jreed wrote: ↑Mon Jan 03, 2022 7:48 am
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 have I' = -I
and for the bivectors, B1' = I' e1' = B1, similarly, B2' = B2, B3' = B3
There's no left hand frame for the bivectors, they are identical to the vectors.
The use of lambda in the following equations in Joy's paper is incorrect.
This is all straightforward geometric algebra and easy to understand.
Yes. Exactly.
Yes, indeed. The stupidest and the silliest claim ever made by Gill is copypasted by Lasenby. The stupidity of the claim is on full display in what John Reed has written: "There's no left hand frame for the bivectors, they are identical to the vectors."
Nota bene: Gill has endorsed what John Reed has written. According to these guys, there are no left-handed bivectors in the world at all.
I wonder where do they put their left-hand gloves. Because they --- Gill, Lasenby, and Reed --- only have right hands and right feet.
.
jreed wrote: ↑Mon Jan 03, 2022 7:48 am ...
The use of lambda in the following equations in Joy's paper is incorrect. ...
There is no lambda in the updated model. What the heck are you going to do now? You ought to just admit that Bell's junk physics theory belongs in the dustbin.
There is no updated model. There is Fred endlessly writing and rewriting Mathematica spaghetti code in order to draw noisy approximations to negative cosines in the most obscure way possible. There is Joy playing with meaningless formulas, doing algebra and calculus and probability theory with his own private pre-modern rules, and no regard for logic.
And you are a mindless idiot (as evidenced by the extreme nonsense above) who is not even a Bell fanatic anymore!
.
jreed wrote: ↑Mon Jan 03, 2022 7:48 am ...
The use of lambda in the following equations in Joy's paper is incorrect. ...
There is no lambda in the updated model. What the heck are you going to do now? You ought to just admit that Bell's junk physics theory belongs in the dustbin.
So John, still wondering what the heck are you going to do now that there is no lambda in the new model?
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.
jreed wrote: ↑Tue Jan 04, 2022 4:09 pm
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.
Another quadruple LOL! Instead of copping out with more ridiculous nonsense, what the heck are you going to do since there is no more lambda in Joy's classical local-realistic model for EPR-Bohm that will be detailed in a forth coming paper by Joy? I've already shown Joy's analytical prescription for it in this thread earlier. Here is the link for it in case you missed it.
jreed wrote: ↑Tue Jan 04, 2022 4:09 pm
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.
Another quadruple LOL! Instead of copping out with more ridiculous nonsense, what the heck are you going to do since there is no more lambda in Joy's classical local-realistic model for EPR-Bohm that will be detailed in a forth coming paper by Joy? I've already shown Joy's analytical prescription for it in this thread earlier. Here is the link for it in case you missed it.
I'm not sure how you get that from that article. The structure of QM is simply the Born rule. QM is just a probabilistic math about physical events. Necessary because we don't actually know what the exact classical local action is at the micro level near Planck length.
.
I'm not sure how you get that from that article. The structure of QM is simply the Born rule. QM is just a probabilistic math about physical events. Necessary because we don't actually know what the exact classical local action is at the micro level near Planck length.
I disagree. I think that nature is fundamentally stochastic, not deterministic.
I posted that link because it is about the search for an intuitive and preferably geometric account of quantum entanglement. As I’ve always said, I’m interested in Christian’s work because I believe his basic intuition could well be right. I doubt anybody could do this all on their own. Not everyone is an Einstein. Everyone needs to collaborate with people with complementary skills. Collaboration is only possible if one is able to admit to oneself when one has made a mistake.
Last edited by FrediFizzx on Fri Jan 07, 2022 8:45 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Reason:Personal comments deleted
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.
Blue is the correlation data, magenta is the negative cosine curve for an exact match!
Definitely a Bell junk physics theory killer if I ever saw one!
.
Thanks, Fred. That reminds me: Let me know a definitive version of this simulation. I would like to reference it in my upcoming paper. I am taking a long time to write the paper because I want it to be perfect. Perhaps a neutral site like the Wolfram-cloud site may be more appropriate as a reference?
.
Joy Christian wrote: ↑Tue Jan 18, 2022 7:24 am
.
Thanks, Fred. That reminds me: Let me know a definitive version of this simulation. I would like to reference it in my upcoming paper. I am taking a long time to write the paper because I want it to be perfect. Perhaps a neutral site like the Wolfram-cloud site may be more appropriate as a reference?
You're welcome. The Wolfram Cloud is no good as the files expire after 60 days unless you pay extra. This version I just posted is pretty good. The other a bit more simple version is here.
That version uses full 3D vectors for a, b and s whereas the version I just posted uses a combo of 3D for the singlet particles and 2D for the detector angles. You could use them both. I can make you a special PDF with proper page breaks if you just want to insert the PDF as a graphic in the LaTeX. Or I can save as a LaTeX file if you want to do it that way. Or just referencing it to here might be best. I can make a dedicated forum section for just it also and lock it.
.
FrediFizzx wrote: ↑Tue Jan 18, 2022 6:52 am
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.
Blue is the correlation data, magenta is the negative cosine curve for an exact match!
Definitely a Bell junk physics theory killer if I ever saw one!
Nice work Fred. You got rid of the dual detectors, and those missing samples. Now you have a perfect simulation that proves that the inner product of two quaternions is exactly equal to the cosine of the angle between them. You can easily see this by running your program with m = 10, for example. Each sample falls exactly on the cosine curve. There's no scatter in you model. m = 1000 is sufficient to duplicate the cosine curve. What this has to do with Bell escapes me. By the way, you can also get rid of lambda now. It has no effect on the output.
Joy Christian wrote: ↑Tue Jan 18, 2022 7:24 am
.
Thanks, Fred. That reminds me: Let me know a definitive version of this simulation. I would like to reference it in my upcoming paper. I am taking a long time to write the paper because I want it to be perfect. Perhaps a neutral site like the Wolfram-cloud site may be more appropriate as a reference?
You're welcome. The Wolfram Cloud is no good as the files expire after 60 days unless you pay extra. This version I just posted is pretty good. The other a bit more simple version is here.
That version uses full 3D vectors for a, b and s whereas the version I just posted uses a combo of 3D for the singlet particles and 2D for the detector angles. You could use them both. I can make you a special PDF with proper page breaks if you just want to insert the PDF as a graphic in the LaTeX. Or I can save as a LaTeX file if you want to do it that way. Or just referencing it to here might be best. I can make a dedicated forum section for just it also and lock it.
Thanks again, Fred. I only plan to reference the simulation, not include it. So if you can make a separate thread for it and lock it, then that would be ideal.
.
Joy Christian wrote: ↑Tue Jan 18, 2022 1:00 pm
Thanks again, Fred. I only plan to reference the simulation, not include it. So if you can make a separate thread for it and lock it, then that would be ideal.
Well, it will be a separate section like "Updated EPR Paper". What do you want to name it?
.
