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

Thomas Ray

Last was mine.

Thomas Ray

"I do not derive any mathematics from any empirical model. I set out an experimental framework."

How does your experimental framework differ from the empirical model? How does your mathematics differ from the experimental framework?

pjackson

Richard,

Thank you. Judy too. My garage has some optics kit too so no problem at all. But I'd point out the important subtlety between Judy's 'pre-' and your 'mis' conceptions. All brains work off 'pre'conceptions. The trick seems to be to recognise and remember that, which seems very hard for many in science. Thus the rut physics is in, and the SR/QM chasm.

I do like Judy'd budgy cage and I have to say Richard that my money is still on you screaming "No! No! you can't do that it by-passes the budgy cage!". Escaping and circumventing the cage is what it's all about. Seeing that is easy. Doing it is what's important! That's the test, to properly test whatever arises, however different to 'expectations'.

So yes, My black box geometrically produces 0.85 and 0.15 (and up to 0.92, and ~0.13-0.16 from the subjective experiment itself).

As we're a bit buried here what I'll do is start a fresh string with some bold caps visible as a marker so it's easy to locate as we develop the solution.

I'll start off repeating possibly the most important fundamental axiom and hypothesis; That there's no such thing as a monopole: 'Quantum spin 1/2' is derived classically, so involves (gauged) angular momentum, and ALL angular momentum is dipole. But we can only ever 'measure' a north OR south pole which provides a new description for 'superposed' spin states. Split and sent off in opposite directions the north pole 'leads the way' one way, the south the other. From there the ontology constructs itself;

See you downstairs.

Best wishes

Peter

(PS Judy do please point out if I seem to go off track. - I'm serious! thanks)

Richard Gill

There is no mathematics in my framework. Peter (or Joy) is to provide some boxes with, on the outside, two buttons which can be pressed and two lights which can light up. Our assistants are going to keep a tally of which button was pressed and which light flashed. The data will go into an Excel spreadheet which will calculate four relative frequencies.

Peter, Joy, Bell; and Tom, Dick and Harry all have theories of what those relative frequencies will be, depending on what is in the boxes and how they are connected to one another. I don't have a theory. I just have an opinion, which I have expressed numerous times. And I put my money where my mouth is. 5000 Euro's says neither Peter nor Joy can get those four relative frequencies outside of +/- 0.6 (three negative, one positive) when N is 10 000.

What do you think, Tom?

Thomas Ray

" ... the SR/QM chasm."

Relativistic QM is perfectly compatible with special relativity. The chasm is between general relativity and quantum mechanics.

Thomas Ray

"There is no mathematics in my framework."

Then how do you propose to make any prediction independent of the empirical model?

Richard Gill

Peter: I have no idea what a monopole is, and I don't care.

I do care about the budgy cage, ie the framework I outlined (boxes, buttons, lights, connections). QM can "win the bet" even though confined to the budgy cage, so the budgy cage, though limiting your possible actions a lot, is perfectly fair. There is no negotiation possible on that point. Joy accepts the budgy cage with respect to his experiment. You must accept the same limitations. If you can't operate your spinning disks and packs of cards within the confines of the cage, then everything is explained.

Richard Gill

Joy says the simulations are done. Good, then he can submit the two computer files of directions, and we can evaluate the winner, acording to the protocol agreed by Joy himself, today! What the hell are we waiting for?

Joy likes repeating himself, so I will follow his example:

"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 = 10 000 directions of angular momentum of N simulated pairs of spinning particles. Then we run Joy's own approved bet-evaluation-program http://rpubs.com/gill1109/Bet to calculate four correlations and inevitably, since Joy is right, to declare Joy the winner. I then moreover apologize publicly to Dr. Christian (and several others), retract about 10 of my own favourite papers, and transfer 5 000 Euro to a charity of Joy's choice. I oredict that a few years later Joy is granted the Nobel prize and all the text-books are rewritten. What the hell are we waiting for?"

Richard Gill

I make no prediction.

Joy makes two predictions: (a) concerning what happens when we transpose the boxes story to his spinning ball experiment, and (b) when we put computers in the boxes, simulating his model according to Chantal Roth and my fusion of Michel Fodje's and Philip Pearle's detection loophole model.

Peter makes a prediction concerning what happens when inside the boxes are students with his coloured cards and spinning wheels.

Bell makes a prediction.

Don't ask me how they do it. I think I know Joy's simulation model better than he does (I derived the crucial formula and I wrote Joy's R code!). I could tell Joy a thing or to about what that program can and cannot do, but he doesn't want to know. Interesting insight into the mind of an Einstein, don't you think?

I just make a bet on whose prediction will come out. I put my money on Bell. If no-one wants to know why, that's fine by me.

pjackson

Richard,

This is then the dual experiment to test the hypothesis. THE BOLD CAPS ARE TO ACT AS A MARKER TO LOCATE THE STRING. MY ESSAY, NEARLY DONE, CONSIDERS THE FUTURE OF BOB, ALICE, AND SCIENCE, SO INCLUDES SOME HELPFUL DIAGRAMS. FIRST I RE-POST THE INITIAL PARAGRAPH FROM MY RESPONSE FROM SOMEWHERE ABOVE. (under Fred; - April 6th).

"I'll start off repeating possibly the most important fundamental axiom and hypothesis; That there's no such thing as a monopole: 'Quantum spin 1/2' is derived classically, so involves (gauged) angular momentum, and ALL angular momentum is dipole. But we can only ever 'measure' a north OR south pole which provides a new description for 'superposed' spin states. Split and sent off in opposite directions the north pole 'leads the way' one way, the south the other. From there the ontology constructs itself;"

The duality is of many things, experimentally we have both the real particle and interaction mechanism in the box, then the (also 'real') subjective and repeatable classroom experiment classically reproducing the quantum correlations. I still feel we may find some connection with Joy's work (his seems all maths, mine is everything else) but I'm sure you won't let that taint you reactions (Judy may have a whip ready!)

So lets kick off.

An independent isolated tosser off in some other country out of touch, tosses (rotates it's axis) a spinning (ON it's axis) double thick chocolate coin or donut, or let's use a spherooid. It can be spinning either way with one pole facing each side. He then splits it in half and sends one half left and one right, on the polar axis.

Now the act of splitting it has NOT of course removed the clockwise from the anti clockwise spin. Both halves retain both! Spin 'superposition' is inseparable Chirality and non mirror symmetric, as described in my paper. (Propagation along the spin axis gives OAM 'helicity').

You may choose if clockwise is heading for Bob or Alice if you wish, and give any further instructions. I hope a perspex box is ok?

Best wishes

Peter

Richard Gill

Peter I don't need to read any of this, and I am not going to read any of this.

*You* need to answer Question 1 in round 1

Question 1: What information does the Source box (classroom) send to the Alice box (classroom) in round 1?

If you like, you can tell me also what kind of card trick or other conjuring trick you do to make that piece of information. That will be useful for your programmer! In round 2 I'll be able to answer question 1 on your behalf, and you can check I got it right.

When you've answered all that I'll ask Question 2. It will concern what the Alice box would do if I pressed button "0 degrees" and what the Alice box would do if I pressed button "90 degrees".

You wanted me to write your computer programs for you, right?

So I'm taking it step by step and only listening to what I need to know in order to encode your physical model in a modern computer language. And the budgerigar is sticking in its cage.

Richard Gill

PS I think, Peter, you missed this:

"I have no idea what a monopole is, and I don't care. I do care about the budgy cage, ie the framework I outlined (boxes, buttons, lights, connections). QM can "win the bet" even though confined to the budgy cage, so the budgy cage, though limiting your possible actions a lot, is perfectly fair. There is no negotiation possible on that point. Joy accepts the budgy cage with respect to his experiment. You must accept the same limitations. If you can't operate your spinning disks and packs of cards within the confines of the cage, then everything is explained."

For you the black boxes are made of transparent perspex, fine. We are going to work together to encode what happens in each box in transparent R code. You get to learn R. I get to learn your physics.

Judy Nabb

Richard,

Peacocks don't fit into the budgie cages of our minds. The cage is not so much of your experimental limits but of all our expectations (preconceptions). I hope you prove the open mindedness you claim. You unfortunately didn't demonstrate it when wrongly accusing me of 'talking nonsense' so I had to to raise the matter to help your awareness of that.

I think your terms look reasonable, they repesent the room in the mansion - although peacocks are better in the open air. The cage is more de Bono's box.

I read Peters words as already answering your Q1, but hope he'll repeat it in your more clinical terms (nudge to PJ!).

Joy,

You too can't resist insults and proofs of closed mindedness. If you bother to study with intellect not scorn I'm sure you'll find Peters work anything but "just a distraction". Also consider how you'd feel if accused of not existing and really being Tom.

I have entered an essay (only just!) on my own medical specialism which I'm sure Peter knows nothing about. I'm a little shocked by the behavioural and intellectual standards of many outwith my field (they can be bad enough in it).

I also do work in FE and am reminded far more of students there than doctoral or post docs. I hope 'raising' the matter of standards them may help raise them.

Judy

pjackson

Richard,

"Question 1: What information does the Source box (classroom) send to the Alice box (classroom) in round 1?"

The information consists of a reversible dipole rotation (common orbital angular momentum). It is a 'quanta' of energy which has both north and south poles (equivalent to 'superposed' clockwise and anticlockwise spin directions) and ALL degrees of freedom of rotation of it's axis (as a gyroscope). That's important.

The Source box starts with a single quanta, which may (at random) have it's clockwise spin to the right and anti-clockwise to the left, or vice versa. It is then split in half, and the right half sent to the right and left half to the left.

The subtly not to be forgotten is that the 'back' of each (where cut through) now assumes the opposite rotation in each case. OBSERVER DEPENDENCE is thereby retained (looking from the back you see the other pole - which is 'non mirror symmetric').

If that's tricky to model it doesn't matter too much for now as we can assume the propagation axis is conserved on the journey, but electron spin 'flip' with EM field reversal will be an important paradigm to include for.

[A 'monopole' is a theoretical nonsense - a north pole without a south, or vice versa].

The geometric derivation will reproduce the QM correlations to any number of decm imal places you wish. The subjective 'classroom experiment' model of the process is approximate; we have the disc with non mirror symmetric Head/Tails sides with colours spectrum from Green 1 to Red -1, arriving Head or Tails first at random.

Questions? Or Q2?

Judy,

Thank you. Ignore my friends they don't know what they do. I look forward to your essay. I only just got mine done in time too.

Best wishes

Peter

Richard Gill

Ha, Joy has moved the goalposts! It seems Michel has got him badly scared. Joy had previously accepted my R script to analyse the data coming out of the experiment, but now he backs off, Mihel warned him. He is learning something. I'll revise the R script on the lines which Michel proposed.

OK, so we randomly partition the two sets of N directions into four subsets, so that each correlation, separately, is calculated on a separate subset. I already asked Michel to perform a simulation of the experiment in that way, but he refused, since he already knows everything he needs to know. He said it would be OK. I don't need simulations since I know a little something about probability and statistics.

I do wonder why anyone thinks that a correlation computed on N observations, and a correlation computed on a random sample of about one quarter of them, would be markedly different. Why it would jump from 0.5 to 0.7. Ah, that's the magic of S^3 for you. Of course, just by chance, it could. The only bound we can give on each correlation is +/- 1, and the only bound we can give on CHSH is +/- 4. It's good that these things have been clarified at last., thanks to the keen insight of Michel Fodje. Any chit-chat about violation of the CHSH bound has been consigned to the rubbish bin of history. Aspect and Weihs might have well have stayed at home.

Richard Gill

Peter, you are talking to a dumb programmer. How do I program a di-whatsit being sent fom S to A? We are still stuck at Question 1.

pjackson

Richard,

You're the programmer not me! If Earth's spin can't be simply modelled then isn't the programme inadequate?

Let's just take Earth, but propagating through space towards A (B), [or B (A)] on it's spin axis with it's North (South) pole leading the way.

Another simple model is a pair of gyroscopes. Point one axis left, one right, spin them both the same way (top away OR towards you) randomly, and send them off on their opposite paths.

To be of any validity at all the model must faithfully model nature. A gyroscopes axis rotates freely in all directions, (i.e. take hold of the poles and turn them in space to face any way you wish) so at the end of the line that will be required (i.e. take a look at Weihs report of voltage dependent axis rotation).

That's what I mean by thinking outside the (black) box (Judith's budgy cage). Over simplification simply invalidates.

Best wishes.

Peter

John Cox

Judy,

Hope you had a safe journey, from what Dear Wiki Says you're well placed to visit the theoretic and experimental sides in this discussion. Also your expertise in genetics incorporates large statistical databases of the sort which can be accessed in the effort to distinguish where quantum predictions, while concise, often fail in the longer term environmental impact studies.

What strikes me about Joy's methodology is that it doesn't loose the least elements in topology, S^0 carries through in the form of 4pi as a common time metric, and so allows correlation between the several distinct dimensionalities in which SR, QM, and GR are each operationally invariant. The vector space of QM then has a relationship within the measurement structure, which is admittedly an ad hoc artifact of human intellect. While derived from combing out the snags in Bell's Theorem, it is not dependent on Bell, which is where I see both Richard and Pete unobservant of the real topic under discussion. Rather it is very much a Rosetta Stone relating spatial measurement to the parameters specified in each disparite discipline.

Jonathan's comments of around April 16, offer an easy visualization of how the topological framework provides a vehicle to carry the least element of time span interval into a spatial realism, such that vector values can be described dynamically within a prescribed region of universal space. It is not trig, the elements are simply (not in a complex manner) connected in the first place. The picture of vectors ballooning in metamorphis gives a tantalizing peek at a possibility of deterministically tracing the possible branchings by 4D, in the swamp of Feynman diagrams continually being sampled in the marshlands of the exclusion zone of heaviest contamination surrounding the carcass of the Unit4 Chernobyl reactor, just upstream from Kiev. About half a dozen years ago I viewed a program about surveys of flora there which showed that the projections of genetic mutation as prescribed by what QM says happened, largely fall short of the expectation, and some parameters showed mutations about 80 percent greater than predicted. We just always here that QM always gives an answer, we seldom here that it isn't always the correct one. jrc

Richard Gill

Question 1: What information does the Source box (classroom) send to the Alice box (classroom) in round 1?

Judy Nabb

John,

If anything has all the colours of a peacock it was your last post! I see ALL our (limited views as) "ad hoc artifacts of human intellect", and that viewing QM and Bell as self-contained and complete is our great error.

I don't agree that Peter's doing that, quite the reverse, but it still seems Richard may be locked into that (black?) box. I hope not, but find the majority of scientists are. My essay concludes that of all the possibilities in eugenics the missing one is the most important; the protocols we employ in using our brain. How do we promote the evolution of greater human intellect. The matter is written off by most physicists as philosophy, so they resolutely focus on ever smaller 'boxes'!.

That's why those like you and Peter inspire me. Understanding but not constrained by the artefact paradigms. I think Peter is only focussing on Richards (Bell based) proposition to show that the greater answer, using different assumptions, works in all cases. I think it can be modelled but that some stuck in the box will shout 'foul' when the solution circumvents the box.

What I'm not sure of is whether Richards code can model nature. It may be over-simplistic. Shortcomings seems to have been exposed at step 1. It's not my discipline but it's a problem I've seen a lot. The programmers insist they can model whatever's needed, but when you show them how biology really works, so what's really needed, they often find their assertions were wrong. That's very much like human intuition; Invariably false or incomplete.

I always think back to that computer the size of the universe needed to fully model it. As Peter has written, we can only 'chase down' uncertainty to smaller gauges at present. I read some of last years essays when thinking about mine, many seem to agree. McHarris? on Chaos theory was excellent.

Judy

Richard Gill

Judy, I am only trying to help Peter to program his own ideas.

I insist that focus on reproducing just four correlations, not a whole correlation surface. What's wrong with that?

Peter cannot even tell his programmer what information is sent from the source to the measurement stations. He wants his programmer to do his physics for him. But he said he had a classroom simulation with cards and spinning coloured disks. Why can't he tell his programmer what is sent from the source to the measurement stations, using the language of decks of colourful cards and colourful spinning disks?

When people in quantum optics do the analogous experiments, they set up some boxes in the lab. There is a box where some photons are generated. They go through glass fibre cables to some detectors. I want Peter to explain his class-room experiment following strictly the analogy of source, measurement stations, measurement settings which are chosen "outside" of the boxes.

Richard Gill

Question 1: What information does the Source box (classroom) send to the Alice box (classroom) in round 1?

John Cox

Judy,

I quite agree that all our science is ad hoc, we simply have to start somewhere. Peter and I have discussed at some length, his DFM construct, and I am in agreement with him that CHSH experiments can only be clues to the physical behavior of what we generically call energy. That is the classical model of experiment, and I personally would like an appropriate forum blog on the topic. That does not mean that if I were to develop a classical model that would mimic results of CHSH, that it would say anything about why QM obtains those results. I would have a LHV model which might discover what some variable might be, and thus make it a non-hidden parameter. My own prejudice is that we do not live in a perfect universe, sometimes, some thing, just doesn't happen. Like taking the divider grid out of a beer case and pulling a bottle, then we have random action among a set of discrete objects.

One of my feathers in a previous post was ambiguous, the expectation I was referring to was that of the averages of samples examined in the survey as opposed to the prior projected averaging. jrc

pjackson

Richard,

"What information..". OK, I can simplify it; A Dipole, which is the most basic form of two charges, and - orbiting each other as a binary system. They propagate along their axis so form clockwise or anti-clockwise quanta of Orbiting Angular Momentum (randomly). There's a distribution between the and -, with zero half way between.

I was trying to pre-empt any later objections by closely modelling the physics. On arrival the interaction will give an output distribution dependent on the detector field electron orientation, so bear in mind that each 'state' is accompanied by the opposite state, just as Earth clockwise spin is accompanied by it's anti-clockwise spin. Which way is 'found' then depends only on 1, which way was it spinning to start with on the x axis, and 2 which way it's heading. If we turn the axis 180 degrees the 'up' becomes 'down'. As with Earth, there is also a distribution which tends to zero at the equator. Bear that in mind, but for simplicity, for now the random 'superposition' will do.

The parallel classroom experiment analogy models the dipole as colours; Green = , Red = -. and is a disc (coin) either way up, non mirror symmetric as in reality - so red behind green. (That will prove not to matter).

So we have 'spin up' (distribution 0-1). Just one will do.

Can the programme do that ok?

Thanks

Peter

PS, I didn't read Judy's comment as referring to how many correlations. It's certainly no problem to me. Judy understands the analyser electrons, orientated by the setting, are what dictates the output "energy level" of the interaction. It's the recognition and acceptance of that fundamentally new possibility which requires 'thinking outside the box'. It's also letting go of the; 'artifact of human intellect' John described, to find new and better foundations.

Richard Gill

Peter, I can't program anything if you don't tell me what to do. The word "dipole" is not in my vocabulary. I do have some intuitive grasp of packs of cards or spinning disks.

You tell me what information goes from the source to Alice's measurement station. In plain (non-technical) English. House, town and garden words. Can you do that?

Richard Gill

Are you telling me (in the classroom analogy) that the message sent from the source to Alice's classroom is a coin placed in a box, heads up (heads coloured red, tails green)? And is that going to be the "message" in every round? In other words, we can do without the source altogether?

Amazing.

My program for that part is easy. It is empty.

If I'm on track I will now ask you what is the message sent to Bob's classroom but I guess it will be equally trivial, i.e. superfluous.

pjackson

Richard,

As "no" coin is different to "a" coin we can't do without the source entirely. The coin is a quanta of energy, whichever way up.

What 'arrives' is a set of 9 values between -1 and +1.

Picture planet Earth; The values represent momentum distribution over clockwise(+)and anticlockwise (-) hemispheres of a rotating sphere. For simplicity we can designate the 9 values as 22.5 degree increments between 0 to 180 degrees (or nine colours from the spectrum of green to red).

In modelling it we can't just say Heads=Red, Tails=Green. I could say one side just 90^o (green to sand), the other sand-red But I gave both sides the full spectrum but in reversed order, That does mean we can use just one side (and Bob's is symmetrically opposite).

So both have 9 values at 22.5 increments.

When you're happy with that I'll introduce you to Alice.

Best wishes

Peter

Richard Gill

Peter says "As "no" coin is different to "a" coin we can't do without the source entirely. The coin is a quanta of energy, whichever way up. What 'arrives' is a set of 9 values between -1 and +1. "

OK so now you are telling me that in every round, the source sends to both Alice and to Bob a list of 9 numbers equally spaced between -1 and +1. If that is going to happen in every round, then there is no need for me to program it either. Alice and Bob know every time what they are going to receive. The source is superfluous.

We are not going anywhere, fast.

[deleted]

Richard,

Remember Occam. 'Simple' progress trumps complexity. If it does the job - then it's correct; As you said. I did warn you it was unbelievably simple, but it'll be entirely unfamiliar at first so don't step back inside that mental 'box'!

Alice and Bob in fact know nothing, and remember the 1-9 sequence is 'non mirror symmetric' (NMS). (NMS is a fact of OAM, discerning clockwise from anticlockwise), so one approaches one way round; 1-9 (North pole leading) and the other half of THAT pair; 9-1 (South pole first).

PART 2

Now I imagine we can move on?

So you can intuitively visualise what's going to happen I'll remind you of the famous 'third filter' case; Two polarising filters at 90^o cut out all light. insert another between the two at 45^o, some light is then released through the final one. This is because the filter 'rotates' the light, i.e. the filter field electrons absorb and re-emit it in line with the field electron orientation. Weihs reported exactly the same using electrons and his electro-optic analyser field.

However. Now we find that the orientation of the analyser field electrons has rotational freedom on ALL THREE AXES! i.e. There is NO 'UP' IN SPACE! so we can turn the analyser upside down or face any way we like. It has only ONE controllable axis, which is that of the magnetic field lines, (designated the x axis) which the setting angle dictates. That all bears some careful thinking about to avoid invalid 'objections' when we expose the simplicity of the output distribution.

Now all this is what the insides of the box looks like, BEFORE the arrival of the H/T state. There is more but it's all physicsystuff. Do ask any questions.

(In the classroom analogy. The dial pointer is a 'slot'. 'Alice and Bob simply turn the dial to some setting, then on 'arrival' some colour from the spectrum shows in the slot).

Best regards

Peter

Judith/John. Please do chirp in with anything you think I've missed. (The cones and non-linearity subject to distance from poles are saved for the next step).

Richard Gill

Peter, it certainly is getting simple. In every round, the source sends nothing to Alice or Bob.

OK. Now remember the buttons. Alice receives from me the instruction to press the button marked "90" on her perspex box. Remember, the box has two buttons and two lights.

What happens inside the box? (in terms of cards and disks)

pjackson

Richard,

Good. You ain't seen nuffin yet, it gets simpler! Inside the box is the spectrum and a low tech spectroscope. Press button 90(^o) and the dial moves to half way between 1 and -1, exposing a colour there, which we've called 'Sand'.

The spectroscope has to decide if 'Sand' is closer to Red or Green. Of course it hasn't got a clue, so we get output 50:50 R/G.

The experiment itself used a short queue of people one at a time to 'look through the perspex' and tick a Red or Green Box. All settings were used - giving nine points on the full curve, but your limited sample can be extracted without problems.

(Nature uses angular momentum. AM varies in direction between 'sides' of the entity, changing mid way, so in that case we can simply have a spinning spheroid or toroid).

Have you ever discovered a new short-cut to achieve something horribly complex? Your first reaction will be; "but you can't do it that way"! Only then does it start to dawn that you can.

Richard Gill

No Peter you said the experiment could be done in class and the only apparatus we need are some carefully prepared packs of cards and coloured disks.

We've established that in each round, nothing is sent from the source to the two measurement stations.

That certainly makes the description of what happens next a whole lot more simple.

So suppose Alice receives the instruction to press the button marked "90 degrees" on the outside of her black box (OK it is a huge perspex box, with air holes, and maybe there are some students in there shuffling packs of cards ... but *not* doing Facebook with their friends in Bob's classroom). What happens next? I don't know anything about "spectrum and a low tech spectroscope".

Which light is going to flash (red or green?) and why?

Judy Nabb

Richard,

Do please leave that straw alone and pay attention. You make me feel like a school ma'am again! Straw men lack brains. Peter doesn't. He's clearly identified what is "sent from the source to the two measurement stations".

He may correct me, and I'd like to check my understanding anyway, but it's a quanta of orbital angular momentum which is spin with both a north and south pole.

As they've been 'split' from one entity, which may have been either way round, In one case the north pole 'leads the way', in the other the south pole (and vice versa). I can't really imagine any simpler physical model of spin.

I think the fact that the AXIS of a rotating sphere is itself able to rotate on any axis while conserving the spin is important. The 'direction' will prove non-critical, but suggesting the sphere need 'not exist at all' is wrong and appears rather crass Richard!

Peter,

If that's wrong but please correct me. How much will a physical experiment cost? When I repeated the classroom version (simplified I admit) it cost nothing. Indeed we gained great insight and value. I'm shocked so few others have bothered.

Judy

pjackson

Judy,

I think Richard was being 'tongue-in-cheek', but your description is excellent. You obviously 'picture' what you read, which I identify in my essay as a powerful ability. It's also nice to know someone IS reading what I write! The essay should pop up any time and I hope will be a revelation, explained by Bob and Alice, who took the long EPR trip a little in the future, using a narrator. The good range of geometric diagrams should help, and further experimental results are at the back. I managed to avoid resorting to just mathematics.

Doing the experiment is enlightening isn't it! Yes I'm astonished and disappointed so few have run it too. I fondly imagined it may by now be being done in classrooms all round the world! That experiment costs nothing, as you say. I imagine a computer simulation is the same. I quite understand why Joy's exploding balls will cost a lot. I don't need those, but another Aspect/Weihs type timed pair experiment will be able to falsify it (if the results are different to the previous two!) Finding a consistent analysis and interpretation of ALL the data is where the real value lies.

Best wishes

Peter

pjackson

Richard,

"Alice receives from me the instruction to press the button marked "90" on her perspex box. Remember, the box has two buttons and two lights. ..What happens inside the box? (in terms of cards and disks)"

We've dropped the cards. It's now even simpler. What arrived was the spectral disc (representing a spinning sphere) either 'heads' or 'tails' first.

That side of the disc sits behind, and facing, the dial. When Alice presses the 90 button the slot ('pointer') moves to the 90^o position, half way between red and green. A colour appears in the slot. It is half way between red and green in the spectrum. We call it "Sand".

Now a queue of students one by one get to see the colour. Each has to decide; "Is it closer to Green?(+1)or to Red? (-1)" and push the Red or Green button to light the red or green lights.

It's that simple. It's subjective, and fine tuning may be needed, but the overall statistical result somewhere in that part of the spectrum will be 50%.

There are two other versions of the innards, both work just as well; A low res spectroscope detects wavelengths between green(1) and red (+1) and throws the light switch one way or the other depending on which side of the median. At half way between red and green it can only find 50:50.

(What'll be important to bear in mind here is that the output is not necessarily some 'spin state' but effectively reflects an energy level, with 'zero' half way between +1 and -1.)

That should have been tautological. The more interesting bit comes next.

Best wishes

Peter

Richard Gill

Peter, there is no line of students.

OK Peter, so you agreed that nothing is worth sending from source to Alice, idem to Bob, because whatever it is, it is exactly the same every round, so it might just as well already be there.

So we were busy with Alice's perspex box. It has a button marked "0" and a button marked "90". Suppose I press the button "90". What happens inside her box? (in kitchen-garden terms). Which light flashes, how and why?

Similarly Bob. I will tell him "45" or "135". He doesn't know what Alice was told. Which light flashes, how and why?

Next day we repeat the whole thing again (next round). New random choice of buttom in each classroom, just one of the two lights flashes in each classroom.

Richard Gill

Judy, you said "Do please leave that straw alone and pay attention. You make me feel like a school ma'am again! Straw men lack brains. Peter doesn't. He's clearly identified what is "sent from the source to the two measurement stations". He may correct me, and I'd like to check my understanding anyway, but it's a quanta of orbital angular momentum which is spin with both a north and south pole."

Those are words. I am acting the part of a dumb computer programmer who is to convert Peter's brilliant insights into a little computer simulation experiment, which will convince bears of little brains like myself.

Those words may have clearly identified something to you, but they don't to me. Peter says he has a classroom experiment involving cards and coloured spinning disks. So his job is to explain to me in those kitchen and garden terms, what is sent from source to measurement stations.

Now he also clearly explained that what was sent is completely predicable so it might just as well have been there at the measurement stations, in advance, all the time.

I lack brains. Peter wants to explain to the brainless. If it's as simple as he says, it should be easy. I didn't ask him to explain his fundamental physical insight. I asked him for instructions for a computer simulation program. So far he is not doing a very good job. This suggests to me that he does only have *words*. Words which can't be translated into effective computer code are probably pretty empty. At least, if we are talking about physics.

[deleted]

Richard,

You've jumped to a false conclusion not read what I wrote. I stressed there's a big difference between what DOES arrive, and NOWT arriving. You're focussed on 'spin state' only. That's the mistake quantum physicists make. You must widen your vision to allow 'input' of my 'output'. The 'reversible' spin state is NOT THE ONLY important quality arriving.

A 'garden' analogy; You ask me for some hot red and cool green peppers. I say, OK, but these all taste the same, hot tops reducing to cool tips. Now you've always assumed red=hot and green=cool so you say; "OK if they're the same we'll pretend none arrived"!? I'm identifying that's why QM is illogical. Something DOES arrive, but it has more and different qualities than your (and Bohr and Bell's) assumption.

You need then, as I specified, to model the 9 values; +1 to -1. They represent a simple distribution of rotational velocities across the surface of the actual spinning sphere detected, so if you can somehow do it as a hemisphere from pole to equator all the better. A flat semicircle will suffice. I've done it on paper and in 3D so I'm sure a computer can.

Bob simply has the pole (North or South) which Alice doesn't have, so it spins the other way. It can't be much simpler surely? Actually...it can! Spin a donut on a skewer (in the garden) with you one side and a friend the other. Now both answer the question; Is the spin 'up or 'down'. YOU may find up OR down as the donut has TWO ways to spin but he will ALWAYS find the opposite!

That may seem simple and familiar but it will be MASSIVELY important to remember and apply. Now also consider; If you swap the ends of the skewer (through ANY axis!) you will reverse the spin direction 'detected'.

So there we are; '90' button gives 'Sand'. Now you said I could have some small student's in my box, with breathing holes. If you've changed you mind we'll need the spectrometer. For 90 Alice can do it alone (she changes he mind a lot), but systemics creep in for Bob! Next steps below;

PJ......

[deleted]

Richard,

That was a fast logout! Heavy traffic p'raps. Now that you've seen a new meaning in de Bono and Judy's 'thinking outside the box' I hope we're on the same page.

BUTTON 0. When pressed the dial swings to 0, which is always +1 = GREEN, so the green light always lights.

BUTTON 45, and BUTTON 135. Now it gets interesting. The dial swings to a slightly limey 'Yellow' for 45 (25% of the fair Green-Red spectrum) and to 'Peach' (135), which is 75% of the way. Now what actually happens is entirely intuitive (it happened in the experiments and would happen with the spectrometer). There was a much higher than 75% probability of the findings 'Green' or 'Red'.

The Lime hue is rather a giveaway, and Peach is close to orange. We actually found 85%-88% correct (and it'd take a very poor spectrometer to score lower). Taking the surplus of green (red) over the full (sample space) set gives the 'Bias to Green' of ~72% (0.72), slightly greater than the QM violation.

But your protocol is not modelling a 'time resolved pair' experiment. It's using 'weak measurement' statistical correlations of a "heap" of results. And the above are only the LOCAL results, at each detector. That's an important derivation in itself of course, but in that case we also STILL have to classically produce the cosine curve from the relative angles of timed pair cases. That is the genuinely beautiful part.

But first I note something else. Whatever we use, photons, electrons, spheres, hemispheres (0-90, -180, -360) or tori, and whatever 3 axis orientation we have the arriving particle OR detector field electrons; we ALWAYS find that a cosine curve emerges! Have you worked out how or why? In fact nobody has apart from 'pointing towards' QM! The answer emerges.

Let's know of any issues with the above before the coup de grace finale.

Best wishes

Peter

PS; Judy was referring to the 'straw man' omitting my specified +1 to -1 distribution arriving, not you of course. That's the thing about straw man arguments, if it was called mine it's brainless results would be called mine! (thank you Judy!).

Judy Nabb

Richard,

Can you just clarify the predictions, I thought I read you and Joy agreeing a 0.707 target from the (45 degree) button, which is the cos but not the cos^2. Is that the case? and doesn't that only get the non-relative angle result single detector which Peter refers to above?

It's probably now me being momentarily brainless and I'm sure I've missed something but I didn't notice it in the posts below. Can you clarify? By the way, Peter's right I'd never insinuate for a moment that you yourself are a straw man, only a false 'argument' can be.

I did by the way find at the top end of Peters results with my partial run of the colour selections, also using a real linear spectrum from a good colour printer. However that only 'represents' his geometrical proof.

Thank you

Judy

Richard Gill

Judy, 0.7071... = 1 / sqrt 2 = cosine(45 degrees)

Notice that the correlation function for measuring the spin of the singlet state of two spin half particles, is different from the correlation function for measuring polarization of two entangled photons in the usual state which they try to create in the quantum optics experiments. A factor 2, as well as a sign change and/or phase shift. Very confusing.

Richard Gill

OK so far I've got, for round 1:

ALICE BUTTON 0. When pressed the dial swings to 0, which is always +1 = GREEN, so the green light always lights.

ALICE BUTTON 90. Sand. The green and the red light are equally likely to flash.

BOB BUTTON 45. A slightly limey 'Yellow'. Probability of green is much higher than 75%. You go for 85-88%? Can you pick just one percentage, for the computer simulation?

BOB BUTTON 135. 'Peach' (135). Probability of red is much higher than 75%. You go for 85-88%? Can you pick just one percentage, for the computer simulation?

This was round 1.

Two buttons were pressed, two lights flashed. We can calculate the probability of each combination of lights for each combination of buttons.

In round 2 does exactly the same thing happen, or can it be different?

pjackson

Richard,

At a glance Judy's point is moot. 0.7071 is a cosine not cos^2. Getting a cosine curve from a series of events from single detector is simple. How it's then ALSO derived from the RELATIVE angles isn't shown, and it doesn't seem to be made clear that it must be, independently?? Am I misunderstanding your 'correlation function' there?

The difference between a photon and electron is what I pointed to above, I agree it's too confusing under present theory, but my model explains it. I also rationalise why and how we get cosine curves from both the cosines and Cos^2 in the different local and relative cases. My scenario produces the double curvature plot for cos^2. My essay is now posted in the contest. The experiment isn't described again there but full findings schedule, and a graph of the RELATIVE angles plot are in the end notes. Do Bob and Alice have a future?

Thanks for flagging that up Judy. But back to the findings;

Agreed. at 45 and 135, depending if we allow for the discovered colour blindness and errors. Lets go for 86% for 45 and 87% for 135, or 86% for both if easier, which gives the 72% bias to green (45) and say 73% to red (135). But always remember, the red/green output frequency does not have the same identity as the emitters spin 'up and 'down'. There are two embedded data sets, most importantly the ENERGY amplitude distribution available for exchange on interaction, roughly describable as 'surface speed' at the tangent/meeting point.

Then taking the relative angles gives a different cosine curve, using the same 'energy' identity but as RELATIVE values. It's that fundamental misunderstanding of exactly what is being measured, or rather what the resultant statistics truly represent that has maintained the 'bizarreness' of the findings. Once that's resolved the rest all falls logically into place.

So from the 'absolute' settings 0 v 45 and 0 v 135 we have 'differences' d45^o and d135^o.

From 90 v 45 and 90 v 135 we have differences d-45 and d45. Not very interesting.

If I may I'll get Bob to try 22.5^o as well for interest, = d22.5 and d-67.5.

You can see the results plotted on the graph in my end notes. The essay is as fun to read and non-technical as I could make it.

It explains with diagrams how the relative angles geometrically produce the non-linear distribution of energy exchange in interaction between two rotating bodies ("detection"), and identifies the physical meaning of cos^2 and Malus' law.

Best wishes

Peter

Richard Gill

cos(2 theta) = 2 * cos^(theta) - 1

So we can talk about cosine or cosine squared, just as we like.

Correlation = prob(equal) - prob(unequal) = 2 * prob(equal) - 1.

For the singlet state the correlation = prob(equal) - prob(unequal) = - cos(theta) where theta is the angle between the directions of the two measurement directions.

So you can express everything in terms of a squared cosine or a cosine, just as you like, and you can talk about correlation or about probability of equal outcomes.

Regarding my attempt to write a simulation program for your model, the last stuff you write is totally useless for me. Is round 2 just the same as round 1, yes or not?

If it is the same then we are finished. You have told me everything I need to know and I don't see what the hell this has to do with the singlet correlations. The outcomes left and right are statistically independent of one another, and only depend on the relevant setting.

Richard Gill

sorry typo

cos(2 theta) = 2 * cos^2(theta) - 1

[deleted]

Richard,

I think the penny is about to drop. Remember the objective here, which is to reproduce quantum correlations classically. It was only ever an "assumption" hidden within QM that there were 'singlet states' to correlate (from 'collapse' caused by 'observation'). In fact findings such as Renninger etc already proved that to be nonsense (The Renninger Negative Result Experiment) as the 'results' arise even without observation!

Now think 'outside the box' (or Judy will be on your case!) If all particles are entities with real spin (OAM) as I show they can be, then they spin clockwise when 'observed' from one end and anticlockwise from the other! Or 'up' looking from one side and 'down' from the other. The fact that they are reversible by the magnetic field direction (swap the skewer ends round as the donut spins) means that;

'NON-LOCAL STATE REDUCTION IS A MISNOMER'. ... ...NOT REQUIRED to reproduce the data used in weak measurement analysis!! North and south 'poles' are indeed random in A,B directions, but there is no such 'real' thing as 'state collapse'. It's just accounting. The sums add up the same classically.

It was our 'expectation' that fooled us. Did you really expect the circumvention of Bells theorem by tackling it head on? I suspect not. Of course you couldn't imagine where the 'route around' the theorem lay, so it's bound to be initially completely unfamiliar. The 'unfamiliar' what most physicists reject 'a priori'. It is after al human nature. But I suspect you can do better.

The fact remains, after all human confusion, assumptions and stupidities; It works.

Now in fact many rounds in the experiment were different. But only slightly. I just gave you the average. And yes, the proof of statistical independence is the whole argument. But STATISTICAL INDEPENDENCE REPRODUCES THE 'quantum' CORRELATIONS!! Bells maths and logic were perfect. He just inherited the wrong 'starting' assumption (the initial programming flaw that made the computer spout gobbledegook ever after). As all 'timed pair' experiments show, the detector field rotation dictates the particle orientation found.

The precise geometric production of the cosine curve in ALL cases is given in my essay. It is the cosines as planes intersecting a sphere at various radii, producing circles on the surface of circumferences (cos^2) with a non linear length distribution. The circumference directly produces the angular momentum energy distribution, which is what is termed the 'probability' distribution of tripping the appropriate photomultiplier.

I produce the curves classically both locally AND between the relative ('four vector') angles forming cones in the sphere (see my fig 3). You should get an epiphany once you follow the implications. I'm really not sure if it has any links with exploding balls.

best wishes.

Peter

Richard Gill

Round 1:

ALICE BUTTON 0 = Green. Light flashes GREEN with probability 100%.

ALICE BUTTON 90 = Sand. Either GREEN or RED will falsh with equal probability 50%

BOB BUTTON 45 = limey Yellow. Light flashes GREEN with probability 86%, RED with probability 14%.

BOB BUTTON 135 = peach. Light flashes RED with probability 86%, GREEN with probability 14%.

Well it is not difficult to program that.

Is it the same in round 2?

[deleted]

Richard,

You'll now see Peter's point about Occam. A revelation no less! To me it was an epiphany, a genuine eureka moment. The solution was just tooo simple to be noticed.

And it gets simpler still. On his 'kit' disc he cosines are written in. He's pointed out you only have read them off and plot them for a 100% precise reproduction of the 'quantum predictions'.

What I've taken from Peters essay is the complete 'generalisation' of the solution. That the local surface speed of rotation at the 'point of contact' with another body directly gives angular momentum transfer amplitude. Simply drawing a graph of rotation speed (from pole to pole or equator to equator).

Living ON planet Earth has blinded us to the non rotating frame around us. It's parochial 'inside the box' thinking.

If the other body is also rotating then the cosine curves may be 'superposed' or perhaps 'added' so the effect enhanced. The cos^2 curve already has a different amplitude to the cos curve.

I think Peter's suggesting that if we set 0 and 180^o values at say +/-3 instead of nominal +/-1 then the curve amplitude changes. The important bit seems to be that even with both bodies having freedom on all 3 axis' the cosine form will always describe the distribution of energy transfer, as Malus's law says.

This is not just a genius circumvention of Bell's theorem, as Peter points out in his blog answers the implications are far wider. I'd say revolutionary and paradigm shifting.

You computer programme may be part of that however simple. Exciting times! have you read his essay yet? It's a fun read. (mine now pales).

Judy

Richard Gill

Well Judy, it certainly has become very very simple. But I am still waiting for Peter to tell me whether this is the end of the story, yes or no.

One can indeed choose to "circumvent Bell". One form of circumvention is to talk about something completely different. Right now, I don't see any connection whatever between Peter's experiment and the predictions of quantum mechanics. And this suggests to me that he does not understand the predictions of quantum mechanics and does not understand the meaning of Bell's work.

Yes, you can circumvent Bell's theorem by going to the movie and enjoying "Gravity". I would prefer watching Gravity again to reading Peter's essay. I mean, there are all kinds of nice ways to spend one's time (one being this forum). Some ways to have fun have some connection to major issues in science. Others don't.

pjackson

Richard,

Time to get 'outside the box' to think! Did you study the essay? It's no movie, it describes what really happens. The mechanism shows that it's QM that's been based on fantasy all along, as many have suspected. Did you watch the Renninger link (less than 2mins)?; Renninger, (also as Zeilinger et al.)

Are you really unable to think outside the box? This is NOT about 'disproving' Bell's logic (If Joy's is, then I disagree), it's about resolving the problem Bell set out to resolve, and failed; The EPR paradox scenario.

Everyone using the same wrong assumption (the entirely unproven 'pure singlet state') means they've been focussing in the wrong place for an answer. There IS NONE there! Bell would have found it (and yes, I understand fully what he proved thank you!)

The REALtask is to theoretically explain the 'quantum predictions' using classical mechanics. It's much more fundamental than 'singlet correlations' so really nothing to do with them.

If you read the essay you'll see how the two 'relative' vectors in space (A,B setting angles) each have 360 degrees of rotational freedom so form a '3D' cosine (cos^2) 'cone' within a sphere. The cosine of the angle is shown to represent a 'slice' through the sphere. Each slice has a different circumference, so a different SURFACE ANGULAR MOMENTUM (rotational speed). The cosine then emerges as the classical distribution of those surface speeds across the sphere, directly producing the 'quantum' probability amplitude distribution CLASSICALLY!

It IS the exact solution required for the problem. But of course it isn't what you 'expected'. How could you ever think it would be? None of us can learn with closed eyes. The essay is here;

Bob and Alice take a trip...

Best wishes

Peter

Richard Gill

No Peter. Not time to take any trip. I am not reading any essay.

I am about to quit being your programmer, too. You are incapable of answering straight questions. You think you have solved the mystery of Bell and all that ... well I am now more convinced than ever you have no idea what you are talking about.

I asked: is round 2 just the same as round 1?

Yes or no?

If different, in what way different?

[deleted]

Richard,

I did answer; "many rounds in the experiment were different. But only slightly. I just gave you the average."

The actual differences were as follows;

0^o 100% Green. None.

90^o 50%. Equal Probability, slight bias to yellow corrected by ~3^o adjustment, well within error bars.

45 and 135^p. You asked my to give you a single figure, so I gave 86%. I'm then not quite sure what you mean by 'round 2'. In each 'round' (selection) at 'Peach' for instance (135^o) we only got either 'Red' or 'Green'. (From a total of 4 'sessions' - counting each of A and B 45^o results as one session)

The only other data I can give you is the total count; 278 against 42, the worst being 68 Red v 12 green. The sample size isn't massive as we mostly did all 9 angles. For 0 and 90 it was bigger as I included the first session using 30^0 increments). I The results had a narrow spread because once someone had made up their mind they mainly stuck to it.

But that's all subjective anyway. As I noted; the full results and plot are in the table at the back of the essay. Reading off the actual surface rotational speed at either of the points in the (red or green) hemisphere's gives the precise cos^2 OAM value (probability of a flash) to any number of decimal places you wish.

The mechanism is very understandable; Spin up a basketball on an axle. Set up a capacitor with red and green spark plugs, powered by a wheel. Hold the wheel against the middle of the basketball that's going up, it sparks away green merrily, turn the basketball round so it's spinning down, and it sparks away red. Now move the contact point towards one of the poles. The speed, so spark probability rate, decreases by the cosine of the angle, zeroing at the pole (90^o). You see how it's the 'energy' that's important. In nature R/G always mirror each other despite the statistical independence of R/G themselves.

That's what's really happening in the classical box. There's are also beautiful diagrams in the essay.

Best wishes

Peter

Judy Nabb

Richard,

EPR is not all about statistics. Your view may be but misses the big picture. The EPR case is all about logical consistency and the 'completeness of QM. It's QM in the dock not Bell's theorem.

what Peter has done is exposed the fundamental error of assumption within QM, once corrected it can be completed, and also seems able to be unified with relativity (after the same effect is applied) as his essay describes.

That's what the reference to the 'huddle' was about; all looking in the wrong place while Bells theorem is circumvented. There was never ANY proof that 'pure singlet states' existed and plenty to the contrary including Zeilingers.

It's a great shame you don't wish to read the essay, it'd be an eye opener. Your suggestion that Peter doesn't understand what Bell was about is an embarrassment for you. You made it clear that it's you whose view of the whole of EPR is too bounded. That's now another apology you owe for an insult, this time to Peter.

My own essay is on eugenics, and that the real need is not physical perfection but improvement of intellect which it fails to affect. Some never grasp the concept of 'thinking outside' their own limited box or manage to do so and see the bigger picture. Peter is a master at it. I thought you could and would. Are you going to prove me wrong?

Judy

Richard Gill

EPR and Bell is all about statistics. It is all about whether or not the predictions of QM, which are statistical in nature, are "merely" the reflection of uncertainty about initial conditions or other sources of variation. Is the measurement of polarization of one photon something like a toss of one coin or one die ... or is it QM wrong?

(These were the only two options which Einstein considered)

Anyway, thanks Peter for confirmation that your experiment generates outcomes which, given the two settings, are actually competely uncorrelated. Thinking in terms of a Bell-CHSH type experiments, the four correlations between the colours of the lights which flash, given the settings used by Alice and Bob,

E(0, 45), E(0, 135), E(90, 45) and E(90, 135) are all equal to zero, up to statistical fluctuations.

Thinking out of the box is great. But seeing the wrong box, thinking out of a different box from the box which actually is perplexing everyone, is not much help. It's like people discussing the Monty Hall problem (three doors problem) and then someone saying, let's think out of the box. I can prove to you that there are no positive integers a, b, c and p, with p > 2, such that a^p b^p = c^p.

Well - smart that someone can do that, all on their own, but on the other hand, it is no longer news to most people.

Richard Gill

Judy wrote: "There was never ANY proof that 'pure singlet states' existed and plenty to the contrary".

Indeed, there is still no PROOF. The top quantum optics groups are racing to try to do this first, and they say they might have done in within the next five years. But on the ohter hand, they've been saying the same for the last five years.

Actually of course when referring to quantum optics we are refering to the state ( |00>|11> )/sqrt 2 where "0" means horizontal and "1" means vertical polarisation.

When referring to the singlet state of spin half systems we refer to the state ( |01> - |10> )/sqrt 2 where "0" and "1" mean spin up and spin down.

And of course we are talking about these states as pertaining to two spatially separated physical systems.

Joy Christian

Richard,

You claimed: "The only assumption I'm making is that N >= 1."

This is not the only assumption you are making. You do not know what other assumptions you are making even after I have been hammering them on the heads of all Bell's believers for the past seven years. In any case, the correct prediction for the CHSH style bound for my proposed experiment is given by equation (9.100) of this paper. If you read this paper, or read this page of my blog, then it may finally dawn on you that when you do all your calculations as you describe above you will find

E(0, 45) = 1/N sum_k sign(a0 . u_k) sign(b45 . v_k) = - 0.7071...

E(0, 135) = 1/N sum_k sign(a0 . u_k) sign(b4135 . v_k) = 0.7071...

E(90, 45) = 1/N sum_k sign(a90 . u_k) sign(b45 . v_k) = - 0.7071...

E(90, 135) = 1/N sum_k sign(a90 . u_k) sign(b135 . v_k) = - 0.7071...

You will then be forced to part with your 5000 euroes in humiliation. If you are a gentlemen as you claim you are, then you will also apologize to me profusely.

By the way, you changed your offer from 10,000 euroes to 5,000 euros if I or anyone else produces a simulation before June 11 to do the job. I was hoping to collect 10,000 euros from you. I need the money.

Richard Gill

By the way, I will not be humiliated if I am proved wrong. I will obviously be amazed, and in a bit of short term financial difficulties, but after that, I will actually be delighted to have helped at the birth of a new science.

Please let's keep the ego's out of science. They can get in the way ... Science is a collective enterprise of humanity.

Thomas Ray

On this, Richard, we agree 100%.

Judy Nabb

Richard,

If E,P&R knew what we know now they'd have seen the answer I suspect. Consider this; Random coin tosses do not disprove causality. QM then could ALSO be wrong. It is not an 'either/or choice. Peters findings ARE what is always found. Net 0.

Specifically, If you travel though space you should meet equal numbers of spinning bodies clockwise pole first and anticlockwise pole first. If particles have OAM the same will be true; from the splitter, equal numbers of north and south poles will lead the way to Alice and Bob (Peters last figure).

At the detector, electron spin orientation change and flip with field direction change is well known. He refers to Weighs who found just that. The particle spin found has then been progressively changed and reversed BY the photo analyser.

Peters geometry shows that here is where the cosine distribution arises from, as a direct result of relative orientation of spin axis (surface rotational speeds at relative distances from the poles). If you run a statistical logic check you'll find the quantum predictions reproduced.

The thing about the inside and outside of the box is that those inside all genuinely believe they're outside but can't or won't look to check. Do you agree if the cosine curve IS reproduced by a causal mechanism then QM is proved incomplete as it's false assumption is exposed. Seek and thou shalt find Richard. Apply the statistics to different characteristics.

Judy

Richard Gill

Judy, Peter's geometry does not show that this is where "the cosine distribution" arises from. His experiment does not produce the cosine in the context where the cosine is interesting. It produces a cosine in another context altogether, where it is not interesting at all.

Just because it quacks like a duck doesn't mean that it is a duck.

Just because you can figure out some theory which predicts a cosine will turn up in context A, doesn't mean that the same theory explains the cosine which we see in context B.

What Peter means by going outside of the box, is to totally ignore the actual problem put to us in the works of Einstein, Bell, Aspect, Christian, ... and so on and instead solve a new problem of his own which does not interest anyone (anyone except you and him, apparently). He (and you too) shows that he had actually got no conception at all what the actual problem is.

Now I agree that there are situations where we get stuck because we are asking the wrong question. Possibly we are asking the wrong question regarding the whole EPR-Bell story. (Actually, I think this is the case - because of "embodied cognition" our little evolutionarily developed brains are simply incapable of "understanding" what is going on, here; and they never will be). OK, so we should consider whether perhaps we should be asking different questions. But Peter is not solving anything and just telling us some trivialities. There are myriads of ways in which cosine's turn up in nature. His way is not interesting. It doesn't have anything to say about the cosine which bothered Bell.

pjackson

Richard,

You agree 'A' isn't proved (pure singlet states) but when shown that by not assuming 'A' the problem can be solved; you claim the only way to solve it must assume 'A' not 'B' or it's not 'interesting'!

It IS 'interesting' because it solves the EPR paradox, but by circumventing Bell's thesis NOT falsifying it. 'Thinking inside the box' here is insisting on only 'A' even after recognising it as an unproven assumption.

I suspect the issue is that you think abandoning 'A' would negate the value of statistics. That's not v necessarily true, and may be the converse. Ask yourself honestly; What are the odds of the experimental findings being reproduced precisely by a classical mechanism by pure co-incidence? Statistics might model that very well! Consider we now have two possible futures if you keep your present stance

1) I'm proved correct. You'll have proved statistics potentially dangerously misleading and your own star will crash to the depths with it as you've missed the solution when staring you in the face!

2) You show statistically the odds that the mistake in QM is the assumption of singlet states, and the odds of the predictions being reproduced classically by pure random coincidence. Both you and statistics could become superstars!

The choice is yours. Just try thinking about 'B' (with no singlet states) afresh, without your present constrained view. You may even find a 3rd statistical angle!

Best wishes

Peter

pjackson

Richard,

Response? Enlightenment is spreading from my essay. Have you read it yet? I find making decisions after not before assimilating relevant information always works better. If you see any errors I'd value your advice as to where.

Best wishes

Peter

Richard Gill

Joy, we can transpose our bet to a computer simulation of your spinning ball experiment. After all, you said it was already done.

5 000 Euro's says you can't produce the two computer files of data which win our bet for you, before the coming Vaxjo meeting (mid June). We announce the winner at Vaxjo.

Are you on?

Joy Christian

The simulations have already been done. As I have noted, the results of the bomb experiment have been established (analytically) 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. Therefore, what we are waiting for is actual data, either observational or experimental.

Joy Christian

Goalpost, goalpost, my kingdom for a goalpost.

Thomas Ray

Richard,

So far, we've learned that there is no mathematics in your framework, and that you make no prediction.

Here's the thing:

Yes, Bell did make a prediction. His prediction, however, was based on a mathematical theory that expresses the correlation function as an inequality. Inequalities are fundamental tools of analysis, not arithmetic; i.e., when an inequality is violated by the measurement function, it should tell us something is wrong with the analysis. Instead, the various interpetations applied to the measurement results of Bell-Aspect claim there is something wrong with nature, that nature doesn't yield to analysis, and that the arithmetical measurement function is all there is. So we can throw the mathematical theory away.

That works if there is no mathematical theory corresponding to quantum mechanical results. If that were true, however, it means that science is not rational. I prefer to stay on the side of rational science.

Richard Gill

Tom, you seem to be saying that experiment is superfluous. You already know the truth so there is no need for anyone to observe Nature. I wish I had such a deep understanding of Nature myself. I have to make do with partial understanding of Nature and my partial understanding of mathematics. Which tells me that Bell is right and Joy is wrong.

But since I am open-minded I am open to seeing the results of an experiment prove me wrong and Joy right.

Joy, you seem to be saying that I am moving goalposts. However you just said that your published simulation already resolved everything and made experiment superfluous. So I proposed to transpose our bet from experiment to simulation. So what is your problem? The time-frame? But you already said that you were already done. Or what? Please clarify. I don't see the point of raising a lot of money and waiting five years for an experiment, when you already can prove me wrong in five weeks.

Richard Gill

Thomas Ray

"You already know the truth so there is no need for anyone to observe Nature."

In fact, most of what we objectively know of nature is counterintuitive, not based on the inductive naive realism that you and your cynical "QRC" buddy support.

The idea of rational, objective science is to discover correspondence between two independent variables -- the mathematical theory & the experimental result. Or as Bronowski elegantly put it: "All science is the search for unity in hidden likenesses."

Joy Christian

Richard, you are indeed moving goalposts whether you realize it or not. Several of us are trying to tell you something for several years now, but you are not listening [and I am not talking about Peter and Judy here---those two (or one) are just distractions].

Instead of listening to what we are saying you are too busy twisting our words and throwing them back at us (your "scientific" methodology has been badly corrupted by your close association with criminal lawyers). What Tom, Fred, Jonathan, and I are trying to tell you for several years is that the strong correlations we observe in Nature are a consequence of the subtle but well known topological properties of the physical space itself. Now we can imitate these properties in a numerical simulation, and that has been done already. In fact, during the past seven years I have accumulated more than enough evidence to convince any reasonable scientist. But in the end a simulation is still just an imitation of Nature. A numerical simulation of the strong correlation can no more replace the actual experiment than a flight simulation can replace a Jumbo Jet.

Now there is a separate issue of the Bell-CHSH and Clauser-Horne type inequalities. But you are wrong in this regard as well, as Michel Fodje has so convincingly demonstrated.

« Previous Page Next Page »