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

Fred Diether

Hi Peter,

Did a quick read through of your paper. Looks interesting but if you have a framework that classically reproduces the predictions of QM, then you ought to be able to show the math for how to get E(a, b) = -a.b.

Best,

Fred

Thomas Ray

"Why then are you ever ready to bet that reality is continuous."

Because I believe in the same God that Einstein and Spinoza did, an impersonal nature of universally distributed goodness. No "Maker" who throws dice.

As complex as our physics is, we cannot explain how the world is comprehensible unless we allow that events manifesting as particle phenomena are self limiting, and if self limiting, pairwise correlated. These are elemental facts of both general relativity and quantum field theory.

pjackson

Fred,

Thanks. The equation's assumptions mean it only selectively models nature. a,b are something like tied parallel 'bivectors', but only one accessible. Perhaps each (identical) particle may then be something like E = a-b/b-a, both subject to cos theta. In fact even that can't be all right as I falsified the = sign and Law of the Excluded Middle in last years essay!

The question is, is E really just E, or is it really E_tot = vector independent = E_ccw = E_cw. In which case it seems the equation you gave may be a tautology using the assumptions it's based on.

Lets use an analogy to check a few concepts. Your car is up on axle stands with the wheels turning. We have a hand dynamometer. On the off side, both sides of the tyre have the same E, in fact checking 'inside' (under the car) and out, we have not only the same E in two sets of two opposite directions, but find the same with everything at 90^o as well!

Then we go round to the other side of the car, and find exactly the same, all reversed! Now which 'directions' are and which are - ? And would that change if the car was on it's roof?

In the scenario of the equation, plus an minus are not just the same value E but the same 'thing'. They are a nominal false description, and entirely observer dependent. I've found the problem is all about the way humans think, and may need as big a step as Copernicus identified. As I say in the paper, there is no 'up' in space.

I suspect that is what Joy's mathematopological approach may help resolve, if it includes the attributes of real physical dynamics.

Or perhaps as a short answer to your question; we can get E(a, b) = -a.b. by simply tuning the observer of the equation upside down. If he's in space he really won't notice! Whichever way up A or B are the total E will always be the same if measured on the axis.

I moved away from prediction by manipulating ancient Arab symbols some decades ago (Mayan ones are more interesting!) so if you have any good ideas for simple representations of the discrete dynamics described I'd be delighted for you to have all the kudos.

Best wishes.

Peter

(PS revised version with amended fig showing the 720 degree rotation imminent)

Thomas Ray

Akinbo, Papa-Grimaldi concludes with a remark by Plato from the dialogue with Parmenides:

"...that queer thing, the instant. The word 'instant' appears to mean something such that from it a thing passes to one or other of the two conditions [sc. rest and motion] there is no transition from a state of rest so long as the thing is still at rest, nor from motion so long as it is still in motion, but this queer thing, the instant, is situated between the motion and the rest; it occupies no time at all, and the transition of the moving thing to the state of rest, or of the stationery thing to being in motion, takes place to and from the instant."

A few years ago, I asked a fellow conference participant after his presentation purporting to solve Zeno's arrow paradox by eliminating the very existence and idea of 'instant': "So, is motion possible?" The reaction I got was as if I have two heads. For all through the presentation, the presenter referred to things in dynamic motion all the way to the thermodynamic death and rebirth of the universe. He never once directly addressed Zeno's question from which the paradox derives: is motion possible?

One cannot escape the syllogism and its inverse; if motion is possible, instants (intervals of time) exist. That is, all motion is relative and therefore events are pairwise correlated (covariant).

One of the most difficult things to understand in general relativity is the lack of boundary between past, present and future. The model is perfectly well behaved, however -- and even more so in Joy Christian's modern version of relative becoming. It corresponds to a conjecture I made in a 2006 conference paper: "transitivity implies identity." That is, the self-limiting map of a function to itself is continuous. Empirical consequences of the idea are described by Christian's topological measurement framework -- the local interval of time is identical to the global interval.

Best,

Tom

John Cox

Peter,

is describing a classical scenario. In a classical measurement space. QM measures space as a statistical spread of possible points, not as a spatial 3D+t

or 4D. Non-local means its not measured, so if QM accepts light velocity as the limit of communication by any means, then at relative greater length a c+v event would be unmeasurable. Where QM loads the dice is in measuring space as a x,y co-ordinate so if we simplify 3^10 cm/sec to /10/ we project a geometric plane of 10 by 10; statistically all we nweed is 1

John Cox

Peter,

my previous post apparently got scrabbled.

... we project a plane of 10 by 10; statistically all we need is 1

John Cox

Peter et al,

I'll try later, my internet provider is logging me out, March Madness, perhaps. jrc

Thomas Ray

Right, John R. The 10 non-redundant points of the tensor metric exclude the 6 points of 3 dimension space. That is why some say that the 3 1 space we live in is 10-dimensional, even without the string theory formalism.

Peter, the cross product identity is a strict mathematical constraint independent of the observer's choice of position. That is why Bell's theorem adherents introduce detector setting dependence to reject local hidden variables.

pjackson

Experiment kit and revised preprint attached. No FTL required. The instructions are in the paper, appendix A. The short version Richard asked for is below.

John, Thanks, yes, that seems right (I think!) The fact that we can't 'detect' non-locally'/b] is absolute key, and when consistently applied allows the convergence of SR and QM by more coherent local 'discrete field' interpretation of both.

Joy, You're very quiet. We're not in 'competition' here, - this is about 'exposing truth'. I hope you'll read and discuss it as I have yours.

ABRIDGED INSTRUCTIONS CLASSICAL EXPERIMENT REPRODUCING QM PREDICTIONS

Turn the dial to some random setting. The tosser tosses.

The random H/T side hits the back of the dial a colour appears in the slot.

Decide if it's closest to Red or Green and tick either the R or G box.

Note the setting angle is noted beside the tick.

RepeatAttachment #1: Classical_Inequalities_v2.pdf Attachment #2: Kit._FIG_5.jpg

John Cox

Repost,
trying again. In describing a classical scenario in a real 3D+t or 4D space, contrasts with to a vector space which is only a field of real numbers (points). Non-local means it is not measured, so if QM accepts light velocity as the limit to communication by any means, then at a relative greater length a c+v event would be umeasurable.
Where QM loads the dice is in measuring space as an x,y co-ordinate so if we simplify 3^10cm/sec to /10/, we project a 10 by 10 geometric plane; statistically we only need 1

John Cox

FQXi, is cutting off my argumaent at the same place everytime. jrc

Thomas Ray

John R, you're probably using bracket symbols. Get rid of them.

pjackson

John,
Mine was chopped too. Is it a classical or spooky quantum problem!? I'd guess classical. If you're typing a 'greater than' arrow then I think it gets the scissors out. Could it be that.
I'll let you answer Toms pint about the 'strict mathematical constraint'. For me the cross product of two equal opposing parallel vectors seems to be net symmetrical equilibrium. Set the wave median 'zero' dial at 10 and the answers both = 10 (the opposing dynamometer readings always total 10).
The result is then finally logical rather than spooky. Am I missing something?
Peter

John Cox

Tom & Pete,
might be my use of slants to bracket, I repost from start. If that fixes the problem the it's a classic variable.
Describing a classical scenario in a real 3D+t or 4D space, contrasts to vector space which is only a field of real numbers, such as any whole number between 1 and 100.
Non-local means that it is not measured, so if QM accepts light velocity as the limit to communication by any means, then at a relative greater length a c+v event would be unmeasurable. Where QM loads the dice is in measuring space as an x,y co-ordinate, so if we simplify 3^10 cm/sec to (10) we project a 10 by 10 geometric plane: statistically we only need (1/2)-1 to have an inequality, so there is our 45 degree diagonal across the plane. Half of the points are therefore deemed unmeasurable, (c+v), so we can'y say they are of like sign as the measurable, and we only need one point less than that half-hundred, (50)-1.
This translates through to all the measurable points being observed in one full 360 degree rotation, so it naturally follows that the predicted (projected) non-measurable points will become observed in a next full rotation, restoring the original compliments of 100 points. The arbitrary assignment correlating point to real number is incidental.
If a c+v event is predictable, then so must be a c^2 event, therefore an instantaneous action across a distance must also be predicable along with an equal and opposite reaction. All would cancel out, and motion would not be possible.
Looking at the 10 by 10 co-ordinate grid of simplified light velocity, beggars the question whether QM took off in such a burst of enthusiasm that it didn't notice an a-prior assumption that the speed of time would have to be equivalent to light velocity (?). PROPOSED: that the speed of time be treated as equivalent to c @ and only @, c. jrc

John Cox

Pete,
The 'strict mathematical constraint' that Tom's harps on is the crux of the matter a'la the Joy Christian argument. That constraint is arbitrarily self-imposed by QM in leau of mathematical completeness, a'la Einstein.
QM asserts it can predict, from a co-ordinate non-spatial projection, that a set of real yet unmeasurable events can occur, and those then subject to criteria as being qualified to be real in physical space. What is arbitrary and mathematically constrained is to specify by the grid projection that the whole set of reals is limited to unmeasurables that would be a (c+v) event, BUT only up to (c+v)=c^2 protracted velocity. That leaves a countable infinity of real numbers, any one of which could with some probability visit itself onto the QM set of unmeasurable reals. For Joy Christians classical prediction in TopoSpace which treats vectors mathematically as does QM, but as rotations in real space (the trick there being that a 1/4 rotation to the left is different only in length from a 3/4 turn from origin, 'P', to the right) rather than of a constrained field of Real Numbers, to produce the same shape curve of probabilities as QM, means that mathematically if you accept QM predictions then you also have to accept that countable infinity of possible reals that QM grid-locks out of play.
Hope that makes sense. jrc

pjackson

John,
I agree the speed of time (signals) is c. The 'rate' of time passing is not then a 'speed'. But your comment is very valid, and I must say actually rather brilliant.
I've argued interminably that 'time' is not dilated and 'lengths' are not contracted. Only the physical signals, AFTER emission, are at large to such modulation. Christian Doppler found the equation and we use it in astronomy, it's 'wavelength over wavelength'.
The moment it was misapplied to 'frequency' for mathematics is the moment mathematics ceased to properly model nature. In fact 'c', as a relative quantity, always uses a LOCAL datum, as in a dielectric medium. Space is simply a diffuse dielectric medium. Occam rules, and SR and QM then converge (DFM).
Oxford professor Charles Dodgson noticed the departure from reality, but by then too many were trapped in a 'wonderland' of strict mathematical constraints like circular tea parties. Only Alice could see it was unreal. They're still there.
Please do give me your frank views on the paper (link 5 posts up). I suspect there's a job going as it needs a sprinkling of coherent maths. Whaddya think?
Best wishes
Peter

pjackson

John,
"Hope that makes sense." I'm sure it does. Not to me perhaps, entirely (I pushed it all in but it didn't stick to much!) but that's not important. Does it need the matter of poor 'representation' of the symbols to the physical entity to be clearly identified? (you probably did that!)
We crossed in cyberspace above, but an interesting point; I've just had a paper passed peer review (arXiv soon) that explains superluminal quasar jets relativistically by using 'non-localness' (I just realised a new word may be needed.
Measured trigonometrically by rate of angular change or 'displacement', quasar jet pulses can now get up to a pretty healthy 46c (even allowing for the Rees Sciama effect) and are commonly at

John Cox

Pete,
I downloaded from your link and am digesting it, so I'll refrain a bit other than to say that I am in agreement that an observing system physically interacts with an event. Mathwise, what Fred is saying is that a circumvention of Bell et. al. is well and good, but does not constitute a rigorous rebuttal because it is terms that are different from the original being avoided. To contest a mathematician you have to hit him in the math, but to win you have to hit him with his own math. Perhaps your model corresponds with there being a set of countable infinite reals above c^2 that are not projected by the QM grid projection. I'm learning the rudiments of topology, so how Joy's model rigorously applies to Bell I don't yet follow. QM allows light velocity and e=mc^2, but c^2 is just the equivalence of mass-energy. QM prescribes mass as local and it's c^2 proportion as energy, but as time having a speed equivalent to c. Above c is global in QM, but arbitrarily up to c^2. SR equates as a non-uniform flow of time between relative rest and c. jrc

Richard Gill

Fred perceptively wrote "Did a quick read through of your paper. Looks interesting but if you have a framework that classically reproduces the predictions of QM, then you ought to be able to show the math for how to get E(a, b) = -a.b."
Exactly.
I could show you the math which shows you can't get E(a, b) = -a.b. Usual story.
Extraordinary claims require extraordinarily strong evidence to support them. I see none. Show us the math. Convert it into a little computer simulation program. Win the quantum Randi challenge and collect the Nobel prize.

Joy Christian

Richard Gill is only half right.
Fred is also only half right. Unlike Fred, I didn't even find Peter's preprint interesting. His construction is not even wrong. It proves nothing. It disproves nothing.
But let me not pick on Peter, who is not claiming to be an "expert" on Bell's theorem. Let me instead point out the follies of the "expert." He claims that he "could show" "the math which shows you can't get E(a, b) = -a.b."
Actually, he cannot. Not without replacing disjunction with conjunction in his logic. Not without replacing "or" with "and" in his argument. His "usual story" has holes as big as those in Swiss cheese. These holes, by the way, were put in there by John Bell.
The correct math that exactly gives you E(a, b) = -a.b, together with coherent physics, actually exists since 2007. It has been further elaborated by me, in many different ways, in my book and elsewhere. You can find all the details about the correct math and correct physics on my blog. It has everything you need to know about the story.
Finally, there is no such thing as "extraordinary claim", especially in science. A scientific claim is either true or false, and any ordinary evidence would suffice to either confirm or refute the claim. So I am not at all impressed by the pronouncements of the "expert."

« Previous Page Next Page »