Sci.Physics.Foundations

Here is a quaternion simulation that updates Joy's 3-sphere model to include full polarization of the detectors. Plus an update to the product calculation using null vectors/bivectors to vanish the imaginary residue.


Blue is the data, magenta is the negative cosine curve for an exact match.

Cloud File.

https://www.wolframcloud.com/obj/fredif ... alc-joy.nb

Direct Files.

sims/newCS-45-S3quat-3D-new-prodcalc-joy.pdf
sims/newCS-45-S3quat-3D-new-prodcalc-joy.nb

This is proof that a classical local-realistic model can also predict -a.b the same as quantum mechanics! Bye, bye to Bell's junk physics theory!
It is fully predictable also. To find the value of -a.b for any event, all you need is the values for the vectors a, b and s. Also, there is absolutely nothing that the Bell fanatics can complain about in this model!!!!!!!

Enjoy!
.

.
Thanks, Fred. That looks very beautiful.
.

Joy Christian wrote: ↑Sun Dec 12, 2021 9:09 am .
Thanks, Fred. That looks very beautiful.

You're welcome. The Bell fanatics have no excuse now not to accept the fact that you shot Bell down in 2007!
.

Well..., that seems to have shut up the Bell fanatics for a while. I guess it does hurt to have to admit you have been wrong for following something that has been wrong for over 50 years.
.

FrediFizzx wrote: ↑Sun Dec 12, 2021 9:05 am Here is a quaternion simulation that updates Joy's 3-sphere model to include full polarization of the detectors. Plus an update to the product calculation using null vectors/bivectors to vanish the imaginary residue.


Blue is the data, magenta is the negative cosine curve for an exact match.

Cloud File.

https://www.wolframcloud.com/obj/fredif ... alc-joy.nb

Direct Files.

sims/newCS-45-S3quat-3D-new-prodcalc-joy.pdf
sims/newCS-45-S3quat-3D-new-prodcalc-joy.nb

This is proof that a classical local-realistic model can also predict -a.b the same as quantum mechanics! Bye, bye to Bell's junk physics theory!
It is fully predictable also. To find the value of -a.b for any event, all you need is the values for the vectors a, b and s. Also, there is absolutely nothing that the Bell fanatics can complain about in this model!!!!!!!

Enjoy!

Here is a little bit of a simplification of the previous Mathematica code. r1 and r2 are not needed since they are already contained within the quaternions.

Cloud File.

https://www.wolframcloud.com/obj/fredif ... alc-joy.nb

Direct files.

sims/newCS-46-S3quat-3D-new-prodcalc-joy.pdf
sims/newCS-46-S3quat-3D-new-prodcalc-joy.nb

Enjoy the original Bell junk physics theory killer updated!
.

Looks like we finally shut down the Bell fanatics and all their nonsense.
.

FrediFizzx wrote: ↑Wed Dec 15, 2021 7:49 am Looks like we finally shut down the Bell fanatics and all their nonsense.

We Bell-believers are just bored with your nonsense. So you figured out some very complicated ways to draw a negative cosine with Mathematica. You could better spend your time revising your undergraduate-level probability and calculus.

gill1109 wrote: ↑Thu Dec 16, 2021 1:59 am

FrediFizzx wrote: ↑Wed Dec 15, 2021 7:49 am Looks like we finally shut down the Bell fanatics and all their nonsense.

We Bell-believers are just bored with your nonsense. So you figured out some very complicated ways to draw a negative cosine with Mathematica. You could better spend your time revising your undergraduate-level probability and calculus.

Those who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones. Instead of lecturing others, you should try to learn some basic arithmetic. Aren't you the one who is going around claiming that Bell-test experiments violate Bell inequalities? Only someone without a high school education in arithmetic would claim such a thing. You can be forgiven for being clueless about physics, but you go around falsely claiming to be a mathematician and yet cannot understand the basic arithmetical fact that nothing can violate Bell inequalities.
.

Perhaps for lurkers I should explain the fairly simple Mathematica code for this model. Joy, jump in if I don't get something quite right.



This first section of code is setting up the quaternion package and a method for creating quaternions from scalar values and vector coordinates. Then "m" is just the number of trials or events that will be done in the simulation. The rest are just storage containers for event values of the different parts of the simulation. A note about quaternions here; Mathematica basically treats quaternions as a scalar plus a 3D vector. IOW, the first element in the quaternion is the scalar.



Then we have the Do-loops. The first line makes a unit vector "s" and gives us the x, y and z values of the surface of a unit sphere. It is the same for the vectors "a" and "b". The next two lines makes two quaternions that represent the spins of the two singlet particles. One having opposite spin from the other. Then on the A Do-loop we have the vector "a" being generated and the next line is so that the values of "a" can be taken past the Do-loop. Then Da is the detector quaternion for the A side. It's a quaternion because it can be rotated. Then again we make Da1 so the values can be taken past the Do-loop. The "qa" is another quaternion that is formed by the detector quaternion and the particle quaternion that is being detected. Then "qA" is the result of applying the full polarization to the quaternion "qa". It will have the value +/-1. The limit replacement function is the same function as sign(qa) but has more explanation power as to what is happening in the detection process. Then the values of "a" and "qA" are collected in outA and we see that the Do-loop is iterated "m" times. The B side is the same as the A side only with the B values.



Then we have some more container setup and the A and B output values are extracted from outA and outB. We will take a break here in case we have questions or comments so far before we get into the long section. Which I will do in a while. A note for Lurkers; you can post comments or questions as a guest (you don't have to register).
.

gill1109 wrote: ↑Thu Dec 16, 2021 1:59 am ... So you figured out some very complicated ways to draw a negative cosine with Mathematica.

Amazing! After 14 years you still don't understand Joy's classical local-realistic model that kills Bell's junk physics theory! And..., it is not very complicated at all; it is quite simple. Perhaps you should start to learn some physics after 14 years of getting it wrong all the time!
.

Before I finish the Mathematica code explanation, I think it appropriate to have Joy's analytical explanation handy. So, here it is.



Is there any no-nonsense questions or comments about this? But even with this, it is doubtful the Bell fanatics will understand it. Why? Because they don't want to because it destroys their Bell fantasy!
.

Joy Christian wrote: ↑Thu Dec 16, 2021 3:23 am

gill1109 wrote: ↑Thu Dec 16, 2021 1:59 am

FrediFizzx wrote: ↑Wed Dec 15, 2021 7:49 am Looks like we finally shut down the Bell fanatics and all their nonsense.

We Bell-believers are just bored with your nonsense. So you figured out some very complicated ways to draw a negative cosine with Mathematica. You could better spend your time revising your undergraduate-level probability and calculus.

Those who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones. Instead of lecturing others, you should try to learn some basic arithmetic. Aren't you the one who is going around claiming that Bell-test experiments violate Bell inequalities? Only someone without a high school education in arithmetic would claim such a thing. You can be forgiven for being clueless about physics, but you go around falsely claiming to be a mathematician and yet cannot understand the basic arithmetical fact that nothing can violate Bell inequalities.

John Reed is even more pathetic than Gill since he understands the Mathematica code and still doesn't admit that Bell's theory is junk physics.
.

FrediFizzx wrote: ↑Thu Dec 16, 2021 4:32 am Perhaps for lurkers I should explain the fairly simple Mathematica code for this model. Joy, jump in if I don't get something quite right.



This first section of code is setting up the quaternion package and a method for creating quaternions from scalar values and vector coordinates. Then "m" is just the number of trials or events that will be done in the simulation. The rest are just storage containers for event values of the different parts of the simulation. A note about quaternions here; Mathematica basically treats quaternions as a scalar plus a 3D vector. IOW, the first element in the quaternion is the scalar.



Then we have the Do-loops. The first line makes a unit vector "s" and gives us the x, y and z values of the surface of a unit sphere. It is the same for the vectors "a" and "b". The next two lines makes two quaternions that represent the spins of the two singlet particles. One having opposite spin from the other. Then on the A Do-loop we have the vector "a" being generated and the next line is so that the values of "a" can be taken past the Do-loop. Then Da is the detector quaternion for the A side. It's a quaternion because it can be rotated. Then again we make Da1 so the values can be taken past the Do-loop. The "qa" is another quaternion that is formed by the detector quaternion and the particle quaternion that is being detected. Then "qA" is the result of applying the full polarization to the quaternion "qa". It will have the value +/-1. The limit replacement function is the same function as sign(qa) but has more explanation power as to what is happening in the detection process. Then the values of "a" and "qA" are collected in outA and we see that the Do-loop is iterated "m" times. The B side is the same as the A side only with the B values.



Then we have some more container setup and the A and B output values are extracted from outA and outB. We will take a break here in case we have questions or comments so far before we get into the long section. Which I will do in a while. A note for Lurkers; you can post comments or questions as a guest (you don't have to register).

Now, for the long section.



In the first line, QAB is the real part of the product of the A side with the B side. IOW, it is a scalar and is actually equal to the value of -a.b for the "i"th event. However, that product also leaves us with an imaginary part of the quaternion which we must get rid of like in the following.

In[41]:= Da1[[1]]**Ls1[[1]]**Ls2[[1]]**Db1[[1]]
Out[41]= Quaternion[0.349095, -0.697829, 0.387371, 0.491031]

Then the next line for r0 you will need to look at Joy's analytical formulas. We take the limits of the A and B side quaternions which ends up forming a null vector r0 = {0,0,0} for every event. Then the line with q =, we form a quaternion with QAB and r0. This makes the imaginary "residue" gone so that we only end up with values for -a.b per event. We didn't need the r_1 and r_2 vectors like in Joy's analytical formulas because they are already contained within the involved quaternions.

The rest is pretty self-explanatory but ask questions if there is something not understood.
.

FrediFizzx wrote: ↑Thu Dec 16, 2021 6:50 pm In the first line, QAB is the real part of the product of the A side with the B side. IOW, it is a scalar and is actually equal to the value of -a.b for the "i"th event. However, that product also leaves us with an imaginary part of the quaternion which we must get rid of like in the following.
In[41]:= Da1[[1]]**Ls1[[1]]**Ls2[[1]]**Db1[[1]]
Out[41]= Quaternion[0.349095, -0.697829, 0.387371, 0.491031]
Then the next line for r0 you will need to look at Joy's analytical formulas. We take the limits of the A and B side quaternions which ends up forming a null vector r0 = {0,0,0} for every event. Then the line with q =, we form a quaternion with QAB and r0. This makes the imaginary "residue" gone so that we only end up with values for -a.b per event. We didn't need the r_1 and r_2 vectors like in Joy's analytical formulas because they are already contained within the involved quaternions.

Thanks, that's an excellent explanation.

The problem I have is that Joy's analytical formulas use his notion of "limit" which is not the same notion as modern-day mathematicians', or for that matter, physicists' notion. You may say that Mathematica apparently uses Joy's notion. I would say that that is an interesting bug in Mathematica! It takes a limit by first doing algebraic simplification and then doing substitution. But we all know that that is a splendid way to prove that 0 = 1. Cancel a factor on top and bottom of a fraction which look the same. But which in fact are converging to zero. Essentially this is a trick to divide zero by zero and get whatever you like.

It's brilliant! But it has nothing to do with physics.

gill1109 wrote: ↑Sat Dec 18, 2021 3:23 am

FrediFizzx wrote: ↑Thu Dec 16, 2021 6:50 pm In the first line, QAB is the real part of the product of the A side with the B side. IOW, it is a scalar and is actually equal to the value of -a.b for the "i"th event. However, that product also leaves us with an imaginary part of the quaternion which we must get rid of like in the following.
In[41]:= Da1[[1]]**Ls1[[1]]**Ls2[[1]]**Db1[[1]]
Out[41]= Quaternion[0.349095, -0.697829, 0.387371, 0.491031]
Then the next line for r0 you will need to look at Joy's analytical formulas. We take the limits of the A and B side quaternions which ends up forming a null vector r0 = {0,0,0} for every event. Then the line with q =, we form a quaternion with QAB and r0. This makes the imaginary "residue" gone so that we only end up with values for -a.b per event. We didn't need the r_1 and r_2 vectors like in Joy's analytical formulas because they are already contained within the involved quaternions.

Thanks, that's an excellent explanation.

The problem I have is that Joy's analytical formulas use his notion of "limit" which is not the same notion as modern-day mathematicians', or for that matter, physicists' notion. You may say that Mathematica apparently uses Joy's notion. I would say that that is an interesting bug in Mathematica! It takes a limit by first doing algebraic simplification and then doing substitution. But we all know that that is a splendid way to prove that 0 = 1. Cancel a factor on top and bottom of a fraction which look the same. But which in fact are converging to zero. Essentially this is a trick to divide zero by zero and get whatever you like.

It's brilliant! But it has nothing to do with physics.

And..., it is really really hard for me to believe that a mathematician is completely ignorant about using limits as a replacement function. But this ignorant mathematician Gill is in luck since it is equivalent to the sign function.
.

gill1109 wrote: ↑Sat Dec 18, 2021 3:23 am ... It's brilliant! But it has nothing to do with physics.

And..., how the heck would you know anything about physics?
.

FrediFizzx wrote: ↑Sun Dec 19, 2021 3:47 am

gill1109 wrote: ↑Sat Dec 18, 2021 3:23 am ... It's brilliant! But it has nothing to do with physics.

And..., how the heck would you know anything about physics?

Good question. One answer would be: by 25 years of working with physicists. I've published more papers in physics journals than you have, dear boy. Some of them have been cited 100 times or more. I've organised physics conferences together with well-known physicists. I'm an honorary member of the UK "Institute of Physics". My dad was a physicist. Incidentally, my mum was one of Alan Turing's "computers" at one of the Bletchley Park outstations https://www.mkheritage.org.uk/archive/b ... tions.html. Science is in my blood. I'm deeply interested in truth and justice. See for instance https://gill1109.com/2021/12/20/an-ital ... tatistics/. This includes analysing methods in toxicology and discovering errors which the toxicologists hadn't noticed, which had led to a miscarriage of justice. Mathematical physics is part of mathematics. Theoretical physics is part of physics. They are intimately related, where is the boundary? Answer: there is none. That's on the theory side. What about the practice, the applications? Empirical science, engineering, depends deeply on statistics. So the real answer to your question is: I'm a scientist and I work on transdisciplinary issues in science especially those with societal impact.

gill1109 wrote: ↑Mon Dec 20, 2021 9:10 pm

FrediFizzx wrote: ↑Sun Dec 19, 2021 3:47 am

gill1109 wrote: ↑Sat Dec 18, 2021 3:23 am ... It's brilliant! But it has nothing to do with physics.

And..., how the heck would you know anything about physics?

Good question. One answer would be: by 25 years of working with physicists. I've published more papers in physics journals than you have, dear boy. Some of them have been cited 100 times or more. I've organised physics conferences together with well-known physicists. I'm an honorary member of the UK "Institute of Physics". My dad was a physicist. Incidentally, my mum was one of Alan Turing's "computers" at one of the Bletchley Park outstations https://www.mkheritage.org.uk/archive/b ... tions.html. Science is in my blood. I'm deeply interested in truth and justice. See for instance https://gill1109.com/2021/12/20/an-ital ... tatistics/. This includes analysing methods in toxicology and discovering errors which the toxicologists hadn't noticed, which had led to a miscarriage of justice. Mathematical physics is part of mathematics. Theoretical physics is part of physics. They are intimately related, where is the boundary? Answer: there is none. That's on the theory side. What about the practice, the applications? Empirical science, engineering, depends deeply on statistics. So the real answer to your question is: I'm a scientist and I work on transdisciplinary issues in science especially those with societal impact.

Blah, blah, blah... you certainly don't know about the physics relating to Joy's model. You never have; probably never will understand it. Why? Because if you did, your Bell fantasy world is destroyed!
.

FrediFizzx wrote: ↑Tue Dec 21, 2021 2:35 am

gill1109 wrote: ↑Mon Dec 20, 2021 9:10 pm

FrediFizzx wrote: ↑Sun Dec 19, 2021 3:47 am
And..., how the heck would you know anything about physics?

Good question. One answer would be: by 25 years of working with physicists. I've published more papers in physics journals than you have, dear boy. Some of them have been cited 100 times or more. I've organised physics conferences together with well-known physicists. I'm an honorary member of the UK "Institute of Physics". My dad was a physicist. Incidentally, my mum was one of Alan Turing's "computers" at one of the Bletchley Park outstations https://www.mkheritage.org.uk/archive/b ... tions.html. Science is in my blood. I'm deeply interested in truth and justice. See for instance https://gill1109.com/2021/12/20/an-ital ... tatistics/. This includes analysing methods in toxicology and discovering errors which the toxicologists hadn't noticed, which had led to a miscarriage of justice. Mathematical physics is part of mathematics. Theoretical physics is part of physics. They are intimately related, where is the boundary? Answer: there is none. That's on the theory side. What about the practice, the applications? Empirical science, engineering, depends deeply on statistics. So the real answer to your question is: I'm a scientist and I work on transdisciplinary issues in science especially those with societal impact.

Blah, blah, blah... you certainly don't know about the physics relating to Joy's model. You never have; probably never will understand it. Why? Because if you did, your Bell fantasy world is destroyed!

Gill brags about all sorts of things but he can't even do simple math, let alone simple physics. He makes extremely elementary math mistakes.
.

Here is updated Mathematica code for the update. I missed a cross product term in r0 but it didn't affect the results. I put r1 and r2 back into the code because it is more faithful to Joy's analytical formula.

Cloud File.

https://www.wolframcloud.com/obj/fredif ... alc-joy.nb

Direct Files.

sims/newCS-51-S3quat-3D-new-prodcalc-joy.pdf
sims/newCS-51-S3quat-3D-new-prodcalc-joy.nb


Blue is the data, magenta is the negative cosine curve for an exact match.

Enjoy this as it destroys Bell's junk physics theory!
.