ajw wrote:I have expressed earlier my feeling that this is still the flatlanders simulation of the model. It works on the 3 computer setup discussed elsewhere, but only if one takes the number of events to be the amount of particle pairs received at the detectors, not the amount of particle pairs sent to the filters. So one has to ignore a fair amount of single 'clicks' in the result set, because the measurement function on the opposite side has set the result to 'no state'.
ajw wrote:No, I am saying that there should be a non-flatlanders way to simulate this.
ajw wrote:I have expressed earlier my feeling that this is still the flatlanders simulation of the model. It works on the 3 computer setup discussed elsewhere, but only if one takes the number of events to be the amount of particle pairs received at the detectors, not the amount of particle pairs sent to the filters. So one has to ignore a fair amount of single 'clicks' in the result set, because the measurement function on the opposite side has set the result to 'no state'.
FrediFizzx wrote:ajw wrote:I have expressed earlier my feeling that this is still the flatlanders simulation of the model. It works on the 3 computer setup discussed elsewhere, but only if one takes the number of events to be the amount of particle pairs received at the detectors, not the amount of particle pairs sent to the filters. So one has to ignore a fair amount of single 'clicks' in the result set, because the measurement function on the opposite side has set the result to 'no state'.
Well, that is kind of the "Catch 22". :D Those states never exist in the first place thus there are no "single clicks". As far as the simulations are concerned. Now, you can accept that this is how Nature works via 3-sphere topology or accept some kind of "spooky action at a distance".
.
Guest wrote:FrediFizzx wrote:Well, that is kind of the "Catch 22". Those states never exist in the first place thus there are no "single clicks". As far as the simulations are concerned. Now, you can accept that this is how Nature works via 3-sphere topology or accept some kind of "spooky action at a distance".
.
Fred: to make "those states never exist in the first place" you have to know the orientation of the detectors at both sites. Just look at your code. Hence, the simulation involves a nonlocal element, if that's your interpretation.
The other possibility is to say that the physical situation is such that the experimental results will be something like
a b
+ +
+ -
* -
+ +
+ *
* *
- +
etc
in which * means that there was no detection, and you compute the correlations using only results with no *'s. This is essentialy what the Pearle model does, but the problem is that a model like Pearle's would, for example, determine the fraction of results * * in a long run of the experiment, and this is an experimentaly observable number.
FrediFizzx wrote:Guest wrote:FrediFizzx wrote:Well, that is kind of the "Catch 22". :D Those states never exist in the first place thus there are no "single clicks". As far as the simulations are concerned. Now, you can accept that this is how Nature works via 3-sphere topology or accept some kind of "spooky action at a distance".
.
Fred: to make "those states never exist in the first place" you have to know the orientation of the detectors at both sites. Just look at your code. Hence, the simulation involves a nonlocal element, if that's your interpretation.
The other possibility is to say that the physical situation is such that the experimental results will be something like
a b
+ +
+ -
* -
+ +
+ *
* *
- +
etc
in which * means that there was no detection, and you compute the correlations using only results with no *'s. This is essentialy what the Pearle model does, but the problem is that a model like Pearle's would, for example, determine the fraction of results * * in a long run of the experiment, and this is an experimentaly observable number.
Yep, data rejection is the usual claim against it but that is not necessarily true. Basically what it is is selecting valid 3-sphere points for the initial states. The 3-sphere topology is not trivial. And there is no a AND b in my code. It is a OR b so it is completely local.
.
Guest wrote:FrediFizzx wrote:Yep, data rejection is the usual claim against it but that is not necessarily true. Basically what it is is selecting valid 3-sphere points for the initial states. The 3-sphere topology is not trivial. And there is no a AND b in my code. It is a OR b so it is completely local.
.
The following OR is not a XOR:
A1[[j]] ⩵ "nostate" || B1[[j]] ⩵ "nostate"
This code removes the states with one * or two *'s using the information about the detectors angles. Hence, it's a nonlocal selection of states.
FrediFizzx wrote:Guest wrote:FrediFizzx wrote:Yep, data rejection is the usual claim against it but that is not necessarily true. Basically what it is is selecting valid 3-sphere points for the initial states. The 3-sphere topology is not trivial. And there is no a AND b in my code. It is a OR b so it is completely local.
.
The following OR is not a XOR:
A1[[j]] ⩵ "nostate" || B1[[j]] ⩵ "nostate"
This code removes the states with one * or two *'s using the information about the detectors angles. Hence, it's a nonlocal selection of states.
Nonsense.
.
Guest wrote:FrediFizzx wrote:Guest wrote:FrediFizzx wrote:Yep, data rejection is the usual claim against it but that is not necessarily true. Basically what it is is selecting valid 3-sphere points for the initial states. The 3-sphere topology is not trivial. And there is no a AND b in my code. It is a OR b so it is completely local.
.
The following OR is not a XOR:
A1[[j]] ⩵ "nostate" || B1[[j]] ⩵ "nostate"
This code removes the states with one * or two *'s using the information about the detectors angles. Hence, it's a nonlocal selection of states.
Nonsense.
.
That's rude, Fred. Yes, we disagree, but that's my understanding.
Good luck for you guys.
FrediFizzx wrote:
Anyways, the direction of the spin vector is very non-trivial due to 3-sphere topology. And it looks like the detectors are involved in the topology also. Is that correct, Joy?
Joy Christian wrote:ajw wrote:
I have expressed earlier my feeling that this is still the flatlanders simulation of the model. It works on the 3 computer setup discussed elsewhere, but only if one takes the number of events to be the amount of particle pairs received at the detectors, not the amount of particle pairs sent to the filters. So one has to ignore a fair amount of single 'clicks' in the result set, because the measurement function on the opposite side has set the result to 'no state'.
I think I know what Albert Jan is saying. But such a "non-flatland" simulation would be very difficult, if not impossible to do. Not that I am an expert in programming. Quite the opposite.
Joy Christian wrote:FrediFizzx wrote:
Anyways, the direction of the spin vector is very non-trivial due to 3-sphere topology. And it looks like the detectors are involved in the topology also. Is that correct, Joy?
The detectors, which are represented by unit bivectors, are indeed involved in the topology, and that looks problematic from the flatland perspective. That is what Albert Jan was saying:Joy Christian wrote:ajw wrote:
I have expressed earlier my feeling that this is still the flatlanders simulation of the model. It works on the 3 computer setup discussed elsewhere, but only if one takes the number of events to be the amount of particle pairs received at the detectors, not the amount of particle pairs sent to the filters. So one has to ignore a fair amount of single 'clicks' in the result set, because the measurement function on the opposite side has set the result to 'no state'.
I think I know what Albert Jan is saying. But such a "non-flatland" simulation would be very difficult, if not impossible to do. Not that I am an expert in programming. Quite the opposite.
local wrote:We should keep on topic with Fred's analyses. Posting links to random papers seems obfuscatory.
Return to Sci.Physics.Foundations
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 66 guests