Coming Soon!

[FrediFizzx]

Great! That worked. Here’s my copy for further testing https://www.wolframcloud.com/obj/gill1109/Published/newCS-11-CHSH-paper-RDG.nb

The random seed is pretty useless. Ya have to run the program like 10 times then average the results. I should probably put that automation in the file.
.

[Joy Christian]

Great! That worked. Here’s my copy for further testing https://www.wolframcloud.com/obj/gill1109/Published/newCS-11-CHSH-paper-RDG.nb

The random seed is pretty useless. Ya have to run the program like 10 times then average the results. I should probably put that automation in the file.

Did he just confirm that your code "violates" the CHSH bound and reproduces the quantum mechanical prediction?
.

[FrediFizzx]

Great! That worked. Here’s my copy for further testing https://www.wolframcloud.com/obj/gill1109/Published/newCS-11-CHSH-paper-RDG.nb

The random seed is pretty useless. Ya have to run the program like 10 times then average the results. I should probably put that automation in the file.

Did he just confirm that your code "violates" the CHSH bound and reproduces the quantum mechanical prediction?
.

It looks like he did. Well, very close to the QM prediction.
.

[Joy Christian]

Great! That worked. Here’s my copy for further testing https://www.wolframcloud.com/obj/gill1109/Published/newCS-11-CHSH-paper-RDG.nb

The random seed is pretty useless. Ya have to run the program like 10 times then average the results. I should probably put that automation in the file.

Did he just confirm that your code "violates" the CHSH bound and reproduces the quantum mechanical prediction?
.

It looks like he did. Well, very close to the QM prediction.
.

Then it is time for him to eat his hat.
.

[FrediFizzx]

The random seed is pretty useless. Ya have to run the program like 10 times then average the results. I should probably put that automation in the file.

Did he just confirm that your code "violates" the CHSH bound and reproduces the quantum mechanical prediction?
.

It looks like he did. Well, very close to the QM prediction.
.

Then it is time for him to eat his hat.

.

[FrediFizzx]

Here is what you need to average CHSH 10 times. CHSH = 2.78973!

https://www.wolframcloud.com/obj/fredif ... ateCHSH.nb

You will need to modify the end of the file like this so that it just outputs a single number.

https://www.wolframcloud.com/obj/fredif ... Hpaper1.nb

You can change the 10 to whatever you might want. And of course get rid of the random seed junk.
.

[gill1109]

Great! That worked. Here’s my copy for further testing https://www.wolframcloud.com/obj/gill1109/Published/newCS-11-CHSH-paper-RDG.nb

The random seed is pretty useless. Ya have to run the program like 10 times then average the results. I should probably put that automation in the file.
.

For my testing purposes (for testing locality, for instance) it’s useful to be able to set the random seed at the start.

To check the code actually works, it’s useful to run it with a small sample size.

Anyway, thanks again for writing and publishing a CHSH version of your code.

Did he just confirm that your code "violates" the CHSH bound and reproduces the quantum mechanical prediction?
.

It looks like he did. Well, very close to the QM prediction.
.

Then it is time for him to eat his hat.
.

Yes, the code gets a value of S close to the Tsirelson bound if the sample size is large. It will not exactly reproduce QM predictions for the EPR-B model in the limit of an infinite sample size. But something similar to this obviously could, in principle.

It is not time to eat my hat. My tests showed to me that the code did not enforce locality, so to me it proved nothing.

[Joy Christian]

The code does not enforce locality, so it proves nothing.

Pure BS. I can't wait until Fred wakes up and cuts you to pieces for saying this.
.

[gill1109]

The code does not enforce locality, so it proves nothing.

Pure BS. I can't wait until Fred wakes up and cuts you to pieces for saying this.
.

I’m also looking forward to Fred’s reaction. I predict “freakin’ nonsense”, and veiled warnings of a ban.

[FrediFizzx]

@gill1109 Hmm... I guess I did that long explanation for nothing. Ok, let's review that and tell me where it is wrong.

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

If you fail to do so, then the simulation is completely local which it is anyways.
.

[FrediFizzx]

@gill1109 Hmm... I guess I did that long explanation for nothing. Ok, let's review that and tell me where it is wrong.

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

If you fail to do so, then the simulation is completely local which it is anyways.
.

I should add to the explanation that doing 1 trial twice is statistically insignificant. You certainly should understand that. In fact, I can tell you what the statistical number is. Worst case is 0.002 percent. Very tiny! That means that essentially most all the events are LOCAL!
.

[FrediFizzx]

@gill1109 Hmm... I guess I did that long explanation for nothing. Ok, let's review that and tell me where it is wrong.

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

If you fail to do so, then the simulation is completely local which it is anyways.
.

I should add to the explanation that doing 1 trial twice is statistically insignificant. You certainly should understand that. In fact, I can tell you what the statistical number is. Worst case is 0.002 percent. Very tiny! That means that essentially most all the events are LOCAL!
.

So, guess what? You're finished! You really should get over it and move on. But before that... you should pay up and eat that hat!
.

[FrediFizzx]

@gill1109 Hmm... I guess I did that long explanation for nothing. Ok, let's review that and tell me where it is wrong.

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

If you fail to do so, then the simulation is completely local which it is anyways.
.

Ok, I guess that does it. Gill can't tell us if there is a mistake in my explanation which of course there isn't. Doesn't matter anyways since statistically this is insignificant.

The final shoot down of Bell's junk physics theory!

DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.13140/RG.2.2.28311.91047/2
"Event-by-Event Numerical Simulation of the Strong Singlet Correlations"
.

[Joy Christian]

@gill1109 Hmm... I guess I did that long explanation for nothing. Ok, let's review that and tell me where it is wrong.

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

If you fail to do so, then the simulation is completely local which it is anyways.

I am not able to see this. Wolframcloud is asking me to sign in.
.

[FrediFizzx]

@gill1109 Hmm... I guess I did that long explanation for nothing. Ok, let's review that and tell me where it is wrong.

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

If you fail to do so, then the simulation is completely local which it is anyways.

I am not able to see this. Wolframcloud is asking me to sign in.
.

Go here,

https://www.wolframcloud.com/

Click on the button "sign up for free".
.

[FrediFizzx]

Or for those that may not want to sign up for free, here is a PDF of the file.

EPRsims/newCS-22_analytical5-forum1.pdf
.

[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.

Dear Justo, thanks for stepping in! You are absolutely right.

I would also really like to know Michel’s opinion. He’s a great programmer.

Or for those that may not want to sign up for free, here is a PDF of the file.

EPRsims/newCS-22_analytical5-forum1.pdf
.

A plain text (.txt) file is much easier to work from, than pdf. When you select text from the pdf, and copy and paste it into a programming environment, you discover all kinds of weird symbols and weird layout. Pdf files have been invented for display and conversion to paper while keeping typography fixed. They are essentially vector graphics files. Instructions for drawing smooth lines on paper down to the individual letters.

@gill1109 Hmm... I guess I did that long explanation for nothing. Ok, let's review that and tell me where it is wrong.

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

If you fail to do so, then the simulation is completely local which it is anyways.

Dear Fred, Your explanation is very helpful for the purposes of understanding how your code works, from an algorithmic point of view. Perhaps someone who is interested in your approach could convert it into concise pseudo code. At that point, I would enjoy trying my hand at writing a Python version. I think this would make various experiments a whole lot easier. For instance, does it help to replace Michel’s formulas with Pearl’s? John Reed’s Mathematica code is also very interesting. With the same random seed it generates identical streams of settings and outcomes as your Mathematica code does. It runs much faster, and it’s much more transparent. It seems to me to be a better implementation of the same algorithm and it lends itself well to a Python translation. If you and Joy can see your way to adopting it I think you’ll find your work easier to publish, and future readers will benefit.

No hat-eating by me. My goal posts did not move in 20 years. My challenge is a computing challenge, not a physics challenge. I think your notion of “local” differs from mine. I don’t mind if you don’t find my challenge interesting.

Joy has written that the purpose of his work is to challenge conventional understandings of metaphysical concepts (like “locality” and “realism”). I’m an amateur in that field.

[Joy Christian]

Joy has written that the purpose of his work is to challenge conventional understandings of metaphysical concepts (like “locality” and “realism”).

I have not written any such thing. Only an illiterate fool who cannot read plain English would read what I have written and claim what you are claiming. Stop spreading lies about my work.

For anyone else who is interested, please read Section II of my following paper to find out what I have actually written: https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/stamp/stamp ... er=9418997
.

[FrediFizzx]

@gill1109 Yep, as expected more freakin' nonsense from Gill. It is quite ironic that you got shot down by your own game. Statistics! But of course, we have successfully demonstrated that all the events are local due to quaternion sign flips. So, still in denial that you are finished for good. You really should get over it and move on.
.

[FrediFizzx]

But pay up and eat that hat!
.