jreed wrote: ↑Sat Dec 11, 2021 7:01 am
Now I enjoy seeing you gentlemen try to find a fault with Bell's theorem. Like Feynman, I guess I was aware that quantum mechanics implied what Bell brought to light. ...
So...., what is wrong with a local-realistic classical model that predicts -a.b just like quantum mechanics? And don't say the word "loophole" because you don't know which model this is.
Blue is data and magenta is the -cosine curve for an exact match!
All you need to predict each event value for -a.b is the values of the vectors, a, b and s.
.
Here are the analytical formulas for the product calculation of the simulation. Thus proving that the simulation predicts -a.b the same as quantum mechanics! You Bell fanatics can choke on this but you are finished in more than one way.
Well folks, an Xmas present for you. I've decided to go back to the trial number matching simulation as I think it is better. I'm also exploiting John Reed's strawman code to do the matching faster. What John didn't realize is that his code is still only using trial numbers for the matching. Plus the spinorial sign changes still only amount to less than 5 percent of the total events. Here is 10 million trials at one degree resolution.
Forgot to mention the sim I posted is the simple one without quaternions. But it really should be with quaternions because of the spinorial sign changes and you need quaternions to be able to do the product calculation for the result of -a.b.
.
FrediFizzx wrote: ↑Sat Dec 25, 2021 7:41 am
Well folks, an Xmas present for you. I've decided to go back to the trial number matching simulation as I think it is better. I'm also exploiting John Reed's strawman code to do the matching faster. What John didn't realize is that his code is still only using trial numbers for the matching. Plus the spinorial sign changes still only amount to less than 5 percent of the total events. Here is 10 million trials at one degree resolution.
Enjoy this awesome simulation that destroys Bell's junk physics theory and Gill's junk math theory!
And..., Merry Christmas and Happy Holidays to all!
So............., we have a peculiar situation with this simulation. According to the Bell fanatics, it is 95 percent local and 5 percent non-local. I will leave it up to the fanatics to figure out what that might mean for them. Because for us, it is 100 percent local due to the spinorial sign changes!
.
Here is the quaternion version of the matching simulation. In this version the singlet vector is 3D like it would be in Nature with the "a" and "b" vectors 2D like they would be in an experiment. This reduces the spinorial sign changes to about 3.5 percent so Bell fanatic-wise, the simulation is 96.5 percent local and of course with the spinorial sign changes it is 100 percent local.
FrediFizzx wrote: ↑Mon Dec 27, 2021 7:03 pm
Here is the quaternion version of the matching simulation. In this version the singlet vector is 3D like it would be in Nature with the "a" and "b" vectors 2D like they would be in an experiment. This reduces the spinorial sign changes to about 3.5 percent so Bell fanatic-wise, the simulation is 96.5 percent local and of course with the spinorial sign changes it is 100 percent local.
Enjoy! More evidence that Bell's junk physics theory and Gill's junk math theory are pure nonsense.
Oops! Got the wrong title on that simulation. Here is the correct one.
Simulation Based on Michel Fodje's epr-simple simulation translated from
Python to Mathematica by John Reed 13 Nov 2013 plus some Quaternion Parts
Modified by Fred Diether for Completely Local-Realistic Dec. 2021
Using John Reed's trial number matching code.
Here is 5 million trials of the above quaternion simulation.
I can probably tweak this even closer to -a.b but I am tired of running it. The quaternion simulations take a lot longer to run than the simple simulations.
.
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.
jreed wrote: ↑Tue Dec 28, 2021 7:30 am
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.
I already posted the new simple simulation without quaternions.
What dual detectors? I went back to the trial number matching simulation that is now 96.5 percent local Bell fanatic-wise but 100 percent local due to spinorial sign changes that amount to about only 3.5 percent.
jreed wrote: ↑Tue Dec 28, 2021 7:30 am
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.
Fred is too obstinate to just compute the negative cosine, though that is what he is actually doing. He just has to do it in an extraordinarily complicated and expensive way. Partly he does it by fitting a load of parameters (determined by trial and error) to get very close, and partly by adding some random noise on top, to make it look more like real experimental results. It's a bit like Ptolemy's epicycles. Circles in circles in circles, getting at last pretty close to the view *from* one body moving according to Kepler's law on one ellipse *to* another body moving according to Kepler's laws on another ellipse. Except that till Kepler's time, doing everything with epicycles, they found it by hand, not by computer!
jreed wrote: ↑Tue Dec 28, 2021 7:30 am
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.
Fred is too obstinate to just compute the negative cosine, though that is what he is actually doing. He just has to do it in an extraordinarily complicated and expensive way. Partly he does it by fitting a load of parameters (determined by trial and error) to get very close, and partly by adding some random noise on top, to make it look more like real experimental results. It's a bit like Ptolemy's epicycles. Circles in circles in circles, getting at last pretty close to the view *from* one body moving according to Kepler's law on one ellipse *to* another body moving according to Kepler's laws on another ellipse. Except that till Kepler's time, doing everything with epicycles, they found it by hand, not by computer!
Now that was some achievement.
I do admire your tenacity, Fred.
Now, that really is a bunch of pure nonsense. You're finished as a Bell fanatic! That is what the simulation does! It destroys Bell's junk physics theory and destroys your junk math theory.
.
gill1109 wrote: ↑Fri Dec 31, 2021 9:20 pm
The systematic deviations from the negative cosine are plain to see! Fred, you have proven that the EPR-B correlations do not exist!
It is good enough to take down Bell's junk physics theory and your junk math theory. You really should admit that you are finished as a Bell fanatic to start the new year off right!
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 changes are still only about 3.5 percent of total events. 5 million trials; one degree resolution.
Product Calculation Verification
Blue is the correlation data, magenta is the negative cosine curve for an exact match.
FrediFizzx wrote: ↑Tue Jan 04, 2022 8:09 am
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 changes are still only about 3.5 percent of total events. 5 million trials; one degree resolution.
Product Calculation Verification
Blue is the correlation data, magenta is the negative cosine curve for an exact match.
Well, I have to say that it is pretty remarkable that it only takes spinorial sign changes of about 3.5 percent of all events to go from straight lines to the negative cosine curve using the +/-1 outcomes from A and B. Sure, it is not a perfect negative cosine curve but it is close enough to destroy Gill's junk math theory.
.
Re: Coming Soon!
