SciPhysicsForums.com

Here is a simple analytical computation of Joy's local model using quaternions in Mathematica.



There should be no further debate about this. Bell's theory is kaput. Here is the Mathematica file for those that might be interested.

EPRsims/quat_analytical.nb
.

FrediFizzx wrote:Here is a simple analytical computation of Joy's model using quaternions in Mathematica.

...

There should be no further debate about this. Bell's theory is kaput. Here is the Mathematica file for those that might be interested.

EPRsims/quat_analytical.nb
.

Yes, this is the essential calculation in Joy’s papers, and nobody disagrees with it. Fred, you had better tell us what you think Bell’s theory is. In my opinion, your calculation has nothing whatever to do with Bell’s theory, and nothing whatever to do with the EPR-B experiment.

@gill1109 Ah but of course, some lamo wants to further debate it so he can spew more nonsense about it.
.

FrediFizzx wrote:Here is a simple analytical computation of Joy's model using quaternions in Mathematica.



There should be no further debate about this. Bell's theory is kaput. Here is the Mathematica file for those that might be interested.

EPRsims/quat_analytical.nb
.

There will be no further debate, because this is just stupid.

Heinera wrote:There will be no further debate, because this is just stupid.

Yes, we already know that you have your brain perpetually stuck in Gill's la-la land theory. Too bad; so sad.
.

FrediFizzx wrote:@gill1109 Ah but of course, some lamo wants to further debate it so he can spew more nonsense about it.

I don't want debate, I want scientists who make mistakes to correct those mistakes. And I would of course appreciate apologies for the personal attacks which followed my pointing out their mistakes. When you publish something, you put it up for public debate.

Meantime I got a message from "Entropy" that a committee is evaluating a complaint by Joy Christian about my paper which appeared there "Does Geometric Algebra provide a loophole to Bell's Theorem?" They tell me that my correction note will be handled after they have resolved Christian's complaint, which could of course lead to further corrections. In the meantime, the correction note is published on the arXiv version of the paper https://arxiv.org/abs/1203.1504.

I would appreciate receiving a copy of the complaint, in all confidence. I have asked to see it. It should go to the dean of my faculty as well, if not also to the rector of my university. I hope that Entropy carries out a thorough and unprejudiced investigation.

Not so long ago, Fred told us here what, in Bell's view, Bell's theorem is. You can find it in Bell's "Reply to critics":

Can one find some functions (2) and some probability distribution π(µ) which reproduces the correlation (1)? Yes, many, but now we add the hypothesis of locality, that the setting b of a particular instrument has no effect on what happens, A, in a remote region, and likewise that a has no effect on B:
A(a, µ), B(b, µ). (3)
With these local forms, it is not possible to find functions A and B and a probability distribution π which give the correlation (1). This is the theorem. The proof will not be repeated here.

Fred has not shown us a counter-example to Bell's theorem. He does not give us functions A(a, lambda) and B(b, lambda), taking values +/-1, and he gives us no probability distribution pi of a "hidden variable" lambda, together reproducing the singlet correlations by an expression of the usual form - a . b = int A(a, lambda) B(b, lambda) pi(d lambda). Joy Christian never did that, either. Nor did any of Joy's computer programmers - at least, he thinks they were programming his model - over the years (John Reeds, Chantal Roth, Michel Fodje, Albert-Jan Wonninck, Fred Diether, Richard Gill).

@gill1109 Just as I was expecting... more freakin' waffling nonsense.
.

Ya don't have to simulate an EPR experiment to shoot down Bell's theory. So, stop with the freakin' nonsense.
.

Dear Fred, indeed, you don't need to simulate anything to shoot down Bell's theory.

Here is another way of doing Joy's local model using quaternions that gets rid of the sx^2+sy^2+sz^2. The singlet quaternion can be composed of any unit vector.



Now, I just need to figure out how to lose the 0. and 1.. But doesn't matter as it is easy to see that Joy's local model predicts -a.b the same as QM via a product calculation.
.

Excellent, Fred! This is Joy’s model in a nutshell, as I see it too.

gill1109 wrote:Excellent, Fred! This is Joy’s model in a nutshell, as I see it too.

Ah good, so you finally agree that Bell's theory is shot down! Thanks.
.

FrediFizzx wrote:

gill1109 wrote:Excellent, Fred! This is Joy’s model in a nutshell, as I see it too.

Ah good, so you finally agree that Bell's theory is shot down! Thanks.

On the contrary! Joy's theory is totally annihilated and you are the only one who doesn't realise that. Even Joy admits it now (in his "Reply" to my "Comment" on his IEEE Access
Bertlmann's socks paper. You had better read them both!

@gill1109 You admitted that Joy's local model predicts -a.b via a product calculation just like QM predicts it via a production calculation. So, you are back to talking complete nonsense again just like your comment paper.
.

FrediFizzx wrote:@gill1109 You admitted that Joy's local model predicts -a.b via a product calculation just like QM predicts it via a production calculation. So, you are back to talking complete nonsense again just like your comment paper.

Fred, you are so funny! You simply have no idea at all what you are talking about ... dream on!

@gill1109 You admitted that Joy's local model predicts -a.b via a product calculation just like QM predicts it via a production calculation. So, you are back to talking complete nonsense again just like your comment paper.
.

Joy's local model predicts -a.b via a product calculation just like QM predicts it via a product calculation. Perhaps you had better find out what Bell's theorem actually is all about. It's about something else completely different. The issue is whether the "product calculation" can be done locally, ie in a distributed fashion, without communication. Bell's theorem is a theorem in computer science, subfield "distributed computing".

gill1109 wrote:
Perhaps you had better find out what Bell's theorem actually is all about. It's about something else completely different. The issue is whether the "product calculation" can be done locally, ie in a distributed fashion, without communication. Bell's theorem is a theorem in computer science, subfield "distributed computing".

Where does Bell say in his writings that his so-called "theorem" is a theorem in computer technology?

PS: An amusing anecdote: One of my friends, Ashwin Srinivasan, was a professor in the Computer Science Department at Oxford University in the mid-1990s before he moved back to India because his wife couldn't bear British culture. Once, he invited me to his department, which is next door to Theoretical Physics but I had never bothered to visit it before. When I entered the building and he led me to his office via various corridors, I couldn't help murmur: "I smell metaphorical grease." He found that most amusing, and recalls that anecdote at every party.
.

Joy Christian wrote:

gill1109 wrote:
Perhaps you had better find out what Bell's theorem actually is all about. It's about something else completely different. The issue is whether the "product calculation" can be done locally, ie in a distributed fashion, without communication. Bell's theorem is a theorem in computer science, subfield "distributed computing".

Where does Bell say in his writings that his so-called "theorem" is a theorem in computer technology?

Of course Bell never said that. Gill made it up into Gill's theory and is still struggling with Gull's proof. It is pretty much a waste of time to further debate the fact that Bell's theory is shot down along with all the so-called Bell proofs. So, what do the Bell fans do when his theory is shot down? They move the goalpost to a local theory has to simulate an EPR experiment. It is pure freakin' nonsense since QM can't simulate an experiment either.
.

FrediFizzx wrote:

Joy Christian wrote:

gill1109 wrote:
Perhaps you had better find out what Bell's theorem actually is all about. It's about something else completely different. The issue is whether the "product calculation" can be done locally, ie in a distributed fashion, without communication. Bell's theorem is a theorem in computer science, subfield "distributed computing".

Where does Bell say in his writings that his so-called "theorem" is a theorem in computer technology?

Of course Bell never said that. Gill made it up into Gill's theory and is still struggling with Gull's proof. It is pretty much a waste of time to further debate the fact that Bell's theory is shot down along with all the so-called Bell proofs. So, what do the Bell fans do when his theory is shot down? They move the goalpost to a local theory has to simulate an EPR experiment. It is pure freakin' nonsense since QM can't simulate an experiment either.

Nobody ever said that Bell said that his theorem is a theorem in computer science.

I gave a proof of the equivalence of Bell’s theorem in its usual formulation with the theorem in computer science formulated by Steve Gull. Joy Christian has recognised that Bell’s theorem (as a mathematical theorem) is correct. I think Fred Diether is the last man on that sinking ship.

I am not struggling with Gull’s proof. Our proof is complete.

A new student of mine has come up with some interesting connections with earlier work by Zukowski on “functional Bell inequalities”. I will let him finish it himself, before adding it to our preprint. There are some other topics which I want to add to the paper with my other student Dilara Karakozak.