Coming Soon!

Foundations of physics and/or philosophy of physics, and in particular, posts on unresolved or controversial issues

Re: Coming Soon!

Postby FrediFizzx » Fri Sep 17, 2021 12:04 pm

jreed wrote:
FrediFizzx wrote:For John,

https://www.wolframcloud.com/obj/fredif ... or-John.nb

Ok, now try to do another strawman with element 5 gone. It was only there for the Product Calculation which I took out for this. Remember, no changing the code in the first A and B Do-loops or you will just make another strawman.
.

Here is a version developed from your latest one. This one was more interesting. I await your next attempt, it''s lots of fun.

https://www.wolframcloud.com/obj/ka5qep/Published/Q3.nb

Ah, very clever except for two mistakes. The outputs of the first A and B Do-loops is outA1,outA2 and outB1,outB2 not outAa and outBb. Let's see what you do with the correct output streams. Those outputs are part of the difference why your strawman is non-local and our sim is local.
.
FrediFizzx
Independent Physics Researcher
 
Posts: 2905
Joined: Tue Mar 19, 2013 7:12 pm
Location: N. California, USA

Re: Coming Soon!

Postby FrediFizzx » Fri Sep 17, 2021 2:08 pm

Here you go John. Try this one without outAa and outBb.

https://www.wolframcloud.com/obj/fredif ... or-John.nb

I actually like this code better with the two output streams from the get-go. So, thanks for that. No fair just catenating outA1,outA2 and outB1,outB2 back together to just make outAa and outBb again.
.
FrediFizzx
Independent Physics Researcher
 
Posts: 2905
Joined: Tue Mar 19, 2013 7:12 pm
Location: N. California, USA

Re: Coming Soon!

Postby gill1109 » Fri Sep 17, 2021 10:02 pm

jreed wrote:
FrediFizzx wrote:For John,

https://www.wolframcloud.com/obj/fredif ... or-John.nb

Ok, now try to do another strawman with element 5 gone. It was only there for the Product Calculation which I took out for this. Remember, no changing the code in the first A and B Do-loops or you will just make another strawman.
.

Here is a version developed from your latest one. This one was more interesting. I await your next attempt, it''s lots of fun.

https://www.wolframcloud.com/obj/ka5qep/Published/Q3.nb

Better still! Now all differences are identically zero. Before, some of them were only zero up to finite precision machine accuracy.

I noticed
Code: Select all
 Do θ=RandomReal[{-179,180}];

If the singlet angle is a real number uniformly distributed on the circle, measured in degrees, I would pick it from the interval [-180, 180]. I suspect that [-179, 180] is a remnant of taking the singlet angle to be a whole number of degrees. Not very physical.
gill1109
Mathematical Statistician
 
Posts: 2812
Joined: Tue Feb 04, 2014 10:39 pm
Location: Leiden

Re: Coming Soon!

Postby FrediFizzx » Sat Sep 18, 2021 1:08 am

gill1109 wrote:
jreed wrote:
FrediFizzx wrote:For John,

https://www.wolframcloud.com/obj/fredif ... or-John.nb

Ok, now try to do another strawman with element 5 gone. It was only there for the Product Calculation which I took out for this. Remember, no changing the code in the first A and B Do-loops or you will just make another strawman.
.

Here is a version developed from your latest one. This one was more interesting. I await your next attempt, it''s lots of fun.

https://www.wolframcloud.com/obj/ka5qep/Published/Q3.nb

Better still! Now all differences are identically zero. Before, some of them were only zero up to finite precision machine accuracy.

I noticed
Code: Select all
 Do θ=RandomReal[{-179,180}];

If the singlet angle is a real number uniformly distributed on the circle, measured in degrees, I would pick it from the interval [-180, 180]. I suspect that [-179, 180] is a remnant of taking the singlet angle to be a whole number of degrees. Not very physical.

Too bad John used the wrong output for an input. The difference between being local or non-local.

The angle selection is due to this function,



FromPolarCoordinates only works to -179. It does work if -180.
.
FrediFizzx
Independent Physics Researcher
 
Posts: 2905
Joined: Tue Mar 19, 2013 7:12 pm
Location: N. California, USA

Re: Coming Soon!

Postby jreed » Sat Sep 18, 2021 6:20 am

FrediFizzx wrote:Here you go John. Try this one without outAa and outBb.

https://www.wolframcloud.com/obj/fredif ... or-John.nb

I actually like this code better with the two output streams from the get-go. So, thanks for that. No fair just catenating outA1,outA2 and outB1,outB2 back together to just make outAa and outBb again.
.

So it's ok for you to use Catenate, but not me? This doesn't seem fair. I won't work on this one.
jreed
 
Posts: 176
Joined: Mon Feb 17, 2014 5:10 pm

Re: Coming Soon!

Postby gill1109 » Sat Sep 18, 2021 6:46 am

FrediFizzx wrote:
gill1109 wrote:
jreed wrote:
FrediFizzx wrote:For John,

https://www.wolframcloud.com/obj/fredif ... or-John.nb

Ok, now try to do another strawman with element 5 gone. It was only there for the Product Calculation which I took out for this. Remember, no changing the code in the first A and B Do-loops or you will just make another strawman.
.

Here is a version developed from your latest one. This one was more interesting. I await your next attempt, it''s lots of fun.

https://www.wolframcloud.com/obj/ka5qep/Published/Q3.nb

Better still! Now all differences are identically zero. Before, some of them were only zero up to finite precision machine accuracy.

I noticed
Code: Select all
 Do θ=RandomReal[{-179,180}];

If the singlet angle is a real number uniformly distributed on the circle, measured in degrees, I would pick it from the interval [-180, 180]. I suspect that [-179, 180] is a remnant of taking the singlet angle to be a whole number of degrees. Not very physical.

Too bad John used the wrong output for an input. The difference between being local or non-local.

The angle selection is due to this function,



FromPolarCoordinates only works to -179. It does work if -180.
.

If theta is drawn uniformly at random as a real number from -180 to +180 it will never actually equal -180.
gill1109
Mathematical Statistician
 
Posts: 2812
Joined: Tue Feb 04, 2014 10:39 pm
Location: Leiden

Re: Coming Soon!

Postby FrediFizzx » Sat Sep 18, 2021 7:11 am

jreed wrote:
FrediFizzx wrote:Here you go John. Try this one without outAa and outBb.

https://www.wolframcloud.com/obj/fredif ... or-John.nb

I actually like this code better with the two output streams from the get-go. So, thanks for that. No fair just catenating outA1,outA2 and outB1,outB2 back together to just make outAa and outBb again.
.

So it's ok for you to use Catenate, but not me? This doesn't seem fair. I won't work on this one.

You can catenate at the end however you want but not to just remake outAa and outBb at the beginning. Of course you won't work on this one because you can't make a non-local strawman from it. :mrgreen: :mrgreen: :mrgreen: Time to admit defeat!
.
FrediFizzx
Independent Physics Researcher
 
Posts: 2905
Joined: Tue Mar 19, 2013 7:12 pm
Location: N. California, USA

Re: Coming Soon!

Postby FrediFizzx » Sat Sep 18, 2021 7:42 am

gill1109 wrote: ... If theta is drawn uniformly at random as a real number from -180 to +180 it will never actually equal -180.


From the Mathematica details,

FromPolarCoordinates converts points in the standard range r > 0, -[Pi] < [Theta] <= [Pi] in two dimensions.

I suppose I could have made it -179.99999.
.
FrediFizzx
Independent Physics Researcher
 
Posts: 2905
Joined: Tue Mar 19, 2013 7:12 pm
Location: N. California, USA

Re: Coming Soon!

Postby Joy Christian » Sat Sep 18, 2021 8:10 am

FrediFizzx wrote:
gill1109 wrote: ... If theta is drawn uniformly at random as a real number from -180 to +180 it will never actually equal -180.


From the Mathematica details,

FromPolarCoordinates converts points in the standard range r > 0, -[Pi] < [Theta] <= [Pi] in two dimensions.

I suppose I could have made it -179.99999.

Or you can set -180.001.
.
Joy Christian
Research Physicist
 
Posts: 2793
Joined: Wed Feb 05, 2014 4:49 am
Location: Oxford, United Kingdom

Re: Coming Soon!

Postby FrediFizzx » Sat Sep 18, 2021 8:15 am

Joy Christian wrote:
FrediFizzx wrote:
gill1109 wrote: ... If theta is drawn uniformly at random as a real number from -180 to +180 it will never actually equal -180.


From the Mathematica details,

FromPolarCoordinates converts points in the standard range r > 0, -[Pi] < [Theta] <= [Pi] in two dimensions.

I suppose I could have made it -179.99999.

Or you can set -180.001.
.

??? Theta has to be greater than -pi or -180. What happened in Mathematica when I did -180 to 180, FromPolarCoordinates wouldn't work at all. Very strange.
.
FrediFizzx
Independent Physics Researcher
 
Posts: 2905
Joined: Tue Mar 19, 2013 7:12 pm
Location: N. California, USA

Re: Coming Soon!

Postby FrediFizzx » Sat Sep 18, 2021 1:27 pm

FrediFizzx wrote:
jreed wrote:
FrediFizzx wrote:Here you go John. Try this one without outAa and outBb.

https://www.wolframcloud.com/obj/fredif ... or-John.nb

I actually like this code better with the two output streams from the get-go. So, thanks for that. No fair just catenating outA1,outA2 and outB1,outB2 back together to just make outAa and outBb again.
.

So it's ok for you to use Catenate, but not me? This doesn't seem fair. I won't work on this one.

You can catenate at the end however you want but not to just remake outAa and outBb at the beginning. Of course you won't work on this one because you can't make a non-local strawman from it. :mrgreen: :mrgreen: :mrgreen: Time to admit defeat!

.
jreed wrote:I'm kind of stubborn and I will keep pestering you until you admit that your simulation is certainly non-local, as it must be.

Well, John is not admitting defeat so he must be hard at work still trying to prove our local simulation is non-local. Not sure why he ignores all the proof we have given that it is local. I guess I will give it one more try later on.
FrediFizzx
Independent Physics Researcher
 
Posts: 2905
Joined: Tue Mar 19, 2013 7:12 pm
Location: N. California, USA

Re: Coming Soon!

Postby jreed » Sat Sep 18, 2021 4:26 pm

FrediFizzx wrote:
FrediFizzx wrote:
jreed wrote:
FrediFizzx wrote:Here you go John. Try this one without outAa and outBb.

https://www.wolframcloud.com/obj/fredif ... or-John.nb

I actually like this code better with the two output streams from the get-go. So, thanks for that. No fair just catenating outA1,outA2 and outB1,outB2 back together to just make outAa and outBb again.
.

So it's ok for you to use Catenate, but not me? This doesn't seem fair. I won't work on this one.

You can catenate at the end however you want but not to just remake outAa and outBb at the beginning. Of course you won't work on this one because you can't make a non-local strawman from it. :mrgreen: :mrgreen: :mrgreen: Time to admit defeat!

.
jreed wrote:I'm kind of stubborn and I will keep pestering you until you admit that your simulation is certainly non-local, as it must be.

Well, John is not admitting defeat so he must be hard at work still trying to prove our local simulation is non-local. Not sure why he ignores all the proof we have given that it is local. I guess I will give it one more try later on.

Where is the proof that your formulation is local? I would certainly like to see that.
jreed
 
Posts: 176
Joined: Mon Feb 17, 2014 5:10 pm

Re: Coming Soon!

Postby FrediFizzx » Sat Sep 18, 2021 5:42 pm

FrediFizzx
Independent Physics Researcher
 
Posts: 2905
Joined: Tue Mar 19, 2013 7:12 pm
Location: N. California, USA

Re: Coming Soon!

Postby gill1109 » Sat Sep 18, 2021 11:45 pm

FrediFizzx wrote:
Joy Christian wrote:
FrediFizzx wrote:
gill1109 wrote: ... If theta is drawn uniformly at random as a real number from -180 to +180 it will never actually equal -180.


From the Mathematica details,

FromPolarCoordinates converts points in the standard range r > 0, -[Pi] < [Theta] <= [Pi] in two dimensions.

I suppose I could have made it -179.99999.

Or you can set -180.001.
.

??? Theta has to be greater than -pi or -180. What happened in Mathematica when I did -180 to 180, FromPolarCoordinates wouldn't work at all. Very strange.
.

Maybe you were picking random integers instead of reals?
gill1109
Mathematical Statistician
 
Posts: 2812
Joined: Tue Feb 04, 2014 10:39 pm
Location: Leiden

Re: Coming Soon!

Postby Joy Christian » Sun Sep 19, 2021 2:37 am

.
After seven years, I have again installed RStudio and R. Time permitting, I will attempt to reproduce Fred's Mathematica code in R. After seven years, I may have to relearn R and RStudio.
.
Joy Christian
Research Physicist
 
Posts: 2793
Joined: Wed Feb 05, 2014 4:49 am
Location: Oxford, United Kingdom

Re: Coming Soon!

Postby FrediFizzx » Sun Sep 19, 2021 2:55 am

Joy Christian wrote:.
After seven years, I have again installed RStudio and R. Time permitting, I will attempt to reproduce Fred's Mathematica code in R. After seven years, I may have to relearn R and RStudio.
.

Well, just do the cos sin version to start with. I now have a more simple version of the first A and B Do-loops that should be easier for R. I will take the quaternions out and send to you.
.
FrediFizzx
Independent Physics Researcher
 
Posts: 2905
Joined: Tue Mar 19, 2013 7:12 pm
Location: N. California, USA

Re: Coming Soon!

Postby gill1109 » Sun Sep 19, 2021 3:01 am

Joy Christian wrote:.
After seven years, I have again installed RStudio and R. Time permitting, I will attempt to reproduce Fred's Mathematica code in R. After seven years, I may have to relearn R and RStudio.

Very good news! Good luck…
gill1109
Mathematical Statistician
 
Posts: 2812
Joined: Tue Feb 04, 2014 10:39 pm
Location: Leiden

Re: Coming Soon!

Postby FrediFizzx » Sun Sep 19, 2021 4:51 am

FrediFizzx wrote:
Joy Christian wrote:.
After seven years, I have again installed RStudio and R. Time permitting, I will attempt to reproduce Fred's Mathematica code in R. After seven years, I may have to relearn R and RStudio.
.

Well, just do the cos sin version to start with. I now have a more simple version of the first A and B Do-loops that should be easier for R. I will take the quaternions out and send to you.

Well, I will just post the new simple version here so everyone can have a crack at it. The Cloud file.

https://www.wolframcloud.com/obj/fredif ... for-Joy.nb

Other direct files.

EPRsims/newCS-23-for-Joy.pdf
EPRsims/newCS-23-for-Joy.nb

Enjoy the awesomeness of the simple version that kill Bell's and Gill's junk theories!!! :mrgreen: :mrgreen: :mrgreen:
.
FrediFizzx
Independent Physics Researcher
 
Posts: 2905
Joined: Tue Mar 19, 2013 7:12 pm
Location: N. California, USA

Re: Coming Soon!

Postby jreed » Sun Sep 19, 2021 7:10 am


It's ironic that the "spinoral sign change" that you say makes the calculation 100% local is actually inserting the non-localities needed to violate the CHSH inequality and give the cosine output curve.
jreed
 
Posts: 176
Joined: Mon Feb 17, 2014 5:10 pm

Re: Coming Soon!

Postby Joy Christian » Sun Sep 19, 2021 7:16 am

jreed wrote:

It's ironic that the "spinoral sign change" that you say makes the calculation 100% local is actually inserting the non-localities needed to violate the CHSH inequality and give the cosine output curve.

That is pure nonsense. Show me the "non-localities" in the analytical prescription presented in our paper: http://dx.doi.org/10.13140/RG.2.2.28311.91047/2.
.
Joy Christian
Research Physicist
 
Posts: 2793
Joined: Wed Feb 05, 2014 4:49 am
Location: Oxford, United Kingdom

PreviousNext

Return to Sci.Physics.Foundations

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: ahrefs [Bot] and 67 guests

cron
CodeCogs - An Open Source Scientific Library