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

pjackson

Richard,

Re; Analyser not influencing findings; "I suggest no such thing at all. Where did you get that idea????"

That's good. You suggested that my experiment may be invalidated at the interaction stage because the detector field could dictate the particle orientation, so spin direction finding. I rather suspected at the time you hadn't fully thought that one through. It's a very important mechanism to consistently apply, and also explains Aspects massive data anomalies.

It's implication is clearly that the output identity is not necessarily the input identity. i.e. the red anf green lights need not, classically AS WELL AS in QM, directly reflect any binary 'state' of the particle pre-arrival.

Single detector experiments have clearly proved that. Once that implication is embedded in place of the previous assumption the classical and physical reason for the distribution will become more visible and logical.

Best wishes.

Peter

Thomas Ray

"Tom does not believe in experiment."

This tempts me to reply, 'Richard does not believe in science.' I think it's more a matter, though, that he does not appreciate the importance to science, of an experiment being independent of the mathematical model to which it purports to correspond.

The correspondence theory of truth (Tarski) is the knowledge model that guarantees a closed logical judgement on physical phenomena which renders personal intepretations of experimental results superfluous.

pjackson

Richard,

An experiment in the hand is worth two in the bush of binary representational entanglement. I suggest there's no need to rely on simulation when we can experiment for real. (I don't know anyone with those coding skills anyway!)

I'm sure you're familiar with the rules of geometry. That's all you'll need. You committed to following the protocal so I'll set it out in full. The old cards required conceptualvisualisation skills for the leap to 3D so I've dropped those and employ a simple Bloch sphere. Two radial lines to points on the surface representing the two setting angles and giving the relative angle with the correct degrees of freedom.

It's simple beauty is unsurpassed. Bob and Alice are currently checking it out again experimentally. They should get back in time for the essay competition deadline tomorrow.

Jonathen,

I'm convinced you'll love this spectral sphere. It doesn't explode anything but myths.

Best wishes

Peter

Thomas Ray

To expand a little on Tarski's theory, the [link:plato.stanford.edu/entries/truth-correspondence/]Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy,[/link] always an excellent source on these matters, makes clear the conflict between Gill and me:

"The correspondence theory of truth is often associated with metaphysical realism. Its traditional competitors, coherentist, pragmatist, and verificationist theories of truth, are often associated with idealism, anti-realism, or relativism. In recent years, the traditional competitors have been virtually replaced (at least from publication-space) by deflationary theories of truth and, to a lesser extent, by the identity theory: they now lead the attack against correspondence theories."

Richard may call himself a realist. His method and opinions do not support that label.

Thomas Ray

"Tom: give your advice on the advisability of character assassination in scientific debate to Joy.

I criticise Joy's maths, he assassinates my character. This gives everyone iindirect information as to his reliability as a mathematian."

Richard, I don't excuse anyone, myself included, from untoward and sardonic remarks. I know the frustration of Joy's attempts to explain the topology of the parallelized 3-sphere to the uninitiated, however, because I share it. One wishes for infinite patience, but we live in a finite world.

And I do think it untoward to question Joy's 'reliability as a mathematician' based on criticizing a discrete probabilistic framework, when his measurement framework is in fact analytical.

There's a difference between those strawman arguments opposing Joy, and the kind of technical argument you make below:

"Karl Hess and Walter Philip were very upset when we found a forgotten index in their Bell counterexample, which sank it. Instead of withdrawing their PNAS paper they spread the rumour that the great Joe Doob had said that I was a third-rate statistician. Later, Karl teamed up with Hans de Raedt, who had perceptively noticed that the 'bug' could be converted into a feature of a detection-loophole based computer simulation."

Then you should know how it feels to have it rumoured that the great Abner Shimony thinks that you are a third rate mathematician.

"But I never got a word of thanks or apology."

Neither has Joy.

I used to regret that I could not have an academic career. At my advanced age, however, and having witnessed what my friends in academia have endured, I am much less regretful and much more grateful for the path I did take.

Richard Gill

Peter: I am not going play your card game or spin your disks. I am not even going to read the instructions. I am not going to program your physics. Get someone to do it for you. You can promise them 5 000 Euro. If it is all so simple, I advise you do a beginner's quick-start or tutorial in R or Mathematica or Python and write the few lines of code yourself. We are not living in the stone-age. Everyone can program, now.

Richard Gill

Actually, Joy thanked me for fixing Michel's simulation for him by decoding the Pearle (1970) paper, and he also thanked me for drawing the two pictures of the correlation surfaces, which we are going to use in the publicity campagne to get his experiment done. But je never thanks anyone for pointing out a mistake in his maths because he is completely infallible in that direction.

Richard Gill

Tom said "the importance to science, of an experiment being independent of the mathematical model to which it purports to correspond".

Exactly. This experiment is independent of the mathematical models which it is supposed to be testing. A multitude of different models. Quantum theory, Bell LHV, Christian LHV, Peter Jackson spinning coloured cards:

Alice and Bob are physics students. They are in different classrooms and in each classroom there is a black box, called "measuring device A" and "measuring device B" respectively. These two boxes are connected to another black box in another classroom, called "source", through some kind of cables, tunnels, or whatever, so that all three black boxes have means to share any information they like. Alice and Bob's boxes each have two buttons, and two lights. The buttons can be pressed, the lights may or may not flash. The communication channels can be switched on and off.

Alice's buttons are labelled "0" and "90". Bob's are labelled "45" and "135". The lights on the boxes are red and green.

Initially the communication channels are open.

The following is now repeated 10 000 times:

Step 1. The connections are severed.

Step 2. Alice presses the button marked "0" or the button marked "90"; Bob presses the button marked "45" or the button marked "135". After Alice and Bob have each pressed a button, a red or a green light flashes on their box. They record their input and their output.

Step 3. The connections between the three black boxes are restored.

Assume that in each of the 10 000 runs or trials, Alice and Bob each choose their button completely at random. Imagine that we get to see the following statistics, each of course based on a disjoint subset of about 2 500 runs:

Prob(lights flash same colour | 0, 45) = ?

Prob(lights flash same colour | 0, 135) = ?

Prob(lights flash same colour | 90, 45) = ?

Prob(lights flash same colour | 90, 135) = ?

Richard Gill

Peter, the *experiment* I describe is independent of any *theory* of what the hell might be going on inside those black boxes. That's why I called them black boxes. You seem to say that you can build them. I don't believe you.

But you can prove that you are right, by learning a bit of programming, and simulating the experiment. Post it on internet then everyone can at last understand what you are talking about and everyone can see if you are right or wrong.

Thomas Ray

"This experiment is independent of the mathematical models which it is supposed to be testing."

No, it demonstrably is not. You are testing an empirical model, not a mathematical theory.

Richard Gill

Physical theories expressed in mathematics make empirical predictions.

I am testing a bunch of different theories by comparing the result of experiment to the empirical predictions coming from the different theories.

Joy Christian

I continue to be baffled why Richard Gill is unable to see his mathematical and conceptual blunders after they have been pointed out to him so many times by so many people. Here is how Lucien Hardy put it after recognizing Richard Gill's main error: "...they didn't understand that parity is the hidden variable in your model." What Lucien understood within hours, Richard Gill has not been able to fathom for years. I wonder why. In fact, I have systematically debunked all of the bogus and misguided claims made against my local realistic framework by several uninformed and unqualified individuals. What these individuals do is replace my model X with its grossly distorted misrepresentation Y, and then pretend---by refuting their own distortion Y (by resorting to deliberate dishonesty or out of sheer incompetence)---that they have undermined my actual model X. Such a dishonest strategy is an insult to scientific process. For more details of my argument, please visit my blog and evaluate all the evidence yourself.

Thomas Ray

"But he never thanks anyone for pointing out a mistake in his maths because he is completely infallible in that direction."

Joy is not infallibale, Richard; he's just not wrong about the topology. What an impossible position to be in, forced to defend oneself against criticism that does not even pertain to the mathematics that one has crafted.

It's quite telling that no critic even mentions "parallelized 3-sphere." What, in fact, does that mean to you?

Thomas Ray

"Physical theories expressed in mathematics make empirical predictions."

No argument there. When the mathematics is derived from the empirical model, however, the predictions are self fulfilling, and not independent of the model.

Jonathan Dickau

Thank You Joy,

I think it is perhaps hasty to conclude that people lack the mental capacity, as it is more likely a well-worn groove that catches the wheels of the mind when traversing a certain stretch. People value certainty, and they are fiercely compelled by society to maintain an air of certainty - if they hope to assume or maintain a role as an expert. While true understanding requires one to uplevel or question beliefs in supposed facts, the vast majority do not seek knowledge for its own sake, but rather to establish a position of strength from which their expertise will be seen as valuable to others.

Someone like myself does not need to maintain an appearance of knowing all the answers cold, and I can therefore approach certain things with an open eyed and childlike sense of wonder. I have no entrenched position to defend, you see, and only a healthy curiosity to learn more and understand things better. I am the eternal beginner, because I never will assume I understand things well, but rather I'm always trying to see past the common misconceptions and learn what the universe and nature are actually telling us.

All the Best,

Jonathan

Thomas Ray

"Here is how Lucien Hardy put it after recognizing Richard Gill's main error: '...they didn't understand that parity is the hidden variable in your model.'"

I don't know that I had heard it put that way before. It is right on, however.

I haven't been able to get anywhere toward publishing my own research into analytical consequences of continuous function arithmetic models. Maybe there's an obvious error that I don't see. If so, referees have not made it known.

What is not in error, though, is that in "... the behavior of pairs of distinct prime integers, and therefore to the odd parity of R , a complete map of evens to odds on the plane is a continuous function that preserves parity at every point of the line except unity." This rules out Hilbert space arithmetic models of quantum mechanics as parity-preserving. By implication, it rules out R^3 on the 2-sphere manifold as parity preserving. What's left is the compactification of R^3 into a point at infinity on the S^3 manifold. Given the arithmetic theorem that any point can simultaneously map to any set of points provided it is far enough away, your claim of a space of all possible measurement results is validated, and the framework is parity preserving.

Thomas Ray

" ... the vast majority do not seek knowledge for its own sake, but rather to establish a position of strength from which their expertise will be seen as valuable to others."

A quotable truism that rates with the best. Well said, Jonathan.

pjackson

Richard,

If we want the right to decry, we have to earn it. You want it for free. You can't do a 'three monkeys' impression; not looking or hearing things not on your own terms, and still expect respect. Computer coding may be common in your field but I've got shocking news for you Richard ; in the rest of the big world out here it is not!

Are you telling my you're incapable of basic comprehension and geometry? You say you'll follow the protocol, I agree to take your challenge, then you about face with more impossible demands. That's below acceptable standards and I think you know that. It'd be a sad world if only made of or validated by computers!

I can show you a mechanism, not invoking any 'new' science of unknown effects just assembling present ones properly, that takes the inputs you specify and classically outputs the cos^2 distribution which our ignorance calls 'quantum correlations'. Those understanding it include two girls, Georgina and Judy, yet you refuse to even look! but continue to opinionise none the less. We'll surely stay in that ignorance all the time hands continue covering eyes.

Attitudes can be very poor in physics, I hope yours don't truly represents your own field because physics needs good examples not poorer ones.

I'm truly disappointed in you Richard. Also not retracting your insult to Judy's intelligence seems to have turned her away. If you agree to study the solution I'm very happy to post it for you, unless you really do prefer to behave like a charlatan.

Peter

Rick Padua

Why only nuclear blasts? Why not puffs of smoke (colored, if desired) in an enclosed area?

Joy Christian

"Why only nuclear blasts? Why not puffs of smoke (colored, if desired) in an enclosed area?"

Sure. As Fred Diether suggested elsewhere, even ordinary bomb explosions would do.

Puffs of smoke won't work, however, because the initial state of the "bomb" must be a singlet state. That is to say, the total spin angular momentum of the bomb must remain zero: S_1 S_2 = 0. Only then we could hope to see the strong correlation. I think that would be difficult to ensure with puffs of smoke.

« Previous Page Next Page »