A question on Joy Christian's S^3 model

Foundations of physics and/or philosophy of physics, and in particular, posts on unresolved or controversial issues

Re: A question on Joy Christian's S^3 model

Postby Joy Christian » Sun Jul 12, 2015 3:03 am

As requested by Ben, here are the rest of the results, for fixed i = 1 and j = 20, as in the previous code:

Code: Select all
> (Cuu = length((A*B)[A > 0 & B > 0]))   # Coincidence count of (+,+) events
[1] 22615
> (Cdd = length((A*B)[A < 0 & B < 0]))   # Coincidence count of (-,-) events
[1] 22781
> (Cud = length((A*B)[A > 0 & B < 0]))   # Coincidence count of (+,-) events
[1] 3590
> (Cdu = length((A*B)[A < 0 & B > 0]))   # Coincidence count of (-,+) events
[1] 3612
> (N = Cuu + Cdd + Cud + Cdu + Cou + Cod + Cuo + Cdo + Coo)
[1] 52598
> (corrs = (Cuu + Cdd - Cud - Cdu) / N)
[1] 0.7261493
> (corrs = (Cuu + Cdd - Cud - Cdu) / (Cuu + Cdd + Cud + Cdu))
[1] 0.7261493

You can now change i and j to any values to check that all results check out for any choices of the angles alpha and beta (needless to say, no looping is needed here).

The bottom line is that there are no "0 outcomes", either in the theoretical 3-sphere model, or in its latest simulation. This can be verified by anyone, for any given pair of fixed angles alpha and beta, chosen freely by Alice and Bob, as demonstrated here: viewtopic.php?f=6&t=179&p=4847#p4847.

Bell "theorem" is thus a blue parrot. It ain't just restin... It is theorem no more. It is an EX theorem.
Last edited by Joy Christian on Sun Jul 12, 2015 3:59 am, edited 2 times in total.
Joy Christian
Research Physicist
 
Posts: 1956
Joined: Wed Feb 05, 2014 4:49 am
Location: Oxford, United Kingdom

Re: A question on Joy Christian's S^3 model

Postby Jochen » Sun Jul 12, 2015 3:54 am

Wow, I'm actively being censored now! I must be doing something right. So, look out for the 'last edited by...' statement at the bottom of my posts, and if it says anything but my name, you may assume that I've not said what I appear to be saying there.

Joy Christian wrote:Seriously: what appears to be non-local to the flatlanders from their perspective from within R^3, is perfectly local and realistic from the perspective from within S^3.

That is what the S^3 model is all about. That is what my theoretical papers 1 and 2 show. And that is what the simulation demonstrates spectacularly. Sorry John Bell.

I must say I'm actually starting to find this quite fascinating. It's completely obvious to anybody with a cursory understanding of your program that it only produces the right correlations if the measurement directions are used to weed out the unwanted data points, and moreover, that there is no way to compute this correlation without such knowledge. Yet, even in the face of this simple and easy to demonstrate fact, you claim the simulation to confirm your 'local realistic' model giving rise to Bell inequalities. I truly wonder how you cope with the necessary cognitive dissonance...

In fact, the code you posted most recently again shows this:
Joy Christian wrote:For convenience let me post part of the code here to demonstrate that there are indeed no zero outcomes in the above simulation.

Code: Select all
Angles = seq(from = 0, to = 360, by = 7.2) * 2 * pi/360
K = length(Angles)
M = 10^5
r = runif(M, 0, 2*pi)
z = runif(M, -1, +1)
h = sqrt(1 - z^2)
x = h * cos(r)
y = h * sin(r)
e = rbind(x, y, z)
s = runif(M, 0, pi)
f = -1 + (2/sqrt(1 + ((3 * s)/pi)))
g = function(u,v,s){ifelse(abs(colSums(u*v)) > f, colSums(u*v), 0)}

Code: Select all
i = 1   # fixing i
alpha = Angles[i]
a = c(cos(alpha), sin(alpha), 0)  # Measurement direction 'a'
j = 20  # fixing j
beta = Angles[j]
b = c(cos(beta), sin(beta), 0)  # Measurement direction 'b'

A = +sign(g(a,e,s))  # Alice's measurement results A(a, e, s) = +/-1
B = -sign(g(b,e,s))  # Bob's measurement results B(b, e, s) = -/+1

And the results are:

Code: Select all
> (Cou = length((A*B)[g(a,e,s) & A == 0 & B > 0]))  # Number of (0,+) events
[1] 0
> (Cod = length((A*B)[g(a,e,s) & A == 0 & B < 0]))  # Number of (0,-) events
[1] 0
> (Cuo = length((A*B)[A > 0 & B == 0 & g(b,e,s)]))  # Number of (+,0) events
[1] 0
> (Cdo = length((A*B)[A < 0 & B == 0 & g(b,e,s)]))  # Number of (-,0) events
[1] 0
> (Coo = length((A*B)[g(a,e,s) & A == 0 & B == 0])) # Number of (0,0) events
[1] 0
> (CoB = length(A[g(a,e,s) & A == 0]))   # Number of A = 0 events within S^3
[1] 0
> (CAo = length(B[g(b,e,s) & B == 0]))   # Number of B = 0 events within S^3
[1] 0

Thus, it does not matter which pair of angles we try (by fixing i and j as done above). We will always get

Cou = Cod = Cuo = Cdo = Coo = CoB = CAo = 0.

Thus there are simply no "0 outcomes" in the 3-sphere model, or in the above simulation.

This puts an end to the Bell delusion.

The only way you can compute the number of zero events 'within S^3' is by using the measurement directions of Alice and Bob; without this knowledge, there would be plenty of zero outcomes. So, there are no zero outcomes if and only if you throw out all zero outcomes, which is of course a trivial statement.
Jochen
 
Posts: 79
Joined: Sat Jun 27, 2015 2:24 am

Re: A question on Joy Christian's S^3 model

Postby Joy Christian » Sun Jul 12, 2015 4:27 am

Jochen wrote:The only way you can compute the number of zero events 'within S^3' is by using the measurement directions of Alice and Bob; without this knowledge, there would be plenty of zero outcomes. So, there are no zero outcomes if and only if you throw out all zero outcomes, which is of course a trivial statement.

You cannot throw out that which does not exist in the first place. The "0 outcomes" simply do not exist within S^3, as any precautious schoolboy can see quite easily.

The essential lines in the code I have posted above are:

Code: Select all
> (CoB = length(A[g(a,e,s) & A == 0]))   # Number of A = 0 events within S^3
[1] 0

> (CAo = length(B[g(b,e,s) & B == 0]))   # Number of B = 0 events within S^3
[1] 0.

As anyone can see, these lines involve only local information of measurement directions, a and b, respectively, and the randomness (e, s) shared by Alice and Bob.

Finally, I have no interest in convincing Jochen about anything. My comments and the code I have posted above are for neutral readers who have no vested interests.
Joy Christian
Research Physicist
 
Posts: 1956
Joined: Wed Feb 05, 2014 4:49 am
Location: Oxford, United Kingdom

Re: A question on Joy Christian's S^3 model

Postby Jochen » Sun Jul 12, 2015 5:44 am

Joy Christian wrote:
Jochen wrote:The only way you can compute the number of zero events 'within S^3' is by using the measurement directions of Alice and Bob; without this knowledge, there would be plenty of zero outcomes. So, there are no zero outcomes if and only if you throw out all zero outcomes, which is of course a trivial statement.

You cannot throw out that which does not exist in the first place. The "0 outcomes" simply do not exist within S^3, as any precautious schoolboy can see quite easily.

Then why do you have to go and exclude them manually ex post facto? Why not simply calculate things so that they 'correctly' never appear?

Joy Christian wrote:The essential lines in the code I have posted above are:

Code: Select all
> (CoB = length(A[g(a,e,s) & A == 0]))   # Number of A = 0 events within S^3
[1] 0

> (CAo = length(B[g(b,e,s) & B == 0]))   # Number of B = 0 events within S^3
[1] 0.

As anyone can see, these lines involve only local information of measurement directions, a and b, respectively, and the randomness (e, s) shared by Alice and Bob.

Yes, and their effect is to exclude certain directions from yielding results (or rather, removing the results afterwards). That is, it's rejecting data that allows you to produce a violation.

Joy Christian wrote:Finally, I have no interest in convincing Jochen about anything. My comments and the code I have posted above are for neutral readers who have no vested interests.

Neither do I have any interest in convincing Joy about anything. My question was asked for the sole purpose of exposing that he is not able to provide a version of his model that is genuinely local realistic and does not reject any data, despite repeated false claims to the contrary. Any neutral reader may come to their own judgement, but they should be privvy to the full facts.
Jochen
 
Posts: 79
Joined: Sat Jun 27, 2015 2:24 am

Re: A question on Joy Christian's S^3 model

Postby Joy Christian » Sun Jul 12, 2015 6:28 am

All Johen is "exposing" here are his own ignorance and prejudices.

I have repeatedly refuted the bogus claims he has been making about my model without understanding the first thing about it.

His strategy is to keep repeating his bogus claims despite the fact that they have been repeatedly refuted by me on this very forum.

Suffice it to say, no data has been rejected in the model, nor is the experimenter's freedom to choose any measurement direction compromised in any way.

This is quite evident from the original model, as well as from the simulation that implements it (neither of which have been read, let alone understood, by Jochen).

Of course, if you are a flatlander and confined to your little flatland, then even the stark evidence presented above would be rather difficult for you to appreciate.
Joy Christian
Research Physicist
 
Posts: 1956
Joined: Wed Feb 05, 2014 4:49 am
Location: Oxford, United Kingdom

Re: A question on Joy Christian's S^3 model

Postby Jochen » Sun Jul 12, 2015 9:34 am

Joy Christian wrote:Suffice it to say, no data has been rejected in the model, nor is the experimenter's freedom to choose any measurement direction compromised in any way.

The lines of code you highlighted in your prior post amount to basically throwing out all zero outcomes, creating an empty list, and then taking the length of that---g(a,e,s) yields an array of values that are either positive, negative, or zero; so g(a,e,s) & A==0 yields an array (of dim(A)) all of whose entries evaluate to FALSE, since g(a,e,s)=0 wherever A==0 is TRUE, and wherever A==0 is FALSE, g(a,e,s) is either a positive or negative value, and (any value) & FALSE = FALSE; A[FALSE] then is empty, since A does not contain an element that evaluates to false, and the length of that is zero. So, basically all you do is getting rid of the zero outcomes afterwards. However, what actually occurs when, say, Alice measures along a direction a such that A(a,e,s)=0 is completely unclear.
Jochen
 
Posts: 79
Joined: Sat Jun 27, 2015 2:24 am

Re: A question on Joy Christian's S^3 model

Postby Joy Christian » Sun Jul 12, 2015 11:19 am

Jochen's strategy is to keep repeating his bogus arguments despite the fact that they have been repeatedly refuted by me on this very forum. :x
Joy Christian
Research Physicist
 
Posts: 1956
Joined: Wed Feb 05, 2014 4:49 am
Location: Oxford, United Kingdom

Re: A question on Joy Christian's S^3 model

Postby FrediFizzx » Sun Jul 12, 2015 11:22 am

This thread is being locked. Don't start a new one on this topic; it will be deleted.
FrediFizzx
Independent Physics Researcher
 
Posts: 1491
Joined: Tue Mar 19, 2013 7:12 pm
Location: N. California, USA

Previous

Return to Sci.Physics.Foundations

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests

CodeCogs - An Open Source Scientific Library