Foundations of physics and/or philosophy of physics, and in particular, posts on unresolved or controversial issues
https://sciphysicsfoundations.com/
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.
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!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.
Cloud File.
https://www.wolframcloud.com/obj/fredif ... mple-jr.nb
Direct Files.
sims/newCS-54-simple-jr.pdf
sims/newCS-54-simple-jr.nb
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!
Oops! Got the wrong title on that simulation. Here is the correct one.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.
2 million trials, one degree resolution.
Cloud File.
https://www.wolframcloud.com/obj/fredif ... r-forum.nb
Direct files.
sims/newCS-56-S3quat-jr-forum.pdf
sims/newCS-56-S3quat-jr-forum.nb
Enjoy! More evidence that Bell's junk physics theory and Gill's junk math theory are pure nonsense.
The quaternion simulations take a lot longer to run than the simple simulations.I already posted the new simple simulation without quaternions.
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 really is a bunch of pure nonsense. You're finished as a Bell fanatic!gill1109 wrote: ↑Thu Dec 30, 2021 7:42 amFred 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.
That is what the simulation does! It destroys Bell's junk physics theory and destroys your junk math theory. 
Now there is some beauty for you!
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! 
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.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.
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
Enjoy!
Sure, it is not a perfect negative cosine curve but it is close enough to destroy Gill's junk math theory.