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

Thomas Ray

"Diffeomorphism?? You can't even define differentiation if the algebra changes within the coordinate neighborhood."

That doesn't happen, "up to diffeomorphism," which was Einstein's limit. Active diffeomorphism, though, in which measurement values depend on the structure of the space, allows analytical continuation, as Joy pointed out. The measure space is complete.

Thomas Ray

" ... the history of mathematics shows that previously absolutely certain mathematical truths turned out many times not to be exactly true after all (see Imre Lakatos 'Conjectures and Refutations')! It would be arrogant to claim that this is not going to happen again."

It's ironic, Richard, that the only part of Joy's argument that I reject ("disproof") is the one part that you are willing to accept!

I have no objection to Bell's result, mathematically -- any more than I object to Euclid's postulates applied to Euclidean geometry. That our geometry is Euclidean only on the average, however, does not refute the experimental results for relativity -- nor the equations that tell us why the world is not foundationally Euclidean. The structure of space does matter; it especially matters when the proposed space is simply connected and actively diffeomorphic.

I'm getting a vision that like Saul on the road to Damascus, you will in one blinding burst of insight see the futility of persecuting Christian(s).

pjackson

Richard,

If a classical mechanism reproduces QM's predictions it none the less circumvents Bells theorem! The 'loopholes' are not 'irrelevant', they're exactly the opposite!

I too am a John Bell admirer. His maths was right but what the model shows, finally, is how correct he also was in his motivation and belief, as he expressed in 1981;

"...nobody knows just where the boundary between the classical and the quantum domain is situated. (...) More plausible to me is that we will find that there is no boundary."

I agree the 'settings' arise from the measurement, which IS quantum theory; the electron wave CHANGES on detection' and indeed the detector is part of the system'. John von Neumann's insistence on this (Quantum 'meter') effect for consistent QM is then ALSO now proved true in this model.

The reason the measurement helps produce the 'switch' result becomes clear by studying the latest most precise model of an electron, which 'turns' bodily with 'screen' field setting, changing the phase, so 'spin direction' of the signal passed through to the multiplier. Here is just the latest of many showing the complex fractal OAM structure that QM presently still 'denies';

Max Plack Inst, Precision Electron Model Nature Feb.2014.

Making QM entirely consistent by bringing it up to date then also allows it to converge with SR, because the interaction implements the 'Continuous Spontaneous Localisation' required to implement true a Local Reality of discrete local 'rest frame' fields.

I'd suggest it may again be time to; "cut the bullshit Richard!" and stop trying to run off with the goalposts you helped set so well yourself! Let me quote you;

"we are still waiting for a really conclusive experiment to be done, despite Aspect's (1982) splendid contribution and later refinements; however, since real physicists are no longer saying that it is a waste of time to perform that definitive experiment, we may conclude they think they can almost do it, and that it is now". Now re-read exactly what Bell wrote; "NO classical....etc!!" not just 'some but not others'!

A the view you proffered will then do is further suppress truth and understanding.

pjackson

Richard,

Mapping the 'real' and 'classroom' cases a small change overcomes your objection about the tossers influence.

In the 'particle' case we invoke the additional dynamic structure. In that case we can save money and use just ONE handed set of cards, held by the tosser and sent to each student (or group) subject to each toss.

Of course he may also hold an infinite number of packs of three (just Red/ Orange/ Yellow), or send the full 0-180 (180-0) signal electronically to a VDU.

I prefer the latter as a closer model to the optics findings, of effectively a simple 'wavefunction exchange'. Technically this can then be represented by; psi(x) and φ(y), then psi(x)φ(y) = -φ(y)psi(x) but related as a parity violation recognising the lack of mirror symmetry switching sign; psi(x) = -psi(-x). 3-momentum reversal does not then necessarily leave 'spin direction' unchanged. I prefer the wave interference description, which includes OAM as the 'spin' of the next gauge each time (and vice versa).

Frankly I think I'll mainly stick with just the conceptual model; 'Flipping the donut'. As space is 3D everything is relative including orientation, so what is 'up' to one man is 'down under' to another.

pjackson

Richard

I'll try posting that Max Planck Inst. electron link again, sorry;

Max Plack Inst, Precision Electron Model Nature Feb.2014.

Peter

pjackson

Richard,

Dammit, praps just google the below; It's worth it.

http://scitechdaily.com/high-precision-measurement-electron-precise-factor-13/

Alan Lowey

Spooky! Quantum Action Is 10,000 Times Faster Than Light (Mar 2013)

This is what Albert Einstein called "spooky action at a distance." And the correlation between the photons' states seems to happen instantaneously. But what does "instantaneous" really mean? That's part of what the Chinese team wanted to look at.

So the researchers entangled two photons and sent them to two different stations about 10 miles (16 kilometers) apart. In their ArXiv paper, the scientists said that previous experiments had "locality loopholes," which is another way of saying that it's possible to explain the link between photons with something other than the "action at a distance."

The group measured the state of one photon and timed how long the entangled state took to show up in the other. They found that the slowest possible speed for quantum interactions is 10,000 times the speed of light -- assuming your experiment is moving relatively slowly, at least relative to light beams.

Amazing. This might simply mean that single spin gravitons are traveling 10,000 times faster than light imv.

pjackson

Alan,

The only infinite thing is our stupidity.(AE). 'Rubbish in; rubbish out' is the first law of computing.

If you see my descriptions given with Richard above (2 adjacent strings) you will see that a more sensible starting assumption shows that no superluminal communication or quantum nonsense is required to explain the 'QM' findings.

A simple classroom experimental proof is described (then simplified).

The big problem now seems to be that Max Planck is being ignored.;; Those rigidly stuck in to embedded incomplete doctrine refuse to die off and now mainly clone more of the same!!

I hope you won't be dragged down into the dark catacombs too. If you can't understand the experiment do please just ask. (Helices are central to the real particle analogue).

Best wishes

Peter

Alan Lowey

Peter,

I can't find your explanation above. You'll have to copy it over, if you don't mind please.

The mainstream scientific community isn't nearly as divided on the validity of quantum entanglement as they are of Einstein's theory of relativity. Is this a fair summation?

How many high profile mainstream scientists deny the validity of the above experiment? I can think of a few who believe Einstein's theory of relativity to be incorrect. That puts the odds in my favor.

Alan

Alan Lowey

My simple mechanical wave/partiole emission faster the light can explain this latest experimental findings:

Science Creates A Quantum Link Between Photons that Don't Exist at the Same Time (Feb 2014)

Alan Lowey

Here's the ultimate proof that quantum entanglement is a reality due to it being put to practical use:

Weird 'Entangled' Light Gives Microscope Sharper Images (Mar 2014)

The first microscope that uses the eerie trick of quantum entanglement to increase its sensitivity has been developed by Japanese researchers.

Peter,

This is undeniable proof that Joy and yourself need to change your worldviews.

Alan

Thomas Ray

Very clever PR. However, quantum entanglement is not needed to explain the lightlike exchange of information between two points of an object separated by the nonlinear paths of crystal diffraction. If anything, it shows the complex network effect as a multiplier of small scale phase correlations applying the principle of least action -- which assures scale invariant and coordinate free quantum correlations at infinitesimal distance. Without violating the classical theory of optics.

Alan Lowey

Thomas,

does anyone else agree with you?

pjackson

Alan,

Apparently 'undeniable' but wrong none the less. As is Alice's 'action at a distance' changing Bob's detector setting!

The proof is in the conversation I referred to above is below my post of 28th Feb above, (plus the separate string with few posts above that), just above Joys yellow book cover. Let me know if you struggle deciding if orange is 'more red' or 'more yellow' (You're supposed to, I predict a 'switch' from choosing Red to Yellow at 90 degrees).

Tom may be misguided about many things, but he has to be right about some! There are plenty of other rationalists who agree, but it's not a vote!

Best wishes

Peter

Andrew Mendelsohn

For those of you that are interested, here is the actual "entanglement"-enhanced microscope paper:

entanglement microscope

And here is a review of how to use various quantum effects in microscopy:

high N00N effects

(5 years old)

Very interesting work...

John Cox

Tom,

You are quite correct in calling it "Very clever PR". Funding is everything, and with the impending limit to computing power doubling at same cost looming on the tech sector's immediate horizon, the Quants are ready to make claims which confuse the definition of 'photon' with wavelength. The winners will be those like you and Joy Christian that can produce the kind of mathematic rationales that provide continuous correlations that would mimick a 'quantum state' chip architecture which is nowhere evident technologically in the near term. Good Luck. jrc

Alan Lowey

Andrew,

Thank you for the sensible post. Page 3, Fig 3 shows the improvement in c compared to d with the classical light source.

...............

Andrew, I'd like to ask a few questions of your personal opinion on the effect:

(i) Do you believe in Einstein's Theory of Special & General Relativity?

(ii) Do you think that particles might be able to travel 10,000 times faster than light?

Thanks,

Alan

Thomas Ray

"does anyone else agree with you?"

Fermat, Newton and Fresnel, among others.

Thomas Ray

You're right, John R. -- entanglement has (too) long been the default explanation for correlations at microscale. It's superfluous, however, when classical wave motion and phase are adequate. The photons in the nonlinear structure of the crystal could not in principle be placed in linear superposition without creating a longer path than the light is actually observed to take, thus violating least action.

A macroscale classical analog -- the big Seth Thomas clock on most schoolroom walls of my day had a 2-dimension exact correlation of second hand to minute marks on the face, yet observed from parallax view angle the hands and marks are out of phase. Viewed direct on, the position correlation is obvious and sharp. (Yes, I did spend a lot of time staring at it. :-) )

Alan Lowey

Thomas,

does anyone agree with you after 1827? Any prominent scientist in the modern era?

« Previous Page Next Page »