tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8429900384844030048.post1888733685448971867..comments2023-04-24T07:42:08.886-07:00Comments on Challenging Bell: Further Numerical Validation of Joy Christian’s Local-realistic Model based on Geometric Algebra:Albert Janhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09238229295995187268noreply@blogger.comBlogger98125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8429900384844030048.post-33058604738609479382015-09-29T10:24:30.020-07:002015-09-29T10:24:30.020-07:00Gauser317 also missed the definition symbol. Ya h...Gauser317 also missed the definition symbol. Ya have to go back to eq. (7) and (8) in http://arxiv.org/abs/1501.03393.FrediFizzxhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01812058127535130396noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8429900384844030048.post-27647289114795118042015-09-29T04:22:40.342-07:002015-09-29T04:22:40.342-07:00Hello Gauser317,
so can you please summaries now ...Hello Gauser317,<br /><br />so can you please summaries now your rebuttal for Christian&FredFizz analyses?<br />Regards,Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11252037961554290459noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8429900384844030048.post-1401731391636941842015-06-23T15:12:28.850-07:002015-06-23T15:12:28.850-07:00My bad; it is different for the "s" vect...My bad; it is different for the "s" vectors. I don't think GAViewer is right for that part.FrediFizzxhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01812058127535130396noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8429900384844030048.post-87285568369771226332015-06-23T06:26:11.101-07:002015-06-23T06:26:11.101-07:00The above code is exactly what the model described...The above code is exactly what the model described in http://arxiv.org/abs/1211.0784 calls for.<br /><br />The "right hand only perspective" has already been provided by your script. I recapitulate those results with the variable called Minus_Dot. <br /><br />Unfortunately, your script fails to provide the "left handed part" which I have thoughtfully volunteered. What is missing of course is any way to reconcile your results (RHS) with mine (LHS). You need to provide that part or stop saying that you have!<br /><br />You can try to ignore the issue with another cheap excuse or you can address the problem and come up with a solution.gauser317https://www.blogger.com/profile/02322665002841448855noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8429900384844030048.post-35060523723406878802015-06-22T10:15:31.451-07:002015-06-22T10:15:31.451-07:00I can already tell you the above code is not right...I can already tell you the above code is not right for your model. It doesn't have the left handed part from the right hand only perspective. Please try again gauser317.FrediFizzxhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01812058127535130396noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8429900384844030048.post-44484389697728567192015-06-22T08:09:41.440-07:002015-06-22T08:09:41.440-07:00Perhaps Albert Jan and / or Fred will try out your...Perhaps Albert Jan and / or Fred will try out your code. But I take your word that your code does not work. Perhaps it can be fixed. Programming is not my forte, so I will leave the task for someone more knowledgeable. Eq. (B10) holds analytically, so it should be possible to verify it numerically. Joy Christianhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16340991859446970450noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8429900384844030048.post-3416336426580783262015-06-22T06:04:20.697-07:002015-06-22T06:04:20.697-07:00Actually, I can do better than that.
Here's...Actually, I can do better than that. <br /><br />Here's a GAViewer script that calculates the sign of the dot product of two vectors. It also multiplies two of these sign functions together just like you do in the LHS of equation (B10) in "Reply to Gill."<br /><br />function getRandomVector()<br />{<br /> v = randGaussStd()*e1 + <br /> randGaussStd()*e2 + <br /> randGaussStd()*e3;<br /> return(v);<br />}<br /><br />function getRandomUnitVector()<br />{<br /> v = getRandomVector();<br /> return normalize(v);<br />}<br /><br />function sign(x)<br />{<br /> if(x < 0) return(-1);<br /> return(1);<br />}<br /> <br />batch test()<br />{<br /> set_window_title("Test of Joy Christian's Correlation Function");<br /> t = 0;<br /> n = 20000;<br /> <br /> a=getRandomUnitVector();<br /> b=getRandomUnitVector();<br /><br /> for(i=0; i<n; i=i+1)<br /> {<br /> s = getRandomVector();<br /> A = sign(s.a);<br /> B = sign(-s.b);<br /> t = t + A*B;<br /> }<br /> Sign_Sign = t/n;<br /> print(Sign_Sign, "f");<br /> Minus_Dot = -a.b;<br /> print(Minus_Dot, "f");<br />}<br /><br />You can cut-and-paste this code into a .g file and run it under GAViewer. Ask Albert Jan or Fred to try it if you have any trouble.<br /><br />This code replicates the results from your proposed experiment in http://arxiv.org/abs/1211.0784. But, as running this program will show, the LHS of equation (B10) in http://arxiv.org/abs/1501.03393 will not produce the results you show on the RHS.<br /><br />Run this program as many times as you like it will not produce the quantum mechanical correlation. The results speak for themselves!<br /><br />Please show me how to modify this program to reproduce the results of equation (B10) in http://arxiv.org/abs/1501.03393.gauser317https://www.blogger.com/profile/02322665002841448855noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8429900384844030048.post-28731704830380022112015-06-19T11:35:42.177-07:002015-06-19T11:35:42.177-07:00So does the LHS.
Draw a picture of (s dot a) and ...So does the LHS.<br /><br />Draw a picture of (s dot a) and try to work out what the sign-function does to (s dot a) to produce the numbers +/-1.<br /><br />I also recommend the paragraph around eq. (17) of this paper:<br /><br />http://arxiv.org/abs/0806.3078 .Joy Christianhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16340991859446970450noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8429900384844030048.post-80609676183256521472015-06-19T11:17:09.963-07:002015-06-19T11:17:09.963-07:00Except for the fact that the RHS only produces +/-...Except for the fact that the RHS only produces +/- in the limited case of s=a.gauser317https://www.blogger.com/profile/02322665002841448855noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8429900384844030048.post-69009208245519479092015-06-19T10:29:12.556-07:002015-06-19T10:29:12.556-07:00When cos(s, a) is between 0 and pi/2, the sign-fun...When cos(s, a) is between 0 and pi/2, the sign-function on the LHS produces +1, and when cos(s, a) is between pi/2 and pi, the sign-function on the LHS produces -1. On the RHS the same +/- function is performed by the orientation lambda. There is no problem. Joy Christianhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16340991859446970450noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8429900384844030048.post-54891954777415156742015-06-19T09:51:01.599-07:002015-06-19T09:51:01.599-07:00Equations (7) and (8) demonstrate the issue even m...Equations (7) and (8) demonstrate the issue even more clearly. <br /><br />Take equation (7).<br /><br />On the right, the bivector product is only a scalar at the limit (as indicated) when s is "equal to" a. Otherwise there remains a bivector term than cannot be reconciled with the real-valued sign function on the left.<br /><br />But on the left, the s vector must be allowed to range over 3-D space to produce any -1 values. If s is "equal" to a then the LHS produces +1 all the time.<br /><br />The equality can only be guaranteed in the case that s = +/- a.<br /><br />I hope you can see my problem.gauser317https://www.blogger.com/profile/02322665002841448855noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8429900384844030048.post-77950741191477814142015-06-18T11:42:32.683-07:002015-06-18T11:42:32.683-07:00Equations (102) and (103) of that paper are the sa...Equations (102) and (103) of that paper are the same as equations (7) and (8) of this paper:<br /><br />http://arxiv.org/abs/1501.03393 .<br /><br />The LHS and RHS of these equations define one and the same number, +1 or -1, in two different ways. Think about what the sign-function actually does to the dot products s.a and s.b, and you will see what I mean. It may also help to recall that vector s is dual to the bivector I.s [which is what L(s, lambda) is)], and the sign-functions pick only those s that are either parallel to a or anti-parallel to a. If this fails to convince you, then you can simply take equations (7) and (8) as identities that define the quantities involved in these equations. <br />Joy Christianhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16340991859446970450noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8429900384844030048.post-89085378781784694172015-06-18T07:42:46.550-07:002015-06-18T07:42:46.550-07:00I've had a chance to review the material you s...I've had a chance to review the material you suggested. Your derivation of the standard deviation in the second appendix is exceedingly detailed and appears quite sound. I applaud your efforts in explaining this interesting extension to some of the better known statistical methods. <br /><br />That said, I still cannot reconcile the two sides of equations 102 and 103. <br /><br />Although both sides return +1 or -1 results, the conditions under which these occur seem to be quite different to me. While the right-hand side is dependent (as noted) only upon lambda the left-hand side seems to be dependent upon both lambda and the direction of vector a (or b). To me, the congruence operator seems to be misapplied in this instance.<br /><br />Can you offer an explanation to this conundrum? <br /><br />gauser317https://www.blogger.com/profile/02322665002841448855noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8429900384844030048.post-63423370045034544622015-06-15T05:02:16.416-07:002015-06-15T05:02:16.416-07:00Joy, I appreciate your informative reply it is bot...Joy, I appreciate your informative reply it is both considerate and constructive. Please allow me a few days to review this additional material before I respond.<br /><br />Fred, not so much.<br /><br /> <br /><br /> gauser317https://www.blogger.com/profile/02322665002841448855noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8429900384844030048.post-50073384569136981382015-06-12T12:56:25.179-07:002015-06-12T12:56:25.179-07:00The published paper is the reference you seek. But...The published paper is the reference you seek. But it is behind the paywall. However, its preprint version is available here:<br /><br />http://arxiv.org/abs/1211.0784<br /><br />The relevant derivation is given in great detail in the main text (cf. Eqs. 105 to 110) as well as in the first appendix of the preprint. Joy Christianhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16340991859446970450noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8429900384844030048.post-90693543924993387852015-06-12T12:14:52.081-07:002015-06-12T12:14:52.081-07:00You assume too much my friend.
I am well aware th...You assume too much my friend.<br /><br />I am well aware that the springer-link article passed peer-review and was published. I think that's great! I have no issue with your findings there.<br /><br />To save time, I will even concede that everything contained in that paper is established mathematics. <br /><br />My trouble centers around Appendix B in your Reply to Gill. This is where you directed me, of course I read it, and I've been cogently commenting on it's contents all day. I believe it is here that you may have extend your accepted findings a little bit to far.<br /><br />If you are at all interested in engaging me further on this subject then my next question to you would be...<br /><br />Can you supply me with a reference that explains how the standard deviation of a bivector product is equal to the first bivector times the standard deviation of the second as utilized in equations (B7) and (B8) of appendix B? gauser317https://www.blogger.com/profile/02322665002841448855noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8429900384844030048.post-33405676149059427382015-06-12T11:27:37.761-07:002015-06-12T11:27:37.761-07:00Yeah, talk about dishonest debating. Still also w...Yeah, talk about dishonest debating. Still also waiting to see some code from qauser317.FrediFizzxhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01812058127535130396noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8429900384844030048.post-90366735789295737832015-06-12T10:08:25.938-07:002015-06-12T10:08:25.938-07:00Your wait is over:
http://link.springer.com/artic...Your wait is over:<br /><br />http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10773-014-2412-2<br /><br />But of course you never had any intention to read my papers. <br /><br />Had you actually read the paper I suggested you should read instead of falsely claiming that you had, you would have noticed that the above paper is already published in a respected journal.Joy Christianhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16340991859446970450noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8429900384844030048.post-86173442571578008342015-06-12T09:46:09.244-07:002015-06-12T09:46:09.244-07:00Having been subjected to your intellectually disho...Having been subjected to your intellectually dishonest debating technique and curt attitude for a full week now, I think I will wait until one of these papers is published in a peer-reviewed journal.<br /><br />As far as my intentions are concerned, I am only seeking the scientific truth here. I harbor no animus toward you or any of the parties involved in this debate. <br /><br />Years ago, when I first noticed your papers, I believed that the claims therein might be true. As a amateur physicist I wanted the results to be true. But as a programmer, having a long experience with the EPR paradox, I know that this is never enough.<br /><br />I honestly thought that my criticism would be enlightening but I fear now that I have only caused you anguish. I hope you will believe me when I say this was never my intent. <br /><br />Live long and prosper. <br /><br /><br /><br /><br /> gauser317https://www.blogger.com/profile/02322665002841448855noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8429900384844030048.post-82414413233027768732015-06-12T07:13:22.634-07:002015-06-12T07:13:22.634-07:00If you have objections to my work, then write them...If you have objections to my work, then write them up and publish them at least on the arXiv. I am done with you here.Joy Christianhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16340991859446970450noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8429900384844030048.post-33900478032496650362015-06-12T04:55:48.335-07:002015-06-12T04:55:48.335-07:00Lets move on.
The cognitive dissonance here seems...Lets move on.<br /><br />The cognitive dissonance here seems to derive from your belief that appendix B of http://arxiv.org/abs/1501.03393 establishes a rigorous proof of equation B10.<br /><br />You seem firm in your conviction that the case has been made and you go on to reach the inevitable corollary, that Bell's Theorem must be incorrect.<br /><br />But the further application of your method has lead to absurd results that I and others have objected to.<br /><br />My English language reading of equation B10 is that the real-valued expectation values formed on the left side of your equation are "always" equal to the quantum mechanical expectation values formed on the right hand side.<br /><br />Bell's Theorem makes the counter argument that these two values can "never" be the same.<br /><br />Now, as a counter example to your equation B10, consider the case when the hidden variable is always +1. By my reading, the summation in the left hand side would amount to -1. However the dot product on the right hand side is only -1 in the particular case that b=-a.<br /><br />I must be missing something.<br /><br />On a side note, I would like to thank Albert Jan for keeping this thread open and relevant.<br />gauser317https://www.blogger.com/profile/02322665002841448855noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8429900384844030048.post-42473485538710080742015-06-12T00:58:10.265-07:002015-06-12T00:58:10.265-07:00Fair enough, Albert Jan.
But it is not hard to se...Fair enough, Albert Jan.<br /><br />But it is not hard to see what the true intentions are of this blogger: <br /><br />https://www.blogger.com/profile/02322665002841448855Joy Christianhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16340991859446970450noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8429900384844030048.post-55812217718176572072015-06-12T00:38:41.856-07:002015-06-12T00:38:41.856-07:00Fred and Joy, please no name calling on the blogFred and Joy, please no name calling on the blogAlbert Janhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09238229295995187268noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8429900384844030048.post-43093973931752827052015-06-11T12:12:49.374-07:002015-06-11T12:12:49.374-07:00So? Wachya gonna do about that, Mr. Gill? Resume y...So? Wachya gonna do about that, Mr. Gill? Resume your day job of writing malicious letters about me, like a disgruntled old granny, to the President of my College in Oxford? Joy Christianhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16340991859446970450noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8429900384844030048.post-626016024892027442015-06-11T12:03:50.085-07:002015-06-11T12:03:50.085-07:00Here is your answer, gauser317: given by Joy Chris...Here is your answer, gauser317: given by Joy Christian, 8 June 2015 at 13:47 <br /><br />"Then there is a separate issue of event-by-event simulations of the model, with +1 or -1 outcomes. For that there are several possibilities. One of them is to verify equation (B10) of [...] http://arxiv.org/abs/1501.03393. We have made no progress so far in that direction."<br /><br />I think this is why Fred and Joy can only hurl abuse at anyone who asks a sensible question about the "model". They are stuck.gill1109https://www.blogger.com/profile/02368614583412112303noreply@blogger.com