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

Nick Mann

Joy,

If you believe it's dodgy logic just Venn it. Here's how (start bottom page 15):

http://arxiv.org/pdf/quant-ph/0512050v2.pdf

Here's a paper that for you might be the equivalent of Galileo's telescope for Roberto Bellarmino:

http://www.phy.bme.hu/~palotas/Harrison-Bell-Inequalities.pdf

Meaning like do I seriously expect you'll take even a tiny peek at it? Nah, my momma didn't raise no fool.

Nick Mann

That is astonishing, Fred. The True Explanation. You guys are Believers. Faith not Deeds in this case though.

Fred Diether

It's pretty easy to believe and actually a rather simple physics concept. The Standard Model of particle physics and Quantum Field Theory point to the concept of spinor properties for space already. I believe GR does also. So the basic concept is not really all that new but now that Joy has explained quantum correlations with a classical local realistic model, it gives very much support to the concept.

Joy Christian

Mr. Mann, my oblivion is of no relevance to anyone. I am expendable, and so are you.

But since you are oblivious to elementary logic, let me repeat the point I made above.

The so-called inequality you are fond of, namely

n(A, B-NOT) n(B, C-NOT) >= n(A, C-NOT),

has been obtained by a daylight logical con. It has been obtained by replacing disjunction with conjunction. It has been obtained by replacing

n(A, B-NOT) or n(B, C-NOT)

with

n(A, B-NOT) and n(B, C-NOT).

Perhaps it is time for you to learn that "or" is not the same as "and."

Nick Mann

Also note bottom of page 13 of the first paper where you get the proposition as pure set logic. Hope all confusion becomes dispelled.

Nick Mann

I responded to this in the preceding thread where you also posted something akin to the above. Check it out.

Joy Christian

I repeat the third time: "or" is not the same as "and."

Joy Christian

I repeat the fourth time: "or" is not the same as "and."

Nick Mann

No need to stomp your foot, dude.

I see where the confusion arises. The logical statement reads: "(A, B-NOT) OR (B, C-NOT) is a superset of or equals (A, C-NOT)". The reason: for a single object, (A, B-NOT) and (B, C-NOT) cannot both be true (hence OR) because the object cannot possess property B and at the same time not possess it (B-NOT). But neither can either of the terms comprise a subset of (A, C-NOT).

Adding cardinality operators changes the game because you're now dealing with a run of multiple quantified objects and need to keep score with a truth table. You're interested in the sum of all objects characterizable as (A, B-NOT) AND the sum of all objects characteriable as (B, C-NOT) in relation to the sum of all objects characterizable as (A, C-NOT). Even so there should be no individual violations, just variations within the allowable mix of A, B and C. But you've figured this out already.

Joy Christian

Mr. Mann,

Your argument reminds me of a very nice fellow who once tried to sell me a used car.

But a con-job in logic cannot be covered up by the lies and damned lies of statistics.

You may try to photo-shop that dent in the logic of your used inequality car with a paintjob of statistics, but the fact remains that there is a 500-pound canary sitting in the final offer you are making; namely

n(A, B-NOT) n(B, C-NOT) >= n(A, C-NOT).

You can't fool Nature with your final offer. It contains a conjunction in the place where Nature demands a disjunction. Your final offer claims

n(A, B-NOT) and n(B, C-NOT)

when Nature permits only

n(A, B-NOT) or n(B, C-NOT).

No wonder your used inequality car is not selling even after 50 years of trying.

Every experiment ever done to sell it has rejected it outright.

Perhaps it is time again for you to learn that "or" is not the same as "and."

Thomas Ray

"I see where the confusion arises."

I don't think you do. Your error denies the use of analytical inequality, which is the very reason we apply inequalities to physical problems. You are treating detector settings as if nature reset the clock every time one makes a measurement.

John Cox

Spin is relational to gravity and translational to time, the way there is no motion involved in the surface contact where the wheel meets the ongoing road of time. Non-vanishing torsion seems a better conceptual definition but both words refer to the same thing, the only thing moving is spin=torsion is time. Polarity is dependent on physical rotation which is movement in both time and space, and might be said to 'drag' undifferentiated orientation of torsion into alignment. Like a toy gyroscope wanders on a table.

Construct a geodesic sphere at the center of the earth and explode it so the triangles are equally distributed to the surface and it is clear that the gyro would behave at any point on a triangle as if it were the normal line. But when intact, if the gyro wanders across the edge of one triangle onto another it will be oriented towards the apex of that triangle and must make a 'choice'. But is there a choice? The gyro will need to adjust its attitude to the normal line on that triangle, so if it entered on a leftward curve it will naturally recurve across that triangle in a rightward direction and cross that edge into the next carrying a rightward inclination and thus need to recurve leftward to exit across an edge.

This can be reduced to the simplest polyhedron, the four planes enclosing space as a tetrahedron. You can easily construct one on paper and see that the recurve of gravitational attitude response will trace a path that crosses each triangle and arrives back at the original point and from a trajectory that will repeat that same path which never crosses itself in the first round to reach each triangle. And four such paths can be followed. If spin was not gravitationally bound the gyro could follow a rightward inclination and continually circle one vertex without touching the fourth triangle, and each of the vertexes would have the same thing happen. Even with random left or right initial state choices made, spin would not become bound to an orientation in space other than through physically rotating the tetrahedron.

Spinor states are one thing, but positive and negative polarity of electric charge is translational of rotation in physical space as well as time. jrc

En Passant

(please excuse punctuation lapses; did not have time to work-around) There is a basic problem with Bell s Theorem, and it is that it (when applied to singlet particle correlations) conflicts with experimental results. In any sane physics, when a prediction (even one sanctioned by the venerated term Theorem) fails to make predictions confirmed by real world observations, the normal response is to go back to the drawing board and revisit the theory or theorem.

But in the case Bell s Theorem and Bell EPR experiments, the (mainstream QM) physicists abandoned scientific protocol, and instead decided to doubt nature. In order to reconcile real world results with dictates of Bell s Theorem, they needed to invent magical properties of entanglement (that have never been observed, and in principle cannot be observed). Logical process would dictate that those physicists should restate Bell s Theorem to coincide with reality. Instead, they insisted that their theorem supersedes reality, and reality had better conform to their prejudice.

We cannot (or ought not) generate probability schemes that are not based on reality. A coin toss is assigned a 50/50 probability based on its physical properties (although, if the thickness of the coin were sufficiently extended to resemble a cylinder it might have been different), but for unfathomable reasons physicists abandoned actual observations in determining the proper algorithm to assign probabilities to possible outcomes of putatively entangled particles, which ought to be based on the real world, AND NOT ON THEORY [which can be wrong]). Essentially, Bell s Theorem is contradicted by Bell EPR experiments, and needs to be adjusted to reflect reality. After all, which do you trust more, a human contrivance or nature as observed?

Fred Diether

I suspect you are missing something subtle about Bell's theorem. Though it is true that Nature does seem to violate the inequality with the quantum experiments, that is deemed to be OK as the interpretation is that no classical local realistic model can violate the inequality. However, Bell's theorem is supposed to be about the EPR-Bohm scenario which is a quantum situation. So you are right in that Bell's theorem is correct mathematically but it doesn't match the physics of the EPR-Bohm scenario like it was supposed to.

pjackson

En Passent,

I think you have good insight, seeing through the fog. QM made some fundamental assumptions which Bell inherited, but which now need 'bringing up to date'. The maths is fine, but doesn't constrain nature to those assumptions.

Do keep a lookout for my classical classroom experiment about to be posted for Richard above (et al). Anyone can repeat it quite simply. The test runs have violated Bells limit with distinction! No state reduction is needed. (I've always suspected links with Joy's impenetrable [to me!] mathematical topology, but Joy couldn't see them and was 'unimpressed'). Do see my last years essay;

http://fqxi.org/community/forum/category/31419?sort=community

Of course in theoretical physics it's the established 'doctrine' that claims to own the roller skates on the goalposts, so always trumps evidence and logic. I have no doubt some new interpretation of some loophole limit will be invoked in the style of the 3 monkeys, or Orwell's 'Crimestop'. We'll soon see I think.

Well done, and good thinking.

Peter

Nick Mann

En seems to say that the fact that the inequality is violated somehow discredits it. Wrong. It was deliberately designed to be violated if the predictions of QM hold true. Bell formulated EPR's objections to QM in a manner that made them testable.

Also it needs to be kept in mind that we're talking about models and simulations, not reality. All Bell experiments are entirely local, and all they prove is that models incorporating locality as a proposition are violated in light of the measurement results as interpreted. This doesn't need to mean locality itself is violated.

Say Joy's experiment is conducted and the results fail to support his thesis. Does that mean space has no topological properties? No, it simply means that if it does the experiment didn't detect them. (Hopefully it might also mean he'll dial down his rhetoric but that's a different issue.)

pjackson

Nick,

Other results are also inconsistent with QM, They're discarded if they don't fit the theory. I see what you mean about En, but I've recently found that the follow up of Aspect by Weihs et al found the same anomalies as Aspect, which were predicted and identified in my essay, but both attributed them elsewhere and binned them (Weihs used a different detector). In both cases they show a detector ('observer') dependence.

The very finding of local variables in single particle/detector experiments should significantly disprove Bells theorem, but that too has been brushed aside as no complete answer emerged. It's the old 'mobile goalpost' syndrome again. But a disproof of state reduction is still needed so confusion prevails. I hope to offer a way to clear that up with a protocol in the next day or so showing the importance of detector interactions. I hope you'll study it and comment.

I spoke with Joy long ago about rhetoric, but he's understandably angered by the poor attitude of others. I suspect his proof may be valid, but the inequalities are only part of the theorems proof so it's falsification is an incomplete answer anway.

Best wishes

Peter

Richard Gill

I must object to this, Peter.

You wrote: "I spoke with Joy long ago about rhetoric, but he's understandably angered by the poor attitude of others. I suspect his proof may be valid, but the inequalities are only part of the theorems proof so it's falsification is an incomplete answer anway."

Others became angry through the attitude exhibited by the author in question, which was exhibited when people pointed out what at the very least are dangerous ambiguities of notation, if not fatal errors. Instead of constructive attempts to repair what at the least is sloppy notation, such writers became subjected to a stream of rhetoric and abuse.

I am interested that you can write " I suspect his proof may be valid". You would obviously like his proof to be valid, because that would support and confirm your own ideas. So assuming you are right, then the chance that he is right too, is larger. But have you tried reading his proof? Many people say it is inpenetrable but I think it is not inpenetrable at all, at least, not in the one page paper version http://arxiv.org/abs/1103.1879, which is the same as the proof in the introductory chapter to his book, and as far as I know is unchanged in the second edition.

So I would say: read the first chapter of the book, and check the math.

pjackson

Richard,

A valid point, but I wasn't thinking of you at all you when I referred to poor attitudes. I think you've engaged very fairly for the most part. I agree rigour is essential. You may recall others were insulting and dismissive from the start. I found it highly unprofessional to the point of juvenile.

As far as Joy's maths go, my life as a mathematician was many decades ago so I can't verify it, but I did study geometry and suspect Joy's work has connections with an underlying simple truth I've discovered, or really a 'superposed' pair of them.

My work has been from an entirely different angle, stands alone, and is a real classical experiment, also resolving state reduction. When I write 'simple' I really DO mean simple! So simple that those in the slightest reliant on 'expectations' won't even see it. The classroom experiments seems to have worked brilliantly. I've written it up and am about to post a simplified protocol below. The figures help a lot so I may have to put it somewhere accessible. I hope you'll study and analyse it with the same rigour you've given to Joy's work.

First could you consider this schoolboy question from a philosophical angle; Now I know all the descriptions of MM and QAM, but; Is the angular momentum of planet Earth clockwise or anti-clockwise?

Best wishes

Peter

Thomas Ray

Richard, I was watching The Simpsons this evening. Bart introduced his sister: "She's really smart. She can do arithmetic without the numbers. (to Lisa) What's x?

Lisa: Well, it depends ...

Bart: I don't understand. She could do it yesterday."

That's the trouble with arithmetic theorems applied to physics.

The map f(x) --> x is continuous. The arbitrary value of x is not. Which result do you think is both real and local?

John Cox

Tom,

Both

jrc

Thomas Ray

Why do you think that, John R?

John Cox

Tom,

I think that to 'map' firstly requires that the function is being defined as a local relationship, and 'arbitrary' does not mean that the value is not real but rather a choice of what to start with. So 'x' is always going to be that assumed value no matter where along the line it falls, it's a discrete value. The function of (x)--->x is the relationship of that real value to itself all along the projection so it can't be anything else but continuous. It is simply that there is no assigned numerical value to 'x' .

jrc

Nick Mann

Joy,

Simply for the record. In reference to:

n(A, B-NOT) n(B, C-NOT) >= n(A, C-NOT)

(1.) Do you believe the formulation is a valid Bell derivation? Is it relevant to a discussion of BT?

(2.) If so, do you maintain that the proposition has been macroscopically violated in a physical experiment conducted as of this date?

« Previous Page Next Page »