Coming Soon!

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

Re: Coming Soon!

Postby FrediFizzx » Mon Jul 12, 2021 4:35 am

Austin Fearnley wrote:
Fred wrote:
@Austin Well, now that you finally posted more detail it is more understandable. :) What you are not realizing is that you are leaving orphans behind in A and/or B when the constraint is not happening so your trial numbers don't match up when you do the correlation.

I see no orphans :)

Sorry, I should have explained that better. Separate the events into two lists each for A and B. You will see that in my code as outA1, outA2 and outB1, outB2. The first lists are events greater than lambda, the second lists are events less than lambda. Now, you will find orphans in the first lists with no matching trial numbers in the corresponding other first list. Because their "partner" went to the second lists.
.
FrediFizzx
Independent Physics Researcher
 
Posts: 2905
Joined: Tue Mar 19, 2013 7:12 pm
Location: N. California, USA

Re: Coming Soon!

Postby Joy Christian » Mon Jul 12, 2021 4:45 am

FrediFizzx wrote:
Austin Fearnley wrote:
Fred wrote:
@Austin Well, now that you finally posted more detail it is more understandable. :) What you are not realizing is that you are leaving orphans behind in A and/or B when the constraint is not happening so your trial numbers don't match up when you do the correlation.

I see no orphans :)

Sorry, I should have explained that better. Separate the events into two lists each for A and B. You will see that in my code as outA1, outA2 and outB1, outB2. The first lists are events greater than lambda, the second lists are events less than lambda. Now, you will find orphans in the first lists with no matching trial numbers in the corresponding other first list. Because their "partner" went to the second lists.

Thanks for this explanation, Fred. I had not understood this point either. Now I understand it. The formulae I have written down in LaTex are all correct. The problem is in the programming. Not your programming, but in Austin's, guest's, and Gill's programming. I suppose any programming language will have the same problem. You have discovered the problem and solved it. :)
.
Joy Christian
Research Physicist
 
Posts: 2793
Joined: Wed Feb 05, 2014 4:49 am
Location: Oxford, United Kingdom

Re: Coming Soon!

Postby Austin Fearnley » Mon Jul 12, 2021 5:45 am

Hi Fred

Thanks for the gradual clearing of the haze.

IMO there should be no orphans. And my spreadsheet has none.
I can only see orphans arising if calculations are executed which are not specified in the formulae.
For example if you calculate A1 = -sign(cos(a-theta)) and also A2 = -sign(sin(a-theta)) and later choose which is the appropriate one to use, then I can maybe see you have made some extra calculations which need to be discarded.
But there is no real need to make superfluous calculations.
According to Joy's formulae one just needs to follow the right calculation path and there are no orphans.
I still see no orphans in my spreadsheet.

Are you throwing away data in your method? It is a good idea to count the pairs out and count them back in again. (Apologies if you have already done this .)
I have 360 pairs of particles out and 360 pairs of A and B back in. No orphans in sight.
To clarify, there is nothing wrong with directly calculating A using the -sign(cos(a-theta) and B = +sign(sin(b-theta)) within one pair of particles. Nothing wasted or orphaned.

BTW I consider your formulae to be able to be run separately by Alice and Bob. In my spreadsheet I make A and B calculations separately.

Austin
Austin Fearnley
 

Re: Coming Soon!

Postby FrediFizzx » Mon Jul 12, 2021 6:21 am

@Austin Did you make the two lists each for A and B?
.
FrediFizzx
Independent Physics Researcher
 
Posts: 2905
Joined: Tue Mar 19, 2013 7:12 pm
Location: N. California, USA

Re: Coming Soon!

Postby Austin Fearnley » Mon Jul 12, 2021 6:25 am

Fred

Well, actually, I did make two partial lists each, with blanks where appropriate.

Austin
Austin Fearnley
 

Re: Coming Soon!

Postby FrediFizzx » Mon Jul 12, 2021 6:29 am

Here is a partial answer to some of what Austin was talking about. First we have two partial lists where the first one is the a vector that goes in. The second list is the a vector after detection that is going in for analysis. Then we have the same thing for the b vector.

Image
Image

So, you can see that the a and b vector angles are matching between in and out.
.
FrediFizzx
Independent Physics Researcher
 
Posts: 2905
Joined: Tue Mar 19, 2013 7:12 pm
Location: N. California, USA

Re: Coming Soon!

Postby Heinera » Mon Jul 12, 2021 7:51 am

Joy Christian wrote:.
That is complete nonsense. The hidden variable is shared between Alice and Bob. That means the index k must be the same between Alice and Bob, as required by Bell and Physics.
.

Yes, that is correct. But it is not at all what Fred is doing. So his analysis is "complete nonsense".
Heinera
 
Posts: 917
Joined: Thu Feb 06, 2014 1:50 am

Re: Coming Soon!

Postby FrediFizzx » Mon Jul 12, 2021 12:35 pm

Heinera wrote:
Joy Christian wrote:.
That is complete nonsense. The hidden variable is shared between Alice and Bob. That means the index k must be the same between Alice and Bob, as required by Bell and Physics.
.

Yes, that is correct. But it is not at all what Fred is doing. So his analysis is "complete nonsense".

Pure baloney. I am doing that. Plus a_k in is the same a_k out and b_k in is the same as b_k out. It's not my problem if others don't follow my procedure.
.
FrediFizzx
Independent Physics Researcher
 
Posts: 2905
Joined: Tue Mar 19, 2013 7:12 pm
Location: N. California, USA

Re: Coming Soon!

Postby gill1109 » Mon Jul 12, 2021 3:51 pm

FrediFizzx wrote:
Heinera wrote:
Joy Christian wrote:.
That is complete nonsense. The hidden variable is shared between Alice and Bob. That means the index k must be the same between Alice and Bob, as required by Bell and Physics.
.

Yes, that is correct. But it is not at all what Fred is doing. So his analysis is "complete nonsense".

Pure baloney. I am doing that. Plus a_k in is the same a_k out and b_k in is the same as b_k out. It's not my problem if others don't follow my procedure.
.

Experimentalists don’t follow Fred’s procedure.

Thought experiment. Suppose we run Fred’s program one million times, separately, each time with N = 1, and each time using one of the four traditional CHSH setting pairs. We then analyse the data in the traditional way, not in Fred’s way. Will we violate the CHSH inequality?

Actually several contributors to this thread already effectively did that experiment with various values of N. Once his algorithm is programmed in R or Python more experiments will be easy.

I think Fred’s approach is very ingenious. I hope he will write it up and publish it.
gill1109
Mathematical Statistician
 
Posts: 2812
Joined: Tue Feb 04, 2014 10:39 pm
Location: Leiden

Re: Coming Soon!

Postby FrediFizzx » Mon Jul 12, 2021 4:50 pm

@gill1109 Doesn't matter about the experimenters. It is whether Nature does it. Anyways, it's enough to disprove your impossibility theory. :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 gill1109 » Mon Jul 12, 2021 8:53 pm

FrediFizzx wrote:@gill1109 Doesn't matter about the experimenters. It is whether Nature does it. Anyways, it's enough to disprove your impossibility theory. :mrgreen: :mrgreen: :mrgreen:
.

Fred, you haven’t disproved any mathematical theorems that I know of.

But regarding physics, I have one question: How do you suppose that Nature does the matching?

I do hope you will give us a program in R or Python so we can try it out more easily.
gill1109
Mathematical Statistician
 
Posts: 2812
Joined: Tue Feb 04, 2014 10:39 pm
Location: Leiden

Re: Coming Soon!

Postby FrediFizzx » Mon Jul 12, 2021 9:38 pm

gill1109 wrote:
FrediFizzx wrote:@gill1109 Doesn't matter about the experimenters. It is whether Nature does it. Anyways, it's enough to disprove your impossibility theory. :mrgreen: :mrgreen: :mrgreen:
.

Fred, you haven’t disproved any mathematical theorems that I know of.

I didn't say "mathematical theorems'". I said "your impossibility theory". If a theorem can be disproven then it was only a theory to start with. So Gill's theory is completely shot down to ity bity pieces now. Time for you to get real, get way over it, and move on. :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 gill1109 » Mon Jul 12, 2021 9:59 pm

FrediFizzx wrote:
gill1109 wrote:
FrediFizzx wrote:@gill1109 Doesn't matter about the experimenters. It is whether Nature does it. Anyways, it's enough to disprove your impossibility theory. :mrgreen: :mrgreen: :mrgreen:
.

Fred, you haven’t disproved any mathematical theorems that I know of.

I didn't say "mathematical theorems'". I said "your impossibility theory". If a theorem can be disproven then it was only a theory to start with. So Gill's theory is completely shot down to itty bitty pieces now. Time for you to get real, get way over it, and move on. :mrgreen: :mrgreen: :mrgreen:
.

My impossibility theory does not say that what you did is impossible.

Write it up and try to publish! Publish code in R or Python, or publish pseudo-code, see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pseudocode, to enable other people to do that.
gill1109
Mathematical Statistician
 
Posts: 2812
Joined: Tue Feb 04, 2014 10:39 pm
Location: Leiden

Re: Coming Soon!

Postby FrediFizzx » Mon Jul 12, 2021 11:26 pm

gill1109 wrote:
FrediFizzx wrote:
gill1109 wrote:
FrediFizzx wrote:@gill1109 Doesn't matter about the experimenters. It is whether Nature does it. Anyways, it's enough to disprove your impossibility theory. :mrgreen: :mrgreen: :mrgreen:
.

Fred, you haven’t disproved any mathematical theorems that I know of.

I didn't say "mathematical theorems'". I said "your impossibility theory". If a theorem can be disproven then it was only a theory to start with. So Gill's theory is completely shot down to itty bitty pieces now. Time for you to get real, get way over it, and move on. :mrgreen: :mrgreen: :mrgreen:
.

My impossibility theory does not say that what you did is impossible.

Or course not because it is in fact possible. :lol:
.
FrediFizzx
Independent Physics Researcher
 
Posts: 2905
Joined: Tue Mar 19, 2013 7:12 pm
Location: N. California, USA

Re: Coming Soon!

Postby gill1109 » Tue Jul 13, 2021 11:51 am

FrediFizzx wrote:
gill1109 wrote:My impossibility theory does not say that what you did is impossible.

Or course not because it is in fact possible.

Of course, my theory is true; and whatever you do is something that can be done. But I don’t think that what you did has anything whatever to do with physics.

Still waiting for some code which I could play with, or maths formulas…
gill1109
Mathematical Statistician
 
Posts: 2812
Joined: Tue Feb 04, 2014 10:39 pm
Location: Leiden

Re: Coming Soon!

Postby FrediFizzx » Tue Jul 13, 2021 1:29 pm

gill1109 wrote:
FrediFizzx wrote:
gill1109 wrote:My impossibility theory does not say that what you did is impossible.

Or course not because it is in fact possible.

Of course, my theory is true; and whatever you do is something that can be done. But I don’t think that what you did has anything whatever to do with physics.

Still waiting for some code which I could play with, or maths formulas…

Sorry, your impossibility theory has been proven false. What you have been doing for sure has nothing to do with physics either.
.
FrediFizzx
Independent Physics Researcher
 
Posts: 2905
Joined: Tue Mar 19, 2013 7:12 pm
Location: N. California, USA

Re: Coming Soon!

Postby FrediFizzx » Tue Jul 13, 2021 6:06 pm

Here is an update to the CHSH file.

CHSH = 2.65705

EPRsims/newCS-10-CHSH-forum2.pdf
EPRsims/newCS-10-CHSH-forum2.nb

Here are two .csv files of 10k trials worth of the raw data so anyone can do their own CHSH analysis,

EPRsims/outA5.csv
EPRsims/outB5.csv

The first column is the angle, second is A or B output, third is the trial number.

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

Re: Coming Soon!

Postby gill1109 » Tue Jul 13, 2021 9:28 pm

FrediFizzx wrote:Here is an update to the CHSH file.

CHSH = 2.65705

EPRsims/newCS-10-CHSH-forum2.pdf
EPRsims/newCS-10-CHSH-forum2.nb

Here are two .csv files of 10k trials worth of the raw data so anyone can do their own CHSH analysis,

EPRsims/outA5.csv
EPRsims/outB5.csv

The first column is the angle, second is A or B output, third is the trial number.

Enjoy!!
.

Anyone who is interested needs to be able to supply their own lists of inputs (settings) and also to set the seed to the random number generator. Then they need to be able to do whatever statistics they like on the outputs (measurement outcomes). This is just a matter of reproducible science, a matter of good research practices. For the same reasons (good research practices), your code should be written in a language such that it can be run by open source software. Lots of people are waiting! You want me to eat my hat, right? You want to get the Nobel prize? There’s no time to waste.
gill1109
Mathematical Statistician
 
Posts: 2812
Joined: Tue Feb 04, 2014 10:39 pm
Location: Leiden

Re: Coming Soon!

Postby FrediFizzx » Tue Jul 13, 2021 9:43 pm

@gill1109 More pure nonsense. I can't believe you can't find someone to put this in R. I will explain the Mathematica code to you if you ask the right questions so you can put it in R yourself.
.
FrediFizzx
Independent Physics Researcher
 
Posts: 2905
Joined: Tue Mar 19, 2013 7:12 pm
Location: N. California, USA

Re: Coming Soon!

Postby gill1109 » Wed Jul 14, 2021 11:55 pm

FrediFizzx wrote:@gill1109 More pure nonsense. I can't believe you can't find someone to put this in R. I will explain the Mathematica code to you if you ask the right questions so you can put it in R yourself.
.

If your work is interesting, someone else will do it. If you want to interest more people in it, you should do it. Python is also fine. Or just write some transparent pseudo-code.

I’m just dumb, can’t read Mathematica. You can take no notice of me. No problem.

If you want to help me (and others) please suggest one or two “right questions” to ask.
gill1109
Mathematical Statistician
 
Posts: 2812
Joined: Tue Feb 04, 2014 10:39 pm
Location: Leiden

PreviousNext

Return to Sci.Physics.Foundations

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 94 guests

cron
CodeCogs - An Open Source Scientific Library