Another simulation for QM Local functions

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

Another simulation for QM Local functions

Postby FrediFizzx » Fri Jul 26, 2019 2:24 pm

This simulation does use the +/-1's for the A and B outcomes and is based on Joy's complete states concept. It also uses the Pauli matrices and has the +/-n polarizer functions utilizing 2D vectors for a, b and s. Here is the Mathematica code,

download/QMlocalPolComp2D.pdf

And here is the result,

Image

The red curve is the -cosine curve and the blue dots are the data. It is for 5 million trials and one degree resolution for the angles.
.
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 » Fri Jul 26, 2019 4:32 pm

Using the good old detection loophole trick.
Heinera
 
Posts: 917
Joined: Thu Feb 06, 2014 1:50 am

Re: Another simulation for QM Local functions

Postby FrediFizzx » Fri Jul 26, 2019 5:14 pm

Heinera wrote:Using the good old detection loophole trick.

Nope. Of course we expect Bell fans to think that way with your limited topological perspective but it is actually a result of 3-sphere topology that those states don't exist in the first place. For the simulation they are just mathematical artifacts.
.
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 gill1109 » Mon Jul 29, 2019 3:49 am

FrediFizzx wrote:
Heinera wrote:Using the good old detection loophole trick.

Nope. Of course we expect Bell fans to think that way with your limited topological perspective but it is actually a result of 3-sphere topology that those states don't exist in the first place. For the simulation they are just mathematical artifacts.
.

No, of course, this is not the detection loophole. This is the sign-change trick. Reverse the order of multiplication of two non-commuting things with probability half. Claim that your sign-flip is a local hidden variable coming from the torsion of space-time or something ... but those are just words. They have no physical meaning whatsoever. It's just a non-standard but legitimate way to do the standard quantum mechanics calculation. It works because there are two imaginary square roots of minus one - plus i and minus i. You can't say which is which. But half the sum of a complex number and its complex conjugate is real. That's (IMHO) the main idea that this code, and Joy's "model", is essentially based on.

Of course, you need a lot of verbal dexterity - or be some kind of a poet - to "sell" this little trick as a local realistic model which contradicts Bell's theorem. Your definitions of "local", "realistic" and so on will have to be skilfully different from usual definitions. It will help to dress up your theoretical computations in a not well known and rather technical specialistic mathematical framework so that hardly anyone can follow what you are doing. Dress up your QM foundations stuff as sophisticated general relativity stuff, so that experts in general relativity who know nothing whatever about quantum foundations will be the editors and referees of your papers.

GA is extremely powerful and successful as a computer programming language for 3D virtual reality computations. The original vision of David Hestenes was that it would also become a universal language of science, in fact, he was picking up again the dream of Clifford and other 19th century giants. Deep differential geometry insights which didn't catch on and later had to be rediscovered. Which is indeed what happened, and those ideas did, of course, find their way into the physics of space-time (gravity, relativity); but not into physics in general. In particular, the founders of modern-day GA did not succeed in getting people in quantum foundations to use their technology. They tried but failed.
gill1109
Mathematical Statistician
 
Posts: 2812
Joined: Tue Feb 04, 2014 10:39 pm
Location: Leiden

Re: Another simulation for QM Local functions

Postby Heinera » Mon Jul 29, 2019 4:16 am

gill1109 wrote:No, of course, this is not the detection loophole. This is the sign-change trick.


This is a different simulation than the one with the sign change trick. It's a small modification of one of mfodje's simulations.
Heinera
 
Posts: 917
Joined: Thu Feb 06, 2014 1:50 am

Re: Another simulation for QM Local functions

Postby FrediFizzx » Mon Jul 29, 2019 9:35 am

Heinera wrote:
gill1109 wrote:No, of course, this is not the detection loophole. This is the sign-change trick.


This is a different simulation than the one with the sign change trick. It's a small modification of one of mfodje's simulations.

:D Yeah, he didn't even look at the Mathematica code. There is no GA in this simulation. It's QM Pauli Matrices and also works with the polarizer functions.
.
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 » Mon Jul 29, 2019 11:37 pm

And here is the latest results of our superdeterministic simulation. :D No particle rejection. A and B outputs have all +/-1's; no zeroes.

Image

5 million trials, 1 degree resolution. I'll post the Mathematica code tomorrow after I clean it up some.
.
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 » Tue Jul 30, 2019 12:19 pm

Here is the Mathematica code for the above superdeterministic plot. Sorry Bell fans, this is most likely how Nature works. Your days are numbered now! :D

EPRsims/QMlocal_CS_no0s_redacted.pdf

Looks like Joy was right again about 3-sphere topology.
.
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 » Tue Jul 30, 2019 3:04 pm

Here is a link to download an Excel file with A and B data for about 100K trials.

www.sciphysicsforums.com/spfbb1/EPRsims/dataAB100K.xlsx

All A and B's are +/-1's. So we have figured out how quantum mechanics can predict individual outcomes for A and B. It's golden, baby! :D :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 jreed » Tue Jul 30, 2019 4:28 pm

Heinera wrote:Using the good old detection loophole trick.


Yes you are correct. The expression for z , now called "Complete States Parameter" which is used in this program when certain conditions arise to eliminate states is the loophole. It was in EPR-Simple where it was called the hidden variable lambda, and originally comes from Pearle's paper on the detection loophole according to Richard.

Another feature of this new simulation is the use of the hidden variable lambda (right and left hand coordinates) to get rid of those pesky imaginary values. The Mathematica code is almost unreadable in the do loop part of the program because of all the calls to Flatten and matrix manipulations. It should be possible to clean it up a lot.
jreed
 
Posts: 176
Joined: Mon Feb 17, 2014 5:10 pm

Re: Another simulation for QM Local functions

Postby FrediFizzx » Tue Jul 30, 2019 5:19 pm

jreed wrote:
Heinera wrote:Using the good old detection loophole trick.


Yes you are correct. The expression for z , now called "Complete States Parameter" which is used in this program when certain conditions arise to eliminate states is the loophole. It was in EPR-Simple where it was called the hidden variable lambda, and originally comes from Pearle's paper on the detection loophole according to Richard.

Another feature of this new simulation is the use of the hidden variable lambda (right and left hand coordinates) to get rid of those pesky imaginary values. The Mathematica code is almost unreadable in the do loop part of the program because of all the calls to Flatten and matrix manipulations. It should be possible to clean it up a lot.

NOPE!!!!! There is NO particle rejection in the latest version of the code! All data for A and B are either +1's or -1's. There are NO zeroes in the A and B data. This is how Nature works whether you like it or not.

Because of the Pauli matrices, Mathematica gives results that have +/-1 +0.i where i is the imaginary so necessary to filter that out. The Pauli matrices match our QM LOCAL measurement functions for A and B. So this proves that our local QM functions, do indeed produce -a.b using the +/-1 data from A and B. Bell's "theorem" is junk physics!
.
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 » Wed Jul 31, 2019 9:35 am

FrediFizzx wrote:Here is the Mathematica code for the above superdeterministic plot. Sorry Bell fans, this is most likely how Nature works. Your days are numbered now! :D

EPRsims/QMlocal_CS_no0s_redacted.pdf

Looks like Joy was right again about 3-sphere topology.
.

This line doesn't seem quite right (x2 must probably be y1?):

aliceDeg[[j]]=ArcTan[x1, x2];
ajw
 
Posts: 45
Joined: Sat Sep 05, 2015 2:04 pm

Re: Another simulation for QM Local functions

Postby FrediFizzx » Wed Jul 31, 2019 9:51 am

ajw wrote:
FrediFizzx wrote:Here is the Mathematica code for the above superdeterministic plot. Sorry Bell fans, this is most likely how Nature works. Your days are numbered now! :D

EPRsims/QMlocal_CS_no0s_redacted.pdf

Looks like Joy was right again about 3-sphere topology.
.

This line doesn't seem quite right (x2 must probably be y1?):

aliceDeg[[j]]=ArcTan[x1, x2];

Ah, many thanks. Great,someone is finally paying attention to the finer details. How the heck did that happen? :D It does seem to affect the simulation a tiny bit going into 180 and 360 degrees. Going to have to analyze it. Maybe the wrong way was actually right? :D What that does is part of selecting whether we take ArcCos or -ArcCos of a.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 » Wed Jul 31, 2019 11:00 am

FrediFizzx wrote:Here is a link to download an Excel file with A and B data for about 100K trials.

EPRsims/dataAB100K.xlsx

All A and B's are +/-1's. So we have figured out how quantum mechanics can predict individual outcomes for A and B. It's golden, baby! :D :mrgreen:
.

Shouldn't the angle settings for Alice and Bob be included in this XLS?
ajw
 
Posts: 45
Joined: Sat Sep 05, 2015 2:04 pm

Re: Another simulation for QM Local functions

Postby FrediFizzx » Wed Jul 31, 2019 11:07 am

ajw wrote:
FrediFizzx wrote:Here is a link to download an Excel file with A and B data for about 100K trials.

EPRsims/dataAB100K.xlsx

All A and B's are +/-1's. So we have figured out how quantum mechanics can predict individual outcomes for A and B. It's golden, baby! :D :mrgreen:
.

Shouldn't the angle settings for Alice and Bob be included in this XLS?

Here you go as a .csv file. Actually you need a, b and s. It's 14 megs of data for 100K trials.

EPRsims/dataCS2.csv

This is for 2D vectors. It actually works also with 3D vectors. You can import this data into a CS2 3 column table then run the simulation to get the A and B outcomes.
.
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 » Wed Jul 31, 2019 11:49 am

I am talking about the raw measurement data (I thought the .xls was supposed to be this), like you can obtain can in a real EPR experiment: angle Alice , Angle Bob, + or -1 for Alice, + or -1 for Bob.

Unfortunately I don't have Mathematica so I can't do the simulation without converting the code. But it looks very interesting!
ajw
 
Posts: 45
Joined: Sat Sep 05, 2015 2:04 pm

Re: Another simulation for QM Local functions

Postby FrediFizzx » Wed Jul 31, 2019 11:58 am

ajw wrote:I am talking about the raw measurement data (I thought the .xls was supposed to be this), like you can obtain can in a real EPR experiment: angle Alice , Angle Bob, + or -1 for Alice, + or -1 for Bob.

Unfortunately I don't have Mathematica so I can't do the simulation without converting the code. But it looks very interesting!

Thanks. This is the raw measurement data. The Excel file of A and B outcomes match the a, b and s data line for line. You have to have s because of the polarizer functions. The angle data is in x, y and z coordinates.

Did you get the email I sent you? What would you convert it to if you were to do that?
.
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 » Wed Jul 31, 2019 1:16 pm

FrediFizzx wrote:
ajw wrote:I am talking about the raw measurement data (I thought the .xls was supposed to be this), like you can obtain can in a real EPR experiment: angle Alice , Angle Bob, + or -1 for Alice, + or -1 for Bob.

Unfortunately I don't have Mathematica so I can't do the simulation without converting the code. But it looks very interesting!

Thanks. This is the raw measurement data. The Excel file of A and B outcomes match the a, b and s data line for line. You have to have s because of the polarizer functions. The angle data is in x, y and z coordinates.

Did you get the email I sent you? What would you convert it to if you were to do that?
.

Ah, ok. Yes I did receive your email, thank you!
It seems like a simulation that would fit in the original code in C#, which I first published when I started my blog (http://challengingbell.blogspot.com/201 ... istic.html). It is based on Fortran code from De Raedt.
ajw
 
Posts: 45
Joined: Sat Sep 05, 2015 2:04 pm

Re: Another simulation for QM Local functions

Postby FrediFizzx » Wed Jul 31, 2019 9:29 pm

ajw wrote:
FrediFizzx wrote:Here is the Mathematica code for the above superdeterministic plot. Sorry Bell fans, this is most likely how Nature works. Your days are numbered now! :D

EPRsims/QMlocal_CS_no0s_redacted.pdf

Looks like Joy was right again about 3-sphere topology.
.

This line doesn't seem quite right (x2 must probably be y1?):

aliceDeg[[j]]=ArcTan[x1, x2];

That actually is sort of a feature instead of an error. :D The ArcCos selection later on seems to work better with this,

aliceDeg[[j]]=ArcTan[x1, y1];
bobDeg[[j]]=ArcTan[y2, x2];

Switching the x and y or this,

aliceDeg[[j]]=ArcTan[x1];
bobDeg[[j]]=ArcTan[y2];

Go figure??? Sometimes things work out for the better when you make a mistake. Got lucky on that one. :D
.
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 jreed » Thu Aug 01, 2019 6:12 am

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?
jreed
 
Posts: 176
Joined: Mon Feb 17, 2014 5:10 pm

Next

Return to Sci.Physics.Foundations

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 78 guests

cron
CodeCogs - An Open Source Scientific Library