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

Joy Christian

The bottom line is that Richard Gill claimed it was impossible to produce the N vectors, e_k and -e_k, appearing in eq. (16) of my experimental paper, which can reproduce the cosine correlation. Well, it turns out that Richard Gill was wrong about this, as he has been about many, many, many things in the past. It is indeed possible to explicitly write down such N vectors, and yet reproduce the cosine correlation. Please see the evidence for yourself: http://rpubs.com/jjc/16415.

Thomas Ray

"Could someone please explain to JJC that 4 is not equal to 2? (also not equal to 1)"

Could someone please explain to Richard the rotational properties of a bivector in a covariant coordinate-free geometry?

Richard Gill

Tom said "Could someone please explain to Richard the rotational properties of a bivector in a covariant coordinate-free geometry?"

... to which I have two answers:

1) Tom, can you explain it?

2) Can anyone explain what, if any, that has to the question of whether or not JJC has won the challenge which JJC and RDG together formulated? (the two-files-challenge) (note the words "two", and "files").

To answer question 2, it would seem to me to be necessary to read the precise wording of that challenge, carefully.

Richard Gill

JJC said "The bottom line is that RDG claimed it was impossible to produce the N vectors, e_k and -e_k, appearing in eq. (16) of my experimental paper, which can reproduce the cosine correlation ... RDG was wrong about this ... It is indeed possible to explicitly write down such N vectors, and yet reproduce the cosine correlation. Please see the evidence for yourself: http://rpubs.com/jjc/16415"

to which I can only reply:

This claim by JJC supplies the bottom line for me too:

*please* see the afore-mentioned evidence for yourself.

Some ability to read a script written in the R statistical programming language will be required. They say "R has a steep learning curve", but fortunately there is a multitude of nice tutorials and quick-start introductions on internet.

It is good that JJC and RDG do agree on some things.

Joy Christian

Perhaps the bottom line is different. Perhaps the bottom line is that Richard Gill lives in a flatland, whereas the rest of us live in a parallelized 3-sphere.

Thomas Ray

"1) Tom, can you explain it?"

Yes.

pjackson

Richard,

'No' what? What specifically do you wish to refute?

Heine Rasmussen

"1) Tom, can you explain it?"

Quack.

Richard Gill

Sorry guys (and girls) the forum is so bloated and the software so out of date that it just takes too long to load anymore. Have fun! Maybe see you all around somewhere else ... I'm on my way to Copenhagen and then more travels.

Richard Gill

" 'No' what? What specifically do you wish to refute? "

:-)

Nick Mann

A thought to live by, attributed to an author and artist named Ashleigh Brilliant, available as a T-shirt and possibly relevant here:

"It could be that the purpose of your life is only to serve as a warning to others."

Joy Christian

The purpose of life is to admire beautiful pictures like these.

Nick Mann

Which reminds me. (From the sublime to the not-so-sublime.) You're adamant that Richard Gill owes you ten thousand euros. Are you planning to press your claim or allow him to welch? We could all use some closure here.

Joy Christian

Watch this space.

Richard Gill

Judy and Peter: I posted this a day or two ago in another thread. Maybe you didn't notice:

"Sorry guys (and girls) the forum is so bloated and the software so out of date that it just takes too long to load anymore. Have fun! Maybe see you all around somewhere else ... I'm on my way to Copenhagen and then more travels. "

Greetings to everyone from Copenhagen.

[deleted]

Nick, et al,

Richard seems to have turned tail rather than respond to this, perhaps you can check it out for me; 'Q' is the QM assumption of 'real' collapse of superposed to pure 'singlet' spin states. 'B' is my option; dipole OAM (N/S facing opposite ways) so only one of each measurable unless 'flipped'.

I proposed A = B C. Where A = the observed answers and C = Classical mechanics

(We both support Bells proof that Q C cannot = A).

However, Richard claims that 'Q C cannot = A' also somehow proves that A = B C is false!

I pointed out that in 'A = B C' the 'B' is a different starting assumption to Q, and that Q was only ever an assumption or 'concept'. In the alternative 'B' both spin states exist in OAM (we've never found otherwise) and the state found is reversible using well established physics; with reversal of analyser/filter magnetic field direction.

I then suggested Richards contention cannot logically stand. And also; if B C produces A (without voodoo) then logically the hypothesis B is correct not the hypothesis Q)."

Is there any logical or empirical flaw?

The essay clarifies the details and classical dynamic mechanism of OAM transfer. Has anyone read it yet? (click Contests, read & discuss, Community, - currently around 4th).

Thanks

Peter

(PS; Interestingly I propose Copenhagen does hold the solution, because the state is modulated by the detector on interaction)

Richard Gill

Bell did not prove Q C != A

Peter did not prove A = B C

Richard did not contend what Peter says he contends

Richard did not "turn tail".

I would also mention that it is inappropriate to suggest that I did

pjackson

Richard, (et al),

Just 4 points to correct; I said Bell did NOT prove Q C = A so we agree.

I HAVE proved A = B C via simple geometry and dynamics in the essay, where A = observed Answer and C = Classical mechanics. Your refusal to read it does not constitute disproof.

You DID suggest my logic was flawed but refused to offer any supporting logic. I open it up to all;

I substitute dipole OAM spin ('B') where only one hemisphere can be measured at a time, for 'real' pure singlet states ('Q'). I then showed how A = B C.

You assumed Q and suggested that Q proved A = B C is false. I pointed out that in an axiomatic theory that presumption is false. You must first PROVE 'Q', which can't be done as Q is only an assumption.

If you feel you have any other justification for your claim that my logic is wrong then please present it. Can anybody else please falsify my logic if possible.

You also DID give the impression you were 'turning tail', saying; " ...it just takes too long to load anymore. Have fun! Maybe see you all around somewhere else ... I'm on my way to Copenhagen and then more travels. " But if you're not doing a runner after all that's appreciated.

Now you've long avoided the question, please address it if you maintain your objection. Reading my derivation itself would help. It relates the angles as 4-vectors in Bloch spheres, giving latitudinal circumferences as rotational velocities, = E, which change by the cosine of the angle from the equatorial plane (EP). The commonality of EP and propagation axis represents entanglement.

I'm note sure where my previous post went to, but this is largely a repeat. I assume you didn't have it removed Richard. Now I know this solution isn't what you expected, but if it were you'd have found it long ago. As Drexler pointed out;

"Predicting the content of new scientific knowledge is logically impossible because it makes no sense to claim to know already the facts you will learn in the future."

Best wishes

Peter

pjackson

Richard,

Please stop removing my posts showing your claim to be false. Your 'supporting logic' did not falsify my proposition A = B C. Accusations must be justified.

Brendan is reviewing all Orwellian removals and I expect a number to re-appear shortly.

Peter

Richard Gill

Peter, I think your logic is wrong. You think mine is wrong. Those two facts have been established twenty posts ago. Neither of us is going to change their minds. No one else is interested. Leave off the personal insults aimed at me. Every time you go off topic in order to make insulting personal remarks, I'll report your post as inappropriate.

Reminder: the topic is "Classical spheres, division algebras, and the illusion of quantum locality".

Richard Gill

I do not "remove posts showing that my [RDG's] logic is false". I *report* posts containing what I feel is inappropriate content, as I understand the meaning of the phrase "inappropriate content". I studied the FQXi forum rules in order to find out what FQXi means by this.

A post claiming that I *remove* posts which allegedly show I am wrong is a very good example of a post with inappropriate content.

Richard Gill

Forum rules: Per the scientific and educational purposes of the forums, users should adhere to a code of conduct where they discuss in a civil, helpful, and constructive way. Comments should not contain language or content that is:

Rude or disrespectful;

Combative or overly aggressive;

Unpleasant or offensive by common workplace standards;

Targeted at individuals, rather than at science content.

Judy Nabb

Brendan,

Two of my posts have been inappropriately removed from this string. I find that behaviour to be highly dishonest and unethical scientific censorship bordering on scandalous. I trust they'll be replaced as they don't breach the fqxi guidance.

Thank you.

Judy

pjackson

Judy,

A number of my posts falsifying the proposition Richard suggested have also vanished. It seems that when refutation is impossible the defence of censorship remains available. I'll none the less repeat my proof lest anybody can provide any falsification.

I replace the fundamental assumption 'Q', (singlet state) with the new assumption 'B')(both clockwise and anticlockwise spins, as ALL OAM, but only one 'hemisphere' at a time measurable). I then invoke science; i.e. spin flip, and 'measurement as 'transfer of OAM' to show that each finding, though remaining quantitatively 'random', is independent and liable to field direction (setting angle).

Bell's theorem is only logically valid if 'Q' is valid. Richard has suggested that Bells logic does NOT rely on 'Q'! but has not supported that claim. I hope somebody may offer some evidence for that claim so it can be examined. Otherwise it seems to remain clearly false.

Peter

pjackson

Richard,

I now understand the '!', so now; can you justify how the Bell/CHSH logic can stand without singlet states; i.e. If EM fields do what we know EM fields do to electron spin orientation, "rotate" it, which I show can simply and classically derive the "quantum correlations" then why does that no resolve the EPR paradox. It may no resolve it in the way most 'expected', but resolve it it does. Solutions are always, by definition, 'unexpected'.

I'm also bemused by your citing of the Mosseri paper which is consistent with my essay, which merely completes that Bloch sphere logic in a simpler more coherent way. Again I can't resolve the logic of your apparent position that by refusing to read my essay you find my mechanism and logic incorrect, yet cite Mosseri as correct when it's consistent with mine.

If you wish to maintain that position can you please justify it. I do feel your misunderstanding could have been avoided had you read my description (a universal truth).

Best wishes

Peter

Thomas Ray

Richard, I think it's important to understand how and why the lack of dependence on detector settings in Joy's microscale measurement framework is exactly equivalent to the absence of a privileged coordinate system in macroscale relativity.

Hestenes called his rehabilitation of the Clifford algebra for physics, "spacetime algebra", because rigid geometric transformations cannot accommodate the non-normalized time metric in the way that the analytical language of Minkowski space can. So an algebraic method applied to continuous spacetime has to compromise between normalization of the metric, and reversibility of the measurement function.

That is, while Euclidean geometry avers that 2/4 = 0.5, the normal measure -- spacetime geometry applied to Joy's measurement framework avers that 2\/2/4 = 0.7071 ... in other words, an overvalued mean in one direction is normalized in the other. Therefore, as you have also deduced, time is identical to quantum decoherence.

Accounting for bivector rotation, then, four files on the 3-sphere manifold are equivalent to two in the Euclidean plane.

Richard Gill

I guess that "active moderation" is too labour intensive for FQXi. So the software has been set up now so that "report post as inappropriate" causes it to be instantly deleted. I suppose that a forum administrator later then checks whether that was appropriate or not, and if inappopriate, restores the deleted posting.

Active moderation is needed when tempers repeatedly flare. At the moment there is a new opportunity for vandalism.

I think that

(1) FQXi needs to install some state of the art forum software, also with a possibility for "posters" to edit posts they have made within some reasonable time window. Also with the possibility to post computer code snippets, since apparently all kinds of sequences of key strokes have hidden meanings to the forum software. So there should at least be a "verbatim" tag such that with the tag delimiters, key strokes are not interpreted as text markup.

(2) A new topic is needed on quantum nonlocality but not focussed on one particular researcher's controversial approach to the problem, even if they themselves are an FQXi fellow. Or alternatively ... to another controversial approach. But preferably, the forum topic should not be "owned" (or started) by the "originator" of the approach. If it is, there should be a time limit: the topic should be closed after two years.

« Previous Page Next Page »