GAViewer Simulation No Hidden Variable

[Heinera]

I suspect you are misreading Gull's number (2). I think for "answer", he is talking about the correlation. And the correlation for each event will be 0 or 1. But I don't understand what he says, "Can be different between trials". ???

If anyone else has a clue about this, go ahead and chip in. Here is Gull's original proof.

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

The function p is simply the function that should give an output of 0 or 1, given the angle as input. There could be a different result for each n, which is why n is the second argument to the function (if you want, you can interpret n as the hidden variable). At this stage in the proof, in other words (2), he is not talking about correlations.

[FrediFizzx]

I suspect you are misreading Gull's number (2). I think for "answer", he is talking about the correlation. And the correlation for each event will be 0 or 1. But I don't understand what he says, "Can be different between trials". ???

If anyone else has a clue about this, go ahead and chip in. Here is Gull's original proof.

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

The function p is simply the function that should give an output of 0 or 1, given the angle as input. There could be a different result for each n, which is why n is the second argument to the function (if you want, you can interpret n as the hidden variable). At this stage in the proof, in other words (2), he is not talking about correlations.

Ok, so what is the function exactly? Or in Gill's case, what are the functions?
.

[Heinera]

Ok, so what is the function exactly? Or in Gill's case, what are the functions?
.

It could be any function that gives 0 or 1 as output. The point of Gull's proof, which he shows later, is that no matter what the function is, the assumption that the two of them reproduces the cosine correlations leads to a contradiction.

[FrediFizzx]

Ok, so what is the function exactly? Or in Gill's case, what are the functions?
.

It could be any function that gives 0 or 1 as output. The point of Gull's proof, which he shows later, is that no matter what the function is, the assumption that the two of them reproduces the cosine correlations leads to a contradiction.

Well, I don't see that. I think you are just making it up. You are going to have to explain in much more detail. And..., what does "the two of them" mean? Two of what exactly?
.

[Heinera]

Well, I don't see that. I think you are just making it up. You are going to have to explain in much more detail. And..., what does "the two of them" mean? Two of what exactly?
.

"The two of them" means that there must be one function at Alice and one at Bob, and by his symmetry argument the two functions must be identical except for a rotation of 180 degrees when it comes to the argument . So The function at Alice for argument must always give the same value as the function at Bob for argument .

So far this is of course only what is mandated by the QM predictions; he hasn't even started on his argument yet.

[FrediFizzx]

Well, I don't see that. I think you are just making it up. You are going to have to explain in much more detail. And..., what does "the two of them" mean? Two of what exactly?
.

"The two of them" means that there must be one function at Alice and one at Bob, and by his symmetry argument the two functions must be identical except for a rotation of 180 degrees when it comes to the argument . So The function at Alice for argument must always give the same value as the function at Bob for argument .

So far this is of course only what is mandated by the QM predictions; he hasn't even started on his argument yet.

So, he is just talking about the A and B measurement functions as I said earlier.
.

[Heinera]

So, he is just talking about the A and B measurement functions as I said earlier.
.

Yes.

[FrediFizzx]

So, he is just talking about the A and B measurement functions as I said earlier.
.

Yes.

Ok, I guess we wait until Gill agrees with that or disagrees.
.

[FrediFizzx]

So, he is just talking about the A and B measurement functions as I said earlier.
.

Yes.

Ok, I guess we wait until Gill agrees with that or disagrees.
.

Hmm... I'm not so sure about this. It doesn't seem to comport with Gull's number (3). Which is a doozy to decipher anyways.
.

[gill1109]

I suspect you are misreading Gull's number (2). I think for "answer", he is talking about the correlation. And the correlation for each event will be 0 or 1. But I don't understand what he says, "Can be different between trials". ???

If anyone else has a clue about this, go ahead and chip in. Here is Gull's original proof.

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

The function p is simply the function that should give an output of 0 or 1, given the angle as input. There could be a different result for each n, which is why n is the second argument to the function (if you want, you can interpret n as the hidden variable). At this stage in the proof, in other words (2), he is not talking about correlations.

Not 0 or 1, but -1 or +1, in Gull’s outline proof.

Gull is moreover implicitly assuming that the two computer programs do not use *memory* of *previous* inputs. Each program takes as inputs *only*: a trial number which I call “n” and an angle which I’ll call “theta” respectively. Let me call the two programs p and q. So we know that for all theta and all n, q(theta, n) = - p(theta, n). Because the programs are built so as to give equal and opposite outputs when given two identical streams of angles. Now suppose that the user supplied two arbitrary lists of angles, let me denote them by theta_1, theta_2, ... and phi_1, phi_2, .... Then the actual outputs of the n’th trial are p(theta_n, n) and -p(phi_n, n). Those are two numbers +/-1.

Now we are ready to start doing the interesting stuff.... suppose one stream is theta, theta, theta, ... and the other stream is phi, phi, phi ... The correlation is the limit as n goes to infinity of 1/n times the sum from 1 to n of minus p(n, theta) p(n, phi).

The next thing we are going to do is some Fourier transformation tricks. And also do something cunning with those two angles. I need to quickly take my own personal refresher course on Fourier series. The key thing is going to be that the Fourier transform of the *convolution* of two functions is the product of the transforms. My memory is hazy. I learnt that stuff 50 years ago, have occasionally touched on it while teaching “Banach and Hilbert spaces”, or “Functional Analysis”. But of course, QM is all about Fourier transformation. Riemann and then Lebesgue invented rigorous integration theories in order to fix practical problems with Fourier theory, which had huge military applications. And so the story went on (Banach, Hilbert, von Neumann ... particle physics, Einstein, E = m c^2, Werner Von Heisenberg, Nieks Bohr and quantum mechanics ... and then we had the nuclear bomb).

[FrediFizzx]

I suspect you are misreading Gull's number (2). I think for "answer", he is talking about the correlation. And the correlation for each event will be 0 or 1. But I don't understand what he says, "Can be different between trials". ???

If anyone else has a clue about this, go ahead and chip in. Here is Gull's original proof.

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

The function p is simply the function that should give an output of 0 or 1, given the angle as input. There could be a different result for each n, which is why n is the second argument to the function (if you want, you can interpret n as the hidden variable). At this stage in the proof, in other words (2), he is not talking about correlations.

Not 0 or 1, but -1 or +1, in Gull’s outline proof.

Gull is moreover implicitly assuming that the two computer programs do not use *memory* of *previous* inputs. Each program takes as inputs *only*: a trial number which I call “n” and an angle which I’ll call “theta” respectively. Let me call the two programs p and q. So we know that for all theta and all n, q(theta, n) = - p(theta, n). Because the programs are built so as to give equal and opposite outputs when given two identical streams of angles. Now suppose that the user supplied two arbitrary lists of angles, let me denote them by theta_1, theta_2, ... and phi_1, phi_2, .... Then the actual outputs of the n’th trial are p(theta_n, n) and -p(phi_n, n). Those are two numbers +/-1.

Now we are ready to start doing the interesting stuff.... suppose one stream is theta, theta, theta, ... and the other stream is phi, phi, phi ... The correlation is the limit as n goes to infinity of 1/n times the sum from 1 to n of minus p(n, theta) p(n, phi).

The next thing we are going to do is some Fourier transformation tricks. And also do something cunning with those two angles. I need to quickly take my own personal refresher course on Fourier series. The key thing is going to be that the Fourier transform of the *convolution* of two functions is the product of the transforms. My memory is hazy. I learnt that stuff 50 years ago, have occasionally touched on it while teaching “Banach and Hilbert spaces”, or “Functional Analysis”. But of course, QM is all about Fourier transformation. Riemann and then Lebesgue invented rigorous integration theories in order to fix practical problems with Fourier theory, which had huge military applications. And so the story went on (Banach, Hilbert, von Neumann ... particle physics, Einstein, E = m c^2, Werner Von Heisenberg, Nieks Bohr and quantum mechanics ... and then we had the nuclear bomb).

Well, that is pure baloney. Of course it doesn't work. What happened to lambda?
.

[FrediFizzx]

So, he is just talking about the A and B measurement functions as I said earlier.
.

Yes.

Ok, I guess we wait until Gill agrees with that or disagrees.
.

Hmm... I'm not so sure about this. It doesn't seem to comport with Gull's number (3). Which is a doozy to decipher anyways.
.

Well Heine, I can't tell if Gill agrees with this or not. It looks like he doesn't but not sure. If it is the two measurement functions, then what is "p" in Gull's number (3). And for that matter, what is what looks like "mp2"?
.

[gill1109]

I suspect you are misreading Gull's number (2). I think for "answer", he is talking about the correlation. And the correlation for each event will be 0 or 1. But I don't understand what he says, "Can be different between trials". ???

If anyone else has a clue about this, go ahead and chip in. Here is Gull's original proof.

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

The function p is simply the function that should give an output of 0 or 1, given the angle as input. There could be a different result for each n, which is why n is the second argument to the function (if you want, you can interpret n as the hidden variable). At this stage in the proof, in other words (2), he is not talking about correlations.

Not 0 or 1, but -1 or +1, in Gull’s outline proof.

Gull is moreover implicitly assuming that the two computer programs do not use *memory* of *previous* inputs. Each program takes as inputs *only*: a trial number which I call “n” and an angle which I’ll call “theta” respectively. Let me call the two programs p and q. So we know that for all theta and all n, q(theta, n) = - p(theta, n). Because the programs are built so as to give equal and opposite outputs when given two identical streams of angles. Now suppose that the user supplied two arbitrary lists of angles, let me denote them by theta_1, theta_2, ... and phi_1, phi_2, .... Then the actual outputs of the n’th trial are p(theta_n, n) and -p(phi_n, n). Those are two numbers +/-1.

Now we are ready to start doing the interesting stuff.... suppose one stream is theta, theta, theta, ... and the other stream is phi, phi, phi ... The correlation is the limit as n goes to infinity of 1/n times the sum from 1 to n of minus p(n, theta) p(n, phi).

The next thing we are going to do is some Fourier transformation tricks. And also do something cunning with those two angles. I need to quickly take my own personal refresher course on Fourier series. The key thing is going to be that the Fourier transform of the *convolution* of two functions is the product of the transforms. My memory is hazy. I learnt that stuff 50 years ago, have occasionally touched on it while teaching “Banach and Hilbert spaces”, or “Functional Analysis”. But of course, QM is all about Fourier transformation. Riemann and then Lebesgue invented rigorous integration theories in order to fix practical problems with Fourier theory, which had huge military applications. And so the story went on (Banach, Hilbert, von Neumann ... particle physics, Einstein, E = m c^2, Werner Von Heisenberg, Nieks Bohr and quantum mechanics ... and then we had the nuclear bomb).

Well, that is pure baloney. Of course it doesn't work. What happened to lambda?
.

“lambda” is the initial state of the the two computers. Those two computer programs can contain all kinds of predefined data. The programs call system subroutines which contain data. Since lambda is fixed for the duration of one experiment, by definition, it is part of the definition of the function p. That function will be a different function, when you do the same experiment again, on another day.

[FrediFizzx]

...
Well, that is pure baloney. Of course it doesn't work. What happened to lambda?
. ...

“lambda” is the initial state of the the two computers. Those two computer programs can contain all kinds of predefined data. The programs call system subroutines which contain data. Since lambda is fixed for the duration of one experiment, by definition, it is part of the definition of the function p. That function will be a different function, when you do the same experiment again, on another day.

Err, no. The singlet spin vector is common to both stations and is different for every trial so must be sent to both stations every trial.

Hmm... I've awoken from my after dinner nap to a comedian apparently. Jeez, if you don't know how to properly explain Gull's proof, just say so. It is in fact very hard to explain nonsense.
.

[gill1109]

...
Well, that is pure baloney. Of course it doesn't work. What happened to lambda?
. ...

“lambda” is the initial state of the the two computers. Those two computer programs can contain all kinds of predefined data. The programs call system subroutines which contain data. Since lambda is fixed for the duration of one experiment, by definition, it is part of the definition of the function p. That function will be a different function, when you do the same experiment again, on another day.

Err, no. The singlet spin vector is common to both stations and is different for every trial so must be sent to both stations every trial.

Hmm... I've awoken from my after dinner nap to a comedian apparently. Jeez, if you don't know how to properly explain Gull's proof, just say so. It is in fact very hard to explain nonsense.
.

The idea is to simulate quantum correlations on separate computers. You are allowed to put N singlet spin vectors and values of all their hidden variables on both computers before starting the simulation. They are part of lambda.

[FrediFizzx]

...
Well, that is pure baloney. Of course it doesn't work. What happened to lambda?
. ...

“lambda” is the initial state of the the two computers. Those two computer programs can contain all kinds of predefined data. The programs call system subroutines which contain data. Since lambda is fixed for the duration of one experiment, by definition, it is part of the definition of the function p. That function will be a different function, when you do the same experiment again, on another day.

Err, no. The singlet spin vector is common to both stations and is different for every trial so must be sent to both stations every trial.

Hmm... I've awoken from my after dinner nap to a comedian apparently. Jeez, if you don't know how to properly explain Gull's proof, just say so. It is in fact very hard to explain nonsense.
.

The idea is to simulate quantum correlations on separate computers. You are allowed to put N singlet spin vectors and values of all their hidden variables on both computers before starting the simulation. They are part of lambda.

Wonderful! You have just confirmed that Gull's "proof" is utter nonsense. The singlet spin vector is a random variable that must be sent to each station for every event. It can't be pre-programmed.
.

[gill1109]

Wonderful! You have just confirmed that Gull's "proof" is utter nonsense. The singlet spin vector is a random variable that must be sent to each station for every event. It can't be pre-programmed.

Why can't N singlet spin vectors be sent in advance to both stations? They can then use them, one at a time. Your simulation can also be "pre-programmed". You make random numbers by calling a pseudo random number generator. You could make as many as you will need in advance, to both stations. Both stations can get everything that the other is going to get, in advance.

I think you have just confirmed that you don't understand what Gull is trying to prove, and why. The question (I thought) was: is there a local realistic explanation of the quantum correlations associated with so-called "quantum entanglement"? Of course we already know, that QM does not have any explanation of why the particular outcomes are what they are. Your own computer simulation is allegedly (I thought) a mechanism which explains those correlations as a local and basically deterministic process. The apparent randomness is merely the reflection in the variation, from trial to trial, of hidden variables of a classical nature located in the stuff of the experiment. That's what Einstein deeply believed would turn out to be the case. The EPR paper gave an argument why that might be so. Bell blew it up to smithereens (most people think).

You disagree with the general verdict on Bell. OK, the onus is on you, to prove that it could be so. But sorry - so far, you have failed. (Maybe someone can do it, but I doubt that). I have an open mind.

[local]

You make random numbers by calling a pseudo random number generator.

Pretty ironic from the guy that believes in "true randomness".

[FrediFizzx]

Wonderful! You have just confirmed that Gull's "proof" is utter nonsense. The singlet spin vector is a random variable that must be sent to each station for every event. It can't be pre-programmed.

Why can't N singlet spin vectors be sent in advance to both stations? They can then use them, one at a time. Your simulation can also be "pre-programmed". You make random numbers by calling a pseudo random number generator. You could make as many as you will need in advance, to both stations. Both stations can get everything that the other is going to get, in advance.

I think you have just confirmed that you don't understand what Gull is trying to prove, and why. The question (I thought) was: is there a local realistic explanation of the quantum correlations associated with so-called "quantum entanglement"? Of course we already know, that QM does not have any explanation of why the particular outcomes are what they are. Your own computer simulation is allegedly (I thought) a mechanism which explains those correlations as a local and basically deterministic process. The apparent randomness is merely the reflection in the variation, from trial to trial, of hidden variables of a classical nature located in the stuff of the experiment. That's what Einstein deeply believed would turn out to be the case. The EPR paper gave an argument why that might be so. Bell blew it up to smithereens (most people think).

You disagree with the general verdict on Bell. OK, the onus is on you, to prove that it could be so. But sorry - so far, you have failed. (Maybe someone can do it, but I doubt that). I have an open mind.

If what you say is true, then why does it have to be pre-programmed? We can just send both stations the singlet spin vector for every event. Or..., it can still be done on just two. Station A generates the singlet spin vector and sends to B for every event. Before the event. No problem.

But all of this is just more waffling. You still haven't even come close to validating Gull's "proof". And..., it looks like Heine gave up on Gull's number (3). I don't blame him as it reads like a bunch of nonsense. All the other "proofs" are shot down by the simple fact that NOTHING can exceed the Bell inequalities. Well..., that most likely means that Gull's "proof" is nonsense also.
.

[Heinera]

If what you say is true, then why does it have to be pre-programmed? We can just send both stations the singlet spin vector for every event.

Yes, that would be unproblematic.

And..., it looks like Heine gave up on Gull's number (3).
.

Not at all, but since you are still discussing number (2) no one has yet asked about (3).