Coming Soon!

[FrediFizzx]

I will assume that this is a more-or-less final version. I should have a simpler version without quaternions for Richard ready in a few days. Fred probably won't be happy with it since it no longer has quaternions and is therefore not the 3 sphere topology model.

You guys can make all the strawman simulations you want. Doesn't affect our model.
.

[gill1109]

I will assume that this is a more-or-less final version. I should have a simpler version without quaternions for Richard ready in a few days. Fred probably won't be happy with it since it no longer has quaternions and is therefore not the 3 sphere topology model.

You guys can make all the strawman simulations you want. Doesn't affect our model.

Every simulation of EPR-B correlations which appears to contradict Bell’s theorem (seen as a mathematical theorem in computer science on a certain distributed computing task) must be a straw man. The game is to find out how it works and then to set fire to it.

[FrediFizzx]

I will assume that this is a more-or-less final version. I should have a simpler version without quaternions for Richard ready in a few days. Fred probably won't be happy with it since it no longer has quaternions and is therefore not the 3 sphere topology model.

You guys can make all the strawman simulations you want. Doesn't affect our model.

Every simulation of EPR-B correlations which appears to contradict Bell’s theorem (seen as a mathematical theorem in computer science on a certain distributed computing task) must be a straw man. The game is to find out how it works and then to set fire to it.

Nonsense! We already blew it up 2 different ways. That theorem is no longer a theorem but just a theory with its sides blown out.
.

[FrediFizzx]

Here is the new CHSH version. 10,000 trials

CHSH = 2.77731!

The Cloud file.

https://www.wolframcloud.com/obj/fredif ... -paper2.nb

Direct files,

EPRsims/newCS-24-S3quat-CHSH-paper2.pdf
EPRsims/newCS-24-S3quat-CHSH-paper2.nb

Enjoy the incredible awesomeness as we further kill Bell's theory and Gill's theory!
.

[jreed]

I will assume that this is a more-or-less final version. I should have a simpler version without quaternions for Richard ready in a few days. Fred probably won't be happy with it since it no longer has quaternions and is therefore not the 3 sphere topology model.

You guys can make all the strawman simulations you want. Doesn't affect our model.
.

Here's a version of your code that was supposed to be a final version rewritten without quaternions and with zeros replacing those floating point numbers. The detection loophole is now obvious. Try again.

https://www.wolframcloud.com/obj/ka5qep ... d/q2Mod.nb

[FrediFizzx]

I will assume that this is a more-or-less final version. I should have a simpler version without quaternions for Richard ready in a few days. Fred probably won't be happy with it since it no longer has quaternions and is therefore not the 3 sphere topology model.

You guys can make all the strawman simulations you want. Doesn't affect our model.
.

Here's a version of your code that was supposed to be a final version rewritten without quaternions and with zeros replacing those floating point numbers. The detection loophole is now obvious. Try again.

https://www.wolframcloud.com/obj/ka5qep ... d/q2Mod.nb

Nice strawman with the detection loophole. But it's not our model. Can't have those zeroes in there. Try again.
.

[FrediFizzx]

Yo John, what happened with the non-locality business. Weren't you the one claiming that if Bell was busted it had to be due to non-locality?
.

[jreed]

Yo John, what happened with the non-locality business. Weren't you the one claiming that if Bell was busted it had to be due to non-locality?
.

You are the one who got started on the detection loophole and gave up on magic code. This must have happened after you had been busted on your claim that magic code makes non-locality local.

[FrediFizzx]

Yo John, what happened with the non-locality business. Weren't you the one claiming that if Bell was busted it had to be due to non-locality?
.

You are the one who got started on the detection loophole and gave up on magic code. This must have happened after you had been busted on your claim that magic code makes non-locality local.

??? There is no detection loophole in our model. That is your model that has the loophole. The other code is 100 percent local considering the spinorial sign changes. And 99.6 percent local not considering the sign changes. So, there was no "busted" there at all. So, you didn't really answer the question about non-locality. Where is the non-locality in our current model?
.

[FrediFizzx]

Here is the new CHSH version. 10,000 trials

CHSH = 2.77731!

The Cloud file.

https://www.wolframcloud.com/obj/fredif ... -paper2.nb

Direct files,

EPRsims/newCS-24-S3quat-CHSH-paper2.pdf
EPRsims/newCS-24-S3quat-CHSH-paper2.nb

Enjoy the incredible awesomeness as we further kill Bell's theory and Gill's theory!
.

The code is local.

You only count cases where AB = +/- 1. You can call them virtual particles if you like, which never actually exist in the physical reality of which your simulation is a model; but you did make them in the code.

You further disguise your trick by doubling the size of the data set by using two channels in each trial. That way, when half of the lines of the data spreadsheet are deleted, you end up with close to the original number.

[Joy Christian]

.
Gill, we are not interested in your waffle. And at least I couldn't care less if no one ever understands my work, follows it up, or cites it for their own purpose. I do physics for myself only.

And Bell's theorem does not require any refutation. It was stillborn as a piece of junk: https://arxiv.org/pdf/1704.02876.pdf.
.

[FrediFizzx]

.
Gill, we are not interested in your waffle. And at least I couldn't care less if no one ever understands my work, follows it up, or cites it for their own purpose. I do physics for myself only.

And Bell's theorem does not require any refutation. It was stillborn as a piece of junk: https://arxiv.org/pdf/1704.02876.pdf.
.

Yeah, that was the Bell fanatics big mistake in not admitting that Bell's theory was killed a long time ago by you. And now Gill thinks this is some kind of game and his junk rules apply. Very pathetic.
.

[FrediFizzx]

Yo John, what happened with the non-locality business. Weren't you the one claiming that if Bell was busted it had to be due to non-locality?
.

You are the one who got started on the detection loophole and gave up on magic code. This must have happened after you had been busted on your claim that magic code makes non-locality local.

??? There is no detection loophole in our model. That is your model that has the loophole. The other code is 100 percent local considering the spinorial sign changes. And 99.6 percent local not considering the sign changes. So, there was no "busted" there at all. So, you didn't really answer the question about non-locality. Where is the non-locality in our current model?
.

There is no non-locality in your current model.
Good work Fred, keep at it. We are all learning things from this. I await your new attempts.

[FrediFizzx]

Ok good. So, a simulation doesn't have to be non-local to shoot down Bell's theory and Gill's theory as you previously thought. You guys are not very convincing about what could be wrong without adding nonsense. Mainly because there is nothing wrong with the simulation. It's perfect!
.

[gill1109]

Ok good. So, a simulation doesn't have to be non-local to shoot down Bell's theory and Gill's theory as you previously thought. You guys are not very convincing about what could be wrong without adding nonsense. Mainly because there is nothing wrong with the simulation. It's perfect!

The simulation does not contradict anything Bell ever wrote nor anything I ever wrote. It seems to me to have no physical relevance. But I’m just a statistician.

In particular, it seems to have no connection whatsoever with Oxford physicist J. Christian’s theories. But I earlier pointed out how F. Diether could make a connection. So far Christian and Diether have ignored this suggestion.

One can convert the model into a Joy Christian type model by randomly choosing the channel 1 or the channel 2 outcomes, using an extra random and if you like spinorial or quaternionic coin toss! There are then *two* hidden variables: the random (uniformly distributed) spin orientation *and* an independent fair coin toss, corresponding to Dirac’s belt trick, a kind of Möbius strip idea.

Of course, the two channels are not actually two real channels. Real experiments don’t have two sets of two detectors, both for Alice and for Bob! But your physical picture could be that only one of the two sets of events is real. Just as you say that a set of events with a zero value of A times B was no particle pair at all.

I’ll draw the plot of the particle-pair production rate in a couple of weeks, and further illustrate the mathematical connection with Pearle’s 1970 model. I still wonder if you would not get a better fit to the negative cosine using Pearle’s rather than Michel Fodje’s formulas. Right now you are playing with three or more arbitrary numerical parameters in an attempt to nudge the curve to the right place. Pearle has it exactly right, no arbitrary parameters. In fact, Pearle has a one-parameter family of models which all get it exactly right, he just took the most simple one as an example to make the point he was making: namely, the experiments of his day had a big loophole due to low detector efficiencies.

[FrediFizzx]

Ok good. So, a simulation doesn't have to be non-local to shoot down Bell's theory and Gill's theory as you previously thought. You guys are not very convincing about what could be wrong without adding nonsense. Mainly because there is nothing wrong with the simulation. It's perfect!

The simulation does not contradict anything Bell ever wrote nor anything I ever wrote. It seems to me to have no physical relevance. But I’m just a statistician. (more nonsense snipped out). ...

Pure nonsense. You are finished. Get real, get over it and move on.
.

[FrediFizzx]

Guess what folks? Another COMING SOON is coming soon.
.

[gill1109]

Guess what folks? Another COMING SOON is coming soon.
.

Also coming soon: I’m giving a Zoom talk in Paris on Monday, 2pm CEST. I’ll discuss computer simulations of Bell experiments and I’ll discuss Joy’s work. Send me an email if you’d like to have the Zoom codes.

https://sites.google.com/view/statsemin ... -cmap/home

[Joy Christian]

Guess what folks? Another COMING SOON is coming soon.
.

Also coming soon: I’m giving a Zoom talk in Paris on Monday, 2pm CEST. I’ll discuss computer simulations of Bell experiments and I’ll discuss Joy’s work. Send me an email if you’d like to have the Zoom codes.

https://sites.google.com/view/statsemin ... -cmap/home

Why would anyone want to hear your worthless talk when Bell's theorem has been dead for at least 14 years, if not from its very birth? It would be a waste of time for any rational physicist.
.

[gill1109]

Guess what folks? Another COMING SOON is coming soon.

Also coming soon: I’m giving a Zoom talk in Paris on Monday, 2pm CEST. I’ll discuss computer simulations of Bell experiments and I’ll discuss Joy’s work. Send me an email if you’d like to have the Zoom codes.
https://sites.google.com/view/statseminar-crest-cmap/home

Why would anyone want to hear your worthless talk when Bell's theorem has been dead for at least 14 years, if not from its very birth? It would be a waste of time for any rational physicist.

The statisticians and probabilists in Paris will love it! (At least, assuming that my internet is good enough). Here are the slides. Why don't you tell me where the math errors are?
https://www.slideshare.net/gill1109/bell-in-paris
Better still, join in the audience and let them know what you think about my work.