Warning: ob_start(): function '' not found or invalid function name in /www/htdocs/w00fbde5/overunity/Sources/PortaMx/PortaMxSEF.php on line 340

Notice: ob_start(): failed to create buffer in /www/htdocs/w00fbde5/overunity/Sources/PortaMx/PortaMxSEF.php on line 340
Local Hidden Variables - For the Win? Not 101st bad idea?

Discussion board help and admin topics > Half Baked Ideas

Local Hidden Variables - For the Win? Not 101st bad idea?

(1/6) > >>

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 :).


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


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?


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.

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...

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)

 I'm busy now handling to many things at once.
..give me some time to respond.


[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

Go to full version