FrediFizzx wrote:Yeah, and I will give 64 dollars to anyone that can pass the above challenge using quantum theory.
.
minkwe wrote:FrediFizzx wrote:Yeah, and I will give 64 dollars to anyone that can pass the above challenge using quantum theory.
.
Very important clarification. The programmer can use any theory they like, including Quantum Theory to write their simulation. In fact the use of quantum computers is encouraged.
gill1109 wrote:Oops, I saw a typo.
The programmer wins my challenge with one correlation larger than 0.6 and three correlations smaller than -0.6
In the O.P. I wrote 0.8, thinking of half of the correlation_plus_one = probability of equal outcomes.
FrediFizzx wrote:gill1109 wrote:Oops, I saw a typo.
The programmer wins my challenge with one correlation larger than 0.6 and three correlations smaller than -0.6
In the O.P. I wrote 0.8, thinking of half of the correlation_plus_one = probability of equal outcomes.
No one cares about your silly challenge because you are stuck in a quandary with it.
gill1109 wrote:FrediFizzx wrote:gill1109 wrote:Oops, I saw a typo.
The programmer wins my challenge with one correlation larger than 0.6 and three correlations smaller than -0.6
In the O.P. I wrote 0.8, thinking of half of the correlation_plus_one = probability of equal outcomes.
No one cares about your silly challenge because you are stuck in a quandary with it.
“Quandrary”, Fred. I am not stuck in one one. And I clearly live in a different bubble from you. ...
FrediFizzx wrote:Yes, you are stuck in a quandary. You are saying that NOTHING can beat the challenge except that the experiments and Nature have already shot you down so obviously wrong. You are pretty foolish to be risking that much money on something that is so obviously wrong. I'm not really interested anymore in it but someone some day is going to put you in the poor house.
Joy Christian wrote:.
I have a counter challenge and I am happy to give a promissory note of 64 million dollars, right here on this very post, to anyone who meets my challenge, which I have set out below:
Forget quantum mechanics or Bell. Classical mechanics is known to us and has been perfected for the past 300 years. For classical systems, such as weather systems, it is a perfectly valid mechanics. Given the correct initial conditions, it is a deterministic, dispersion-free mechanics. If you accept my challenge, then I will give you the initial conditions, which are the exact meteorological conditions at the time and date of my posting this message. My challenge is very simple. Provide me a Yes or No answer to the following question: Will it be raining precisely at 3:00 PM, GMT, on the Christmas day, near the main gate of the Clarendon Laboratory, located on Parks Road within the Science Area in Oxford, England, United Kingdom? Yes, or No.
If you give me the correct answer, which I will verify on the Christmas day, then you will earn the above promissory note from me. But if you get your answer wrong, then you owe me 64 million dollars! Note that my offer of 64 million dollars ends at noon, GMT, on the 15th of December 2020. Make your prediction before that date and have your 64 million dollars ready.
.
gill1109 wrote:FrediFizzx wrote:Yes, you are stuck in a quandary. You are saying that NOTHING can beat the challenge except that the experiments and Nature have already shot you down so obviously wrong. You are pretty foolish to be risking that much money on something that is so obviously wrong. I'm not really interested anymore in it but someone some day is going to put you in the poor house.
Fred, the experiments and Nature don't satisfy the conditions which I listed.
I suggest you read them. I asked for reproducibility. ...
FrediFizzx wrote:gill1109 wrote:FrediFizzx wrote:Yes, you are stuck in a quandary. You are saying that NOTHING can beat the challenge except that the experiments and Nature have already shot you down so obviously wrong. You are pretty foolish to be risking that much money on something that is so obviously wrong. I'm not really interested anymore in it but someone some day is going to put you in the poor house.
Fred, the experiments and Nature don't satisfy the conditions which I listed.
I suggest you read them. I asked for reproducibility. ...
Another reason your challenge is silly. Reproducibility can easily be dispensed with. The original goal was to simulate a typical EPR experiment. You've tacked on crap that doesn't matter. Very silly. You are still stuck in a quandary.
Joy Christian wrote:.
The point of my counter-challenge was to demonstrate that Gill's challenge is as worthless and ridiculous as my weather challenge is. Our mechanics, classical or quantum, allow us to make only in-principle predictions of specific definite outcomes even in as simple a case as the weather. The answer can be "Yes" or "No", but we cannot say exactly which one in a given specific scenario. This makes Gill's so-called challenge a silly joke that he himself does not get.
.
FrediFizzx wrote:Let's suppose for a minute that it is possible for quantum mechanics to predict the individual event by event outcomes for A and B. How might one go about doing that? Well, we would have to construct measurement functions for A and B,
Well, we know from Bell those functions give the straight line triangle correlation. But that would be the QM prediction for an event by event simulation of an EPR scenario which of course matches other local theory predictions. Of course, the experiments say that it is probably wrong.
gill1109 wrote:PS to Fred:FrediFizzx wrote:Let's suppose for a minute that it is possible for quantum mechanics to predict the individual event by event outcomes for A and B. How might one go about doing that? Well, we would have to construct measurement functions for A and B,
Well, we know from Bell those functions give the straight line triangle correlation. But that would be the QM prediction for an event by event simulation of an EPR scenario which of course matches other local theory predictions. Of course, the experiments say that it is probably wrong.
Please explain what you mean by your limit notation. How can s converge to a limit which depends on s ?
gill1109 wrote: ...
*Your goal* is to simulate an EPR-B experiment, I believe.
...
gill1109 wrote: ...
No Fred, my original goal is to interact with people who think that Bell’s theorem is wrong, and who believe they have a counterexample. I challenge them to convert their theory into a computer package. I don’t want to spend hours studying the code. I want to be able to run a few tests in order to verify whether they have simulated a properly conducted Bell-CHSH type experiment, including implementation of the separation between measurement stations. ...
FrediFizzx wrote:gill1109 wrote:PS to Fred:FrediFizzx wrote:Let's suppose for a minute that it is possible for quantum mechanics to predict the individual event by event outcomes for A and B. How might one go about doing that? Well, we would have to construct measurement functions for A and B,
Well, we know from Bell those functions give the straight line triangle correlation. But that would be the QM prediction for an event by event simulation of an EPR scenario which of course matches other local theory predictions. Of course, the experiments say that it is probably wrong.
Please explain what you mean by your limit notation. How can s converge to a limit which depends on s ?
It is all exactly explained by the most RHS expressions. It is some pretty simple math.
.
FrediFizzx wrote:gill1109 wrote: ...
*Your goal* is to simulate an EPR-B experiment, I believe.
...
No. My goal is to demonstrate to everyone how silly your junk theory is.
.
gill1109 wrote:FrediFizzx wrote:gill1109 wrote: ...
*Your goal* is to simulate an EPR-B experiment, I believe.
...
No. My goal is to demonstrate to everyone how silly your junk theory is.
.
You are failing miserably. ...
gill1109 wrote:FrediFizzx wrote:gill1109 wrote:PS to Fred:FrediFizzx wrote:Let's suppose for a minute that it is possible for quantum mechanics to predict the individual event by event outcomes for A and B. How might one go about doing that? Well, we would have to construct measurement functions for A and B,
Well, we know from Bell those functions give the straight line triangle correlation. But that would be the QM prediction for an event by event simulation of an EPR scenario which of course matches other local theory predictions. Of course, the experiments say that it is probably wrong.
Please explain what you mean by your limit notation. How can s converge to a limit which depends on s ?
It is all exactly explained by the most RHS expressions. It is some pretty simple math.
.
The RHS only tells us what you want the result to be of evaluating that limit. But the limit expression itself is illegal. Go back to school, Fred!
Return to Sci.Physics.Foundations
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 90 guests