Coming Soon!

[FrediFizzx]

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.

Nope. It has nothing to do with non-locality. See the first part of the notebook file for the complete analysis and explanation. Click on the link.

https://www.wolframcloud.com/obj/fredif ... 5-forum.nb

The sign change on A is due to a quaternion sign flip and that is also another reason why Gill's other test for locality is no good for this model.
.

[gill1109]

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.

Nope. It has nothing to do with non-locality. See the first part of the notebook file for the complete analysis and explanation. Click on the link.

https://www.wolframcloud.com/obj/fredif ... 5-forum.nb

The sign change on A is due to a quaternion sign flip and that is also another reason why Gill's other test for locality is no good for this model.
.

Splendid! Thanks for the explanation.

[Joy Christian]

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.

Nope. It has nothing to do with non-locality. See the first part of the notebook file for the complete analysis and explanation. Click on the link.

https://www.wolframcloud.com/obj/fredif ... 5-forum.nb

The sign change on A is due to a quaternion sign flip and that is also another reason why Gill's other test for locality is no good for this model.

I would add that the analytical formulas for the A and B outcomes defined in equations (1) to (14) of our paper are manifestly local and precisely in the functional form Bell's theorem demands. That --- plus the fact that Fred has demonstrated that there is no conflict in the test case between our analytical formulas and his code --- proves that the model is local.
.

[FrediFizzx]

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.

Nope. It has nothing to do with non-locality. See the first part of the notebook file for the complete analysis and explanation. Click on the link.

https://www.wolframcloud.com/obj/fredif ... 5-forum.nb

The sign change on A is due to a quaternion sign flip and that is also another reason why Gill's other test for locality is no good for this model.

I would add that the analytical formulas for the A and B outcomes defined in equations (1) to (14) of our paper are manifestly local and precisely in the functional form Bell's theorem demands. That --- plus the fact that Fred has demonstrated that there is no conflict in the test case between our analytical formulas and his code --- proves that the model is local.

Yeah, the explanation is a combo of matching events along with the quaternion sign changes which we emulate in this model. The quaternion action is something you discovered a long time ago. It is no doubt at all part of the mystery of quantum correlations being entirely local. You have shown that quite successfully with your GA and quaternion models for the product calculations equal to -a.b.
.

[gill1109]

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.

Nope. It has nothing to do with non-locality. See the first part of the notebook file for the complete analysis and explanation. Click on the link.

https://www.wolframcloud.com/obj/fredif ... 5-forum.nb

The sign change on A is due to a quaternion sign flip and that is also another reason why Gill's other test for locality is no good for this model.

I would add that the analytical formulas for the A and B outcomes defined in equations (1) to (14) of our paper are manifestly local and precisely in the functional form Bell's theorem demands. That --- plus the fact that Fred has demonstrated that there is no conflict in the test case between our analytical formulas and his code --- proves that the model is local.
.

That is almost completely true. Equations (1) to (14) are precisely in the functional form demanded by Bell. It is not difficult to program them and verify that Bell’s inequality holds for them. The outcomes defined by (1) to (14) are however not quite the outcomes determined by Fred’s code. Fred’s code includes what he calls a “quaternionic sign flip”, as he himself has now nicely explained.

By the way, we know now how to express it succinctly in just a few neat equations too.

It might be helpful in writing this up (to deal with complaints by pedantic mathematicians) to allow functions to take on an extra value “undefined” and to write down the convention one wants to use to deal with “undefined” when doing addition.

[FrediFizzx]

That is almost completely true. Equations (1) to (14) are precisely in the functional form demanded by Bell. It is not difficult to program them and verify that Bell’s inequality holds for them. The outcomes defined by (1) to (14) are however not quite the outcomes determined by Fred’s code. Fred’s code includes what he calls a “quaternionic sign flip”, as he himself has now nicely explained.

Are you blind? You can't read what it says for eqs. (7 and 14)? The analytical formulas' outcomes are exactly the same as the Mathematica program's outcomes.
.

[Joy Christian]

Fred’s code includes what he calls a “quaternionic sign flip”, as he himself has now nicely explained.

So does our analytical prescription defined in equations (1) to (14). The quaternionic sign flips are clearly specified, analytically, in equations (7) and (14).

Any suggested amendment to our analytical prescription in the paper would not be our model. It would a strawman that we would emphatically reject.
.

[Heinera]

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.

Nope. It has nothing to do with non-locality. See the first part of the notebook file for the complete analysis and explanation. Click on the link.

https://www.wolframcloud.com/obj/fredif ... 5-forum.nb

The sign change on A is due to a quaternion sign flip and that is also another reason why Gill's other test for locality is no good for this model.
.

Uhh...what Richard demonstrated is the very definition of non-locality. What ultimately caused the sign flip is obviously the change in Bob's setting.

[FrediFizzx]

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.

Nope. It has nothing to do with non-locality. See the first part of the notebook file for the complete analysis and explanation. Click on the link.

https://www.wolframcloud.com/obj/fredif ... 5-forum.nb

The sign change on A is due to a quaternion sign flip and that is also another reason why Gill's other test for locality is no good for this model.
.

Uhh...what Richard demonstrated is the very definition of non-locality. What ultimately caused the sign flip is obviously the change in Bob's setting.

Nope. Wrong again! Gill, didn't only change the setting for b he changed the trial number to "no result" for B1.
.

[FrediFizzx]

Fred: I put this version on the Wolfram cloud. Here is where it is located. You can take a look at it and execute it. Let me know if you see any differences between it and your "totally local" version.

https://www.wolframcloud.com/obj/ka5qep ... /simple.nb

John, do you have analytical formulas to go with that? If not, can you produce them?
.

[Justo]

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.

Nope. It has nothing to do with non-locality. See the first part of the notebook file for the complete analysis and explanation. Click on the link.

https://www.wolframcloud.com/obj/fredif ... 5-forum.nb

The sign change on A is due to a quaternion sign flip and that is also another reason why Gill's other test for locality is no good for this model.
.

Uhh...what Richard demonstrated is the very definition of non-locality. What ultimately caused the sign flip is obviously the change in Bob's setting.

Nope. Wrong again!
.

I don't know what you guys(and girls) are talking about but I know one thing. If it is true that the only thing that changed was Bob's setting and Alice result changed, that is the definition of spooky acition.

[FrediFizzx]

@Justo NOPE!

[Joy Christian]

I don't know what you guys(and girls) are talking about but I know one thing. If it is true that the only thing that changed was Bob's setting and Alice result changed, that is the definition of spooky action.

Justo, it is not true that the only thing they are changing is Bob's setting. They claim that that is what they are doing, but that claim is either innocently wrong or intentionally wrong. What they are unwittingly doing is also changing the trial number. In fact, what they are doing is worse than that. They are unwittingly severing the trial number match between Alice's and Bob's results when they change Bob's setting from 130 to 140. Not all strawman arguments are easily detected to be strawmen. Sometimes it takes a lot of effort to detect this logical fallacy.
.

[Heinera]

I don't know what you guys(and girls) are talking about but I know one thing. If it is true that the only thing that changed was Bob's setting and Alice result changed, that is the definition of spooky action.

Justo, it is not true that the only thing they are changing is Bob's setting. They claim that that is what they are doing, but that claim is either innocently wrong or intentionally wrong. What they are unwittingly doing is also changing the trial number. In fact, what they are doing is worse than that. They are unwittingly severing the trial number match between Alice's and Bob's results when they change Bob's setting from 130 to 140. Not all strawman arguments are easily detected to be strawmen. Sometimes it takes a lot of effort to detect this logical fallacy.
.

There is only one trial. How could they possibly change the trial number. The trial number is one.

[FrediFizzx]

There is only one trial. How could they possibly change the trial number. The trial number is one.

Nope! Read and understand the explanation I did. https://www.wolframcloud.com/obj/fredif ... 5-forum.nb
.

[gill1109]

There is only one trial. How could they possibly change the trial number. The trial number is one.

Nope! Read and understand the explanation I did. https://www.wolframcloud.com/obj/fredif ... 5-forum.nb
.

Fred is right, that they do not change the trial number. In the first, "explanation" part of that notebook, Fred does not change the trial number. There is just one trial. With the hidden variable fixed, Fred is just playing with Alice and Bob's settings. The trial number "1" is the third variable in OutA1 and OutB1 and OutB2.

The notebook does not actually initialise OutA1 and OutB1 and OutB2. But it still runs, since once you copy and run the notebook to your own Wolfram Cloud account, it keeps the values of those variables which were in there before, i.e., when Fred himself last posted it to the cloud.

Fred has used the word "mysterious" to describe this whole phenomenon. But we must not call it "spooky" or "non-local"; we must describe it as quaternionic. I must say, it is very clever indeed.

When I published this very same worked example (but with my own version of Fred's code) Joy called it a strawman. But Fred has exactly reproduced the results I got.

[FrediFizzx]

There is only one trial. How could they possibly change the trial number. The trial number is one.

Nope! Read and understand the explanation I did. https://www.wolframcloud.com/obj/fredif ... 5-forum.nb
.

Fred is right, that they do not change the trial number. In the first, "explanation" part of that notebook, Fred does not change the trial number. There is just one trial. With the hidden variable fixed, Fred is just playing with Alice and Bob's settings. The trial number "1" is the third variable in OutA1 and OutB1 and OutB2.

The notebook does not actually initialise OutA1 and OutB1 and OutB2. But it still runs, since once you copy and run the notebook to your own Wolfram Cloud account, it keeps the values of those variables which were in there before, i.e., when Fred himself last posted it to the cloud.

Of course we don't change the trial numbers. The program does that. In the case of b= 140, the event gets kicked to B2 instead of B1 so there is no trial number match between A1 and B1 because the event went to B2. The empty curly bracket { } in Mathematica means "no result".
.

[Joy Christian]

Fred has used the word "mysterious" to describe this whole phenomenon. But we must not call it "spooky" or "non-local"; we must describe it as quaternionic. I must say, it is very clever indeed.

"Mysterious" is not the same as "mystical." "Spooky" and "non-local" are voodoo concepts. Just because some physicists are addicted to them does not mean that they have something to do with physics or Nature.

Quaternions, on the other hand, are very much a part of everyday physics, from aviation engineering to computer games. They are not mystical. I gave up on mysticism when I was about twelve. I have never looked back despite being surrounded by mystics.
.

[gill1109]

There is only one trial. How could they possibly change the trial number. The trial number is one.

Nope! Read and understand the explanation I did. https://www.wolframcloud.com/obj/fredif ... 5-forum.nb
.

Fred is right, that they do not change the trial number. In the first, "explanation" part of that notebook, Fred does not change the trial number. There is just one trial. With the hidden variable fixed, Fred is just playing with Alice and Bob's settings. The trial number "1" is the third variable in OutA1 and OutB1 and OutB2.

The notebook does not actually initialise OutA1 and OutB1 and OutB2. But it still runs, since once you copy and run the notebook to your own Wolfram Cloud account, it keeps the values of those variables which were in there before, i.e., when Fred himself last posted it to the cloud.

Of course we don't change the trial numbers. The program does that. In the case of b= 140, the event gets kicked to B2 instead of B1 so there is no trial number match between A1 and B1 because the event went to B2. The empty curly bracket { } in Mathematica means "no result".
.

The program changes Alice’s outcome in response to a change to Bob’s setting. It doesn’t matter how you like to think of the various memory locations used by Mathematica. Fact of the matter is, we looked at one trial. We fixed the “hidden variable”. For different pairs of settings we calculated corresponding pairs of measurement outcomes.

To Joy: indeed, mysterious is not the same as mystical. Fred’s model is clever, it’s novel. However it does not force me to eat my hat.

[FrediFizzx]

@gill1109 You should have ate your hat a long time ago. Did you read and understand my explanation? Apparently not. You have always had some kind of reading comprehension problem. The model is local all the freakin' way.
.