A Completelly Local and Realistic Simulation

Foundations of physics and/or philosophy of physics, and in particular, posts on unresolved or controversial issues

Re: A Completelly Local and Realistic Simulation

Postby gill1109 » Mon Mar 30, 2020 3:00 am

So you want



where "n" is the "null vector?
gill1109
Mathematical Statistician
 
Posts: 2812
Joined: Tue Feb 04, 2014 10:39 pm
Location: Leiden

Re: A Completelly Local and Realistic Simulation

Postby FrediFizzx » Mon Mar 30, 2020 8:34 am

gill1109 wrote:So you want



where "n" is the "null vector?

Thanks. Almost good.


.
FrediFizzx
Independent Physics Researcher
 
Posts: 2905
Joined: Tue Mar 19, 2013 7:12 pm
Location: N. California, USA

Re: A Completelly Local and Realistic Simulation

Postby Joy Christian » Mon Mar 30, 2020 9:16 am

FrediFizzx wrote:
gill1109 wrote:So you want



where "n" is the "null vector?

Thanks. Almost good.



This is still not quite right. A null vector is a vector without directon or magnitude, so the subsripts a and b on it seems wrong, or at least redundant. More seriously, is identically equal to zero, so is ambiguous.

***
Joy Christian
Research Physicist
 
Posts: 2793
Joined: Wed Feb 05, 2014 4:49 am
Location: Oxford, United Kingdom

Re: A Completelly Local and Realistic Simulation

Postby Guest » Mon Apr 06, 2020 8:23 pm

This is an R version of Fred's simulation.

Code: Select all
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)


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.
Guest
 

Re: A Completelly Local and Realistic Simulation

Postby FrediFizzx » Mon Apr 06, 2020 9:03 pm

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
Independent Physics Researcher
 
Posts: 2905
Joined: Tue Mar 19, 2013 7:12 pm
Location: N. California, USA

Re: A Completelly Local and Realistic Simulation

Postby FrediFizzx » Tue Apr 07, 2020 9:45 am

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.
.
FrediFizzx
Independent Physics Researcher
 
Posts: 2905
Joined: Tue Mar 19, 2013 7:12 pm
Location: N. California, USA

Re: A Completelly Local and Realistic Simulation

Postby gill1109 » Mon Apr 13, 2020 3:08 am

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.

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.
gill1109
Mathematical Statistician
 
Posts: 2812
Joined: Tue Feb 04, 2014 10:39 pm
Location: Leiden

Re: A Completelly Local and Realistic Simulation

Postby FrediFizzx » Mon Apr 13, 2020 9:43 am

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?
.
FrediFizzx
Independent Physics Researcher
 
Posts: 2905
Joined: Tue Mar 19, 2013 7:12 pm
Location: N. California, USA

Re: A Completelly Local and Realistic Simulation

Postby Guest » Mon Apr 13, 2020 7:27 pm

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?
.


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
 

Re: A Completelly Local and Realistic Simulation

Postby FrediFizzx » Mon Apr 13, 2020 8:31 pm

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. :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?
.


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?

Joy has a pretty good interpretation of Pearle called Complete States. And it may be valid. It may actually be the way Nature works. Which if I am un-successful in my endeavor, I will fall back to.
.
FrediFizzx
Independent Physics Researcher
 
Posts: 2905
Joined: Tue Mar 19, 2013 7:12 pm
Location: N. California, USA

Re: A Completelly Local and Realistic Simulation

Postby Joy Christian » Mon Apr 13, 2020 8:33 pm

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.

There is no reason to accept Bell's so-called "theorem." To begin with, it is not a "theorem" but a physical argument. And as a physical argument, it is simply wrong. Bell has made the same mistake he had ridiculed von Neumann for making: https://arxiv.org/abs/1704.02876.

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.

Reference frames or special creativity are not at stake here. The nonlocality Bell and his followers have been claiming is a no signaling non-locality that fully respects special relativity.

Guest wrote:
It may be argued that this dramatic state of affairs legitimates any search for a way out of the paradox.

There is no paradox. There already exists a completely satisfactory local, realistic and deterministic model that reproduces the singlet correlations:

https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/8836453.

See also this pedagogical paper that is easier to digest: https://arxiv.org/abs/1911.11578.

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?

The data rejection mechanism does have a different physical interpretation. It has to do with the geometry and topology of the 3-sphere, as discussed in the papers I have linked above.

***
Joy Christian
Research Physicist
 
Posts: 2793
Joined: Wed Feb 05, 2014 4:49 am
Location: Oxford, United Kingdom

Re: A Completelly Local and Realistic Simulation

Postby FrediFizzx » Tue Apr 14, 2020 10:15 am

"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.
.
FrediFizzx
Independent Physics Researcher
 
Posts: 2905
Joined: Tue Mar 19, 2013 7:12 pm
Location: N. California, USA

Re: A Completelly Local and Realistic Simulation

Postby Joy Christian » Tue Apr 14, 2020 10:36 am

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.

***
Joy Christian
Research Physicist
 
Posts: 2793
Joined: Wed Feb 05, 2014 4:49 am
Location: Oxford, United Kingdom

Re: A Completelly Local and Realistic Simulation

Postby FrediFizzx » Tue Apr 14, 2020 11:01 am

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?
.
FrediFizzx
Independent Physics Researcher
 
Posts: 2905
Joined: Tue Mar 19, 2013 7:12 pm
Location: N. California, USA

Re: A Completelly Local and Realistic Simulation

Postby Joy Christian » Tue Apr 14, 2020 11:15 am

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?

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.

***
Joy Christian
Research Physicist
 
Posts: 2793
Joined: Wed Feb 05, 2014 4:49 am
Location: Oxford, United Kingdom

Re: A Completelly Local and Realistic Simulation

Postby FrediFizzx » Tue Apr 14, 2020 11:34 am

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.

***

I've already done it in the program. It is just math with signals between A and B.
.
FrediFizzx
Independent Physics Researcher
 
Posts: 2905
Joined: Tue Mar 19, 2013 7:12 pm
Location: N. California, USA

Re: A Completelly Local and Realistic Simulation

Postby FrediFizzx » Sun Jan 31, 2021 9:12 am

Recently, there has been a lot of news about some really aweful and dangerous conspiracy theories. Well, I have a good conspiracy theory pertaining to the so-called Bell test experiments. :D I have further modified the simulation that started this thread. First, I took out the Pearle function as it is not all that necessary. Second, the hidden variable is now a function of the singlet vector e which is perhaps more appropriate. Third, I took out the absolute value function on the A and B functions for the constraints to highlight the fact that there is also a negative HV lambda. Fourth, you will see the conspiracy for the a and b detection vectors. During the constraints, those vectors are replaced by another set of random integers from 1 to 360 degrees. The main point of all this is that you can't tell from the results that anything is out of the ordinary. So, perhaps something similar to this is going on for the test experiments. And the result for 10 million trials at one degree resolution is,

Image

Here is a PDF of the Mathematica program along with the notebook file for those that might be interested,

EPRsims/newCS-1-forum.pdf
EPRsims/newCS-1-forum.nb
.
FrediFizzx
Independent Physics Researcher
 
Posts: 2905
Joined: Tue Mar 19, 2013 7:12 pm
Location: N. California, USA

Re: A Completelly Local and Realistic Simulation

Postby gill1109 » Mon Feb 01, 2021 12:14 am

That’s interesting, Fred. Something like this might have been going on in many of those experiments which are focussed on getting a negative cosine. As many “outsiders”, e.g. Caroline Thompson, argued for years. Her careful and thorough work was suppressed by the establishment. She was dogmatic, though, herself. She took local realism as axiomatically true.

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.
gill1109
Mathematical Statistician
 
Posts: 2812
Joined: Tue Feb 04, 2014 10:39 pm
Location: Leiden

Re: A Completelly Local and Realistic Simulation

Postby FrediFizzx » Mon Feb 01, 2021 9:00 am

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.
.
FrediFizzx
Independent Physics Researcher
 
Posts: 2905
Joined: Tue Mar 19, 2013 7:12 pm
Location: N. California, USA

Re: A Completelly Local and Realistic Simulation

Postby gill1109 » Mon Feb 01, 2021 11:52 pm

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.

The term “loophole-free Bell experiment” designates an experiment performed under certain experimental constraints. It is easy to perform a loophole free experiment. You just need fast random number generation, fast recording of observed data, sufficient distance and careful timing. What is difficult, is to violate a Bell type inequality with the data coming out of such an experiment, when one moreover analyses the data in the proper way.

There have now been a number of *successful* loophole-free experiments. Nobody has yet won the quantum Randi challenge or any of my computer challenges. Thus, nobody has simulated a successful loophole-free experiment in a loophole-free way.

From an experimental point of view, Bell’s theory is not shot down at all.
gill1109
Mathematical Statistician
 
Posts: 2812
Joined: Tue Feb 04, 2014 10:39 pm
Location: Leiden

PreviousNext

Return to Sci.Physics.Foundations

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 84 guests

cron
CodeCogs - An Open Source Scientific Library