Rick Lockyer wrote:Joy, you are behaving extremely dense here.
Rick Lockyer wrote:Both of you are clearly wrong in stating you have beat Richard, you clearly (really clear) have not. I am done commenting on the bet and your conclusions on whether or not you won based on the requirements.
FrediFizzx wrote:Rick Lockyer wrote:Both of you are clearly wrong in stating you have beat Richard, you clearly (really clear) have not. I am done commenting on the bet and your conclusions on whether or not you won based on the requirements.
I never said anything about beating Richard. I don't even really care about his "rigged" challenge. And it is not a bet; it is some kind of lame attempt by Richard to understand Joy's proposed experiment. He (and you) have learned nothing from it. But we have learned that Richard and maybe even you don't even know what a hidden variable is.
Rick Lockyer wrote:OK, so much for saying I would not respond.
Joy, you are behaving extremely dense here. Your calculations were not using ca[good] and cb[good], they were using the entire ca and cb without cherry picking. My program effectively did the calculations using ca[good] and cb[good], and the result is abs(-2) and NOT abs(-2sqrt(2)). Simply modify your own program to specify ca[good] and cb[good] instead of simply ca and cb and see for yourself. the result will be abs(-2) just as I said.
The chart you provided is manifestly NON-LOCAL as it depends on the particular directions BOTH Alice and Bob have chosen for the creation of the "good" array of TRUE/FALSE values. Please review the for loops and particularly the logical and condition for determining what is "good" vs what is not.
gill1109 wrote:Seems to me that Christian and Diether need to read the literature on generalized Bell inequalities and experimental loopholes. My own recent paper is a good place to start.
Rick Lockyer wrote:Joy, you are behaving extremely dense here.
gill1109 wrote:Seems that Fred and Joy have a different understanding of the word "local" from most of the rest of the world.
gill1109 wrote:I would say that their simulation model (taking the length of "good(a, b)" as the actual number of particle pairs generated when the settings were a and b) is an example of violating Bell by using the *conspiracy loophole*. The settings are known in advance, the probability distribution of the hidden variables depends on the settings on both sides of the experiment. ie a kind of conspiratorial "pre-selection".
gill1109 wrote:This is different from Pearle who thinks of outcomes having three possible values: -1, 0 and 1.
gill1109 wrote:Bell's theorem can be paraphrased as "QM is incompatible with locality+realism+no-conspiracy".
gill1109 wrote:Seems to me that Christian and Diether need to read the literature on generalized Bell inequalities and experimental loopholes.
FrediFizzx wrote:gill1109 wrote:Seems to me that Christian and Diether need to read the literature on generalized Bell inequalities and experimental loopholes. My own recent paper is a good place to start.
Ok, it's my birthday and I am a bit snokered on a few shot of tquilla but if Richard and everyone else doesn't have a good concept on what a hidden variable is, then I don't think is is much else that can be said. The Bell believers are coming from a really un-abstainable position.
gill1109 wrote:About the title of my Växjö talk http://www.slideshare.net/gill1109/vaxjo-2014: the whole point was that engaging with Bell-deniers is so worthwhile. The title was intentionally provocative.
By the way everyone really ought to avoid name-calling. Can't we stick to content? Don't shoot the messengers. Try to understand the message and if you don't understand it, ignore it.
Joy Christian wrote:gill1109 wrote:About the title of my Växjö talk http://www.slideshare.net/gill1109/vaxjo-2014: the whole point was that engaging with Bell-deniers is so worthwhile. The title was intentionally provocative.
By the way everyone really ought to avoid name-calling. Can't we stick to content? Don't shoot the messengers. Try to understand the message and if you don't understand it, ignore it.
I hope you recognize the hypocrisy in your second statement in the light of your first statement. But wait, may be your hypocrisy is also intentionally provocative.
gill1109 wrote:I posted my evaluation of Christian's submission of a few days ago as an R notebook
The "punchline" is.
- Code: Select all
E(0, 45) E(0, 135) E(90, 45) E(90, 135)
-0.6262 0.6325 -0.3542 -0.3872
E(0, 45) E(0, 135) E(90, 45) E(90, 135)
-0.6993 0.703 -0.699 -0.7276
Joy Christian wrote:gill1109 wrote:I posted my evaluation of Christian's submission of a few days ago as an R notebook
The "punchline" is.
- Code: Select all
E(0, 45) E(0, 135) E(90, 45) E(90, 135)
-0.6262 0.6325 -0.3542 -0.3872
This is the calculation done by Gill.
gill1109 wrote:Joy Christian wrote:gill1109 wrote:I posted my evaluation of Christian's submission of a few days ago as an R notebook
The "punchline" is.
- Code: Select all
E(0, 45) E(0, 135) E(90, 45) E(90, 135)
-0.6262 0.6325 -0.3542 -0.3872
This is the calculation done by Gill.
Which is the calculation specified on page 4 of Christian's experimental paper http://arxiv.org/abs/0806.3078, and agreed by Christian first for the bet on his experiment and then for the challenge to generate data in some way or another, which would win the bet if it had been found in the experiment. QED..
E(0, 45) E(0, 135) E(90, 45) E(90, 135)
-0.6993 0.703 -0.699 -0.7276
Joy Christian wrote:Gill has calculated the four correlations by disregarding what has been specified on the page 4 of my experimental paper http://arxiv.org/abs/0806.3078
gill1109 wrote:Joy Christian wrote:Gill has calculated the four correlations by disregarding what has been specified on the page 4 of my experimental paper http://arxiv.org/abs/0806.3078
This is a simple claim which anyone can check. I hope all Christian supporters will very carefully check this.
FrediFizzx wrote:gill1109 wrote:Joy Christian wrote:Gill has calculated the four correlations by disregarding what has been specified on the page 4 of my experimental paper http://arxiv.org/abs/0806.3078
This is a simple claim which anyone can check. I hope all Christian supporters will very carefully check this.
Did you figure out what a hidden variable is yet? And the difference between a real experiment and a simulation?
gill1109 wrote:FrediFizzx wrote:Did you figure out what a hidden variable is yet? And the difference between a real experiment and a simulation?
Yes, did you?
FrediFizzx wrote:gill1109 wrote:FrediFizzx wrote:Did you figure out what a hidden variable is yet? And the difference between a real experiment and a simulation?
Yes, did you?
Then please tell us why the experimenters on the real experiment don't need to do anything with "s" and "p" from the simulation.
gill1109 wrote:Please explain to us why there is no "s" and "p" in Christian's 2008 experimental paper.
gill1109 wrote:Please explain to us why there is no "s" or "p" in the data sets which Christian submitted for the challenge.
gill1109 wrote:Please explain to us why there is no "s" or "p" mentioned in the challenge.
Return to Sci.Physics.Foundations
Users browsing this forum: ahrefs [Bot] and 83 guests