Language: 
To browser these website, it's necessary to store cookies on your computer.
The cookies contain no personal information, they are required for program control.
  the storage of cookies while browsing this website, on Login and Register.

GDPR and DSGVO law

Storing Cookies (See : http://ec.europa.eu/ipg/basics/legal/cookies/index_en.htm ) help us to bring you our services at overunity.com . If you use this website and our services you declare yourself okay with using cookies .More Infos here:
https://overunity.com/5553/privacy-policy/
If you do not agree with storing cookies, please LEAVE this website now. From the 25th of May 2018, every existing user has to accept the GDPR agreement at first login. If a user is unwilling to accept the GDPR, he should email us and request to erase his account. Many thanks for your understanding

User Menu

Google Search

Custom Search

Author Topic: Local Hidden Variables - For the Win? Not 101st bad idea?  (Read 2788 times)

Offline d3x0r

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1432
Local Hidden Variables - For the Win? Not 101st bad idea?
« on: June 03, 2022, 10:51:44 AM »
Hello All!  I greatly welcome any input on this, especially if you can point to me to 'hey this other guy had that idea'... and ya I'll forgive you if you give me a link to something you think is the same idea, and isn't; though I may do it sarcastically and mockingly even; but you ARE forgiven :)


Prereq: passing QM knowledge.... I don't have a way to introduce you fully to that. 


I've been playing with spin as a basic 3D coordinate system for a couple years now; I found a lot of interesting features of that, and that does make it worthwhile to consider; but my friend told me I needed to find an application for it, that it should have some use, so I found this use... (The project is STFR Physics - Space Time Field Reactor; It was voted for that instead of FFFFR - Fast Faraday Force Field Reactor); it's not just this particular link, but there's a root to the project, and code, and demos, and even just enabled the discussion part, but feel free to just comment here :).


https://github.com/d3x0r/STFRPhysics/blob/master/LHV_Theory.md


I can re-say what I've already said there?  There's another paper; sometimes with similar words.


https://github.com/d3x0r/STFRPhysics/blob/master/SpinProbabilities.md


In the second case, that was the 'before'.  Spin Probabilities... so I learned what QM is, what the matrices are, how they work, what they do... and inverse-applied what I know of the Spin system I developed to just apply the math more directly, and get a computation of QM predictions for real hidden variables.  And then played with that applying them with multiplication to get probability stuff... and noted that in the spin probabilities.


Then I transitioned and threw out the book, and just went with, okay what does the simulation tell me?  What does the math tell me?  (What Simulation? )


Oh I started this project to use a thing called 'Spin Axis' which doesn't exist as *A* term in QM, rather it's a combination of terms.  So I started with, okay photons have a spin axis, that (when I started) didn't change over time as it was being transmitted, but I know that's not the case, and time lag between measurements loses correlation.  Anyhow, detectors then have a alignment axis, and obviously the dot product of the spin axis with the detector is what determines if it's up/down along that (or depending on the detector, if it's up/down or left/right) (and really, the  Stern Gerlach Device measures left-right, by separating them up and down along the magnetic axis... but that's just an annoying thing like positive current).


Anyhow, so I built a simulator, and got results, and went to correlate the results, and I ended up with a different ratio than QM predicts, but within 3%.  I do have a solid math explanation for mine also; there's images and explations above, I even made a interactive demo of the graph.  I'm certain with a little more mathy things I could justify it futher with a +/- delta differential sort of view (or maybe use Euler's Dual numbers, and do +/-e :) )

(I'm going to ramble a bit here, it doesn't matter)
The end is simpler than it seems '1-(x/(2-x))=P(x)` where `B+A=2` and `A=x` and `B=2-x`.  What's X, A, blah? What's the result?  X is a ratio from 0 to 1 of results that were positive or negative.  It is made of (a+b=1) parts; which is then confusing, because I said (A+B=2), and indeed the A and B parts are really made of (a+b) parts... (sorry I'm still thinking this through); and it's words I haven't said before really.


(A/C-B/C)/(B/C)   makes the (a+b=1) part go away anyway.   ((Aa+Ab)/(Ca+Cb)-(Ba+Bb)/(Ca+Cb)) / ( (Ba+Bb) / (Ca+Cb) ); but that doesn't make a lot of sense huh

---
But why?  1) it eliminates a discrepancy between reality and the predicted math (if it's right), and certainly simplifies the QM prediction, and instead of being a Cuboid distribution it's just a pretty sphere. 

I've found that the topic of 'Local Hidden Variable' is a '101st guy with a bad idea saying dumb things'  :)  ya know that feeling?

-D3x


Offline d3x0r

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1432
Re: Local Hidden Variables - For the Win? Not 101st bad idea?
« Reply #1 on: June 05, 2022, 11:03:08 PM »
So I made this small physical experiment to test a few simple test cases.  2:1 is 50% of 90 degrees.


This is a classical physics thing that could be done even pre-fire.


This is a comparison of the ratios of the weights; the weight != measure, and for random stochastic tests, it is required by QM Inequalities to be measured as a ratio of the whole, instead of weighed against each other.   


The difference is on a scale, it's hard to have a 'nothing' count as something, so in QM it's a bunch of events that did happen, and an assumed amount of events that didn't happen, and those are compared.


The classical physics approach of modelling this with forces would involve the cos() of the angle of the balance, which is not what the ratio of angle to ratio of things on scales is.  The cos() function at 0 (where the scales are balanced) is 0, where this function is -2.


If the balance of a wheel isn't compared against the wrong function, I think that a giant ferris wheel like the one in france where one bottle moves from "off" to "on"  is a greater increase than classical physics gives it credit for.




Offline d3x0r

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1432
Re: Local Hidden Variables - For the Win? Not 101st bad idea?
« Reply #2 on: June 05, 2022, 11:27:09 PM »
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rsBplmMDcRQ remember that over balanced wheel in france?  This is the math that explains why it does work, night, day, wind, no wind...

Offline d3x0r

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1432
Re: Local Hidden Variables - For the Win? Not 101st bad idea?
« Reply #3 on: June 05, 2022, 11:49:36 PM »
So electro-magnetic devices, (to revisit the future from the way distant past)  given that as a basis, a thing is electric and magnetic, and disrupting the balance tips the scales to excess out... Considering the recent kap-gen sort of replications that have occured.


(this is an actual half-baked part though, the above is done to just right; (for me) needs to be alittle more done for everyone else)

Offline stivep

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3346
Re: Local Hidden Variables - For the Win? Not 101st bad idea?
« Reply #4 on: June 07, 2022, 04:26:29 PM »
 I'm busy now handling to many things at once.
..give me some time to respond.
Wesley

Offline d3x0r

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1432
Re: Local Hidden Variables - For the Win? Not 101st bad idea?
« Reply #5 on: June 08, 2022, 10:31:51 AM »
Roger


Some other examples - I realize it might be a lot to process; honestly you have to pretend to forget mostly everything and go back to before you even have fire.



       - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DsvP1CaiVjI (red wheel)  This is pretty good - overbalance just flops out at 90 degrees.  and stays folded on the other side.

      - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SA7noI8sHL8 (single tab flip)  This one could be gimmicked - it never completes a full rotation (maybe it broke? maybe it has a wind-up spring)

Offline stivep

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3346
Re: Local Hidden Variables - For the Win? Not 101st bad idea?
« Reply #6 on: June 09, 2022, 03:26:14 AM »
discrepancy between reality and the predicted math (if it's right),
-D3x
as a math student you will likely take very few or no physics classes throughout college,
but at 1:34 minute of this video you see when these two take different approach and Physics becomes leading over math.
https://youtu.be/NtKYh0e3RF8?t=97
That means that physics is overwhelmingly dominating- state or order authoritatively.
( some analogy may be expressed as a dominant sexual act
- that happened despite of level of domination with most if not all of the pleasure or benefit ,
  belonging to the dominator having a commanding position)

Despite all of variables ruling science( physics) dictates the rules and math is trying to support  its axioms , but axioms are based on models and its manifested, checked, verified, and approved behavior.

So with all do respect to you, your knowledge, passion, experience- you are dealing here with the guy  who is seating on 
practically checked, working, FE   
theoretically supported or delivered:
by Nikola Tesla, Dr James Corum,  Kenneth Corum, Dr Hans,
and critically approached with all scrutiny by Dr Roy.
Where Dr Hans and Dr Roy are my friends in science.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=He5xQOJHlrU

_________________________________________________________________________

Conclusion:
Overunity is a nonsense
Free Energy exists and there is nothing special about it.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Ldus3AQSpE&t=771s

- masturbating  one's brain by changing priority and flip math over physics is not my domain nor it leads in best of my believe to any results despite of just being entertaining.
- I'm not tempted.
try to understand minimalist .
 
Minimalist living is about intention.
You make room and time in your life for the things you love
and eliminate everything that distracts you .
I can't be purchased, corrupted, and yes I can be pushed, but not much.
I can only be convinced and you didn't convince me.
World respect is based on models of physics and people whose opinion can't be altered.
Model in physics doesn't have family to feed nor bosses.
Minimalists are creatures  led by :
clarity, purpose, and intentionality.-happy and sustained with not much needs for change.
 
_________________________________________________________________________
practicality:
- looking at impossible e.g perpetual motion we see nonsense of practical application
if the device can't produce any gain, it could serve only as an art- but even that is impossible as there is no perpetual motion.and we know it because physics rules over e.g math.

Theoretical physics needs time.
 I'm not talking that life is to short for playing e.g  with:
spin / NMR
a basic 3D coordinate system  I did it.
https://youtu.be/QHBEHOOsxT4?t=457
however you may watch this video from the beginning of it.
-as I act there as assassinated together with Tariel Kapanadze, by some Russians, but still lucky to be alive.
-later on in time, they approached me few more times  ..
_________________________________________________________________________

,,,
What about me:

who cares?
I'm nobody or to be more precise nobody special.
I feel good, great as a member of the crowd but you my friend not- you are different.( opinion of my wife- psychologist,
 reading your  comments . )
My focus is in particle physics,
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GdlkeI0bXy4&t=12s
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=izzujmKROWI&t=1136s
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k2PJVIkyW5Y&t=600s
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CQ3gPFfgDp8&t=26s
but I'm quite good (or for some incredibly good) in electromagnetism in particular  electromagnetic wave from practical and theoretical perspective.
I'm definitely not a guru in all aspects of physics (e.g similar to a MD in internal medicine.)
Wesley
« Last Edit: June 09, 2022, 01:08:38 PM by stivep »

Offline stivep

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3346
Re: Local Hidden Variables - For the Win? Not 101st bad idea?
« Reply #7 on: June 09, 2022, 04:48:43 AM »
My focus is in particle physics,
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GdlkeI0bXy4&t=12s
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=izzujmKROWI&t=1136s
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k2PJVIkyW5Y&t=600s
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CQ3gPFfgDp8&t=26s
but I'm quite good (or for some incredibly good) in electromagnetism in particular  electromagnetic wave from practical and theoretical perspective.
I'm definitely not a guru in all aspects of physics (e.g similar to a MD in internal medicine.)

below are my electron microscopes. I have few of them
but in total I had four.
Wesley
« Last Edit: June 09, 2022, 03:42:07 PM by stivep »

Offline d3x0r

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1432
Re: Local Hidden Variables - For the Win? Not 101st bad idea?
« Reply #8 on: June 10, 2022, 05:14:25 AM »
 :) funny complaint 'I'm too advanced to play with sticks and stones'; I do wish I had the connection to electro-static/electro-magnetic balance already.....


In the middle there - oh I'm a hermit, and I hate crowds; and am happier nowhere near them.... except when I have a eureka moment.


https://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/v5s6yi/whats_the_angle_of_deflection_for_a_ratio_of/ no answers
https://sciencehiddenfacts.quora.com/What-is-the-angle-of-deflection-for-a-ratio-of-objects-on-a-beam-balance-scale no answers (posted by me)
https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/9307/formula-for-implementing-a-simulated-weighing-scale/ no correct answers (except mine, but that's what the debate is about)


A beam balance is one of the simplest things you can play with - why is this such a impossible question?


I threw together this demo to show my math, and even what the equivalent classical physics answer is.   https://d3x0r.github.io/STFRPhysics/math/indexBeamBalance.html  At a 3:4 ratio 22.5 degrees in reality, physics measures 20 degrees - this is tough; need a near ideal scale (other than the classical answer should also be less than 20 for any non-ideal scale, so if the balance gets to 20 degrees it'd still be a win for the simple ratio...

simply, and with little explanation  A and B are a count of objects (they should all be the same type of thing, apples, pence, grams, etc - especially grams since 1 gram is very much like another gram). 
classical physics : cos( A/(A+B) ) or -cos( B/A+B ).
simple ratio : (A-B)/A or (A-B)/B, depending on which is larger.

Yes, math isn't physics and vice versa - but this is so simple... I even posted it as a challenge question https://discord.com/channels/834837272234426438/835139788742852669/983277950554243104  on Some2 ( 3 blue 1 brown's channel) and got 0 answers.

There's a math discord channel too - I asked, they said it should be a challenge, but I can't write to challenge, and got 0 answers.

I'd have preferred a challenge of the math... the derivitives of the functions mentioned above are entirely different, and lead to different results.   As I mentioned I chased this actually backward from QM, so everything, based on this idea of simple harmonic oscillators of e^(pi*i) is really arguably mathematically wrong for the situation of a balance beam... and in turn many other things.

Navier Stokes for example, is in complex numbers, where the radius and spin are inseparably combined; this leads to paths along the polar graph that are convergence and divergence, and loses that the flow is really still a regular linear/rectangular coordinate system of flow, and spin is caused by an offset of balance.

---
Approaching this from a rapid change in balance, especially at the balance point, a simple calculation... on the attached image, the bottom left quater are only hung by the rim of the wheel - the left top quarter does extra work, because the mass extends about 45 degrees, and if the arms are 4 inches, is only 3.4 inches out... If the wheel is also a 4 inch radius, then the are 8 inches and 7.4 inches respectively.  On the left there's 16 that are 7.4 inches for a total of 116.4 outword inches, plus 9*4 for the bottom quarter - another 36 inches.  152.4 total.

On the right there's 5 and most of a 6th that's at 7.4 inches for 42.58 and 15 at 8 inches for a total of 120, added together is 162.58... If there are weights at the end of the arms that are at least as much mass as the arm themselves, this is an excess of balance on the right side, which will provide a constant velocity.

(modeled on one of the videos above, the red paddle wheel thing in snow)

Offline sm0ky2

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3605
Re: Local Hidden Variables - For the Win? Not 101st bad idea?
« Reply #9 on: June 10, 2022, 07:03:24 AM »
The “red wheel” does not appear to be a functional device.
You can visibly see where the masses are from the center of rotation,
It is obviously being driven, by force or momenti.

Offline stivep

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3346
Re: Local Hidden Variables - For the Win? Not 101st bad idea?
« Reply #10 on: June 10, 2022, 09:34:55 AM »
what is a value of wasted time vs pursuit of some larger life goal?
Why are you here?
What do you expect?
____________________________
For math, game, popular entertainment there are other places to go to.
For showing yourself smart, in math,  it is to small and to diversified  audience.
Real beauty of electromagnetic wave,- is not your domain, nor you would  dedicate to it your next 2 years of life
People wants to gain something:
- some knowledge, ideas. Practicality is appreciated too.
- the field of energy and mechanisms related.
-something is interesting, and so what?
 :)
___________________________
 
 Wesley

Offline kolbacict

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 994
Re: Local Hidden Variables - For the Win? Not 101st bad idea?
« Reply #11 on: June 10, 2022, 10:02:31 AM »
That is a typical brush motor...and have a servo-speed sensor built inside (a Black-White marked Disk with a photo cell reader)
It was the old ways that they kept speed regulated...
But this is off topic friend.
I'm also leaning towards the fact that it's a brush.
Because it is reversible when power is connected in any polarity.
But this motor has surprisingly low rpm and high torque.
This means that the motor must have a lot of poles.

Offline Tarsier_79

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 75
Re: Local Hidden Variables - For the Win? Not 101st bad idea?
« Reply #12 on: June 10, 2022, 09:47:45 PM »
Dexor

I like math, I have done these calcs before and have been studying gravity wheels for over 20 years.

If you had done the calculations correctly, you would get 0, or very close to 0 torque for your red wheel. If there was torque, they wouldn't need a drill to drive it.

Dynamically, it will act differently to a static model. The faster you spin it, the less positive torques will exist: ie. the levers will take relatively longer to flip out or in, creating drag on the system.

The "Balancewheel" is balanced when still, and an inertial brake when moving.

ADD: The overbalance wheel in France, (Aldo Costa's) wheel works due to change in air pressure, hence the little sealed bottles.

Offline sm0ky2

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3605
Re: Local Hidden Variables - For the Win? Not 101st bad idea?
« Reply #13 on: June 10, 2022, 11:18:22 PM »
I discovered this principle in 1993. In Boyscouts we made an eye dropper bottle.
Basically an eye dropper full of air floating in a sealed bottle of water.
Squeeze the bottle to increase pressure and the air becomes more dense,
and the eye dropper sinks.


What i discovered was that hiking up or down a mountain would change the
height inside the bottle at which the eye dropper floated.
So a large ferris wheel or something that changed elevation greatly, like a dumbweighter
Could be used to change buoyancy in air.
making one side lighter than the other, even though they are identical.


There are weather issues though. Changes in the baro can crash the system.





Back to topic:


I favor the concept of quantifying the unknowns into scalar variables or whatever equivalent is necessary.
QM/QT is inherently flawed because of their approach.
 

Offline sm0ky2

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3605
Re: Local Hidden Variables - For the Win? Not 101st bad idea?
« Reply #14 on: June 10, 2022, 11:30:04 PM »
@dex


I think the problem with your beam balance question is the symantics.
Or rather your wording which contradicts the question itself.


the angle of deflection (+ or -) is the angle of restricted motion of the lever or it’s maximum.
in the most extreme case it is 90-degrees.
At less than the force to overcome the levers friction this may be offset to some degree:
This is defined by the mechanics of the lever and the proportionality between the masses.
Otherwise: Anything either side of 1:1 the angle of deflection is maximum for the lever system.


“The fat kid on the teeter totter is always on the ground”


Sm0ky2