gill1109 wrote:I am a bit disturbed by "[good]" because I don't recall seeing it in the protocol of the challenge or in our discussions or in anyone's publications so far.
Joy Christian wrote:Since the challenge is about my proposed experiment (which is supposed to test my 3-sphere model for the EPR-Bohm correlation), it is very important that this response to the challenge is evaluated with a "good" deal of understanding of my model. Sadly, in my opinion, Richard Gill has not understood my model despite considerable efforts. I hope that he or anyone else who wishes to evaluate my response to his challenge, does so in the light of my latest paper on the subject.
Joy Christian wrote:Sadly, Richard Gill has not understood my model despite considerable efforts
ad <- read.csv("AliceDirections.txt") # alice directions file
u <- rbind(ad$x, ad$y) # just the x and y coordinates as a 2xN matrix
rownames(u) <- c("x", "y")
bd <- read.csv("BobDirections.txt") # alice directions file
v <- rbind(bd$x, bd$y) # just the x and y coordinates as a 2xN matrix
rownames(v) <- c("x", "y")
head(t(u)) # the first few directions in u
tail(t(u)) # the last few directions in u
head(t(v)) # the first few directions in v
tail(t(v)) # the last few directions in v
alpha <- 0 * pi / 180
beta <- 45 * pi / 180
a <- c(cos(alpha), sin(alpha))
b <- c(cos(beta), sin(beta))
rho11 <- mean(sign(colSums(a*u))*sign(colSums(b*v))) # E(0, 45)
rho11 # E(0, 45)
alpha <- 0 * pi / 180
beta <- 135 * pi / 180
a <- c(cos(alpha), sin(alpha))
b <- c(cos(beta), sin(beta))
rho12 <- mean(sign(colSums(a*u))*sign(colSums(b*v)))
rho12 # E(0, 135)
alpha <- 90 * pi / 180
beta <- 45 * pi / 180
a <- c(cos(alpha), sin(alpha))
b <- c(cos(beta), sin(beta))
rho21 <- mean(sign(colSums(a*u))*sign(colSums(b*v)))
rho21 # E(90, 45)
alpha <- 0 * pi / 180
beta <- 135 * pi / 180
a <- c(cos(alpha), sin(alpha))
b <- c(cos(beta), sin(beta))
rho22 <- mean(sign(colSums(a*u))*sign(colSums(b*v)))
rho22 # E(90, 135)
rho11
rho12
rho21
rho22
> rho11
[1] -0.6261574
> rho12
[1] 0.6325231
> rho21
[1] -0.3541667
> rho22
[1] 0.6325231
> head(t(u))
x y
[1,] 0.9609291 0.27679460
[2,] 0.6448492 -0.76430981
[3,] 0.9675821 -0.25255684
[4,] -0.8331492 -0.55304836
[5,] 0.9777434 0.20980434
[6,] -0.9987581 -0.04982248
> tail(t(u))
x y
[6907,] -0.9992743 0.03809089
[6908,] -0.8874223 -0.46095741
[6909,] -0.9076572 0.41971220
[6910,] -0.9911818 0.13250887
[6911,] 0.9680468 0.25076962
[6912,] -0.6009117 0.79931538
> head(t(v))
x y
[1,] -0.9609291 -0.27679460
[2,] -0.6448492 0.76430981
[3,] -0.9675821 0.25255684
[4,] 0.8331492 0.55304836
[5,] -0.9777434 -0.20980434
[6,] 0.9987581 0.04982248
> tail(t(v))
x y
[6907,] 0.9992743 -0.03809089
[6908,] 0.8874223 0.46095741
[6909,] 0.9076572 -0.41971220
[6910,] 0.9911818 -0.13250887
[6911,] -0.9680468 -0.25076962
[6912,] 0.6009117 -0.79931538
gill1109 wrote:Do you see problems with my R code?
Joy Christian wrote:gill1109 wrote:Do you see problems with my R code?
What has my submission to do with your R code?
gill1109 wrote:So you think my code is a wrong implementation of the formulas we agreed on?
gill1109 wrote:Do you wish to proceed to arbitration?
Joy Christian wrote:gill1109 wrote:So you think my code is a wrong implementation of the formulas we agreed on?
I think that your code is irrelevant.
You can't say my code is wrong without saying what is wrong with it? It is a correct implementation of my model and my proposed experiment, as I explained above.gill1109 wrote:Do you wish to proceed to arbitration?
I will wait until Fred has a chance to look at your comments. He helped me to produce the text files, so his input in this is very important.
gill1109 wrote:(A) Do you see problems with my R code?
gill1109 wrote:(A) Do you see problems with my R code?
ad <- read.csv("AliceDirectionsu.txt") # alice directions file
u <- rbind(ad$x, ad$y) # just the x and y coordinates as a 2xN matrix
rownames(u) <- c("x", "y")
bd <- read.csv("BobDirectionsv.txt") # alice directions file
v <- rbind(bd$x, bd$y) # just the x and y coordinates as a 2xN matrix
rownames(v) <- c("x", "y")
head(t(u)) # the first few directions in u
tail(t(u)) # the last few directions in u
head(t(v)) # the first few directions in v
tail(t(v)) # the last few directions in v
N <- 10^4
s <- runif(N, 0, pi)
p <- 1.21 * (-1 + (2/(sqrt(1 + (3 * s/pi)))))
alpha <- 0 * pi / 180
beta <- 45 * pi / 180
a <- c(cos(alpha), sin(alpha))
b <- c(cos(beta), sin(beta))
ca <- colSums(u * a) ## Inner products of cols of 'u' with 'a'
cb <- colSums(v * b) ## Inner products of cols of 'v' with 'b'
good1 <- abs(ca) > p & abs(cb) > p
N1 <- sum(good1)
(E_0_45 <- sum(sign(ca[good1]) * sign(-cb[good1]))/N1)
## [1] 0.7068713
alpha <- 0 * pi / 180
beta <- 135 * pi / 180
a <- c(cos(alpha), sin(alpha))
b <- c(cos(beta), sin(beta))
ca <- colSums(u * a) ## Inner products of cols of 'u' with 'a'
cb <- colSums(v * b) ## Inner products of cols of 'v' with 'b'
good2 <- abs(ca) > p & abs(cb) > p
N2 <- sum(good2)
(E_0_135 <- sum(sign(ca[good2]) * sign(-cb[good2]))/N2)
## [1] -0.6916364
alpha <- 90 * pi / 180
beta <- 45 * pi / 180
a <- c(cos(alpha), sin(alpha))
b <- c(cos(beta), sin(beta))
ca <- colSums(u * a) ## Inner products of cols of 'u' with 'a'
cb <- colSums(v * b) ## Inner products of cols of 'v' with 'b'
good3 <- abs(ca) > p & abs(cb) > p
N3 <- sum(good3)
(E_90_45 <- sum(sign(ca[good3]) * sign(-cb[good3]))/N3)
## [1] 0.7001815
alpha <- 90 * pi / 180
beta <- 135 * pi / 180
a <- c(cos(alpha), sin(alpha))
b <- c(cos(beta), sin(beta))
ca <- colSums(u * a) ## Inner products of cols of 'u' with 'a'
cb <- colSums(v * b) ## Inner products of cols of 'v' with 'b'
good4 <- abs(ca) > p & abs(cb) > p
N4 <- sum(good4)
(E_90_135 <- sum(sign(ca[good4]) * sign(-cb[good4]))/N4)
## [1] 0.7214182
## The Bell-CHSH inequality is violated:
abs(E_0_45 - E_0_135 + E_90_45 + E_90_135)
## [1] 2.820107
FrediFizzx wrote:Ok, yes there is another problem. You are doing the correlation calculations in flatland. As I have said a few times previously, the correlation calculations must respect 3-sphere geometry if we are correctly modeling Joy's experiment.
FrediFizzx wrote:Well, I know this is not what you and Joy exactly agreed upon but in my opinion it is the correct way to simulate the experiment. It works and you claim it works because of the detection loophole; we claim it works because of 3-sphere geometry. Only doing the real experiment will tell who is correct. Let's do it!
gill1109 wrote:FrediFizzx wrote:Well, I know this is not what you and Joy exactly agreed upon but in my opinion it is the correct way to simulate the experiment. It works and you claim it works because of the detection loophole; we claim it works because of 3-sphere geometry. Only doing the real experiment will tell who is correct. Let's do it!
So it is not clear to me whether "p" and "s" are randomly generated during the data-processing or if they also come out of measurements of the particles. Are they part of the data-set or just part of a randomized algorithm?
FrediFizzx wrote:gill1109 wrote:FrediFizzx wrote:Well, I know this is not what you and Joy exactly agreed upon but in my opinion it is the correct way to simulate the experiment. It works and you claim it works because of the detection loophole; we claim it works because of 3-sphere geometry. Only doing the real experiment will tell who is correct. Let's do it!
So it is not clear to me whether "p" and "s" are randomly generated during the data-processing or if they also come out of measurements of the particles. Are they part of the data-set or just part of a randomized algorithm?
It would just be "s" to figure out since "p" is dependent on "s". Ok Joy, the ball is in your court about "s" now.
Joy Christian wrote:Fred has now pointed out the errors in your calculations and provided the correct version of your calculations
Joy Christian wrote:
Richard,
In my opinion you are bobbing and weaving, skirting the main issues of physics, and grossly misinterpreting both my "experimental" papers and my model. There is nothing new in this, for I have been complaining about your misinterpretations of my work, and specifically about your misrepresentations of my "experimental" paper, for several years now, starting with our acrimonious discussion on FQXi a couple of years ago, where I repeatedly stressed that the four correlations in the context of my proposed experiment must be calculated separately. See, for example, this post of mine: viewtopic.php?f=6&t=31&p=1651&hilit=replacement#p1651.
But let us not worry about those contentious issues now. Instead, let us play your game your way, by your rules. Here is the cool gif you produced for displaying the four correlations in question: http://www.math.leidenuniv.nl/~gill/Images/movie2.gif. Do have a look at it again if you have forgotten about it? What do you see?
Now I have given you even better evidence for the four local-realistic correlations in my simulation: http://rpubs.com/jjc/19298. I have given you the entire surface of all possible correlations, for all choices of a and b, without data rejection, non-locality, or superdeterminism (cf. this paper http://arxiv.org/abs/1405.2355).
Now compare your gif with my correlation surface and tell me where do they differ. This is not a trick question. They do not differ at all; not even at a single point!
What is more, in the simulation I have also provided explicit calculations for the four specific correlations with the same set of directions u_k[good]. I have already explained what u_k[good] means in the context of my model and that of my proposed experiment to test it. Fred has now pointed out the errors in your calculations and provided the correct version of your calculations. Putting all this evidence together, it is fairly clear that I have successfully produced the N spin directions for Alice and Bob that you claimed were impossible to produce. In fact by now I have provided four different simulations exhibiting the same incontrovertible evidence.
In conclusion it is clear to me that you do not want to admit defeat. Instead, you want to keep calculating the correlations incorrectly and unphysically, in your own way, so that you do not have to admit defeat. Therefore, based on the evidence provided by both Fred and I, I formally request you to seek adjudication on my claim, which you have already accepted as a valid claim according to the rules you have set up (note that I deny your claim that we set up the rules together---we didn't).
gill1109 wrote:Joy, I understand perfectly well what you are requesting. I'm on a train to Sweden right now. When I have settled in at a decent computer with decent internet, I will email the letter we agreed on to the persons we had in mind. The first step is to find out if they agree to do this job. Be patient, please.
Return to Sci.Physics.Foundations
Users browsing this forum: ahrefs [Bot], Majestic-12 [Bot] and 90 guests