Another simulation for QM Local functions

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

Re: Another simulation for QM Local functions

Postby FrediFizzx » Thu Aug 01, 2019 9:31 am

jreed wrote:Fred, I'm trying to work up my own version of the Pauli matrix Mathematica program. I've made it a lot more compact and easier to understand. I'm having some problems translating the PDF. It looks like the PDF file of the notebook left some things out. Can you send me the full Mathematica notebook?

I sent you an email.

There is no big mystery with the Pauli matrices. Quite frankly they and the geometric algebra equivalent for the A and B measurement functions mathematically reduce to,




That combined with the polarizer functions give the +/-1 outcomes for the Mathematica code. This is for generation of the +/-1's for the A and B outcomes only. For validation of the product calculation, the story is a bit different.
.
FrediFizzx
Independent Physics Researcher
 
Posts: 2905
Joined: Tue Mar 19, 2013 7:12 pm
Location: N. California, USA

Re: Another simulation for QM Local functions

Postby FrediFizzx » Fri Aug 02, 2019 3:45 pm

Upon advice from counsel, I've decided to release the Mathematica code for the Complete States Selection section. Apparently you can't sufficiently protect an idea that involves the laws of nature. So here it is,

EPRsims/QMlocal_CS_no0s3D.pdf

At least you saw the idea from the code here first. :D This version has the A and B measurement functions simplified as in the previous post.
.
FrediFizzx
Independent Physics Researcher
 
Posts: 2905
Joined: Tue Mar 19, 2013 7:12 pm
Location: N. California, USA

Re: Another simulation for QM Local functions

Postby Heinera » Sat Aug 03, 2019 9:58 am

Same trick. New wrapping.
Heinera
 
Posts: 917
Joined: Thu Feb 06, 2014 1:50 am

Re: Another simulation for QM Local functions

Postby FrediFizzx » Sat Aug 03, 2019 10:01 am

Heinera wrote:Same trick. New wrapping.

Yep, that is how Nature has been tricking you Bell fans for a very long time. :mrgreen:
.
FrediFizzx
Independent Physics Researcher
 
Posts: 2905
Joined: Tue Mar 19, 2013 7:12 pm
Location: N. California, USA

Re: Another simulation for QM Local functions

Postby Heinera » Sat Aug 03, 2019 10:10 am

FrediFizzx wrote:
Heinera wrote:Same trick. New wrapping.

Yep, that is how Nature has been tricking you Bell fans for a very long time. :mrgreen:
.

You mean by being non-local? :lol:

Code: Select all
If[Abs[a2.s] < z || Abs[b2.s] < z, CS = 0, CS = 1];
Heinera
 
Posts: 917
Joined: Thu Feb 06, 2014 1:50 am

Re: Another simulation for QM Local functions

Postby FrediFizzx » Sat Aug 03, 2019 10:17 am

Heinera wrote:
FrediFizzx wrote:
Heinera wrote:Same trick. New wrapping.

Yep, that is how Nature has been tricking you Bell fans for a very long time. :mrgreen:
.

You mean by being non-local? :lol:

Code: Select all
If[Abs[a2.s] < z || Abs[b2.s] < z, CS = 0, CS = 1];

There is nothing non-local about that. || means "or" not "and". :mrgreen: Doesn't matter anyways, because the simulation is completely local.
.
FrediFizzx
Independent Physics Researcher
 
Posts: 2905
Joined: Tue Mar 19, 2013 7:12 pm
Location: N. California, USA

Re: Another simulation for QM Local functions

Postby Heinera » Sat Aug 03, 2019 10:25 am

FrediFizzx wrote:
Heinera wrote:
Code: Select all
If[Abs[a2.s] < z || Abs[b2.s] < z, CS = 0, CS = 1];

There is nothing non-local about that. || means "or" not "and". :mrgreen: Doesn't matter anyways, because the simulation is completely local.
.

Ok, I thought you were joking all along, but you appear to be serious about this... :D

The CS vector decides which pairs should be counted in the correlations. Since CS depends on both a2 and b2, how could it not be non-local? The argument has nothing to do with "or" vs "and".
Heinera
 
Posts: 917
Joined: Thu Feb 06, 2014 1:50 am

Re: Another simulation for QM Local functions

Postby FrediFizzx » Sat Aug 03, 2019 10:42 am

Heinera wrote:
FrediFizzx wrote:
Heinera wrote:
Code: Select all
If[Abs[a2.s] < z || Abs[b2.s] < z, CS = 0, CS = 1];

There is nothing non-local about that. || means "or" not "and". :mrgreen: Doesn't matter anyways, because the simulation is completely local.
.

Ok, I thought you were joking all along, but you appear to be serious about this... :D

The CS vector decides which pairs should be counted in the correlations. Since CS depends on both a2 and b2, how could it not be non-local? The argument has nothing to do with "or" vs "and".

CS is not a vector. It is a table of 3 3D vectors that are the Complete States for the simulation. Each entry (row) for the table is selected in a very local way. And it is a result of 3-sphere topology. This is how Nature has been tricking you guys for a very long time. :lol:
.
FrediFizzx
Independent Physics Researcher
 
Posts: 2905
Joined: Tue Mar 19, 2013 7:12 pm
Location: N. California, USA

Re: Another simulation for QM Local functions

Postby Heinera » Sat Aug 03, 2019 10:52 am

The code is there, for any reader to decide.
Heinera
 
Posts: 917
Joined: Thu Feb 06, 2014 1:50 am

Re: Another simulation for QM Local functions

Postby FrediFizzx » Sat Aug 03, 2019 11:19 am

Heinera wrote:The code is there, for any reader to decide.

Sure. And here is further explanation to help them decide. Each row in the CS2 table of 3D vectors is selected in a completely local way. Then in the simulation each row independently determines if the outcomes for A and B are a +1 or a -1. It's completely local and is how QM can predict individual event by event outcomes for A and B in a local way. Bingo!!!!!
.
FrediFizzx
Independent Physics Researcher
 
Posts: 2905
Joined: Tue Mar 19, 2013 7:12 pm
Location: N. California, USA

Re: Another simulation for QM Local functions

Postby ajw » Sun Aug 04, 2019 1:19 am

I think Heinera might be right on this. Of course one is allowed to supply a list with the complete states previous to the experiment. But when performing the actual experiment one should again chose a random aa and bb, and use only the aa at Alice's side to pick the desired state from the list, and similarly for Bob. The current implementation in fact 'picks from the list' using both aa and bb.
It seems to me that this is still the flatlanders type of the simulation.
ajw
 
Posts: 45
Joined: Sat Sep 05, 2015 2:04 pm

Re: Another simulation for QM Local functions

Postby FrediFizzx » Sun Aug 04, 2019 2:12 am

ajw wrote:I think Heinera might be right on this. Of course one is allowed to supply a list with the complete states previous to the experiment. But when performing the actual experiment one should again chose a random aa and bb, and use only the aa at Alice's side to pick the desired state from the list, and similarly for Bob. The current implementation in fact 'picks from the list' using both aa and bb.
It seems to me that this is still the flatlanders type of the simulation.

Nope. CS2 is a table of completely random 3D vectors, a, b and s for each row of the table. The rows of the table were not selected using a2 AND b2. The rows were selected using a2 OR b2. In fact, that is for eliminating the states that don't exist in the first place according 3-sphere topology. What is left over are the states that do exist in S^3 land.

So what the simulation gets is already a set of completely random vectors selected locally. No need to re-generate random vectors again.
.
FrediFizzx
Independent Physics Researcher
 
Posts: 2905
Joined: Tue Mar 19, 2013 7:12 pm
Location: N. California, USA

Re: Another simulation for QM Local functions

Postby ajw » Sun Aug 04, 2019 8:08 am

FrediFizzx wrote:
ajw wrote:I think Heinera might be right on this. Of course one is allowed to supply a list with the complete states previous to the experiment. But when performing the actual experiment one should again chose a random aa and bb, and use only the aa at Alice's side to pick the desired state from the list, and similarly for Bob. The current implementation in fact 'picks from the list' using both aa and bb.
It seems to me that this is still the flatlanders type of the simulation.

Nope. CS2 is a table of completely random 3D vectors, a, b and s for each row of the table. The rows of the table were not selected using a2 AND b2. The rows were selected using a2 OR b2. In fact, that is for eliminating the states that don't exist in the first place according 3-sphere topology. What is left over are the states that do exist in S^3 land.

So what the simulation gets is already a set of completely random vectors selected locally. No need to re-generate random vectors again.
.

I think the EPR-Bell experiment where locality is assumed can only correctly be simulated if you can in principle use 2 computers to chose the random angle settings and perform the experiments for Alice and Bob. This ensures not having information about the opposite angle at the time of the measurement. It seems to me this is not possible for this setup.
ajw
 
Posts: 45
Joined: Sat Sep 05, 2015 2:04 pm

Re: Another simulation for QM Local functions

Postby FrediFizzx » Sun Aug 04, 2019 8:42 am

ajw wrote:
FrediFizzx wrote:Nope. CS2 is a table of completely random 3D vectors, a, b and s for each row of the table. The rows of the table were not selected using a2 AND b2. The rows were selected using a2 OR b2. In fact, that is for eliminating the states that don't exist in the first place according 3-sphere topology. What is left over are the states that do exist in S^3 land.

So what the simulation gets is already a set of completely random vectors selected locally. No need to re-generate random vectors again.
.

I think the EPR-Bell experiment where locality is assumed can only correctly be simulated if you can in principle use 2 computers to chose the random angle settings and perform the experiments for Alice and Bob. This ensures not having information about the opposite angle at the time of the measurement. It seems to me this is not possible for this setup.

Well..., Nature with its S^3 topology does not have to conform to that kind of man-made "rule" but I don't see any problem with say Bob's angles being generated by a second computer. Are the vectors in the rows of the CS2 table random or not? Of course they are. Very easy to see that. This is a perfect demonstration of how Nature has been tricking the Bell fans for a very long time. And it is how QM (or any local model) can predict individual event by event outcomes for A and B.
.
FrediFizzx
Independent Physics Researcher
 
Posts: 2905
Joined: Tue Mar 19, 2013 7:12 pm
Location: N. California, USA

Re: Another simulation for QM Local functions

Postby ajw » Sun Aug 04, 2019 9:12 am

FrediFizzx wrote:
ajw wrote:
FrediFizzx wrote:Nope. CS2 is a table of completely random 3D vectors, a, b and s for each row of the table. The rows of the table were not selected using a2 AND b2. The rows were selected using a2 OR b2. In fact, that is for eliminating the states that don't exist in the first place according 3-sphere topology. What is left over are the states that do exist in S^3 land.

So what the simulation gets is already a set of completely random vectors selected locally. No need to re-generate random vectors again.
.

I think the EPR-Bell experiment where locality is assumed can only correctly be simulated if you can in principle use 2 computers to chose the random angle settings and perform the experiments for Alice and Bob. This ensures not having information about the opposite angle at the time of the measurement. It seems to me this is not possible for this setup.

Well..., Nature with its S^3 topology does not have to conform to that kind of man-made "rule" but I don't see any problem with say Bob's angles being generated by a second computer. Are the vectors in the rows of the CS2 table random or not? Of course they are. Very easy to see that. This is a perfect demonstration of how Nature has been tricking the Bell fans for a very long time. And it is how QM (or any local model) can predict individual event by event outcomes for A and B.
.

I think you have to do the angle picking and measurement in one go on separate computers before joining the results to calculate the cos/CHSH. It is not about a man-made rule, but a way to rule out the use of the opposite angle information during measurement. This seems to be problematic in your setup.
ajw
 
Posts: 45
Joined: Sat Sep 05, 2015 2:04 pm

Re: Another simulation for QM Local functions

Postby FrediFizzx » Sun Aug 04, 2019 9:26 am

ajw wrote:
FrediFizzx wrote:
ajw wrote:
FrediFizzx wrote:Nope. CS2 is a table of completely random 3D vectors, a, b and s for each row of the table. The rows of the table were not selected using a2 AND b2. The rows were selected using a2 OR b2. In fact, that is for eliminating the states that don't exist in the first place according 3-sphere topology. What is left over are the states that do exist in S^3 land.

So what the simulation gets is already a set of completely random vectors selected locally. No need to re-generate random vectors again.
.

I think the EPR-Bell experiment where locality is assumed can only correctly be simulated if you can in principle use 2 computers to chose the random angle settings and perform the experiments for Alice and Bob. This ensures not having information about the opposite angle at the time of the measurement. It seems to me this is not possible for this setup.

Well..., Nature with its S^3 topology does not have to conform to that kind of man-made "rule" but I don't see any problem with say Bob's angles being generated by a second computer. Are the vectors in the rows of the CS2 table random or not? Of course they are. Very easy to see that. This is a perfect demonstration of how Nature has been tricking the Bell fans for a very long time. And it is how QM (or any local model) can predict individual event by event outcomes for A and B.
.

I think you have to do the angle picking and measurement in one go on separate computers before joining the results to calculate the cos/CHSH. This seems to be problematic in your setup.

:D Think about what you are saying. That is not possible. You can't run the simulation correctly without bringing everything together. You want to "rig" the simulation to conform to man-made rules. Sorry, but Nature does not work that way.

In fact, there can be a third computer generating the s vector randomly but in order to eliminate states that don't and can't exist in S^3, everything has to be brought together.
.
FrediFizzx
Independent Physics Researcher
 
Posts: 2905
Joined: Tue Mar 19, 2013 7:12 pm
Location: N. California, USA

Re: Another simulation for QM Local functions

Postby ajw » Sun Aug 04, 2019 9:58 am

Of course you can. You can prepare N particles for Alice, and N particles for Bob, each having any extra info you want on a computer. Save these to 2 files, and let separate computers handle each file. But the actual random angle picking and the measurement should be performed on each separate computer, thereby correctly mimicking the real experimental situation, where we assume locality for the filters and detectors. Then after obtaining the angles and +-1's combine the results to do the standard statistics.
ajw
 
Posts: 45
Joined: Sat Sep 05, 2015 2:04 pm

Re: Another simulation for QM Local functions

Postby FrediFizzx » Sun Aug 04, 2019 10:00 am

Actually, I think I'm going to take back what I said a little bit. Since we are doing "or", we just need the common s and z to select the a vectors and likewise for Bob, it might actually be possible to do what you are saying. So..., no problemo!
.
FrediFizzx
Independent Physics Researcher
 
Posts: 2905
Joined: Tue Mar 19, 2013 7:12 pm
Location: N. California, USA

Re: Another simulation for QM Local functions

Postby FrediFizzx » Sun Aug 04, 2019 10:11 am

FrediFizzx wrote:Actually, I think I'm going to take back what I said a little bit. Since we are doing "or", we just need the common s and z to select the a vectors and likewise for Bob, it might actually be possible to do what you are saying. So..., no problemo!
.

Oops, forgot lambda. It is also common.
.
FrediFizzx
Independent Physics Researcher
 
Posts: 2905
Joined: Tue Mar 19, 2013 7:12 pm
Location: N. California, USA

Re: Another simulation for QM Local functions

Postby FrediFizzx » Sun Aug 04, 2019 10:57 am

Nope. It doesn't work. Nature is not going to conform and certainly doesn't have to conform to man-made rules.
.
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: No registered users and 72 guests

cron
CodeCogs - An Open Source Scientific Library