Coming Soon!

[jreed]

Here is a Mathematica notebook comparing Fred's magic algorithm to my simplified algorithm. If non-Mathematica users have problems understanding it, let me know. My hope (probably futile) is that this will put an end to this continual talk of destroying Bell with an algorithm.

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

[FrediFizzx]

Here is a Mathematica notebook comparing Fred's magic algorithm to my simplified algorithm. If non-Mathematica users have problems understanding it, let me know. My hope (probably futile) is that this will put an end to this continual talk of destroying Bell with an algorithm.

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

Sorry John, but there are too many mistakes in that analysis to address. You should be using the new code anyways because f1, g1, f2 and g2 are gone in it. They weren't really needed. Let's see how you make the new local code into non-local code.

Another slightly updated quaternion version. John should have more trouble making this one non-local. No changing anything in the A or B Do-loops.

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

EPRsims/newCS-20-S3quat-prodcalc-forum.pdf
EPRsims/newCS-20-S3quat-prodcalc-forum.nb

Enjoy this simulation which just gets more awesome every new version!!!
.

[Heinera]

Your latest attempt did't fix the non-locality. The non-local relation

listA3=Select[outA1,Intersection[{#[[3]]},list23]!={#[[3]]}&];

is still there. list23 depends on what happened over at Bob's side. It is impossible to implement this on two separate computers.

[Joy Christian]

Your latest attempt did't fix the non-locality. The non-local relation

listA3=Select[outA1,Intersection[{#[[3]]},list23]!={#[[3]]}&];

is still there. list23 depends on what happened over at Bob's side. It is impossible to implement this on two separate computers.

Of course it is impossible, just as it is impossible to implement what they do in the actual experiments on two separate computers. The "two separate computers" is a specious demand.
.

[FrediFizzx]

Your latest attempt did't fix the non-locality. The non-local relation

listA3=Select[outA1,Intersection[{#[[3]]},list23]!={#[[3]]}&];

is still there. list23 depends on what happened over at Bob's side. It is impossible to implement this on two separate computers.

What is list23? It is only trial numbers. This is post processing after the two separate computers. How are you going to analyze the data correctly if the events are not matched up correctly? And to top it off, these are events that DON'T match trial number-wise. Selections from outA1 go to listA3. Completely local. There is no B's going to listA3. Trial numbers are shared data. They were created at the same time as each event was created. Part of the HV's.

[gill1109]

Your latest attempt did't fix the non-locality. The non-local relation

listA3=Select[outA1,Intersection[{#[[3]]},list23]!={#[[3]]}&];

is still there. list23 depends on what happened over at Bob's side. It is impossible to implement this on two separate computers.

What is list23? It is only trial numbers. This is post processing after the two separate computers. How are you going to analyze the data correctly if the events are not matched up correctly? And to top it off, these are events that DON'T match trial number-wise. Selections from outA1 go to listA3. Completely local. There is no B's going to listA3. Trial numbers are shared data. They were created at the same time as each event was created. Part of the HV's.

If list23 contains a list of trial numbers constructed on Bob’s side and making use of Bob’s settings, then I would guess that your construction of listA3 depends on Bob’s settings.

Of course, this could be done after the experiment is concluded. But it is not what experimentalists do. And the experimental protocol is designed to prevent it from happening by known physics. Unless you think that “retrocausality” is a proven physical phenomenon. Of course, some people do believe that retrocausality does exist and is the cause of otherwise mysterious phenomena related to so-called quantum entanglement. Joy says that his model, and your simulations, do not use retrocausality.

Are you suggesting that the experimentalists of 2015 cheated? And lied in their accounts of their experimental procedures and their data-processing procedures? That would be a conspiracy on a global scale!

[FrediFizzx]

Your latest attempt did't fix the non-locality. The non-local relation

listA3=Select[outA1,Intersection[{#[[3]]},list23]!={#[[3]]}&];

is still there. list23 depends on what happened over at Bob's side. It is impossible to implement this on two separate computers.

What is list23? It is only trial numbers. This is post processing after the two separate computers. How are you going to analyze the data correctly if the events are not matched up correctly? And to top it off, these are events that DON'T match trial number-wise. Selections from outA1 go to listA3. Completely local. There is no B's going to listA3. Trial numbers are shared data. They were created at the same time as each event was created. Part of the HV's.

If list23 contains a list of trial numbers constructed on Bob’s side and making use of Bob’s settings, then I would guess that your construction of listA3 depends on Bob’s settings.

Trial numbers are HV's. They were created at the same time as the events were created. Shared data. Besides that, Alice has no clue about what happened on Bob's side from the trial numbers that don't match with her trial numbers. But you have Mathematica now so you can run your tests on this latest version and find out that output changes are a small fraction of the 5 percent of spinorial sign flips. So, right off the bat we are about 95 percent local discounting the sign flips which are local also. Counting the spinorial sign changes we are 100 percent local.
.

[Heinera]

Your latest attempt did't fix the non-locality. The non-local relation

listA3=Select[outA1,Intersection[{#[[3]]},list23]!={#[[3]]}&];

is still there. list23 depends on what happened over at Bob's side. It is impossible to implement this on two separate computers.

What is list23? It is only trial numbers.

This is not just any trial numbers, it is a subset of trial numbers that indirectly depends on Bob's choice of settings. This couldn't possibly be part of the HV.

This is post processing after the two separate computers. How are you going to analyze the data correctly if the events are not matched up correctly?

If it is a theoretical model, the is no need to match up events except in the obvious way. If it is a model of an experiment somebody performed,
have you ever seen an experiment where they matched up data in this way?

[FrediFizzx]

Your latest attempt did't fix the non-locality. The non-local relation

listA3=Select[outA1,Intersection[{#[[3]]},list23]!={#[[3]]}&];

is still there. list23 depends on what happened over at Bob's side. It is impossible to implement this on two separate computers.

What is list23? It is only trial numbers.

This is not just any trial numbers, it is a subset of trial numbers that indirectly depends on Bob's choice of settings. This couldn't possibly be part of the HV.

This is post processing after the two separate computers. How are you going to analyze the data correctly if the events are not matched up correctly?

If it is a theoretical model, the is no need to match up events except in the obvious way. If it is a model of an experiment somebody performed,
have you ever seen an experiment where they matched up data in this way?

Do you want to bet on that? When Gill does the tests, he is going to find right off the bat that about 95 percent of the events are local. The other about 5 percent are spinorial sign changes that are local also. So, we are 100 percent local.
.

[FrediFizzx]

In fact I will do the first test. Here is the percentage of events that don't match the original Aa and Bb using 20,000 trials.

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

EPRsims/newCS-20-S3quat-stripped.pdf



So, actually less than 5 percent.
.

[jreed]

Here is a Mathematica notebook comparing Fred's magic algorithm to my simplified algorithm. If non-Mathematica users have problems understanding it, let me know. My hope (probably futile) is that this will put an end to this continual talk of destroying Bell with an algorithm.

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

Sorry John, but there are too many mistakes in that analysis to address. You should be using the new code anyways because f1, g1, f2 and g2 are gone in it. They weren't really needed. Let's see how you make the new local code into non-local code.

Please enlighten me as to where all those mistakes are. I am always interested in doing better programming, and always want advice from experts like yourself. What is the "new code" you are referring to? I hope to address the quaternion code later on, but right now we should just concentrate on this vector code.

[FrediFizzx]

Here is a Mathematica notebook comparing Fred's magic algorithm to my simplified algorithm. If non-Mathematica users have problems understanding it, let me know. My hope (probably futile) is that this will put an end to this continual talk of destroying Bell with an algorithm.

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

Sorry John, but there are too many mistakes in that analysis to address. You should be using the new code anyways because f1, g1, f2 and g2 are gone in it. They weren't really needed. Let's see how you make the new local code into non-local code.

Please enlighten me as to where all those mistakes are. I am always interested in doing better programming, and always want advice from experts like yourself. What is the "new code" you are referring to? I hope to address the quaternion code later on, but right now we should just concentrate on this vector code.

It is nothing about being an expert. Anywhere you refer to f1, g1, f2, and g2 is a mistake now since they are gone. The quaternion code is the latest version so you need to jump on it or you are missing the boat. I'm not going back to the simple versions. As far as the matching part goes, it shouldn't be a problem for you.

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

[FrediFizzx]

In fact I will do the first test. Here is the percentage of events that don't match the original Aa and Bb using 20,000 trials.

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

EPRsims/newCS-20-S3quat-stripped.pdf



So, actually less than 5 percent.

So now we take the spinorial sign changes out and the result is,



So, now A and B match the original Aa and Bb perfectly which means the percentage that didn't match is entirely due to the LOCAL spinorial sign changes.

Which means we are 100 percent LOCAL!!!!!!!!!!
.

[gill1109]

Here is a Mathematica notebook comparing Fred's magic algorithm to my simplified algorithm. If non-Mathematica users have problems understanding it, let me know. My hope (probably futile) is that this will put an end to this continual talk of destroying Bell with an algorithm.
https://www.wolframcloud.com/obj/ka5qep/Published/analysis.nb

Sorry John, but there are too many mistakes in that analysis to address. You should be using the new code anyways because f1, g1, f2 and g2 are gone in it. They weren't really needed. Let's see how you make the new local code into non-local code.

Please enlighten me as to where all those mistakes are. I am always interested in doing better programming, and always want advice from experts like yourself. What is the "new code" you are referring to? I hope to address the quaternion code later on, but right now we should just concentrate on this vector code.

It is nothing about being an expert. Anywhere you refer to f1, g1, f2, and g2 is a mistake now since they are gone. The quaternion code is the latest version so you need to jump on it or you are missing the boat. I'm not going back to the simple versions. As far as the matching part goes, it shouldn't be a problem for you.
https://www.wolframcloud.com/obj/fredifizzx/Published/newCS-20-S3quat-prodcalc-forum.nb

Quaternions are represented internally in Mathematica by lists of length 4 of real numbers. Really, all that Mathematica’s quaternion code does is to add special rules for multiplication of real 4-vectors.

This is post processing after the two separate computers. How are you going to analyze the data correctly if the events are not matched up correctly?

If it is a theoretical model, the is no need to match up events except in the obvious way. If it is a model of an experiment somebody performed, have you ever seen an experiment where they matched up data in this way?

Do you want to bet on that? When Gill does the tests, he is going to find right off the bat that about 95 percent of the events are local. The other about 5 percent are spinorial sign changes that are local also. So, we are 100 percent local.

When I do my test I’ll find that at least 20% of the trials have been ‘fixed’ in a non-local way. Of course, my definition of local and non-local is not Fred’s definition. Fred hasn’t even told us his definition. So we’ll never agree. Too bad. Fred and Joy will publish their paper and the younger among us will be able to observe what the world of physics makes of it.

Quaternions are represented internally in Mathematica by lists of length 4 of real numbers. Really, all that Mathematica’s quaternion code does is to add special rules for multiplication of real 4-vectors.

Nope! Quaternions in Mathematica are a scalar + 3-vector.

Exactly. Altogether, a list of four real numbers.

[FrediFizzx]

Quaternions are represented internally in Mathematica by lists of length 4 of real numbers. Really, all that Mathematica’s quaternion code does is to add special rules for multiplication of real 4-vectors.

Nope! Quaternions in Mathematica are a scalar + 3-vector.
.

[FrediFizzx]

@gill1109 LOL! I just proved above that we are 100 percent local so all you can do at this point is spew nonsense because you are finished. You can't find any real complaint against the model so you just keep spewing more FREAKIN' NONSENSE!
.

[jreed]

Here is a Mathematica notebook comparing Fred's magic algorithm to my simplified algorithm. If non-Mathematica users have problems understanding it, let me know. My hope (probably futile) is that this will put an end to this continual talk of destroying Bell with an algorithm.

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

Sorry John, but there are too many mistakes in that analysis to address. You should be using the new code anyways because f1, g1, f2 and g2 are gone in it. They weren't really needed. Let's see how you make the new local code into non-local code.

Please enlighten me as to where all those mistakes are. I am always interested in doing better programming, and always want advice from experts like yourself. What is the "new code" you are referring to? I hope to address the quaternion code later on, but right now we should just concentrate on this vector code.

It is nothing about being an expert. Anywhere you refer to f1, g1, f2, and g2 is a mistake now since they are gone. The quaternion code is the latest version so you need to jump on it or you are missing the boat. I'm not going back to the simple versions. As far as the matching part goes, it shouldn't be a problem for you.

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

Sounds like great fun! A treasure hunt in quaternion land. I'll get right on it. I expect to find the non-local treasure in a few days.

[FrediFizzx]

... Sounds like great fun! A treasure hunt in quaternion land. I'll get right on it. I expect to find the non-local treasure in a few days.

Yo John, I just proved above that we are 100 percent local so you shouldn't waste your time on it.
.

[Heinera]

... Sounds like great fun! A treasure hunt in quaternion land. I'll get right on it. I expect to find the non-local treasure in a few days.

Yo John, I just proved above that we are 100 percent local so you shouldn't waste your time on it.
.

You confuse the word "proved" with the phrase "spamming my own forum."

[jreed]

... Sounds like great fun! A treasure hunt in quaternion land. I'll get right on it. I expect to find the non-local treasure in a few days.

Yo John, I just proved above that we are 100 percent local so you shouldn't waste your time on it.
.

It didn't take as long as I thought it would. The logic is the same as previous versions, except with the added smoke and mirrors of quaternions. Here's what I found:

Here is the Do loop where Alice's part of the non-locality is hiding:

listA4 = Alice's trials where Bob has matching failed trial numbers
qaaq = array of order M1, length = number of Bob's failed trials
listA35 = quaternions, word 5 of Alice's trials to be changed
listA36 = quaternions, word 6 of Alice's trials to be changed
outA5 = holding array for corrected events

Do[If[listA4[[i]][[2]] == listA4[[i]][[4]], qaaq[[i]] = 1,
qaaq[[i]] = Re[listA35[[i]] ** listA36[[i]]]];
outA5[[i]] = {listA4[[i]][[1]], qaaq[[i]]*listA4[[i]][[2]], listA4[[i]][[3]],
listA4[[i]][[4]], listA4[[i]][[5]], listA4[[i]][[6]]}, {i,
M1}] (*spinorial sign change*)

Do loop does the following:
For all Bob's failed trial numbers, if Alice's detector1 equals detector2, qaaq = 1,
else qaaq = -1 (I checked this out by finding the real part of quaternion multiplication
of Alice's listA35 and listA36, it's always -1)
This is the same sign flip, used in earlier versions, but now disguised as a spinorial sign
change.
The output is the input, but with this sign flip added.
The non-locality is obvious, since the sign flips in Alice's trials are controlled by Bob's failed trials. The same procedure is carried out for Bob's trials.