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

Thomas Ray

As a postscript to my post in this thread 31 March 1330 GMT, the original theorema egregium due to Gauss provides the motivation by which I conjecture that Einstein's theory "up to diffeomorphism" can be extended using Joy's framework, to an active diffeomorphism.

As Sean Carroll says in the link above:

"Since diffeomorphisms are just active coordinate transformations ... the theory is coordinate invariant. Although such a statement is true, it is a source of great misunderstanding, for the simple fact that it conveys very little information. Any semi-respectable theory of physics is coordinate invariant, including those based on special relativity or Newtonian mechanics; GR is not unique in this regard. When people say that GR is diffeomorphism invariant, more likely than not they have one of two (closely related) concepts in mind: the theory is free of 'prior geometry', and there is no preferred coordinate system for spacetime."

An active diffeomorphism structures the geometry, without prior probability for the structure.

Thomas Ray

"What it does is classically explain and reproduce the results found in weak measurement (WM) experiment statistical correlations."

Then it is compelled to be probabilistic and nonlocal.

One can have a realistic classical continuum (field) theory with nonlocal hidden variables (such as string theory). One cannot have a probabilistic classical theory with local hidden variables.

I am not a stranger to the Hardy effect. I suggested an experimental way in my last essay to achieve a locally real result of particle annihilation (e+e- interaction) without radiation, that conserves angular momentum.

Thomas Ray

Dang it. https//perimeterinstitute.ca/news/hardys-paradox-confirmed-experimentally

pjackson

Tom,

"it is compelled to be probabilistic and nonlocal". Shockingly not. Of course as you use the same underlying hidden flawed assumptions that Bohr and Bell employed then it'll appear correct. That's what you're doing.

I make clear and justify in the paper that the bedrock of nature is local and, as Popper suggested, hidden rather deeper than the mud which all have relied on. When reconstructing from firmer foundations the results of ALL experiments can be reproduced classically.

I also describe the model diagrammatically, and even provide the kit for a simple classical experiment which proves it. Simply send coin toss results to 2 separate rooms. When the (classical) results of the experiment are returned and correlated you'll find they plot the Bell cosine curve violation. It really is an extraordinary discovery. Godels' hypothesis is proven.

All the time you refuse to educate yourself on it by actually reading it Tom you won't find the false assumption everybody has employed, so will continue with false conclusions. I don't understand why you don't read it, are you fearful of something? There's nothing for anyone to fear, including Joy.

Best wishes

Peter

pjackson

Tom,

Hardy adopted the same hidden assumption so the results are misinterpreted as a spooky paradox, not causal. I identify that specifically in the paper.

It's claimed that; "Weak measurement can achieve the effect of measuring quantum states, which normally cannot be measured without destroying them." It can't.

It does not 'measure' the same thing that transfer of OAM measures ('apples'). The 'statistical' comparison method outputs a quite different quality, which is non scalar RELATIVE 'differences' between two lupens. How many similarities of lupins equals a pound of apples?

Peter

Thomas Ray

" ... All the time you refuse to educate yourself on it by actually reading it Tom ...

I've read it. Including "These findings are classical and subjectively based ..." Classical theories are objective, Peter. Your error is identical to that of the "QRC," in attempting to derive objective facts from subjective judgements. Only closed logical judgements in a mathematically complete theory can be shown objectively correspondent to the results of physical experiments.

John Cox

"One cannot have a probabilistic classical theory with local hidden variables."

Pete and Tom,

In behavioral sciences the opposite is often found. In any large diverse population, there is frequently observed anomalous behavior for which there is no causal condition that can be found common to all individuals. The 'hidden' identifiable variable is not something that happens that causes the anomalous behavior, but rather something that normally occurs in the course of development that simply doesn't for no reason at all. The local individual develops characteristic behavior that is categorically the same syndrome as others in the global population between whom there exists no sort of connection other than being human, yet such anomalies tend to be identifiable globally as a small but significant percentage of population while locally the individual tends to be identified as 'a hard case'. I wonder if we aren't looking at inequalities from the wrong direction. jrc

Thomas Ray

"It's claimed that; 'Weak measurement can achieve the effect of measuring quantum states, which normally cannot be measured without destroying them.' It can't."

Then there's no point in trying to use weak measurement to derive a classical result, is there?

Thomas Ray

John R, a "hidden variable" in physics is not identical to an unknown variable in the soft sciences. A hidden variable in a physical system is a local influence on the measurement function not accounted for by the actual measurement result. What it means generally, is that the measurement is objectively independent of the measurer. "The moon is really there ..."

pjackson

Tom,

"Then there's no point in trying to use weak measurement to derive a classical result, is there?"

Trivially of course. Anybody doing so would be foolish. And your point?

Your comments are way off the mark as you clearly haven't a clue what's proposed.

If read the paper your comments should stop appearing so foolish Tom.

You still have the chance to get a step ahead of Richard!

Peter

Thomas Ray

I told you I read it, Peter. If you want to continue to try and defend your hypothesis with logically contradictory premises, though, it really wouldn't make a difference if I had read it or not.

Thomas Ray

Peter, to try and make this point about Hardy's paradox clearer:

You write, "Hardy's paradox uses the inherited QM assumptions of conserved spin state finding so, while correct in it's own domain, we find nature is not constrained to that domain."

Because Steinberg's experiment validating Hardy's hypothesis is empirical, the domain is local. Their conclusion is the same one you reached: nature's domain is nonlocal.

John Cox

Tom,

What would it be, then, if the results were such that a photon that 'could'a, should'a, would'a, been blocked by the filter angle wasn't because while nature is deterministic, it does not always behave perfectly so. There is a profound difference between things happening for no reason, and things that happen because something else doesn't happen for no reason. jrc

Thomas Ray

I'll have to answer that one philosophically, John R:

I agree with Einstein that nature " ... is subtle, but not malicious."

When one abandons causality, one surrenders any chance of a comprehensible theory. Personally, I think that self-limiting systems are sufficient evidence of the order in nature -- nothing could be more orderly than a function that maps continuously to itself.

pjackson

Tom,

Sorry, I missed that post. There's no contradiction. The R/G choice in the experiment is subjective (no law excludes that as a classical!) and I also pointed to the shortcut, which is not only non-subjective but mathematically complete and precise; by computing the cosine numbers shown beside each angle. Occam rules!

Now one of my subjects was partially colour blind (it was an excellent test of how much!) Colour blindness is a 'classical' physical condition of course, so the variation his results gave was deterministic, an interesting insight and as John's excellent analysis (thank you John).

WM,- I think you need to 'step back' and review this; I'm showing that QM is only a misguided 'interpretation' of observations. ALL observations then have classical cause. Now that INCLUDES the ACTUAL findings from WM correlation experiments. What has not been possible in the past is any classical 'rationalisation' of WM results. It is THAT which I've now provided for the first time.

I'm sure the subtle but important difference between that and your; "trying to use weak measurement to derive a classical result" is not beyond your comprehension.

In the discrete field relativistic schema; All experimental results have logical causal and fully local explanations, including those currently interpreted as only possibly being attributable to 'quantum weirdness'. Even SR is if anything more 'local' that is was before!! (When the Earth moves, only the light within it's local domain is affected and propagates at c wrt Earth, not the light on some other planet in some other galaxy! = Paradox lost!).

Best wishes

Peter

pjackson

Tom,

Your capacity for misunderstanding seems limitless. Please read what I write and not add your own nonsensical spin; When I stated that a false assumption constrained the 'domain' of Bohr, Bell and Hardy it does not imply that anything beyond that domain is 'non-local', indeed exactly the opposite. They could NOT explain in 'local reality' terms. The constraint I identify now allows that, circumventing Bells theorem.

"Their conclusion is the same one you reached: nature's domain is nonlocal." It is of course nonsensical to suggest I did so. Either you have quite unimpressive comprehension or you're being obtuse on purpose. I suspect the latter, unless it's both? Don't you think an intelligent discussion is better than men of straw?

Score; "May have potential but must try harder"!

Best wishes

Peter

John Cox

Tom,

Thanks for that. The more I consider it, it is something of a loophole. Born was a purist, but I think that has become a self-fulfilling agenda in QM. He didn't limit his exclusion to 'variables'. He said "No hidden parameter..." and that does not exclude a hidden constant. I didn't catch it on the news, how did the Tigers do? jrc

Thomas Ray

"The R/G choice in the experiment is subjective (no law excludes that as a classical!)"

No, but dependence on Bayesian interpretation runs into the same limitations as the "QRC." There is a built in assumption of nonlocality; i.e., because no communication passes among the participants, the local outcome of one group is disconnected from the nonlocal outcome of the other. The results are not pairwise correlated, only statistically correlated on the assumption that pairwise correlation is observer created, and nonlocality is a physical fact. In other words, "proving" only what one assumes.

Any variation of the ill conceived "QRC" is vacuous.

" ... and I also pointed to the shortcut, which is not only non-subjective but mathematically complete and precise; by computing the cosine numbers shown beside each angle. Occam rules!"

Since you haven't presented any mathematical theory, I fail to understand how you find it mathematically complete.

"What has not been possible in the past is any classical 'rationalisation' of WM results."

That's just the thing, though, Peter -- we don't rationalize the results of a classical experiment. The results have to be 1 to 1 correspondent with the predictions of the mathematical theory.

Best,

Tom

Richard Gill

Judy, I am not a "self-declared authority".

I do think I understand what Bell was on about. I do think that Peter doesn't have a clue. You seem to think the opposite on both counts.

It's a breath of fresh air to have a lady in the room. One of my heroines is Caroline Thompson. A physicist and a statistician. She put her finger on all the sore spots.

Richard Gill

PS I do agree with Peter regarding Tom's remarks.

It would be interesting to do the Turing test on each of the participants in this forum. I suspect that some of us don't actually exist.

« Previous Page Next Page »