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

Jonathan Dickau

Gee whiz....

I guess my login expired, ...again.

Jonathan

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.

Richard Gill

login's expire every few hours. Moreover, if one posts in one thread at the same time as someone starts a new one, your post is placed in the new thread.

The forum software is pretty user un-friendly.

Richard Gill

Never trust a British statistician. Perfidious Albion. And we invented statistics as a modern "science".

Richard Gill

"professor" is a job description.

"doctor" is a diploma. It carries both rights and obligations. In the Netherlands, for instance, if you have a PhD and if you are convicted of a capital crime, you have the right to insist on having your head cut off rather than being hung.

Richard Gill

"I think this was brought about, in part, because of the mindset of management and administrative folks that favors predictability and control over the possibility for innovative breakthroughs and fundamental advances. Simply put; it is far easier for program administrators to tell young people what to do. What is not perceived by the folks in charge is that the proliferation of knowledge that we have seen over the last 25 years or so requires that someone be at least 50 years old - for some of it to be sufficiently digested to be understandable, or for what is known to be placed in historical context."

Yes. That is what Thatcherist economics applied to the University has brought us.

Florin Moldoveanu

My my, am I the Grinch who stole Christmas now?

Let's imagine a hypothetical discussion between the post doc and Joy:

pd: -here are the results Sir, but they contradict your prediction...

J: -impossible, go double check them. I pay your salary, I supervise you, do as you are told.

some times later:

pd: -I double checked the results Sir, but they still contradict your prediction...

J: -impossible, go double check them again. I pay your salary, I supervise you, do as you are told

etc, etc.

The point IS NOT that Joy should be denied access to the results, or the process of obtaining the results, or be withed any information. The point is that a subordination relationship induces pressure to alter the data, is unfair to the person performing the experiment and is misleading the public contributing money to this: why they will contribute money to a biased setup? I am not implying that any impropriety will happen, but that it can happen (only counting *all* elements of reality here ;) ).

And about the "double standard", there was no controversy there, no "deciding on the future of physics". When you go in front of a judge for a dispute you want him to be impartial, and not be related to the other side. Basic fairness.

Rick Padua

Bell did not control the Aspect experiment, as Dr. Christian seems to be suggesting; Aspect ran the Aspect experiment. One would appreciate documentation that Bell exercised any authority over Aspect or the experiment.

Rick Padua

Bell sat on the committee that granted Aspect his doctorate. He did so along with A. Marechal, C. Cohen-Tannoudji, B. d'Espagnat, C. Imbert and F. Laloe. The experiment was in effect Aspect's doctoral thesis and was conducted under the auspices of the University of Paris (Orsay).

Personally I wouldn't contribute a dime to Dr. Christian's experiment unless it were irrevocably under the hands-on control of persons other than himself. Persons of prestige. It's improbable that many other people would either.

Joy Christian

I intend to supervise my proposed experiment exactly as I have stated above, unless of course Richard Gill objects to that arrangement. If he does object, then the bet is off.

pjackson

Joy,

That's 2 logouts in a row for me! May I suggest "oversee" instead of "supervise" may help defuse the issue. Or even "consult". There's a valid point about objectivity, think ahead; the result would carry far more weight if detractors can't suggest undue influence. In practice you'd make sure they did it right whatever it's called, and it'd sure leak out if you weren't entirely honest!

I'd be happy to join the crowd funding myself if I shift the yacht I have for sale (anyone need a top 42' race machine?) as I'm interested in the results. I still don't fully understand your geometric logic but in the recent discussions a few points have emerged with apparent similarities to my own proposal so I'm still intrigued.

I know you're only ignoring mine as you need to concentrate on your own but I promise you're only 'unimpressed' because you haven't understood how it works. It may even use an equivalent dynamic (but I certainly don't employ exploding spheres!) My essay should be posted by now and I hope you'll enjoy reading it's slightly original approach to describing it. Please do identify any commonality. As I've said before we're only after truth here, I really don't wish to steal any of your glory (or suffering come to that!).

I also hope you may comment on my last post notes to Richard in the April 18th string with the BOLD CAPS above.

Best wishes

Peter

I'm clicking quick before another logout!

Richard Gill

I have no objection to any interaction whatever between Joy and the experimenters. For all I care, Joy may keep all the experimental funds in his pocket and fake the numbers in the two files which he gives to me.

I have signed up to the agreement which I have signed up to. It makes perfectly clear where Christian's freedom ends and my freedom begins.

Joy Christian

Hi Peter,

"Oversee" is certainly a better word to describe what I intend to do. Thank you for the suggestion.

Good luck with for the essay competition.

Best,

Joy

Rick Padua

"For all I care, Joy may keep all the experimental funds in his pocket"

Something I always think about whenever I see a PayPal "Donate" button. Obviously you don't plan to become a contributor yourself. And, trust me, it's not an argument you should include in any pitch to persons who might otherwise contribute.

"and fake the numbers in the two files which he gives to me."

Which a forensic statistician of your renown could detect for what they are and claim the bet. But what makes you believe you could ever collect? Or is the moral victory all that matters?

Florin Moldoveanu

Since this is Richard's bet and he accepted the terms I have no more grounds to complain.

Joy Christian

Richard Gill ain't gonna collect nothin. He is on the wrong side of history (not to mention logic, mathematics, and physics).

Florin Moldoveanu

So why keep us waiting then? Fake two files which will prove you right and send them to Richard. He does not care if they are fake or not. Prove he is "on the wrong side of history (not to mention logic, mathematics, and physics)." and be done with it.

Rick Padua

It's Richard's bet, but he's not underwriting any experiment, faked or real. That's being left for the crowd to fund. Richard's made it clear he doesn't care if the crowd gets conned so why should the crowd care about helping him win his bet? And how many fans has Dr. Christian? This is not looking good at the moment.

Joy Christian

I am done with it.

Florin Moldoveanu

Rick, you are one sharp guy. Very good questions. I claimed for a long time that Joy's theory has a +1=-1 fundamental mistake in it. At the moment both camps are absolutely certain they will win and the other side is making a foolish mistake. The crowd should not care which side wins, but that truth will prevail.

But consider the odds: many people disagreed with Joy in the past (I can easily count over 10 experts), some privately, some publicly. A FQXi committee judged the matter and ruled against Joy. What are the odds that ALL of them are idiots?

Richard is absolutely certain he will win. My position is slightly different: I am absolutely certain that Joy cannot win and I have a prediction of my own: two years from now we will be still talking about this.

Joy Christian

It should be noted that I have systematically debunked all of the bogus and misguided claims made against my local realistic framework by certain uninformed, unqualified, and unpublished 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.

[deleted]

Florin, thank you, I try not to be dull and sometimes plausibly simulate sharp. I claim no more.

"I am absolutely certain that Joy cannot win and I have a prediction of my own: two years from now we will be still talking about this."

I'd like to see it experimentally resolved but I don't see how an experiment can be mounted if I wouldn't be willing to contribute toward it myself. And I can be easy. Once there was talk of David Wineland and I had visions of the Colorado Rockies and a firm guiding hand, serious professionalism, but that's fading fast. My guess is that two years from now the big experiment will still be a pipe dream but people (i.e., the

Rick Padua

(Interesting. No idea what happened. Continuing):

few dozen or so who know about the existence of this forum topic) will have become so sick and tired they'll have tried bomb explosion analysis but there'll be disagreement as to the results and we'll still be talking and Dr. Christian will continue to be unemployed as an academician in the field of physics.

Florin Moldoveanu

"It should be noted that I have systematically debunked all of the bogus and misguided claims made against my local realistic framework by certain uninformed, unqualified, and unpublished individuals..."

Blah, blah, blah. Talk is cheap. Win the bet by providing the two files. Do it by experiment or by faking the files, here are some suggestions from easy and cheap to hard and expensive:

-Ask your computer friends to provide the files for you from their computer simulations you so proudly present as "proof" that you correctly recover the quantum correlations. (after all, the data does contain the measurement directions because this is how data is plotted)

-Use a random number generator for the first file and compute the second one using your theory. (if you have a valid physical theory you should be able to use it to compute things)

-Do the experiment, explode the balls and record the directions.

Fred Diether

"Talk is cheap." So why do you keep talkin'? You are not really contributing anything but derogatory comments. I am still scratching my head as to how you could possibly think +1 = -1 in the model? Let's talk about that. Yeah, it is probably old junk but there are probably some new people here and new lurkers.

John Cox

"...zero understanding of what even a modest experimental budget with overheads looks like..."

Amen! It would look like a dog designed by a committee. jrc

Florin Moldoveanu

Rick, as you can probably guess, I do have a disagreement with Richard. He is under the impression that Joy is genuinely mathematical incompetent and he agreed on an impossible bet to square the circle (that is why he does not care how the data for the bet is generated).

Myself I am under the impression that Joy is mathematically competent, but his end goal is not to win the bet but to attract support from the public because he is well aware that his credibility in the academia is already zero ON THIS topic.

When FQXi had their committee deciding on Joy's approach to Bell's theorem, they left an opening for him to work on other topics. At that time I did not comment, but I felt that Joy had no other topic of interest and he will continue on "disproving Bell's theorem". I was right, and I will not make the same mistake of not commenting again and that is why I predict that this dispute will still be here in 2 years.

The data is already available. There is a simulation by Michel F who does recover the quantum correlations by using the well known detection loophole. Joy vocally claims that Michel's simulation is based on his model (which is incorrect) but if so, why not take that data and give it to Richard to win the bet? Instead of the easy road, he will take the hard experimental road (maybe the experiment will have to be conducted in nice and exotic tropical island locations?) because his end goal is to drag this out as much as possible. The bet can be settled tomorrow if so desired.

Jonathan Dickau

There is another possibility..

I think Joy realizes he has discovered something significant, and knows that beyond Bell's theorem there are implications for other areas of Physics, but that turning his model into a full-blown theory of quantum gravity may be difficult.

Joy may have painted himself into a corner (regarding a QG theory), because the way he has framed his attack on the quantum correlations issue leaves him with a theory from which QM may be emergent - rather than one that allows QM and Gravitation to be combined. However; my guess is that Joy is not yet ready to announce his emergent QM theory, and is hopeful the experiments will provide confirmation that Torsion Gravity is at work in nature.

I have been working independently on all of the above lines of research, and from what I've learned I can attest that it is possible to attain at least some of those goals - using elements of Joy's construction as a starting point.

All the Best,

Jonathan

Florin Moldoveanu

Jonathan, of course there is the other possibility that Joy will win the bet and this will mean that both myself and Gill are mathematical incompetent, unpublished, unqualified, etc, etc.

Joy Christian

Thank you, Jonathan.

At the moment I am only prepared to make public what I have already made public, namely what I say in the last paragraph (just before the acknkowledgement) in this crucial paper. Needless to say, much work remains to be done. I am glad to know that you and others are getting involved. I certainty cannot do all the work by myself.

Best,

Joy

Joy Christian

Typo: I meant "certainly", not "certainty."

Richard Gill

When I said, "for all I care ...", I meant that (a) as far as my bet is concerned, faking the two data-sets is allowed by the agreement between Christian and me, and (b) as far as my calculations are concerned it won't change my probability that I'll win the bet (100%). Obviously, it would be immoral, but I am not suggesting any immorality on anyone's part.

I did offer a new bet to Joy, namely that he asks one of the people who programmed his model simulations for him, to also simulate his experiment and provide me two data files of simulated directions of angular momentum. I suggested an upper time limit of June 11, when I give a talk at Vaxjo http://lnu.se/qtpa , and a stake of 10 000 Euro, but Joy prefers a real experiment.

But if anyone else wants to try, they are welcome to do so. 10 000 Euro says you can't. You have about six weeks. Special limited time offer. If Joy's theory is right, this is taking candy from a baby. Maybe someone likes to ask Michel Fodje or Chantal Roth for programmimg help. Maybe Fred Diether can do it in Mathematica.

Richard Gill

BTW I see the bet and experiment as a wonderful science-outreach opportunity. I think we need a new FQXi forum topic, devoted purely to the experiment and aimed at a new and wider audience. We need some publicity. So the next steps are (a) a web-site / forum / ... , scrupulously and neutrally moderated; (b) a science journalist.

If Joy wins, there will be a revolution in science and a Nobel prize. If not, there will be an igNobel prize, I'm sure.

The web-site should preferably be on "neutral ground".

Thomas Ray

" ... the way he has framed his attack on the quantum correlations issue leaves him with a theory from which QM may be emergent - rather than one that allows QM and Gravitation to be combined."

I think subsumed, rather than emergent. In spite of the false claims, neither Joy nor I nor Fred are "Bell deniers." Not speaking for the others -- I fully accept that Bell's theorem proves that classical physics cannot map physical space to quantum configuration space without a nonlocal model. The converse, however -- that the quantum domain is continuous with the classical -- is unproven.

Richard's and Florin's weakness is conflating programmed models with computability. The former always has clearly defined parameters even if they are infinitely adjustable; the latter, not necessarily -- and because the geometry of the spacetime model under consideration is coordinate-free, it is hard for the topologically naive to understand non-vanishing quantities (the characteristic you have called "roundness") that are nowhere fixed and everywhere variable. Curved spacetime is continuous, which begs a real continuous measurement function that maps to itself.

Richard Gill

Interesting. Tom said that he "accepts that Bell's theorem proves that classical physics cannot map physical space to quantum configuration space without a nonlocal model." Then he will also understand (if only he will read Joy's experimental paper and read the protocol for the bet carefully) that Joy will *certainly* lose his bet.

I use the word *certainly* deliberately. Very deliberately. The choice of the numbers 0.7071... and 0.2 is also very careful. Notice that 0.7071... - 0.2 > 0.5 (strictly larger than 0.5).

There will be no random choice of setting directions, no tossing of classical coins in the present agreement. There will just be two computer files of directions of angular momentum. Via a simple thought experiment, those numbers lead rather quickly to the infamous N x 4 spreadsheet of numbers +/-1 and to a proof of a CHSH-like inequality using simple arithmetic and simple logic.

Only a thought experiment, mind you, I promise I won't actually generate the Nx4 spreadsheet!

But it my mind it would contain, in the k'th row, the following four numbers,

column names: A A' B B'

======================================================

row k: sign(a0 . u_k) sign(a90 . u_k) sign(b45 . v_k) sign(b135 . v_k)

Joy Christian

Your thought experiment is in error. It is conducted in the flatland of an N x 4 spreadsheet, which has the topology of the set R of real numbers. It has nothing whatsoever to do with the world we actually live in. You might as well give up your 5000 euros today.

Thomas Ray

" ... he will also understand (if only he will read Joy's experimental paper and read the protocol for the bet carefully) that Joy will *certainly* lose his bet.

"I use the word *certainly* deliberately. Very deliberately. The choice of the numbers 0.7071... and 0.2 is also very careful. Notice that 0.7071... - 0.2 > 0.5 (strictly larger than 0.5)."

Yet one more reason that I suggested time-limited-interval overlays of the computer results -- to thwart your preference for the "heads I win, tails you lose" bets that you love.

You're like a bar hustler, Richard -- you know very well what bets you can statistically win. So do I. The constant correlation between a pair of particles from the initial condition to infinity, however -- what you call quantum entanglement -- is local for both near time scales, and far; i.e., there is no line of separation between the domains.

You are thinking that any particular particle pair trajectory obeys an upper bound of 0.5, as a discrete function of 1/4, which is the same as 2/4, so you feel confident that there is no additional degree of freedom. A function of 2\/2/4, however, guarantees the continuous function, because the simply connected space with trivial fundamental group implies a smooth map to itself.

You're going to find yourself snookered at your own game.

Thomas Ray

Of course, I meant 1/2 not 1/4

Richard Gill

Tom said "Yet one more reason that I suggested time-limited-interval overlays of the computer results -- to thwart your preference for the "heads I win, tails you lose" bets that you love."

So, Tom, are you recommending Joy to withdraw from the bet as currently framed? Sure, I do love bets which I will certainly win! You already know me well.

Do you agree that as the bet is presently framed, I am certain to win? If so you had better explain this to Joy as soon as possible, so that he can still honourably withdraw.

Joy said "Your thought experiment is in error. It is conducted in the flatland of an N x 4 spreadsheet, which has the topology of the set R of real numbers."

Yet in the second phase of the experiment and the bet, Joy hands over two ordinary computer files of real numbers represented in flatland decimal notation. Which will be analysed by me and the adjudicators of our bet on flatland computers using flatland arithmetic. So the flatland thought experiment is actually highly relevant to the calculation of any of those four correlations. The u_k and v_k, k = 1, ..., N, are not going to magically change because I try our different combinations of measurement directions a and b. They will have already been frozen in flatland physics.

I know that very soon after Joy hands over the two computer files, he will also be obliged to hand over 5 000 Euro to the Medicins sans frontiers. He might as well do it today.

Florin Moldoveanu

Today is April 2014 and I have a prediction. My prediction is that on April 2016 this matter will not be settled.

The matter can be settled in a day: there is a beautiful computer simulation of the correlation which Joy claims it accurately represent his theory. This simulation displays correlations as a function of angles differences. The angles from this simulation is all that is needed to be provided to settle the bet. Due to inherent experimental errors, no experiment will come as close as this data to generate a perfect minus cosine correlation. The angle data has just to be saved on a file and provided for adjudication.

Still I predict that the long route will be chosen and an experiment will be attempted because the goal is not to settle the dispute but to drag it out indefinitely under false pretenses. I already suggested three alternatives to generate the data for the bet:

- dump the angle data from the simulation: this takes 5 minutes and costs nothing.

- create the data from scratch using the theory: this can take about a month of theoretical work and costs nothing.

- do the experiment: this should take 6 months to a year and can cost between 40-80 thousand dollars (for the worst case scenario: 40K salary for the post doc and 40K overhead).

None of the above options require the end date for the bet to be settled past April 2016.

Here is how I think the experiment will drag things out:

- unable to raise the required money: there are not enough willing donors for the required amount and no serous funding agency will provide the money

- no qualified person will want to do the experiment, particularly since there is computer simulation data which can easily prove the task is hopeless

In two years (or less) we will have one of the following outcomes:

1. Richard wins the bet (meaning Joy admits defeat) and also proves me wrong in my prediction.

2. The bet is not settled and I am right in today's prediction.

3. Joy wins the bet and proves that Richard and I have no clue of mathematics and shames us both.

In case Joy withdraws form the current bet I consider that he forfeited and lost and outcome 1 will happen: Richard proves me wrong in my assumption that Joy knows he is wrong but pretends he is right.

If outcome (1) is realized I will release Joy from his old bet/promise with me that he will withdraw from doing physics if he is wrong.

Richard Gill

I think there will be an experimenter ... there's definitely an igNobel prize in this. It is such a fun experiment.

Richard Gill

The bet can now also be discussed at http://www.sciphysicsforums.com/spfbb1/viewtopic.php?f=6&t=46

Richard Gill

Florin, there is a fourth possibility. The bet could be over very soon. The adjudicators might adjudicate that it is sufficient to perform a thought experiment.

They are wise and respected and responsible and independent scientists.

Joy Christian

I am under no obligation of respecting any of the goalpost-shifted bets or adjudications.

The only thing I have agreed with is that an actual experiment proposed in my experimental papers and posted on my blog be carried out and judged on the basis of the four predictions we have agreed on. In other words,

(1) Experiment is performed exactly as I have specified.

(2) The four predictions I have made are checked for confirmation or refutation.

(3) An adjudication is made based on this verification process.

No further obfuscations of these facts or attempts to discredit me and my intentions are necessary. It is important to note that in the past Mr. Moldoveanu was forced to apologized to me publicly by FQXi and arXiv administrations for such attempts to discredit me personally and falsely accusing me of various things.

Richard Gill

Imagine two people making a bet. It involves an elaborate protocol and a complicated experiment, and an independent team of adjudicators. The last line of the instructions to the adjudicators are:

Step 99. Calculate 2 divided by 4 (real numbers).

Step 100. If the result differs by more than 0.2 from 0.7071 pronounce "winner is Richard Gill", otherwise pronounce "winner is Joy Christian".

Now it seems to me that the adjudicators could prepare and publish their final adjudication in advance. though obviously no-one is bound to anything ... Christian only admits defeat after the experiment and after the adjudication rules against him. He honestly believes this will never happen.

So I agree with Joy: no goal-post shifting. I am just proposing a thought experiment, for the fun of it.

Joy Christian

Watching this video is my idea of having some light fun: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BWyTxCsIXE4.

Thomas Ray

Jonathan, there is quite a difference between correcting errors and closing gaps in a theory, and calling someone's whole research program an "ideology" and mocking "divine Einstein."

Relativity is well founded and well tested, in Galilean terms, in Poincare, Lorentz and Einstein terms.

It remains that general covariance -- the principle that makes general relativity coherent -- is the only gap left. And Einstein himself did not intend general relativity to be a final theory; he was very clear that it could stand only up to diffeomorphism.

It has to be this way if one intends to generalize a theory of spacetime and gravity -- one is compelled to limit his ambition by limiting the measure space in a way in which measured events can be compared against a closed logical judgement of expected events.

That is why quantum mechanics is not a true scientific theory, as even Richard Gill acknowledges, and why Einstein relativity is such a theory. If Joy's measurement framework can demonstrate an objective measure schema, general relativity can be extended to active diffeomorphism and a complete theory of quantum gravity is within a whisker's reach. I think Sean Carroll does a good job of explaining diffeomorphism invariance; general covariance in true coordinate-free geometry is the next hurdle -- and there is no doubt in my mind that Joy's framework has the legs to overcome it.

[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!).

Jonathan Dickau

Gee Tom,

I am not saying I endorse all of Pentcho's naysaying about Einstein, and I find great value in studying Relativity, but I've already been around the mill over obvious inconsistencies that some folks refuse to see. I think that because GR is so extraordinarily effective at explaining what it covers well, people want to stretch it to fit where it is not meant to apply.

The fact it does break down in the matter-free regime is why Hawking had to concede the question on event horizons of black holes. Relativity can only be defined when there are topological structures (things with a surface) that have enough separation to not be overlapping. So there is a quantum mechanical breakdown, when this condition is not met.

The whole point is that considering the matter of active diffeomorphism is only possible if we do understand the topology, and include it in our reckoning. Anyhow; PV's comments are not always helpful, but this time he was on target.

Regards,

Jonathan

« Previous Page Next Page »