Coming Soon!

[FrediFizzx]

@gill1109 More freakin' NONSENSE! Heine is rarely correct and is totally wrong here. I already told you that the total number of sign flips is about 5 percent so no way you can get 20 percent. Pay freakin' attention! So, the percentage of a change of b involved with a sign flip is a tiny fraction of the 5 percent. Time to get over it and move on!

Moreover, "the percentage of a change of b involved with a sign flip" is accidental, not systematic. One does not have to be a "mathematical statistician" to understand that.

Twenty quaternionic sign flips in a million trials coincide with a change in the setting b. Big deal.

Well, that is for one side so I guess it is actually around 40 if a change in setting a changes B which is actually due to the quaternion flip so still local. LOL! The Bell fanatics can't find anything else wrong with the model so all they got left to say about it is nonsense. I'm going to start deleting further nonsense posts.
.

[FrediFizzx]

So, went back to my analysis of this. I did 10 runs of 10,000 trials and averaged the results. So, we have 4.944 percent for events that have the quaternion sign flip for A and 4.996 percent for B. Pretty close to 5% for both. Now, a very small amount of those would be associated with a change in a or b. But we don't care because for our model it is still 100 percent local! The quaternion flips destroy those statistically insignificant a and b changes anyways. IOW, none of the events that don't have the quaternion flips are associated with changes in a or b.
.

[FrediFizzx]

If someone wants to understand what some of the Mathematica code does, they can go to the Wolfram Language Documentation website. For instance this is where I learned about MemberQ.

https://reference.wolfram.com/language/ ... l?q=Select

Go to Scope and open it up. Or they can just ask question here. But a lot of the code is pretty understandable. There is going to be another "Coming Soon" soon.
.

[gill1109]

If someone wants to understand what some of the Mathematica code does, they can go to the Wolfram Language Documentation website. For instance this is where I learned about MemberQ.
https://reference.wolfram.com/language/ ... l?q=Select
Go to Scope and open it up. Or they can just ask question here. But a lot of the code is pretty understandable. There is going to be another "Coming Soon" soon.

I still keep hoping for some compact pseudo-code describing your algorithm step by step. It need not be so long. You have agreed that k_A, k_B and k are different names for the same thing. For the k’th trial, the code makes some measurement angles and generates a hidden variable, then does some computations and finally has two measurement outcomes. Instead of running your code with m = 100000 you could run it 100000 times, each time with m = 1, and collect all the results together afterwards. The only tricky bit here is that you would have to create all 3 x 100000 random numbers in advance and just read them from a file as you need them.

[FrediFizzx]

If someone wants to understand what some of the Mathematica code does, they can go to the Wolfram Language Documentation website. For instance this is where I learned about MemberQ.
https://reference.wolfram.com/language/ ... l?q=Select
Go to Scope and open it up. Or they can just ask question here. But a lot of the code is pretty understandable. There is going to be another "Coming Soon" soon.

I still keep hoping for some compact pseudo-code describing your algorithm step by step. It need not be so long. You have agreed that k_A, k_B and k are different names for the same thing. For the k’th trial, the code makes some measurement angles and generates a hidden variable, then does some computations and finally has two measurement outcomes. Instead of running your code with m = 100000 you could run it 100000 times, each time with m = 1, and collect all the results together afterwards. The only tricky bit here is that you would have to create all 3 x 100000 random numbers in advance and just read them from a file as you need them.

??? You have the exact analytical formulas from the paper. If there is something you don't understand about them, ask a question. I might answer it. I'm definitely not going to run 100,000 insignificant trials with m =1. The new "Coming Soon" is coming soon!
.

[gill1109]

If someone wants to understand what some of the Mathematica code does, they can go to the Wolfram Language Documentation website. For instance this is where I learned about MemberQ.
https://reference.wolfram.com/language/ ... l?q=Select
Go to Scope and open it up. Or they can just ask question here. But a lot of the code is pretty understandable. There is going to be another "Coming Soon" soon.

I still keep hoping for some compact pseudo-code describing your algorithm step by step. It need not be so long. You have agreed that k_A, k_B and k are different names for the same thing. For the k’th trial, the code makes some measurement angles and generates a hidden variable, then does some computations and finally has two measurement outcomes. Instead of running your code with m = 100000 you could run it 100000 times, each time with m = 1, and collect all the results together afterwards. The only tricky bit here is that you would have to create all 3 x 100000 random numbers in advance and just read them from a file as you need them.

??? You have the exact analytical formulas from the paper. If there is something you don't understand about them, ask a question. I might answer it. I'm definitely not going to run 100,000 insignificant trials with m =1. The new "Coming Soon" is coming soon!
.

Fred, I'm not saying you should do that, of course!

I'm asking you to confirm my conjecture about a thought experiment.

To put my question another way: Is it true, or is it not true, that the outcomes which your program generates for the k'th trial only depend on the k'th settings of each of Alice and Bob and on the k'th singlet direction?

[FrediFizzx]

Ok Folks another "Coming Soon" is here. This is the quaternion version of the simulation that also includes the product calculation.



Blue is the correlation data and magenta is the -cosine curve for an exact match.

https://www.wolframcloud.com/obj/fredif ... c-forum.nb

And for those that don't want to sign up for free on the Wolfram Cloud, here are the files.

EPRsims/newCS-15-S3quat-prodcalc-forum.pdf
EPRsims/newCS-15-S3quat-prodcalc-forum.nb

Questions, comments and criticisms are welcome as long as they are NOT accompanied by a bunch of nonsense. Nonsense will be deleted and if a bunch the entire post will be deleted.

I'm putting up the other plot since the PDF does not render it very well and the Cloud is not currently loading it. 200,000 trials at one degree resolution.



Enjoy!
.

[FrediFizzx]

@Justo Well heck, I think eq. (14) is nonsense and I can further prove it if necessary.
.

Well, at least it is a coherent way to reject the inequality.

Where did I say that I reject the inequality? I don't. I reject Bell's interpretation from the inequality because it was shot down in 2007 by Joy.
.

You guys never stop surprising me!. I can't even disagree with you. You just proved wrong the logical principle of excluded the middle.

Well sorry, but I'm not even sure why this discussion is relevant at all. Bell's junk physics theory has been shot down for years. And we just recently put the final nail in the coffin of Bell's junk theory. RIP!

viewtopic.php?f=6&t=481&p=14249#p14249


.

[Justo]

@Justo Well heck, I think eq. (14) is nonsense and I can further prove it if necessary.
.

Well, at least it is a coherent way to reject the inequality.

Where did I say that I reject the inequality? I don't. I reject Bell's interpretation from the inequality because it was shot down in 2007 by Joy.
.

You guys never stop surprising me!. I can't even disagree with you. You just proved wrong the logical principle of excluded the middle.

Well sorry, but I'm not even sure why this discussion is relevant at all. Bell's junk physics theory has been shot down for years. And we just recently put the final nail in the coffin of Bell's junk theory. RIP!

viewtopic.php?f=6&t=481&p=14249#p14249


.

I guess you got me here. I can't discuss your model. I only hope that the conspiratorial establishment lets you publish it.

[FrediFizzx]

I guess you got me here. I can't discuss your model. I only hope that the conspiratorial establishment lets you publish it.

I don't think we will have any trouble getting it published. Why can't you discuss our model? Is there something in the paper you don't understand?

DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.13140/RG.2.2.28311.91047/2

I'd be happy to explain it to you if you ask a question. But let's do it in the Coming Soon topic.
.

[Justo]

I guess you got me here. I can't discuss your model. I only hope that the conspiratorial establishment lets you publish it.

I don't think we will have any trouble getting it published. Why can't you discuss our model? Is there something in the paper you don't understand?

DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.13140/RG.2.2.28311.91047/2

I'd be happy to explain it to you if you ask a question. But let's do it in the Coming Soon topic.
.

Thank you very much. Perhaps I will find the time to study it in which case I will have some questions to ask.

[FrediFizzx]

I guess you got me here. I can't discuss your model. I only hope that the conspiratorial establishment lets you publish it.

I don't think we will have any trouble getting it published. Why can't you discuss our model? Is there something in the paper you don't understand?

DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.13140/RG.2.2.28311.91047/2

I'd be happy to explain it to you if you ask a question. But let's do it in the Coming Soon topic.
.

Thank you very much. Perhaps I will find the time to study it in which case I will have some questions to ask.

You really should spent less time on this forum and study the paper.
.

[FrediFizzx]

To put my question another way: Is it true, or is it not true, that the outcomes which your program generates for the k'th trial only depend on the k'th settings of each of Alice and Bob and on the k'th singlet direction?

It is most definitely true. The local REALISTIC model is fully predictable with only a, b and theta(e) needed.
.

[gill1109]

To put my question another way: Is it true, or is it not true, that the outcomes which your program generates for the k'th trial only depend on the k'th settings of each of Alice and Bob and on the k'th singlet direction?

It is most definitely true. The local REALISTIC model is fully predictable with only a, b and theta(e) needed.
.

Thank you!

[FrediFizzx]

An update for the quaternion version. The approximately 5 percent sign flips for the A and B outcomes are now directly linked to quaternion flips. No more emulating them. Here is 100,000 trials at one degree resolution.



And the product calculation.



The Cloud.
https://www.wolframcloud.com/obj/fredif ... -forum2.nb

And the files.

EPRsims/newCS-15-S3quat-prodcalc-forum2.pdf
EPRsims/newCS-15-S3quat-prodcalc-forum2.nb

Enjoy its awesomeness!
.

[jreed]

To put my question another way: Is it true, or is it not true, that the outcomes which your program generates for the k'th trial only depend on the k'th settings of each of Alice and Bob and on the k'th singlet direction?

It is most definitely true. The local REALISTIC model is fully predictable with only a, b and theta(e) needed.
.

What about lambda?

[Joy Christian]

To put my question another way: Is it true, or is it not true, that the outcomes which your program generates for the k'th trial only depend on the k'th settings of each of Alice and Bob and on the k'th singlet direction?

It is most definitely true. The local REALISTIC model is fully predictable with only a, b and theta(e) needed.
.

What about lambda?

lambda is a function of theta (in the paper) or e (in the code). Given theta or e, lambda is fixed.
.

[FrediFizzx]

In the quaternion model we have two lambdas but they are both functions of e(theta).
.

[gill1109]

In the quaternion model we have two lambdas but they are both functions of e(theta).
.

Is the quaternion model a different model from the model implemented by your recent Mathematica code? Two models, or one model? There were no quaternions in Joy's analytical formulas in earlier versions of your joint paper.

[FrediFizzx]

In the quaternion model we have two lambdas but they are both functions of e(theta).
.

Is the quaternion model a different model from the model implemented by your recent Mathematica code? Two models, or one model? There were no quaternions in Joy's analytical formulas in earlier versions of your joint paper.

It is essentially the same model but with the addition of quaternions so that we could also have the product calculation at the same time and the 5 percent of A and B sign changes linked directly to quaternion flips. No more emulation! The paper has not been updated yet but will be eventually.
.