Gordon,

Thank you for your reply. I will study your answer about the 'new' particle(s) and hope to end up slapping my head.

My remark about stumbling was based on the sheer number of equations to plow through and the number of key symbols in your glossary. Impossible to grasp in one reading. I plan to re-read it, perhaps several times.

Serious challenges to Bell are attacked, often viciously, and the last to do so, Joy Christian, has been attacked for years. That is why I suggest that the unconventional bio and any other departure from 'standard, boring, dry' papers will not be rewarded. That was my caution about 'lighthearted fun'.

Ray Munroe was the author of several FQXi essays and often (usually) signed his comments with 'Have Fun'. He died last year, but is well remembered and missed.

I'm trying to read all essays and a number have been posted in the last few days, but I will try to find time before long to re-read yours. I would also invite you to read my essay.

I hope you have a good challenge to Bell. I meant those two sentences you liked.

Best regards,

Edwin Eugene Klingman

Gordon,

Thank you for your gracious answer to my somewhat boorish comments. I did not wish to use the term "unrealistic" disparagingly. I know everything in the Universe is unique, once and I was merely trying to emphasize that as all abstractions are recurring, they cannot be unique and therefore, they can only be unrealistic. This must not be taken as me asserting that abstractions do not have an important utility. Obviously properly constructed abstractions when recorded correctly as stated in your essay can be extremely useful for anyone wishing to become more knowledgeable.

Edwin, thanks for that additional information; I appreciate the points you make so clearly (me having a bit to learn in this field). As for Joy Christian's work, that warrants two numbered responses:

R13: I leave it to others to formally assess Joy's work but I personally doubt that he has succeeded in disproving Bell. For I'm not aware that Joy's work makes the following connections directly or simply: In my work, one equation handles both spin-half particles and (spin-one) photons logically and readily right from the start. That is, they differ in their intrinsic spins (respectively s = 1/2, s = 1) and that difference -- in the context of the relevant correlations issuing from the Source, of course -- accounts for their differing behaviour in Bell-tests.

That, to me, is how the physics should go.

R14: I'd welcome serious and critical correspondence with any and all Bell supporters. So if there are some that I should contact directly, please let me know. Thanks.

With thanks again; Gordon

Many thanks Joe; that nicely clarifies our differences somewhat. But I continue to wonder: Am I reading you correctly?

So, trusting that you'll excuse me here (maybe) pushing for another friendly opportunity to encourage you to move beyond your central theme -- everything in the Universe is unique -- how should I understand this, from you:

"Abstractions when recorded correctly ... can be extremely useful for anyone wishing to become more knowledgeable."

Are you saying that you personally have no wish to become more knowledgable?

For I still have this spinning in my head: "I [Joe] have never really been interested in logic."

Are you maybe suggesting that we should join you in the set of such?

FOR I can see clear benefits flowing from such a worldview: extra time for gardening, walking, sleeping, ..., which are not to be sneezed at, that's for sure! Though all such would surely be improved by us each abstracting and becoming more knowledgable? And our sharing some of that? Yes?

Anyway Joe, such puzzlement has me putting on hold my sales-pitch re the benefits that "ABSTRACTION" brings us; and temporarily suspending a challenge to your phrasing: "all abstractions are recurring, they cannot be unique and therefore, they can only be unrealistic."

Looking forward to your clearing my head somewhat, yours cordially; Gordon

Gordon,

I wish I had your manners.

"Abstractions when recorded correctly ... can be extremely useful for anyone wishing to become more knowledgeable."

Are you saying that you personally have no wish to become more knowledgable?

For I still have this spinning in my head: "I [Joe] have never really been interested in logic."

I regret my abysmal lack of a formal education. As I have admitted elsewhere at this site: I never had self awareness. From my birth to the present no matter in which direction I faced, I have only been able to see humanly fabricated structures or humanly explored terrains. My nostrils have only ever received wafts of humanly compromised fumes. My mouth has only tasted humanly adulterated food and liquids. Man made sounds have constantly drowned out any bird songs or dog barks or cock crows. Only fabricated materials have ever touched me.

There is no me here. I have three options. I can be a conventional, consistent, or conspicuous conformist.

If I am right about my assertion that one real Universe could only be eternally occurring in one real infinite dimension, once, That means that Copernicus, Newton, Einstein, and Hawking had to have gotten it wrong.

I am sorry. I cannot answer your questions.

  • [deleted]

  • Post #12

PS: Just dropping by on my way to Edwin's essay.

"There is no me here. I have three options. I can be a conventional, consistent, or conspicuous conformist."

To the me that is not there; to the I that sees but three options; to the one making assertions: Talk to Joe Fisher, the gloriously curious non-conformist.

Hello Gordon,

The BIT I can say is that your essay is well organized. Because of the high mathematical content I may not be able to comment as much as I would have wanted unless you bring out the logic behind the math used.

Having said that, for completeness it is good for you to mention that the EPR paradox afflicts only the particle picture. The wave picture of light does not require superluminal signaling to know the direction of a second wave's polarization by measuring that of the first.

Then in your bio, you mentioned your fascination with Euclid. You may wish to check out my take on the relationship between his definitions and reality in my essay, 'On the road not taken'. Will appreciate your comments.

Wish you the best in the contest.

Regards,

Akinbo

    Message to Gordon, ...come in Gordon,

    What Akinbo said just now...

    He's right you know that? (name that quote). His essay is good. Long live reality!

    But back to this unequal war. I've got my flank well covered and I think I got a major hit with my new prototype spin bomb. With what looked like another big hit from your own secret weapon I think we've got them pinned down, but I don't really know how much damage mine can do yet. You may have a better view than me, can you do a recce, observe and report?

    I'm couldn't read your codes and don't seem to have the right code book so I didn't get a complete view of your own hit, but I have to say it sounded bang on target and at least as effective as mine. It may be that together the force is irresistible? You'll have to give me a critical view of my own. I'm sure were probably looking at the very same thing from our very different local vantage points.

    I've called on back up from another Aspect, but it's tricky to know which side some of those guys are really on. While the troglodytes outnumber us there's probably still a lot of relative uncertainty about. I've also sent a dispatch to Joy but no news yet. It's a bit spooky. I fear the worst.

    I know Edwin has a good position across the other side so we can avoid action at a distance and have a complete ring with all the angles covered. I think if we keep up the momentum the core of the resistance may fade away. Let me know how good a hit you think mine was, and if looks like our weapons can be co-ordinated.

    I think I feel a top score coming on from this side. Let me know how it looks from there.

    Best of luck

    Peter

    PS. They seem to have got your Figures. No probs I have spare stash. Tell me which ones you like.

    PPS. If there are any typo's above I apologise sincerley but I'm afraid I'm a Captain and certainly not a typist.

      • [deleted]

      • Post #16

      To: Senior Counsel, Atomistic Enterprises Inc. Attention: Dr Akinbo Ojo

      From: DOPE! Subject: Thou shalt not out-plateau Plato!

      Sir: We object to your provocative communique and have this hour lodged an appeal to the Eternal Court of Arbitration. They are stuffed by our clients as you well-know, so prepare for overturn and defeat. As previously advised: It is not permitted anywhere at anytime to use non-conformist thinking against our aged Founder; nor his adherents.

      Sincerely; Defenders of Platonists Everywhere!

      Hello Akinbo, with a big welcoming wOJOw! WOW! Many thanks for bringing your delightful essay to my attention; it is a wonderful work and an inspiring read; in a word -- brilliant.

      It also gives me confidence that you will have little trouble with my maths, except maybe a little rustiness for a while; for it is essentially the basic trigonometry of your highschool mates. So if you have a go at the maths, I will happily support your efforts with the accompanying logic.

      I see your monads (maybe just slightly tweaked) situated between Euclid's wonderful points (beautiful and helpful abstractions) and the limits of Planck's constant of action (my focus area).

      It is in this latter regard I'd welcome your clarification of this: "The wave picture of light does not require superluminal signaling to know the direction of a second wave's polarization by measuring that of the first." For it may reflect an underlying misunderstanding.

      Note that the the photons are UN-polarized in their entangled state (Bell 2004:82). And as my essay shows: NO superluminal signalling is required anywhere.

      PS: Indeed, Euclid remains a hero of mine with his clear axiomatic approach to analysis.

      Looking forward to many more fruitful exchanges, please do not hesitate to question the maths, logic, etc; Gordon

      Dear Gordon,

      Again, welcome to FQXi. I would like to point out that an accepted use of the blogs associated with each essay is to expand upon the points of the essay which were constrained by the nine page limit. I always try to make good use of my comments in this fashion. [I'm starting a new thread for visibility.]

      To kick this off I would suggest you expand upon the meaning of the hidden variable lambda in your equations 3 through 6, particularly your statement about the impossibility of Bell's treatment.

      As I understand it the problem you point out is that, while invoking the third particle c, Bell uses the same hidden variable, lambda, as was used for the original pair of particles, (a,b), despite having already declared that "it is a matter of indifference... whether lambda denotes a single variable or a set, or even a set of functions, and whether the variables are discrete or continuous". Unless and until someone shows how a third particle can be produced, with exactly the same generalized, unconstrained hidden variable that applied to the pair a and b, then this is, as you say, unphysical, i.e., impossible. Consider, as an example only, that lambda is a 'phase angle' of the wave function common to the particles a and b. There may, of course exist an analogous phase angle in another entangled pair (a',c). But there is no way to measure these phase angles (except statistically via 'weak' measurement) and no grounds to assume that they are equal from a to a'. But this is implied by Bell's use of only one lambda in 14(a) and 14(b) while you clearly and correctly label these lambda_sub_i and lambda_sub_n_plus_i.

      It's a forehead slapper all right.

      Any fine points you'd like to comment on before I work further into your essay?

      Best,

      Edwin Eugene Klingman

        Dear Edwin,

        Thanks indeed for the welcome, the very helpful guidance,* and the hopeful news that your forehead-slapping is behind us; just one small uppercut needed now -- under the chin -- "small" given my appreciation of your own views and engagement on these matters.

        For I think it not good to refer to any particle by the unit vector -- "invoking the third particle c" -- associated with the relevant SGD. It gets quite messy and confusing in what, IMO, should really be a very simple matter. (Some, as you probably know, even refer to the particles as Alice and Bob -- the SGD operators -- such is the confusion greeting newcomers to this important subject.)

        I know and appreciate what you mean but I like to make this subject as easy as possible for newcomers -- and to be especially free to discuss those interesting hypothetical cases where Alice and Bob freely and independently select the same or antiparallel orientations.

        * I should also explain that I'm working my way into FQXi via a new and troublesome internet upgrade, so your advice should soon be reflected in my expanded involvement here. (AND, playing safe, I might go with a series of short replies for a while.) PS: While I'm at it: every sentence of mine comes with an implicit IMO!

        So, on the subject of particle identification, I suggest we stick with selections from the pwn+i family -- introduced at equation (22) but with lambda not used in this text here for convenience -- it being understood that each particle carries a unique lambda, correspondingly identified: NO two particles the same!

        That is: particle p'wn+i carries a lambda' (lambda-prime) antiparallel to the lambda of its twin pwn+i -- that antiparallel relation here a consequence of the symmetry associated with the conservation of total angular momentum in the production of each pair.

        Note in passing: In this way, pwn+i brings Joe Fisher's primary theme (the uniqueness of Reality) into mathematical form -- and hence into the best logic -- and hence into the Bell story.

        Following your suggestion: Let's now expand upon the meaning of the Bellian lambda that is introduced into the maths at equation (3): Let's follow the clue -- "Bell's hint" -- in equation (1) and see how far we can take it.

        So, since Bell's 1964:(1) and our (1) allow that 'a' is a unit vector, let lambda be one too. And, since we are working with spin and SGDs -- and always subject to Bell's (1964) boundary conditions -- let lambda be the most general unit vector in the space of 'a' -- a unit vector in 3-space.

        Then, since lambda is beyond our control -- a truly random variable in 3-space -- and recognising that no two can be the same: we must label them accordingly. NB: Not here (yet) relating the lambda label to a particle label.

        Equations (3)-(7) thus follow, and the source of Bell's famous inequality is revealed:

        In general: Bell's 1964:(14b) IS NOT EQUAL TO Bell's 1964:(14a)! QED.

        Noting that any difficulties for newcomers probably reside in the common but rigorous notation, which is soon easily grasped; especially if they ask questions.

        THUS: The first IT from BIT!

        For we started with BIT (information, essentially provided by Bell and his boundary conditions) and we discover a fairly sensational IT (one missed by the whole Bellian community, as far as I know).

        That IT is particle pn+i!

        NB: pn+i is a crucially different particle because, carrying a crucially different lambda, it cannot POSSIBLY be paired with particle pi in the manner of Bell's maths -- 1964:(14b) = 1964:(14a) -- as Bell and many others would have us believe.

        Hence the IMPOSSIBILITY of Bell's manoeuvre. And hence the downfall -- per that equation (22) -- of all CHSH-style inequalities: here simply, theoretically; and (importantly), as confirmed experimentally -- as you yourself stress.

        AND hence the wonder -- given the conclusions drawn (and so forcefully promulgated) re nonlocality and the impossibility of common-sense local realism -- that not one of Bell's supporters critically revisited his maths posthaste.

        To be continued:

        With my thanks again; please don't hesitate to interpose remarks -- even swift uppercuts -- at any stage; Gordon

        Edwin, continuing: Let's next talk about "any fine points" before returning to the central section of your response.

        A - Fine points: The essay is intended to be error-free and typo-free so that any "puzzles" may be addressed confidently by the Reader -- with minimum fear that there's a bug in the system, so to speak. Consequently, to anyone, finding something that halts or niggles or grates or jars, etc, it's, "Please let me know; I'm from down-under and I'm here to help."

        Perhaps the "finest point" is that the underlying theory is extremely comprehensive YET based on what is essentially high-school maths and logic. That is, from such simplicity we arrive at a goal that I associate with both Planck and Einstein (even Bell): "The quantum is classical" -- a view that I understand is akin to your own.

        Now: It seems this above point is not popular -- to the extent that making comments on the theory is evidently considered to be "beneath their dignity" by most of my supposed critics over the years -- to the extent that the theory is not worthy of even one word to explain why their promised reviews are not forth-coming.

        Even here, at FQXi, there are those who allocate low ratings without one word of criticism -- despite my earnest requests for such!

        So, to illustrate some of that simplicity, let's turn to:

        B - the central section of your response:

        Starting at -- as you understand the problem -- but in my terms: Yes, Bell is clumsy with his lambda in that the lambdas in the particle duo pi and p'i are most certainly NOT the same as those in ANY OTHER pair!

        So we can slightly tighten your understanding: "Unless and until someone shows how a second particle-pair can be produced, with exactly the same generalised, unconstrained hidden variables that applied to the first particle-pair, then this is, as we say, unphysical, i.e., impossible."

        We then come to this; me trusting that I've edited it correctly -- in line with your thinking -- re which particles are involved:

        "Consider, as an example only, that lambda is a 'phase angle' of the wave function common to the first particle-pair. There may, of course exist an analogous phase angle in another entangled particle-pair. But there is no way to measure these phase angles (except statistically via 'weak' measurement) and no grounds to assume that they are equal from one particle-pair to the next."

        Yes! Thank you; though phase-angles of wave functions, per your example, are not here required per note (**) below.

        Then, with some editing, we have:

        "But this is implied by Bell's PAIRING of lambdas in 14(a) and 14(b) while -- clearly and correctly -- such lambdas -- specifically lambdai and lambdan+i -- CANNOT be so paired."

        Yes, with my thanks again. **BUT please be critical of my changes to your phrasings BECAUSE you appear to be rightly bridging my theory to QM -- a job I'm happy to leave to others -- and my understanding in that area will be improved via any valid amendments or criticism that you might make.

        With my thanks again; Gordon

        Gordon,

        You are correct, I shouldn't have called the settings particles, even though it is the fact that there are different particles that is the source of Bell's mistake. So I'll try to be very clear in my statements, and let's take it slow and easy. If you've reviewed Joy's blogs you know that the same equations gave rise to literally hundreds of comments. Very frustrating. Let's avoid that if possible. I also think at this point it's best not to confuse the discussion of Bell's math with Its and Bits. That can be pointed out later. Finally I don't want to jump to equation (22) and CHSH. I actually believe that if we do this carefully and correctly, you can nail Bell here. Let's try to establish one thing at a time without getting sidetracked and without bringing in anything other than necessary information.

        Let's establish first that Bell's (14b) is not equal to Bell's (14a).

        Unfortunately, to follow this, one must read your essay with a copy of Bell's paper on hand. But I think we can talk it through despite this awkward fact.

        We begin by noting that a and b are settings of the Stern Gerlach device (SGD) chosen by Alice and Bob respectively. Bell then pulls c out of a hat and uses it in place of b, and then subtracts P(a,b) - P(a,c), where P is the probability or expectation value of two variables, expressed as an integral over the hidden variable lambda. The difference of these two values is two integrals which he combines into one.

        For any experimental run only two settings are possible therefore this expression with three settings represents more than one run. But in Bell's (14a) representing the difference P(a,b) - P(a,c) he subtracts the integral forms of these using the same lambda for both the first and second experimental runs. This is generically valid in that lambda represents the 'hidden variable' of a candidate theory, but it is specifically invalid as there is no reason to believe that the specific lambda that determines P(a,b) in the first run is the same as the lambda that determines P(a,c) in the second run. Bell's integration variable lambda assumes they are the same in both runs.

        His earlier definition of the measurement A(a,lambda) representing the SGD setting a and parameter lambda defines A to always be plus or minus one. Thus the product A(x,lambda) A(x,lambda) is always +1 and Bell uses the fact that one can insert a factor of plus one into an equation without changing the equation. He uses this to go from (14a) to (14b). This is an incorrect step, as is made clear when you label the lambdas according to which run they represent.

        Bell claims that (14b) is equal to (14a). You point out that this is actually a new Bell inequality. QED.

        This is where I'd like to stop. Do you agree with the above? If so, I can put the equations in a .pdf file and link it to the comment. Then we can go on to further questions.

        If I've made a mistake, or stated something poorly, please correct me but please keep it as simple as possible.

        Edwin Eugene Klingman

        My last comment was to your previous one. In your last comment you note that Bell's pairing of lambdas is incorrect. Please confirm that the error occurs when he tries to use factor of +1 into (14a). That is, he assumes that

        A(x,lambda) A(x,lambda) = +1

        but he really has

        A(x,lambda) A(x,lambda') = ?

        Edwin Eugene Klingman

        Brief comments attached to extracts from yours:

        1. "Finally I don't want to jump to equation (22) and CHSH."

        No problem; my reference back to (22) simply returned us to the source of the particle family pwn+i that we called upon.

        2. "I actually believe that if we do this carefully and correctly, you can nail Bell here."

        Indeed and for sure: Bell falls here.

        3. "Unfortunately, to follow this, one must read your essay with a copy of Bell's paper on hand."

        Note that a copy of Bell (1964) is available via hyperlink from my references.

        4. "This is generically valid in that lambda represents the 'hidden variable' of a candidate theory, but it is specifically invalid as there is no reason to believe that the specific lambda that determines P(a,b) in the first run is the same as the lambda that determines P(a,c) in the second run. Bell's integration variable lambda assumes they are the same in both runs."

        In my terms: "This is specifically valid if one assumes naive realism but is generically invalid as we can find examples in reality where a lambda that determines P(a,b) in the first run is NOT the same as the lambda that determines P(a,c) in the second run."

        5. "In your last comment you note that Bell's pairing of lambdas is incorrect. Please confirm that the error occurs when he tries to use factor of +1 into (14a). That is, he assumes that

        A(x,lambda) A(x,lambda) = +1 but he really has A(x,lambda) A(x,lambda') = ?"

        ....

        NB: The error occurs as you say: when he tries to use a factor of +1 into (14a).

        BUT your notation and reasoning is not quite correct:

        Bell correctly knows that A(b,lambdai) A(b,lambdai) = +1 is a truism.

        But in (14b) he has placed this truism between A(a,lambdai) and A(c,lambdan+i).

        Many questions now arise. Chief amongst them:

        (a) What's happened to A(a,lambdan+i)?

        (b) How can he reduce the mess that remains?

        Clearly (a) is unphysical, and (b) -- reduction of the mess -- requires these impossibilities:

        A(b,lambdai) A(c,lambdan+i) = A(b,lambdai) A(c,lambdai).

        OR:

        A(b,lambdai) A(c,lambdan+i)) = A(b,lambdan+i) A(c,lambdan+i).

        Both are IMPOSSIBLE! QED.

        Please check this carefully against the better (fuller) picture given in (3)-(7). Many thanks; Gordon

        Ed, Here's a PS re my last post and

        item (a) -- What's happened to A(a,lambdan+i)? --

        (a) can also be treated (and is no doubt best treated) as the impossibility:

        A(a,lambdan+i) = A(a,lambdai)

        which is the approach taken in (3)-(7). See (7) specifically where this requirement appears as another impossibility for Bell's analysis to survive.

        All Bell's troubles being solved, in short, per (7)

        IFF: lambdan+i = lambdai ... ... !

        Gordon

        Gordon,

        Act1

        I rank your essay one of the best and thoughtful that I've read so far; surely a special commendation prize can be awarded for your Bio.

        In response to your request for critical comments, I suspect your lengthy Abstract and your humorous Bio is putting off people reading your essay, but encouraging them to rank it anyway. You have now have 8 member ratings and 4 public ratings but only 5 (including me) that left comments, after they discovered the hidden quality of your essay - so what did the other eight rate?

        It is admirable that you bring humour to research but the humour in your Bio is far more subtle than that in your correspondence with Peter. Yet I wonder how many will decode and see that no tWo draGons is replying in kind to ProJect snake.

        Joking aside, Act 2 follows.