Joy Christian wrote:***
This is of course not surprising. In 1964 Bell already noted that nonlocal models can reproduce the strong correlation:
***
FrediFizzx wrote:Joy Christian wrote:***
This is of course not surprising. In 1964 Bell already noted that nonlocal models can reproduce the strong correlation:
***
Not quite the same thing. We can predict the individual A and B outcomes event by event to produce -a.b. Plus this is a HV non-local model. I mainly did this simulation to see if there might be a clue for local behavior.
Joy Christian wrote:… It is the same thing. Bell's local model of 1964 he is referring to in the above paragraph predicts individual A and B outcomes event-by-event. About ten years ago someone simulated its nonlocal version for me to convince me that only nonlocal models can reproduce the -a.b correlations, and rather easily. I continued working on my 3-sphere model regardless.
***
FrediFizzx wrote:It looks like to me that with Bell's configuration, you will get straight lines event by event instead of the negative cosine curve. Bell's HV is just the particle spin vector. You need this function,
with lambda random 0 to 1 to produce the negative cosine curve. But it is complete nonsense anyway. Not only does station B know A's angle, but it also knows A's outcome. Very un-Natural.
Guest wrote:FrediFizzx wrote:It looks like to me that with Bell's configuration, you will get straight lines event by event instead of the negative cosine curve. Bell's HV is just the particle spin vector. You need this function,
with lambda random 0 to 1 to produce the negative cosine curve. But it is complete nonsense anyway. Not only does station B know A's angle, but it also knows A's outcome. Very un-Natural.
I like your model, Fred. It's elegant, one of the most elegant of this type that I have seen.
Some other people with models like this, but much more complex, are Anthony Crofts (Illinois) and David Oaknin (Haifa).
http://www.life.illinois.edu/crofts/
http://www.life.illinois.edu/crofts/Bell_Ineq/
https://www.researchgate.net/profile/David_Oaknin
https://arxiv.org/abs/1411.5704
minkwe wrote:Remember that QM must obey no-signalling. So models like these must also pass no-signalling to be valid. Do they?
FrediFizzx wrote:minkwe wrote:Remember that QM must obey no-signalling. So models like these must also pass no-signalling to be valid. Do they?
Probably not. It is pretty hokey anyways since only station B knows both A's angle and A's outcome. I mean, how could it know A's outcome with no-signaling? And why only B?
.
minkwe wrote:For a while the Bell proponents have been asking for local simulations that match QM but nobody has asked them to produce non-local simulations that match QM and all the required conditions like no-signalling. I think looking at what they come up with and the difficulties they face will be instructive.
I'm in the process of coming up with a straight-forward full-proof test of no-signalling.stay tuned
Repeat N times
Pick two settings a, b however you like
Pick two outcomes x, y from the joint probability distribution p(x, y | a, b) according to QM's EPR-B model.
gill1109 wrote:minkwe wrote:For a while the Bell proponents have been asking for local simulations that match QM but nobody has asked them to produce non-local simulations that match QM and all the required conditions like no-signalling. I think looking at what they come up with and the difficulties they face will be instructive.
I'm in the process of coming up with a straight-forward full-proof test of no-signalling.stay tuned
Exciting!
Want to see a *non-local* simulation that matches QM and all required conditions? It goes like this
- Code: Select all
Repeat N times
Pick two settings a, b however you like
Pick two outcomes x, y from the joint probability distribution p(x, y | a, b) according to QM's EPR-B model.
minkwe wrote:gill1109 wrote:minkwe wrote:For a while the Bell proponents have been asking for local simulations that match QM but nobody has asked them to produce non-local simulations that match QM and all the required conditions like no-signalling. I think looking at what they come up with and the difficulties they face will be instructive.
I'm in the process of coming up with a straight-forward full-proof test of no-signalling.stay tuned
Exciting!
Want to see a *non-local* simulation that matches QM and all required conditions? It goes like this
- Code: Select all
Repeat N times
Pick two settings a, b however you like
Pick two outcomes x, y from the joint probability distribution p(x, y | a, b) according to QM's EPR-B model.
Sorry, but in case you did not know, QM does not permit signalling like that. You can't use (a,b) together at any station to obtain outcomes. Otherwise, Alice and Bob can easily communicate using entanglement, which is forbidden. Go back to the drawing board.
Heinera wrote:Nope. Even with Richard's model, there is no way that Alice can signal to Bob (or vice versa) by using detector settings. No matter what setting Alice chooses, the probability distribution on Bob's end will still be 50/50. And of course if you had known even a whiff about quantum mechanics you would know that entanglement requires a distribution that depends on both a and b, but still is consistent with the no-signalling theorem.
For this model implemented in R see https://rpubs.com/heinera/16727
minkwe wrote: Which means Bob can learn something about Alice's settings just by looking at his outcomes and vice versa. Which is obviously the case for Richard's model and yours.
minkwe wrote:I don't have to. You should learn some information theory. All I have to show is that the mutual information between Bob's settings and Alice's outcomes is significantly non-zero. This means information has been transmitted. The mutual information exactly quantifies the amount of information transmitted.
minkwe wrote:Please, do you know what mutual information means? Do you understand what it means for the mutual information to be significantly non-zero?
Return to Sci.Physics.Foundations
Users browsing this forum: Google Feedfetcher and 1 guest