Sci.Physics.Foundations

FrediFizzx wrote: ↑Wed Feb 09, 2022 1:46 pm Well, couldn't figure how to smooth out those tit nipples on that last simulation so just did some clean up and notation changes on the spinorial sign change simulation. What is actually going on with this simulation is that the spinorial sign changes are corrections to the raw A and B data that are done in the analysis stage. IOW, the A and B data along with the hidden variable mechanism data is sent to the analysis so that the A and B data can be corrected. That makes everything completely local. 5 million trials; one degree resolution



Cloud File.

https://www.wolframcloud.com/obj/fredif ... forum5m.nb

Direct Files.

sims/newCS-64-S3quat-3D2D-pc-forum5m.pdf
sims/newCS-64-S3quat-3D2D-pc-forum5m.nb

Enjoy! So, now there is no doubt that this simulation destroys Bell's junk physics theory and Gill's junk math theory!

jreed wrote: ↑Sat Feb 12, 2022 4:11 pm I don't care what you are saying. I just look at the Mathematica program, which I understand perfectly. The non-local calculation is obvious, as I've stated before. You keep changing the variable names, but the non-locality is always the same.

jreed wrote: ↑Sat Feb 12, 2022 10:07 am Fred left out the important part of his calculation. The two loops shown above generate the data for later analysis. The non-local part is in the section of the program called "spinorial sign changes", not shown above. Here, the variable lambda1, generated in the Alice loop is used to make changes to Bob's data. The same process is carried out on Alice's data using the variable lambda2, which was generated in Bob's loop. These are clearly non-local calculations. This can be proven by leaving out the spinorial sign changes. The resulting graph will be the familiar triangle.

gill1109 wrote: ↑Fri Feb 11, 2022 10:28 pm I have two questions:

1) What does the argument “(2)” mean in equations D32 and D40?

2) I see that A defined in D25 depends on lambda_2, and lambda_2 depends on q_b, which depends on b. (And similarly for B …). How would this be realised physically without action at a distance?

FrediFizzx wrote: ↑Thu Jan 27, 2022 7:09 am Yep, another freakin' update. I was able to simplify the code for h1 and h2 quite a bit plus some other notation improvements and cleanup. h1 and h2 are simply the trial numbers for events less than the hidden variable mechanism now or 0 otherwise. 6 million trials; 1 degree resolution.



Cloud File.

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

Direct Files.

sims/newCS-59-S3quat-3D-new-prodcalc-forum.pdf
sims/newCS-59-S3quat-3D-new-prodcalc-forum.nb

Enjoy! And thus the solution for the HUGE mystery.

Joy Christian wrote: ↑Mon Jan 31, 2022 8:14 am

FrediFizzx wrote: ↑Mon Jan 31, 2022 7:44 am

jreed wrote: ↑Mon Jan 31, 2022 7:22 am Brilliant Fred. You just proved that the scaler part of the product of two quaternions is equal to the cosine of the angle between them. I apologize for saying that you had an incorrect calculation. You should publish a paper on that result.

Apology NOT accepted! And..., you should try to understand the physics that the math represents by asking sensible questions instead of making really dumb comments. We will be happy to explain it to you.

The interesting part in the GA or quaternion model is not the scalar part, which is trivially the cosine of the angle between Alice's setting and Bob's setting. The interesting part is the non-scalar part and how it vanishes in the simultaneous measurement processes carried out by Alice and Bob. It is beautiful.

FrediFizzx wrote: ↑Mon Jan 31, 2022 7:44 am

jreed wrote: ↑Mon Jan 31, 2022 7:22 am Brilliant Fred. You just proved that the scaler part of the product of two quaternions is equal to the cosine of the angle between them. I apologize for saying that you had an incorrect calculation. You should publish a paper on that result.

Apology NOT accepted! And..., you should try to understand the physics that the math represents by asking sensible questions instead of making really dumb comments. We will be happy to explain it to you.

jreed wrote: ↑Mon Jan 31, 2022 7:22 am Brilliant Fred. You just proved that the scaler part of the product of two quaternions is equal to the cosine of the angle between them. I apologize for saying that you had an incorrect calculation. You should publish a paper on that result.

FrediFizzx wrote: ↑Sun Jan 30, 2022 2:54 am

FrediFizzx wrote: ↑Sat Jan 29, 2022 5:58 pm Gill wrote on his blog for his latest challenge, “Alice’s nth output x may depend only on Alice’s nth input a, together with (if desired) all [ie, both Alice’s and Bob’s] preceding inputs and outputs. Similarly, Bob’s nth output y may depend only on Bob’s input b, together with (if desired) all preceding inputs and outputs”.

Talk about silly and really rigged to the max... the outputs of A and B also depend on the hidden variable and the hidden variable(s) can actually override the inputs. That is what is happening in the latest simulation with the spinorial sign changes.

So..., of course Gill's challenge is rejected once again. He really should face the fact that Bell's theory is just junk physics and Gill's math theory is junk math instead of devising rigged challenges.

Gill replies,
"Fred, my challenge is rigged, if you want to call it that way, in *your* favour. You “build” the detectors and measurement devices. You can use all that information if you like, or none of it."

Another quadruple LOL!

Yeah I know, I shouldn't be dragging Gill's nonsense over here. I'll stop now.

FrediFizzx wrote: ↑Sat Jan 29, 2022 5:58 pm Gill wrote on his blog for his latest challenge, “Alice’s nth output x may depend only on Alice’s nth input a, together with (if desired) all [ie, both Alice’s and Bob’s] preceding inputs and outputs. Similarly, Bob’s nth output y may depend only on Bob’s input b, together with (if desired) all preceding inputs and outputs”.

Talk about silly and really rigged to the max... the outputs of A and B also depend on the hidden variable and the hidden variable(s) can actually override the inputs. That is what is happening in the latest simulation with the spinorial sign changes.

So..., of course Gill's challenge is rejected once again. He really should face the fact that Bell's theory is just junk physics and Gill's math theory is junk math instead of devising rigged challenges.