -0.267126corrs = -0.628350calc128 = -0.628350corrs = 0.359896calc128 = 0.359896corrs = 0.259837calc128 = 0.259837corrs = -0.985534calc128 = -0.985534corrs = -0.239030calc128 = -0.239030corrs = 0.820742calc128 = 0.820742corrs = -0.539447calc128 = -0.539447corrs = -0.836740calc128 = -0.836740corrs = -0.892223calc128 = -0.892223corrs = -0.566705calc128 = -0.566705corrs = -0.121463calc128 = -0.121463`

And then we also have,

mean = 0.013063 + 0.016194*e2^e3 + 0.000806*e3^e1 + 0.020968*e1^e2 + 0.016743*e1^e0 + 0.000431*e2^e0 + -0.008496*e3^e0 + 0.004857*e1^e2^e3^e0
aveA = 0.022000
aveB = -0.022000
.
FrediFizzx
Independent Physics Researcher

Posts: 1559
Joined: Tue Mar 19, 2013 7:12 pm
Location: N. California, USA

### Re: Joy's 7-sphere 3D 2-Particle Simulation

***
Since pictures speak louder than words, let me add a plot of the above simulation for data with 50,000 trials.

It is worth noting here that the predictions of my 3-sphere model for the EPR-Bohm correlations are experimentally verified by the so-called "loophole-free violations of Bell-inequalities."

For those who may be new to this forum and unaware of what the 3-sphere model is: It is a local, realistic and deterministic model of the EPR-Bohm correlations disproving Bell's theorem.

***
Joy Christian
Research Physicist

Posts: 1975
Joined: Wed Feb 05, 2014 4:49 am
Location: Oxford, United Kingdom

### Re: Joy's 7-sphere 3D 2-Particle Simulation

Joy Christian wrote:... It is worth noting here that the predictions of my 3-sphere model for the EPR-Bohm correlations are experimentally verified by the so-called "loophole-free violations of Bell-inequalities"...

That is not true. The notable experiments in Delft, Vienna, and at NIST (Boulder, Colorado) in 2015, and the one in Munich in 2016, use different states and furthermore have further distinct features which are not taken account of in your 3-sphere model at all (and each of the four experiments differs from the others, too!). The correlations observed in all of those four experiments are completely different from those predicted by your model.
gill1109
Mathematical Statistician

Posts: 1479
Joined: Tue Feb 04, 2014 10:39 pm
Location: Leiden

### Re: Joy's 7-sphere 3D 2-Particle Simulation

gill1109 wrote:
Joy Christian wrote:
... It is worth noting here that the predictions of my 3-sphere model for the EPR-Bohm correlations are experimentally verified by the so-called "loophole-free violations of Bell-inequalities"...

That is not true. The notable experiments in Delft, Vienna, and at NIST (Boulder, Colorado) in 2015, and the one in Munich in 2016, use different states and furthermore have further distinct features which are not taken account of in your 3-sphere model at all (and each of the four experiments differs from the others, too!).

Fair enough. But my 3-sphere model is just a special case within my 7-sphere model, which reproduces, in principle, the predictions of any given quantum state. Thus whatever states these experiments are observing predictions of, they are covered by my 7-sphere model in principle. Needless to say, I do not have an army of supporters or any financial support from anyone to do the necessary calculations within the 7-sphere model for keeping up with what is going on in the abundantly funded Bell industry. So conformists will always have an upper hand over me.

gill1109 wrote:
The correlations observed in all of those four experiments are completely different from those predicted by your model.

This can't be true, because whatever is predicted by my 3-sphere and 7-sphere models is identical to what is predicted by quantum mechanics, unless, of course, the "loophole-free" experimenters have observed correlations that contradict the predictions of quantum mechanics or go beyond the predictions of quantum mechanics. But I doubt that that is the case.

In any event, Bell's theorem is about the singlet correlations. Bell explicitly claimed that the singlet correlations, E(a, b) = -a.b, cannot be reproduced by any local-realistic model.

***
Joy Christian
Research Physicist

Posts: 1975
Joined: Wed Feb 05, 2014 4:49 am
Location: Oxford, United Kingdom

### Re: Joy's 7-sphere 3D 2-Particle Simulation

If the experiments validate QM then they also validate Joy's 7-sphere model.
.
FrediFizzx
Independent Physics Researcher

Posts: 1559
Joined: Tue Mar 19, 2013 7:12 pm
Location: N. California, USA

### Re: Joy's 7-sphere 3D 2-Particle Simulation

FrediFizzx wrote:If the experiments validate QM then they also validate Joy's 7-sphere model.
.

(a) They didn't validate QM (far from it), they just ruled out local hidden variable models.

(b) Even if they had validated QM, they wouldn't just validate Joy's model, but also the models of John Doe, Jane Poe, Richard Roe, Robert Roe, Mark Moe, Larry Loe, Ashok Kumar, and all the others that have propietory models that all make the exact same predictions as QM.
Heinera

Posts: 607
Joined: Thu Feb 06, 2014 1:50 am

### Re: Joy's 7-sphere 3D 2-Particle Simulation

Heinera wrote:
FrediFizzx wrote:If the experiments validate QM then they also validate Joy's 7-sphere model.
.

(a) They didn't validate QM (far from it), they just ruled out local hidden variable models.

The experiments in question did not rule out anything, let alone "local hidden variable models." The experiments simply verified some elementary predictions of quantum mechanics.

***
Joy Christian
Research Physicist

Posts: 1975
Joined: Wed Feb 05, 2014 4:49 am
Location: Oxford, United Kingdom

### Re: Joy's 7-sphere 3D 2-Particle Simulation

Joy Christian wrote:
Heinera wrote:
FrediFizzx wrote:If the experiments validate QM then they also validate Joy's 7-sphere model.
.

(a) They didn't validate QM (far from it), they just ruled out local hidden variable models.

The experiments in question did not rule out anything, let alone "local hidden variable models." The experiments simply verified some elementary predictions of quantum mechanics.

***

No, they did not verify any elementary predictions of QM. They were in fact quite far from the mark.

But their objective was not to verify QM. A plethora of other experiments have already done that.
Heinera

Posts: 607
Joined: Thu Feb 06, 2014 1:50 am

### Re: Joy's 7-sphere 3D 2-Particle Simulation

Heinera wrote:
Joy Christian wrote:
Heinera wrote:
FrediFizzx wrote:If the experiments validate QM then they also validate Joy's 7-sphere model.
.

(a) They didn't validate QM (far from it), they just ruled out local hidden variable models.

The experiments in question did not rule out anything, let alone "local hidden variable models." The experiments simply verified some elementary predictions of quantum mechanics.

***

No, they did not verify any elementary predictions of QM. They were in fact quite far from the mark.

But their objective was not to verify QM. A plethora of other experiments have already done that.

The point is that you are grossly wrong to claim that the experiments in question "ruled out local hidden variable models." They did no such thing.

***
Joy Christian
Research Physicist

Posts: 1975
Joined: Wed Feb 05, 2014 4:49 am
Location: Oxford, United Kingdom

### Re: Joy's 7-sphere 3D 2-Particle Simulation

Heinera wrote:
FrediFizzx wrote:If the experiments validate QM then they also validate Joy's 7-sphere model.
.

(a) They didn't validate QM (far from it), they just ruled out local hidden variable models.
(b) Even if they had validated QM, they wouldn't just validate Joy's model, but also the models of John Doe, Jane Poe, Richard Roe, Robert Roe, Mark Moe, Larry Loe, Ashok Kumar, and all the others that have proprietary models that all make the exact same predictions as QM.

The experiments in question (2015: Delft, Vienna, NIST; 2016: Munich) gave results which, as the published papers of the relevant research groups show, fitted very well indeed to current quantum mechanics predictions.

They did not reproduce the singlet correlations. Far from it. They were not designed to reproduce the singlet correlations. There are more states and more measurements in modern quantum information theory than the singlet state and the conventional (in certain sense optimal) measurements of the prototype Bell-CHSH "ideal" experiments.
gill1109
Mathematical Statistician

Posts: 1479
Joined: Tue Feb 04, 2014 10:39 pm
Location: Leiden

### Re: Joy's 7-sphere 3D 2-Particle Simulation

***

***
Joy Christian
Research Physicist

Posts: 1975
Joined: Wed Feb 05, 2014 4:49 am
Location: Oxford, United Kingdom

### Re: Joy's 7-sphere 3D 2-Particle Simulation

The cold war was good for something.
.
FrediFizzx
Independent Physics Researcher

Posts: 1559
Joined: Tue Mar 19, 2013 7:12 pm
Location: N. California, USA

### Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Semrush [Bot] and 1 guest