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

Postby FrediFizzx » Thu Jul 04, 2019 12:32 pm

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.html

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

Postby Joy Christian » Wed Jul 10, 2019 1:24 am

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

Image

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

Postby gill1109 » Wed Jul 10, 2019 4:07 am

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

Postby Joy Christian » Wed Jul 10, 2019 4:46 am

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

Postby FrediFizzx » Wed Jul 10, 2019 8:22 am

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

Postby Heinera » Wed Jul 10, 2019 10:02 am

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

Postby Joy Christian » Wed Jul 10, 2019 10:09 am

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

Postby Heinera » Wed Jul 10, 2019 10:37 am

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

Postby Joy Christian » Wed Jul 10, 2019 10:41 am

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

Postby gill1109 » Wed Jul 17, 2019 8:56 am

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

Postby Joy Christian » Sun Jul 21, 2019 8:58 am

***
Image

***
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

Postby FrediFizzx » Sun Jul 21, 2019 11:30 am

:D 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


Return to Sci.Physics.Foundations

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

CodeCogs - An Open Source Scientific Library