GAViewer Simulation No Hidden Variable

[gill1109]

Here is a simple counter example to Gull's so-called "proof" using the same GAViewer script that started this thread when a = b. Here is a sample output from GAViewer,
...
So I REPEAT! Gill's "theorem" has no actual proof!

You are talking about a theorem of Gull, not of Gill.

Your code and output is no proof, since the code was run on *one* computer. You must give us two programs, each to be run on a separate computer.

Using virtualization software, I could set up two virtual computers, each running GAViewer, on one machine. Then I could test whether or not they satisfy Gull’s conditions. You could even do the same yourself.

You also failed to point out any error in Gull’s proof, in the reference I gave you, where it is worked out in detail.

So I am afraid there is no reason for anyone to believe your claim.

In some of my papers I give some theorems. If you want to disprove my published theorems, you had better first read the papers and especially look carefully at the stated conditions.

[FrediFizzx]

Here is a simple counter example to Gull's so-called "proof" using the same GAViewer script that started this thread when a = b. Here is a sample output from GAViewer,
...
So I REPEAT! Gill's "theorem" has no actual proof!

You are talking about a theorem of Gull, not of Gill.

Your code and output is no proof, since the code was run on *one* computer. You must give us two programs, each to be run on a separate computer.

Using virtualization software, I could set up two virtual computers, each running GAViewer, on one machine. Then I could test whether or not they satisfy Gull’s conditions. You could even do the same yourself.

You also failed to point out any error in Gull’s proof, in the reference I gave you, where it is worked out in detail.

So I am afraid there is no reason for anyone to believe your claim.

In some of my papers I give some theorems. If you want to disprove my published theorems, you had better first read the papers and especially look carefully at the stated conditions.

Nonsense. You based Gill's "theorem" on what Gull did. It's your "theorem".

More nonsense. Gull set a = b (theta_1 = theta_2) in his proof so Stations A and B have already talked to each other. There is no reason to run on two computers. But it can easily be done with the same result. Surely you can see that.

I don't need to point out the exact error in Gull's "proof" since the GAVIewer simulation is a perfect counter example. But rest assured there is an error in Gull's "proof". I will let you figure that out for yourself.

The Bell inequalities have been thoroughly exposed as a big hoax since NOTHING can exceed their bounds. QM can't do it and the experiments can't do it. It really boggles my mind that a mathematician like yourself doesn't understand that simple FACT!

So I REPEAT! There is no rigorous mathematical or physical proof that Gill's "theorem" is correct!
.

[gill1109]

Here is a simple counter example to Gull's so-called "proof" using the same GAViewer script that started this thread when a = b. Here is a sample output from GAViewer,
...
So I REPEAT! Gill's "theorem" has no actual proof!

You are talking about a theorem of Gull, not of Gill.

Your code and output is no proof, since the code was run on *one* computer. You must give us two programs, each to be run on a separate computer.

Using virtualization software, I could set up two virtual computers, each running GAViewer, on one machine. Then I could test whether or not they satisfy Gull’s conditions. You could even do the same yourself.

You also failed to point out any error in Gull’s proof, in the reference I gave you, where it is worked out in detail.

So I am afraid there is no reason for anyone to believe your claim.

In some of my papers I give some theorems. If you want to disprove my published theorems, you had better first read the papers and especially look carefully at the stated conditions.

Nonsense. You based Gill's "theorem" on what Gull did. It's your "theorem".

More nonsense. Gull set a = b (theta_1 = theta_2) in his proof so Stations A and B have already talked to each other. There is no reason to run on two computers. But it can easily be done with the same result. Surely you can see that.

I don't need to point out the exact error in Gull's "proof" since the GAVIewer simulation is a perfect counter example. But rest assured there is an error in Gull's "proof". I will let you figure that out for yourself.

The Bell inequalities have been thoroughly exposed as a big hoax since NOTHING can exceed their bounds. QM can't do it and the experiments can't do it. It really boggles my mind that a mathematician like yourself doesn't understand that simple FACT!

So I REPEAT! There is no rigorous mathematical or physical proof that Gill's "theorem" is correct!
.

I came across Gull’s proof long after I had proven my own theorem about the use of martingale theory in Bell type experiments, which I did in order to set a bet with Accardi which I could hardly lose. I wrote that up in 2001. https://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0110137. I do not write out a formal theorem but I do give a complete proof of a useful formula, (13), which tells us essentially how big the statistical fluctuations *above* the CHSH bound of 2 could be, in a distributed computing simulation of a Bell-CHSH experiment. Instead of “S” I look at the equivalent quantity got by replacing the four denominators in the observed correlations by their mean value N/4. My result was later further improved by Delft theoretical physicists Elkouss and Wehner, using work of mathematician Bentkus.

Christian’s work first came out in 2007.

[FrediFizzx]

...
I came across Gull’s proof long after I had proven my own theorem about the use of martingale theory in Bell type experiments, which I did in order to set a bet with Accardi which I could hardly lose. I wrote that up in 2001. https://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0110137. I do not write out a formal theorem but I do give a complete proof of a useful formula, (13), which tells us essentially how big the statistical fluctuations *above* the CHSH bound of 2 could be, in a distributed computing simulation of a Bell-CHSH experiment. Instead of “S” I look at the equivalent quantity got by replacing the four denominators in the observed correlations by their mean value N/4. My result was later further improved by Delft theoretical physicists Elkouss and Wehner, using work of mathematician Bentkus.

Christian’s work first came out in 2007.

So what? You still can't get around the simple fact that NOTHING can exceed the bound of the inequalities. So you didn't get Gill's "theorem" from Gull. That's probably good because his "proof" is now shot down. I'm still waiting to see some actual mathematical proof that SOMETHING can exceed the bounds of the inequalities. You can't do it because it is mathematically impossible.
.

[gill1109]

Here is a simple counter example to Gull's so-called "proof" using the same GAViewer script that started this thread when a = b. Here is a sample output from GAViewer,
...
So I REPEAT! Gill's "theorem" has no actual proof!

You are talking about a theorem of Gull, not of Gill.

Your code and output is no proof, since the code was run on *one* computer. You must give us two programs, each to be run on a separate computer.

Using virtualization software, I could set up two virtual computers, each running GAViewer, on one machine. Then I could test whether or not they satisfy Gull’s conditions. You could even do the same yourself.

You also failed to point out any error in Gull’s proof, in the reference I gave you, where it is worked out in detail.

So I am afraid there is no reason for anyone to believe your claim.

In some of my papers I give some theorems. If you want to disprove my published theorems, you had better first read the papers and especially look carefully at the stated conditions.

Nonsense. You based Gill's "theorem" on what Gull did. It's your "theorem".

More nonsense. Gull set a = b (theta_1 = theta_2) in his proof so Stations A and B have already talked to each other. There is no reason to run on two computers. But it can easily be done with the same result. Surely you can see that.

I don't need to point out the exact error in Gull's "proof" since the GAVIewer simulation is a perfect counter example. But rest assured there is an error in Gull's "proof". I will let you figure that out for yourself.

The Bell inequalities have been thoroughly exposed as a big hoax since NOTHING can exceed their bounds. QM can't do it and the experiments can't do it. It really boggles my mind that a mathematician like yourself doesn't understand that simple FACT!

So I REPEAT! There is no rigorous mathematical or physical proof that Gill's "theorem" is correct!
.

Gull didn’t not set a = b.
Tell me where you think the proof goes wrong.
https://physics.stackexchange.com/quest ... ls-theorem

[FrediFizzx]

...
Gull didn’t not set a = b.
Tell me where you think the proof goes wrong.
https://physics.stackexchange.com/quest ... ls-theorem

The "proof" at that link is also nonsense. Here is Gull's work.

http://www.mrao.cam.ac.uk/~steve/maxent ... s/bell.pdf

Very first line on page 3. "Set and repeatedly test alledged program."

It is easy to see from the math of the GAViewer code that when a = b you always get a correlation of -1. You will never have ++ or -- for the A and B outcomes. Jeez, that is a Bell condition. Every model has to do that or it doesn't fly. Gull's "proof" is nonsense and I don't care exactly where the error is.
.

[FrediFizzx]

...
Gull didn’t not set a = b.
Tell me where you think the proof goes wrong.
https://physics.stackexchange.com/quest ... ls-theorem

The "proof" at that link is also nonsense. Here is Gull's work.

http://www.mrao.cam.ac.uk/~steve/maxent ... s/bell.pdf

Very first line on page 3. "Set and repeatedly test alledged program."

It is easy to see from the math of the GAViewer code that when a = b you always get a correlation of -1. You will never have ++ or -- for the A and B outcomes. Jeez, that is a Bell condition. Every model has to do that or it doesn't fly. Gull's "proof" is nonsense and I don't care exactly where the error is.
.

Now that Gull's "proof" is thoroughly shot down, let's go back to,

"The Bell inequalities have been thoroughly exposed as a big hoax since NOTHING can exceed their bounds. QM can't do it and the experiments can't do it. It really boggles my mind that a mathematician like yourself doesn't understand that simple FACT!"

I'm still waiting to see ANYTHING that can exceed the bounds of the Bell inequalities. But I will never see that because it is mathematically impossible. You've got absolutely no proof that Gill's "theorem" is correct.
.

[FrediFizzx]

...
The "proof" at that link is also nonsense. Here is Gull's work.

http://www.mrao.cam.ac.uk/~steve/maxent ... s/bell.pdf

Very first line on page 3. "Set and repeatedly test alledged program."

It is easy to see from the math of the GAViewer code that when a = b you always get a correlation of -1. You will never have ++ or -- for the A and B outcomes. Jeez, that is a Bell condition. Every model has to do that or it doesn't fly. Gull's "proof" is nonsense and I don't care exactly where the error is.
.

Now that Gull's "proof" is thoroughly shot down, let's go back to,

"The Bell inequalities have been thoroughly exposed as a big hoax since NOTHING can exceed their bounds. QM can't do it and the experiments can't do it. It really boggles my mind that a mathematician like yourself doesn't understand that simple FACT!"

I'm still waiting to see ANYTHING that can exceed the bounds of the Bell inequalities. But I will never see that because it is mathematically impossible. You've got absolutely no proof that Gill's "theorem" is correct.
.

The Bell fans always choke on this simple fact!
.

[gill1109]

...
Gull didn’t not set a = b.
Tell me where you think the proof goes wrong.
https://physics.stackexchange.com/quest ... ls-theorem

The "proof" at that link is also nonsense. Here is Gull's work.

http://www.mrao.cam.ac.uk/~steve/maxent ... s/bell.pdf

Very first line on page 3. "Set and repeatedly test alledged program."

It is easy to see from the math of the GAViewer code that when a = b you always get a correlation of -1. You will never have ++ or -- for the A and B outcomes. Jeez, that is a Bell condition. Every model has to do that or it doesn't fly. Gull's "proof" is nonsense and I don't care exactly where the error is.
.

OK, I see what you are talking about. You should care where the error is, in your program. You do *not* have an A(a, lambda) and a B(b, lambda), as you would easily discover for yourself if you would try to rewrite your code as two programs, one for each of two computers.

Of course the two programs can be almost the same because B has to be minus A, as you correctly observed.

[FrediFizzx]

...
Gull didn’t not set a = b.
Tell me where you think the proof goes wrong.
https://physics.stackexchange.com/quest ... ls-theorem

The "proof" at that link is also nonsense. Here is Gull's work.

http://www.mrao.cam.ac.uk/~steve/maxent ... s/bell.pdf

Very first line on page 3. "Set and repeatedly test alledged program."

It is easy to see from the math of the GAViewer code that when a = b you always get a correlation of -1. You will never have ++ or -- for the A and B outcomes. Jeez, that is a Bell condition. Every model has to do that or it doesn't fly. Gull's "proof" is nonsense and I don't care exactly where the error is.
.

OK, I see what you are talking about. You should care where the error is, in your program. You do *not* have an A(a, lambda) and a B(b, lambda), as you would easily discover for yourself if you would try to rewrite your code as two programs, one for each of two computers.

Of course the two programs can be almost the same because B has to be minus A, as you correctly observed.

Nonsense. There is no error in the GAViewer program. It's totally silly to run on two computers because Station A has to tell Station B what its setting is for a anyways. Get real! And you can take the singlet vector as lambda. Gull's so-called "proof" is a bunch of freakin' nonsense!

But you are evading the simple fact that NOTHING can exceed the bounds on the Bell inequalities as I expected you would.
.

[gill1109]

Station A should not have to tell Station B its setting! In real experiments, it is made impossible that A’s setting could be available at B’s station till after B’s outcome is fixed. Gull shows why the statistics of Bell experiments can’t be reproduced by distributed computers constrained in the same way. When Gull says “set a = b” he is talking maths. He means “consider mathematically a pair of settings a, b such that a = b”. He is talking about two functions A and B and relations between them. Or in computer terms: two programs A and B which can take various inputs, and which proceed to generate outputs.

[FrediFizzx]

Station A should not have to tell Station B its setting! In real experiments, it is made impossible that A’s setting could be available at B’s station till after B’s outcome is fixed. Gull shows why the statistics of Bell experiments can’t be reproduced by distributed computers constrained in the same way. When Gull says “set a = b” he is talking maths. He means “consider mathematically a pair of settings a, b such that a = b”. He is talking about two functions A and B and relations between them. Or in computer terms: two programs A and B which can take various inputs, and which proceed to generate outputs.

Rubbish! It is really lame of you to not understand that it doesn't matter if run on two or one computer. The result will be the same. When a = b, the correlation will always be -1. Gull's "proof" is a big pile of garbage! It's a freakin' Bell condition that a model has to do that no matter how many computers it is run on.
.

[FrediFizzx]

Station A should not have to tell Station B its setting! In real experiments, it is made impossible that A’s setting could be available at B’s station till after B’s outcome is fixed. Gull shows why the statistics of Bell experiments can’t be reproduced by distributed computers constrained in the same way. When Gull says “set a = b” he is talking maths. He means “consider mathematically a pair of settings a, b such that a = b”. He is talking about two functions A and B and relations between them. Or in computer terms: two programs A and B which can take various inputs, and which proceed to generate outputs.

Rubbish! It is really lame of you to not understand that it doesn't matter if run on two or one computer. The result will be the same. When a = b, the correlation will always be -1. Gull's "proof" is a big pile of garbage! It's a freakin' Bell condition that a model has to do that no matter how many computers it is run on.
.

For lurkers' benefit I will explain with a little more detail. Here is the GAViewer code again,

Code: Select all

//Adaptation of Albert Jan Wonnink's original code based on GAViewer for Joy Christian's S^3 Model of the 2-particle
//This is NOT Joy Christian's S^3 model.  It is a GA R^3 model that works.
//This is a counter example to Gull's so-called "proof".

function RandomUnitVector()    //uniform random unit vector:
                               //http://mathworld.wolfram.com/SpherePointPicking.html
{
   v=randGaussStd()*e1+randGaussStd()*e2+ randGaussStd()*e3; //3D Vectors
   return normalize(v);
}
   batch test()
{
   set_window_title("3D Test of GA Model for the 2-particle correlation for Gull's proof");
   default_model(p3ga);
   N=10000;                               //number of iterations (trials)
   I=e1^e2^e3;
   s=0;
   t=0;
   u=0;
   nPP=0;
   nNN=0;
   nPN=0;
   nPN=0;
   for(mm=0;mm<N;mm=mm+1)                  //perform the experiment N times
   {
          a=RandomUnitVector();
          Da=I a;
          //b=RandomUnitVector();
          b=a;                                     //as specified in Gull's "proof"
          Db=I b;
          c=RandomUnitVector();         //singlet vector
          //Sa=I c;                     //singlet bivector
          //Sa=Sb;
          if((a.c)>0) {Sa=Da;} else {Sa=-Da;}  //polarizer takes Sa to +/-Da
          if((b.c)>0) {Sb=Db;} else {Sb=-Db;}  //polarizer takes Sb to +/-Db
          A=-Da*Sa;      //Measurement function
          B=Sb*Db;       //Measurement function
          q=0;
          //Since Sa*Sb = -1 the product calculation reduces to A B = -Da Sa Sb Db = Da Db.
          q=(Da Db);     //Product calculation
          s=s+q;
          p_a=atan2(scalar(Da/(e3^e1)), scalar(Da/(e2^e3)));  //Get angle for a vector in x-y plane
          p_b=atan2(scalar(Db/(e2^e3)), scalar(Db/(e3^e1)));  //Get angle for b vector in x-y plane
          neg_adotb=-(a.b);
          //print(neg_adotb, "f");             //Outputs -a.b event by event
          //if(p_a*p_b>0) {theta=acos(a.a)*180/pi;} else {theta=acos(a.a)*180/pi+0;}
          theta = 0;                         //obvious when a = b
          print(theta, "f");                 //Outputs the angles
          print(correlation=scalar(q), "f"); //Outputs the correlations event by event
          t=t+A;
          u=u+B;
          pp=0;
          nn=0;
          pn=0;
          np=0;
          if(A>0&&B>0) {pp=1;}
          if(A<0&&B<0) {nn=1;}
          if(A>0&&B<0) {pn=1;}
          if(A<0&&B>0) {np=1;}
          nPP=nPP+pp;
          nNN=nNN+nn;
          nPN=nPN+pn;
          nNP=nNP+np;
      }
      mean=s/N;
      print(mean, "f");    //shows the vanishing of the non-scalar part
      aveA=t/N;
      print(aveA, "f");    //verifies that individual average < A > = 0
      aveB=u/N;
      print(aveB, "f");    //verifies that individual average < B > = 0
      avePP=nPP/N;
      print(avePP, "f");   //verifies plus-plus outcome prediction
      aveNN=nNN/N;
      print(aveNN, "f");
      avePN=nPN/N;
      print(avePN, "f");
      aveNP=nNP/N;
      print(aveNP, "f");
      prompt();
}

It is easy to see that when a = b, the A and B functions are identical except for the minus sign on the A function. Thus, when the A outcome is +1, the B outcome will be -1. And when A is -1, B will be +1. ALWAYS! Even if run on two separate computers! Of course the singlet spin vector, c must be sent to both computers. So, I have no clue what Gull was going on about with his "proof" but his "proof" is indeed a pile of garbage since my GAViewer program never fails his test. Ever!
.

[gill1109]

Gull points out at the start of his proof (a proof by contradiction) that your program must certainly have B(b, lambda) = -A(b, lambda). Good, so you passed that initial test. Now, Fred, you need to study the next lines of the proof.

[FrediFizzx]

Gull points out at the start of his proof (a proof by contradiction) that your program must certainly have B(b, lambda) = -A(b, lambda). Good, so you passed that initial test. Now, Fred, you need to study the next lines of the proof.

Rubbish! The next lines of his so-called "proof" are gibberish. I'm surprised you don't see that. There is no "initial" test there is only the test.
.

[gill1109]

Gull points out at the start of his proof (a proof by contradiction) that your program must certainly have B(b, lambda) = -A(b, lambda). Good, so you passed that initial test. Now, Fred, you need to study the next lines of the proof.

Rubbish! The next lines of his so-called "proof" are gibberish. I'm surprised you don't see that. There is no "initial" test there is only the test.
.

If you want, I can try to explain the next lines for you! By ordinary email if you like, or by PM on this forum. Our education in mathematics is not the same. And anyway, it was long ago, and on different continents. Gibberish for you may be music for me, and vice versa. I know that these "cultural" issues are the root of many of the things we fight about on your splendid forum. That's why it is so valuable. A kind of "sand-box" for intercultural communication in science. So important!

[FrediFizzx]

Gull points out at the start of his proof (a proof by contradiction) that your program must certainly have B(b, lambda) = -A(b, lambda). Good, so you passed that initial test. Now, Fred, you need to study the next lines of the proof.

Rubbish! The next lines of his so-called "proof" are gibberish. I'm surprised you don't see that. There is no "initial" test there is only the test.
.

If you want, I can try to explain the next lines for you! By ordinary email if you like, or by PM on this forum. Our education in mathematics is not the same. And anyway, it was long ago, and on different continents. Gibberish for you may be music for me, and vice versa. I know that these "cultural" issues are the root of many of the things we fight about on your splendid forum. That's why it is so valuable. A kind of "sand-box" for intercultural communication in science. So important!

??? If you think you can explain Gull's gibberish, do it right here on the forum. Or perhaps you don't want to be further embarrassed?
.

[gill1109]

I’m not embarrassed.

[Joy Christian]

Our education in mathematics is not the same.

Yeah, right! We have to put up with this kind of nonsense from the guy who doesn't understand that absolutely nothing can violate any mathematical inequality. And this is the guy who is prone to making extremely elementary mathematical mistakes, as I have exposed here: https://www.academia.edu/38423874/Refut ... ls_Theorem.

***

[local]

I’m not embarrassed.

Then do it right here as Fred asked.