Joy Christian wrote:.
Great work!
Chantal Roth also produced a quaternion simulation last year (in collaboration with me): http://rpubs.com/chenopodium/516072.
Her situation is cited as Reference [48] in my first IEEE Access paper: https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/stamp/stamp ... er=8836453.
.
Joy Christian wrote:.
Great work!
Chantal Roth also produced a quaternion simulation last year (in collaboration with me): http://rpubs.com/chenopodium/516072.
Her situation is cited as Reference [48] in my first IEEE Access paper: https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/stamp/stamp ... er=8836453.
.
gill1109 wrote:
The 2x2 complex matrices form an 8 real-dimensional associative, non-commutative, and unitary (there is a multiplicative unit element) algebra. It's called Cl(3, 0)(R). https://arxiv.org/pdf/1203.1504.pdf. "Does Geometric Algebra provide a loophole to Bell’s Theorem?" (with correction note).
FrediFizzx wrote:Joy Christian wrote:.
Great work!
Chantal Roth also produced a quaternion simulation last year (in collaboration with me): http://rpubs.com/chenopodium/516072.
Her situation is cited as Reference [48] in my first IEEE Access paper: https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/stamp/stamp ... er=8836453.
.
Thanks. Somehow I missed that one by Roth. Similar to what Reed did but hard to follow. Mine is different in that it works with no lambda +/-1 toggle. And the product calculation Da Ls Ls Db works right using quaternions.
.
FrediFizzx wrote:
BTW, both simulations do work with the lambda +/-1 toggle also. It is not excluded. But without it you can switch to the singlet vector being the HV.
Joy Christian wrote:FrediFizzx wrote:
BTW, both simulations do work with the lambda +/-1 toggle also. It is not excluded. But without it you can switch to the singlet vector being the HV.
I suspect you don't need lambda = +/- toggle because you are making the settings a and b random variables. In that case, a x b term would vanish automatically.
If you keep the settings a and b fixed, as Alice and Bob are allowed to do, then you may need lambda = +/- toggle to make the a x b term vanish.
.
FrediFizzx wrote:FrediFizzx wrote:Joy Christian wrote:.
Great work!
Chantal Roth also produced a quaternion simulation last year (in collaboration with me): http://rpubs.com/chenopodium/516072.
Her situation is cited as Reference [48] in my first IEEE Access paper: https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/stamp/stamp ... er=8836453.
.
Thanks. Somehow I missed that one by Roth. Similar to what Reed did but hard to follow. Mine is different in that it works with no lambda +/-1 toggle. And the product calculation Da Ls Ls Db works right using quaternions.
.
Well, I take back the part about the product calculation working right. It works correctly in GAViewer also. I had never tried the method that I used on this simulation in GAViewer. Just tried it and it works.
BTW, both simulations do work with the lambda +/-1 toggle also. It is not excluded. But without it you can switch to the singlet vector being the HV.
.
FrediFizzx wrote:Blah! Blah! Blah!
I've made a simplification improvement to the Mathematica simulation. I temporally forgot that the polarizer action could be simplified to the Sign function. So now the A and B functions and product calculation are more consistent.
EPRsims/prod_calc_quat4.pdf
.
gill1109 wrote:FrediFizzx wrote:Blah! Blah! Blah!
I've made a simplification improvement to the Mathematica simulation. I temporally forgot that the polarizer action could be simplified to the Sign function. So now the A and B functions and product calculation are more consistent.
EPRsims/prod_calc_quat4.pdf
.
The pdf doesn’t download, Fred. Can you check if it really there?
FrediFizzx wrote:gill1109 wrote:FrediFizzx wrote:Blah! Blah! Blah!
I've made a simplification improvement to the Mathematica simulation. I temporally forgot that the polarizer action could be simplified to the Sign function. So now the A and B functions and product calculation are more consistent.
EPRsims/prod_calc_quat4.pdf
.
The pdf doesn’t download, Fred. Can you check if it really there?
I just downloaded it. It works for me. Anyone else having problems downloading the PDF?
.
FrediFizzx wrote:Here is the result of a simulation using the A and B outcomes that is quite simple. It only uses
A = -Sign[Cos[a Degree]];
B = Sign[Cos[b Degree]];
With the -1 factor from the singlet on the A function. Of course that is also necessary for anti-correlation when a=b.
... strange plot ...
Keep in mind that the plot has been shifted by 2pi for indexing purposes so that 0 degrees is actually at 360. Everything to the left of that is actually negative. Not much of it is very linear. We see a break at about 90 degrees to 180 where is goes very nonlinear. Then nonlinear all the was to 270. Then all -1's to 360. And of course he negative side is the mirror image.
.
gill1109 wrote:FrediFizzx wrote:Here is the result of a simulation using the A and B outcomes that is quite simple. It only uses
A = -Sign[Cos[a Degree]];
B = Sign[Cos[b Degree]];
With the -1 factor from the singlet on the A function. Of course that is also necessary for anti-correlation when a=b.
... strange plot ...
Keep in mind that the plot has been shifted by 2pi for indexing purposes so that 0 degrees is actually at 360. Everything to the left of that is actually negative. Not much of it is very linear. We see a break at about 90 degrees to 180 where is goes very nonlinear. Then nonlinear all the was to 270. Then all -1's to 360. And of course he negative side is the mirror image.
.
Very strange. Will you also post your Mathematica code?
gill1109 wrote:I think we need to see the entire code.
FrediFizzx wrote:gill1109 wrote:I think we need to see the entire code.
It's too messy and I don't feel like cleaning it up for something so simple. You can easily program this up in R to check it
gill1109 wrote:FrediFizzx wrote:gill1109 wrote:I think we need to see the entire code.
It's too messy and I don't feel like cleaning it up for something so simple. You can easily program this up in R to check it
I know a theorem from machine learning and AI (a distributed computing no-go theorem) which tells me not to try...
Return to Sci.Physics.Foundations
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 94 guests