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

Nick Mann

Heine Rasmussen received a serious thumbs-up in "Restoring Local Causality and Objective Reality to the Entangled Photons" including v.6 currently posted on the ArXiv.

What in heaven's name went wrong between then and now?

Jonathan Dickau

Yes thank you Akinbo..

As you point out, the motions and rotations we observe are all in relation to other objects with independent centers. A sphere or toroid rotating, in a universe absent of any other substantial form, is indistinguishable from one that is perfectly still - and orbited by an (insubstantial) observer. But once there is more than one object, and given that they are independent not overlapping, all motion is relative. My statement about torsion in the background space is an attempt to answer "what sets things spinning in the first place?"

All the Best,

Jonathan

pjackson

Jonathen,

That's fair. I agree most of your synopsis, possibly excepting 'time', but certainly with both intrinsic chirality and intrinsic rotation in space as a recognised gyrokinetic effect. But although there was no room in the essay I promise I'm about as far as possible from taking it as a 'given'. As a co-incidence I've just had a paper deriving all that in detail (and more) accepted for publication (preprint available here); A Cyclic model.... I even derive elliptical chiral polarity with the dynamic (and superluminal Jets

pjackson

Akinbo,

I labour the answer to that in the essay. It's all about; "THERE IS NO 'UP' IN SPACE!" Spin is relative as Jonathen says, background or not (actually not not but inconsequential here). Bob found greater implications. Think of it like this;

To "DETECT" or "MEASURE" requires an "interaction" between two bodies, so a "transfer" of orbital angular momentum (OAM) ON MEETING. All spin is then relative between those two bodies.

Hypothesis (well supported); One body propagates on it's spin axis from tosser to A the other the B. (One south pole first, the other north pole, at random).

The second is the filter/analyser field electron/s, which spin, but also have an axis which can be ROTATED by rotating the magnetic field (angle setting).

Now the analyser may be at ANY RELATIVE ANGLE to the incoming particle, upside down, back to front, on all 3 axes, so may also spin in ANY direction! Only NOW does the scenario all fit together like a jigsaw puzzle. The AOM energy describes a full SET of cosine curves taking into account 2 spin directions and two full sets of x,y,z rotational freedoms. It's quite beautiful. But Earth-centric thinking can't reveal it.

But I can't describe it all here. Read the Bob and Alice romance! (It's a bit of a cliffhanger too).

Best wishes

Peter

Thomas Ray

"If you really understand logic you'll see the that it's only because you haven't done so that you say; 'I don't know yours.' Fair?"

It would be, if you would expose your self consistent set of assumptions and stick to them. You never do. If anyone points out a contradiction, you say they don't have the intellect to understand that your contradictory claims are not really contradictory,that they are "troglodytes" or have their heads in the sand.

I really couldn't care less what you think of my intellect or lack of it. You may think we're in a contest, but I'm not playing.

Heine Rasmussen

Nick: Hehe! Unfortunately, I'm not able to control other peoples thumbs. One can't sue people for giving you thumbs up, no matter how much you disagree with them.

Unrelated: Some of your posts on this forum are jewels. I hope you are here to stay.

Thomas Ray

"The 45 degree filter physically rotates the polarisation (and spin) to allow part to pass through the final filter. Simple as pie. That mechanism generalised consistently resolves about every anomaly and paradox in town! How deep to heads have to be in the sand to miss it?"

Or,

Non vanishing torsion not observed in figure (a) between the first and second filters is continuously returned to the source unrecorded (commutes), while the noncommutative record in figure (b) is linearly continuous.

The combined continuous function is simple as 4pi ... radians.

And imagine, Peter -- it's all explained without exclamation points and accusing others of ostrichness.

Joy Christian

Here is a summary of why Richard Gill owes me 10,000 Euros.

Florin Moldoveanu

Is this the answer to the bet?

AliceDirections.txt: vector e_k := ( cost(s_k), -1+(2.08/(sqrt(1+(3 x t_k/pi))), 0), where s_k is randomly picked from [0, pi] and t_k is randomly picked from [0, pi].

BobDirections.txt: vector -e_k := ( cost(s_k), +1-(2.08/(sqrt(1+(3 x t_k/pi))), 0), where s_k is randomly picked from [0, pi] and t_k is randomely picked from [0, pi].

Here k is an integer from [1, 2, 3, ..., 10^7].

Joy Christian

There is no need to modify the code. The list of vector directions has been made public since yesterday: http://www.sciphysicsforums.com/spfbb1/viewtopic.php?f=6&t=46&start=10#p1790

Richard Gill

And here are the four correlations, in the usual order 0-45, 0-135, 90-45, 90-135, computed according to the instructions in Joy's experimental paper:

-0.7501332, 0.2500942, -0.7498742, -0.2498984

By some extraordinary coincidence their absolute values add up to 2, exactly.

Seems to me it would be good if some independent scientists re-did the calculations, independently.

If Joy insists that my programming is wrong and the correlations are good, I propose that we submit the data file to the adjudicators. And Joy pays me 10 000 Euro if I'm right and he's wrong, and vice versa.

But if this is too risky for Joy we could go back to 5 000

Richard Gill

PS the four correlations were computed separately, of course, according to the following R code (run in four independent R processes)

Richard Gill

PS the four correlations were of course computed completely separately, by starting up R four times and running one of the following four blocks of code.

N = 10^7

e = matrix(nrow = 2, ncol = N, byrow = FALSE, data = scan("JoyVector.txt", nlines = N))

alpha = 0 * pi / 180

beta = 45 * pi / 180

a = c(cos(alpha), sin(alpha))

b = c(cos(beta), sin(beta))

mean(sign(colSums(e * a)) * -sign(colSums(e * b)))

N = 10^7

e = matrix(nrow = 2, ncol = N, byrow = FALSE, data = scan("JoyVector.txt", nlines = N))

alpha = 0 * pi / 180

beta = 135 * pi / 180

a = c(cos(alpha), sin(alpha))

b = c(cos(beta), sin(beta))

mean(sign(colSums(e * a)) * -sign(colSums(e * b)))

N = 10^7

e = matrix(nrow = 2, ncol = N, byrow = FALSE, data = scan("JoyVector.txt", nlines = N))

alpha = 90 * pi / 180

beta = 45 * pi / 180

a = c(cos(alpha), sin(alpha))

b = c(cos(beta), sin(beta))

mean(sign(colSums(e * a)) * -sign(colSums(e * b)))

N = 10^7

e = matrix(nrow = 2, ncol = N, byrow = FALSE, data = scan("JoyVector.txt", nlines = N))

alpha = 90 * pi / 180

beta = 135 * pi / 180

a = c(cos(alpha), sin(alpha))

b = c(cos(beta), sin(beta))

mean(sign(colSums(e * a)) * -sign(colSums(e * b)))

Florin Moldoveanu

Here is the explanation for what happened: just because a -cosine curve was obtained by Joy's R script, it is not good enough because the correlation depends ON TWO parameters, the angles A and B. The plot in Joy's script has one angle fixed (B) and the other one changing and the reason the correlation graph was obtained was that the hidden variable distribution WAS NOT SPHERICALLY SYMMETRIC and in effect was implementing the detection loophole ONLY FOR for a subset of directions. Change those directions and you get the wrong correlation. To see this in action, in Joy's script change:

Florin Moldoveanu

Here is the explanation for what has happened: just because a -cosine curve was obtained by Joy's R script, it is not good enough because the correlation depends ON TWO parameters, the angles A and B. The plot in Joy's script has one fixed measurement direction (B) and the other one changing and the reason the correlation graph was obtained was that the hidden variable distribution WAS NOT SPHERICALLY SYMMETRIC and in effect was implementing the detection loophole ONLY FOR for a subset of directions. Clever, but not good enough. Change the B direction and you suddenly get the wrong correlations. To see this in action, in Joy's script change:

b "assign" c(cos(beta), sin(beta)) ## Measurement vector 'b'

with this

b "assign" c(0.5, 0.3) ## Measurement vector 'b'

and see e=what happens for curiosity sake.

After normalization B=(0,5, 0.3, 0.81240384) but the 3rd component doesn't matter because the file of hidden variable (directions) provided by Joy have no z-component (they all are orthogonal on the 3rd direction) and nothing else needs to change in Joy's original script. Joy or whoever wrote the -cosine script tricked themselves by looking only at one slice of the A-B space.

However, the bet as was (cleverly) made was able to catch this (no 3rd direction was necessary for the bet) and unsurprisingly the correlations do add to 2 as it was known since Bell.

Richard conclusively won the bet as expected. Now the question is: is Joy going to admit it?

Joy Christian

My latest simulation has nothing to do with the bet. It is about the one-sided offer made by Richard Gill for generating N vectors that produce the four strong correlations, where each correlation is calculated separately. In this offer I can win or not win, Richard can loose or not loose. In this offer there is no question of my loosing. The offer made by Richard is one-sided and remains open until 11 of June 2014.

Richard Gill

No, I did not yet win this particular bet (which is just about a computer file, not about a real experiment).

If Joy wants 10 000 he can try as many times as he likes up to June 11, 2014, when I give my talk at Vaxjo.

Thereafter it's 5 000.

And these two offers are open to anyone, on a first come first served basis, and remain open for ever. If Joy's experiment gets done and if he wins the bet on the experiment, then he will have thereby also won this 5 000, since the experiment also generates a computer file which has to be processed in the same way.

Richard Gill

PS to Florin, you wrote "Here is the explanation for what has happened". Excellent. I did not try to find out what had happened, I just calculated the four correlations according to the standard, agreed, recipe, and found out what I knew I would see: three were negative, one positive, and the sum of their absolute values was exactly 2. Two fitted to QM, two didn't.

Richard Gill

PS it is only if Joy's experiment gets done and Joy loses the bet on the outcome of the experiment, that Medecins sans Frontieres gets a donation of 5 000 Euro from Joy. Otherwise Joy does not win.

In on the other hand no one claims the other prize for just submitting a computer file (before 11 June: 10 000; thereafter 5 000), and if Joy's experiment gets done, and Joy wins the bet, the charity of his choice gets two times 5 000 from me from two bets, both of which Joy has won. Because he can use the computer file generated by the experiment to win both bets.

And if his experiment gets done before 11 June, and is successful, then he wins 15 000. But time is pretty short ... and mathematical certainty is on my side.

Richard Gill

sorry, I meant, "otherwise Joy does not lose money" (not: otherwise Joy does not win)

Joy Christian

"Here is the explanation for what has happened".

This claimed explanation is simply wrong.

There is no detection issue. One can get rid of the "good" line altogether. It changes nothing. The vector b can be easily "unfixed." It changes nothing. The vectors 'e' are generated in full accordance with the geometry of the 3-sphere. We are not in the flatland anymore. It is not possible to understand the simulation without having any clue about my model. I fully appreciate, however, that it is not everyone's cup of tea.

Richard Gill

Great! I'm waiting for your next try, Joy.

But please be modest and try with N = 100 000 first. And calculate the four correlations yourself, before sending the file to me, because there is no point in posting massive data sets on internet which you already know do not do the job.

Richard Gill

PS we could even ask one of our computer savvy friends to write a little script in Mathematica, Python or R or whatever, to calculate the correlations. If we agree in advance on the script then it is just a question of:

you create the file

run the script

check it gives what you wanted

send the file to me

I run the script again, just to check

And we post data file and script on internet so everyone can see and agree.

I have given you my R script (actually, written by Zen) for the correlations. But you are welcome to propose an alternative

Nick Mann

Nor mysticism either.

Nick Mann

Aha. You're Heinera.

[deleted]

Nick,

I didn't think Alice or Peter relied on that paper specifically for the 3-filters, rather as a general reference for spin flip which even I'd heard of so it's a well known phenomena. Electrons flip with magnetic field direction.

The reference that did it for me was the one to Weighs experiment (assisted by Zeilinger I noticed) where they described the progressive field rotation, with voltage in that case as it wasn't a filter but an 'elecro-optic' analyser.

Surely it's the resultant effect that counts. Weighs found it from the effects of the rotation on detection. But the important thing I took from that was the proof that no 'non local state reduction' is needed, because the particles have both poles. They're not 'pure states', so no EPR mysticism. The rest seems just a distraction.

Tom

I must say if I'd have read your description of the filter mechanism my eyes would have glazed over and I'd have moved on! Surely the 3 filters aren't directly relevant to the results of the flip? Whatever the details the effect is the same; reversed electrons modulate the 'direction' found by the detector.

Peter description seems intuitive and perfect for the level the essays are aimed at, just about making it understandable to most from reading the comments on his blog. Do you suggest it's 'wrong' in terms of outcome?

Judy

Judy Nabb

Why does his system log us out yet tell us we're logged in? Can it not be fixed?

Judy

Thomas Ray

"Nor mysticism either."

Exactly.

Thomas Ray

"Do you suggest it's 'wrong' in terms of outcome?"

It's wrong -- as is Bell's theorem -- in having no correspondence to a physical theory. The mathematics of conventional quantum mechanics is constructed a posteriori as is Peter's intuitive explanation.

Nick Mann

Also thanks for the encouraging words. And clearly we share an interest.

Nick Mann

Judy,

I'll need to chew Weihs et alii over a few times like premium cud to see exactly where you're coming from in relation to Peter's essay. I can be slow.

I'm a fan of the IQOQI gang but an interesting observation about that experiment (hardly an original one of my own) is that employing the beam-splitter to generate q-randomness builds an assumption into the protocol which assumption is inseparable from what the experiment aims to establish. Call it the roundelay loophole maybe.

Richard Gill

I'm waiting for Joy to modify the code so as to output two files of directions. Unfortunately, I don't know how to fix it myself. Fortunately Joy knows several truly outstanding programmers.

Richard Gill

The so-called "fabled cosine curve" is easy to replicate in all kinds of situations. I only give out a prize to the person who replicates it in one particular situation. The situation explained lucidly by Bell in "Atomic-cascade photons and quantum-mechanical nonlocality", Chapter 13 of his book of collected works "Speakable and Unspeakable in Quantum Mechanics", and again in "Bertlmann's socks and the nature of reality", Chapter 16.

This is the experimental framework which is explained in many many popular accounts of Bell's so-called Theorem (there is no theorem in Bell's works). And which experimenters have been working towards for 50 years, though they are still not there yet (but getting close).

Regarding Bell's so-called theorem, Bell gave an argument and concluded that there were four possible positions to take on it, including "so what?" (orthdox Copenhagen interpretation). Later he admitted that there was a fifth possibility too, namely that QM itself would prevent the succesful experiment ever from being done ... ie the "initial conditions" simply cannot occur in Nature (which includes us and our labs, by the way).

So even the quantum optics guys can't claim my prize yet. Anyone who can do it with classical physics (a network of classical computers communicating over classical communication channels) has even beaten quantum physics at its own game. They'll not also get a prize from me but undying fame, instant recognition, the Nobel prize, and physics will have to be completely re-written.

It's about time some of you here woke up to the seriousness of the issue and the enormous stakes at play.

Richard Gill

And Peter, I have elicited enough information from you about your theory (that was bloody hard work but OK sometimes that needs to be done) in order to conclude that I do not need to read your essay. Live well!

« Previous Page Next Page »