gill1109 wrote:So you want
where "n" is the "null vector?
FrediFizzx wrote:gill1109 wrote:So you want
where "n" is the "null vector?
Thanks. Almost good.
set.seed(1234)
n <- 10^6
s <- runif(n, min = 0, max = 360)
z <- (2 / sqrt(1 + 3*runif(n, min = 0, max = pi)/pi)) - 1
a <- sample(0:360, size = n, replace = TRUE)
a[abs(cos((a - s)*pi/180)) < z] <- 0
spin_A <- -sign(cos((a - s)*pi/180))
b <- sample(0:360, size = n, replace = TRUE)
b[abs(cos((b - s)*pi/180)) < z] <- 0
spin_B <- sign(cos((b - s)*pi/180))
rho <- numeric(720)
for (th in 1:720) {
idx <- (a - b + 360 == th)
rho[th] <- mean(spin_A[idx] * spin_B[idx])
}
plot(1:720, rho, col = "blue", pch = 19, cex = 0.5, ylim = c(-1, 1))
lines(1:720, -cos((1:720)*pi/180), col = "red", lwd = 2)
Guest wrote:This is an R version of Fred's simulation.
…
Looking at the code, you'll see that the original detectors angles are set to zero depending on the value of the hidden variables s and z. This is equivalent to data rejection, although it's a subtle way to do it. Just look at how the correlations are computed and the net effect of the change of those original random detectors angles to zero.
Please, don't take me wrong. I don't want to start a war. Don't shoot the messenger.
FrediFizzx wrote:Guest wrote:This is an R version of Fred's simulation.
…
Looking at the code, you'll see that the original detectors angles are set to zero depending on the value of the hidden variables s and z. This is equivalent to data rejection, although it's a subtle way to do it. Just look at how the correlations are computed and the net effect of the change of those original random detectors angles to zero.
Please, don't take me wrong. I don't want to start a war. Don't shoot the messenger.
No problem. We already know about that interpretation. Thanks for the R code.
.
FrediFizzx wrote:FrediFizzx wrote:Guest wrote:This is an R version of Fred's simulation.
Looking at the code, you'll see that the original detectors angles are set to zero depending on the value of the hidden variables s and z. This is equivalent to data rejection, although it's a subtle way to do it. Just look at how the correlations are computed and the net effect of the change of those original random detectors angles to zero.
Please, don't take me wrong. I don't want to start a war. Don't shoot the messenger.
No problem. We already know about that interpretation. Thanks for the R code.
Forgot to mention that "s" is not a hidden variable here. QM knows about "s" but does not know about lambda thus "z". And can't be equivalent to data rejection since all particles are detected.
But I'm working on a different configuration that won't have this problem. It's not easy though but must exist since Nature can do the negative cosine curve from +/- 1 outcomes. Well, must exist in a local fashion since I firmly believe that all action of this type must be local. The current simulation is just a clue to the final one perhaps.
gill1109 wrote:Well, there is a simple theorem of theoretical computer science, which says that the desired simulation is impossible, if you adhere to the experimental protocol used in the lab in so-called loophole-free experiments since 2015. I will be giving a short Zoom talk about this on Tuesday at 17:00 hours, Warsaw time (virtually from J U Krakow). I plan to give the proof, and to discuss its implications. If you - dear reader, whoever you are - would like to join in the discussion, or just lurk in the background, send me an email, or personal message me on this forum, and I'll send you the Zoom ID and password.
FrediFizzx wrote:gill1109 wrote:Well, there is a simple theorem of theoretical computer science, which says that the desired simulation is impossible, if you adhere to the experimental protocol used in the lab in so-called loophole-free experiments since 2015. I will be giving a short Zoom talk about this on Tuesday at 17:00 hours, Warsaw time (virtually from J U Krakow). I plan to give the proof, and to discuss its implications. If you - dear reader, whoever you are - would like to join in the discussion, or just lurk in the background, send me an email, or personal message me on this forum, and I'll send you the Zoom ID and password.
Well, as I firmly believe that all action of this type in Nature is local, there must be a flaw in the "theorem" since Nature does in fact do it. You should find the flaw before you present it. :D Sure, send me the ID and password. I've been wanting to give Zoom a try. Oh, but what time is that Pacific time?
.
Guest wrote:FrediFizzx wrote:Well, as I firmly believe that all action of this type in Nature is local, there must be a flaw in the "theorem" since Nature does in fact do it. You should find the flaw before you present it. Sure, send me the ID and password. I've been wanting to give Zoom a try. Oh, but what time is that Pacific time?
.
The problem of just accepting that Bell's theorem really invalidates the kind of solution Fred is trying to build is that we're left with a paradox: the existence of perfect anticorrelation in these experiments when we set the detectors orientations to opposite directions must be related to the pre-existence of the observed properties (aka realism), or we must accept that nonlocal actions are really taking place in these experiments. But then we would have to face the fact that the detection times on each station depends on the state of motion of the observer of such events. In one reference frame, the detections at one of the stations occurred earlier, but that may not be the case in another reference frame. Nonlocal action isn't something we can accept in any reasonable physical theory because it's incompatible with basic results from the special theory of relativity. People don't like to talk about this, but in my opinion the paradox is there all the time. It may be argued that this dramatic state of affairs legitimates any search for a way out of the paradox. Maybe it's possible that the data rejection mechanism found by Pearle and revised by Gill has a different physical interpretation, and it's not just a mathematical artifact unrelated to the physical world. Who could honestly deny this for sure?
Guest wrote:
The problem of just accepting that Bell's theorem really invalidates the kind of solution Fred is trying to build is that we're left with a paradox: the existence of perfect anticorrelation in these experiments when we set the detectors orientations to opposite directions must be related to the pre-existence of the observed properties (aka realism), or we must accept that nonlocal actions are really taking place in these experiments.
Guest wrote:
But then we would have to face the fact that the detection times on each station depends on the state of motion of the observer of such events. In one reference frame, the detections at one of the stations occurred earlier, but that may not be the case in another reference frame. Nonlocal action isn't something we can accept in any reasonable physical theory because it's incompatible with basic results from the special theory of relativity. People don't like to talk about this, but in my opinion the paradox is there all the time.
Guest wrote:
It may be argued that this dramatic state of affairs legitimates any search for a way out of the paradox.
Guest wrote:
Maybe it's possible that the data rejection mechanism found by Pearle and revised by Gill has a different physical interpretation, and it's not just a mathematical artifact unrelated to the physical world. Who could honestly deny this for sure?
FrediFizzx wrote:"No signaling non-locality" sounds like nonsense to me. What exactly does that mean? I've never understood it if it can be understood. Googled it and no satisfactory answer was found.
Of course, "non-locality" itself is pure physical nonsense in the context of EPR-Bohm scenarios.
Joy Christian wrote:FrediFizzx wrote:"No signaling non-locality" sounds like nonsense to me. What exactly does that mean? I've never understood it if it can be understood. Googled it and no satisfactory answer was found.
Of course, "non-locality" itself is pure physical nonsense in the context of EPR-Bohm scenarios.
No signaling nonlocality is very easy to understand in terms of the measurement functions A(a, b, B, h) and B(b, a, A, h), where I have written these functions in the most general form.
So the function A(a, b, B, h) depends not only just on a and h but also on b and B. If we want to have this function completely local, then it should have the form A(a, h), without the dependence on b and B.
Now the dependence of A on b amounts to signaling or special relativistic nonlocality because Bob can change the result of Alice by changing b to b'. So let us remove b from A(a, b, B, h).
So now we have the function A(a, B, h). It still depends on B, which is Bob's result. So it is still nonlocal because Alice's result A depends on Bob's result B. But since it does not depend on Bob's setting b, this is no signaling nonlocality. In other words, Bob cannot send a signal with this type of nonlocality. That is the idea behind no signaling nonlocality.
***
FrediFizzx wrote:Joy Christian wrote:FrediFizzx wrote:"No signaling non-locality" sounds like nonsense to me. What exactly does that mean? I've never understood it if it can be understood. Googled it and no satisfactory answer was found.
Of course, "non-locality" itself is pure physical nonsense in the context of EPR-Bohm scenarios.
No signaling nonlocality is very easy to understand in terms of the measurement functions A(a, b, B, h) and B(b, a, A, h), where I have written these functions in the most general form.
So the function A(a, b, B, h) depends not only just on a and h but also on b and B. If we want to have this function completely local, then it should have the form A(a, h), without the dependence on b and B.
Now the dependence of A on b amounts to signaling or special relativistic nonlocality because Bob can change the result of Alice by changing b to b'. So let us remove b from A(a, b, B, h).
So now we have the function A(a, B, h). It still depends on B, which is Bob's result. So it is still nonlocal because Alice's result A depends on Bob's result B. But since it does not depend on Bob's setting b, this is no signaling nonlocality. In other words, Bob cannot send a signal with this type of nonlocality. That is the idea behind no signaling nonlocality.
***
LOL! Thanks for that but sorry, it still looks like complete nonsense. It is impossible for A to depend on B without some kind of signal. Can anyone think of what kind of physical mechanism could make that happen?
Joy Christian wrote:FrediFizzx wrote:Joy Christian wrote:No signaling nonlocality is very easy to understand in terms of the measurement functions A(a, b, B, h) and B(b, a, A, h), where I have written these functions in the most general form.
So the function A(a, b, B, h) depends not only just on a and h but also on b and B. If we want to have this function completely local, then it should have the form A(a, h), without the dependence on b and B.
Now the dependence of A on b amounts to signaling or special relativistic nonlocality because Bob can change the result of Alice by changing b to b'. So let us remove b from A(a, b, B, h).
So now we have the function A(a, B, h). It still depends on B, which is Bob's result. So it is still nonlocal because Alice's result A depends on Bob's result B. But since it does not depend on Bob's setting b, this is no signaling nonlocality. In other words, Bob cannot send a signal with this type of nonlocality. That is the idea behind no signaling nonlocality.
***
LOL! Thanks for that but sorry, it still looks like complete nonsense. It is impossible for A to depend on B without some kind of signal. Can anyone think of what kind of physical mechanism could make that happen?
But here is the thing: If you let A depend on B and B depend on A, then you can easily produce -cosine curve with the functions A(a, B, h) and B(b, A, h).
Try it in your program, and you will see how easy it is.
***
gill1109 wrote: ... That’s why the concept of a loophole-free Bell-type experiment was invented. By Bell himself, by the way, he spells it out in his “Bertlmann’s socks” paper.
FrediFizzx wrote:gill1109 wrote: ... That’s why the concept of a loophole-free Bell-type experiment was invented. By Bell himself, by the way, he spells it out in his “Bertlmann’s socks” paper.
Well, Bell didn't know that his theory was going to get shot down so we don't blame him. So, since his theory is shot down, it is pretty silly to talk about "loophole-free" experiments. It is more than silly; it is ridiculous.
Return to Sci.Physics.Foundations
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 89 guests