SciPhysicsForums.com

Joy Christian wrote:***
Hi Everyone,

I have produced a new, simplified, local-realistic derivation of the EPR-Bohm correlation that may be of interest:

https://www.academia.edu/16328957/A_sim ... orrelation

The novelty here is that I have avoided using the concept of standard scores, which has been a stumbling block for some.

I now calculate the correlation E(a, b) = -a.b directly using the raw scores A = +/-1 and B = +/-1, albeit still within S^3.

FrediFizzx wrote:

Joy Christian wrote:***
Hi Everyone,

I have produced a new, simplified, local-realistic derivation of the EPR-Bohm correlation that may be of interest:

https://www.academia.edu/16328957/A_sim ... orrelation

The novelty here is that I have avoided using the concept of standard scores, which has been a stumbling block for some.

I now calculate the correlation E(a, b) = -a.b directly using the raw scores A = +/-1 and B = +/-1, albeit still within S^3.

Bravo! Much cleaner. However, shouldn't eq. (3) technically be,

L(n, l) = l D(n) <--> D(n) = l L(n, l)

where I have used l for lambda and n is either a or b?

Joy Christian wrote:Sure. Perhaps it is better to use a generic vector n, but it does not really mater. The vector "a" is supposed to span all directions as usual (Bell, for example, never uses n to indicate a generic vector --- he just writes "a" or "b" as generic vectors spanning all space). But it is easy to update the paper, so I will do so.

PS: The Academia.edu website sucks. It does not let me edit the paper for some reason. I often have problems with that website. It does not match their ambition.

FrediFizzx wrote:For a pair of particles that are in a singlet configuration, Nature has a 50-50 chance that they will be created as either a left handed system or right handed system. And that is just plain common sense. For a left handed system the expression is;

(I.a)(I.b) = -a.b - (a^b) = -a.b - I.(a x b) (1) LH System

For the right handed system we have;

(I.a)(I.b) = -a.b - (a^b) = -a.b - I.(a x b) (2) RH System

Note that both equations are the same. However, eq. (1) is in a left handed basis and eq. (2) is in a right hand basis so we can't add the left hand expression to the right hand expression properly. Now, translate eq. (1) to the right hand basis so that we can do that.

But first I want to stress, "However, eq. (1) is in a left handed basis and eq. (2) is in a right hand basis so we can't add the left hand expression to the right hand expression properly." The translation of eq. (1) to the right hand basis is simply;

(I.b)(I.a) = (-I.a)(-I.b) = -a.b - (-I).(a x b) = -a.b + a^b

GAViewer cofirms that this is correct.

>> -a.b + a^b
ans = 0.77 + 0.39*e2^e3 + -0.44*e3^e1 + -0.25*e1^e2
>> (I.b)*(I.a)
ans = 0.77 + 0.39*e2^e3 + -0.44*e3^e1 + -0.25*e1^e2

Joy Christian wrote:***
Hi Everyone,

I have produced a new, simplified, local-realistic derivation of the EPR-Bohm correlation that may be of interest:

https://www.academia.edu/16328957/A_sim ... orrelation

The novelty here is that I have avoided using the concept of standard scores, which has been a stumbling block for some.

I now calculate the correlation E(a, b) = -a.b directly using the raw scores A = +/-1 and B = +/-1, albeit still within S^3.

Code: Select all

//Adaptation of Albert Jan Wonnink's original code
//http://challengingbell.blogspot.com/2015/03/numerical-validation-of-vanishing-of.html

function getRandomLambda()
{
     if( rand()>0.5) {return 1;} else {return -1;}
}

function getRandomUnitVector() //uniform random unit vector:
   //http://mathworld.wolfram.com/SpherePointPicking.html
{
     v=randGaussStd()*e1+randGaussStd()*e2+randGaussStd()*e3;
     return normalize(v);
}

batch test()
{
     set_window_title("Test Joy Christian's S^3 Model");
     N=20000; //number of iterations
     I=e1^e2^e3;
     s=0;

     a=getRandomUnitVector();
     b=getRandomUnitVector();

     minus_cos_a_b=-1*(a.b);

     for(nn=0;nn<N;nn=nn+1) //perform the experiment N times
     {
          lambda=getRandomLambda(); //lambda is a fair coin,
                 //resulting in +1 or -1
          mu=lambda*I;
          La=mu.a;
          Lb=mu.b;
          q=0;
          if(lambda==1) {q=(-La) Lb Lb Lb;} else {q=Lb Lb Lb (-La);}
          s=s+q; //summation of all terms.
}
     mean_mu_a_mu_b=s/N;
     print(mean_mu_a_mu_b, "f"); //print the result
     print(minus_cos_a_b, "f");
     prompt();

}

Joy Christian wrote:***
Hi Everyone,

I have produced a new, simplified, local-realistic derivation of the EPR-Bohm correlation that may be of interest:

https://www.academia.edu/16328957/A_sim ... orrelation

The novelty here is that I have avoided using the concept of standard scores, which has been a stumbling block for some.

I now calculate the correlation E(a, b) = -a.b directly using the raw scores A = +/-1 and B = +/-1, albeit still within S^3.

Joy Christian wrote:***
The paper is now also on the arXiv: http://arxiv.org/abs/1103.1879 , as version 2 of my "Disproof of Bell's Theorem" paper.
***

FrediFizzx wrote:

Joy Christian wrote:***
The paper is now also on the arXiv: http://arxiv.org/abs/1103.1879 , as version 2 of my "Disproof of Bell's Theorem" paper.
***

I like it! This new version is absolutely irrefutable. As VP Joe Biden would say, "This is a big freakin' deal!". I smell a revolution in physics coming.

Heinera wrote:You should delete your post alluding to a "violent revolution". It makes one wonder about your plan of further actions.

Joy Christian wrote::o

After eight years of bogus criticisms of my model, online harassments, cyber-stalking, lying, cheating, and malicious letters writing, Richard Gill has finally admitted that my model does predict the strong correlation < AB > = -a.b, with A = +/-1 and B = +/-1. His admission reminds me of Tony Blair's recent apology for the Iraq war.

jreed wrote:Joy, please give me a reference where Richard admits that your expression < AB > = -a.b is correct. I can't find that anywhere.

Joy Christian wrote:

jreed wrote:Joy, please give me a reference where Richard admits that your expression < AB > = -a.b is correct. I can't find that anywhere.

I am not honouring any of your requests. You lost that right long ago.

jreed wrote:Looking at your paper I can't understand how anyone would believe that it makes sense.

FrediFizzx wrote:

Joy Christian wrote:***
The paper is now also on the arXiv: http://arxiv.org/abs/1103.1879 , as version 2 of my "Disproof of Bell's Theorem" paper.
***

I like it! This new version is absolutely irrefutable. As VP Joe Biden would say, "This is a big freakin' deal!". I smell a revolution in physics coming.

Joy Christian wrote:***

It is worth noting here that, in the context of the equations (5) and (6) of the above paper, the following more general identity of limits also holds:



It is quite easy to verify this identity of limits. Alternatively, one can just look up the general properties of limits in a good schoolbook on calculus.

***