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

Florin Moldoveanu

Tom, did you even bother to watch Sidney Coleman's lecture http://media.physics.harvard.edu/video/?id=SidneyColeman_QMIYF before posting nonsense?

James Putnam

Florin's link to Sidney Coleman's lecture

Joy Christian

And here is a link to an instructive video .

Alan Lowey

Hello Joy,

I've come late to this discussion but it lead to read up on quantum entanglement and subsequently spontaneous parametric down-conversion. I was amazed that Einstein considered it a "spooky action at a distance" when this is essentially the same idea as the force of gravity.

Like Einstein, Schrödinger was dissatisfied with the concept of entanglement, because it seemed to violate the speed limit on the transmission of information implicit in the theory of relativity. Einstein later famously derided entanglement as "spukhafte Fernwirkung" or "spooky action at a distance."

Wouldn't it make more sense to assume that Einstein's assumption of the constancy of the speed of light is simply wrong and that wave/particles do simply get exchanged between entangled photons? I have a personal view that the gravity force is transmitted by Archimedes screw structures which are spinning at twice the rate that they are moving. If these 'gravitons' were only spinning at the rate they were moving then they wouldn't exert a force of attraction yet would lead to the effect of entanglement imv.

I'd be grateful for your expert opinion on this simple mechanical model of reality.

Thanks,

Alan

Fred Diether

LOL! It definitely would not make more sense to assume any such thing about light speed. And General Relativity is a local theory for gravity; no action at a distance force.

Joy has proven that quantum entanglement is indeed an illusion via a local realistic parallelized 3-sphere model. Space has unique spinor properties.

Alan Lowey

The wikipedia entry makes it quite clear that quantum entanglement is a very real effect demonstrated by experiment. The SPDC is relatively easy to understand and visualize which produces entangled photon pairs. Do you disagree with this reporting?

As to Einstein's spacetime fabric being responsible for the gravity force, this is a spooky action at a distance effect imv.

The quantum entanglement experiments show that wave/particles *do* travel faster than light, c, and therefore Einstein's theory of general relativity is wrong.

Alan Lowey

The phenomenon can be encapsulated thus:

For example, it is possible to prepare two particles in a single quantum state such that when one is observed to be spin-up, the other one will always be observed to be spin-down and vice versa, this despite the fact that it is impossible to predict, according to quantum mechanics, which set of measurements will be observed.

This can be explained by the spinning helix emission model. Both light waves are synchronized at their point of creation so that they both emit and then receive 'information' from the other particle. When one spin-up particle emits it's single spin gravitons it then receives the spin-down particle's emission from the entangled other, changing it into a spin-down. The other particle, currently spin-down, then receives the spin-up particle's emissions, changing it into a spin-up. Both particles are continually changing from a spin-up to a spin-down to a spin-up in synchronization, but one always the opposite to the other. They change quantum state at the same time. When one is known to be spin-up then it can be assumed that the other has changed to spin-down.

Alan Lowey

This emission model of light can also be used to explain why light appears to accelerate back to speed c after being slowed down in glass for example. If the structure and geometry of light has greater emissions in the direction from which it is emitted then this will propel it back to it's speed c. The light photon can be viewed as a kind of 'rocket'.

Nick Mann

Dr Quantum is, of course, Fred Alan Wolf, a lovely guy and a fine physicist although of the mystical Quantum Consciousness variety that apparently gives Tom the heebie jeebies.

Back in the 70s he, along with Nick Herbert, Dick Shoup and others gave the world the Metaphase Typewriter. That's a saga of its own. It didn't work; they didn't really expect it would; they freely acknowledged that it didn't. Maybe there's a lesson for everyone in that.

Fred Diether

Are you a flatlander Nick? It is really not very preposterous that space has unique spinor properties that allows for quantum correlations. The quantum experiments do seem to support that notion. Along with quantum field theory itself.

Richard Gill

Joy writes "Yes, it would indeed be very nice to be able to derive the Pearle probability distribution from within S^3. I will attempt to do so when time permits. It would certainly lend further support to my overall hypothesis about the origins of quantum correlations. "

I am really looking forward to this.

Richard Gill

Michel Fodje ("Minkwe") has just come up with a very interesting new simulation model (written in Python).

It's a local realistic model of an EPR-B type experiment in continuous time. From time to time a particle arrives and gets measured. Afterwards one combines the data from two measurement stations. If both stations register an event in the same short time interval then this is called a "coincidence" and it is treated as a pair in computing correlations (CHSH etc etc).

https://github.com/minkwe/epr-clocked

There is a discussion going on about it at

http://www.sciphysicsforums.com/spfbb1/viewtopic.php?f=6&t=23

There is a connection with the so-called coincidence loophole analysed by myself and Jan-Ake Larsson some ten years ago

http://arxiv.org/pdf/quant-ph/0312035v2.pdf

This loophole is nowadays being taken very seriously by the experimentalists. Two major experiments last year: Giustina et al. and Christensen et al:

M. Giustina, A. Mech, S. Ramelow, B. Wittmann, J. Kofler, J. Beyer, A. Lita, B. Calkins, T. Gerrits, S. W. Nam, R. Ursin, and A. Zeilinger (2013). Bell violation using entangled photons without the fair-sampling assumption. Nature 497, 227-230,

B.G. Christensen, K.T. McCusker, J. Altepeter, B. Calkins, T. Gerrits, A. Lita, A. Miller, L.K. Shalm, Y. Zhang, S.W. Nam, N. Brunner, C.C.W. Lim, N. Gisin, and P.G. Kwiat (2013). Detection-loophole-free test of quantum nonlocality, and applications. arXiv:1306.5772

Joy Christian

I am reading Phil's paper first time. I kick myself for not having read it carefully before.

It is one of those classic papers one cites ad nauseam but never bothers to read.

Another such paper is the original EPR paper, but that one I have read ad nauseam.

Thomas Ray

I'm quite familiar with the history of quantum mechanics, Florin, thank you very much.

Would that you were equally familiar with the history of relativity.

I'll ask you the same unanswered question that I put to Richard Gill: what measure space are you working in, and how do you know?

Thomas Ray

Quantum consciouness does not so much give me the heebie jeebies, Nick, as it gives me a sense of incompleteness that characterizes the rest of conventional quantum theory. I've actually read a lot of Nick Herbert, Fred Alan Wolf, Jack Sarfatti and the like. The idea of a choice function invested in the mind of the observer as an isolated system and 'somehow' mystically connected to the universe does not jibe with the locality of a complete space of measurement functions continuous with the space we call the universe.

Richard Gill

Tom, I don't have a clue what you mean by the question "what measure space are you working in, and how do you know?". That's like asking "when did you stop beating your wife?". The question makes presuppositions which I don't accept. It's encoded, and only the insiders know the code. Or to put it less charitably, it appears to me to be a meaningless question. You have never succeeded in giving it any meaning - not to me, nor as far as I know, to anyone else. It appears to me to be some kind of religious mantra for you. You are not communicating. Is there anyone who shares your religion? Maybe someone else can better explain than you.

Nick Mann

Tom, there are simply questions that can't only not be answered but which probably can't be framed (although in its clunky way P vs. NP makes a stab). It's Kant's old distinction between the phenomena we perceive and the noumena we can't really imagine. I subscribe to the relatively new idea of embodied cognition. Life as we know it evolved for a billion years or so in an macroscopic environment of local realism and we're stuck with what that makes us. Deeply ignorant but always looking for stories to tell ourselves. Here's one: Bell experiments are entirely local. Maybe their results mean the quantum world isn't. Maybe not. But we don't live in the quantum world.

Thomas Ray

"I don't have a clue what you mean by the question 'what measure space are you working in, and how do you know?'. That's like asking 'when did you stop beating your wife?'. The question makes presuppositions which I don't accept. It's encoded, and only the insiders know the code. Or to put it less charitably, it appears to me to be a meaningless question."

You think it's a trap. Richard?

If the act of measurement is impossible, why bother doing physics? If it is possible, then don't you presuppose what you think you are measuring -- how do you know?

If this were a religion, you and Nick would be fundamentalist true believers, refusing to face questions forbidden for humans to ask, questions that even fall short of our ability to ask.

Here's a clue: such questions don't exist.

Joy Christian

OK, I have now studied Philip Pearle's 1970 paper thoroughly and analyzed his analytical solution extensively. His solution does not produce perfect cosine correlation in Richard Gill's simulation.

I replaced my initial function f(theta_o) with Pearle's analytical solution in Richard Gill's simulation as follows:

theta

Joy Christian

For some reason my post got cut off after "theta." Let me try again.

theta "

Joy Christian

Let me try once again:

theta := runif(M, 0, pi) ## Pearle's alpha from his 1970 paper

g := (2/3)*((((theta)-sin(theta))/((sin(theta/2))^2))(((pi-theta)-sin(theta))/((cos(theta/2))^2))) ## Pearle's solution g(alpha), see his eq. (23)

s := g*(sin(theta/2)^2/2)

This produces cosine correlation, but not as perfectly as with the initial function f(theta_o) of my model: http://rpubs.com/chenopodium/joychristian.

This proves that my model has nothing whatsoever to do with data rejection or detection loophole. But some of us already knew that.

Richard Gill

Yes! Perfection.

Pearle (1970)

http://rpubs.com/gill1109/Pearle

I changed two lines in Christian's code. They now read

Richard Gill

Sorry now a copy paste mistake

Sorry the forum doesn't like R code

Changes to Christian's latest simulation model (based on mine, based on Michel Fodje's ...)

U = runif(M)

s = (2/sqrt(3*U+1)) - 1 # Pearle's "r" is arc cosine of "s"

http://rpubs.com/gill1109/Pearle

Pearle (1970)

Perfection indeed.

« Previous Page Next Page »