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

Richard Gill

'Realism', however it is defined, comes down, effectively [in representations of Bell's argument], to the mathematical existence of the outcomes of unperformed experiments, alongside of those which were actually performed. 'Locality' refers to the attempt to 'locate' those counterfactual outcomes in the 'obvious' region of space and time. Alongside of the assumptions of realism and locality (the second only being meaningful given the first) we need an assumption of freedom: the freedom of the experimenter to perform either measurement. This does not need to involve metaphysical assumptions either of free will or of existence of true randomness. It just involves the assumption that the physical processes going on at one measurement location can't have access to the measurement choice made at the other location, till after the measurement outcome has been committed to.

No "measure space" being rejected here. No tortuous path to "realism" by assuming "non locality".

Thomas Ray

Really, Richard? That must mean you've written a new proof of Bell's theorem without the mystical assumptions. Would love to read it sometime.

Thomas Ray

" I suspect that some of us don't actually exist. "

Which is perfectly fine, because your probability calculation for those odds would be nonsensical, too

Thomas Ray

I hope it's obvious that Richard's definition of 'realism' depends on how the observer processes information in her brain-mind. For any question of 'having access to the measurement choice at the other location' is meaningless otherwise.

In other words, he believes that realism exists in the mind of the observer and nowhere else. But for experiments that "prove" this assumption, we would call it solipsism, not science.

[deleted]

" ... (Born) didn't limit his exclusion to 'variables'. He said 'No hidden parameter...' and that does not exclude a hidden constant."

John R, the precise meaning of 'parameter' is 'adjustable variable,' so you are right and even though Max Born was wrong, he was wrong for the right reason. In Joy's framework, nature's constant is not conditioned on 'the experiment not performed;' locality is preserved in the domain of complete measurement functions continuous from the initial condition, at the limit of division algebras. The no-limit domain of conventional quantum theory has no reference space save that between one's ears.

"I didn't catch it on the news, how did the Tigers do?"

Beat Kansas City by one run (4-3) in the bottom of the 9th, so all is right with the world. I have fond memories of Cleveland, by the way; I dated a girl from Shaker Heights in my single days, truly a lady of quality.

Thomas Ray

Let me repeat my challenge to Richard, who thinks the issue of local relaism is debatable on the criterion of definition:

"One can always object to the definitions. They are of course (subject to)ongoing debate."

Then debate the side of why you think it unnecessary to specify your Bell's theorem measure space, in order to validate its arithmetic prediction for strong quantum correlations.

As Einstin put it, your program looks like "an attempt to breathe in empty space."

Thomas Ray

It's too bad that Richard has bought into the "Quantum Randi Challenge," to validate what Bell's theorem has proven, because it undermines his own attempts to free quantum mechanics from dependence on space and time.

For the individual programs that "players" devise to "beat" the quantum mechanical predictions of Bell's theorem are disconnected from every pairwise correlation of events, attempting as Richard puts it, " ... to 'locate' those counterfactual outcomes in the 'obvious' region of space and time." What's truly obvious is that the disconnected regions of the players' domains do not differ from the observer-created outcomes corresponding to the " ... mathematical existence of the outcomes of unperformed experiments, alongside of those which were actually performed." In other words, the physical experiment whether demonstrated in Bell-Aspect or the "QRC" cannot be independent of the mathematical model.

This independence of mathematical theory and physical result -- an extra degree of freedom in the complete system -- is built into Joy Christian's framework. And into the simply connected structure of spacetime.

Thomas Ray

Peter, putting aside how stupid you think I am, let's look objectively at how you think of Aephraim Steinberg's experiment showing that Hardy's paradox verifies the predictions of Bell-Aspect. Of your own theory in relation to that paradox and experiment, you say:

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

You should understand that this is an utter logical impossibility. A classical experiment (e.g., the 'moving clocks' experiments of special relativity) do not make statistical predictions. Margins of error are allowed only for equipment errors, not results-fudging.

" ... that is a MEGA accomplishment, circumventing Bell's theorem with the simplest of Locally Real mechanisms."

What locally real mechanism? You can't just make a statistical prediction and say it's "locally real." That's the same as saying that "all physics is local because all physics is local -- so there!" That's not what Einstein meant by "all physics is local" -- he meant that every local measurement corresponds to the reality of the universe in the domain and range of the complete experimental space. What you've done is to replicate the results of Bell-Aspect and "QRC" and counterfactually declare "It's local! It's real!"

This way of speaking counterfactually is what some of Joy's detractors falsely accuse him of -- actually, it's the counterfactual definiteness of Bell's theorem adherents, that binds their models such as "QRC" to a statistical result that only proves what it assumes.

All best,

Tom

John Cox

Tom,

I can see the utility of taking the diameter of the circle as the time interval, (1), of a full rotation (the 720 syndrome) and how reversibility is not a change in direction. It's isn't like the circle is going to come off and roll away. Any equivalence is an equality, and as you pointed out, E=mc^2 is a statement that E and m are the limits between which the constant applies. So the first rotation analyzes E to m, and the second rotation analyzes m to E. The point on the circle continues to be rotated in the same direction on the circumference. Aside from the topological model, taking the diameter as the metric applies directly as a proportion to the dimension of a cart a wheel is axial to, so though the wheel turns that proportion remains constant. So in the topologic framework, the time metric carries through S^0 --> S^7, and zeroes out as anywhere being (1).

How is it best and easiest to assemble the idea of 'parallelized' spheres? Am I okay thinking of it as a sort of superposition, and how would you explain it to yourself in a prior life? When you have time, thanx jrc

pjackson

Tom,

"I fail to understand how you find it mathematically complete." You may have read a little too quickly and missed it's simplicity. That's easy to do as it's far simpler than imaginable;

The 'mathematical theory' directly follows the physical model, in that the detector setting determines the cosine of the chosen angle (precisely as Weihs found) which is then plotted to a graph. Lo and behold a perfect reproduction of the so-called 'quantum prediction' appears (your '1 to 1 correspondence').

In the non mathematical 'subjective' analogue (the experiment) the inequalities are more excessively violated. There is also no "dependence on Bayesian interpretation" for my results. They simply 'are what they are', which is a classical distribution with NO non-locality. Otherwise anyone is free to 'interpret' them as they please.

I hope that helps get your understanding straight. In any event the experiment is classical and repeatable so stands as it's own proof head and shoulders above all arguable theoretical nonsense and assumptions.

Peter

pjackson

Richard,

The specific slip Judy identified you'd made was in misunderstanding exactly what 'quality' weak measurement (WM) statistical correlation was quantifying. It seems a more common misunderstanding that I'd realised. Before clarifying that I also clarify that I do well understand Bell's tautological point and don't dispute it. What I identify is the flawed assumption of QM on which it's founded. Correct that assumption, so allow B to find a OR b whatever A finds, and Bells written statement is circumvented.

WM statistics fool many. What they do is compare what distribution A finds at any one angle with what B finds at that angle, giving an output only of what we might call 'sameness' of finding. I derive that quite separately from the initial 'local' (single detector) inequalities in may paper for that reason.

A few worked examples should help comprehension.(You should note we're now well beyond the H/T toss as it's the same in either case of H/T vs A/B).

Let's take all cases of B where A chooses 0^o and finds GREEN with 100% certainty.

B chooses 180 so finds RED with 100% certainty. WM finds 0% A/B correlation.

B chooses 0^o so finds GREEN with 100% certainty. WM finds 100% correlation.

B chooses 90 so finds SAND, so only 50% certainty, so WM finds 50% correlation.

B chooses 22.5^o, = LIME so ~95% decide GREEN, so WM finds 95% correlation.

B chooses 45^o, = YELLOW. Trickier, but ~77% say Green, WM = 77% correlation.

You'll find the same result for ANY choice by A. "Correlation" is then only a measure of 'sameness' of A and B findings. The original inequality is inherent in each original set of findings, as single detector experiments show. The truth is then quite different to the claims made about what statistical analysis produces.

The simple classical experiment then reproduces the quantum prediction because 'flipping' field electrons also flips the detected spin direction.

Peter

PS; I've update the experiment protocol (EPS not Randi) kit with instructions, attached below, but see the paper appendix A. I probably also need to reset the cosines at your 90^o datum to make the simple mathematical derivation clearer. Do run through the experiment and give me your view.

Thomas Ray

"I hope that helps get your understanding straight."

Incredible. Peter, my understanding does not lack seeing your huge mistakes in logic and mathematics.

"The 'mathematical theory' directly follows the physical model ..."

That is exactly how quantum mechanics is derived. I keep telling you that your results do not differ from Bell-Aspect, and for some cockamehmeh reason beyond all rational thought, you don't believe me.

pjackson

Tom

You confuse 'results' with 'interpretations' ('findings'), a common mistake. I agree it is "an utter logical impossibility" to call classical outcomes 'statistical predictions'. I'm not doing so.

All physical experiments have raw 'findings', which I agree I might have better described as 'data' or 'outcomes'. It is those real findings to which I refer. I agree they've been hijacked and called 'statistical predictions', but I have shown that they are really classical findings none the less.

I think the confusion arose because I used the terms of Bells Theorem; "No physical theory of local hidden variables can ever reproduce all the predictions of quantum mechanics." I must admit I'd never read it in the way you suggested, but you do highlight that his use of English was 'incomplete'! I think I use the more common view, that 'reproduce' does not imply 'assuming QM'!

On Hardy, if we assume that all OAM 'superpositions' ab are reversible to ba subject to detector orientation then his whole pretext and scenario doesn't work, or 'apply to nature'.

I really don't think you're stupid Tom but you let your beliefs apply strong pre- judice causing severe myopia, often twisting meanings beyond recognition. I'd notices hints of a new objective view. It seems to need more nurturing. Perhaps always read things twice as I try to do, but the 2nd time with pre-cognition in 'off' mode? I think different views can add richness, but can become bias and miss all the value!

Finally; I've just had stunning corroboration of my (FIG 1) scale recursive OAM ('multi-helix') model from inside the sun!; Solar Helicity Spectra.

Best wishes

Peter

Thomas Ray

Nice, John R!

"How is it best and easiest to assemble the idea of 'parallelized' spheres? Am I okay thinking of it as a sort of superposition, and how would you explain it to yourself in a prior life?"

No, the terms are not in linear superposition; they are real and fully indexed components of the simply connected topology. Once one understands the limit of parallelizability, it's relatively easy to see that simply connected spheres (i.e., those of odd index S^1, S^3, S^7 with trivial tangent bundle) admit a local --> global analytic continuation over the manifold to the set R^n of Euclidean space.

So essentially and informally, one can see that metrics on the manifold of our measure space S^2 X S^2 (which are 3 dimension balls and which expression is identical to S^3) map smoothly to every Euclidean (i.e. flat) surface R^n in the complete measure space.

Joy has explained this much better than I can.

Thomas Ray

"You confuse 'results' with 'interpretations' ('findings'), a common mistake."

It's no mistake. In QM, numerical results only have to be interpreted because they are derived from physical experiments, not from theory. Predictions of a mthematically complete theory are demonstrably independent of experiment. Inferences and predictions are not the same thing.

"I think I use the more common view, that 'reproduce' does not imply 'assuming QM'!"

Peter, one has to assume QM; it's an empirical phenomenon. Understand that quantum mechanics is based on the model of statistical mechanics, which is classical. Bell's theorem is employed to explain the limit of statistical mechanics, and finds no limit -- the measure function is unbounded, and that's why the results are probabilistic and nonlocal.

"I really don't think you're stupid Tom but you let your beliefs apply strong prejudice causing severe myopia, often twisting meanings beyond recognition."

My only prejudices, Peter, are toward the physics that we already know is true.

Your overreaching ambition gets you trouble.

John Cox

Tom,

okay, thanks. clumsy mechanically it could be illustrated like a cluster of cams

parallel perpendicularly to the common camshaft. What does he mean by 'two-level' and why is that needed? Take your time, I've got chores to do and no pay-pal for the whole book. jrc

Thomas Ray

John R, save your money. I've got the second edition -- send me your street address and I'll send you my copy of the first edition.

pjackson

Tom,

You ignore the maths of my theory and set up rows of straw men. Perhaps it's so simple you've missed it. I invoke the formula Malus first found many centuries ago. As the plane progresses in equal increments across the sphere it intersects the surface. Considered in 2D, the energy is represented by the cosine of the angle at the intersection point, (which directly represents the change in magnitude of angular momentum transfer - which we call 'measurement', in the physical model).

I have written those values directly onto my figure in the correct places (they do also need inversion subject to 'datum'). The mathematical operation involved in transposing to the graph is called 'addition'. It was invented long before Malus.

Run the experiment. You'll find it a simple and complete mathematical derivation of the cosine curve, violating Bells inequality. There is NO NEED WHATSOEVER to assume or invoke any part or concept of QM. Now I know you're entirely wedded to Joy's model, which may well also be correct from his methodology, but if you can open your mind a little further you may just learn something else new.

And there is no physics we "KNOW" is true in absolute terms. Believing that is religion (closed) not science (open) minded. I find axiomising the postulates of SR works excellently. Einstein knew it was incomplete and was looking for the flaw in it's interpretation not it's postulates. Over-enthusiastic disciples do not help. But I'm not making this an argument over SR.

You seem hopelessly 'entangled' in theoretical mumbo jumbo so can't see the clarity beyond. I have no 'ambition' and am not 'in trouble'. I have infinite patience, - but you do test it! The only thing my theory presently seems to 'overreach' is your ability or willingness (thus the straw men) to comprehend or address it. I know you can do it if you try but more objective effort still required! And no more straw men please.

So do you now see the simple mathematical proof? You may even find it's a 'parellelised 7-sphere' whatever on earth that looks like! I would like to know how people think I can present that better as I'm sure it could be, but that needs more intelligent intercourse.

Best wishes,

Peter

Judy Nabb

Richard,

Caroline and Peter were the only ones I know of to predict and identify Aspects anomalies. I admired her work. Peter improves on it but apparently not visibly so from your apparently narrow statistical vista.

Peter actually agrees with you about Bells inequalities, so It's not true either of you 'don't have a clue'. What you've missed is that he goes beyond that. If Alice can reverse her finding by turning her dial then no non-local state reduction arises. Peter points out only time resolved pair experiments can find that out, that prediction is what led him to Aspects discarded anomalies, and also Weihs. That's brilliant detective work that you seem utterly blind to. This isn't my primary area but I'm profoundly shocked at the poor scientific comprehension and intelligent application from you and at least one other here who you should stand above but don't as yet.

But what really makes you look like a fool Richard is your denigration of Peters precise analysis of what weak measurement tells us. When your reputation suffers a major crash that will be why. I'm rather surprised you haven't checked and apologised to him. You speak like a gentleman Richard, but a gentleman is what a gentleman does. I'm waiting with interest to see if your withdrawal and apology are adequate for repatriation to real manhood! It seems you guys need a woman here to talk some clear sense.

Or if you really still believe Peters weak measurement analysis is flawed after doing your homework then stop arm-waving and explain precisely where, and prolong your agony!

Judy

John Cox

Tom,

Much obliged, I posted address to your Comcast address. Thanks again jrc

« Previous Page Next Page »