Re: Coming Soon!

[FrediFizzx]

Here is an updated CHSH version. The average of 10 runs of 20,000 trials each comes out to be,

CHSH = 2.80553!

That is pretty dang close to the max! And no further tweaking. Might be able to get even closer.

Cloud File.

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

Direct files.

sims/newCS-57-S3quat-3D-new-CHSH-forum.pdf
sims/newCS-57-S3quat-3D-new-CHSH-forum.nb

Enjoy!
.

[gill1109]

And what is the standard deviation (s.d.) of the 10 results you’ve averaged?

The standard error of your final average is s.d./sqrt(10)

[FrediFizzx]

And what is the standard deviation (s.d.) of the 10 results you’ve averaged?

The standard error of your final average is s.d./sqrt(10)

Don't care about it. You calculate it since you have Mathematica.
.

[gill1109]

And what is the standard deviation (s.d.) of the 10 results you’ve averaged?

The standard error of your final average is s.d./sqrt(10)

Don't care about it. You calculate it since you have Mathematica.
.

Tell me the 10 separate results, and I’ll do it for you. That should be very easy for you.

[FrediFizzx]

And what is the standard deviation (s.d.) of the 10 results you’ve averaged?

The standard error of your final average is s.d./sqrt(10)

Don't care about it. You calculate it since you have Mathematica.

Tell me the 10 separate results, and I’ll do it for you. That should be very easy for you.

They are at the end of the notebook file or PDF file which I guess you haven't even looked at.
.

[gill1109]

Don't care about it. You calculate it since you have Mathematica.

Tell me the 10 separate results, and I’ll do it for you. That should be very easy for you.

They are at the end of the notebook file or PDF file which I guess you haven't even looked at.
.

Yeah, I’m very lazy

Code: Select all

 x <- c(2.778545010598531, 2.8292076083106292, 2.8335071953985898, 2.8260985341778437, 2.8254732463559082, 
            2.8043705677375788, 2.800333098716658, 2.7828705966805343, 2.7640294414490336, 2.8108636228331267)
mean(x)
Sqrt(var(x))
sqrt(var(x)/10)

Code: Select all

 [1] 2.80553
[1] 0.02400205
[1] 0.007590114

OK, so your value of CHSH is 2.806 +/- 0.008
An approx 95% confidence interval is 2.806 +/- 2 x 0.008

2 sqrt 2, your target, is 2.828…

The target is outside the approx 95% confidence interval. That’s not so good.

[FrediFizzx]

OK, so your value of CHSH is 2.806 +/- 0.008
An approx 95% confidence interval is 2.806 +/- 2 x 0.008

2 sqrt 2, your target, is 2.828…

The target is outside the approx 95% confidence interval. That’s not so good.

Does this look like a face that cares? It's good enough to destroy your junk math theory.
.

[gill1109]

OK, so your value of CHSH is 2.806 +/- 0.008
An approx 95% confidence interval is 2.806 +/- 2 x 0.008

2 sqrt 2, your target, is 2.828…

The target is outside the approx 95% confidence interval. That’s not so good.

Does this look like a face that cares? It's good enough to destroy your junk math theory.
.

You mean, my elegant math theory which you don’t understand. Which has almost nothing to do with your computer simulations. Which have nothing to do with physics.

[FrediFizzx]

OK, so your value of CHSH is 2.806 +/- 0.008
An approx 95% confidence interval is 2.806 +/- 2 x 0.008

2 sqrt 2, your target, is 2.828…

The target is outside the approx 95% confidence interval. That’s not so good.

Does this look like a face that cares? It's good enough to destroy your junk math theory.
.

You mean, my elegant math theory which you don’t understand. Which has almost nothing to do with your computer simulations. Which have nothing to do with physics.

Another quadruple LOL! Dream on! I understand your junk math theory perfectly well. Ask me a question about it.
.

[FrediFizzx]

Does this look like a face that cares? It's good enough to destroy your junk math theory.
.

You mean, my elegant math theory which you don’t understand. Which has almost nothing to do with your computer simulations. Which have nothing to do with physics.

Another quadruple LOL! Dream on! I understand your junk math theory perfectly well. Ask me a question about it.

No questions so I guess that settles it. Gill's math theory is junk math.
.

[gill1109]

Yes, in Fred-World all is settled.

Meanwhile there are interesting discussions going on at https://gill1109.com/2022/01/02/the-big-bell-bet/

[FrediFizzx]

Yes, in Fred-World all is settled. ...

Well, you had a chance to ask me a question about your math theory but didn't and still haven't. Do you even remember what your math theory is? Typical Bell fanatic misdirection by spewing nonsense on top of nonsense.
.

[Guest]

Meanwhile there are interesting discussions going on at https://gill1109.com/2022/01/02/the-big-bell-bet/

Just a bunch of egotists butting heads like rutting stags. Nobody cares.

[FrediFizzx]

Meanwhile there are interesting discussions going on at https://gill1109.com/2022/01/02/the-big-bell-bet/

Just a bunch of egotists butting heads like rutting stags. Nobody cares.

LOL! Looks like local made it to the new forum.
.

[gill1109]

Yes, in Fred-World all is settled. ...

Well, you had a chance to ask me a question about your math theory but didn't and still haven't. Do you even remember what your math theory is? Typical Bell fanatic misdirection by spewing nonsense on top of nonsense.
.

Fred, I think that your picture of “Gill’s math theory” is something of your very own imagining. Please explain it to us. Similarly, your imagined “Bell’s junk physics theory”.

[gill1109]

Meanwhile there are interesting discussions going on at https://gill1109.com/2022/01/02/the-big-bell-bet/

Just a bunch of egotists butting heads like rutting stags. Nobody cares.

Ha, ha! Seems you care enough to make insulting ad hominem comments about the discussion there. Are you saying that Bryan Sanctuary’s theory (which he’s on the verge of publishing) will be garbage? He argues against quantum non-locality. Support him, encourage him!

[FrediFizzx]

Yes, in Fred-World all is settled. ...

Well, you had a chance to ask me a question about your math theory but didn't and still haven't. Do you even remember what your math theory is? Typical Bell fanatic misdirection by spewing nonsense on top of nonsense.
.

Fred, I think that your picture of “Gill’s math theory” is something of your very own imagining. Please explain it to us. Similarly, your imagined “Bell’s junk physics theory”.

Yep, lookie there. He's forgotten his own junk math theory and can't even ask me a question about it. Go ahead and ask me a question about Bell's junk physics theory then.

And stop with the typical misdirection!
.

[FrediFizzx]

Well, you had a chance to ask me a question about your math theory but didn't and still haven't. Do you even remember what your math theory is? Typical Bell fanatic misdirection by spewing nonsense on top of nonsense.
.

Fred, I think that your picture of “Gill’s math theory” is something of your very own imagining. Please explain it to us. Similarly, your imagined “Bell’s junk physics theory”.

Yep, lookie there. He's forgotten his own junk math theory and can't even ask me a question about it. Go ahead and ask me a question about Bell's junk physics theory then.

And stop with the typical misdirection!

Yep, it's hard to ask a valid question about junk math or junk physics.
.

[FrediFizzx]

@gill1109 More typical misdirection so deleted your post. Ask a question about something specific in the junk theories. You can explain the more broader questions you asked if you wish. I don't have time for this nonsense actually. Working on the GRF essay.
.

[FrediFizzx]

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.

Cloud File.

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

Direct files.

sims/newCS-57-S3quat-3D-new-prodcalc-forum.pdf
sims/newCS-57-S3quat-3D-new-prodcalc-forum.nb

Something interesting that I just discovered about this simulation. For a million trials the trial numbers for events on the A side that have spinorial sign changes don't match any of the trial numbers on the B side for spinorial sign changes. Zero! Nada! That means the spinorial sign changes are completely independent between A and B so definitely 100 percent local. And there is less than 3.5 percent of them on each side to go from straight lines to close to the negative cosine curve! Fantastic!
.