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

Thomas Ray

I've posted this lecture by Andrew Hamilton before, showing that the FRW metric (an exact solution to general relativity) is the space we have to look at in a simulation of the complete measure space of Joy's framework. See 4.5, 4.6

Joy Christian

Thanks, Tom, for the nice summary of the FRW model by Andrew Hamilton.

Judy Nabb

Richard,

Then your understanding remains incomplete. You are also avoiding the fact that you accused Peter of flawed logic but have only shown yours flawed. Peters proposition was;

"A = B + C. ...We both support Bells proof that Q+C cannot = A. Where Q is the 'assumption' of quantum mechanics singlet spin state, C = Classical mechanics and A = the observed answers.

However you claim that 'Q + C cannot = A' also proves that A = B + C is false!?

In 'A = B + C' the 'B' is a starting assumption different to that of Q. Specifically; Q is only an assumption. The alternative B = Both spin states exist in OAM (we have never found not) and that the states are reversible using well established physics.

Your contention cannot then stand. If B + C produces A (without voodoo) then I suggest the hypothesis B is logically correct (and not the hypothesis Q)."

(Me) That logic is clearly impeccable. It seems you may have some other reason or hidden agenda for denying it and risking your reputation and credibility. Again, if you consider the logic false please offer a proof as your first was badly wrong because 'Q' is implicit to Bell's proof.

Judy

Thomas Ray

My pleasure, Joy. I thought it an appropriate time for a reality check.

Florin Moldoveanu

I second Richard's proposal and I add a suggestion of my own: if there is not too much effort (initial software change and ongoing moderation time), restore the website to the earlier version when posts marked as inappropriate were not automatically deleted.

Thomas Ray

I don't quite understand what you're saying, Florin. You want to both allow inappropriate posts, and to cut off debate?

Whose interests does that serve?

Nick Mann

It's pretty anarchic at this point though. In medical terms it's kind of an open abscess. Certainly embarrassing. You can imagine postmodernist-influenced science-skeptics or anti-science religious fanatics checking in periodically and saying Ugh and Wow and These Guys Are Nuts. Whether the blog continues or not some interim closure seems desirable.

But that would almost certainly require outside adjudication. De Raedt, Khrennikov and Weihs were a good choice back in the day: two of them sympathetic to local realism, one not so much. Possibly they wouldn't want to come near this thing as it now stands and you can hardly blame them. Maybe they don't think it's sufficiently embarrassing, or that enough people are paying attention, to warrant an intervention. Possibly that's in fact the case.

Thomas Ray

"It's pretty anarchic at this point though. In medical terms it's kind of an open abscess. Certainly embarrassing."

Embarrassing to whom?

Nick Mann

"Embarrassing to whom?"

To anyone who's still capable of embarrassment. Keep in mind that not everybody's as tough as you are.

Thomas Ray

" ... anyone who's still capable of embarrassment."

I suppose you mean those who think they have something to lose by engaging in debate?

En Passant

If I understand how Nick sees the situation, then it would go like this. Too many things have been said, and too many offensive (and perhaps even unreasonable) positions have been taken. This now prevents a civil continuity of the current topic.

It may well be the case. But the story is not over. There are at least two individuals (Joy and Peter) who have a case to pursue. Where and how might they be allowed to do this? And then there are the defenders of the status quo, and they are needed too, since new ideas have to earn their keep, so to say.

Whether this calls for an interim closure, I cannot say. It depends on the psychology of the participants. Are they willing to continue from this point, using the same forum and venue? I am not able to speak for them, so let whatever imminent discourse may now occur guide the way. If we see them able to conduct a civil dialogue, then they were able to overcome the impasse. If not, then perhaps some new avenues of communication are warranted. But, ultimately, the discussion is not over, and ought to be continued somewhere, somehow.

pjackson

Richard,

Do you agree the above logic (lest you've lost the thread).

And also does anybody else see a flaw?

Thanks

Peter

[deleted]

The name of this particular blog is "Classical Spheres, Division Algebras, and the Illusion of Quantum Non-locality". Certainly, lots of people want to discuss whether or not quantum non-locality is an illusion. I have the impression that a lot of people are not too interested in classical spheres and division algebras any more. And nothing new has been said about them here, recently.

Maybe someone should just start a new FQXi blog entitled "Is Quantum Non-locality an Illusion?"

Isn't it time for some other novel ideas to get a bit of the lime-light?

BTW I think that the question "Is Quantum Non-locality an Illusion?" is the wrong question. I think that both "yes" and "no" are the wrong answers. QM is not classical, it is different, and it is so different that the old categories of thought don't fit. They need refinement.

Richard Gill

That last post (#2975) was mine.

The advantage of a new topic would be faster loading.

Joy Christian

As I have demonstrated in many different ways, "quantum non-locality" and "quantum non-reality" are nothing but make-beliefs of the topologically naïve.

Heine Rasmussen

And that is clearly another good reason to close this thread: There is a computer somewhere with an algoritm that keeps posting the same posts again and again.

En Passant

I have driven though France (mostly the south, but a few times in the north) numerous times, and was always impressed by their ralentir signs. They did not command you to stay within any particular speed limits. They simply asked you to slow down (from whatever speed you had maintained until then, even if 200). That did not stop Frenchmen from passing me where they could NOT see oncoming traffic around mountain turns. So I ask, please do not merely state that you are right (or that your view is right). Do not present it as your view. Do not say you have demonstrated it many times. Simply point people to the demonstration, and let them decide for themselves. It will, really, get a better result.

Faster loading (as Mr. Gill recommends), would be fine, and maybe a new thread ought to be started; my Kindle crashes when I load this thread, and I had to resort to DuckDuckGo just to read it. So by all means, let us reopen this under a new, more relevant name.

And, for the sake of sanity, let us not repeat ourselves, over and over again.

I have a sense that all this will happen. There is a tomorrow.

Thomas Ray

"QM is not classical, it is different, and it is so different that the old categories of thought don't fit. They need refinement."

QM is only different because it requires propping up by refinement. One does not interpret a theory into existence. The theory -- the language -- is always primary to a theory's interpretation, and measured correspondence between theory and experimental result is the science of it.

That's why Joy's modest measurement framework is so important -- it provides the foundation for a mathematical theory (an extension of general relativity, imo) independent of the empirical evidence from which QM is inductively derived.

Joy Christian

OK, En, please see the first appendix of the attached paper where I give a toy example demonstrating how topological properties of a physical space can be mistaken for "non-locality" or "non-reality."Attachment #1: 15_Origins.pdf

Florin Moldoveanu

Tom, I make the case for restoration to an active moderation (compared with the current passive one) to cool down the rhetoric and protect additional contributors which may have something valuable to say but are discouraged to do so. Maybe when you report a comment you should also be given a chance to state why you report it: there may be only parts of the text which are offending. If the abuse is eliminated by third party supervision, vigorous disagreements are OK.

« Previous Page Next Page »