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

Rick Padua

The molecules of a smoke bomb, like most molecules, exist in a singlet state, in this case at least prior to ignition. Is that good enough?

Thomas Ray

There may be something to the cloud thing. Mitchell Feigenbaum made his bones studying patterns in clouds and smoke. Deterministic chaos would be an interesting angle on the experimental problem.

Joy Christian

"The molecules of a smoke bomb, like most molecules, exist in a singlet state, in this case at least prior to ignition. Is that good enough?"

Perhaps. The idea is certainly worth investigating further. But whatever system is used, if there is sufficient control possible---either observational or experimental---then we should be able to see the strong correlation.

Richard Gill

Peter, let's do your experiment according to my protocol (the standard protocol) over this very forum thread. You will report in turn what goes on during one "move" of each of the three black boxes.They communicate by posting to the thread. The black boxes are called "Source", "Device A", "Device B". On the outside of each of the two boxes "A" and "B" there are buttons labelled, for A, "0" and "90", and for B, "45" and "135". There are red and green lights. S sends messages to A and B. I will press the buttons. You will flash the lights.

Let's take it one small step at a time.

Question 0: do you think it can be done, yes or no?

Questions 1, 2, 3 will be devoted to S, A, B. I'll ask you to do something, you'll do it, and describe to us on the forum what you did. For the purposes of Questions 2 and 3 we'll imagine you cloned into two persons in different places acting in parallel, rather than one person in serial. You take the questions one day at a time.

After three days, two buttons will have been pressed, two lights will have flashed.

Richard Gill

Using video footage of historical bomb explosions instead of making our own is a smart idea.

If we can find suitable material, the "wet" part of Joy's experiment has already been done. The dry part consists of analysing the video footage in order to produce two computer files consisting of directions of angular momentum of N pairs of fragments.

Finally we run this computer code, already authorized by Joy, on the two files:

http://rpubs.com/gill1109/Bet

It computes, exactly according to Joy's instructions, four correlations, and congratulates the winner of our bet.

Anyone like to guess the outcome?

Joy Christian

The results of the bomb experiment have been established since 2007 and recently confirmed in several event-by-event numerical simulations: http://rpubs.com/jjc/13965. But an actual experiment is still needed to teach a lesson or two to those who are too slow to understand basic physics, basic algebra, basic topology, and basic analysis.

Thomas Ray

" ... produce two computer files consisting of directions of angular momentum of N pairs of fragments."

My two cents -- sample groups of N exploded fragment pairs at different time scales.

t_epsilon, t_m, t_n ...

"Anyone like to guess the outcome?"

Any arbitrarily chosen t_m is isomorphic to t_n. That is, average spin angular momentum will correlate across scales, such that correlations are totally preserved as self-similar in all time intervals, as a function of the time dependent system state determined by the spinorial properties of space. t_epsilon is a nonzero interval of arbitrary practical measure, where the correlation function may be fixed in order to determine the system's initial condition, i.e., directions of spin.

The time interval maps may be graphically laid one atop the other, as many maps as desired. The correlation function for a significant number of interval overlays will correspond to the computer simulation.

Judy Nabb

Richard,

Now that's a little more impressive. I hope Peter will do so, in fact I even think I could now do so myself, after a fashion. But do beware of any hidden preconceptions you may be harbouring. I also think Peter may also need to go a little beyond your protocol if you are to grasp what the circumvention is really all about.

Beware asking someone to describe a peacock in flight but insisting it's in a budgerigar cage because your preconception sees no more than a parrot!

It is far more beautiful and elegant than a peacock. And simple.

Judy

Richard Gill

Joy Christian wrote " been established since 2007 and recently confirmed in several event-by-event numerical simulations: http://rpubs.com/jjc/13965. But an actual experiment is still needed to teach a lesson or two to those who are too slow to understand basic physics, basic algebra, basic topology, and basic analysis. ".

If Joy is right, we don't need an actual experiment to teach a lesson to slow-witted people like me. All Joy needs to do is to ask whoever programmed http://rpubs.com/jjc/13965 for him ((I believe it was Chantal Roth, who used my decoding of Pearle's 1970 detection loophole model) to use the program to generate two files each of N directions of angular momentum. I suggest spherical coordinates, and I suggest N = 10 000. Then we run Joy's bet-evaluation-program http://rpubs.com/gill1109/Bet to calculate four correlations, and inevitably award the prize to Joy. I apologize publicly to Dr. Christian and transfer 5 000 Euro to a charity of his choice. The science journalists love it, the blogosphere is abuzz. Joy gets the Nobel prize and quantum theory has to be rewritten.

Why are we waiting?

Richard Gill

Dear Judy

Good that you are back!

I hope I am free of misconceptions. The experiment/challenge I describe can, according to conventional quantum theory, be "won" by putting various devices from the quantum optics lab in the three black boxes, and connecting them by glass-fibre cables. I hope everyone agrees with that (i.e. agrees with the conventional theoretical prediction - you can have any opinion you like as to whether or not the quantum optics guys already did it. That's a different matter).

Peter says there's nothing mysterious about the four correlations - 0.7, +0.7, -0.7, - 0.7 or equivalently four coincidence probabilities (probability lights flash same colour) 0.15, 0.85, 0.15, 0.15. So he knows how to build the boxes with stuff out of his garage.

Fred Diether

Why do you think quantum theory would have to be rewritten? NOT! You really don't understand Joy's classical local realistic model at all, do you?

Fred

Richard Gill

PS the peacock in a cage metaphor is beautiful.

I think there is no cage implied by the experimental constraints. You might say "look the bird is blue, therefore it's a peacock". But budgerigars can be blue too. Peter's model needs to be tested fairly and stringently. It's not just the four numbers. It's also the situation in which those four numbers emerge.

Richard Gill

PS accidentally posted in wrong thread. Peacocks are for Judy and Peter.

Richard Gill

I meant, Fred, that quantum information theory, quantum computation, and all that would have to be thrown away. Qhantum entanglement would no longer be weird, no longer be quantum. The Aspect experiment and the Weihs experiment would have been superfluous. All based on grandiose misconceptions. Kept in place by a powerful elite who suppress the truth, that entanglement never existed.

Nobody understands Joy's theory except Joy. Nobody has been able to reproduce his theoretical calculations. Somehow, there's always a wong sign turning up somewhere, or the wrong universal quantifier, or the necessity to pick a point in an empty set. By now, nobody is trying any more.

Well: just a few people do understand the theory (Fred, Tom, Johnaton, ...). But they do not seem to be taking it anywhere. Where is a tutorial for undergraduate physics students? Youtube lectures? Why is the word not spreading? The young pick up new ideas, bide their time, and pull them out when the old generation's power is waning.

Richard Gill

If Joy is right, we don't need an actual experiment to teach a lesson to slow-witted people like me. All Joy needs to do is to ask the programmer of http://rpubs.com/jjc/, to use the program to generate two files each of N directions of angular momentum of N simulated pairs of spinning particles.

I suggest spherical coordinates, and I suggest N = 10 000.

Then we run Joy's bet-evaluation-program http://rpubs.com/gill1109/Bet to calculate four correlations and inevitably, since Joy is right, to award the prize to Joy.

I apologize publicly to Dr. Christian (and to Karl Hess, Bryan Sanctuary, Han Geurdes, Al Kraklauer, Luigi Accardi, Hans de Raedt, and several others), retract about 10 of my own favourite papers, and transfer 5 000 Euro to a charity of Joy's choice. A few years later Joy is granted the Nobel prize and all the text-books are rewritten.

What the hell are we waiting for?

Well one thing we are waiting for, is authorized and tested translations of http://rpubs.com/gill1109/Bet into Mathematica, Python, Java.

Richard Gill

Tom, I had noticed that. The hidden variable parity magically changes its sign from one page to another. Lucien Hardy verified one local computation by Joy, taking for granted the relations which Joy was using, locally. He did not check the global coherence because he is not interested in a model for the wrongly defined correlations. In other words, he thought Joy's theory was irrelevant.

Richard Gill

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

Agreed. Irrelevant. I do not derive any mathematics from any empirical model. I set out an experimental framework. Joy makes predictions. Bell makes predictions. The predictions differ. We do the experiment and find out who is right.

Joy Christian

Richard Gill wrote: "Tom, I had noticed that. The hidden variable parity magically changes its sign from one page to another. Lucien Hardy verified one local computation by Joy, taking for granted the relations which Joy was using, locally. He did not check the global coherence because he is not interested in a model for the wrongly defined correlations. In other words, he thought Joy's theory was irrelevant."

This is false propaganda. The facts are actually quite different. There is nothing magical or wrong about anything what I have written. It is elementary and well known algebra. This algebra has been checked by many knowledgeable people, most notably by Lucien Hardy. He actually did the calculation in considerable detail and checked everything in many different ways. Not because it is difficult or magical in any way, but because of all the bogus noise Richard Gill had thrown up about it. He checked and checked and checked and found nothing wrong. In fact he wondered what all the fuss was about. Then he made the comment I have quoted. He said: "[My critics] didn't understand that parity is the hidden variable in my model. But this was of course spotted at once by Bill Schnieder. Here is what Bill Schnieder wrote on Physics Forums long time ago:

"Richard Gill's refutation is not a new critique. It is essentially the same as one of the critiques advanced by a certain Florin Moldoveanu in the fall last year to which Joy Christian has already replied. It originates from a misunderstanding of Joy's framework which admittedly is not very easy to understand, especially for those who have blinders of one kind or another.

Gill thinks Joy is using a convoluted more difficult method to do a calculation and prefers a different method which ultimately leads him to a different result, not realizing/understanding that the calculation method Joy used is demanded by his framework. This is hardly a serious critique, not unlike his failed critique of Hess and Phillip. He should at least have read Joy's response to Moldoveanu which he apparently did not, since he does not cite or mention it. It's been available since October 2011, one-month after Moldoveanu posted his critique.

I remember Moldoveanu came here to boast about his critique and I pointed out his misunderstanding at the time in this thread:

"... you are missing the point because Joy Christian is not using handedness as a convention but as the hidden variable itself."

This is the same error Gill has made. See section (II) of Joy's response to Moldoveanu."

In fact Richard Gill's blunders are far more serious and basic than a simple oversight, as I have exposed in detail in the attached paper.Attachment #1: 93_Gill.pdf

Joy Christian

The simulations have already been done. As I have noted, the results of the bomb experiment have been established (theoretically) since 2007. They have also been recently confirmed in several event-by-event numerical simulations, such as this one. But an actual experiment is still needed to teach a lesson or two to those who are too slow to understand basic physics, basic algebra, basic topology, and basic analysis.

[deleted]

" ... a powerful elite who suppress the truth, that entanglement never existed."

How long did it take to establish that the luminiferous ether doesn't exist as a physical phenomenon?

"Nobody understands Joy's theory except Joy. Nobody has been able to reproduce his theoretical calculations."

Who understood Einstein relativity in the beginning?

"Somehow, there's always a wong sign turning up somewhere, or the wrong universal quantifier, or the necessity to pick a point in an empty set. By now, nobody is trying any more."

They should try first to understand why they get different results. If one starts off assuming he can square the circle with compass and straightedge and discovers it's impossible, perhaps one should wake up to the possibility that he is using the wrong tools in the wrong space.

"Well: just a few people do understand the theory (Fred, Tom, Johnaton, ...). But they do not seem to be taking it anywhere. Where is a tutorial for undergraduate physics students? Youtube lectures? Why is the word not spreading? The young pick up new ideas, bide their time, and pull them out when the old generation's power is waning."

It's going to happen, Richard. You just have a fifty year head start. It takes time to untangle, before one can reweave.

« Previous Page Next Page »