Coming Soon!

[FrediFizzx]

I look forward to seeing the revision.

On FaceBook, Fred says that k subscript A = k subscript B = k. So no need to define them. Events are matched if they have the same value of k. Excellent. Now the question is, how are the outcomes defined? *Not* by the formulas presently in the paper, as anyone can easily check.

You have Mathematica so you can easily check the analytical formulas. I have and they match. All angles at 45 degrees is a no-brainer. A = -1 and B =+1. Try it in Mathematica.
.

Fred,

What experiment are you running? I'm not familiar with one that would give A = -1 and B = +1 for angles at 45 degrees.

Is it the one from Bell (1964)? AKA EPR-Bohm?

Gordon

Basically a heavily modified version of Michel Fodje's epr-simple.

EPRsims/newCS-21-paper-forum2.pdf
http://dx.doi.org/10.13140/RG.2.2.28311.91047
.

[gill1109]

I look forward to seeing the revision.

On FaceBook, Fred says that k subscript A = k subscript B = k. So no need to define them. Events are matched if they have the same value of k. Excellent. Now the question is, how are the outcomes defined? *Not* by the formulas presently in the paper, as anyone can easily check.

You have Mathematica so you can easily check the analytical formulas. I have and they match. All angles at 45 degrees is a no-brainer. A = -1 and B =+1. Try it in Mathematica.
.

You reproduce the singlet correlations so if all angles are 45 degrees then A = -1 and B =1 half the time, A = +1 and B = -1 the other half of the time.

My tests don’t verify whether or not you reproduce the singlet correlations to a close degree. I find out how you do it. I prove that you do it by letting Alice’s setting influence Bob’s outcome and/or vice versa.

[FrediFizzx]

@gill1109 Pure nonsense on both parts. Your test is rejected in this case. All it is showing is that we are matching events.
.

[gill1109]

@gill1109 Pure nonsense on both parts. Your test is rejected in this case. All it is showing is that we are matching events.
.

Fred, what you are talking about has got nothing whatever to do with the test I did. I gave Alice and Bob each 30 settings, observed their each 30 outcomes. Then I replaced all of Bob’s settings with something different. I arranged that the RNG was producing the same 30 pairs of hidden variables. I showed you that several of Alice’s outcomes got changed, even though her settings were unchanged. Proof of nonlocality.

[gill1109]

I look forward to seeing the revision.

On FaceBook, Fred says that k subscript A = k subscript B = k. So no need to define them. Events are matched if they have the same value of k. Excellent. Now the question is, how are the outcomes defined? *Not* by the formulas presently in the paper, as anyone can easily check.

You have Mathematica so you can easily check the analytical formulas. I have and they match. All angles at 45 degrees is a no-brainer. A = -1 and B =+1. Try it in Mathematica.
.

Fred,

What experiment are you running? I'm not familiar with one that would give A = -1 and B = +1 for all angles at 45 degrees.

Is it the one from Bell (1964)? AKA EPR-Bohm?

Gordon

Gordon, Fred is talking about an experiment I did, a few posts back. He seems not to understand what I did. Get yourself a 14 day free trial of Mathematica and take his programs for a test run!

[Joy Christian]

.
The strawman argument should really be renamed as "the argument from deception" because what it involves is a willful deception on the part of who employs such an argument:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v5vzCmURh7o
.

[FrediFizzx]

Gordon, Fred is talking about an experiment I did, a few posts back. He seems not to understand what I did. Get yourself a 14 day free trial of Mathematica and take his programs for a test run!

More nonsense. I was talking about a test you should do for the analytical formulas not something you did.
.

[gill1109]

Gordon, Fred is talking about an experiment I did, a few posts back. He seems not to understand what I did. Get yourself a 14 day free trial of Mathematica and take his programs for a test run!

More nonsense. I was talking about a test you should do for the analytical formulas not something you did.
.

Please explain what test you think I should do, Fred. It would help many people if you could supply analytical formulas for the matching procedure, or pseudo-code to describe it precisely and unambiguously. Not everyone is a Mathematica wizard. No hurry.

[FrediFizzx]

@gill1109 Pick 3 angles for a, b and theta(which is e in the sim). See what results you get for A and B with the analytical formulas. Then see if those angles give the same results in the Mathematica program. If you need help, ask a question. I've tried it a few times and it works
.

[gill1109]

@gill1109 Pick 3 angles for a, b and theta(which is e in the sim). See what results you get for A and B with the analytical formulas. Then see if those angles give the same results in the Mathematica program. If you need help, ask a question. I've tried it a few times and it works
.

Thanks, so I should take m = 1 and then find the results in a1, b1 (settings) and A, B (outcomes)?

[Joy Christian]

@gill1109 Pick 3 angles for a, b and theta(which is e in the sim). See what results you get for A and B with the analytical formulas. Then see if those angles give the same results in the Mathematica program. If you need help, ask a question. I've tried it a few times and it works

Thanks, so I should take m = 1 and then find the results in a1, b1 (settings) and A, B (outcomes)?

Please provide a reference to an experiment that was done for a single trial: m = 1.
.

[gill1109]

@gill1109 Pick 3 angles for a, b and theta(which is e in the sim). See what results you get for A and B with the analytical formulas. Then see if those angles give the same results in the Mathematica program. If you need help, ask a question. I've tried it a few times and it works

Thanks, so I should take m = 1 and then find the results in a1, b1 (settings) and A, B (outcomes)?

Please provide a reference to an experiment that was done for a single trial: m = 1.
.

I do not know of a published real-world laboratory experiment with m = 1. But as theoreticians, we can do thought experiments and write about them, just like Einstein, Podolsky and Rosen wrote a paper about a thought experiment with m = 1. Schrödinger's cat experiment was also an experiment with m = 1. It was never ever performed, as far as I know. At least, not on ca cat, thank heavens.

If you like, you can imagine experiments being done on a million planets, all with m = 1, and the data finally being sent down to earth for analysis. The predictions of quantum mechanics are obvious. Does Fred's program reproduce them? To start with, let's test Fred's program by doing it with just one planet.

I made this suggestion once to Hess and Philip. Karl Hess' reaction was just like yours, Joy! But I think Einstein's reaction would be different.

Climate change and global warming is also an experiment performed by the human race with m = 1.

[FrediFizzx]

@gill1109 Pick 3 angles for a, b and theta(which is e in the sim). See what results you get for A and B with the analytical formulas. Then see if those angles give the same results in the Mathematica program. If you need help, ask a question. I've tried it a few times and it works
.

Thanks, so I should take m = 1 and then find the results in a1, b1 (settings) and A, B (outcomes)?

Doesn't matter if m =1 because you will get the same A and B outcomes for every trial with the 3 angles fixed. a1 and b1 are not results because you set those two to fixed. a=a1 and b=b1 in the code.
.

[gill1109]

@gill1109 Pick 3 angles for a, b and theta(which is e in the sim). See what results you get for A and B with the analytical formulas. Then see if those angles give the same results in the Mathematica program. If you need help, ask a question. I've tried it a few times and it works
.

Thanks, so I should take m = 1 and then find the results in a1, b1 (settings) and A, B (outcomes)?

Doesn't matter if m =1 because you will get the same A and B outcomes for every trial with the 3 angles fixed. a1 and b1 are not results because you set those two to fixed. a=a1 and b=b1 in the code.
.

Thanks!

[gill1109]

OK, so here is a new test of Fred's Mathematica code.
I set m = 1, and e = 100.
With settings (20, 130) I got outcomes (-1, 1).
With settings (20, 140) I got outcomes (1, 1).
Alice's setting stayed the same, Bob's setting changed, Bob's outcome did not change but Alice's outcome did change.
The hidden variable was the same in both cases.
https://www.wolframcloud.com/download/gill1109/Published/newCS-21-paper-Gill-test.nb
The notebook is a copy of Fred's notebook with a few lines altered at the beginning and the calculation of correlations replaced by simply printing the inputs and the outputs.
This proves that the outcomes are not computed according to the formulas written out in Fred and Joy's paper.
There has been some kind of spooky action at a distance.

[Justo]

OK, so here is a new test of Fred's Mathematica code.
I set m = 1, and e = 100.
With settings (20, 130) I got outcomes (-1, 1).
With settings (20, 140) I got outcomes (1, 1).
Alice's setting stayed the same, Bob's setting changed, Bob's outcome did not change but Alice's outcome did change.
The hidden variable was the same in both cases.
https://www.wolframcloud.com/download/gill1109/Published/newCS-21-paper-Gill-test.nb
The notebook is a copy of Fred's notebook with a few lines altered at the beginning and the calculation of correlations replaced by simply printing the inputs and the outputs.
This proves that the outcomes are not computed according to the formulas written out in Fred and Joy's paper.
There has been some kind of spooky action at a distance.

Pardon me for stepping in but if that's true, there is a problem. That is the test of locality that Eugen's model does not pass. Eugen does not understand that no matter how you explain the result, it constitutes objective proof of nonlocality.

[FrediFizzx]

OK, so here is a new test of Fred's Mathematica code.
I set m = 1, and e = 100.
With settings (20, 130) I got outcomes (-1, 1).
With settings (20, 140) I got outcomes (1, 1).
Alice's setting stayed the same, Bob's setting changed, Bob's outcome did not change but Alice's outcome did change.
The hidden variable was the same in both cases.
https://www.wolframcloud.com/download/gill1109/Published/newCS-21-paper-Gill-test.nb
The notebook is a copy of Fred's notebook with a few lines altered at the beginning and the calculation of correlations replaced by simply printing the inputs and the outputs.
This proves that the outcomes are not computed according to the formulas written out in Fred and Joy's paper.
There has been some kind of spooky action at a distance.

You did something wrong on the second set of a=20 and b=140. as I get outcomes (-1, +1) and the analytical formulas give me the same thing. Yeah, you changed theta(ee) = 50. That gives me (+1, +1) also. And the analytical formulas do also.
.

[FrediFizzx]

OK, so here is a new test of Fred's Mathematica code.
I set m = 1, and e = 100.
With settings (20, 130) I got outcomes (-1, 1).
With settings (20, 140) I got outcomes (1, 1).
Alice's setting stayed the same, Bob's setting changed, Bob's outcome did not change but Alice's outcome did change.
The hidden variable was the same in both cases.
https://www.wolframcloud.com/download/gill1109/Published/newCS-21-paper-Gill-test.nb
The notebook is a copy of Fred's notebook with a few lines altered at the beginning and the calculation of correlations replaced by simply printing the inputs and the outputs.
This proves that the outcomes are not computed according to the formulas written out in Fred and Joy's paper.
There has been some kind of spooky action at a distance.

Pardon me for stepping in but if that's true, there is a problem. That is the test of locality that Eugen's model does not pass. Eugen does not understand that no matter how you explain the result, it constitutes objective proof of nonlocality.

It's not true. He changed theta to 50 instead of 100 for the second test.
.

[gill1109]

OK, so here is a new test of Fred's Mathematica code.
I set m = 1, and e = 100.
With settings (20, 130) I got outcomes (-1, 1).
With settings (20, 140) I got outcomes (1, 1).
Alice's setting stayed the same, Bob's setting changed, Bob's outcome did not change but Alice's outcome did change.
The hidden variable was the same in both cases.
https://www.wolframcloud.com/download/gill1109/Published/newCS-21-paper-Gill-test.nb
The notebook is a copy of Fred's notebook with a few lines altered at the beginning and the calculation of correlations replaced by simply printing the inputs and the outputs.
This proves that the outcomes are not computed according to the formulas written out in Fred and Joy's paper.
There has been some kind of spooky action at a distance.

Pardon me for stepping in but if that's true, there is a problem. That is the test of locality that Eugen's model does not pass. Eugen does not understand that no matter how you explain the result, it constitutes objective proof of nonlocality.

It's not true. He changed theta to 50 instead of 100 for the second test.
.

I just checked. Probably there is a typing error in my last post, sorry.
Anyway: now I put m = 1 and e = 50.
With settings (20, 130) I got outcomes (-1, 1).
With settings (20, 140) I got outcomes (1, 1).
The notebook is now set up with settings 20 and 130 and e = 50 (I deleted an irrelevant line which was causing confusion to all, including myself)
https://www.wolframcloud.com/env/gill1109/Published/newCS-21-paper-Gill-test.nb

[jreed]

I just ran the same test as Richard and got identical results. For (20,130) I get (-1,1), for (20,140) I also get (1,1). Changing Bob's detector angle from 130 to 140 changes Alice's detector results from -1 to 1. This is an obvious example of non-locality.