FrediFizzx wrote:@jreed So, where is your non-local model this time? You are claiming the spinorial sign flips are non-local but they are not. They are purely local. Even so, more than 95 percent of the model is local. With Gill's test, 99.998 percent is local. Plus events have to be matched up correctly so they can be analyzed correctly. Trial numbers are created when the events are created. Shared data. We are in fact 100 percent local because the spinorial sign changes are purely local. It is not "disguised" as a spinorial sign flip, it IS a spinorial sign flip.
It's from this equation,
Just take delta = 1.
And with delta = 0.
No spinorial sign change.
.
jreed wrote:I'm sorry you can't understand where the non-locality is. It should be perfectly clear from this example. I can't make it any easier than this.
FrediFizzx wrote: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.
gill1109 wrote: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.
Guest wrote:Hi Rick! Is there a known universal (distribution free) lower bound for the rate of "no show" events in this kind of pearlesque models which reproduce the QM correlations?... ...
Guest wrote:gill1109 wrote: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.
Hi Rick! Is there a known universal (distribution free) lower bound for the rate of "no show" events in this kind of pearlesque models which reproduce the QM correlations?
I hope you're in better shape.
Best,
Guest.
gill1109 wrote: ... Actually, John Reed has simple Mathematica code which reproduces Fred’s outcomes *exactly*. I must use it to compute the proportion of “fixed” trials (fixed by communication).
It’s very interesting that Fred has only one hidden variable per trial. Pearle has two!
It’s also curious that Fred uses formulas taken from Michel Fodje’s detection loophole model, rather than Pearle’s. Fodje gets approximately the negative cosine, Pearle gets it exactly, and moreover uniquely within a certain big class of detection loophole models.
FrediFizzx wrote:We tried Pearle. It didn't do any better than Michel's for the model. I can tie Pearle to theta the same way for one hidden variable.
gill1109 wrote:FrediFizzx wrote:We tried Pearle. It didn't do any better than Michel's for the model. I can tie Pearle to theta the same way for one hidden variable.
I know, I tried it too. Could be you have discovered a new class of detection loophole models.
Write that pseudo-code version of your model, so the world can also program your model in Python or Julia or R!
jreed wrote:FrediFizzx wrote:jreed wrote: ... 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.
gill1109 wrote: ... John, that is very enlightening!
Can you find out in a long run of a CHSH experiment: how many trials get a sign flip just of Alice's outcome, just of Bob's outcome, both, neither?
That is one measure of non-local communication. Of course, some communication is needed to decide whether or not to flip either outcome. Can you say how often communication is attempted, from either side? both sides? neither? ...
FrediFizzx wrote:gill1109 wrote: ... Actually, John Reed has simple Mathematica code which reproduces Fred’s outcomes *exactly*. I must use it to compute the proportion of “fixed” trials (fixed by communication).
It’s very interesting that Fred has only one hidden variable per trial. Pearle has two!
It’s also curious that Fred uses formulas taken from Michel Fodje’s detection loophole model, rather than Pearle’s. Fodje gets approximately the negative cosine, Pearle gets it exactly, and moreover uniquely within a certain big class of detection loophole models.
John Reed doesn't have that non-local strawman any more with the new code. At least he hasn't shown one for a couple of days.
We tried Pearle. It didn't do any better than Michel's for the model. I can tie Pearle to theta the same way for one hidden variable.
Someone screwed up on their calculations because we are better than 95 percent local without the spinorial sign changes. With the LOCAL spinorial sign changes we are 100 percent local and so Bell and Gill's theories bite the dust! Finished! Done! History!
.
jreed wrote:FrediFizzx wrote:gill1109 wrote: ... Actually, John Reed has simple Mathematica code which reproduces Fred’s outcomes *exactly*. I must use it to compute the proportion of “fixed” trials (fixed by communication).
It’s very interesting that Fred has only one hidden variable per trial. Pearle has two!
It’s also curious that Fred uses formulas taken from Michel Fodje’s detection loophole model, rather than Pearle’s. Fodje gets approximately the negative cosine, Pearle gets it exactly, and moreover uniquely within a certain big class of detection loophole models.
John Reed doesn't have that non-local strawman any more with the new code. At least he hasn't shown one for a couple of days.
We tried Pearle. It didn't do any better than Michel's for the model. I can tie Pearle to theta the same way for one hidden variable.
Someone screwed up on their calculations because we are better than 95 percent local without the spinorial sign changes. With the LOCAL spinorial sign changes we are 100 percent local and so Bell and Gill's theories bite the dust! Finished! Done! History!
.
I've been working on a quaternion program for a few days. Here is what I came up with.
https://www.wolframcloud.com/obj/ka5qep/Published/Q1.nb
It's the same logic as the vector code, which is what I expected.
jreed wrote: ... I've been working on a quaternion program for a few days. Here is what I came up with.
https://www.wolframcloud.com/obj/ka5qep/Published/Q1.nb
It's the same logic as the vector code, which is what I expected.
FrediFizzx wrote:gill1109 wrote: ... John, that is very enlightening! NOT!
Can you find out in a long run of a CHSH experiment: how many trials get a sign flip just of Alice's outcome, just of Bob's outcome, both, neither?
That is one measure of non-local communication. Of course, some communication is needed to decide whether or not to flip either outcome. Can you say how often communication is attempted, from either side? both sides? neither? ...
Looks like you are also having trouble understanding plain English.
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!!!!!!!!!!
I will do the test a different way with the same results in a while.
.
FrediFizzx wrote:jreed wrote: ... I've been working on a quaternion program for a few days. Here is what I came up with.
https://www.wolframcloud.com/obj/ka5qep/Published/Q1.nb
It's the same logic as the vector code, which is what I expected.
Nope! You changed the code in the A and B Do-loops to make your old non-local strawman. I said you weren't allowed to change the code in the A and B Do-loops.
You can't make a non-local strawman now with the new A and B Do-loop code, can you?
.
jreed wrote:
Also tell me why I am not allowed to change the code.
jreed wrote:
Is there some rule I violated?
jreed wrote:FrediFizzx wrote:jreed wrote: ... I've been working on a quaternion program for a few days. Here is what I came up with.
https://www.wolframcloud.com/obj/ka5qep/Published/Q1.nb
It's the same logic as the vector code, which is what I expected.
Nope! You changed the code in the A and B Do-loops to make your old non-local strawman. I said you weren't allowed to change the code in the A and B Do-loops.
You can't make a non-local strawman now with the new A and B Do-loop code, can you?
.
Please explain which A and B Do loops you are talking about. There are two. The first where the trials are generated, and the second where they are analyzed. Also tell me why I am not allowed to change the code. Is there some rule I violated? I want to know so the cyber cops don't come after me.
Joy Christian wrote:Thanks. It is now very clear. John Reed's strawman code is non-local, whereas Fred Diether's original code is local. Nice demonstration!
Return to Sci.Physics.Foundations
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 74 guests