• Ultimate Reality
  • Classical Spheres, Division Algebras, and the Illusion of Quantum Non-locality:

Joy, I'm glad to hear that. I will take my copy of O'Shea's book home with me over the holidays, and perhaps comparing notes in the forum will shed more light for some, on the torsion issue. It wasn't easy for me to understand, and I like your distillation, "quantum correlations are a measure of torsion within our physical space." Right on.

All best,

Tom

Tom,

Probably because human nature and its subcategory of academic disciplines, does not go in reverse.

When a particular concept becomes accepted, subsequent work is built on and around it, so if someone is to later go back and with the hindsight of broader knowledge, point out where it is wrong, this doesn't simply put the model in reverse and effortlessly turn it back to what was the starting point. There is the combined inertia of all that other work radiating out from it.

What's the old saying; Open a can of worms and you need a bigger can to put them back in.

Models are closed, but reality is not.

Regards,

John M

Post returned approved, thank you:

" ... final nail in the coffin of theories seeking to recover quantum from classical mechanics ..."

etc.

"... if there is no reality independent of mind, quanta are not distinct natural phenomena; they are creations of discrete perception rather than elements of a continuous spacetime physics. Classical mechanics accommodates every one of your composability classes of positive, negative and zero spacetime curvature in each of its relativistically distinct and locally correlated quanta."

Is wave/particle duality being dismissed above?

James Putnam

Tom,

The concept of torsion in Riemannian geometry is less intuitive than that of curvature. I am attaching a paper which is somewhat technical, but it brings out the concept of torsion rather nicely.

Best,

JoyAttachment #1: 0805.0846.pdf

Tom,

As you may know, Lucien is a friend of mine and he is familiar with my work. In fact, we have had extensive discussions about it during past few months. He is thinking about my point of view.

Best,

Joy

Tom,

As you may know, Lucien is a friend of mine and he is familiar with my work. In fact, we have had extensive discussions about it during past few months. He is thinking about my point of view.

Best,

Joy

Hi Joy,

Hopefully the message that I am replying to or this one won't be deleted by your cyberstalker. I am wondering if you have had any pertinent discussions with Lucien about his 5th axiom and if so, anything thing important to mention here?

I have been thinking about his 5th axiom in relation to your work but so far I haven't thought of a way obtaining the continuous reversible transformation with your model. Thought I suspect it should be able to be done.

Best,

Fred

Hi Tom,

I'm not so sure measurement is a problem here. It's the idea that quantum probabilities can have a continuous transformation between pure states and classical not. Whether or not they can actually be measured.

Best,

Fred

Hi Fred,

I haven't had any discussion with Lucien about his axioms, but we have indeed discussed the role of probabilities in my framework versus that in the orthodox quantum theory. In this regard your question about continuous and reversible transition between states is a very important question. It essentially means deterministic time-evolution of classical expectation values, or probabilities, without any funny business of wave-function collapse. Since my local-realistic framework is entirely classical (without a measurement problem), in principle continuous and reversible transition between states is not a problem. But of course I must demonstrate this mathematically, which I haven't done as yet.

Best,

Joy

Hi Fred,

Ditto what Joy said.

I think that any classical program comes up against a built-in prejudice in favor of discontinuous particle reality. A continuous measurement function, however, is time dependent; i.e., continuous from the initial condition, such that one thinks of points of spacetime as particle manifestations after a measurement event is recorded. As Professor Bel in Joy's link of this thread concluded, "A bricklayer does not need a time-keeper as much as he needs a plumb line and a T-square, therefore we shall end this paper with some notes about the space geometry of space-time models."

The "bricks" of topology, IOW, are not what the wall is built of; continuous measurement results recorded by "the plumb line and the T-square" which reveal how the contours of the wall change over time, depend on where in the continuum the tools are applied. What Joy's simulation shows is that no matter what local configuration of the wall one chooses to plumb and square, the global state corresponds to it in a deterministic way. Conventional quantum theory says the local measurement *creates* the corresponding global state, without having to show or prove anything about it -- it's simply "nonlocal" and in a state of linear superposition before the measurement tools create the "reality."

Topology, though, is all about the global properties of spacetime -- which is where the torsion issue comes in, because non-vanishing torsion forces a self-similarity of quantum correlations independent of scale. As Prof. Kiehn explains:

"The mathematical ideas of torsion can be put into two general categories:

1. The category of geometric torsion produced by continuous deformation of a metric. The mathematical description has been called fiber bundle theory.

2. The category of topological torsion which does not depend upon metric. The mathematical description has been called twisted fiber bundle theory."

This obviously ties into Joy's explanation. Something that most find hard to understand about topology when first introduced to it, is that conventional ideas of distance, of metric measure, don't apply.

Sorry this is getting so long. Forgive me if I am distracting from the main message. However, I just want to add one more thing -- I have thought (and written) for a long time, that topological quantum field theory would be the next big thing in particle physics, because it takes the pressure off the notion of "particle" in favor of the continuous functions (albeit nonlocal) that string theory promises. Never until I was introduced to Joy Christian's measurement framework had I even conceived that a classical schema -- manifestly local -- would converge on these globally continuous functions.

In my Email today, I find a paper uploaded to academia.edu by Nathan Seiberg giving the strongest hint that local symmetries are dependent on global configuration space; i.e., local gauge symmetries whose curvature is everywhere zero, may be driven by a nonzero torsion in the global sysmmetry. This would account, I think, for the teleparalellism in Joy's framework, i.e., we might get a higher dimensional gauge theory in strictly *classical* terms. Manifestly local. Seiberg et al write in their introduction:

"The correlation functions of local operators in R4 depend only on the choice of the Lie algebra g of the gauge group G. They are independent of the global structure of G and the different choices of line operators. So naively these subtleties are of no interest for a four-dimensional physicist. However, we will argue that they have several important consequences. First, these subtleties affect the correlation functions of line operators in the theory. Therefore, they affect the phase structure of the theory on R4. Second, these subtleties become more dramatic when we compactify the theory. For example, we will see that the choices of G and of these parameters have important consequences even for local dynamics on R3 テ--S1. In particular, these different theories can have a different number of vacua (and, in supersymmetric theories, different Witten indices) on R3 テ-- S1. The simple reason for the difference between R4 and R3 テ-- S1 is that wrapping a line operator around the S1 leads to a local operator in R3. These issues play an important role in the relation between IR dualities of four dimensional gauge theories and those of three dimensional gauge theories."

I'm just thinking out loud here. At the least, 2014 is shaping up as a big year for theoretical physics, and I am betting that Joy's classical framework will play a central role.

All best,

Tom

  • [deleted]

Hi James,

"Is wave/particle duality being dismissed above?"

As a reasonable explanation for particle and wave behavior? No.

As a foundational theory of particle and wave behavior? Yes.

What I mean is, the wave function propagates information continuously, so we can derive discrete particle-like information from wavelike behavior in a measure of physical events in any finite interval. The converse is not true -- discrete particle trajectories do not give up information of their wavelike properties in finite time; therefore, wave and particle phenomena cannot be dual in the sense that one theory can be derived from the other.

Best,

Tom

Tom wrote;

"discrete particle trajectories do not give up information of their wavelike properties in finite time; therefore, wave and particle phenomenon cannot be dual in the sense that one theory can be derived from the other."

I would say that is so at present, but not impossible to propose. Consider that the wave-particle duality of EMR is consistently proven experimentally and that so is the curvature of starlight by large gravitational masses. We are simply missing something.

Given Maxwell invariance, for the sinusoidal curve evidenced by electromagnetic

response in detectors to occur, something has to be accelerating both positively and negatively in the span of each and every wave event. If velocity across the wave lambda were constant so would be the output of the receiver. The particle might well be in that wave event, but only momentarily. Time is local by SR, so would it not also be local to the discrete wave event?

It's okay, people, I got a good supply of burn ointment, cheers. John R. Cox

Hi, John R.,

I'm relocating my reply to the correct thread.

You write, "Consider that the wave-particle duality of EMR is consistently proven experimentally and that so is the curvature of starlight by large gravitational masses."

Wave-particle duality is an assumption of electromagnetic radiation, to explain the apparent paradox of light's simultaneous wave-like and particle-like behavior. It isn't a theory, such that one could thereby demonstrate that the behaviors are dual.

The curvature of light along the geodesic (Einstein lensing, or gravitational lensing) is large scale behavior explained by general relativity.

Best,

Tom

Getting back to Lucien Hardy's five reasonable axioms:

I think it's an important paper, and since it has been cited over 190 times since 2001, I doubt that I am alone, whether one agrees with Prof. Hardy's conclusions or not.

The insight that it takes to identify by a single word -- "continuous" -- the difference between classical probability and quantum probability as relates to mathematically reversible functions is on a level with that of David Hilbert himself in describing his (still open) sixth problem: "To treat in the same manner, by means of axioms, those physical sciences in which already today mathematics plays an important part; in the first rank are the theory of probabilities and mechanics."

Personally, I think there is as much chance of solving Hilbert's sixth problem, as there is of squaring the circle with compass and straightedge, and for the same reason:

Domain dependence. So I appreciate that Hardy proposes "reasonable" physical assumptions over an axiomatic *foundation* for physics (as in the way, e.g., we accept that most mathematics follows from ZF or ZFC). A continuous probability function -- allowing ergodicity, Poincare recurrence, and most important, special and general relativity -- can only be properly characterized as random, and not probabilistic.

Are continuous random events reversible? There is no way in principle that we can determine that they are; yet, Joy's framework shows remarkably that they don't *have* to be, in order for the world to be continuous, in accord with classical mechanics and in opposition to the assumption of a probabilistic quantum mechanics.

This question very much relates to Perelman's solution to the Poincare Conjecture (which follows from his proof of Thurston's geometrization conjecture).

In Donal O'Shea's popular account referenced earlier (*The Poincare Conjecture* 2007, Walker & Co.) O'Shea writes in his account of Perelman's lecture at the SUNY Stony Brook campus: "The mathematician patiently answered all questions from the audience after his lecture. Those questions came furiously. 'But that solution will blow up in finite time,' came a voice from the middle of the room. 'It doesn't matter,' replied Perelman; 'we can cut it and restart the flow.' Silence, then a couple of nods. The listeners were cautious, weighing what they heard. They would have to ponder his words for months to come, but this sounded promising."

This terse reply compactly explains why Joy Christian's measurement framework has to be simply connected -- topological continuity, not geometric curvature, is the foundation of correlated events. Because every singularity on the 3-sphere is extinguished in finite time, the flow of quantum events over the manifold (mathematically identical to the Ricci flow, as Bill Thurston surmised) are continuously correlated. The paralellized 3-sphere, then, plays a role as Joy has described answering a question in sci.physics.research: " ... parallelization renders the 3-sphere flat, in the sense that its Riemann curvature vanishes. But the torsion in a parallelized 3-sphere is not zero, and it is this non-zero torsion that is responsible for producing the EPR correlation. In other words, it is the *discipline of parallelization* within the manifold of all possible measurement results, *both actual as well as counterfactual*, that is responsible for producing the EPR correlation."

Completeness is satisfied independent of measure domain, and all is well.

Tom

Tom

Yes, of course, lensing is spatial curvature and the path of light is in a real sense still a straight line. It can get from source to receptor through time straight away but through space it has to go a bit further.

And yes, at present the dual characteristics of wave and particle form are not theoretically bound. I would argue that the greatest obstacle to development of theoretical rationalization is the fact that Lorentz invariance precludes a real material particle from being accelerated to 'c', by virtue of the common application obtaining computational 'infinite mass'. However, that is true if and only if the model to which the Lorentz Transform is applied assumes that the finite volume of the mass exists at a constant density across the volume and that density does not vary with acceleration, AND the mass is perfectly inelastic and so the only dimension which is altered in response to acceleration is that exponential decay of length along the line of acceleration. This modeling leaves mass the only parameter which computes as change with the diminishing of longitudinal dimension to zero at 'c' and hence, 'infinite mass'. CERN's infinite electric bill would still be infinite if the LT model assumes the mass be elastic and responding to acceleration like a ball of putty thrown against the wall while also undergoing an effective reduction of density in direct proportion to acceleration. The higher its speed the less responsive it would be to the magnetic field propelling it.

A model allowing more freedom that just mass and linear dimension variation in the LT could predicate the 3D wave form on the particle mass being a partition of Planck's Constant and the whole quantum exhibited as a coupled energy quantity accounting for rate of acceleration. Density characteristics of elastic response might explain subluminal mass quantities resisting acceleration due to a proportional density at core being relationally inelastic while not being perfectly so. Regions of a relative rest mass would then exhibit

characteristics of wavelike nature.

I quite recognize this to be naïve even in the Classical sense, but I'm happy with it. Now I must run errands, it's end of month regime. Best wishes to all,

where I come from its the season for spiritual renewal. jrc

Some of that comment is profoundly relevant Tom...

Indeed; that Thurston's geometrization leads to the proof of Poincare's conjecture - as shown by Perelman - gives us a profound insight into the space we live in. The proof should have, perhaps, triggered a mass investigation into the nature of the 3-sphere, but so far only a handful have gone down that road. And likewise; how many really grasp the importance or significance of paralellization? It solves the flatness and quantum correlations problems, but people already have the idea that those problems were solved elsewhere. There may come a time when teleparallel gravity will be seen as a simpler alternative to today's awkward models.

All the Best,

Jonathan

Tom,

"the torsion in a parallelized 3-sphere is ... responsible for producing the EPR correlation". Does a "flatted" (originally 3D) 2-sphere consist of redundant or of different layers? How do you describe the torsion you mentioned? What about a boundary circle/point t=0?

Eckard

Florin, Joy

I will give a lot of encouragement to both of you to drive nails into the coffin of both your theories which continue in the futile attempt to turn mathematics into physics and physics into mathematics. Perhaps then Galileo, Newton, Leibniz and even Einstein (who expressed his fear for what mathematicians were turning his theory into) would then rest more peacefully in their graves.

The only useful paragraph I find in Florin's paper is:

"John Wheeler famously stated "it from bit", but we can paraphrase and state that "it is what can generate a bit" and use this as a criterion for deciding the physical validity of composability algebras".

Unfortunately, the last essay contest did not allow us able to conclusively answer the question, What is an It fundamentally? What is a Bit fundamentally? And as Barbour stressed "though the binary digits 0 and 1 are abstract (i.e. mathematical), they must stand for something quintessentially concrete (i.e. physical)". To this I concur, and ask again what then is the concrete thing that 1 stands for?

And to Joy who tells Austin on Dec.16, 2013 @ 08:56 GMT that Akinbo is confused, posterity will decide whether it is I who says a line cannot exist without width or they who say their lines are concrete and exist despite being of zero width.

Akinbo

Eckard,

The math isn't the reality. You're a EE, think of it as a wiring diagram. The more details that can be eliminated, the clearer the description becomes, but you have to keep in mind the specific purpose, or it doesn't make sense.

I would imagine t=0 is the ultimate singularity. All reality and no map/diagram.

Regards,

John M