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

Joy Christian

"Is it the same for quantum randomness?"

There is no such thing as quantum randomness.

There is randomness due to lack of knowledge (as you explained), and there is quantum theory's pathetic and naïve attempt to deal with it. People like Leibniz, Hamilton, Grassmann, and Clifford would be turning in their graves. We already know Einstein saw through the voodoo of quantum mechanics. A few of us living also see through it, but we are being punished for it. We are being punished for blowing the whistle on quantum quackery.

Thomas Ray

It's often painful for me to witness Joy Christian patiently explain the same damn things over and over, to be answered with the equivalent of "if it's not programmable on a classical computer, it doesn't exist." Like this from sci.physics.foundations:

"I have explained the physics and mathematics of the problem quite clearly and in great detail: http://arxiv.org/abs/1211.0784.

The challenge would be to implement the true geometry and topology of the physical space in the simulation from the beginning.

In other words, the challenge would be to simulate the physical space as S^3, not as R^3. The bombs are exploding in S^3, not in R^3.

I asked Chantal Roth, but she said she does not know how to simulate S^3 without having to discard some 'events' 'a posteriori', as in Michel Fodje's simulation.

Of course, no states are being discarded in Michel Fodje's simulation. One cannot discard that which is not there in the first place."

There's a theorem lacking. A computer replication of quantum events requires a quantum computer. If it's true that for every classical observation there exists at least one quantum state, then the only scalable quantum computers are those based on quantum discord and not on simple arithmetic algorithms.

Tom

Thomas Ray

"There is certainly only one outcome in numerous equally probable outcomes; why is that? jrc "

The outcomes aren't equally likely, John R. Quantum theorists can claim so only because they do not define (and don't have to define, in a probabilistic theory) the space in which they are working. It's quackery of the highest order.

If quantum theorists were correct in their conventional assumptions, creationists and intelligent design advocates would also be correct in their arguments about an explosion in a junkyard producing a Boeing 747. Years ago when I had the patience to argue with these guys, no matter how often it was pointed out that the design landscape is self limiting to local events, their religious incredulity wouldn't accept it.

There may be hope for enlightenment in the computing community, in a true mathematical model of evolution, through the work of Gregory Chaitin (Proving Darwin: Making Biology Mathematical). It has insights not only for biology, but for computability and mathematics as well.

Tom

Richard Gill

"In other words, the challenge would be to simulate the physical space as S^3, not as R^3. The bombs are exploding in S^3, not in R^3. I asked Chantal Roth, but she said she does not know how to simulate S^3 without having to discard some 'events' 'a posteriori', as in Michel Fodje's simulation. Of course, no states are being discarded in Michel Fodje's simulation. One cannot discard that which is not there in the first place."

Strange how one can discard something which was never there. Michel's program discards about 30% of the states. But then Michel Fodje did not code Christian's model. Chantal Roth did try, but failed. But then Christian's instructions contain mutually contradictory requirements, so is "unimplementable". If you implement part of his model you contradict a different part.

I conclude that Tom has no idea at all what he is talking about. Or rather: a lot of ideas, but they are not actually based on any facts. They are based on wishful thinking. It's clear he doesn't spend much time actually studying code.

Instead of talking about his fantasies, he should sit down and address his own challenge. Go ahead, simulate the physical space as S^3, not as R^3! Nobody has done it yet. Nobody knows how to do it. Christian is not giving us any clue. Tom H Ray is not giving us any clue. I suspect it cannot be done without networking a whole lot of computers through a Möbius-band-like randomly parity reversing wormhole through some black holes into alternative universes. Go round once, and you come back with all your amino acids mirrored, and you can't eat anything. You have to go round through the wormhole twice. As in George Gamow's Mr Tompins story about the explorer who found a Möbius band in the upper reaches of the Amazon, used it to convert half of a large shipment of only right boots into left boots, but nearly died of starvation.

Joy Christian

Instead of criticising Tom, Richard Gill should actually read what he himself is writing. It is dishonest to make false claims about someone's work. He knows perfectly well that the initial state of the particles in my model is a pair, (e, theta), not just the vector e by itself. So he knows perfectly well that Michel Fodje is selecting the state, not discarding anything. And yet Richard Gill prefers to make a dishonest claim that Michel is discarding something. Why would a scientist stoop so low? What could be the motivation for it?

Now he writes: "I suspect it cannot be done without networking a whole lot of computers through a Möbius-band-like randomly parity reversing wormhole through some black holes into alternative universes. Go round once, and you come back with all your amino acids mirrored, and you can't eat anything. You have to go round through the wormhole twice. As in George Gamow's Mr Tompins story about the explorer who found a Möbius band in the upper reaches of the Amazon, used it to convert half of a large shipment of only right boots into left boots, but nearly died of starvation."

What????????????

Where does all that come from? S^3 is a simple Riemannian manifold. It's curvature and torsion are described by tensor fields, locally defined at each point of the manifold. This is hardly a rocket science. What he is trying to do in the above diatribe is simply obfuscate something that is nearly trivial to understand, simply to protect his deep-seated prejudices. My model has already been simulated by Chantal Roth and Michel Fodje, and by Richard Gill himself. The most accurate version of the simulation can be found here.

John Cox

J.J.Thomson posed a simple question for which solutions are still being sought. So wouldn't a simulation of physical space as S^3 instead of R^3 firstly require a truly homeomorphic uniform distribution of points on a sphere? I'm no duffer, but I recall years ago a controversy in the PGA about golf ball dimple patterns and at both Augusta and St. Andrews the regulations for dimple design requires it to be 'as symmetrical as possible'. jrc

pjackson

Richard

"There is room in science for major paradigm revolutions, breathtakingly huge steps."

I may agree with you about Daniels work, monotheism, and the above, but what is prevents those major steps is if those with influence can only think inside their own 'huddle'.

I've proposed "No singlet states", which is consistent with experimentation and explains 'entanglement' with no need for non-local state reduction. It even predicted the anomalies found in time resolved pair data. Yet you dismiss it without falsification purely as it conflicts with your own beliefs. CHSH also relied on a conflicting assumption. You assume input state is directly linked to output state, so dismiss any other possibility. Perhaps it's also as it seems to show limits to statistical methods?

If anyone in the field wishes to run a computer model they're welcome to your £500. I'm sure it wouldn't be difficult as I can do it with cosine tables.

Did you understand what the blue pivoting quadrant did? I think it's cleverer than you noticed. A number of others have so I'm sure you're able. I've improved at A4 'Kit' with more cosines added in the right places to show how they should be read off.

Best wishes

PeterAttachment #1: 5_Kit._FIG_5.jpg

pjackson

Richard,

I've offered your 5,000 Euros to anyone who can do the computer model, but if it's that simple you can save it by doing it yourself. I posted the improved A4 kit in the string below but I do so again here. The magic blue pivoting quadrant is the key.

You can't blame others for major steps in understanding not breaking through if it's your own approach and preconceptions that suppress them!

Best regards

Peter

PS, You accused Judy of talking nonsense due to your incomplete understanding of what I wrote. Judy had understood it properly and explained it well. The absolute settings produce the inequalities, the relative settings then reproduce them statistically by comparing the 'local' data.

I think we both know the test of a true gentleman.Attachment #1: 6_Kit._FIG_5.jpg

Florin Moldoveanu

It is easy to simulate S3 on a computer, but it is hard to visualize it. The trick for visualization is by stereographic projection which is basically the shadow S3 makes on R3 if a source of light is places on the north pole of S3. The stereographical projection is "conformal" meaning it preserves the angles but distorts the distances.

Here is how one can naively (and extremely inefficiently) simulate S3: generate random 4 numbers (a b,c,d) and throw away the ones which do not satisfy: a^2+b^2+c^2+d^2 = 1 What remains is a random distribution of points on S3.

Of course now we can be smarter and use angle (polar) coordinates (unlike in S2, now there will be 3 angle coordinates) which automatically respect the S3 condition. Then randomly generate sets of 3 numbers (a,b,c) in the domain of the validity of the polar coordinates and from them compute the 4: x1,x2,x3,x4 coordinates. Then you can use Monte-Carlo methods using the large set of (x1,x2,x3,x4) you generated.

Jonathan Dickau

A constructive comment Florin,

Not an elegant solution, but getting from point A to point B (S3 simulation) is definitely possible. There are a number of roads to the same end, if I am not mistaken. But there should be a simple and elegant way to do it.

All the Best,

Jonathan

Thomas Ray

"Here is how one can naively (and extremely inefficiently) simulate S3: generate random 4 numbers (a b,c,d) and throw away the ones which do not satisfy: a^2+b^2+c^2+d^2 = 1 What remains is a random distribution of points on S3."

You are neglecting the theorem that any point can simultaneously map to any set of points provided that it is far enough away. S^3 has one simple pole at infinity which satisfies all topological and arithmetic requirements of simple connectivity. Only 3 results are possible on the equator of S^3: + 1, -1 and i, the imaginary number. One can't arbitrarily discard any of them.

"Of course now we can be smarter and use angle (polar) coordinates (unlike in S2, now there will be 3 angle coordinates) which automatically respect the S3 condition."

No. Arbitrary choice of coordinates does not change S^3.

"Then randomly generate sets of 3 numbers (a,b,c) in the domain of the validity of the polar coordinates and from them compute the 4: x1,x2,x3,x4 coordinates. Then you can use Monte-Carlo methods using the large set of (x1,x2,x3,x4) you generated."

The domain of S^3 is complete and simply connected. Your manipulation of coordinates and application of probability measure does not change the topology.

Michel Fodje

Let me summarize the argument I've been making which shows that the CHSH is fatally flawed and with it, Bell's theorem:

It is well known that the terms in the CHSH expression S = E(a, b) - E(a, b') + E(a', b) + E(a' b'), as derived, include a mixture of both counter-factual and actual results. Yet when we claim that QM violates the expression, we are using the exact same probability distribution for both actual and counter-factual results, which is an error.

To see this, consider the expression E(A) + E(B) where one of them is counter-factual. For example, say A is the outcome of one toss of a coin, and B is the other result we didn't get but could have gotten. A similar error will be to assume that the probability distribution which produces E(A) is the same distribution which produces E(B).

If say the probability distribution of Heads and Tails is (0.625,0.375), E(A) = 0.625*(1) + 0.375*(-1) = 0.25. But every time we get H, the other result we didn't get must be a T. Therefore the counter-factual distribution must be opposite to the actual one. E(B) must be 0.625*(-1)+0.375(1) = -0.25. Not 0.25.

So if QM is correct, then it is predicting the actual expectation values, not the counter-factual ones. But our inequality E(a, b) - E(a, b') + E(a', b) + E(a' b')

Michel Fodje

... But our inequality E(a, b) - E(a, b') E(a', b) E(a' b') less than or equal to 2 was derived using counter-factual results.

Therefore apparent violations of the CHSH are due do erroneous substitution of actual results from different sets of particles into an expression derived using a mixture of actual and counter-factual results from a single set of particles.

Joy Christian

Thank you, Michel, for your insightful contribution.

Welcome to FQXi. You bring a breath of fresh air.

Let me also make one technical observation. One of the first people to make the observation you have made (to my knowledge) was Arthur Fine. He pointed out quite early on in the history of Bell's theorem that the assumption of joint probability distribution for the incompatible quantum mechanical observables is an unreasonable assumption. The Bell-diehards, however, have never accepted his arguments.

Richard Gill

I propose to erase all talk of inequalities, bounds, proof, and violations from discussions of experiment. An experiment cannot violate a bound. Obviously anyone who says something like that is off their head ... or means something different. Obviously an experiment does not prove anything ... definitively.

I made two graphics which explain the rationale of a CHSH experiment. The experiment is done in order to discriminate between two theories. The theories predict two different theoretical correlation surfaces rho(a, b). In an experiment, one can try to determine, up to some experimental error, one or more points of the surface. Should we try to reconstruct the whole surface experimentally or just a few points? Well, if resources are limited, the smart thing is to restrict attention to just a few points, judiciously chosen so as to maximize the discriminating power of the experiment Obviously, these points should correspond to several different settings of both parties Alice and Bob. It turns out that the optimal choice, from Joy Christian's point of view (ie in order to maximize the probability that the experiment will (statistically) prove that he's right, are the famous CHSH settings 0 and 90 degrees for Alice, 45 and 135 for Bob.

Just four points (those four points( is better than any larger number, better than any set of any other points! (This is connected to Tsirelson's theorem. Here's a 2005 article in IEEE-TIT: http://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0307125 about the matter).

"It is all so simple. How could I have not known this before" (Pierre, in Tolstoy's "War and Peace"_Attachment #1: quantum.png Attachment #2: classical.png

Richard Gill

Here is a very simple way to simulate a uniform distribution on S^3: simulate four independent standard normal variables U, V, W, X. Divide each by the square root of the sum of their four squares. Now you have the four coordinates of a point on S^3. By the spherical symmetry of the N_4(0, I) distribution on R^4, that point has a uniform distribution on the sphere of unit radius.

John Cox

rgill,

Your simple construct to simulate a single point on a unit sphere of either S^3 or R^4, and do so at once, looks very interesting in that it would provide an easily identifiable initial state from which to protract a comparison of the respective points vis-à-vis their own reference frame to the other.

In classical space the spherical full field of gravitational influence subsumes the electro-magnetic, and nuclear forces, of a rest mass; the photon however is a discrete entity as an elongation of that spherical volume to uniformly conform to the longitudinal space inside, say, a soda straw. Its still an inertial reference frame, and if quantum mechanics must borrow the classical gravitational theory in any part, it really can't change the rules. The point of any moment in time which can be chosen as translating an effect across any length of space inside that inertial reference frame is therefore 'center of rest' from which the longitudinal length of the attenuated field extends at 180^o at that arbitrary moment, and that translation of effect operates across any density of the energy within the envelope of the reference frame co-variantly so at any measured position it is at light velocity. Time keeping is local to the reference frame, and global within it. Whether taken as Lorentz invariant or co-variant, the moment of center of rest is thereby associated with mass. My own quibble is; that should mean that only a portion of the quantity of energy en masse ought be prescribed as existant at a density equivalent to the whole energy in the field; ie; mc^2/cm^3. The argument being; what part of 'center of rest' does not prescribe inertia?

Quantum Mechanics, lacking a gravitational rationale (so far) employs R^4, Euclidean space in which at any and every point, time is progressing in step with Newton's heartbeat. Fine. But that leaves us with the dichotomy of QM seeing the photon as a discrete clump moving at light velocity through Euclidean space, and any field associated with it that would be projected as described in classical space, is therefore seen as propagating affects in excess of light velocity, specifically c^2. Where from the discrete classical inertial reference frame, if anything is moving; it's a point in Euclidean space, relative to the point at center of rest, becoming a point in the classical past.

So it is not like a simple comparison of statistical distribution without 'time'. Time can zeroed out of the equation, but to reconcile quantum and classical distributions it can't be zeroed out of existence.

What I 'meant' was to extend a welcome to Judy Nabb, in recognition that we all have personality traits expressed in ways that are simply off-hand or flippant. And there are things in this world which can require the choice of dying on ones feet or living on ones knees, and arguing a theoretical point ain't one of them. Given this website is the type subject to the interest of some not content with what might be offered up as content, and the current stakes, as a statistician by trade if you aren't being facitious about kicking around Vienna, then you've got work. Any new clients of the bread and butter sort since you started offering comments on this particular blog? (Your right, it is the most exciting and relevant, and I can gather you also understand the wisdom of 'always tip the bartender'.) jrc

Thomas Ray

"I propose to erase all talk of inequalities, bounds, proof, and violations from discussions of experiment. An experiment cannot violate a bound. Obviously anyone who says something like that is off their head ... or means something different. Obviously an experiment does not prove anything ... definitively."

That is precisely why Bell-Aspect experiments prove only what one assumes about quantum mechanics and divides the domain into local and nonlocal components by fiat.

There are no nonlocal results in reality, because the experiment is not independent of the mathematical model. The mathematical model is derived from the experiment.

Richard Gill

Tom: "There are no nonlocal results in reality"

Yes!!!

jrc: thanks for the explanation! I have new clients all the time. Business is booming. There is so much crap in science, and a lot of it is lying with statistics. Right now I'm getting into a new fight involving fabrication of data by high profile (powerful) scientists. The corporate lawyers (a university is a big business) are bringing out their guns. I come here to have some good clean fun relaxing with some more laid back people.

Here's a link to another fight https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cbkdhD6BsoY "Statistical errors in court: Richard Gill at TEDxFlanders"

Richard Gill

PS by saying yes to Tom's remark I meant that I agreed with it whole heartedly, not that I disagreed with it (his remark included the word "no" and my response might mistakenly be construed as contradiction, not affirmation)

John Cox

Richard,

Coming to a website that is an international forum on the cutting edge is your idea of relaxation, eh? Glad business is boomin'. I would get curious about that link, but right now Microsoft just started it's monthly redux on my box, and already AOL is hijacking my Start screen. Funny you don't hear much about AOL on Nightly Business Report these days, but they are apparently aggressive on meta-data. I've slammed that door til the hinges are loose an' it still don't stay shut.

I tried coming here to find answers, and ended up with more questions. Like I thought the point of Quantum Mechanics was because randominity was the order of the day in the microcosm. So how can it be said there is no quantum randominity?

Watch yer back, Jack. jrc

Thomas Ray

Richard, we only disagree that quantum theory is a true scientific theory. That is, that there is any boundary between quantum and classical domains. No quantum experiment has demonstrated that, because there is no quantum theory independent of the experiment that would predict that.

Except Joy's.

Richard Gill

Tom, I do not think that "quantum theory is a true scientific theory". It is logically fundamentally flawed because it both assumes and denies there is a boundary between quantum and classical domains. Physicists get along well because their physical intuition allows them to pick the place to put the boundary, to get the results which they want to see. The all fall into the FAPP trap (FAPP = "far all practical purposes"). It works, yes, but it is not a theory, in the true sense of the word. It's just a bag of tricks.

There is no quantum theory independent of the experiment that would predict where the boundary lies.

J. Christian's theory is a heap of nonsense, sorry. Someone who can't distinguish between "for all" and "there exists", and repeatedly makes use of the logical rule

not A

-----

is not to be taken seriously.

If you assume both a proposition A and the negation of the same proposition, you can logically derive any other proposition B you like. Dr. Christian is a grand-master in this. He moreover cloaks his sleight-of-hand in poetry and mysticism.

However, things are looking up, we have nearly settle the details of an experiment which will once and for all send this "theory" to the garbage bin of history.

Thomas Ray

Richard, thanks for the link. I was already aware of the case and your role in it -- seeing the talk, though, reminded me of why I find it so surprising that you don't admit the necessary existence of a theoretical measure space against which to evaluate quantum correlations.

Prosecutors ginning up a case against an individual (Lucia) based on one individual's experience in a given finite time interval differs widely from the fact of many individuals' experience in the same time interval. What the prosecutors lacked is a true theory of a measure space against which to compare Lucia's innocence.

So understand why some of us hold the same view toward orthodox Bell-Aspect interpretations. It isn't the interpretation of results that make a theory true; it is the correspondence of local experimental results to the experimental space of all possible results. This would be true of a deterministic theory as well as a probabilistic one -- except that the probable is always a subset of the possible. There are no nonlocal results that correspond to a space of all possible results.

Lucien Hardy's axioms are correct. Replace axiom 5 with a well defined limit of continuity (as Joy's framework certainly does, given nonzero torsion) and classical probability is all there is. Quantum probability is subsumed within it.

Thomas Ray

(reposting in correct thread)

"If you assume both a proposition A and the negation of the same proposition, you can logically derive any other proposition B you like. Dr. Christian is a grand-master in this. He moreover cloaks his sleight-of-hand in poetry and mysticism."

I think rather the opposite of Dr. Christian.

As you admitted, it is in fact quantum theory that foundationally assumes a proposition and its denial. Joy's framework is rather on the lines of how to distinguish special relativity from general relativity -- like the mathematically special case of a curve being a straight line. One requires limit and function to truthfully compare theory to experiment.

Thomas Ray

"Now you have the four coordinates of a point on S^3. By the spherical symmetry of the N_4(0, I) distribution on R^4, that point has a uniform distribution on the sphere of unit radius."

You and Florin are always forgetting the theorem: a point may simultaneously map to any set of points provided that it is far enough away.

The point at infinity that compactifies R^3 on the S^3 manifold is not R^4.

Joy's framework is coordinate free.

Nick Mann

"No you can't, Nick. You are too wrapped up in your mystical mind stuff to sort out the objective reality that surrounds you."

Tom, you're beyond hopeless. The Huping Hu post was a joke as I assume Jason's was also.

Nick Mann

"The idea that brain-mind processes are identical to nature's processing of information is actually the ancient wrong idea -- leading today's computer programmers to delude themselves into thinking they are masters of the universe."

You've got that inside out. The fallacy is that natural processes are algorithmic computations. Brain processes are in fact natural processes, and even to the extent that they're computationally simulable the simulation isn't the process it tries to mimic. That's why Machine Intelligence remains an oxymoron.

I could give you a fairly extensive list of Comp Sci folks (not including Scott Aaronson) who have their heads on straight in this regard. But certainly there aren't nearly as many as there ought to be.

Nick Mann

Should clarify the above somewhat. Algorithms are products of the brain-mind, but that doesn't mean the physical processes of the brain-mind are themselves algorithmic. Although their output can be mimicked to a limited extent by means of algorithmic computation.

Information always comes coded. We understand the codes we consciously or semiconsciously employ but really can't say we read the codes operating even within our own bodies. It's like watching a riot in some foreign parliament on TV without live sound or any enlightening narration. You see the big blond guy punch the smaller dark guy but can only surmise what their beef might be.

Nick Mann

"It's often painful for me to witness Joy Christian patiently explain the same damn things over and over, to be answered with the equivalent of "if it's not programmable on a classical computer, it doesn't exist.""

Any mathematical formulation ought to be classically computable. Any physical process that's mathematically describable in concrete -- not merely in statistical -- terms should be computable by definition.

A sidebar. Enter David Tong. In his FQXi award-winning essay "Physics and the Integers" of a while back he states:

"Before we get ahead of ourselves and start looking into the unknown, it would seem prudent to first ask whether the laws of physics that we already have to hand are compatible with a discrete underlying structure. Such a formulation is not just of philosophical value. The equations of physics are hard and humans are not very good at solving hard equations. Computers are much better. To formulate the laws of physics in a discrete manner means to write them in such a way that they could be simulated on a computer. Can we simulate the known laws of physics on a computer?

"The answer to this question is, at least to me, extremely surprising: no one knows how to formulate a discrete version of the laws of physics."

Say what? Anyway, in further discussion, responses to comments and in other presentations he tells us what he specifically has in mind: the Fermion Minus-Sign Problem. Another physicist, Jan Zaanen, calls that "the nightmare of modern physics." Matthias Troyer et al consider it to be NP-hard.

The point about the sign problem is that there isn't any mathematics available to address it. That's why it can't be put on the lattice for Monte Carlo simulation. But Joy, in contrast, has a complete mathematical description of his hypothesized topological space as well as a protocol for a proposed physical experiment. Under what rubric can anyone say it's unreasonable to request a classical computation?

John Merryman

Nick,

May I present a basic physical/neurological thesis;

Reality is a dichotomy of energy and information. Energy manifests information and information defines energy. The tension of this dichotomy is that energy is inherently dynamic, while information is necessarily static(distinctions, framing, modeling, words, concepts, etc.) Since energy is conserved, old information is erased in order to create new. This creates the changing configuration of what exists, which we experience as time.

Given billions of years of evolution, living beings have evolved central nervous systems to process information and digestive, respiratory and circulatory systems to process energy.

The central nervous system is then divided into two sides; The left, linear, logical side and the right, scalar/parallel, intuitive side. The linear side processes sequence and is responsible for the narrative construct and causal logical. While the intuitive side operates more like a pressure cooker, in that lots of information is thrown in the pot and what rises to the level of consciousness are the sparks of connectivity and 'insight.'

In a direct sense then, these two sides operate under the functions of time and temperature. The linear side organizes sequence, while the thermostat function processes broader environmental feedback. As a basic mobile organism, these serve to compute the environment and to calculate a particular path through it.

One of our current conceptual mysteries is understanding the function of time. Since we experience it as a sequence of events and our social structures are based on group narrative, this linear progression from past to future seems pretty fundamental, but the underlaying process is the change causing future to become past. Tomorrow becomes yesterday. Sequence is then just subjective, not universal.

Some assume the future must already be determined, because the laws of causality only yield one outcome of many possibilities and so logically project this out to all future action. Meanwhile some quantum theorists take the opposite tack and consider the past to remain probabilistic, by branching off with every possibility, into multiworlds. Yet looking at this relationship from the opposite direction, it makes much more sense, as probability precedes actuality. While the laws determining the outcome are necessarily deterministic, the full input into any event only happens with its occurrence. The actual, physical events determine the cat's fate and then the outcome of that determination recedes into the past.

Time is to temperature what frequency is to amplitude. The reason different clocks run at different rates is simply because they are different physical processes in different circumstances. We think of temperature in terms of the cumulative average of lots of individual actions and overlook that the amplitude/velocity of each of these actions is a specific energy level. Now the quest with time has been to find that absolute rate of 'flow,' but all we find are individual motions and the only universal measure is the average of the cumulative effect. Just like temperature. Not to mention that our bodies are metabolic thermostats. Frequency and amplitude.

Regards,

John M

pjackson

Judy,

The physical derivation of the Lorentz Transformation is here; Optical Breakdown limit as a Mechanism for the Lorentz Transformation I haven't had the chance to check or update it, but it's not that old, and I don't expect much enthusiasm to read it here anyway. I've hardly started on my essay. I hope you might put one in, now that would be interesting!

Also for Richard, Tom et al, I've picked up on the misapprehensions and am re writing the distinct 2-part EPR experiment description along with some additional data. I'm also removing the little red herring I left in as it seems clear few here can invest the 20mins needed for a dry run anyway. Do give me any more feedback.

Many Thanks, and apologies for the shortage of decorum here at times.

Best wishes

Peter

Eckard Blumschein

Peter J,

The link to your vixra paper on Lorentz transformation is incomplete.

Eckard

Nick Mann

John B.,

I started getting lost in the thickets further along but this I can certainly comment on:

"Energy manifests information and information defines energy."

I know that the parallels are compelling, and it goes beyond the shared math of entropy. I mentioned that information always comes coded. So does energy. Thermal energy of course is the common denominator because other forms "reduce" to that, and there's also transduction between the forms, but those are always defined translations. You can't make a computer designed to employ electrical energy work by dropping it out of an airplane and expecting it to work on kinetic energy, or by holding it over a fire, or by yelling at it and hoping the energy in the sound waves will have a direct effect (this assumes it doesn't have a sound recognition feature obviously). It needs to be plugged into an electrical circuit and moreover one of the proper voltage and amperage capacity. Too little and nothing happens. Too much and you fry its little chips and capacitors and inductors and resistors. Unless maybe you have a surge protector.

Anyway neither energy nor information can be apprehended without manifesting in coded form. "Pure energy" and "pure information" are necessary concepts of art but unmeasurable. And you have to wonder: how much do these considerations tell us about information? Unfortunately very little of use afaics. And how far along is the hopeful science of informational thermodynamics? Was Shannon its Sadi Carnot? Will it ever see its Clausius or Boltzmann? I don't have a clue or know if anyone else does.

Judy Nabb

Peter. Thank you. This link came up for Eckard on Bing search under your name and 'Lorentz Transformation' http://vixra.org/pdf/1306.0071v1.pdf I hope that's up to date.

I checked the effects you cited and was impressed at how you chased it all down and put it together. I'm sure many will be interested. As far as I've found that's not been done before.

Tom you are funny. The hundreds of university students I've taught in departments I've headed up will be distraught to find I'm a figment of someone's imagination. The administrators here have my affiliations and URL of course! It seems when more than one identifies the same thing it can't possibly be as it's true! Unfortunately I'm off abroad now for a moderation visit to another institution so you won't have to put up with me for a few days.

I'm not sure about an essay. My main specialisms are genetics, reproduction systems and tomography, all closely linked to physics, but in honesty the atmosphere here is not what I'm used to. But I do like the subject. Now do please behave like grown men while I'm away.

Judy

John Merryman

Nick,

My argument is this relationship is not divisible. The code is information. It is the form being manifested by the energy, such as the breaks, dashs, spectra, frequency, amplitude, polarity, etc. Can you have energy which has no such qualities? It wouldn't interact and thus lack force. Now can you have information without any energy to manifest it? Is there some platonic realm of structure in the void? Information is the message being carried by the medium of the energy.

Now simply hitting a computer with a bat doesn't make it compute in the same way as electricity from a wall socket, but it will create the form of a broken computer. This is because the energy is specific to its manifestation, the form it expresses. So energy expressed as a bat will take the kinetic form of a bat, not the electrical charge of AC.

Regards,

John M

pjackson

Judy,

Yes, that's the LT derivation link. Here's one using the live link tool (see 'link help page' in the notes above); Optical Breakdown limit as a Mechanism for the Lorentz Transformation. It's also in the Academia.edu web archive. Academia LT link. However both links only work fine till I paste them into here!? but, for Eckard, just pasting them into Google search works ok. http://www.academia.edu/3715747/The_Optical_Breakdown_Density_Limit_Gamma_giving_the_Lorentz_Transformation_Mechanism

The LT mechanism was essentially the last piece that let the whole 'discrete field' model puzzle fit coherently together. Now if only the picture looked like people were expecting ... then I suppose it would have been found long ago. It's still invisible to most now, and I'm sure will remain so for some time.

I appreciate that it doesn't apply to all. Thank you. I do also hope to see an essay. Tom's quite harmless really, (see Nicks comment). There are all sorts here including some great thinkers and nice people.

Have a good trip. Somewhere warm and nice I hope.

Best wishes.

Peter

« Previous Page Next Page »