Yeah, Yeah, Yeah! Another freakin' update. Now, with theoretical support from the Product Calculation for -a.b. Pretty freakin' awesome!!! 1jillion gazillion trials!

Cloud File.

https://www.wolframcloud.com/obj/fredif ... rum-pc2.nb

Direct Files.

download/newCS-33-S3quat-3D-forum-pc2.pdf

download/newCS-33-S3quat-3D-forum-pc2.nb

Enjoy the simulation that is a Bell and Gill theory killer!!!! It just keeps getting better and better!!

.

Cloud File.

https://www.wolframcloud.com/obj/fredif ... rum-pc2.nb

Direct Files.

download/newCS-33-S3quat-3D-forum-pc2.pdf

download/newCS-33-S3quat-3D-forum-pc2.nb

Enjoy the simulation that is a Bell and Gill theory killer!!!! It just keeps getting better and better!!

.

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

FrediFizzx wrote:Yeah, Yeah, Yeah! Another freakin' update. Now, with theoretical support from the Product Calculation for -a.b. Pretty freakin' awesome!!! 1jillion gazillion trials!

Cloud File.

https://www.wolframcloud.com/obj/fredif ... rum-pc2.nb

Direct Files.

download/newCS-33-S3quat-3D-forum-pc2.pdf

download/newCS-33-S3quat-3D-forum-pc2.nb

Enjoy the simulation that is a Bell and Gill theory killer!!!! It just keeps getting better and better!!

.

Fred, given your simulation of N trials over N random particle-pairs, how many data-points appear in your plot? Is it always N? Thanks; Gordon

.

- Gordon Watson
**Posts:**403**Joined:**Wed Apr 30, 2014 4:39 am

Gordon Watson wrote:Fred, given your simulation of N trials over N random particle-pairs, how many data-points appear in your plot? Is it always N? Thanks; Gordon

Sometimes. But we usually lose a little bit in the analysis process. The way to tell is to look at Total Events = 995602 after the plot. That is actually tweakable with beta and xi to get it closer to the number of trials. Thank you very much for a no-nonsense question.

.

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

FrediFizzx wrote:Austin Fearnley wrote: ... [incomprehensible nonsense snipped] ... Also, are your graphs showing that Bell's Inequalities are broken? Every once in a while you state that nothing can break the Bell Inequalities. So what is the conclusion?

The graphs DO NOT show that the inequalities are broken. The current graphs show that both Bell's junk physics theory and Gill's junk theory are broken. Shot dead to a million pieces that never can be put back together.

Just to be clear, Austin, inequalities are never "broken." Mathematical inequalities cannot be "broken." But they can be exceeded, by switching to a different inequality with a higher bound. That is of course cheating. But cheating is what experimentalists do and then falsely claim that they have "violated" Bell inequalities. Make no mistake. All Bell-believers are con-artists.

I hope you recover from the virus soon. We currently have about 40,000 new cases daily in England. The Tories, however, are determined not to bring back lockdown or social restrictions.

.

- Joy Christian
- Research Physicist
**Posts:**2793**Joined:**Wed Feb 05, 2014 4:49 am**Location:**Oxford, United Kingdom

The updated paper explaining all of this is still COMING SOON. It's a doozy and a real eye opener.

.

.

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

Worthless Bell fanatics still can't take down the simulation!!! Guess they are taking cover somewhere for being totally wrong all these years.

.

.

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

I deleted this thinking it wasn't proven then I realized it is proven.

Proof that the simulation obtains -a.b. There is an analytical proof also but way longer.

.

Proof that the simulation obtains -a.b. There is an analytical proof also but way longer.

.

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

This expression seems a bit odd to me.

In order to get the probabilities for each of the four outcome pairs say in a large simulation, they first have to be averaged over many trials per (a-b) angle. It seems to me that in a proper simulation each of the four probabilities are going to converge to 1/4 for very large number of trials. At least that is what I am finding with our latest simulation.

Ave ++ = 0.248903

Ave -- = 0.248803

Ave +- = 0.246508

Ave -+ = 0.255786

That was for 10,000 trials. For 5 million trials,

Ave ++ = 0.249787

Ave -- = 0.249991

Ave +- = 0.250293

Ave -+ = 0.249929

Much closer to 1/4 each. So, for analytical purposes, it doesn't seem unreasonable to assign 1/4 to each of the four outcome pair probabilities.

.

In order to get the probabilities for each of the four outcome pairs say in a large simulation, they first have to be averaged over many trials per (a-b) angle. It seems to me that in a proper simulation each of the four probabilities are going to converge to 1/4 for very large number of trials. At least that is what I am finding with our latest simulation.

Ave ++ = 0.248903

Ave -- = 0.248803

Ave +- = 0.246508

Ave -+ = 0.255786

That was for 10,000 trials. For 5 million trials,

Ave ++ = 0.249787

Ave -- = 0.249991

Ave +- = 0.250293

Ave -+ = 0.249929

Much closer to 1/4 each. So, for analytical purposes, it doesn't seem unreasonable to assign 1/4 to each of the four outcome pair probabilities.

.

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

FrediFizzx wrote:This expression seems a bit odd to me.

In order to get the probabilities for each of the four outcome pairs say in a large simulation, they first have to be averaged over many trials per (a-b) angle. It seems to me that in a proper simulation each of the four probabilities are going to converge to 1/4 for very large number of trials. At least that is what I am finding with our latest simulation.

Ave ++ = 0.248903

Ave -- = 0.248803

Ave +- = 0.246508

Ave -+ = 0.255786

That was for 10,000 trials. For 5 million trials,

Ave ++ = 0.249787

Ave -- = 0.249991

Ave +- = 0.250293

Ave -+ = 0.249929

Much closer to 1/4 each. So, for analytical purposes, it doesn't seem unreasonable to assign 1/4 to each of the four outcome pair probabilities.

Ok, now for the next part of this.

QM assigns for those 4 outcome probabilities,

Again, in a simulation with many trials, we have to average and over all the (a-b) angles. Lo and behold, when we do that we obtain,

,

,

Because .

So, it seems to me that all of the parts of the original E(a, b) expression are all equal to 1/4. Analytically-wise.

.

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

FrediFizzx wrote:FrediFizzx wrote:This expression seems a bit odd to me.

In order to get the probabilities for each of the four outcome pairs say in a large simulation, they first have to be averaged over many trials per (a-b) angle. It seems to me that in a proper simulation each of the four probabilities are going to converge to 1/4 for very large number of trials. At least that is what I am finding with our latest simulation.

Ave ++ = 0.248903

Ave -- = 0.248803

Ave +- = 0.246508

Ave -+ = 0.255786

That was for 10,000 trials. For 5 million trials,

Ave ++ = 0.249787

Ave -- = 0.249991

Ave +- = 0.250293

Ave -+ = 0.249929

Much closer to 1/4 each. So, for analytical purposes, it doesn't seem unreasonable to assign 1/4 to each of the four outcome pair probabilities.

Ok, now for the next part of this.

QM assigns for those 4 outcome probabilities,

Again, in a simulation with many trials, we have to average and over all the (a-b) angles. Lo and behold, when we do that we obtain,

,

,

Because .

So, it seems to me that all of the parts of the original E(a, b) expression are all equal to 1/4. Analytically-wise.

Ok, now a question. Since all P(++)'s, etc. are equal to a 1/4 and the average of = 1/4, etc., does that prove that , etc. for our analytical situation? Keeping mind that P(++) and , etc. are actually averages.

.

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

FrediFizzx wrote:Ok, now a question. Since all P(++)'s, etc. are equal to a 1/4 and the average of = 1/4, etc., does that prove that , etc. for our analytical situation?

No, it doesn't. I can think of dozens of functions for which would be true.

Consider, for example, .

This function gives .

Therefore, following your logic, .

.

- Joy Christian
- Research Physicist
**Posts:**2793**Joined:**Wed Feb 05, 2014 4:49 am**Location:**Oxford, United Kingdom

Joy Christian wrote:FrediFizzx wrote:Ok, now a question. Since all P(++)'s, etc. are equal to a 1/4 and the average of = 1/4, etc., does that prove that , etc. for our analytical situation?

No, it doesn't. I can think of dozens of functions for which would be true.

Consider, for example, .

This function gives .

Therefore, following your logic, .

.

Well, that is only true if . So, we still have . Try again.

.

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

FrediFizzx wrote:Joy Christian wrote:FrediFizzx wrote:Ok, now a question. Since all P(++)'s, etc. are equal to a 1/4 and the average of = 1/4, etc., does that prove that , etc. for our analytical situation?

No, it doesn't. I can think of dozens of functions for which would be true.

Consider, for example, .

This function gives .

Therefore, following your logic, .

.

Well, that is only true if . So, we still have . Try again.

Your logic does not work. I gave an example of why your logic does not work.

.

- Joy Christian
- Research Physicist
**Posts:**2793**Joined:**Wed Feb 05, 2014 4:49 am**Location:**Oxford, United Kingdom

Joy Christian wrote:Your logic does not work. I gave an example of why your logic does not work.

Well, actually I'm still waiting for the example that shows it doesn't work. Your last example didn't do anything.

.

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

Joy Christian wrote:

No, it doesn't. I can think of dozens of functions for which would be true.

Consider, for example, .

This function gives .

Therefore, following your logic, .

Here is another function which does the same thing:

,

implying that

.

In fact, there are many functions that would do the same thing.

.

- Joy Christian
- Research Physicist
**Posts:**2793**Joined:**Wed Feb 05, 2014 4:49 am**Location:**Oxford, United Kingdom

Joy Christian wrote:Here is another function which does the same thing:

,

implying that

.

In fact, there are many functions that would do the same thing.

Hmm... that doesn't look right substitution-wise.

,

So,

,

,

.

Your example is still not working for me. Try again.

.

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

FrediFizzx wrote:Joy Christian wrote:Here is another function which does the same thing:

,

implying that

.

In fact, there are many functions that would do the same thing.

Hmm... that doesn't look right substitution-wise.

,

So,

,

,

.

Your example is still not working for me. Try again.

I give up, because I don't understand what setting means within your logic. To me, it means , always, throughout all experimental trials.

.

- Joy Christian
- Research Physicist
**Posts:**2793**Joined:**Wed Feb 05, 2014 4:49 am**Location:**Oxford, United Kingdom

Joy Christian wrote:I give up, because I don't understand what setting means within your logic. To me, it means , always, throughout all experimental trials.

I guess you missed this from one of the earlier postings.

Keeping mind that P(++) and , etc. are actually averages.

.

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

@Joy You are thinking of this.

Actually more solutions than just pi/2. But that is NOT what we are doing.

.

Actually more solutions than just pi/2. But that is NOT what we are doing.

.

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

FrediFizzx wrote:FrediFizzx wrote:FrediFizzx wrote:This expression seems a bit odd to me.

In order to get the probabilities for each of the four outcome pairs say in a large simulation, they first have to be averaged over many trials per (a-b) angle. It seems to me that in a proper simulation each of the four probabilities are going to converge to 1/4 for very large number of trials. At least that is what I am finding with our latest simulation.

Ave ++ = 0.248903

Ave -- = 0.248803

Ave +- = 0.246508

Ave -+ = 0.255786

That was for 10,000 trials. For 5 million trials,

Ave ++ = 0.249787

Ave -- = 0.249991

Ave +- = 0.250293

Ave -+ = 0.249929

Much closer to 1/4 each. So, for analytical purposes, it doesn't seem unreasonable to assign 1/4 to each of the four outcome pair probabilities.

Ok, now for the next part of this.

QM assigns for those 4 outcome probabilities,

Again, in a simulation with many trials, we have to average and over all the (a-b) angles. Lo and behold, when we do that we obtain,

,

,

Because .

So, it seems to me that all of the parts of the original E(a, b) expression are all equal to 1/4. Analytically-wise.

Ok, now a question. Since all P(++)'s, etc. are equal to a 1/4 and the average of = 1/4, etc., does that prove that , etc. for our analytical situation? Keeping mind that P(++) and , etc. are actually averages.

So, I guess this question is still open. Joy seems to be trying to say no but not doing a very good job of it.

.

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

Return to Sci.Physics.Foundations

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 7 guests