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

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.

Joy Christian

In several threads above Mr. Moldoveanu continues his long and vindictive campaign of personal attacks and snide remarks against me. Therefore it is important to recall here that not long ago he was forced to apologize to me publicly by FQXi and arXiv administrations for such attempts to discredit me personally, and for falsely accusing me of various unethical academic actions.

Richard Gill

Joy said:

"(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."

Indeed these are the facts. Christian's intentions are clear and honest. There is no need to further attempt to discredit him.

We proceed to do PR and acquire funding. The sooner the experiment is done the better.

Richard Gill

PS if any of Joy's supporters can "win the bet" for him by submitting simulated data, they can and should go ahead. If they succeed I'll not only concede immediate defeat but also increase my efforts to get the real experiment done. Anyway, a succesful computer simulation should make the experiment much more attractive to experimenters.

There are a number of simulation models around already. If they do what Christian claims they do it should be an easy job to modify the code to output the two sets of directions of angular momentum. Already, Michel Fodje's Python code "epr-simple" does just that - it outputs two files of "hidden variables" from the source. Separate programs subsequently simulate what happens at the two measurement stations.

Joy Christian

I agree with the above comments by Richard Gill. However, in my opinion the existing simulations of my model, including Michel Fodje's simulation, are not adequate enough to correctly output the two sets of directions of angular momentum. I know how to generate the directions analytically. I will work on the problem, with the understanding that my success or failure in this regard has nothing to do with the bet involving the actual experiment.

[deleted]

I have to keep asking, is the simulation of a continuous function, a continuous function?

If it is, the measure of angular momentum through 4pi radians, that maps the function to itself, as 2\/2/4 gives the correct value 0.7071 ... and can only be seen graphically by comparing time-limited results overlaid against a time-evolving state.

What I mean is, the quantum mechanical equation for the purported wave function collapse at observation, (psi|psi) = 1, claims that there is no evolution of the state vector that maps the function itself. That is, the unitary result assumes correlation of the endpoints for particles entangled and separated on the same axis.

On orthogonal axes, the endpoints are disconnected both for the upper bound 1/2 on a single axis and 2/4 for the axes considered simultaneously; i.e., because the state vector is the same value in every direction, one is compelled to conclude that observation (observer choice of coordinates) causes collapse.

Allowed to continue through 4pi radians, however, the function has to accommodate classical, as well as quantum, reversibility. This is not merely a matter of running the function in reverse -- we know the disconnected endpoints can be shrunk to a point in the plane. What we don't know is whether the continuous loop on the equator of a 3 dimensional manifold -- a great circle in geometric terms -- can be shrunk to a point on the 3-sphere. Or actually, we do know that mathematically (Perelman's proof for the Poincare conjecture) -- yet can it be represented in 3-dimensions as an effect of continuous 4-dimensional spacetime on a 3-dimension sphere?

If so, the simple plane trigonometry of angle differences is not sufficient to demonstrate the case. It is trivial to choose coordinates in 2 space and 3 space and show collapse to a point.

What one intends to show in a coordinate-free system, is that observer choice of coordinates (detector settings) does not prevent classical reversibility, such that quantum and classical reversibility are identical. That is, entanglement and collapse are unnecessary assumptions of the initial condition.

A transparent sphere simulating the Riemann manifold measures angle difference as a function of hyperbolic geometry, the same geometry that proves the Pythagoras theorem in 4 dimensions, vice the trivial 2 or 3. So one cannot lay all these 3-dimension measurement values on a flat surface; they have to be distributed on a spherical manifold and correlated as points of a circle, not a line. That is, just as we know that any arbitrarily chosen point of a circle's circumference returns to itself independent of the coordinate system in which it lives, we can know that any arbitrary choice of point on the 3-sphere is a pair of points continuously correlated no matter the system's state of evolution at any time, from the chosen initial condition C_a,b.

Quantum and classical reversibility are therefore identical, without assuming entanglement and collapse. The universe at any scale is generally covariant.

Thomas Ray

Sigh. 'twas I. Is there any way to know that one is logged out, before posting?

Florin Moldoveanu

"Mr. Moldoveanu continues his long and vindictive campaign of personal attacks and snide remarks against me."

Perhaps Joy Christian did not understand what I said:"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."

This is not vindictive, it is magnanimous.

I did not force Joy to take the bet. In case he wins the bet I am providing an additional benefit for free: he can claim with good reason that I am also wrong and mathematical incompetent. If he loses the bet he has an option between outcome 1 and outcome 2: he is the ONLY person able to decide that. And in outcome 1 he is given a release from an old promise he made that he will quit physics if wrong.

On the other hand the verbal abuses and insults of Joy are well documented and many of his critics were silenced through intimidation (I can easily count several cases like Marcin Pawlowski and Marc Holman). This has not worked for me and will never will never work for me. The difference between me and Joy is that I admit I am wrong when I am wrong.

Joy Christian

In addition to what I have noted above, it is also worth recalling 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.

Richard Gill

Tom, you keep asking "I have to keep asking, is the simulation of a continuous function, a continuous function?", and I have to keep asking you, do you agree with me that as the bet stands, Joy cannot win?

For the same reason I know that not only are past simulation models inadequate, but all future ones are inadequate too. Because we are talking about mathematical certainty in flatland. The experiment, whether in reality or simulation, generates two computer files of N pairs of real numbers represented by finite strings of decimals. From then on, we are in flatland. In the realm of elementary arithmetic and elementary logic. In the realm of tautologies.

But anyway, it is great that Joy tries to do this simulation. There are several proficient programmers who are enthusiastic to help him. A succesful simulation would be an existence theorem: there exist two lists of N pairs of real numbers such that ... . And if such sets of numbers can be generated in computer simulation, then certainly there is a chance that they could turn up as outcome of an experiment too.

I have a non-existence proof. It is completely elementary.

Joy Christian

It is also worth noting that the bet between me and Richard Gill has nothing whatsoever to do with Mr. Moldoveanu or his opinions. In fact he is of no significance to me apart from the fact that his vindictive and on-going online personal campaign against me has been noted with interest by some psychologists and sociologists.

Joy Christian

Richard, I do not accept your non-existence proof. It has nothing to do with the real world. The problem is precisely that it is too elementary (or too naïve).

Thomas Ray

There is in science no such thing as a non-existence theorem, any more than the absence of evidence implies evidence of absence.

A true scientific theory is not based on induction from observation.

Florin Moldoveanu

One more point. I do not want my position to be misconstrued as disingenuous generosity towards Joy. The reason for letting him have additional benefits if he wins or forgiveness of past bets if he loses is because I am sick and tired of this debate and I want closure. If this means that Richard is right and I am wrong so be it. If Joy thinks I am not relevant to the bet it does not matter. Having made my prediction publicly I will be back debating the merits of Bell's theorem in April 2016 (or sooner if the bet is settled by then).

Joy Christian

LOL!

Thomas Ray

" ... I am sick and tired of this debate and I want closure."

Florin, that's an odd position for a scientist to take.

Nick Mann

"In fact he is of no significance to me apart from the fact that his vindictive and on-going online personal campaign against me has been noted with interest by some psychologists and sociologists."

Always discount remote diagnoses. I've heard a psychoanalyst suggest that you might have Oedipal issues with Abner Shimony. You know: a wish to symbolically murder and then supplant the father-figure. Please.

Richard Gill

Joy: I know you do not accept my proof. That's your prerogative.

Tom: you prevaricate as usual.

In mathematics there is such a thing as a non-existence proof. I am talking about mathematics, not about science.

I claim that one can prove that there does not exist an odd natural number less than or equal to 1 million, which is equal to the sum of two even natural numbers.

The proof that whatever experiment is done, or whatever simulation program is written, two computer files of pairs of real numbers cannot be found which would give Joy a "win" is of about the same level of difficulty and of indisputibility. And though the experiment and the bet are done in order to settle a scientific question, this part of that whole process belongs fairly and squarely to the domain of finite, finary mathematics. Elementary logic and elementary arithmetic.

Not quite as sexy as S^4 and the torsion of space, but that's too bad. But if someone doesn't have a clue about elementary logic or elementary arithmetic, one can wonder whether or not one should trust them on more esoteric more "scientific" topics.

Richard Gill

"A true scientific theory is based on induction from observation"

I just offered Mr. Tom H. Ray an observation which disproves one of Joy Christian's claims.

Tom, you need to learn from observation!

Joy Christian

"Not quite as sexy as S^4..."

S^4 is not sexy at all.

But S^3 certainly is: http://libertesphilosophica.info/blog/

"But if someone doesn't have a clue about elementary logic or elementary arithmetic, one can wonder whether or not one should trust them on more esoteric more "scientific" topics."

I agree wholeheartedly.

Richard Gill

darn I keep mixing up those spheres

;-)

Thomas Ray

"I claim that one can prove that there does not exist an odd natural number less than or equal to 1 million, which is equal to the sum of two even natural numbers."

Excellent. Now prove that there exists no even natural number that is not the sum of two primes for all members n of N.

Just for the reason that you don't get the roles of limit and function in proving arithmetic theorems, I think you don't get the roles of limit and function in Joy's topological framework.

It's elementary to calculate -- as you suggest -- the results of any arithmetic result up to a defined numerical limit. Can one so easily generalize that result when we know that any point of R^3 can map to any other set of points provided that it is far enough away? And can you understand that R^3 is compactified by a point at infinity in Joy's topological framework?

So tell us, Richard, how to calculate a result up to diffeomorphism using R^3 in the Euclidean plane that lies on the S^2 manifold.

I'll wait.

Joy Christian

"darn I keep mixing up those spheres"

That indeed is your fatal error.

Correlations between the point of S^4 cannot exceed the linear limit (care to guess why?).

Correlations between the point of S^3 on the other hand cannot but be the cosine correlation (care to guess why?).

Joy Christian

I meant to write "points"---plural.

Thomas Ray

Florin,

" ... the verbal abuses and insults of Joy are well documented and many of his critics were silenced through intimidation (I can easily count several cases like Marcin Pawlowski and Marc Holman)."

Everyone's abusive comments are well documented in this affair, not just Joy's. Where and how do you know critics were silenced, however? This hardly makes sense. Not speaking for anyone else I have been quite forthcoming in my own opinion that Marc Holman's critique is correct, but for neglecting the extra degree of freedom that comes with a complete measure space; i.e., the initial condition determined by a particle pair correlated at any scale. In other words, instead of investing the choice function in the experimenter, nonzero torsion in the topology also gives nature a choice in the outcome of a measurement. The framework is coordinate free and generally covariant.

En Passant

Dear Mr. Mann,

In your puerile attempts at cleverness, you reveal anything but that. Please stick to physics, with zero mention of personalities, motivations, or any other attributes of persons. Yes, I have perpetrated the same here, but that is just for you to see how it looks.

Nick Mann

I can tell you're jealous. And you have good reason to be.

Richard Gill

I wonder if Joy is not the one who is mixing up his spheres?

At the end of the exploding colourful balls experiment, we have two files containing directions of angular momentum in R^3. Points in S^2.

Two computer files, each on a different USB stick, the files are text files

called, say, AliceDirections.txt and BobDirections.txt.

They contain directions u_k and v_k, k = 1, ..., N encoded in spherical coordinates theta, phi,

and represented in ordinary decimal notation to say 10 significant figures.

Two floating point real numbers, e.g. separated by a few spaces, per line.

N lines of pairs of real numbers in both files.

These four times N numbers are all going to be calculated (but not all at the same time)

sign(a0 . u_k), sign(a90 . u_k), sign(b45 . v_k), sign(b135 . v_k),

k = 1, ..., N,

and these four correlations are all going to be calculated (but not all at the same time)

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...

I am not going to put these numbers into one spreadsheet. I am not going to call them A, A', B, B'.

I have four different computer programs which will each read the same two data files AliceDirections.txt and BobDirections.txt, and then each compute just one of the four correlations according to Joy's formulas, as agreed in our bet.

If anyone likes I can show them the programs which I am going to use.

I believe that I will observe that one of those correlations is off by 0.2 or more, and if so, I'll report which one it is to the three adjudicators Khrennikov, de Raedt, Weihs. The adjudicators can then check. They also have a copy of the two files on the two USB sticks. They don't have to use my programs, they can use any computer language they like. Everyone will be able to see what calculation is done and what comes out of the calculation. The two data files AliceDirections.txt and BobDirections.txt will be posted on internet so everyone can check that my claim is right (if I'm right), or that Joy's claim is right (if he's right). They can do the calculations in a spreadsheet, by a perl script, with R, Python or with Mathematica, just as they like.

Now the problem for Joy is that by some simple algebra it is easy to check that

- E(0, 45) E(0, 135) - E(90, 45) - E(90, 135) = 1.

I don't mind whether the two computer files come from a real experiment or a simulated experiment. So anyone who can program Joy's model and get those two files to me before Joy gets them to me through his real experiment or through his own computer simulated experiment, is welcome to do so. If they succeed in proving me wrong they'll get 5 000 Euro from me, and undying fame. Joy says his experiment could generate those two files. So he believes that such sets of numbers exist. I believe they don't exist. Prove me wrong.

Richard Gill

typo: " = 1 " should have been "

Richard Gill

Sorry not a typo on my part, but a forum software "feature"

Not ... = 1, but ... is less than or equal to 2.

Richard Gill

Some more of what I typed didn't get displayed

Now the problem for Joy is that by some simple algebra it is easy to check that

- E(0, 45) E(0, 135) - E(90, 45) - E(90, 135) is less than or equal to 2

which means that it is not possible for all four of - E(0, 45), E(0, 135), - E(90, 45), and - E(90, 135), to be strictly larger than 0.5 at the same time. At least one of those four must be less than or equal to 0.5 hence less that 0.7071... - 0.2 = 0.5011 ...

ie at least one of the four correlations will be off Joy's target by at least 0.2

The only assumption I'm making is that N is greater than or equal to 1.

Richard Gill

Tom wrote "So tell us, Richard, how to calculate a result up to diffeomorphism using R^3 in the Euclidean plane that lies on the S^2 manifold. I'll wait."

Yes you'll wait, for ever.

Now, why don't you carefully read the protocol which Joy and I have agreed? You might want to advise Joy to withdraw from his bet. There is some discussion just starting at

http://www.sciphysicsforums.com/spfbb1/viewtopic.php?f=6&t=46

The topic of that thread is "the bet on Joy Christian's experiment". It starts by restating the protocol of the bet. This might be a good location for Joy's supporters to offer him advice or help. They should certainly study the protocol carefully.

They can also help the experiment to actually get done, by programming a succesful simulation of experiment bet. I will also pay up when the computer files are submitted, prepared by simulation rather than experiment, which win the bet.

The experiment is described here: http://arxiv.org/abs/0806.3078

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.

Thomas Ray

"Yes you'll wait, for ever."

Well that's the point, isn't it? While your probabilistic model never waits for a function to complete, a complete measurement function is self limiting; i.e., always local.

One can only realize that limit, however, in a topological framework.

Richard Gill

Sorry Joy I thought you had rejected my offer of 10 000 Euro's if you could submit two computer files which win the bet before Wednesday June 11, 2014

That's the day I give my talk at Vaxjo.

But I can put it back on the table.

To make it more of a competition, let me say that this offer is open to absolutely anyone. But after June 11 it goes down to 5000.

As well as the money you'll get my public apologies to Joy Christian, my withdrawal of quite a few papers by myself, and a lot of publicity. First come first served.

My bet with Joy remains standing. Of course once someone else has submitted winning computer files, I will publish them, and Joy will be able to collect on his bet with me, as well.

Richard Gill

Tom says "One can only realize that limit, however, in a topological framework." (emphasis by me)

Tom iagrees with me that I will win my bet with Joy!

As anyone can see, there is no topological framework and no limit once the two computer files of measured directions of angular momentum have been submitted. After that there is only flatland, finitely, discrete, arithmetic.

Joy Christian

So potentially I could collect 15,000 euros from you. Now that I call a generous offer.

Well, I will settle for 10,000 euros and call you a gentleman.

Thomas Ray

"As anyone can see, there is no topological framework and no limit once the two computer files of measured directions of angular momentum have been submitted. After that there is only flatland, finitely, discrete, arithmetic."

You always forget about that point at infinity, don't you?

Richard Gill

This time, your arithmetic is correct, Joy

And yes, this time your logic is correct too: you are correct in deducing that I am a gentleman.

Richard Gill

I do not see the point at infinity, Tom; the point at infinity which you see everywhere?

Unfortunately it is not there in flatland once Joy has submitted two computer files of real numbers.

Read the protocol, and think about it.

I am not saying that Joy's theory or your theory is wrong.

I'm saying that Joy will lose his bet.

Please focus.

Thomas Ray

"I do not see the point at infinity, Tom; the point at infinity which you see everywhere?"

It is everywhere. A spacetime singularity of cosmological origin is everywhere continuous with the measure space in which we live, and that is not R^3.

"Unfortunately it is not there in flatland once Joy has submitted two computer files of real numbers."

We don't live in flatland, even though the computer results are projected on a flat screen. Again, I think my suggestion to overlay time-limited-interval results is graphically more explanatory of the spherical correlations.

"Read the protocol, and think about it.

I am not saying that Joy's theory or your theory is wrong."

Joy has said time and again that his measurement framework does not constitute a theory, something that I had to verify for myself very early on, because were it a theory we would not be able to say that the simulated measurement corresponds 1 - 1 to the continuous function of all quantum correlations. Instead, we can say that the microscale correlations in his measurement framework do produce the same results as quantum mechanics, without the assumptions of entanglement and nonlocality.

"I'm saying that Joy will lose his bet."

I know.

"Please focus."

Sure.

Richard Gill

So, Tom, do you think Joy will win his bet?

Make sure you read the small print! Don't prevaricate. Yes or no?

You can still warn Christian if/when you realize that Christian literally does not have a chance... in other words, not any chance at all.

If you think Christian can win by smuggling a point at infinity into the two computer files of directions (representing points in S^2) on the basis of which the bet will be settled, he sure could use your help right now. And if the help arrives before June 11, Christian wins the jackpot.

Thomas Ray

"So, Tom, do you think Joy will win his bet?"

Do you play snooker or billiards, Richard? In my misspent youth, a common technique of the pool hall hustler was to remind a potential challenger that anyone can lose on any particular day, especially the hustler who is not really up to his best game right now. Maybe it's the indigestion, a cold, a little fever, too much beer. Of course, the hustler knows (if the challenger is not himself sandbagging and pretending to be a worse player than he is) that the advantage goes to the player who knows the table. Players' skill levels may change day to day; the geometry of a fair table does not. Every shot can be predicted, given perfect aim, perfect trajectory, perfect angle, perfect momentum.

The hustler is not playing the table, however; he knows that if he plays as close to perfection as his skill allows, he will win. The pool hustler and the card shark don't play the game -- they play the player.

Because you know the table so well, you think that you can win the game without even picking up a cue stick, simply by knowing where the balls will come to rest, given your choice of where to place the cue ball and which direction to shoot.

Imagine your surprise when you find out the table isn't fair. Your cue ball touches an object ball, then a rail, and when you expect the cue ball to stop you find that it rolls on past that point.

"Make sure you read the small print! Don't prevaricate. Yes or no?"

Yes.

"You can still warn Christian if/when you realize that Christian literally does not have a chance... in other words, not any chance at all."

You're worried, aren't you?

"If you think Christian can win by smuggling a point at infinity into the two computer files of directions (representing points in S^2) on the basis of which the bet will be settled, he sure could use your help right now. And if the help arrives before June 11, Christian wins the jackpot."

He doesn't have to smuggle anything. The point at infinity already includes a pair of fixed and fluctuating variables, the cue ball and the object ball. They are correlated all the time, whether infinitely close or infinitely separated. The result doesn't depend on your choice of where to put the cue ball.

The player has been played. By himself.

Richard Gill

OK, Tom thinks that Joy will win his bet!

I rejoice because we finally got a yes/no answer to a pretty clear yes/no question.

But this does worry me. I'm worried for Joy. I had hoped that Tom would be able to explain to Joy that Joy has walked straight into a fatal trap, dug by himself. Obviously Joy doesn't pay any attention to my ramblings, but he might have paid attention to Tom.

The reason that earlier I was hopeful, was because I had earlier seen some signs of glimmerings of insight in what Tom writes, which had led me to believe he might have actually perceived the trap which Christian has dug for himself. For instance, Tom did actually say that he agreed with my "spreadsheet theorem" and he also said that he agreed with Bell that classical physics could not reproduce the predictions of quantum mechanics. Each of these two things contradict Tom's belief that Joy will win his bet, since once Joy has submitted his two computer files of directions, he is unfortunately trapped in flatland.

Numbers in an already existing text file, of which multiple copies have been made, don't suddenly change because of the intention of some new person who gets that file, inputs the numbers into some program, and runs the program on them. Whatever program, the numbers in the text file stay the same ... well up to the occasional collection of spontaneous bit-flips caused by multiple bunches of cosmic rays which alter all existing copies of the file in identical fashion while moreover not making it evidently corrupted.

The essence of science is reproducibiliy. Joy and Tom's theories deny reproducibility. They invoke magic. Magic sign flips which a deus ex machina from time to time invokes in order to show that his prophet was indeed sent from heaven. This is religion. This is a cargo cult. This is not science.

Thomas Ray

"The essence of science is reproducibiliy. Joy and Tom's theories deny reproducibility. They invoke magic. Magic sign flips which a deus ex machina from time to time invokes in order to show that his prophet was indeed sent from heaven. This is religion. This is a cargo cult. This is not science."

More magic than entanglement and nonlocality?

No. Fact is, that sign reversal caused by nonvanishing torsion in the measure space is a quite natural outcome of correlated and generally covariant quantities.

You gave it away with the 85% statistical prediction. It is quite trivial that measure samples based on individual detector settings correlate at the upper limit of 75% of the time. For an 85% or more outcome, one requires a length 1 metric of correlated endpoints all the time. This is another self similar feature that Joy's framework shares with both special and general relativity -- a constant speed of light compels length contraction in the direction of metric motion by about 1/2, at some 86% of the speed of light. Because spacetime is continuous, length contraction includes time dilation; a sign reversal in one of the coordinates in real time forces the normal length measure 1/2 to expand by about 14% to 0.57 so that length 1 is overvalued to 1.14. That's just about right to give the result we're looking for.

Joy predicts the upper bound 2\/2/4 = 0.7071 ... in every direction except the direction of motion; i.e., a sign change accounting for 3 negative and one positive, or 3 positive and one negative, in the complete metric measure of a scalar value. I think the difference between 1.14 and 1.41 (derived by 2 X 0.7071 ...) can be accounted for in the totality of the system by adding the binding energy of atomic elements used to implement the program, though I am not going to try and calculate that right now.

All along, Richard, you and your cohorts have been casting Joy as some kind of guru to those of us who support his research program. Fact is, though, that I and Fred and others (maybe Jonathan) have arrived at the same or similar results by different methods. It was the same with relativity; Poincare and Lorentz could also have gotten there with just a bit of the insight that Einstein added.

As far as science goes -- science is about theory and prediction, the correspondence of physical measurement to abstract theory. There is no measured correspondence between quantum entanglement and quantum correlations -- so who are the real "cargo cult scientists?" Not we relativists. It's you and the "QRC" advocates.

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.

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.

Joy Christian

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

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

« Previous Page Next Page »