Explanations of simulations

Post a reply


This question is a means of preventing automated form submissions by spambots.
Smilies
:D :) ;) :( :o :shock: :? 8-) :lol: :x :P :oops: :cry: :evil: :twisted: :roll: :!: :?: :idea: :arrow: :| :mrgreen: :geek: :ugeek:

BBCode is ON
[img] is ON
[flash] is OFF
[url] is ON
Smilies are ON

Topic review
   

Expand view Topic review: Explanations of simulations

Re: Explanations of simulations

by gill1109 » Wed Nov 17, 2021 9:59 pm

minkwe wrote: Wed Nov 17, 2021 12:56 pm
gill1109 wrote: Mon Nov 15, 2021 6:36 am But logic and arithmetic surely also rule nature. 8-)
Do you even understand the difference between ontology and epistemology? How could you suggest that "math and "logic" rule nature? You probably don't understand the distinction between those two concepts. I would recommend you read-up on the "Mind Projection Fallacy".
See the quote from Arthur Jean which Feynman gave, approvingly, in that YouTube talk on this subject. Something like: the great architect is a mathematician. Near the very end of https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=obCjODeoLVw. I think that Einstein had the same feeling.

To answer your question: yes I do understand the difference.

Re: Explanations of simulations

by minkwe » Wed Nov 17, 2021 12:56 pm

gill1109 wrote: Mon Nov 15, 2021 6:36 am But logic and arithmetic surely also rule nature. 8-)
Do you even understand the difference between ontology and epistemology? How could you suggest that "math and "logic" rule nature? You probably don't understand the distinction between those two concepts. I would recommend you read-up on the "Mind Projection Fallacy".

Re: Explanations of simulations

by gill1109 » Mon Nov 15, 2021 6:36 am

FrediFizzx wrote: Mon Nov 15, 2021 4:00 am @gill1109 What physical wouldn't be geometric in origin?
That’s a deep remark, Fred. I think you are right. :o

But logic and arithmetic surely also rule nature. 8-)

Or are you one of those people (like Andrei Nikulovich, and maybe also like the qBists) who say that we cannot understand nature? We can only learn algorithms which seem to work, and we may just as well shut up and calculate. Feynman thought it was this way. :mrgreen:

Re: Explanations of simulations

by FrediFizzx » Mon Nov 15, 2021 4:00 am

@gill1109 What physical wouldn't be geometric in origin?
.

Re: Explanations of simulations

by gill1109 » Mon Nov 15, 2021 2:22 am

FrediFizzx wrote: Mon Nov 15, 2021 12:59 am
gill1109 wrote: Sun Nov 14, 2021 10:01 pm
FrediFizzx wrote: Sat Nov 13, 2021 9:36 pm ...
OH... sorry. You were talking about the simulation of the product calculation I put up. The one that killed Bell's junk physics theory back in 2007.
But what the hell are you talking about here, "Actually, every single one of them has the same real part." Sounds like drunken nonsense to me. :D
I was talking about the results of that "If" statement. Basically, it says: "if coin toss gives 'heads' then q = a b, it 'tails' then q = b a". In both cases q is a quaternion and in both cases, its real part is the same: namely a.b. Your code computes the negative cosine and then plots it. Twice. Once directly and once via the quaternion package in Mathematica.

That was the mathematical content of Joy Christian's brilliant insight back in 2007. ...
:lol: :lol: :lol: Sorry, but no it wasn't. Amazing after all these years, you still don't even know what Joy's brilliant insight was/is. I'll give you a clue. It's physics not math.
.
Yes, you could say that! Maths it wasn’t!

I call it phantasy, not physics. :lol: (3x)

It certainly was very original. And maybe his underlying insight was correct: the effects of what is called “quantum entanglement” could well be geometric in origin. :mrgreen: (3x)

Re: Explanations of simulations

by FrediFizzx » Mon Nov 15, 2021 12:59 am

gill1109 wrote: Sun Nov 14, 2021 10:01 pm
FrediFizzx wrote: Sat Nov 13, 2021 9:36 pm ...
OH... sorry. You were talking about the simulation of the product calculation I put up. The one that killed Bell's junk physics theory back in 2007.
But what the hell are you talking about here, "Actually, every single one of them has the same real part." Sounds like drunken nonsense to me. :D
I was talking about the results of that "If" statement. Basically, it says: "if coin toss gives 'heads' then q = a b, it 'tails' then q = b a". In both cases q is a quaternion and in both cases, its real part is the same: namely a.b. Your code computes the negative cosine and then plots it. Twice. Once directly and once via the quaternion package in Mathematica.

That was the mathematical content of Joy Christian's brilliant insight back in 2007. ...
:lol: :lol: :lol: Sorry, but no it wasn't. Amazing after all these years, you still don't even know what Joy's brilliant insight was/is. I'll give you a clue. It's physics not math.
.

Re: Explanations of simulations

by gill1109 » Sun Nov 14, 2021 10:01 pm

FrediFizzx wrote: Sat Nov 13, 2021 9:36 pm
gill1109 wrote: Sat Nov 13, 2021 9:00 pm
FrediFizzx wrote: Sat Nov 13, 2021 11:56 am
LOL! Are you drunk or on something even better? :lol:
Not drunk! Nor on anything else. But certainly enjoying a really good Pinot Noir from Roumania. 8-)

Nikulov complains that the establishment prevents his work from getting published and blames the lack of education of todays’ physicists. He talks about Kant a lot. And thinks that realism is the foundation of science. And locality is also axiomatic for him.

Yet he managed to be guest editor of a special issue of Entropy. I think he has the support of Andrei Khrennikov.
OH... sorry. You were talking about the simulation of the product calculation I put up. The one that killed Bell's junk physics theory back in 2007.
But what the hell are you talking about here, "Actually, every single one of them has the same real part." Sounds like drunken nonsense to me. :D
I was talking about the results of that "If" statement. Basically, it says: "if coin toss gives 'heads' then q = a b, it 'tails' then q = b a". In both cases q is a quaternion and in both cases, its real part is the same: namely a.b. Your code computes the negative cosine and then plots it. Twice. Once directly and once via the quaternion package in Mathematica.

That was the mathematical content of Joy Christian's brilliant insight back in 2007.

You earlier also did lots of plots with a bit of statistical noise and with small systematic deviation from the negative cosine with your clever detection loophole model, the one inspired by Michel Fodje's simulation model. The one you finally settled on, with the three free parameters 3, 0.3, pi/12, which you had determined by trial and error.

Re: Explanations of simulations

by FrediFizzx » Sat Nov 13, 2021 9:36 pm

gill1109 wrote: Sat Nov 13, 2021 9:00 pm
FrediFizzx wrote: Sat Nov 13, 2021 11:56 am
gill1109 wrote: Sat Nov 13, 2021 10:14 am Ah, now I understand the new Mathematica code. The graph does draw a perfect negative cosine using Joy's original formulas including basically the fair coin flip to choose between or in the line

Code: Select all

If λ2[[i]] ⩵ 1, q = L ... , ...
and then just taking the real part of the average of many quaternions! Actually, every single one of them has the same real part.
LOL! Are you drunk or on something even better? :lol:
Not drunk! Nor on anything else. But certainly enjoying a really good Pinot Noir from Roumania. 8-)

Nikulov complains that the establishment prevents his work from getting published and blames the lack of education of todays’ physicists. He talks about Kant a lot. And thinks that realism is the foundation of science. And locality is also axiomatic for him.

Yet he managed to be guest editor of a special issue of Entropy. I think he has the support of Andrei Khrennikov.
OH... sorry. You were talking about the simulation of the product calculation I put up. The one that killed Bell's junk physics theory back in 2007.
But what the hell are you talking about here, "Actually, every single one of them has the same real part." Sounds like drunken nonsense to me. :D
.

Re: Explanations of simulations

by gill1109 » Sat Nov 13, 2021 9:00 pm

FrediFizzx wrote: Sat Nov 13, 2021 11:56 am
gill1109 wrote: Sat Nov 13, 2021 10:14 am Ah, now I understand the new Mathematica code. The graph does draw a perfect negative cosine using Joy's original formulas including basically the fair coin flip to choose between or in the line

Code: Select all

If λ2[[i]] ⩵ 1, q = L ... , ...
and then just taking the real part of the average of many quaternions! Actually, every single one of them has the same real part.
LOL! Are you drunk or on something even better? :lol:
Not drunk! Nor on anything else. But certainly enjoying a really good Pinot Noir from Roumania. 8-)

Nikulov complains that the establishment prevents his work from getting published and blames the lack of education of todays’ physicists. He talks about Kant a lot. And thinks that realism is the foundation of science. And locality is also axiomatic for him.

Yet he managed to be guest editor of a special issue of Entropy. I think he has the support of Andrei Khrennikov.

Re: Explanations of simulations

by FrediFizzx » Sat Nov 13, 2021 12:07 pm

gill1109 wrote: Sat Nov 13, 2021 9:52 am Alexei Nikulov wrote (I improved his English a little bit):
I agree with Fred that violation of Bell’s inequalities is mathematically impossible. But I do not agree with Fred that “The QM predictions have NEVER EVER "violated" the Bell inequalities”. There can be no doubt that the conventional quantum mechanics formalism predicts violation of Bell inequalities. You are right in this. But the prediction by quantum mechanics of the violation of Bell’s inequalities contradicts mathematics, as also does, for example, the conventional deduction (see [1]) of the energy of the magnetic dipole moment in a magnetic field from the canonical Hamiltonian. See [2]. Thus, quantum mechanics contradicts mathematics.

[1] L.D. Landau and E.M. Lifshitz, Quantum Mechanics: Non-Relativistic Theory, 3rd edn, vol. 3. Elsevier Science, Oxford (1977)

[2] A.V. Nikulov, Could ordinary quantum mechanics be just fine for all practical purposes? Quantum Stud.: Math. Found. 3 (1), 41-55 (2016)
https://link.springer.com/article/10.10 ... 015-0057-3
He says that the conventional theory of QM (see Landau and Lifshitz [1]) is wrong. He claims he showed that in his paper [2].

He talks about Bell inequalities and violation thereof just like everybody else (except Fred) does. Alexei knows that conventional QM predicts is possible (e.g in the EPR-B model) and I think everyone knows that . That's why everyone (except Fred) would say that QM violates the CHSH inequality which is usually thought of as the inequality . I suppose that Fred would say that Landau and Lifshitz use the right inequality (the one which Tsirelson and Joy also derived). I guess that Alexei thinks that is true.
Anyone that thinks that ANYTHING has "violated" or exceeded the bounds of a Bell inequality has a big screw loose. IOW, all you Bell fanatics are completely nuts, bonkers, crazy maniacs!! Most likely Nikulov says such things to not get persecuted to death.
.

Re: Explanations of simulations

by FrediFizzx » Sat Nov 13, 2021 11:56 am

gill1109 wrote: Sat Nov 13, 2021 10:14 am Ah, now I understand the new Mathematica code. The graph does draw a perfect negative cosine using Joy's original formulas including basically the fair coin flip to choose between or in the line

Code: Select all

If λ2[[i]] ⩵ 1, q = L ... , ...
and then just taking the real part of the average of many quaternions! Actually, every single one of them has the same real part.
LOL! Are you drunk or on something even better? :lol:
.

Re: Explanations of simulations

by gill1109 » Sat Nov 13, 2021 10:14 am

Ah, now I understand the new Mathematica code. The graph does draw a perfect negative cosine using Joy's original formulas including basically the fair coin flip to choose between or in the line

Code: Select all

If λ2[[i]] ⩵ 1, q = L ... , ...
and then just taking the real part of the average of many quaternions! Actually, every single one of them has the same real part.

Re: Explanations of simulations

by gill1109 » Sat Nov 13, 2021 10:02 am

Nikulov's abstract:
The inconsistency and the fundamental obscurity in quantum mechanics have provoked the controversy of many years together with numerous interpretations and attempt to create a more consistent theory of quantum phenomena. To create such a theory the orthodox description of quantum phenomena ought be considered impartially. It is important to draw the reader’s attention to the incompleteness of the orthodox description of some quantum phenomena and to the contradiction between theoretical predictions and experimental results. The uncovered impossibility to describe quantum phenomena observed at measurements of atoms and superconducting rings with the help of the same Hamiltonian casts doubt on the successfulness of quantum mechanics for all practical purposes.

Re: Explanations of simulations

by gill1109 » Sat Nov 13, 2021 9:52 am

Alexei Nikulov wrote (I improved his English a little bit):
I agree with Fred that violation of Bell’s inequalities is mathematically impossible. But I do not agree with Fred that “The QM predictions have NEVER EVER "violated" the Bell inequalities”. There can be no doubt that the conventional quantum mechanics formalism predicts violation of Bell inequalities. You are right in this. But the prediction by quantum mechanics of the violation of Bell’s inequalities contradicts mathematics, as also does, for example, the conventional deduction (see [1]) of the energy of the magnetic dipole moment in a magnetic field from the canonical Hamiltonian. See [2]. Thus, quantum mechanics contradicts mathematics.

[1] L.D. Landau and E.M. Lifshitz, Quantum Mechanics: Non-Relativistic Theory, 3rd edn, vol. 3. Elsevier Science, Oxford (1977)

[2] A.V. Nikulov, Could ordinary quantum mechanics be just fine for all practical purposes? Quantum Stud.: Math. Found. 3 (1), 41-55 (2016)
https://link.springer.com/article/10.10 ... 015-0057-3
He says that the conventional theory of QM (see Landau and Lifshitz [1]) is wrong. He claims he showed that in his paper [2].

He talks about Bell inequalities and violation thereof just like everybody else (except Fred) does. Alexei knows that conventional QM predicts is possible (e.g in the EPR-B model) and I think everyone knows that . That's why everyone (except Fred) would say that QM violates the CHSH inequality which is usually thought of as the inequality . I suppose that Fred would say that Landau and Lifshitz use the right inequality (the one which Tsirelson and Joy also derived). I guess that Alexei thinks that is true.

Re: Explanations of simulations

by FrediFizzx » Sat Nov 13, 2021 6:21 am

Akk!!! Too bad. First paragraph your Russian is talking nonsense. Didn't bother reading the rest as got much work to do.
.

Re: Explanations of simulations

by FrediFizzx » Sat Nov 13, 2021 6:11 am

gill1109 wrote: Sat Nov 13, 2021 4:57 am
FrediFizzx wrote: Fri Nov 12, 2021 6:54 pm
gill1109 wrote: Fri Nov 12, 2021 6:36 pm I like:

Code: Select all

φ = 3; β = 0.3; ξ = pi/12; (*Adjustable parameters for fine tuning*)
With three parameters to play with, and after spending a lot of time playing, you got something rather like -cos(a - b). But not exactly, as a careful statistical analysis of the difference shows very clearly.

Are you telling us that QM is not exactly right; it’s just very, very close to the true physics?
That is such a lame question I don't even know where to start. :mrgreen: But we will take a stab at it. QM is exactly right when used properly to describe certain physical behavior (particle physics). But in the EPR case, QM's math has a giant flaw. The math of geometric algebra and quaternions can get around that flaw very easily and describe the actual physics much better than QM can. QM can't predict the individual A and B outcomes. GA and quaternions can in a completely local-realistic way.

Digital data can never reproduce a continuous wave exactly. It's the Diether-Gull law. It is probably someone else's law also but if not, I'm claiming it. :D
.
You can have it, Fred!

Meanwhile, on that other forum (semi-closed, but anyone can join, and so far, nothing gets censored), you got support from a famous Russian physicist!
Is he talking a bunch of nonsense or something good? Guess I will check it out. That is the trouble with no censoring; you end up with too much nonsense. That freakin' group is just completely loaded with a lot of nonsense. But there are occasionally some good things.
.

Re: Explanations of simulations

by gill1109 » Sat Nov 13, 2021 4:57 am

FrediFizzx wrote: Fri Nov 12, 2021 6:54 pm
gill1109 wrote: Fri Nov 12, 2021 6:36 pm I like:

Code: Select all

φ = 3; β = 0.3; ξ = pi/12; (*Adjustable parameters for fine tuning*)
With three parameters to play with, and after spending a lot of time playing, you got something rather like -cos(a - b). But not exactly, as a careful statistical analysis of the difference shows very clearly.

Are you telling us that QM is not exactly right; it’s just very, very close to the true physics?
That is such a lame question I don't even know where to start. :mrgreen: But we will take a stab at it. QM is exactly right when used properly to describe certain physical behavior (particle physics). But in the EPR case, QM's math has a giant flaw. The math of geometric algebra and quaternions can get around that flaw very easily and describe the actual physics much better than QM can. QM can't predict the individual A and B outcomes. GA and quaternions can in a completely local-realistic way.

Digital data can never reproduce a continuous wave exactly. It's the Diether-Gull law. It is probably someone else's law also but if not, I'm claiming it. :D
.
You can have it, Fred!

Meanwhile, on that other forum (semi-closed, but anyone can join, and so far, nothing gets censored), you got support from a famous Russian physicist!

Re: Explanations of simulations

by FrediFizzx » Fri Nov 12, 2021 6:54 pm

gill1109 wrote: Fri Nov 12, 2021 6:36 pm I like:

Code: Select all

φ = 3; β = 0.3; ξ = pi/12; (*Adjustable parameters for fine tuning*)
With three parameters to play with, and after spending a lot of time playing, you got something rather like -cos(a - b). But not exactly, as a careful statistical analysis of the difference shows very clearly.

Are you telling us that QM is not exactly right; it’s just very, very close to the true physics?
That is such a lame question I don't even know where to start. :mrgreen: But we will take a stab at it. QM is exactly right when used properly to describe certain physical behavior (particle physics). But in the EPR case, QM's math has a giant flaw. The math of geometric algebra and quaternions can get around that flaw very easily and describe the actual physics much better than QM can. QM can't predict the individual A and B outcomes. GA and quaternions can in a completely local-realistic way.

Digital data can never reproduce a continuous wave exactly. It's the Diether-Gull law. It is probably someone else's law also but if not, I'm claiming it. :D
.

Re: Explanations of simulations

by gill1109 » Fri Nov 12, 2021 6:36 pm

I like:

Code: Select all

φ = 3; β = 0.3; ξ = pi/12; (*Adjustable parameters for fine tuning*)
With three parameters to play with, and after spending a lot of time playing, you got something rather like -cos(a - b). But not exactly, as a careful statistical analysis of the difference shows very clearly.

Are you telling us that QM is not exactly right; it’s just very, very close to the true physics?

Explanations of simulations

by FrediFizzx » Wed Nov 10, 2021 11:03 am

First we will take this latest one that I posted.

download/newCS-35-S3quat-prodcalc-forum.pdf

Basically similar to Joy's original. Does anyone have trouble with the first section? Speak up if you do. But doubtful any of the Bell fanatics will read and/or want to understand it since it destroys their Bell world.

Load Quaternion Package, Set Run Time Parameters, Initialize Arrays and Tables

We load the quaternion package so that Mathematica knows with to do with them. The next 5 lines are from John Reed and they just get it setup so that the coefficients of vectors can be integrated into the quaternion scheme. Then of course trial numbers and the number of trial degrees is self explanatory. The ConstantArrays and Tables are placeholders for upcoming data. Then we have,

Generating Particle Data with Three Independent Do-Loops

A Do-loop just does iterations on everything for the number of trials. We can see in the first Do-loop the generation of the singlet vector angle which is later incorporated into two quaternions. Ls1 and Ls2. These are the two particles that are to be detected by the A and B stations. Then we also have the two hidden variable mechanisms that are both tied back to "e" the singlet vector angle.

Then the A and B Do-loops do the same thing for each so we will just explain the A station. The "a" angle is just generated as a random integer. This helps to facilitate doing the (a-b) angle later at one degree increments but notice that the "e" vector is a random real angle. Then some manipulation is done to get the "a" angle into a quaternion which will be an X-Y 2D quaternion called Da. Then Da is iterated into a list Da1 for later use.

Also we form the quaternion qa from Da and Ls1 for later use in the If statement. Then the If statement selects A to be sign of the cosine of the angle between Da and Ls1 if greater than the HV value from the HV mechanism, else it is the sign of the sine of the angle between Da and Ls1. Also notice the limit replacement functions for the main part of A. Just like Joy has in his model. Next is putting together outA which is a table that contains the value for "a" and the value for A. And for B just replace all "a's" for "b's", B for A and Ls2 for Ls1.

Product Calculation

First we extract the values for a, b, A and B into lists that have all values for all the events. Then, q, s, t, and u are set to zero initial value for later use. Then we Do the product calculation along with the limit replacement functions. The calculation is reversed if lambda2 = -1. This is necessary for the cancelation of the imaginary terms generated by the product calculation. The cancellation can be seen as Meanq. Then (a1-b1) is set as a iteration called "angle". Next we have calculations for s, t, and u that will give us Meanq, the average of A and the average of B. Then we form plotq that is a table that contains the "angle" and the real part of the resultant quaternion from the product calculation as Re[q]. Next we print the values for the averages and do a ListPlot of the list plotq and compare those values with the negative cosine curve in the plot.

Image
The blue is data points and the magenta is the -cosine curve for an exact match so easy to see that the model predicts -cos(a-b) exactly like quantum mechanics.

And that is it. If any questions or more details you would like to see, just ask.

Top