Once Joy Christian decided to attack me again, with a long post which contains essentially nothing than an unbased accusation that I fighted a strawman instead of his simulation, I decided to consider this posting as the one which at least contains the claims what I have misrepresented:
Joy Christian wrote:The simulation presented at
this location has nothing whatsoever to do with detector efficiency loophole or any other ridiculous loophole.
What you have written above is complete and utter garbage.
There are no 0 outcomes, either in
the theoretical model or in
the simulation.
Bogus criticisms of my work is not going to get you anywhere.
Your comments only show that you are a closed-minded and uninformed Bell-fanatic who is incapable of understanding any rational argument.
I repeat:
A complete, numerical, event-by-event verification of the local-realistic and deterministic 3-sphere model presented in
this paper can be found in
this simulation.
Also only a lot of furor, but at least one claim:
There are no 0 outcomes. But the code of
the simulation contains the following:
- Code: Select all
g = function(u,v,s){ifelse((abs(colSums(u*v))) > f, colSums(u*v), 0)}
# g(u, v, s) = 0 if |u.v| < f(s)
This means, the function g(u,v,s) gives colSums(u*v) when abs(colSums(u*v))) > f, and
else 0. Thus, if at least sometimes abs(colSums(u*v))) <= f, then g has 0 outcomes.
Maybe, this never happens? Not probable. But to test this is easy - if this never happens, then the function g(u,v,s) always gives colSums(u*v). Thus, one can easily simplify the code, and, by the way, prove that there are really no 0 outcomes (or, if there are, that they would be irrelevant) by replacing the code with
- Code: Select all
g = function(u,v,s){colSums(u*v)}
Fortunately, we do not even have to do it - Joy does it himself:
- Code: Select all
# For completeness we now calculate the correlations for two special cases:
f = 0 # Switching back the geometry and topology from S^3 to R^3
with everything else unchanged. Now, with f=0, the expression {ifelse((abs(colSums(u*v))) > f, colSums(u*v), 0)} is already equivalent to colSums(u*v).
What do we obtain? The picture named "The linear correlations predicted by Bell's local model".
No violation of the BI, nix, nada. Thus, it appears not only that there are 0 outcomes of g(u,v,s), but they make the difference.
So, what is the "strawman" I create? I simply care about the actual results of the function g(u,v,s) (and, consequently, also of the functions
- Code: Select all
A = +sign(g(a,e,s)) # Alice's measurement results A(a, e, s) = +/-1
B = -sign(g(b,e,s)) # Bob's measurement results B(b, e, s) = -/+1
which are zero if g gives 0). And if the code tells me that the result is
0, I name this
0 outcome instead of
- Code: Select all
# Defines an inner product on S^3, thus changing the space from R^3 to S^3
This is, obviously, a main error: Not to accept what JC writes in the comments, but to care about what the code does.