Do Bob and Alice have a future? by Peter Jackson

Peter,

No matter how elaborate one's way of getting something wrong and calling it right, understanding the mathematical model makes the error objectively apparent.

"Again Tom you've missed that I've AGREED Bell is mathematically correct. i.e. he says that classically; "0 + 1 = 1" whereas QM proves the answer is '2'."

Bell's instrument is an inequality of relations in a quantum mechanical system, an analytical tool. The '2' you are thinking of, is the CHSH classically local upper bound of quantum correlations. Refining that for a quantum upper bound, Tsirelson derived 2\/2 (which was independently derived by Joy Christian). This bound is shown trivially true in a measurement of correlations in a simple 2-state quantum mechanical system (qubit) which is equivalent to the discrete observed states of a fair coin. The Tsirelson bound for a Bell inequality is a harder case: Bell's inequality is explicitly classical (it assumes the continuum), while CHSH is explicitly quantum (all outcomes are + 1, - 1, never 0).

"However he's also saying that applies to 'sides of a spinning coin". What I show is that there are 2 sides to each coin, each spinning the 'opposite' direction. So I classically reproduce 2 with 1+1."

Which doesn't mean anything, because you've forgotten that - 1 is the outcome of the opposite vector for a measured result of + 1. Your description only works with a two-headed coin.

Yes, I know from experience that you will think up some yet more elaborate way to obscure your error. You can't obscure it out of existence, however.

"I then also reproduce the cosine curve distribution by using a sphere not a coin, because rotational speed varies with latitude by the cosine of the angle from the equatorial plane to any point on that circumference. Now that's a fact which you can't 'disagree' with (or if you do please correct my geometry and dynamics)."

The issue has nothing to do with the continuous rotational speed of a 3 dimension sphere; it has to do with the discrete measured state of a 2-dimension coin (+ 1 or - 1). What your conclusion says is that observing a point on a sphere moving in one direction implies that it is moving at the same speed in the opposite direction at the antipodal point. This is trivially true in 3 dimensions (by Brouwer's fixed point theorem). However, observers at antipodal points cannot communicate with one another instantaneously; they will only ever measure their discrete states as "heads" by your program.

Only a higher dimension measurement framework allows the classical probability of a two-sided fair coin as a hidden variable solution to Bell's inequality. Joy's framework explains it as the nonzero torque of the parallelized 3-sphere, which is the analog of a 3-dimension sphere in 4 dimension space. The bottom line is, Bell's theorem already proves that the limit of classical measurement values in 3 dimension space begs the assumption of nonlocality which in turn begs linear superposition, quantum entanglement and a probabilistic measure space. One cannot derive a classical, i.e. continuous field, framework from a 3 dimension measurement framework -- and demonstrably, you don't.

Best,

Tom

Peter,

Since I don't treat time as an actual dimension, the issue of, "where does matter come from" isn't really a question. It exists. It doesn't go anywhere and so it doesn't have to come from anywhere. There is an equilibrium between positive and negative, thus balancing the curvature of the measure of space, but they can never cancel out, since space is also infinite. So there is that inherent tension between the absolute of space, pulling everything together and the infinity of space, the vacuum, pulling everything apart. Thus we have these convection cycles of expanding energy and contracting mass.

My response to your post on the contest thread;

"My point is that it's even far simpler than that. School children understand the principle of suction, as they drink milk from a straw and that is the essential principle by which the monetary system draws value out of every nook and cranny of the economy, since it functions as the economic circulatory system, forcing the rest of the economy to suction even more value out of social and environmental resources. This is why it was described as an octopus a hundred years ago and Matt Talibi refers to it as a giant vacuum squid, attached to the face of the economy, in Rolling Stone.

The point is that it is as much a necessary public utility as roads, courts, police, etc., but the way it is currently organized, it is the worst of all possible worlds for the larger economy and best for the financial sector, since with the way the central bank is organized, risks are public and rewards are private. Thus the taxpayer bailed out the banks and none of them went to jail.

Maybe your idea has far more cosmic significance, but this is what is one factor we can actually do something about the next time it all blows up. Though it seems doubtful few involved in this contest will be of much help."

Regards,

John

Peter,

I noticed that your comment to Doug Singleton may be misconstrued as suggesting photons are spin 1/2, which I know from the blogs you well understand isn't the case. I know your solution also covers spin 1 but suspect Doug missed that and you may have missed that he did so.

Daniel Dewey's comment above is similar. Co-incidentally I've just commented on Dan's essay. It seems lack of familiarity with fundamental physics hides the great problem of Unification from more than we realise. I agree it seriously confuses all areas from cosmology to neurons and electrons, i.e. 'everything'.

However clear and important your case is there are many who haven't understood that so the argument needs repeating. I see it as the human brains weakness of often only seeing immediate not consequential effect. I still think your essay gives the most massive direction and advance of any here. Don't loose heart!

I'm still surprised that's missed by so many but I do now better understand your view that it may be 2020 before man has the vision. Do you think that acceptance of that might make you a little too laconic in presenting the case?

I really hope your essay finishes strongly, for our sake as much as yours!

Judy

Hi Peter,

I thank you for the high rate which gave me.

I have gone over your essay and I am interested and impressed by your ideas and believe that it disserves a high rate. Unfortunately I will be quite busy these upcoming weeks and we will have to postpone our discussion. After the 12th of June I will give you a more detailed feedback regarding your essay.

Best regards,

Petio H

Very interesting essay, Peter. You did a great job of mirroring the science with human themes. I particularly liked the way you parallel a pair of particles with a pair of people. You used macroscopic objects to illustrate QM ideas beautifully.

The idea of spin within spin is fascinating and completely new to me, although I admit I'm not qualified to judge whether it gets around Bell's prohibition on local hidden variables. It wasn't quite clear to me what the implications for how we should steer the future would be, but resolving the conflict between QM and relativity would certainly be a huge breakthrough.

I very much enjoyed your essay in any case. Good luck in the contest!

Best,

Robert

"What Joy refers to as some kind of 'inherent torsion' of space is simply that gauged fractal sequence of helical motions."

No, Peter, that isn't it at all. The space of Joy's measurement framework is a simply connected topology. The nonvanishing torsion of a parallelized 3-sphere is analogous to what happens with a Mobius strip; what we see as a 1-sided manifold in 3 dimensions is 2-sided in 4 (quaternionic) dimensions, which is limited by 8 (octonionic) dimensions. This limit of factorizability in the division algebras is what permits the locally real result - a.b that guarantees sign reversibility in the dot product, something Bell-Aspect finds impossible to reproduce in the measure space of a multiply connected probabilistic framework. It takes an analytical framework of complete measurement functions continuous from the initial condition, in a coordinate-free and scale independent geometry, to have perfectly anticorrelated results independent of where and when an observer makes a measurement.

"The fact is that in any event the quantum correlations are perfectly reproduced with self apparent 3D+t geometry in the schema I describe."

I stayed out of it -- but as Richard Gill told you, there are many arbitrary ways of getting the cosine distribution. What Bell's theorem tells us, is that it is impossible to have non-arbitrary correlations of quantum values without assuming that 1/2 of the pair are nonlocal; i.e., not measured. In other words, the observer plays a role in the measurement, just as in your schema. In a space of complete measurement functions, the observer is independent of the initial condition (detector settings). All correlations are objective and local. In Bell-Aspect as well as in your method, the measure space is oriented by the observer; the orientation of Joy's framework is determined by the topology.

"I appreciate your devotion to Joy's description but please don't make the mistake of assuming that means there's no other way of describing nature."

That misses the meaning of 'foundational.' If quantum mechanics could be shown to be a complete theory (it can't be), nature is observer created, not objective and not locally real. There are many, many ways of showing this empirically, including your method. Only a mathematically complete theory can make true scientific predictions independent of the empirical result.

Best,

Tom

Dear Peter

Always I suspect that entanglementhas kas classic basis. In any case classical theories are those with infinite velocity of informstion propagation. I put 10 scores for your essay

My best regards

Miroslaw

Dear Peter,

I enjoy reading your essay especially your discussion on quantum entanglement.

It turns out that my theory Model Mechanics has a physical explanation for quantum entanglement as follows: A photon is a wave-packet in neighboring E-Strings in the E-Matrix. When a photon is chopped into two pieces these pieces become mirror images of each other and thus they become entangled as they travel in the opposite directions in these neighboring E-Strings.

I tried to give your essay a high rating but I was enable to do so. In fact I was not able to give anybody a rating at all. I will contact the administrator to correct the problem.

Regards,

Ken

Peter,

Thanks for your generous comments over at my essay. I have read, greatly enjoyed and scored your piece. Alas, it seems difficult to move someone's aggregate score I was hoping to get you the attention of proper physicists, unlike myself, you deserve.

If I understand your project, you are trying to find a way to return physics to the way it was understood before quantum weirdness appeared Einstein's "The most incomprehensible thing about the world is that it is comprehensible." Am I properly comprehending, if vastly oversimplifying, your project.

If my understanding is correct I would align that with my own essay in this way: human beings desire not only that the world be physically comprehensible but that it be morally comprehensible as well. We used to articulate this desire for comprehensibility through Utopian thought, that is, we used Utopia to both imagine what features a

morally comprehensible world would have or as a kind of contrast to the ways our own society failed to match our desire for comprehensibility. I'd like to see a revival of the tradition minus its former hubris and other flaws.

I wish you best of luck here and in getting your ideas across to the rest of the physics community. If you have not already done so your grading of my essay would be greatly appreciated.

Rick Searle

Thanks for the vote.

Thanks for the reference to Hodge .

My reference to EPR was to suggest it is founded on an assumption about the distinction between local and non-local. Suppose the plenum (space of general relativity) wave traveled at 10^7 time the speed of light. Well, at least fast enough so your characters were in local space. Matter still travels at less than $c$, a distinction is the Lorentz version of $c$ (the fastest MATTER can travel). Space (plenum in STOE) directs matter so it can do the entanglement thing.

Perhaps we should continue on the academia.edu link. Perhaps you would comment on my model as well.

Hodge

Acedemia link https://independent.academia.edu/HodgeJohn.

Dear Peter,

Interesting essay with the story a couple rethink about their relation once ;) and thank you for your comments at my thread.

When reading your essay and seeing the picture of 1/2 spin, I had an idea about 1d string which consists with 4d curled up space time. We usually imagine 2d space sheet is curled up as 1d string. Have you heard this approach to extra dimension in string theory? I think this can contain more information on 1d string.

thank you,

ryoji

Dear Peter,

As I had noted on my page, I very much enjoyed reading your essay, especially the style and imaginative presentation.

I must honestly confess I need more time and thought to understand the physics, and make an opinion about it. I am on the whole of course extremely sympathetic to the idea that we need a better understanding of quantum theory. Bohmian mechanism is a strong candidate, but how to be sure that it is right? And we still need a relativistic version of Bohmian mechanics. I am also very sympathetic to the idea of modifying quantum theory to explain the quantum measurement problem and the classical nature of macroscopic objects. Some of my own recent work has been concerned with developing a common interpretation for Einstein gravity and the Dirac equation. So I am very much with you with regard to seeking a better understanding of spin, but I am going to need more time to digest your work. I apologize that I am slow.

Kind regards,

Tejinder