Heinera wrote:FrediFizzx wrote:So what are the probabilities for 22.5 degrees?
.
Do you need to know that in order to run the simulation?
Hey, I'm not going to do all the work here. Tell me what I am looking for. It already works for a = b.
.
Heinera wrote:FrediFizzx wrote:So what are the probabilities for 22.5 degrees?
.
Do you need to know that in order to run the simulation?
FrediFizzx wrote:Hey, I'm not going to do all the work here. Tell me what I am looking for. It already works for a = b.
.
Heinera wrote:FrediFizzx wrote:Hey, I'm not going to do all the work here. Tell me what I am looking for. It already works for a = b.
.
Tell me what you found, then I'll tell you if that's what we were looking for.
FrediFizzx wrote:These predictions for the A and B outcomes of course are only going to work in some instances because QM can't predict individual event by event outcomes for A and B. So pretty silly to try and use them.
I'm happy that we get the correct results for random vectors and for a = b.
.
Heinera wrote:FrediFizzx wrote:These predictions for the A and B outcomes of course are only going to work in some instances because QM can't predict individual event by event outcomes for A and B. So pretty silly to try and use them.
I'm happy that we get the correct results for random vectors and for a = b.
.
QM do predict specific values for these frequencies of outcome pairs. Also, since you use random variables, your simulation doesn't produce any more "predictions" than QM, so I don't see your argument.
Let me also quote from Joy's paper that he cited earlier in the thread: "Our interest lies in an event-by-event reproduction of the probabilistic predictions of this entangled quantum state in a locally causal manner."
FrediFizzx wrote:Heinera wrote:Let me also quote from Joy's paper that he cited earlier in the thread: "Our interest lies in an event-by-event reproduction of the probabilistic predictions of this entangled quantum state in a locally causal manner."
Well, we are doing QM here. If you figure out how QM can predict individual event by event outcomes for A and B let us know. Then we would be able to do the frequencies of the outcome pairs.
.
Heinera wrote:FrediFizzx wrote:Heinera wrote:Let me also quote from Joy's paper that he cited earlier in the thread: "Our interest lies in an event-by-event reproduction of the probabilistic predictions of this entangled quantum state in a locally causal manner."
Well, we are doing QM here. If you figure out how QM can predict individual event by event outcomes for A and B let us know. Then we would be able to do the frequencies of the outcome pairs.
.
Why don't you just ask Joy? And what you are doing is obviously not QM, since you can't even reproduce the "probabilistic predictions."
And, this reply marks my end of the participation in the thread here. More urgent things to do.
FrediFizzx wrote:Heinera wrote:FrediFizzx wrote:Heinera wrote:Do you mean that A and B are random in your simulation?
Of course A and B are random +/-1 because a, b and s are all random.
.
So I thought. Can you run your simulation again with A and B set to two specific values, A = 0 and B = 22.5 (degrees), if it's not too much effort? Just curious.
I suppose you mean the vectors a = 0 and b = 22.5 degrees. A and B are the +/-1 outputs. I might try to play around with fixed vectors. But what is it you want to see with those settings?
.
gill1109 wrote:...
This is not an "event by event simulation". It is just a correct calculation and subsequent plot of the standard QM correlation and mean values for the singlet state and two ideal spin measurements, for any pair of measurement settings. ...
FrediFizzx wrote:gill1109 wrote: If you figure out how QM can predict individual event by event outcomes for A and B, let us know.
.
Heinera wrote:FrediFizzx wrote:gill1109 wrote: If you figure out how QM can predict individual event by event outcomes for A and B, let us know.
.
Of course you can do an event by event simulation of QM, as long as you use random variables. It's trivial.
FrediFizzx wrote:Heinera wrote:FrediFizzx wrote:gill1109 wrote: If you figure out how QM can predict individual event by event outcomes for A and B, let us know.
.
Of course you can do an event by event simulation of QM, as long as you use random variables. It's trivial.
Let's see your local measurement functions.
.
Heinera wrote:FrediFizzx wrote:Heinera wrote:
Of course you can do an event by event simulation of QM, as long as you use random variables. It's trivial.
Let's see your local measurement functions.
.
Of course it won't be local. That's Bell's theorem, right there. Congratulations!
FrediFizzx wrote:Heinera wrote:FrediFizzx wrote:Heinera wrote:
Of course you can do an event by event simulation of QM, as long as you use random variables. It's trivial.
Let's see your local measurement functions.
.
Of course it won't be local. That's Bell's theorem, right there. Congratulations!
Sorry, it's not Bell's junk physics theory. Nature is local. But OK, let's see any functions for A and B. We will let you cheat this one time.
.
Heinera wrote:
It's really puzzling that you admit that QM can't have an event by event simulation with local measurement functions, since this is exactly what Bell's theorem states.
But for non-local, it's trivial. http://rpubs.com/heinera/16727
FrediFizzx wrote: It's not QM. It's just some non-local junk.
.
Heinera wrote:FrediFizzx wrote: It's not QM. It's just some non-local junk.
.
FrediFizzx wrote:Heinera wrote:FrediFizzx wrote: It's not QM. It's just some non-local junk.
.
Wise guy, huh. Want's to waste our time with junk.
Let's see some actual A and B measurement functions for QM. No HV required. You won't be able to predict individual event by event outcomes for A and B. Not so trivial after all, is it?
.
Return to Sci.Physics.Foundations
Users browsing this forum: ahrefs [Bot] and 84 guests