Validation of QM Local Prod Calc Pauli Matrices

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

Re: Validation of QM Local Prod Calc Pauli Matrices

Postby FrediFizzx » Fri Jul 19, 2019 3:03 pm

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. :D It already works for a = b.
.
FrediFizzx
Independent Physics Researcher
 
Posts: 2905
Joined: Tue Mar 19, 2013 7:12 pm
Location: N. California, USA

Re: Validation of QM Local Prod Calc Pauli Matrices

Postby Heinera » Fri Jul 19, 2019 3:07 pm

FrediFizzx wrote:Hey, I'm not going to do all the work here. Tell me what I am looking for. :D It already works for a = b.
.

Tell me what you found, then I'll tell you if that's what we were looking for.
Heinera
 
Posts: 917
Joined: Thu Feb 06, 2014 1:50 am

Re: Validation of QM Local Prod Calc Pauli Matrices

Postby FrediFizzx » Fri Jul 19, 2019 3:37 pm

Heinera wrote:
FrediFizzx wrote:Hey, I'm not going to do all the work here. Tell me what I am looking for. :D It already works for a = b.
.

Tell me what you found, then I'll tell you if that's what we were looking for.

I haven't found anything yet. I'm satisfied with the results for a = b, IOW zero angle, for this simple QM local model. So what are the probabilities for 22.5 degrees? Maybe I will try to figure it out.
.
FrediFizzx
Independent Physics Researcher
 
Posts: 2905
Joined: Tue Mar 19, 2013 7:12 pm
Location: N. California, USA

Re: Validation of QM Local Prod Calc Pauli Matrices

Postby FrediFizzx » Fri Jul 19, 2019 9:50 pm

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.
.
FrediFizzx
Independent Physics Researcher
 
Posts: 2905
Joined: Tue Mar 19, 2013 7:12 pm
Location: N. California, USA

Re: Validation of QM Local Prod Calc Pauli Matrices

Postby Heinera » Sat Jul 20, 2019 1:48 am

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."
Heinera
 
Posts: 917
Joined: Thu Feb 06, 2014 1:50 am

Re: Validation of QM Local Prod Calc Pauli Matrices

Postby FrediFizzx » Sat Jul 20, 2019 9:03 am

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."

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. :D Then we would be able to do the frequencies of the outcome pairs.
.
FrediFizzx
Independent Physics Researcher
 
Posts: 2905
Joined: Tue Mar 19, 2013 7:12 pm
Location: N. California, USA

Re: Validation of QM Local Prod Calc Pauli Matrices

Postby Heinera » Sat Jul 20, 2019 9:31 am

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. :D 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.
Heinera
 
Posts: 917
Joined: Thu Feb 06, 2014 1:50 am

Re: Validation of QM Local Prod Calc Pauli Matrices

Postby FrediFizzx » Sat Jul 20, 2019 10:03 am

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. :D 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.

Why would I ask Joy for something that is impossible? :D I'm satisfied that since we get the correct correlation, the correct result for a = b, and the correct distribution of outcome pairs for random vectors that we are in fact doing QM. The rest relies on QM being able to predict individual event by event outcomes for A and B which of course it can't do.
.
FrediFizzx
Independent Physics Researcher
 
Posts: 2905
Joined: Tue Mar 19, 2013 7:12 pm
Location: N. California, USA

Re: Validation of QM Local Prod Calc Pauli Matrices

Postby gill1109 » Sun Jul 21, 2019 8:19 am

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?
.

Fred picks random unit 3-d vectors a and b, computes the correlation according to Joy's quaternion model, computes the angle between the two vectors, and finally plots correlations against angles. Finding, of course, the cosine curve, to as much accuracy as you like. Notice the line in the code where the order of multiplication of the two quaternions depends on whether whether lambda = +1 or -1.

What Heine wants is to have a fixed, e.g. a point on the equator, to take b as a point any particular desired number of degrees away from a, also on the equator, and now compute just one correlation, display it, and also display the result according to the standard QM formula (the point on the cosine curve).

Of course the two numbers will be equal to as much accuracy as you wish to compute them.

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.

Joy's event by event simulation used the Pearle model as implemented by yours truly (including necessary corrections to the formulas in the original paper). See https://rpubs.com/gill1109/Pearle and https://arxiv.org/abs/1505.04431 )The model is similar to those of Caroline Thompson, of Michel Fodje, and of Hans de Raedt & Kristel Michielsen. Those authors all got close to the singlet correlations. Pearle gets them *exactly*.

Apart from the detector efficiency loophole one can also exploit the coincidence loophole. This gives even more scope for "faking" the singlet correlations in experiments which do not satisfy the protocol of the recent "loophole-free experiments" (the protocol which Bell himself outlined in his later works). Wikipedia: "This loophole was noted by A. Fine in 1980 and 1981, by S. Pascazio in 1986, and by J. Larsson and R. D. Gill in 2004". https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loopholes_in_Bell_test_experiments#Coincidence_loophole
According to Karl Hess (https://www.amazon.com/Einstein-Was-Right-Karl-Hess/dp/9814463698 "Einstein was Right!"), Larsson and Gill stole the idea from the famous Hess and Philipp papers in PNAS. Their model was the subject of Karl's inaugural presentation to the US National Academy of Sciences. Hence it got published despite the referee's negative advice. It certainly stirred up a lot of controversy.
gill1109
Mathematical Statistician
 
Posts: 2812
Joined: Tue Feb 04, 2014 10:39 pm
Location: Leiden

Re: Validation of QM Local Prod Calc Pauli Matrices

Postby FrediFizzx » Sun Jul 21, 2019 8:37 am

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. ...

It is an event by event calculation of the product of the QM local measurement functions using Pauli matrices to be precise. Never claimed for it to be anything more than validation of the product. If you figure out how QM can predict individual event by event outcomes for A and B, let us know. :D
.
FrediFizzx
Independent Physics Researcher
 
Posts: 2905
Joined: Tue Mar 19, 2013 7:12 pm
Location: N. California, USA

Re: Validation of QM Local Prod Calc Pauli Matrices

Postby Heinera » Sun Jul 21, 2019 3:51 pm

FrediFizzx wrote:
gill1109 wrote: If you figure out how QM can predict individual event by event outcomes for A and B, let us know. :D
.


Of course you can do an event by event simulation of QM, as long as you use random variables. It's trivial.
Heinera
 
Posts: 917
Joined: Thu Feb 06, 2014 1:50 am

Re: Validation of QM Local Prod Calc Pauli Matrices

Postby FrediFizzx » Sun Jul 21, 2019 4:05 pm

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. :D
.


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.
.
FrediFizzx
Independent Physics Researcher
 
Posts: 2905
Joined: Tue Mar 19, 2013 7:12 pm
Location: N. California, USA

Re: Validation of QM Local Prod Calc Pauli Matrices

Postby Heinera » Sun Jul 21, 2019 4:13 pm

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. :D
.


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!
Heinera
 
Posts: 917
Joined: Thu Feb 06, 2014 1:50 am

Re: Validation of QM Local Prod Calc Pauli Matrices

Postby FrediFizzx » Sun Jul 21, 2019 4:24 pm

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. :D
.
FrediFizzx
Independent Physics Researcher
 
Posts: 2905
Joined: Tue Mar 19, 2013 7:12 pm
Location: N. California, USA

Re: Validation of QM Local Prod Calc Pauli Matrices

Postby Heinera » Sun Jul 21, 2019 4:33 pm

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. :D
.


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
Heinera
 
Posts: 917
Joined: Thu Feb 06, 2014 1:50 am

Re: Validation of QM Local Prod Calc Pauli Matrices

Postby FrediFizzx » Sun Jul 21, 2019 4:43 pm

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


Sorry, but I don't see any Pauli matrices there. It's not QM. It's just some non-local junk. I don't even see what the functions A and B are.
.
FrediFizzx
Independent Physics Researcher
 
Posts: 2905
Joined: Tue Mar 19, 2013 7:12 pm
Location: N. California, USA

Re: Validation of QM Local Prod Calc Pauli Matrices

Postby Heinera » Sun Jul 21, 2019 4:51 pm

FrediFizzx wrote: It's not QM. It's just some non-local junk.
.

:lol: :lol: :lol:
Heinera
 
Posts: 917
Joined: Thu Feb 06, 2014 1:50 am

Re: Validation of QM Local Prod Calc Pauli Matrices

Postby FrediFizzx » Sun Jul 21, 2019 5:04 pm

Heinera wrote:
FrediFizzx wrote: It's not QM. It's just some non-local junk.
.

:lol: :lol: :lol:

Wise guy, huh. Want's to waste our time with junk. :D

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?
.
FrediFizzx
Independent Physics Researcher
 
Posts: 2905
Joined: Tue Mar 19, 2013 7:12 pm
Location: N. California, USA

Re: Validation of QM Local Prod Calc Pauli Matrices

Postby gill1109 » Sun Jul 21, 2019 11:02 pm

FrediFizzx wrote:
Heinera wrote:
FrediFizzx wrote: It's not QM. It's just some non-local junk.
.

:lol: :lol: :lol:

Wise guy, huh. Want's to waste our time with junk. :D

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?
.

Fred, aren't you contradicting Joy's claims here? Joy claims that he has functions A(a, lambda) and B(b, lambda) which take the values +/-1, and which reproduce the quantum correlations which you average over many repetitions, ie, when many, many times nature picks a new value of lambda. The experimenter doesn't get to see those values of lambda - it's a hidden variable. But it is there, in reality. So in principle, a computer programmer can play God - can play being Nature - and can "see" the hidden variable'; indeed, not only sees it, but actually creates it too.

Moreover, Joy claims that he can arrange this with lambda being a fair coin toss - so it also just takes the values +/- 1 and in the long run, each value occurs equally often. There is a problem here, that he does not do computer programming himself. He needs friends to do it for him. I think it was Albert-Jan Wonninck who first came up with your present and successful event-based computer simulation, but A(a, lambda) and B(b, lambda) do not only take the values +/- 1, they are geometric algebra bivectors, they are both square roots of 1, and you multiply them before averaging over many outcomes of lambda, in an order each time depending on the value of lambda. It is brilliant, but it breaks the rules of the game. That's why it can violate Bell inequalities, of course.

But so far nobody has been able to program this model for him, without deviating dramatically from the rules of the game. Though Joy does not agree with what I say here. And probably I am getting some details mixed up (vectors, bivectors; +1, -1, ...).
gill1109
Mathematical Statistician
 
Posts: 2812
Joined: Tue Feb 04, 2014 10:39 pm
Location: Leiden

Re: Validation of QM Local Prod Calc Pauli Matrices

Postby FrediFizzx » Sun Jul 21, 2019 11:19 pm

Off-topic. We are doing local QM here. Not Joy's classical model.
.
FrediFizzx
Independent Physics Researcher
 
Posts: 2905
Joined: Tue Mar 19, 2013 7:12 pm
Location: N. California, USA

PreviousNext

Return to Sci.Physics.Foundations

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: ahrefs [Bot] and 84 guests

cron
CodeCogs - An Open Source Scientific Library