3-Sphere 3D Vectors 2-Particle Simulation

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

3-Sphere 3D Vectors 2-Particle Simulation

At long last here is the code for mapping QM to GA for validation of the product calculation with 3D vectors for a and b.

Code: Select all
`//Adaptation of Albert Jan Wonnink's original code based on GAViewer for Joy Christian's S^3 Model of the 2-particle //This is a mapping of the quantum mechanics project to GA.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 QM mapped to GA S^3 Model for the 2-particle correlation");   default_model(p3ga);   N=50000;                               //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   {          a=getRandomUnitVector();          Da=I a;          b=getRandomUnitVector();          Db=I b;          lambda=getRandomLambda();        //lambda is a fair coin, giving the +1 or -1 choice           Sa=Da;                           //polarizer takes Sa to Da          Sb=Db;                           //polarizer takes Sb to Db          A=(Da)*(lambda*(-Sa));           //Measurement function          B=(lambda*Sb)*(Db);              //Measurement function          LA=A/(-Sa);          LB=B/(Sb);                       //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;          p_a=atan2(scalar(Da/(e3^e1)), scalar(Da/(e2^e3)));  //Get angle for a vector in x-y plane          p_b=atan2(scalar(Db/(e3^e1)), scalar(Db/(e2^e3)));  //Get angle for b vector in x-y plane          neg_adotb=-(a.b);          print(neg_adotb, "f");             //Outputs -a.b event by event          if(p_a*p_b>0) {theta=acos(a.b)*180/pi;} else {theta=-acos(a.b)*180/pi+360;}          print(theta, "f");                 //Output the angles          print(correlation=scalar(q), "f"); //Output the correlations          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();}`

And here is a plot of the data with 50K trials.

And here is a sample output of the data,

Code: Select all
`neg_adotb = 0.388081theta = 112.835121correlation = 0.388081neg_adotb = 0.069717theta = 266.002289correlation = 0.069717neg_adotb = 0.803799theta = 216.505585correlation = 0.803799neg_adotb = 0.969949theta = 194.081985correlation = 0.969949neg_adotb = -0.412260theta = 65.653091correlation = -0.412260neg_adotb = 0.050439theta = 92.891159correlation = 0.050439neg_adotb = 0.333078theta = 109.455727correlation = 0.333078neg_adotb = -0.491393theta = 299.432190correlation = -0.491393neg_adotb = -0.769292theta = 39.709625correlation = -0.769292neg_adotb = -0.930731theta = 21.451025correlation = -0.930731neg_adotb = 0.627474theta = 128.864014correlation = 0.627474neg_adotb = 0.486190theta = 240.909500correlation = 0.486190neg_adotb = 0.034357theta = 91.968903correlation = 0.034357neg_adotb = -0.756540theta = 40.839890correlation = -0.756540neg_adotb = -0.027154theta = 88.444000correlation = -0.027154neg_adotb = -0.446383theta = 296.511871correlation = -0.446383neg_adotb = -0.580410theta = 54.520596correlation = -0.580410neg_adotb = 0.988030theta = 171.125839correlation = 0.988030neg_adotb = 0.380612theta = 112.371574correlation = 0.380612neg_adotb = -0.116122theta = 83.331673correlation = -0.116122neg_adotb = -0.161629theta = 80.698555correlation = -0.161629neg_adotb = 0.428098theta = 244.653061correlation = 0.428098neg_adotb = -0.824326theta = 325.520172correlation = -0.824326neg_adotb = -0.276965theta = 286.079132correlation = -0.276965neg_adotb = 0.835168theta = 146.633301correlation = 0.835168neg_adotb = 0.064757theta = 266.287109correlation = 0.064757neg_adotb = 0.822519theta = 214.662277correlation = 0.822519neg_adotb = -0.390839theta = 293.006744correlation = -0.390839neg_adotb = -0.688184theta = 46.513485correlation = -0.688184neg_adotb = 0.412694theta = 114.374191correlation = 0.412694neg_adotb = 0.588540theta = 233.946533correlation = 0.588540mean = -0.004767 + 0.004202*e2^e3 + -0.012679*e3^e1 + 0.000449*e1^e2aveA = 0.011200aveB = -0.011200`

One can see that the correlations match -a.b exactly to 6 decimal places event by event. Scroll to the end and you will see the mean values and A and B averages.
.
FrediFizzx
Independent Physics Researcher

Posts: 1700
Joined: Tue Mar 19, 2013 7:12 pm
Location: N. California, USA

Re: 3-Sphere 3D Vectors 2-Particle Simulation

FrediFizzx wrote:At long last here is the code for mapping QM to GA for validation of the product calculation with 3D vectors for a and b.

Code: Select all
`//Adaptation of Albert Jan Wonnink's original code based on GAViewer for Joy Christian's S^3 Model of the 2-particle //This is a mapping of the quantum mechanics project to GA.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 QM mapped to GA S^3 Model for the 2-particle correlation");   default_model(p3ga);   N=50000;                               //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   {          a=getRandomUnitVector();          Da=I a;          b=getRandomUnitVector();          Db=I b;          lambda=getRandomLambda();        //lambda is a fair coin, giving the +1 or -1 choice           Sa=Da;                           //polarizer takes Sa to Da          Sb=Db;                           //polarizer takes Sb to Db          A=(Da)*(lambda*(-Sa));           //Measurement function          B=(lambda*Sb)*(Db);              //Measurement function          LA=A/(-Sa);          LB=B/(Sb);                       //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;          p_a=atan2(scalar(Da/(e3^e1)), scalar(Da/(e2^e3)));  //Get angle for a vector in x-y plane          p_b=atan2(scalar(Db/(e3^e1)), scalar(Db/(e2^e3)));  //Get angle for b vector in x-y plane          neg_adotb=-(a.b);          print(neg_adotb, "f");             //Outputs -a.b event by event          if(p_a*p_b>0) {theta=acos(a.b)*180/pi;} else {theta=-acos(a.b)*180/pi+360;}          print(theta, "f");                 //Output the angles          print(correlation=scalar(q), "f"); //Output the correlations          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();}`

Thanks Fred! Many, many thanks.

Yes, this will reproduce the singlet correlations perfectly, as the number of trials goes to infinity, as is easy to check if you know just a little elementary GA and if you know the law of large numbers. It helps if you also trust your computers pseudo random number generator, and have studied the GAviewer manual for half a day, and have played with GAviewer on your own computer for a few hours.

In my humble opinion, your computer programme deviates from Joy's published mathematical formulas in two important respects:

1) It does not explicitly implement the *definitions* of the measurement functions (which involve taking some limits) but jumps ahead, and instead adopts Joy's own evaluation of those limits. So anyone who finds those evaluations troubling gets no solace or illumination from the code. But we knew that in advance. You and Joy find those evaluations just routine physics and definition. OK.

2) It includes an extra step, the very revealing line
Code: Select all
` if(lambda==1) {q=(LA LB);} else {q=(LB LA);}`
which you will not find in Joy's written mathematical formulas. If I recall correctly, this brilliant innovation (or "fix") was discovered by Albert Jan Wonninck.

But it is the bump under the carpet, not so "hidden" this time. As I see it, Joy needs to switch a sign somewhere, and this is where you are doing it for him in your code. At least, that's how I see it. But then I don't see any errors in Bell's theorem, so I "know" that any contradiction with Bell's theorem must be due to a mistake of some kind. (I'm not one of those people who think that Bell's theorem is both true and untrue and that we have to rewrite logic and/or the ZFC axioms. But of course, that is a logical possibility).
gill1109
Mathematical Statistician

Posts: 1653
Joined: Tue Feb 04, 2014 10:39 pm
Location: Leiden

Re: 3-Sphere 3D Vectors 2-Particle Simulation

gill1109 wrote:
In my humble opinion, your computer programme deviates from Joy's published mathematical formulas in two important respects:

No, it doesn't. The following two papers contain all the relevant formulas used by Fred in his code: (1) https://arxiv.org/abs/1103.1879, and (2) https://arxiv.org/abs/1405.2355.

gill1109 wrote:
1) It does not explicitly implement the *definitions* of the measurement functions (which involve taking some limits) but jumps ahead, and instead adopts Joy's own evaluation of those limits. So anyone who finds those evaluations troubling gets no solace or illumination from the code. But we knew that in advance. You and Joy find those evaluations just routine physics and definition. OK.

Anyone who understands GA knows that the limit operations are equivalent to the divisions by the bivectors used by Fred. Again, for details, consult the formulas in the above two papers.

gill1109 wrote:
2) It includes an extra step, the very revealing line
Code: Select all
` if(lambda==1) {q=(LA LB);} else {q=(LB LA);}`
which you will not find in Joy's written mathematical formulas.

There is no "extra step." That step simply encodes my hidden variable λ. But you, Richard D. Gill, have never understood the meaning of my hidden variable λ in all these eight years. Fred understands the physical and mathematical meanings of my hidden variable well, and now Jay also understands them very well. Only you are left behind for the past so many years.

gill1109 wrote:
But it is the bump under the carpet, not so "hidden" this time. As I see it, Joy needs to switch a sign somewhere, and this is where you are doing it for him in your code. At least, that's how I see it. But then I don't see any errors in Bell's theorem, so I "know" that any contradiction with Bell's theorem must be due to a mistake of some kind.

As already noted, there is no "bump under the carpet." The alternative sign is just the hidden variable λ, and that is precisely what Fred has used in his code. You will never understand this.

Bell's theorem is quite wrong. Therefore your opinion based on it is also wrong. Let me link one of my papers to make sure people here understand what I mean by "Bell's theorem is wrong."

***
Last edited by Joy Christian on Sat Jul 06, 2019 8:40 am, edited 1 time in total.
Joy Christian
Research Physicist

Posts: 2132
Joined: Wed Feb 05, 2014 4:49 am
Location: Oxford, United Kingdom

Re: 3-Sphere 3D Vectors 2-Particle Simulation

No, I have never understood your work, Joy.

Please find an expert on GA to comment on your claims. For our symposium, I was thinking of asking the GA specialists in Amsterdam, namely the computer scientists who actually wrote GAviewer. And I’ll certainly invite John Baez too, though I doubt he would come. Do you have any other suggestions?

It would also be good if we could get hold of Sabine Hossenfelder. She’s an eloquent critic of the physics establishment, and a very strong theoretical physicist herself.

Unfortunately Jay’s enterprise has no bearing on the technical math issues of Joy’s GA approach, since his starting point is the standard QM derivation of the singlet correlations, to which he hopes to add an interpretation, or come up with new definitions, such that they themselves can be given the “certificate” local realist. Which, by the way, was already done by Brassard and Raymond-Robichaud. They gave careful, new, metaphysical definitions of “local” and “real”, and came to your desired conclusion. I believe their paper is at least 80 pages long and very, very technical.
Last edited by gill1109 on Sat Jul 06, 2019 8:01 am, edited 2 times in total.
gill1109
Mathematical Statistician

Posts: 1653
Joined: Tue Feb 04, 2014 10:39 pm
Location: Leiden

Re: 3-Sphere 3D Vectors 2-Particle Simulation

gill1109 wrote:No, I have never understood your work, Joy.

Please find an expert on GA to comment on your claims. For our symposium, I was thinking of asking the GA specialists in Amsterdam, namely the computer scientists who actually wrote GAviewer. And I’ll certainly invite John Baez too, though I doubt he would come. Do you have any other suggestions?

You can invite whoever you like. I am unconcerned about anyone's opinion, no matter how reputable, because my mathematics and physics, as well as Fred's code, speak for themselves.

***
Joy Christian
Research Physicist

Posts: 2132
Joined: Wed Feb 05, 2014 4:49 am
Location: Oxford, United Kingdom

Re: 3-Sphere 3D Vectors 2-Particle Simulation

Joy Christian wrote:
gill1109 wrote:No, I have never understood your work, Joy.

Please find an expert on GA to comment on your claims. For our symposium, I was thinking of asking the GA specialists in Amsterdam, namely the computer scientists who actually wrote GAviewer. And I’ll certainly invite John Baez too, though I doubt he would come. Do you have any other suggestions?

You can invite whoever you like. I am unconcerned about anyone's opinion, no matter how reputable, because my mathematics and physics, as well as Fred's code, speak for themselves.

I always admired your style, Joy! A real dude. Of course your work has to speak for itself. That’s the way it goes.

We’ll invite whoever you approve of, it’s a joint enterprise and you’ll be at least consulted, every step of the way. Jay coordinates. I provide the venue. And I hope sufficient funding. The symposium won’t be stopped by the RSOS. It can only be stopped by you, since you’re its raison d’etre. The workshop in which the symposium is to be embedded can of course go ahead without you. We can have a workshop excursion (canal and lake boat trip / visit to Escher museum / visit to Mauritshuis / visit to Scheveningen harbour fish restaurant) instead.
gill1109
Mathematical Statistician

Posts: 1653
Joined: Tue Feb 04, 2014 10:39 pm
Location: Leiden

Re: 3-Sphere 3D Vectors 2-Particle Simulation

gill1109 wrote: … Thanks Fred! Many, many thanks.

You're welcome. This is the simplified version of the mapping from QM to GA for validation of the product calculation event by event. Had to get that working first. I'm working on the more complete QM to GA mapping version now with the sgn(n.s)n function in it.
.
FrediFizzx
Independent Physics Researcher

Posts: 1700
Joined: Tue Mar 19, 2013 7:12 pm
Location: N. California, USA

Re: 3-Sphere 3D Vectors 2-Particle Simulation

Here is the GAViewer code that implements the limit functions sgn(n.s)n for validation of the product calculation. Eq. (16) is here.

Code: Select all
`//Adaptation of Albert Jan Wonnink's original code based on GAViewer for Joy Christian's S^3 Model of the 2-particle //correlation.  This is a mapping of the quantum mechanics project to GA.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);}function sgn(y){     if(y < 0) {return(-1);} else {return(1);}}   batch test(){   set_window_title("3D Test of QM mapped to GA S^3 Model for the 2-particle correlation");   default_model(p3ga);   N=5000;                               //number of iterations (trials)   I=e1^e2^e3;   ss=0;   t=0;   u=0;   for(nn=0;nn<N;nn=nn+1)                  //perform the experiment N times   {          a=getRandomUnitVector();          Da=I a;          b=getRandomUnitVector();          Db=I b;          s=getRandomUnitVector();          //S1=I s;               //bivector for particle spins          //S2=S1;               //-S1 + S2 = 0 for singlet zero spin          if(sgn(a.s)==1) {S1=Da;} else {S1=-Da;}  //polarizer takes S1 to +/-Da          if(sgn(b.s)==1) {S2=Db;} else {S2=-Db;}  //polarizer takes S2 to +/-Db          lambda=getRandomLambda();   //lambda is a fair coin, giving the +1 or -1 choice           A=(Da*lambda*(-S1));      //Measurement function limit is function above          B=(lambda*S2*Db);      //Measurement function limit is function above          q=0;          //if(lambda==1) {q=A B;} else {q=B A;}          //Above is the usual form of the product calculation but we will expand it.          //if(lambda==1) {q=(Da*lambda*(-S1)) (lambda*S2*Db);} else {q=(lambda*S2*Db) (Da*lambda*(-S1));}          //Next we will use the fact that S2 = S1 and make some replacements to conform to eq.(16)          //and it is easy to see that lambda cancels out.  We are now ready to perform the correlations.          if(lambda==1) {q=(Da (-S2))(S2 Db);} else {q=(Db S1)((-S1) Da);}          ss=ss+q;          p_a=atan2(scalar(Da/(e3^e1)), scalar(Da/(e2^e3)));  //Get angle for a vector in x-y plane          p_b=atan2(scalar(Db/(e3^e1)), scalar(Db/(e2^e3)));  //Get angle for b vector in x-y plane          neg_adotb=-(a.b);          print(neg_adotb, "f");             //Outputs -a.b event by event          if(p_a*p_b>0) {theta=acos(a.b)*180/pi;} else {theta=-acos(a.b)*180/pi+360;}          print(theta, "f");                 //Output the angles event by event          print(correlation=scalar(q), "f"); //Output the correlations event by event          t=t+A;          u=u+B;      }      mean=ss/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();}`

Here is a sample of the output data. Scroll to the end to see the mean and A and B averages.

Code: Select all
`neg_adotb = 0.769051theta = 219.731262correlation = 0.769051neg_adotb = 0.980398theta = 191.363083correlation = 0.980398neg_adotb = -0.939377theta = 20.052734correlation = -0.939377neg_adotb = -0.184919theta = 280.656403correlation = -0.184919neg_adotb = 0.940939theta = 199.790146correlation = 0.940939neg_adotb = -0.027878theta = 271.597473correlation = -0.027878neg_adotb = 0.144887theta = 98.330711correlation = 0.144887neg_adotb = 0.248063theta = 255.637054correlation = 0.248063neg_adotb = -0.620178theta = 51.670876correlation = -0.620178neg_adotb = 0.116364theta = 263.317719correlation = 0.116364neg_adotb = 0.862768theta = 210.371216correlation = 0.862768neg_adotb = -0.891815theta = 26.897833correlation = -0.891815neg_adotb = 0.398351theta = 246.524857correlation = 0.398351neg_adotb = -0.438543theta = 296.010925correlation = -0.438543neg_adotb = -0.421157theta = 65.092339correlation = -0.421157neg_adotb = -0.612455theta = 307.767212correlation = -0.612455neg_adotb = 0.873530theta = 150.871521correlation = 0.873530neg_adotb = 0.541121theta = 237.240051correlation = 0.541121neg_adotb = 0.570693theta = 235.201431correlation = 0.570693neg_adotb = 0.508569theta = 239.431442correlation = 0.508569neg_adotb = -0.923558theta = 22.548048correlation = -0.923558neg_adotb = 0.956183theta = 197.023895correlation = 0.956183neg_adotb = 0.073493theta = 265.785339correlation = 0.073493neg_adotb = -0.546572theta = 56.867832correlation = -0.546572neg_adotb = 0.027456theta = 268.426697correlation = 0.027456neg_adotb = -0.929541theta = 21.636635correlation = -0.929541neg_adotb = -0.271182theta = 74.265366correlation = -0.271182neg_adotb = 0.717043theta = 224.189148correlation = 0.717043neg_adotb = -0.272586theta = 285.818207correlation = -0.272586neg_adotb = -0.218020theta = 282.592743correlation = -0.218020neg_adotb = -0.310607theta = 71.904175correlation = -0.310607neg_adotb = 0.752469theta = 221.195328correlation = 0.752469neg_adotb = 0.744046theta = 138.077209correlation = 0.744046neg_adotb = -0.277602theta = 286.117126correlation = -0.277602neg_adotb = -0.154770theta = 81.096542correlation = -0.154770neg_adotb = 0.273201theta = 254.145157correlation = 0.273201neg_adotb = 0.773508theta = 219.330078correlation = 0.773508neg_adotb = 0.983223theta = 190.509918correlation = 0.983223neg_adotb = -0.223568theta = 282.918701correlation = -0.223568neg_adotb = 0.498953theta = 240.069229correlation = 0.498953neg_adotb = 0.412289theta = 245.651306correlation = 0.412289neg_adotb = 0.159591theta = 99.183144correlation = 0.159591neg_adotb = -0.052631theta = 86.983070correlation = -0.052631neg_adotb = 0.545646theta = 236.931152correlation = 0.545646neg_adotb = 0.856315theta = 211.094681correlation = 0.856315neg_adotb = -0.403730theta = 293.811584correlation = -0.403730neg_adotb = 0.146485theta = 98.423294correlation = 0.146485neg_adotb = -0.973713theta = 13.166204correlation = -0.973713neg_adotb = -0.488209theta = 299.222931correlation = -0.488209neg_adotb = 0.557705theta = 123.897202correlation = 0.557705neg_adotb = 0.387777theta = 247.183746correlation = 0.387777mean = -0.006428 + -0.003079*e2^e3 + 0.005229*e3^e1 + -0.009692*e1^e2aveA = 0.014000aveB = 0.003600`

Of course the plot will be the same as in the first post of this thread.
.
FrediFizzx
Independent Physics Researcher

Posts: 1700
Joined: Tue Mar 19, 2013 7:12 pm
Location: N. California, USA

Re: 3-Sphere 3D Vectors 2-Particle Simulation

Well, let's see who is paying attention here. An hour ago I discovered a mistake in the code just presented but it doesn't affect the results. I wonder who will find it first?
.
FrediFizzx
Independent Physics Researcher

Posts: 1700
Joined: Tue Mar 19, 2013 7:12 pm
Location: N. California, USA

Re: 3-Sphere 3D Vectors 2-Particle Simulation

But this is not a simulation of the draft "Quantum Mechanical Prediction of the Singlet State with a Hidden Variable."

In that draft, there are no bivectors. There is no GA. Please make a simulation that faithfully implements the formulas in the draft as they are written there.
Heinera

Posts: 696
Joined: Thu Feb 06, 2014 1:50 am

Re: 3-Sphere 3D Vectors 2-Particle Simulation

FrediFizzx wrote:Well, let's see who is paying attention here. An hour ago I discovered a mistake in the code just presented but it doesn't affect the results. I wonder who will find it first?
.

I'm interested in your GA version, Fred! But I've been rather busy with other things for a couple of days. (And will be, for a couple of days to come).

But I will come back to you on this, probably next weekend...

If you want to replace the GA code by better GA code, please just go ahead. When I come back to you - I'll just take the then, latest version.
gill1109
Mathematical Statistician

Posts: 1653
Joined: Tue Feb 04, 2014 10:39 pm
Location: Leiden

Re: 3-Sphere 3D Vectors 2-Particle Simulation

Heinera wrote:But this is not a simulation of the draft "Quantum Mechanical Prediction of the Singlet State with a Hidden Variable."

In that draft, there are no bivectors. There is no GA. Please make a simulation that faithfully implements the formulas in the draft as they are written there.

Well, Heine is not paying attention I guess. This is a pretty faithful mapping of QM to GA for EPR-Bohm. I'm not interested in doing anything else. If you want to do something else or use some other code, go ahead.

Or... if you have questions or need further explanations, go ahead with that also.
.
FrediFizzx
Independent Physics Researcher

Posts: 1700
Joined: Tue Mar 19, 2013 7:12 pm
Location: N. California, USA

Re: 3-Sphere 3D Vectors 2-Particle Simulation

gill1109 wrote:
FrediFizzx wrote:Well, let's see who is paying attention here. An hour ago I discovered a mistake in the code just presented but it doesn't affect the results. I wonder who will find it first?
.

I'm interested in your GA version, Fred! But I've been rather busy with other things for a couple of days. (And will be, for a couple of days to come).

But I will come back to you on this, probably next weekend...

If you want to replace the GA code by better GA code, please just go ahead. When I come back to you - I'll just take the then, latest version.

The code is fixed now. Enjoy!
.
FrediFizzx
Independent Physics Researcher

Posts: 1700
Joined: Tue Mar 19, 2013 7:12 pm
Location: N. California, USA

Re: 3-Sphere 3D Vectors 2-Particle Simulation

Fred:

I'm interested in working with the code. I have GAViewer and have tried using it, but I don't know how to load your program in it. Can you give me some hints about this? The console in GAViewer isn't very user friendly.
jreed

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

Re: 3-Sphere 3D Vectors 2-Particle Simulation

jreed wrote:Fred:

I'm interested in working with the code. I have GAViewer and have tried using it, but I don't know how to load your program in it. Can you give me some hints about this? The console in GAViewer isn't very user friendly.

HI John,

Copy the code and save it as a text file with a .g extension. Then File/Open/Open g file. Then type test() at the prompt after the file is parsed.

Perhaps you can translate this code to a Mathematica file? That would be very good as GAViewer doesn't have much in the way of array or table support. I have to copy the data then process in Word then import into Excel.
.
FrediFizzx
Independent Physics Researcher

Posts: 1700
Joined: Tue Mar 19, 2013 7:12 pm
Location: N. California, USA

Re: 3-Sphere 3D Vectors 2-Particle Simulation

FrediFizzx wrote:
jreed wrote:Fred:

I'm interested in working with the code. I have GAViewer and have tried using it, but I don't know how to load your program in it. Can you give me some hints about this? The console in GAViewer isn't very user friendly.

HI John,

Copy the code and save it as a text file with a .g extension. Then File/Open/Open g file. Then type test() at the prompt after the file is parsed.

Perhaps you can translate this code to a Mathematica file? That would be very good as GAViewer doesn't have much in the way of array or table support. I have to copy the data then process in Word then import into Excel.
.

Thanks Fred. Yes, that's what I had in mind. I need to make sure that I can come up with the same answers in Mathematica as GAViewer gets.
jreed

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

Re: 3-Sphere 3D Vectors 2-Particle Simulation

jreed wrote:
FrediFizzx wrote:
jreed wrote:Fred:

I'm interested in working with the code. I have GAViewer and have tried using it, but I don't know how to load your program in it. Can you give me some hints about this? The console in GAViewer isn't very user friendly.

HI John,

Copy the code and save it as a text file with a .g extension. Then File/Open/Open g file. Then type test() at the prompt after the file is parsed.

Perhaps you can translate this code to a Mathematica file? That would be very good as GAViewer doesn't have much in the way of array or table support. I have to copy the data then process in Word then import into Excel.
.

Thanks Fred. Yes, that's what I had in mind. I need to make sure that I can come up with the same answers in Mathematica as GAViewer gets.

You're welcome. You will probably need some kind of GA package or Clifford algebra package for Mathematica. I tried a few but didn't have the patience to get them to work. GAViewer code seems really simple compared to them and I'm pretty lazy in my old age.

But GAViewer is a really fun and cool way to learn geometric algebra. There is a lot of things it will do that I haven't even tried yet. And I do think it will export data to files. I remember doing that.
.
FrediFizzx
Independent Physics Researcher

Posts: 1700
Joined: Tue Mar 19, 2013 7:12 pm
Location: N. California, USA

Re: 3-Sphere 3D Vectors 2-Particle Simulation

FrediFizzx wrote:
jreed wrote:
Thanks Fred. Yes, that's what I had in mind. I need to make sure that I can come up with the same answers in Mathematica as GAViewer gets.

You're welcome. You will probably need some kind of GA package or Clifford algebra package for Mathematica. I tried a few but didn't have the patience to get them to work. GAViewer code seems really simple compared to them and I'm pretty lazy in my old age.

But GAViewer is a really fun and cool way to learn geometric algebra. There is a lot of things it will do that I haven't even tried yet. And I do think it will export data to files. I remember doing that.
.

It might actually be easier in Mathematica to just do the QM math with Pauli algebra. There is bound to be some good QM packages for Mathematica. Maybe I will look that up as I hadn't thought of it before.
.
FrediFizzx
Independent Physics Researcher

Posts: 1700
Joined: Tue Mar 19, 2013 7:12 pm
Location: N. California, USA

Re: 3-Sphere 3D Vectors 2-Particle Simulation

FrediFizzx wrote:
FrediFizzx wrote:
jreed wrote:
Thanks Fred. Yes, that's what I had in mind. I need to make sure that I can come up with the same answers in Mathematica as GAViewer gets.

You're welcome. You will probably need some kind of GA package or Clifford algebra package for Mathematica. I tried a few but didn't have the patience to get them to work. GAViewer code seems really simple compared to them and I'm pretty lazy in my old age.

But GAViewer is a really fun and cool way to learn geometric algebra. There is a lot of things it will do that I haven't even tried yet. And I do think it will export data to files. I remember doing that.
.

It might actually be easier in Mathematica to just do the QM math with Pauli algebra. There is bound to be some good QM packages for Mathematica. Maybe I will look that up as I hadn't thought of it before.
.

I'm using Pauli matrices to represent the vectors in geometric algebra. The other components can be constructed from these. The Pauli matrices are already in Mathematica.
jreed

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

Re: 3-Sphere 3D Vectors 2-Particle Simulation

jreed wrote:
FrediFizzx wrote:It might actually be easier in Mathematica to just do the QM math with Pauli algebra. There is bound to be some good QM packages for Mathematica. Maybe I will look that up as I hadn't thought of it before.
.

I'm using Pauli matrices to represent the vectors in geometric algebra. The other components can be constructed from these. The Pauli matrices are already in Mathematica.

Oh, that is right. Looking forward to seeing this calculation in Mathematica.
.
FrediFizzx
Independent Physics Researcher

Posts: 1700
Joined: Tue Mar 19, 2013 7:12 pm
Location: N. California, USA

Next