Sci.Physics.Foundations

This isn't surprising. The function Sin[x]/x is called the Sinc function. It's defined in Mathematica, and Mathematica knows that the limit is 1.

I have many books on general relativity. I also have a copy of Wheeler's book Geometrodynamics from 1962 which goes into his work on non-quantized Geometrodynamics. In it he tried to build a neutrino using only geometrodynamics. He could not do it. The problem he ran into was trying to build a parti...

A very interesting presentation. It's difficult for me to follow it, however. I have trouble reading what you put on the whiteboard. Do you have a hard copy available? Maybe in PDF form. That would make it easier to understand since it would be possible to cross reference and understand each formula.

So you discovered that you don't need many samples to generate your cosine curve. Just a few will do fine, like I said before. The inner product of two quaternions is equal to the cosine of the angle between them. What difference does it make if the cross product isn't zero? It isn't used in your ca...

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.

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...

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.

If you can't, or won't see that hB is causing a change in A's sign, there is nothing I can add to this silly discussion.

Well, it's easy to prove that your spinorial sign changes are what is doing the trick. I took your latest version and bypassed the spinorial sign change part. What I got was a perfect triangle output plot. What does that tell us? That the spinorial sign change code is creating your cosine output cu...

Well, it's easy to prove that your spinorial sign changes are what is doing the trick. I took your latest version and bypassed the spinorial sign change part. What I got was a perfect triangle output plot. What does that tell us? That the spinorial sign change code is creating your cosine output cur...

Here is an update to the quaternion matching version that incorporates Joy's updated 3-Sphere model. It still has the singlet vector and particle quaternions as 3D and the "a" and "b" detection vectors as 2D. This seems to be the best combination. Note that the spinorial sign ch...

I like Joy's updated new 3-Sphere model so much that I'm posting it again. Except this version has the full 720 degrees for (a - b) with 50K trials. Note that the sign functions on qA and qB are equivalent to the limit replacement functions when you have full polarization of the detectors. https://...

What makes you think that anything you do with your simulation would matter to me? Your simulation is totally unrealistic, and has nothing to do with Joy's papers. All you have done is to compute a cosine curve in a very difficult manner.

Here's what I got out of Lasenby's presentation: Straightforward geometric algebra, right hand frame vectors: e1, e2, e3, pseudoscaler I = e1 e2 e3 bivectors: B1 = I e1, B2 = I e2, B3 = I e3 For a left hand frame, reverse signs of e1, e2, e3: e1' =-e1, e2' = -e2, e3' = -e3, for the pseudoscaler we h...

Happy new year, Fred! Goodbye! Here’s the link to Joy’s talk at AGACSE 2021 https://youtu.be/4h29G5yGzaI Here’s Lasenby’s talk https://youtu.be/73NJHqJ-WxI If you carefully listen to and understand the first part of Lasenby's presentation you will understand what is wrong with Joy's arguments about...

Those examples of correlation on that website are amazing. I had a good time reading them. You can prove about anything if you look at enough correlations!

Keep going Fred, pretty soon you'll get back to my original code without those pesky quaternions that don't add anything. Maybe you can even get rid of those dual detectors.

John is a scientist. Fred, you are not. I am not aware of a single scientific paper by John Reed. I would be happy to be corrected on this point if references to John's papers are provided. The above slander by Richard D. Gill thus suggests that he is clueless about what makes someone a scientist. ...

Like I said, trying to communicate with you is just a waste of time.

Ok - Now set beta and xi to zero and rerun your program. Take a look at this same output. You'll see no quaternions, and all samples will be counted. Tell us how many events are included in this run of the program, and what the output curve and CHSH look like. Try to understand what this means.