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

hihihi amen .it's cool they are civilized.lol

hihihi and now they are flying in a boeing for a conference about determinism of the locality, financed by who, still the government dear all ..REVOLUTION ? HIHIHIH LOL

but it's true it's cool these deterministic realisms......after all.

sorry for my parano(i see the word sphere and hop ...I take my meds), sincerely sorry , after rereading and without parano, it's a cool work, I like the determinism.Thus the 4 spheres are relevant...ps change the sense of one of these 4 spheres relativelly proportional....their rotations are the secret and their polarity and sort and synchro are with volumes also and the sense of rotation,main/center of our universe.

Say hello to han gueurdes it seems cool,

Steve

the volumes of entangled spheres can be inserted also, that becomes relevant there.

These 4 parall spheres(virtual or imaginaries) are relevant considering the 4 forces, but there is a problem aboutt the gravitational stability and the linearity. The fact that the volumes permit to differenciate even inside a virtual sphere of fields for example the forces become interesting considering the encoding with sort.and syncho.Now the sense of rotation seems the best explaination about this difefrence between mass and light and thus gravity and electromagnetism...the rotating volumes of entangled spheres and two main senses of Rotation shows the road.That explains many things this simple evidence.Now of course the real problem is the real inetractions between the 4 spheres and the external informations.It's a real puzzle of interations between rotating spheers and their fusion relativistically and thermodynamically proportional.The real ask is thus the volumes or this main senses, or the 2 or even more about the sortings and synchro.But it's an other question.How can we class thus the 4 interactions correctly....fascinating all that.The determinism is the sister of the rationalism after all.This Universe is wonderful and that evolves , they fuse still and always these spheres.....

4 spheres parall...and inside the entangled spheres and their pure finite serie, volumes correlated of course.That becomes relevant ....rotations helping.

Regards

Steve,parano but I evolve.

Dear Florin I am persuaded you'll change your point of vue about Bell's theorem....the determinisn is better, you are intelligent thus you shall change at my humble opinion.In all case you Th Lawrence Ray are skillings but you lack of rationalism about our real numbers and its continuity and discretness.You play so easely with maths but you make badly your domains of references, that's why your symmetries are imaginaries, the infinities also are bad used about the entropy and its distribution on the time constant of evolution due to motions(rotations).In fact it's an pure ocean of confusions.

Best Regards

Steve

Dear Joy,

I found a reference to your interest in Bell's Theorem in the fqxi discussions of Eugene Klingman's paper in the Digital/Analog essay contest. I have not read your papers yet but I wonder if you are aware of the ideas on the subject of my late friend Caroline Thompson . At the time she has flatly rejected my 2005 Beautiful Universe TOE on which my present fqxi paper is based, but in that paper I essentially explain away EQR and Bell by my premise of rejecting quantum probability as a physical reality - hence the two photons and electrons are identical and measurement differences in the sensors is responsible for subsequent effects.

With all best wishes, Vladimir

Dear Octonion,

You do not like the rationalism or what.The Bell's theorem is a pure joke for the pseudo part of the sciences community.In factt hey try to make an EPR vs Copen. but be sure that has no sense these violations of our rationalities.

You bad interpret the complexs and you bad interpret the pure realism. Joy Christian like the determinism and the pure road of R , it's essentil for the real understanding of the quantum finite systems and its pure correlated number.No but frankly Octonion, you confound maths and physics.I understand why you invent decoherences and hidden variables, just because you can't find the real variables and parameters inside a pure 3D.

On that good irrationalities....

Dear Christian, congratulations for your work.It's well and interesting.

Steve

My current essay analyzes Anton Zeilinger's logic and concludes that his logic fails if the state of one or more of the entangled particles changes en route from the source to the detector. Others seem to believe that there is no physical reason for the photon to change.

I de-emphasized this argument after becoming aware of Joy Christian's work implying Bell's calculations are in error, but, assuming Joy is wrong (which I do not) my argument still applies.

Yesterday I received Phys Rev Lett 106, 080404 (25 Feb 2011) Antonelli, Shtaif, and Brodsky's paper titled "Sudden Death of Entanglement Induced by Polarization Mode Dispersion" in which they note that the relation between the violation of non-locality and the sudden disappearance of entanglement are due to CHANGES OCCURRING EN ROUTE! The changes are due to the optical birefringence associated with the optical fibers over which the photons travel. They claim that understanding this relation to non-locality is of utmost importance and say "the arbitrary birefringence characterizing fiber-optic transmission produces a PREVIOUSLY UNOBSERVED combination of physical effects" [my emphasis].

They conclude that "The ultimate limits imposed by fiber birefringence to applications based on non-local properties of polarization entanglement were shown to be intriguingly related with the phenomenon of entanglement sudden death."

Without vouching for their calculations, I would point out that the concept of "change en route" as an argument against Zeilinger's (and others') logic is exactly what I proposed in my essay.

I still believe that Joy's work is correct, but I am pointing out here that there are other valid reasons to question non-locality.

Edwin Eugene Klingman

A brief addendum to my note above: I have constructed a new counterexample to Bell's theorem that may be of interest. It can be found here.

Joy Christian

anonymous, return at school , really, we understand why you do not put your real name....a comic , a kind of frustrated of the sciences community, a kind of pseudo, a kind of ironic scientist....now you are going to increase probably your vanity due to my post, probably you have hate also, but you can evolve and contemplate the 3D as a flower or the hopes of the wind or this and that.....but I doubt you can understande what is a real contemplation of creations with humility....thus vanity vs humility...of course we know the winner ...fortunally furthermore.

Steve

"quantum non-locality" is nothing but a make-belief of the topologically naive.

-- I wish you would explain this a bit more...

I have explained what I mean by that in some eight papers, the latest of which can be found here (see especially the last of its references).

Why, if you indeed have a local model, do you not answer the

Quantum Crackpot Randi Challenge that has been developed specifically for you and been published on Science2.0?

It has already been met.

I have discussed older versions Joy Christian's "disproof of Bell's inequality", for example here and in this thread.

A short look at the new papers suggests that nothing has changed.

A short look at his propaganda thread suggests that the prejudices and ignorance of Ilja Schmelzer have not changed, and that my work is not everyone's cup of tea.

Joy Christian

By the way, I have never claimed to have disproved an inequality. No one can disprove an inequality like 2 < 3.

Joy,

In relation to your work and to Michael Atiyah thesis, I wish to mention a preprint where a clear role is proposed for division and non-division alebras in describing the four fundamental forces of nature. Implementing the information paradigm (Wheeler), both gauge symmetries of the standard model and lorentz invariance emerge, from quantum-information processing, to compensate the arbitrary introduced by any computational basis on a closed quantum system.