Search FQXi


If you are aware of an interesting new academic paper (that has been published in a peer-reviewed journal or has appeared on the arXiv), a conference talk (at an official professional scientific meeting), an external blog post (by a professional scientist) or a news item (in the mainstream news media), which you think might make an interesting topic for an FQXi blog post, then please contact us at forums@fqxi.org with a link to the original source and a sentence about why you think that the work is worthy of discussion. Please note that we receive many such suggestions and while we endeavour to respond to them, we may not be able to reply to all suggestions.

Please also note that we do not accept unsolicited posts and we cannot review, or open new threads for, unsolicited articles or papers. Requests to review or post such materials will not be answered. If you have your own novel physics theory or model, which you would like to post for further discussion among then FQXi community, then please add them directly to the "Alternative Models of Reality" thread, or to the "Alternative Models of Cosmology" thread. Thank you.

Forum Home
Introduction
Terms of Use

Order posts by:
 chronological order
 most recent first

Posts by the blogger are highlighted in orange; posts by FQXi Members are highlighted in blue.

By using the FQXi Forum, you acknowledge reading and agree to abide by the Terms of Use

 RSS feed | RSS help
RECENT POSTS IN THIS TOPIC

Brendan Foster: on 9/25/13 at 16:29pm UTC, wrote This forum topic is now closed.

Thomas Ray: on 9/25/13 at 13:15pm UTC, wrote Sorry, lost my log-in. Tom

Anonymous: on 9/25/13 at 13:13pm UTC, wrote One should be stunned by the outright naivete of the "quantum Randi...

Thomas Ray: on 9/25/13 at 10:25am UTC, wrote "Chantal's simulation is the drawing of a -cosine curve with some random...

Fred Diether: on 9/25/13 at 6:12am UTC, wrote Hi Joy, The really good thing is that your model stands on its own even...

Joy Christian: on 9/25/13 at 4:13am UTC, wrote In the psychological sense, denial is a defense mechanism in which a...

Florin Moldoveanu: on 9/25/13 at 4:02am UTC, wrote Interesting... The archive mentions: "To appear in the second edition of...

Joy Christian: on 9/25/13 at 2:59am UTC, wrote I will break the cardinal rule of internet blogging and respond to the...


RECENT FORUM POSTS

nimit theeraleekul: "Dear friends, In my early post, I said that we could see detail of..." in Weinberg: Why quantum...

nimit theeraleekul: "Dear Administrator, I have tried to make several posts with an attachment,..." in Weinberg: Why quantum...

Gary Simpson: "Pentcho, I did not need the postulates of SR to propose the mechanism. In..." in Alternative Models of...

Pentcho Valev: "Gary, "I can propose a physical mechanism for length contraction" You..." in Alternative Models of...

Robert Martin: "Theories of everything, he contends, can be depicted as those which draw on..." in Theories of Everything,...

Gary Simpson: "Pentcho, I'm not asking for you to comment upon my essay. I am asking you..." in We Are All Connected

Pentcho Valev: "Gary, Einstein deduced his concept of time (spacetime) from two..." in We Are All Connected

Georgina Woodward: "Hi Gerry, I had a quick read through " Towards a new mathematics for..." in The limits of mathematics


RECENT ARTICLES
click titles to read articles

Bohemian Reality: Searching for a Quantum Connection to Consciousness
Is there are sweet spot where artificial intelligence systems could have the maximum amount of consciousness while retaining powerful quantum properties?

Quantum Replicants: Should future androids dream of quantum sheep?
To build the ultimate artificial mimics of real life systems, we may need to use quantum memory.

Painting a QBist Picture of Reality
A radical interpretation of physics makes quantum theory more personal.

The Spacetime Revolutionary
Carlo Rovelli describes how black holes may transition to "white holes," according to loop quantum gravity, a radical rewrite of fundamental physics.

Riding the Rogue Quantum Waves
Could giant sea swells help explain how the macroscopic world emerges from the quantum microworld? (Image credit: MIT News)


FQXi BLOGS
May 24, 2017

CATEGORY: Blog [back]
TOPIC: Disproofs of disproofs of disproofs of disproofs... [refresh]
Bookmark and Share
Login or create account to post reply or comment.

FQXi Administrator Zeeya Merali wrote on Mar. 19, 2012 @ 16:27 GMT
It has been brought to my attention that the discussion threads for Parts 1, 2 and 3 of "To Be or Not to Be (a Local Realist)" and "On the Origins of Quantum Correlations" are getting increasingly unwieldy and slow, due to the huge numbers of comments.

Since there have also been recent further contributions to this discussion on the arXiv, from Richard Gill and from Joy Christian, I am opening up this thread for new discussions about these recent papers.

Please be polite and reasonable in your responses. No personal comments are necessary.

report post as inappropriate


Joy Christian wrote on Mar. 19, 2012 @ 16:52 GMT
Thank you very much, Zeeya.

I apologies for our misbehaviour, on behalf of all of us.

Best,

Joy

report post as inappropriate

Edwin Eugene Klingman replied on Mar. 19, 2012 @ 19:01 GMT
Dear FQXi'ers,

For several days, on previous threads, there have been questions about the occurrence of the a x b term in Joy's equation that is essentially based on the geometric product ab = a.b + a x b (refer to Joy's write-ups for the details of this equation.)

In the above the vectors a and b represent angles of the spin detection apparatus that Bob and Alice use to measure the...

view entire post


report post as inappropriate

Joy Christian replied on Mar. 19, 2012 @ 19:49 GMT
Hi Edwin,

Thank you for your summary. Let me quote myself from one of my papers to express my view on the issue: "Here the summation over microstates mu has only formal significance since operationally z is a "third" direction, exclusive to both a and b. If measurements along a and b have yielded non-null polarizations, then simultaneous measurement along z could only yield a null result."

The point is quite simple. There are only two particles to be detected, but there are three directions in the equation (mu.a)(mu.b) = -a.b -mu.(a x b), namely a, b, and a x b. Although intuitively appealing, the fact that a x b is orthogonal to both a and b is of no conceptual significance here. What is important is that there are two particles but three directions. It is then inevitable that the detector along at least one of these three directions will not "click" in a given run. Suppose the null result happens along the direction a or b. Then the term (mu.a)(mu.b) is zero for that run, and the run adds nothing to the sum. But if the results along both a and b turn out to be non-null, then the simultaneous result along a x b is necessarily null, and then the bivector mu.(a x b) is necessarily null, because the corresponding raw score is necessarily zero. It is very important to remember that for each run only **simultaneously observed clicks** enter the experimental data (this is why the time-window issue has the operational significance).

So much for the operational aspect of the "issue." I my view, however, the real strength of the model stems from the fact that the bivector term vanishes naturally as a result of the statistical summation over the points of a parallelized 3-sphere. This is most clearly seen in the transition from equation (6) to (7) in my one-page paper. The transition uses the following two equations, which are also the only two postulates on which the model is based:

(1) B_j(lambda) B_k(lambda) = -delta_jk - sum_l eps_jkl B_l(lambda)

(2) B_j(lambda) = lambda B_j.

It is the second postulate here that shows that the two basis set elements, B_j(lambda) and B_j, are identified and anti-identified, respectively, in harmony with the random variable lambda = +1 or -1. The postulate (2) thus necessitates a smooth transition from (6) to (7) in the paper, giving the final result E(a, b) = -a.b.

Best,

Joy

report post as inappropriate

Edwin Eugene Klingman replied on Mar. 19, 2012 @ 20:10 GMT
Joy,

You say, "In my view, however, the real strength of the model stems from the fact that the bivector term vanishes naturally as a result of the statistical summation over the points of a parallelized 3-sphere."

In my view it is equally significant that the term vanishes from physical measurement. I think you are over-cautious in saying that "If measurements along a and b have yielded non-null polarizations, then simultaneous measurement along z could only yield a null result." I do not believe any measurements along z are physically possible since z is the velocity vector. The magnet does not filter z-components, period. One need not make 'counter-factual' arguments. Physical arguments suffice.

Again, congratulations on producing a 'hidden variable' approach that produces (-a.b).

Edwin Eugene Klingman

report post as inappropriate


Steve Dufourny wrote on Mar. 19, 2012 @ 17:41 GMT
Hi and Thank you Zeeya, It is a good idea for the speed ! But don't forget that unfortunaly the hormons exist like the vanity. Like you know I am the first to be reasoned :)

Well, let's continue with the play between Joy and Richard. We are going to laugh in live ! Let's rebegin with R to C to H and what after ?:)

The politeness is important. Like is important the franchise ! The critics can be direct and polite. The franchise is like a torch of importance. It is essential to critic sincerely and frankly and honestly and rationaly.

I beleive that people must be sincere and frank. If it exists false extrapolations or false works. So the responsability of the leadership in the sciences community must be universal and entire. The rest is vain.

Regards

report post as inappropriate

Florin Moldoveanu replied on Mar. 19, 2012 @ 18:55 GMT
Zeeya,

Thank you very much,

Florin

report post as inappropriate

Steve Dufourny replied on Mar. 19, 2012 @ 20:58 GMT
Hi Florin,

How are you, fine I hope ?

Regards

report post as inappropriate

Florin Moldoveanu replied on Mar. 19, 2012 @ 22:07 GMT
Hi Steve,

I am well, thank you very much for asking. I was fully busy at work today, I hope I can put a few posts tonight from home

report post as inappropriate


Paul Reed wrote on Mar. 19, 2012 @ 20:25 GMT
Steve

This is a response to your post (19/3 15.17) in On the Origins, thread Joy 16/3 18.32.

“Richard and Paul, what a world.They do not understand the evolutive space time in 3D in its pure present and locality”

I cannot identify any physical phenomenon in reality which corresponds with the concept of dimension, let alone 3 of them. What exists is purely direction, there being the possibility of a change in spatial position being effected in any of the finite number of directions possible. There is certainly no such thing as 4D, even if there is 3D, because time is in no way whatsoever a form of dimension. Time relates to the frequency at which one reality is superseded by another. This can be timed, which involves the comparison of frequencies of change and the identification of difference, with a view to either calibrating any given frequency, or comparing different frequencies against a common denominator.

Paul

report post as inappropriate

Steve Dufourny replied on Mar. 19, 2012 @ 21:12 GMT
Paul,

For me you know it exists only 3 dimensions and a time constant of evolution. I see this 3D like essential for the respect of all our proprotionalities with the rotations. I don't consider time like a dimension but just like a constant. In my model, the time is a duration implied by the rotations of the spheres.

If you extrapolate with the geometrical algebra. You can see that the reals continue their road. If we want to insert convergences for a correct calculation of our mass.So the respect of this 3D is essential for all fractal of scales.

Let's take a simple example of pure 3D dimensions and its fractalizations of scales. the atoms at 10^-10m or the nucleus at 10^-14m or the protons at 10^-15 or the quarks electrons at 10^-18m, we have the meter like unit. If we take the earth or the sun or a BH or a galaxy or a super groups of galaxies or the entire universe, we have the meter interpreted by the parsec or the Light year.Frankly all is in 3D with a 4D evolutive space time.We have our units !!!

the time in second and the meter for our dimensions.The time furthermore is purely irreversible.

The only way to interpret our reality is by this 3D, this light and this time constant and this evolutive mass. The extradimensions and the pseudo parallelizations are just a joke for me.

This time , that said is very relevant considering the globality, the locality, the constant and the duration.Still the rotating spheres and their evolution ...

Regards

report post as inappropriate

Anonymous replied on Mar. 19, 2012 @ 21:48 GMT
You know Paul, I am sometimes very surprised when I see the interpretations of the relativity by several scientists. The relativity, special and general, is a tool of taxonomy.so, why they invent bizare metaphysical concepts. The relativity is rational , deterministic at my knowledge, so why ?

A tachyon here, a time travel there, an extradimension here, a reversibility here, a bizare symmetry there, a bizare hypothetical particules there,bizare geometrical algebars, and this and that ,why ???because the global sciences community is became a circus!

Have you seen the lost of monney at the LHC with an ocean of pseudo reasearchs and pseudo experiments. The competition is became a pure irony in this stupid line of reasoning.And for what Paul? For this papper, this monney governing our life. Like with the subprimes and the unconscious traders. If already the banks are corrupted, how can we imrpove this globality? The world is sick Paul and the responsability of sciences is the improvement at my humble opinion. The probelm is complex and simple. I beleive that it is time to harmonize this globality quickly! But it is just a simple opinion of a simple human of course.

ps and I am the proof that this system is sick, I am going to loose our house with my mother, tomorrow perhaps due to bad people and this system. Just because it exists bad persons with bad startegies. I am disgusted ! If people whom has responsabilities implies the chaos in the administratives pappers.Where are we going?

Regards

report post as inappropriate

Steve Dufourny replied on Mar. 19, 2012 @ 22:07 GMT
You know Paul, I am not here to speak about my probelms but about my theory of spherization.But I must admit you that I fear to loose our home. I had an enterprize in vegetal multiplication but I have had bad advices by several attorneys. My enterprize was in physical person and not moral, at the age of 24 I have creatad this enterprize. And since 8 years it is the catatstrophe.The attorneys told me to make a bankrupcy.I have listened them.

My mother is very tired and her health is very weak. I fear and I am disgusted. Anybody helps us. Even 12000 flowers for 48 000 euros I have lost due to bad persons(destroyed my flower with the winter).It is bizare you know our story. We are tired simply. I fear for tomorrow for the judgement. It is incredible this system when the governances are bad.8 years of probelms !

If I had a job, I will take monney for my mother. But I have no job. I become crazzy, already that my health is weak also. You imagine.

I relativate but it is difficult .The justice is not a reality !

Regards

report post as inappropriate


Fred Diether wrote on Mar. 20, 2012 @ 00:12 GMT
Richard,

You wrote in response to me,

"You wrote [Fred] "Each run of the experiment is going to be either lambda = +1 or lambda = -1. +1 or -1 never happen at the same time". Please read Joy's one page paper and my critique thereof. Near the end of the transition from (6) to (7) Joy does an invalid substitution *within* the summation over the runs, i=1,...,n. This is a purely algebraic mixup in a context where lambda=lambda^i is fixed."

I will try to explain it to you one more time on this new blog. I believe you are talking about the term,

{lambda^i eps_jkl a_j b_k beta_l}

You think that term should be,

{lambda^i eps_jkl a_j b_k beta_l(lambda^i)}

If that is what you think, then you are denying Joy the right to make the physics postulate that he is making because your term is just the uninteresting standard bivector subalgebra. There is nothing invalid about Joy's substitution based on his postulates. Which are,

lambda = +/- 1

beta_j(lambda) = lambda beta_j

beta_j(lambda)beta_k(lambda) = -delta_jk -eps_jkl beta_l(lambda)

This is all about a physics' postulate and you can't properly analyze the math without taking the physics into account. It is just impossible to do that.

Fred

report post as inappropriate

Steve Dufourny replied on Mar. 20, 2012 @ 12:14 GMT
There is nothing invalid in what???

IT IS FULL OF IRRATIONALITIES AND SUBJECTIVES PSEUDO CORRELATIONS.

If these works are objective, me I am the queen of england.

Sincerely

report post as inappropriate


Steve Dufourny wrote on Mar. 20, 2012 @ 00:17 GMT
I am insisting on this 3D.

Here are some words about the geometrical algebras. The categorifications of volumes, spherical converge with real quadratic forms and their ultim equation of balance x²/a²+y²/b²+z²/c²=1 at the cosmological scale and at the quantum scale.

The quadratics forms so can be put in their vectorial space. EUCLIDE !!! I repeat EUCLIDIAN LOGIC !!!

So we have ...how many vector and how many scalar?

THE FRACTAL IS IN 3D it is so essential.

x²+y²+z² on R3 EUCLIDIAN ,THE UNIVERSAL LOGIC .

2 particules and 3 directions?

EPR vs COPENAGHEN RATIONALISM :)

SUBJECTIVITY vs OBJECTIVITY

WHAT A WORLD

report post as inappropriate


Florin Moldoveanu wrote on Mar. 20, 2012 @ 02:22 GMT
Ok, we have a new fast blog entry. Let the explanations begin.

I'll start with Eq. 3 and 4 from Joy's one page paper: http://arxiv.org/pdf/1103.1879.pdf

Eq. 3: the fixed bivector basis {βx, βy, βz} is defined by the algebra

β_j β_k = − δ_jk − epsilon_jkl β_l

Eq. 4:—the λ-dependent bivector basis {βx(λ), βy(λ), βz(λ)} is defined by the algebra

β_j β_k = − δ_jk − λ epsilon_jkl β_l

and let me ask Joy & his supporters:

are the betas in Eq. 4 the fixed bivector basis betas, or the λ-dependent bivector basis?

The answer matters greatly to correctly frame the subsequent arguments.

Let me clarify some more my question. Is Eq. 4 like this:

β_fixed_bivector_basis_j β_fixed_bivector_basis_k = − δ_jk −

λ epsilon_jkl β_fixed_bivector_basis_l

OR like this:

β_j(lambda) β_k(lambda) = − δ_jk − λ epsilon_jkl β_l(lambda) ?

because the definition has an ambiguity. It states "the λ-dependent bivector basis {βx(λ), βy(λ), βz(λ)}" but in the actual equation (λ) is dropped. Is it dropped because it was simplified, or was just ignored in a bookkeeping simplification?

report post as inappropriate

Fred Diether replied on Mar. 20, 2012 @ 03:19 GMT
Florin,

I believe Joy's eq. (4) POSTULATE is equivalent to this,

B_j(lambda)B_k(lambda) = -delta_jk - eps_jkl B_l(lambda)

[sorry, the copy and paste of your symbols above doesn't work for me]

Then since Joy also makes the postulate that B_j(lambda) = lambda B_j and since lambda^2 = +1, we arrive at Joy's eq. (4),

B_jB_k = -delta_jk - lambda eps_jkl B_l

The lambda that was dropped is part of the postulate that Joy is making. Now here is what I believe to be the physics interpretation of his postulate in relation to the quantum objects of the EPRB scenario. I hope Joy will correct me if I make a mistake. When applied to a parallelized 3-sphere topology microscopically, Nature has a 50-50 random chance of the quantum objects behaving according to a left-handed or right-handed "frame". Ok, so actually in Nature, the two topologies are probably existing AT THE SAME TIME (I'm agreeing with you now). Now physically that makes sense since macroscopically we don't see any particular left-handed or right-handed biased behavior so it seems Joy's combining of the two "frames" is probably actually how Nature is. But microscopically at the quantum level things could be different. Enter the lambda = +/- 1. And that difference is what Joy is illustrating by his model.

Fred

report post as inappropriate

Florin Moldoveanu replied on Mar. 20, 2012 @ 03:41 GMT
Thank you Fred,

So just to be 100% clear, Eq. 4 is:

β_fixed_bivector_basis_j β_fixed_bivector_basis_k = − δ_jk −

λ epsilon_jkl β_fixed_bivector_basis_l

right?

Thanks.

report post as inappropriate

Fred Diether replied on Mar. 20, 2012 @ 03:58 GMT
Florin,

I think so but Joy will have to confirm. Now let me also note here that Joy in his math is not showing specifically that Nature has the left-handed and right-handed "frames" existing at the same time. His math is just related to the microscopic "action" of the EPRB scenario for either left or right. That brings up the question of how do you or would you show the macroscopic "action" based on left and right existing at the same time? Maybe I am making this more complex than it needs to be? :-)

Fred

report post as inappropriate


Richard Gill wrote on Mar. 20, 2012 @ 07:29 GMT
At the end of the discussions on the previous topic (995) Joy had argued that the step from (6) to (7) was not a scribal error but the introduction of a new postulate.

Pity he did not write that explicitly in the one page paper. There was no mention anywhere on the one page paper that more postulates were needed than the ones he had written down on his admittedly "minimalistic" paper.

In my book, that is a serious error, hiding a new postulate in the middle of a big calculation where a lot of readers aren't even going to notice it.

Secondly, his new postulate directly contradicts the previous ones. That could certainly be thought to be a good reason to keep quiet about it. In my book that is an even more serious error.

Charitably, I could suppose that Joy just doesn't know enough mathematics (he said he has had no education), but if I were the suspicious type (I'm not) I would suppose that the whole affair is built around a deliberate hoax.

Fred and others argue that you cannot do maths in this context without being aware of "the physics". Unfortunately, the one page paper is so explicit and complete that there just is no room for any new postulates coming from physics. It excludes further fine-tuning by geometric or physical intuition. It's all tied down. No room to maneuvre at all. All maneuvering merely shifts the bump under the carpet to another place, hence at best is mere obfuscation.

I'm about to go on a short Spring vacation. I wish you all well. I hope Joy manages to get a job. I admire his poetry, his sense of humour, his pluckiness. I'm all in favour of poking fun at "authorities" and disputing established wisdom. "Die Wissenschaft von Heute ist das Irrtum van Morgen" (or something like that: der, die, das are after all merely a convention; nature doesn't not know about the gender of "tomorrow").

report post as inappropriate

Joy Christian replied on Mar. 20, 2012 @ 08:23 GMT
"I'm about to go on a short Spring vacation."

I am already missing you, Richard. Have Fun!

report post as inappropriate


Joy Christian wrote on Mar. 20, 2012 @ 09:07 GMT
Rick,

You start with {1, a, b, c, a b, b c, c a, a b c} and the assumption that a a = b b = c c = -1.

This describes the algebra of orthogonal directions in the physical space. Conventionally, the orientation of this space is assumed to be positive, or right-handed, or counter-clockwise. But the orientation is a convention. One can also define the same algebra of the orthogonal directions in the physical space by {1, a, b, c, a b, b c, c a, a b c} and the assumption that a a = b b = c c = +1.

According to my model Nature is making a choice in the EPR experiment, *for each run*, between the conventions +1 and -1 for the initial state of the pair of particles. This choice is of no consequence for the subsequent dynamics of the particles themselves, but for the fact that Alice and Bob too must make a choice, knowing nothing about the choice Nature has made for the pair of particles. What is more, Alice and Bob are space-like separated from each other, and so Alice also does not know what choice of orientation Bob has made, and vice versa, until they get together at the end of the experiment and compare their notes. So we have two options for the orientation of the algebra, +1 and -1, and we have three "people" making the choices form these two options, Nature, Alice, and Bob. The choice made by Nature is not known to anyone and will never be known to anyone --- that is the hidden variable lambda = +1 or -1. The rest is then a simple construction given in my one-page paper. The assumption of one single orientation of algebra for all three, Nature, Alice, and Bob, however appealing mathematically, is simply not a justifiable assumption.

Joy

report post as inappropriate

Joy Christian replied on Mar. 20, 2012 @ 11:57 GMT
Rick,

I am still not sure what you are driving at, and I am still not sure whether we are talking about the same thing. Can you please have a look at the first three pages of the attached paper to see *my* notations and conventions?

Thanks,

Joy

attachments: 18_Gill.pdf

report post as inappropriate

Paul Reed replied on Mar. 20, 2012 @ 12:02 GMT
Joy

For the observations of A & B to be comparable, adjustments must first be made to effect this, because one can only compare on the basis of a common denominator. So A results must first be re-calibrated so that they represent what would have been the result had A been in the same circumstance as B, or vice-versa. Then, and only then, can the results be directly compared, with the intention of determining reality, by extrapolation from comparable observations. In your terminology, the ‘choices’ made by A & B must be neutralised, in order to establish what ‘choice’ occurred (which seems to comprise two options within the algebra).

This may be what is happening. I am just making an observation.

“The choice made by Nature is not known to anyone and will never be known to anyone”

What do we know then?

Paul

report post as inappropriate

Joy Christian replied on Mar. 20, 2012 @ 12:13 GMT
Paul,

Get lost. We are involved in a serious business here and you are in our way. Go pollute some other blog.

Joy

report post as inappropriate


T H Ray wrote on Mar. 20, 2012 @ 10:56 GMT
Richard/Florin,

A few months ago, I attached an analogy to Joy Christian's experimental framework in the form of the solution to a children's puzzle -- the case of a ferryman who has to ferry a fox, a rabbit and a bag of carrots one at a time across the river, without losing any of them in the process.

One can't argue with the probability expectations in the example -- 0, 1 and 1/2. What one can see, is that "at a time" measures always show a probability of 1/2 under the relativistic principle that there is no privileged observation frame, because the outcomes perfectly anti-commute as in Joy's framework, in a full continuous function cycle.

If one avoids assigning a value to nonlocality ("the experiment not performed") and applies the Pauli exclusion principle to entities that cannot occupy the same space simultaneously, one can see that topological orientability (orientation entanglement) plays a primary role in observed outcomes.

I have reattached the example -- I'm not yet prepared to discuss slides 21--25, which go beyond Joy's framework. And I would like to point out that the Leslie Lamport paper referenced in slides 10-11 has since been accepted for publication in a future edition of *Foundations of Physics.*

Tom

report post as inappropriate

T H Ray replied on Mar. 20, 2012 @ 12:04 GMT
A correction and an addendum:

I referred to Leslie Lamport as a "mathematician" in the slides. He is, of course, a computer scientist.

Dr. Lamport's original paper "Buridan's Principle" (1984) averred that there appears to be no quantum mechanical theory of measurement that accommodates Buridan's theory of measurement. Since then (1995) Lamport allows that developments in quantum measurement theory may allow such a basis. He references: Paul Busch, Marian Grabowski, and Pekka J. Lahti. Operational Quantum Physics, volume m31 of Lecture Notes in Physics. Springer, Berlin, 1995. I have ordered the book and intend to read it.

Tom

report post as inappropriate

Paul Reed replied on Mar. 20, 2012 @ 12:10 GMT
Tom

As I said when this was first posted. There is a set of pre-conditions which govern existence, ie sequence order. The only variable is the start point. Which, once effected, determines the rest of the sequence. There is no timing in this, just sequence order. Which may be what you are referring to with "at a time", ie at a point in the sequence, once invoked.

Paul

report post as inappropriate

T H Ray replied on Mar. 20, 2012 @ 13:40 GMT
Paul, please cease commenting on subjects that you clearly do not understand. The problem has to do with the expectations of observers in a non-privileged frame of reference corresponding to discrete (quantum) states in a continuous function model. One has to have a minimum knowledge of probability and statistical inference to get it.

Tom

report post as inappropriate


Steve Dufourny wrote on Mar. 20, 2012 @ 11:43 GMT
THis thread and this pplatfrom is became a strategy platform with bizare methods!!! if you think I do not see your strategy, since the begining I know that it is you and your freinds TH.

This thread is just virtual by superimposings.

I will eat your hate!

report post as inappropriate


Florin Moldoveanu wrote on Mar. 20, 2012 @ 14:56 GMT
Proofs that Joy is either right or wrong in easy to follow steps.

On a post above Fred and I are doing a slow exchange of posts (kind of like chess by mail). We are proceeding only after each small step is mutually agreed. But this may leave others outside the discussion and to correct that I am inviting Joy or any Joy supporters to do the same. I propose only 3 simple rules:

1. all steps should be mutuallied agreed

2. all other participants please refrain to post entries in the thread. I will be happy to start a similar thread of discussion with you.

3. we will concentrate on Joy's 7 equations and the discussions should be only about the math in the 1 page paper. No personal comments, no physical interpretations, only simple, easy to follow (and sometimes down right boring) mathematical steps.

In the end if I am proven incorrect I will publicly admit Joy is right and the same should apply to the other party: if you are proven incorrect, publicly admit Joy is wrong.

I am ready to prove Joy 1 page paper is wrong. Beside Fred, is anyone else ready to engage me and argue for the opposite point of view?

Thank you.

report post as inappropriate

T H Ray replied on Mar. 20, 2012 @ 16:10 GMT
"I am ready to prove Joy 1 page paper is wrong. Beside Fred, is anyone else ready to engage me and argue for the opposite point of view?"

Not on the assumption that Joy's framework is algebraic.

Florin, from the beginning, this has been the stumbling block. Simply because one applies algebraic methods to continuous functions does not imply that continuous functions are therefore obviated. That would be self contradictory (as Richard claims); however, I find Joy's framework entirely self consistent.

Tom

report post as inappropriate

Florin Moldoveanu replied on Mar. 20, 2012 @ 17:56 GMT
Tom,

you state:"I find Joy's framework entirely self consistent"

Then are you ready to prove this to me and anyone else watching? Are you ready to redo Joy's 1-page paper equations step by step and prove you arrive at -a.b and not -a.b - a^b?

If yes, let's start. The reward is great: if you succeed, I will annouce to the world that I was wrong and Joy was right. (the opposite also apply: if you do not get -a.b in the end you should announce to the world that Joy was wrong.)

report post as inappropriate

Anonymous replied on Mar. 20, 2012 @ 18:27 GMT
Florin,

F: "...no physical interpretations, only simple, easy to follow (and sometimes down right boring) mathematical steps."

T: "I find Joy's framework entirely self consistent."

F: "Then are you ready to prove this to me and anyone else watching?"

T: "Not on the assumption that Joy's framework is algebraic."

F: "Are you ready to redo Joy's 1-page paper equations step by step and prove you arrive at -a.b and not -a.b - a^b?"

The rules look seriously unsettled to me.

James

report post as inappropriate


Not Richard Or Paul wrote on Mar. 20, 2012 @ 19:56 GMT
Whether Joy Christian is right or wrong, let it be known that he has consistently been a complete prick in these discussions. To respond to commenters who are "beneath him" with such mature comebacks as "get lost," "you are in our way," and "go away, learn something" is poison on this site. It's not how we conduct ourselves here. People can be ignored, but not bullied into silence. This is not junior high school and it isn't YouTube.

It's funny, but whenever I come up against a crank online and challenge their ideas, they tell me to get lost, they are much smarter than I am, I will never understand so get the hell out of the way. Joy Christian does not at first glance appear to be a crank, but he certainly conducts himself like one. Shockingly so.

report post as inappropriate

Joy Christian replied on Mar. 20, 2012 @ 20:20 GMT
Dear Not Richard or paul,

Thank you for sharing your frank opinion, and thank you for using the P-word. It truly elevates these discussion to another level. I am also pleased to know that you have the wisdom and cunning to not use your real name in your post. It seems that I have a lot to learn from you.

As for your more substantive point, do you know that Paul has been a nuisance on these blogs for many months now and have been told by several people, in very polite but firm manner, to "get lost"? He however never got the message until my blunt post above telling him to get lost.

As for Richard, you do not know even a fraction of the full story, so if I were you I would first get all the relevant facts before me (some of them being in full desplay on these very blogs) before making any kind of judgement.

Having said this, I do appreciate your post, and thank you again for sharing your frank opinion.

Joy Christian

report post as inappropriate

Steve Dufourny replied on Apr. 12, 2012 @ 11:37 GMT
The cunning is the Torch of frustrated. As for the wisdom, You don't see it !

report post as inappropriate


Not Richard Or Paul wrote on Mar. 20, 2012 @ 22:33 GMT
Joy, I apologize. I have mischaracterized you. However, looking back over the discussion, some responses are unbecoming and demonstrate a lack of humility, e.g., "There are no inconsistencies in my papers," "There is nothing wrong with any of the equations in any of my papers," "I am glad that at least someone paid attention to what I was saying," "You morons did not get the meaning of my first paper," etc. You probably don't ever engage cranks, but trust me, this is exactly what they sound like.

We are all humans and we will lose our patience at times. But to many (not just "Bell worshippers"), claiming to have disproved Bell's theorem is tantamount to claiming perpetual motion, and as such, the claimant should be prepared for the onslaught. Calling critics "morons" and telling them to "get lost" only makes it sound like you've been cornered. Regardless of your frustration at times, the tone isn't an appropriate for a professional, let alone a Perimeter Institute member. Thank you for reading my opinion.

report post as inappropriate

Joy Christian replied on Mar. 20, 2012 @ 22:49 GMT
Dear Not Richard Or Paul,

Once again I appreciate your comments. It is not always easy for me to see for myself how my words and conduct would appear to the onlookers. Your observations are therefore very valuable. I will try to improve my online conduct as much as I can.

Thanks again for your posts.

Joy Christian

report post as inappropriate

Paul Reed replied on Mar. 21, 2012 @ 07:19 GMT
I can fully appreciate why I am perceived as a nuisance. But the real question is, what am I atually doing which really constitutes being a nuisance. I make a limited range of simple points about the logic of reality and relate them to points being made. If they were that 'stupid' or whatever, an entire army of people would have pointed out how they are so, with substantiation for their argument. And I would have gone away. But no, I just get told I do not understand, it is philosophy, I am wrong, etc.

Paul

report post as inappropriate


Jonathan J. Dickau wrote on Mar. 20, 2012 @ 23:56 GMT
What if it's very simple, but the equations are not the item?

I couldn't help reading some of the comments above, though I've not yet digested the new arXiv papers. I agree with Eugene's assessment that Florin's item number 3 is questionable, as the physical interpretation cannot be considered irrelevant, unless your intent is to miss the point of Joy's writing deliberately.

The non-trivial twist in the fibration of the 3-sphere creates a condition where we have a simultaneously existing inward and outward facing frame of reference, which is why some variables cancel, and also why there is always nature's choice of which face to show us - that yields the plus|minus factor.

The physical interpretation is that the inward and outward reference frames are indistinguishable, or effectively identical, for sub-microscopic objects and macroscopic observers - but very different frames at the level of individual quanta. Could it be that simple?

If that is the case, it shows that the physical interpretation is essential to understanding what Joy is talking about. Though perhaps; it could be stated that instead the physical reality displays various aspects of the underlying geometry involved.

I think the geometry is really the key element in Joy's argument. But I guess you need to live in a 3-sphere, nested in a 7-sphere, in order to understand. I'd like to comment further on how intrinsic spin enters the picture, and on nature's choice, but I'll leave off here.

Have Fun,

Jonathan

this post has been edited by the author since its original submission

report post as inappropriate

Edwin Eugene Klingman replied on Mar. 21, 2012 @ 02:24 GMT
Jonathan,

It's good to have your participation again. I think we agree about the significance of physics to this problem, and I think Joy incorporated that in his phrasing above, since E(a,b) incorporates the statistics.

Florin says, "Now if you think physical interpretation should trump mathematical consistency, feel free to develop your own physical theory and present it to the world."

I agree with Jonathan that "the physical interpretation cannot be considered irrelevant, unless your intent is to miss the point of Joy's writing deliberately."

If the question is based upon the reading of Bob and Alice's measurement apparatus and the after-the-fact statistical correlation of the plus and minus ones that their apparatus produces, I do not see how physical facts cannot enter in the determination of whether the correlation is (-a.b) or otherwise. Florin was arguing these points in the last blog, and I believe was shown to be wrong. But this is Joy's work and he is the final arbiter.

When you and Owen lift one for Ray, I'll be there in spirit, and we will have fun.

Edwin Eugene Klingman

report post as inappropriate

Joy Christian replied on Mar. 21, 2012 @ 08:21 GMT
Hi Jonathan,

You are probably one of the very few people capable of imaging living within a parallelized 3-sphere, and more generally within a parallelized 7-sphere. It is then easier to appreciate what I am talking about. Unfortunately the topologies of these spheres are difficult to understand even with a positive attitude like yours. The skeptics, on the other hand, begin with such a negative attitude (and intent to dismantle rather than construct) that it is next to impossible for them to appreciate the concepts involved.

Joy

report post as inappropriate


Anonymous wrote on Mar. 21, 2012 @ 07:09 GMT
I suggest that all of Paul's pollution be removed as inappropriate. If anyone objects to this, let them register their objection here. Otherwise we can hopefully keep this blog on topic.

report post as inappropriate

Joy Christian replied on Mar. 21, 2012 @ 07:12 GMT
I second this proposition.

report post as inappropriate

Fred Diether replied on Mar. 21, 2012 @ 07:16 GMT
I third it.

report post as inappropriate

Edwin Eugene Klingman replied on Mar. 21, 2012 @ 07:37 GMT
I fourth it.

post approved


Han Geurdes wrote on Mar. 21, 2012 @ 11:02 GMT
Sorry for bothering you but what has Paul done so terribly wrong to disallow him to ventilate his opinion?

Moreover, please see my recent arXiv paper http://arxiv.org/abs/1203.4514 on a stochastical model violating Bell's inequality (the CHSH).

I am opposed to scientific ego-boosting and the 'I am right and you are wrong' fruitless discussion type. However, I was banned enough times from all kind of fora to know that that is wrong too. See the result in arXiv. The fora were wrong with their black listing.

It is not so very difficult to try to discuss politely. Simply: if one cannot discuss politely *he or she has no real argument at all*.

Best

Han

report post as inappropriate

Joy Christian replied on Mar. 21, 2012 @ 11:27 GMT
Hi Han,

Thank you for citing my one-page paper in your arXiv paper.

As for the Paul-issue: Well, it is a long story.

Best,

Joy

report post as inappropriate

Steve Dufourny replied on Mar. 21, 2012 @ 12:31 GMT
Yes of course Han , say hello to Verlinde !

You want a course about the real politeness and the real respect, universal and rational .

Like if I didn't see this strategy and pseudo threads ahahah

kill me ! my list is made dear friends.I am understanding that you must be numerous agianst me alone...

report post as inappropriate

Paul Reed replied on Mar. 22, 2012 @ 06:48 GMT
Han

No problem.

This Topic was set up soley to address the intrinsic mathematical validity of Joy's framework, On the Origins being full and the discussion becoming fragmented with the 'arrival' of Richard. This did not quite happen, and still has not, and I picked up on, ie did not create, some 'physical' references (which includes one from Joy at the start of the Topic!). The point being that, intrinsic mathematical validity is not enough, though it is important to get that solved. Because, ultimately, this framework is, like any other maths, graphic, word, supposed to be a representational device depicting, logically, how physical reality occurs. The point by Fred, and then by Rick being noted in this respect.

So, there are 'two ways of skinning the cat', which is what Richard said in the opening of his first post in another Topic. Maths and metaphysics, though I do not like that word, it has too many connotations of philosophy. Correspondence with the logical form of physical reality would be a better phrase. And ultimately, it is the latter which matters, because there is no point in a correct, abstract mathematical construct which does not represent how reality occurs.

However, I certainly do not want to impede a discussion on the maths. Indeed, I cannot, because I have nothing to say on that subject, and never have. Though irrelevant, you will also notice that the postings were by an anonymous. But more importantly, yet again, my points were not addressed. Indeed, if you had the time, you could scan all the Topics and find that the logic of what I am saying has never been broken, and I always respond directly to any comment/question. But, apparently, they are so, obviously, stupid, or whatever. If any given point was properly disproved, I would not repeat it. I do not presume to be correct, and have no background motivation. This is just an intellectual exercise based on stuff I wrote 40 years ago, which was sparked off by reading Hawking's latest book a year ago.

Paul

report post as inappropriate


Steve Dufourny wrote on Mar. 21, 2012 @ 13:07 GMT
and where are the others blogs SINCE 2008 ???

It is a little strong no?

report post as inappropriate


Joy Christian wrote on Mar. 21, 2012 @ 13:59 GMT
Dear All,

I am puzzled by the continuing confusion about my model. When my first paper on the subject was announced on the arXiv exactly five years ago today, it was immediately criticised, both publicly and privately. During the past five years I have met all sorts of criticisms and explained the paper as best as I can, in some 12 papers. By this month of the last year, I had realized that no one had the time to read all of my papers on the subject, and so I produced a short, one-page summary of my main argument. Although self-contained, this summary is inevitably condensed. Consequently it has generated much confusion. Let me therefore try to summarize the summary of my model once again.

Let { beta_j(L) } be a bivector basis set within the algebra Cl(3,0), with L = +1 or -1 being a fair coin. As such, the basis elements beta_j(L) satisfy the bivector subalgebra

(1) beta_j(L) beta_k(L) = -delta_jk - e_jkl beta_l(L), where repeated indices are summed over, and the product is the geometric or Clifford product.

For the special cases L = +1 of the random variable L, we then have

(2) beta_j(+1) beta_k(+1) = -delta_jk - e_jkl beta_l(+1).

Next, the isomorphism between the "fixed" basis { beta_j(+1) } and the random basis { beta_j(L) } is defined by

(3) beta_j(L) = L beta_j(+1).

Using (1), (2), and (3) it is now easy to construct the binary measurement functions A(a, L) and B(b, L), as defined in the equations (1) and (2) of my one-page paper. Equations (5) and (6) of the paper are then straightforward, and using equation (1) above, equation (6) of the paper can be reduced to

E(a, b) = Sum_i [ a_j b_k { -delta_jk - e_jkl beta_l(L^i) } ] = - a.b - Sum_i { e_jkl beta(L^i)}.

We can now use the isomorphism (3) to see that the last term vanishes in the large-n limit:

E(a, b) = -a.b - Sum_i { L^i e_jkl beta(+1)} = -a.b - 0 = -a.b.

One can twist and turn this derivation as much as one likes, but my conclusion is inevitable.

Joy Christian

report post as inappropriate

Florin Moldoveanu replied on Mar. 21, 2012 @ 16:49 GMT
Dear Joy,

My challenge to everyone (including you) still stands: let's derive together the 1 page paper going realy slow to make sure we fully agree at each step. Only Fred accepted this challenge and earlier Fred and I agreed that 2 equations are valid at the same time like this:

A=B AND

B=C

Then I asked him if I can do this:

A = B = B = C which after cutting out the middle man becomes

A = C and then Fred disagreed.

Please help Fred debate me, or engage me directy in a similar fashion yourself and we can settle this once and for all.

report post as inappropriate

T H Ray replied on Mar. 21, 2012 @ 17:05 GMT
No, Florin, you can't do that unles A = B = C.

But one can say that if A = B and B = C then A = C.

However:

All valid equations are always valid at the same time when there is no time parameter (i.e., equations are independent and t = 1 in every case). So what?

Tom

report post as inappropriate

Florin Moldoveanu replied on Mar. 21, 2012 @ 18:22 GMT
Tom,

You are contradicting yourself. Earier on I had 2 equations (which I called M+ and M-) of the form:

(M+) A=B

(M-) B=C

and I asked Fred If I can conclude that A=C. Fred replied:

"Florin,

Just because something is allowed mathematically doesn't mean that it is necessarily allowed physically or makes good physical sense. I hope you understand that.

Fred"

and then you said:

""Just because something is allowed mathematically doesn't mean that it is necessarily allowed physically or makes good physical sense."

I agree, Fred...."

So which one is your answer: ia A=C or not?

report post as inappropriate


Han Geurdes wrote on Mar. 21, 2012 @ 15:36 GMT
Dear all,

In a recent more private discussion Gill and Gregor Weihs decided that in addition to the analysis in:

J.F. Geurdes, Adv. Studies Theor. Phys., Vol. 4, 2010, no. 20, 945 - 949

a proof that the partitioning of the universal set used in that paper can be done with a local model. In

http://arxiv.org/abs/1203.4514

a stochastic physical model is presented. To paraphrase Joy:

You can twist and turn whatever you want this is fact.

I am not entering in a boyscout-type of discussion. Arguments & proof that is what our business is. Politeness would be fine indeed and sarcasm is a first step on the road of acting superiour without delivering anything. This is meaningless.

I have delivered the two arguments given above.

report post as inappropriate

T H Ray replied on Mar. 21, 2012 @ 16:55 GMT
Han,

Don't you mean "cannot be done" in line 4?

It's a privilege to see the walls of assumed nonlocality start to crumble before constructive arguments and proofs of classical realism, in my lifetime. A year ago, I wouldn't have imagined it. Thanks for engaging the battle.

Tom

report post as inappropriate

Steev Dufourny replied on Mar. 21, 2012 @ 21:51 GMT
Han, your line of reasoning is weak and just a publicity, let's name a cat a cat. And all this strategy will not change this evidence. Like TH you have just a job and a salary from a pseudo team. Si I suggest that you focus more on the realistic 3D universal sphere and its intrisic spheres(quant.and cosmol.)If real convergences must be made by the computing for correct simulations,

please BE RATIONAL WHEN YOU SPEAK OF SPHERES BECAUSE MY THEORY IS NOT A SUBJECTIVE PLAY OF PSEUDO MATHS SUPERIMOSED WITHOUT REAL DETERMINISM!!!

Geometric algebra and physical correlations, yes of course and Mickey Mouse is the director of Wall Street of course of course.I don't see correct convergences!

Even on this false thread I continue !Just to show you the rational road.I am here to explain you(Joy,TH, AND FRIENDS, the relativity, the gravity, the entropy,the maths, the uniquness,the finite groups, the rotations, the volumes.)

Stochastic ahaha, axiomatization ahaha formalism ahaha Realism ahahah I don't see these words in their works !!!

report post as inappropriate

Steve Dufourny replied on Mar. 22, 2012 @ 12:18 GMT
The walls of what TH ? Already you do not understan,d the limits of this UNIVERSAL 3d SPHERE.

Already that you confound the infinity, the infinities and the finite groups. A course about Galois perhaps.

Continuity of what? Of nothing !

YOUR MATHS ARE NOT MATHS BUT FALSE MATHS IMPLYING FALSE PHYSICAL CONCLUSIONS.

iF YOU ARE NOT ABLE TO SEE THIS EVIDENCE? SO WHY YOU INSIST ON THESE STUPIDITIES. I see only a strategic business from a band of pseudos.

If you want to copy my theory, please make it well and not these stupidities.

A pure joke , a pure pseudo team, a pure irony,....

report post as inappropriate


Socrates wrote on Mar. 21, 2012 @ 21:40 GMT
It is good to propose new theories. It is good to try to disprove them: they have to be tested. Assuming that both sides want to know the truth.

My question for Joy:

What kind a disproof of your results would you accept?

Some claim that they found logical, physical and mathematical mistakes in your work. Reading these posts, I have the impression that you reject immediately, before trying to understand. Maybe we can go slower, to make sure that we understand each step of the objections, and each step of your responses. There is no rush, given that there is already more than half a year since this debate is taking place here. If in the following couple of weeks or months the things become clearer, then it is a gain.

So you can take Florin's challenge, or other challenges I recall were launched to you on these blogs, and try to clarify the things. We all would want to meet the next Einstein, so if it is you, we don't want to remain in the history as those who crucified you. If you clarify the things for us, we will be happy we helped you make the things clearer. Maybe they are already clear, but what if the same obstacles preventing us to understand you, are preventing the entire community of physicists? Learning to explain to us may solve all this opposition, may convince the peers to stop ignoring your discovery.

Socrates

report post as inappropriate

Edwin Eugene Klingman replied on Mar. 21, 2012 @ 22:06 GMT
That is good advice. Even your friends would like a logical step-by-step refutation of mis-statements and misconceptions. I do recognize that this requires both sides to 'play fair', and I'm not surprised if you no longer expect such fair play from your opponents, however this new blog should serve that purpose, else we are all just wasting our time.

report post as inappropriate

Joy Christian replied on Mar. 21, 2012 @ 22:09 GMT
Dear Socrates,

I agree with most of what you have written. It may not be obvious to everyone, but what I am objecting to is not the challenge but the challenger. I do not trust the challenger at all. He is full of trickery and foul play. Moreover, I have already explained every detail of my framework in some 12 papers, three of which are explicit responses to various challenges I have faced over the years. In addition, if you have any specific questions about my framework (or about the summary I have posted above), then I would be happy to answer them here.

Thank you for your message.

Joy Christian

report post as inappropriate

James Putnam replied on Mar. 21, 2012 @ 22:09 GMT
"We all would want to meet the next Einstein, so if it is you, we don't want to remain in the history as those who crucified you."

No! We would like to know if Joy is correct or not. If he is then we would all like to meet Joy.

James

report post as inappropriate


Han Geurdes wrote on Mar. 22, 2012 @ 06:50 GMT
Dear Steev Dufourny,

I tell once more:

My approach is not the same as Joy's. I do not use topological arguments.

If you would have studied at least some of what I presented in the previous post you would have noticed that. My case is straightforward from Bell's correlation. It shows that the correlation is unfit.

If all you can come with is what you have presented untill now, it is meaningless and I am not going to respond to that again.

Grow up and try to shake off your adolescent arrogance.

report post as inappropriate

Steve Dufourny replied on Mar. 22, 2012 @ 12:05 GMT
Yes of course Han ?

1I have 36 years old,

2 a incredibla young life in the street

3 my father liked alcohol, so i HAVE PROTECTED MY MOTHER AT THE AGE OF 14

4 I study all days since the age of 16

5 I have been in the coma at the age of 20

6 I have had a bankrupcy at the age of 27

7 I have lost several paersons in my life like my father

8 I am under meds since many years,

8 adolescent or truth

9 vanity of vanities, all is vanity

10 a course perhaps

11 My maths are better than them of your friends

12 EUREKA with or without the approvemensty of pseudos frustrated by lack of recognizing. And what after, a beer in Belgium.Yes of course.

Regards and spherically yours of course.

To you adolescent , me I am a man ! Like what the sufferings make you stronger, fortunally furthermore.And what you do not like that.It is not my probelm.

report post as inappropriate


Han Geurdes wrote on Mar. 22, 2012 @ 12:30 GMT
Dear Tom,

Thanks for your comment.

The partitioning of the universal set Lambda in ASTP2010 was contested by Richard Gill. Gregor Weihs asked me to show that the requested renormalisation was not necessary. In other words to give the consructive proof of a possible violation of CHSH using local hidden extra parameters.

His 'possible violation' I translated in a 'non-zero probability of violating' CHSH with the use of an local realist model. This is what the arXiv reference:

http://arxiv.org/abs/1203.4514

provides you with.

Best wishes,

Han

report post as inappropriate

T H Ray replied on Mar. 22, 2012 @ 17:10 GMT
Hi Han,

I get it now. I was reading that Gill and Weihs both objected.

I am sure to study your paper in depth the first opportunity I get. I appreciate the method, and I'll look forward to the coming dialogue!

Tom

report post as inappropriate

Steve Dufourny replied on Mar. 22, 2012 @ 21:16 GMT
hidden parameters form where Han? FROM THE EXTRADIMENSIONS AND FROM THE IRRATIONAL.

Tha has no sense !

the topology you say, no but frankly ? arguments of what for what ?

These extrapolations are just false maths. What ere these equalities?

What are these pseudo convergences ?

And what after a lie algebras and a bridge between 7 and 8 and after 12??? Let me laugh.If these extrapolations are physics, me I am the queen of England I repeat.

The methods of what ? You klnow you can utilize a method, it is not a reason to have correct conclusions.I beleive that you confound the superimposings of methods instead of real physical convergences.

In fact you want invent some irrationalities with a confusion of maths superimposed without real rationalism. An axiomatization, a formalism??? yes of course...and what a time machine also.

These kinds of postulates are for the second part of the sciences community, not for the rational part.

The computing is confound with the real maths converging towards these physics.

The partitioning of what ? Is it a joke ? Well , we have not the same foundamental books of physics. But it is just a suggestion of course.

Sincerely

report post as inappropriate

Steve Dufourny replied on Mar. 22, 2012 @ 22:59 GMT
The sciences are not a simple play of opportunism. The responsability of a real searchers is to invent rational things. If the monney is utilized in this stupid line of reasoning.So I am understanding better why this world is sick.

If I speak like this, I have my own reasons.My arrogance has its reasons. I know FQXi since 2008. I discuss on this platform since 2008, I have shared my works, its generality, its whole point of vue, I have showed my theory of spherization and its foundamentals since 2008 here. You think that people spoke about spheres before.No evidently. I can understand that my theory is revolutionary but I am surprised by the human nature and its sad comportments. The opportunism is like the arrivism, I dislike that. The integrity is so important.The system is so corrupted. A lot of scientists are arrivists and like monney. Their team also like many traders. I don't understand this sad reality. How the people can make that, in fact ? For this papper in fact, this monney implying the chaos. It is so bizare.

Their strategies are so low. Just for this papper in fact and their vanity.

I know who they are. This team was easy to find in fact.

It is just a strategy after all. But the sciences merit more.

report post as inappropriate


Florin Moldoveanu wrote on Mar. 22, 2012 @ 21:20 GMT
Fred,

Yes, it subterfuge, how deceptive of me to dare to do mathematics instead of drinking the Kool-Aid of the new cargo cult. Let me repeat the question:

""OK, we know that,

B_j B_k = - delta_jk - eps_jkl B_l

is a valid expression. And I believe,

B_j B_k = - delta_jk + eps_jkl B_l"

If they don't happen at the same time, what is the relationship between B_j in the first equation and B_j in the second one? They must have a relationship or we don't know how to combine them properly when computing the expectation value."

The hoax is unmasked:

Pick B_j_lefthanded = + B_j_righjhanded and you get B_j_lefthanded=B_j_righjhanded=0 AND -a.b

Pick B_j_lefthanded = - B_j_righjhanded and you get -a.b - a^b

report post as inappropriate

Gottlob Frege replied on Mar. 22, 2012 @ 21:30 GMT
A = "the swan"

B = "white"

C = "a color"

-----------------

"A = B": the swan is white

"B = C": white is a color

_________________

"A = C": the swan is a color

report post as inappropriate

Steve Dufourny replied on Mar. 22, 2012 @ 21:42 GMT
Hi Florin,

It is just an irrational computing.

The equivalences are not rational. Why this simultaneity ?? It is not rational all that.

The symmetries are not realistic.

And why these dances with the - and the + ??? we are in the reality at my humble opinion.

Florin what is this circus ?

Regards

report post as inappropriate

Florin Moldoveanu replied on Mar. 22, 2012 @ 22:05 GMT
Gottlob Frege,

Who you might me? Clever example. I know only one person able of this clever naughtiness in this blog dear Joy (oops… Frege).

There is a difference between me and Gill. Gill thinks Joy is not mathematically competent, I think Joy is very competent, but dishonest. In the first paper the +1=-1 mistake can be overlooked as a typo and may have started as an innocent mistake, but in the 1 pager it is very cleverly disguised in an ambiguity. But by then the cover-up was already in full swing as some of the prior papers have blatant high school mistakes hidden in complex geometric algebra and Hopf fibration settings.

report post as inappropriate


Edwin Eugene Klingman wrote on Mar. 22, 2012 @ 21:58 GMT
FQXi'ers,

I hate to be obtuse, and there is certainly no point in arguing with Joy about what he hopes to achieve, but it is still not clear to me why the presence of the a x b term in the initial (ie, pre-statistical processing) stages of his framework is of consequence if it has no physical effect on the data and yields the correct statistical correlation, (-a.b).

Florin says, "let...

view entire post


report post as inappropriate

Florin Moldoveanu replied on Mar. 22, 2012 @ 22:26 GMT
Edwin,

I always appreciate an honest search for truth and I will attempt to clarify things for you.

First, why the axb term is of crucial importance for Joy. Let me paste Joy’s 1-pager abstract here:

“We illustrate an explicit counterexample to Bell’s theorem by constructing a pair of dichotomic variables that exactly reproduce the EPR-Bohm correlations in a manifestly local-realistic manner.”

He key part is “that exactly reproduce” and if axb appears in the final correlation, it is poison for Joy’s research program.

Joy has the full freedom to pick whatever model he likes as long as he clearly defines his axioms. The axioms Joy picked are ambiguous. Understand them in one way and you get –a.b Understand them in another way and you get –a.b –axb The derivation should be mechanical and you should be even able to program a computer to do it for you. (Actually this can all be very easily implemented in Mathematica). So why then Gill and I object to Joy’s –a.b final answer? Because the axioms which lead there also lead to a contradiction: all betas must be zero.

So now to your question: “why the presence of the a x b term in the initial (ie, pre-statistical processing) stages of his framework is of consequence if it has no physical effect on the data and yields the correct statistical correlation, (-a.b).”

My answer is that it is of no consequence. It does not matter what your axioms are or what the intermediate steps are as long as in the end you get –a.b AND no contradiction. Joy does get the –a.b but he also gets a contradiction (the “bump in the carpet” as Gill called it).

report post as inappropriate

Edwin Eugene Klingman replied on Mar. 22, 2012 @ 22:56 GMT
Florin,

As I have understood your discussions with Fred, there are two cases. One leads to the presence of the a x b term, while the other leads to the betas being zero. This was (?) based on an ambiguity in Joy's 1-pager.

From my perspective one can choose (correctly) what you refer to above as 'Choice 1'. This yields a x b and makes the beta=0 problem go away. At this point we have an a x b term that neither affects any data collected by Bob or Alice nor does it contribute to the final statistical correlation (the purpose of this exercise). Therefore, by making Choice 1, the ambiguity is resolved, the betas are non-zero, the a x b term appears but is of no consequence, and the correlation is (-a.b).

The ambiguity may have been embarrassing, but after Choice 1 is made, the problems go away.

Yet there are the inconsistent statements from others about the "same time" problem.

As far as I'm concerned, it appears that Joy has achieved the correct correlation, but I think that he has to respond to the issues I raised, since people are still arguing about them.

I hope your position is not that, since his paper was ambiguous, that is a fatal error. Choice 1 seems to resolve it. I am missing the point about why it does not. I don't particularly want to jump in here and start arguing for Joy. I wanted to define what I see as sticking points on this thread and hope Joy will address them.

Thanks for your response,

Edwin Eugene Klingman

report post as inappropriate

Fred Diether replied on Mar. 22, 2012 @ 23:50 GMT
Hi Edwin,

There is absolutely no "at the same time" in Joy's model or math concerning the lambda^i's. Sorry that Florin and I were exploring something else that we probably shouldn't have.

Best,

Fred

report post as inappropriate


Jonathan J. Dickau wrote on Mar. 23, 2012 @ 03:53 GMT
Hi Folks,

Bringing things back around to the Math we need to use here, S3 is isomorphic to Quaternions and S7 to the Octonions. I found a great summary of part of what Joy is talking about in a paper by P.C. Kainen - talking about working with octonion algebra - which I have pasted below (and the Kainen paper is attached).

"Of course, multiplication in the octaval arithmetic fails to be either commutative or associative, but that could be a blessing in disguise. If multiplication depends on the order of the elements being multiplied together and even on how they are grouped, then at one fell swoop, geometry enters the calculation in an organic way. The Principle of Indeterminacy could then arise in a natural fashion from relativistic considerations, making quantum theory a consequence of an underlying 8-dimensional hidden-variable process, very much in the flavor of the theories of de Broglie and Bohm. Uncertainty of measurement would be a corollary of our inability to absolutely order events or to absolutely control the way in which they are grouped."

Comments?

Have Fun,

Jonathan

attachments: octophys.pdf

report post as inappropriate

Richard Gill replied on Mar. 23, 2012 @ 08:52 GMT
There are no octonions in Joy's one page paper. Only quaternions.

Anyway, Cliffrd Algebra is associative.

There is no geometry in the one page paper, no space of continuous functions. There is only algebra, and the law of large numbers (arithmetic).

His longer papers embed the algebra of the one page paper into a bigger framework. But that can't change the algebraic rules, the rules which Joy himself writes down at the outset of the one page paper. All it can do is enable the bump under the carpet to be shifted further into the shadows.

report post as inappropriate

Joy Christian replied on Mar. 23, 2012 @ 09:11 GMT
Hi Jonathan,

Thanks for the interesting paper.

Please see the attached paper of mine for how Octonians can be treated naturally within a geometro-algebraic framework -- see, especially, section IV E, starting from page 15. The essential difference between the torsion within a 3-sphere and a 7-sphere is that in the latter it varies from point to point over the manifold, whereas in the former it is constant. This is the reflection of the fact that Octonions are non-associative. This non-associativity is essential for reproducing ALL quantum correlations within my strictly local-realistic framework.

Best,

Joy

attachments: 1_1101.1958v1.pdf

report post as inappropriate

T H Ray replied on Mar. 23, 2012 @ 10:30 GMT
"All it can do is enable the bump under the carpet to be shifted further into the shadows."

There is a shifting bump, Richard. That's kind of the point of a continuous function model in an orientable space, isn't it?

Take a couple tips from the paper Jonathan linked: "Naively, measurements are real numbers but complex numbers are now ubiquitous in physics ..." where Joy's real results are derived from algebraic manipulations on C*. And "In mathematics too, one finds higher-dimensional objects casting shadows in the lower dimensions," where the topology of S^7 allows us to see phenomena, including the well disciplined quantum correlations, on S^3.

I fully agree with you that the mathematics has to stand on its own. It does. What you are insisting, is that an a priori assumption of nonlocality stand on its own -- it doesn't. And it isn't mathematics.

Tom

report post as inappropriate


Han Geurdes wrote on Mar. 23, 2012 @ 06:22 GMT
Dear professor Frege,

Please forgive me but your Swan and Color theorem is shaky.

The commonly made mistake (Read Ludwig Wittgenstein's 'Philosophical Investigations') is the use of '='.

The Swan is not 'equal to' white. No, the Swan carries a predicate: W(X) meaning ' X has the color white' and X = theSwan (equals). Note that here a long debate can be set up if the X=Swan can be better 'translated' into X 'is element of a set of objects' and the particular object is a bird etc.

Then the phrase: 'White is a color' Indeed, but this means from a set of colours (that is tricky by the way) the color White is 'element of'.

With all due respect, your Swan example is based on a misuse of '='. Now you will accuse Joy of having done exactly that but that is also not true because Joy remains within in one 'phenotype' of object set. To put it simple... there are only Swans in Joy's reasoning and no detour is made to other levels of (Wittgensteinian) 'grammatical' objects.

In a simple phrase: 'your Swan example is rethorics'.

Best wishes,

Han

report post as inappropriate


Edwin Eugene Klingman wrote on Mar. 23, 2012 @ 06:23 GMT
Florin,

You have annotated Joy's comment beginning with Eq(1) which you say is pathological. What exactly is pathological about it? Doran and Lasenby show this bivector equation (p.33, eq 2-65) as Fred has shown. It looks good to me. You used caps for comments, I'll use them for emphasis.

Then Joy creates a new definition, Eq(2), defining a specific dependence of the bivector on L. This too appears good to me and you claim it's CORRECT.

Joy then uses definition (2) on Eq(1) for the case L= plus 1 to get Eq(3). I see no problem here. It reproduces Eq(1) which you now you claim is CORRECT.

Then Joy uses definition (2) for the case L = minus 1 to obtain Eq(4) and you say it's CORRECT.

At this point YOU AGREE that (3) and (4) are CORRECT and YOU AGREE that this leads to (-a.b).

YOU HAVE AT THIS POINT AGREED THAT JOY IS CORRECT. At this point it would be admirable to simply congratulate Joy and we could all move on.

But instead you go back to the DO_LOOP you've been stuck in for a year or so, wishing to apply these two equations to the SAME SPACE at the SAME TIME. This is an invalid approach. It is what James referred to as your doing second grade math while the rest of us do physics.

The rest of your comment is mostly silly. I will try to show you how to understand what Joy is doing.

Let us assume that a new particle pair is created in delta_t seconds where delta_t

post approved


Edwin Eugene Klingman wrote on Mar. 23, 2012 @ 06:31 GMT
I used an embedded char that truncated my above post. Live and learn.

Florin,

You have annotated Joy's comment beginning with Eq(1) which you say is pathological. What exactly is pathological about it? Doran and Lasenby show this bivector equation (p.33, eq 2-65) as Fred has shown. It looks good to me.

Then Joy creates a new definition, Eq(2), defining a specific dependence...

view entire post


report post as inappropriate

Richard Gill replied on Mar. 23, 2012 @ 08:15 GMT
Hi Eugene,

I'm glad you agree that (3) and (4) can not be supposed to be ttrue "at the same time". So the question is, how/when/where does Joy use them? For that, we must closely trace what happens in the chain of equalities from the LHS of (5) to RHS of (7). There is also an index i there, running from 1 to n, so you must also fix what depends on i, how.

Go ahead and try!

Richard (sent from iPad, slow GSM network)

report post as inappropriate

T H Ray replied on Mar. 23, 2012 @ 14:11 GMT
Richard,

All measures in the EPR-Bell experiment are taken at a time in a linearly dependent frame, assuming equally likely outcomes for each event (which assigns the tacit value of nonlocality to the experiment not performed).

Joy saw that the error in this measurement scheme is the same error that Dedekind, Weierstrass, Brouwer and Weyl -- among others -- saw in every nonconstructive mathematical result. That is, allowing the constructive result that all real functions are continuous obviates probabilistic measures, which makes your chain of equalities an excerise in trying to force independent events to conform to the same linearly dependent frame "at the same time." But they don't -- they are still independent events correlated by statistical inference, not by arithmetic values oriented only in one dimension, one direction "at a time."

There's nothing wrong with Joy's algebra, as applied to continuous function physics. To see why this is true, try proving that Bell-Aspect results are independent of the assumption of nonlocality.

Joy's framework is constructive.

Tom

report post as inappropriate

T H Ray replied on Mar. 23, 2012 @ 14:56 GMT
Richard,

I hope that it's becoming more obvious why I so strongly agree with you that the mathematical model has to stand on its own.

The Bell inequality (and its CHSH extension) do not stand on their own.

For if the inequality is NOT violated, one could never say that quantum phenomena (e.g. results of the 2 slit experiment) are more than an illusion. Except that we know -- by direct observation -- that this is not true. That the inequality IS experimentally violated, however, does not inform us that the results of the 2 slit experiment are real -- we already knew that -- it forces us to assume quantum entanglement to explain quantum correlations in the experimental violation. And that's what quantum mechanical theory is built on. Not on the mathematics, but on the assumption of nonlocality.

The sarcastic comparisons of Joy to Einstein are (unintentionally, I expect) dead on accurate in an least one important way:

Mathematical completeness. Following Newton's tradition ("hypothesis non fingo") Einstein stakes everything on a mathematical theory. He does not ask us to assume anything other than measured correspondence between mathematical theory and physical result. The same thing that Joy asks.

In Joy's framework (not a theory yet, but getting there), quantum entanglement is the illusion, not quantum mechanics, nor classical mechanics.

Tom

report post as inappropriate


Florin Moldoveanu wrote on Mar. 23, 2012 @ 12:07 GMT
Eqs 1-4 are from Joy’s post (Joy Christian replied on Mar. 22, 2012 @ 23:57 GMT)

A. Eq(1) and (2) IMPLY (3) and (4)

B. Eq(1) and (2) IMPLY –a.b

C. Eq. (3) and (4) IMPLY BETAS = 0

D. Eq(1) and (2) IMPLY (3) and (4); But Joy and Fred say (3) and (4) cannot be combined at the same time on physical grounds (cannot happen at the same time in nature).

E. Eq(1) and (2) IMPLY –a.b; Nobel Prize for Joy

Arguing for D and E at the same time is a logical fallacy.

Why are people supporting D and E at the same time? Possible explanations:

1. Dishonesty.

2. Lack of basic mathematical skills.

3. Falling in love with the consequences.

4. Cargo cult.

report post as inappropriate

Gottlob Frege replied on Mar. 23, 2012 @ 12:48 GMT
CORRECT explanation:

Truth # 1: Eq. (3) and (4) DO NOT imply all betas = 0.

Truth # 2: Eq. (1) and (2), or equivalently Eq. (3) and (4), necessarily IMPLY -a.b.

report post as inappropriate

Florin Moldoveanu replied on Mar. 23, 2012 @ 13:45 GMT
My earlier hunch was true: Gottlob Frege is Joy Christian. Dishonest to the end.

report post as inappropriate

Gottlob Frege replied on Mar. 23, 2012 @ 13:50 GMT
Truth # 3: Parano hunch is not equal to Truth.

report post as inappropriate


Fred Diether wrote on Mar. 24, 2012 @ 03:37 GMT
Florin,

You cannot subtract them. Joy is adding them. Have you ever seen an average done by subtracting terms? To get the proper average, you have to add them.

Fred

report post as inappropriate

Florin Moldoveanu replied on Mar. 24, 2012 @ 03:40 GMT
Fred, that is not a straight answer:

You are allowed to ADD 3 and 4:

(3) B_j(L = +1) B_k(L = +1) = - delta_jk - eps_jkl B_l(L = +1)

(4) B_j(L = +1) B_k(L = +1) = - delta_jk + eps_jkl B_l(L = +1),

BUT you cannot subtract 3 and 4 ?

Is this your position? Yes or No.

report post as inappropriate

Fred Diether replied on Mar. 24, 2012 @ 03:57 GMT
Florin,

If you are talking about Joy's model, you cannot subtract them. How many times do I have to say it? Sheesh! Now answer my question. Have you ever seen an average done by subtracting terms?

Fred

report post as inappropriate

Gottlob Frege replied on Mar. 24, 2012 @ 03:58 GMT
"BUT I cannot subtract 3 and 4

to get

2 B_j(L = +1) B_k(L = +1) = - 2 eps_jkl B_l(L = +1) or

B_j(L = +1) B_k(L = +1) = - eps_jkl B_l(L = +1)

which leads to B_1=B_2=B_3=0"

False!

Nothing leads to B_1=B_2=B_3=0. Period.

post approved


Jason Wolfe wrote on Mar. 24, 2012 @ 05:48 GMT
Are you done calculating the definition of the word "the"? When do we get to the breakthrough experiments? The breakthrough technology?

report post as inappropriate


Jason Wolfe wrote on Mar. 24, 2012 @ 06:19 GMT
Grand unified theory turns out to be very simple. You can't ignore me forever. Your efforts in physics are not sustainable; nor are they testable. Come see when you want a simple solution to a GUT.

report post as inappropriate


Florin Moldoveanu wrote on Mar. 24, 2012 @ 10:47 GMT
Just because I sign off the debate until Monday it does not mean I won't check the posts when I have a bit of free time and I'll not report as inappropriate sockpuppet posts like the "non-Lubosh Motl" before which was done as a test.

Again, the IP address of the poster can be checked on the servers against the IP address of the signed posts and this will reveal the author(s) of those dishonest practices. Sock-puppets, beware!

report post as inappropriate

Lawrence B. Crowell replied on Mar. 24, 2012 @ 16:03 GMT
To be honest I think this argument was resolved last summer or fall. I think this debate keeps ploughing the same old ground.

Cheers LC

report post as inappropriate

James Putnam replied on Mar. 24, 2012 @ 16:22 GMT
Dr. Crowell,

What was the resolution?

James

report post as inappropriate

Joy Christian replied on Mar. 24, 2012 @ 16:29 GMT
James,

The resolution was that Bell's theorem had been refuted way back in March 2007.

Joy Christian

report post as inappropriate


Edwin Eugene Klingman wrote on Mar. 25, 2012 @ 21:26 GMT
Dear Joy,

I have followed, as closely as I can, the arguments about your definition of and use of two bivector bases to be applied to the Bell/EPR physics problem. Your algebra makes sense to me. My focus is on understanding how the math relates to the physics. Like Fred, I believe that if the math sufficiently matches the physics, or leads to new physical understanding(!), it need not make contemporary mathematicians happy (see Dirac delta, Oliver Heaviside's math and other examples.) However there is one point I'm unclear about. In your formulation of the problem only Nature is "aware of" the actual value of lambda that applies in each experimental run. This value represents the "hidden variable" that (depending upon how one interprets lambda*(a x b) 'influences' the outcome of each experiment.

Specifically, I am confused about the lambda_i in eqn(7) of your one-pager. In your answer to my previous questions (now captured by Fred in his FAQ) you seem to indicate that Bob and Alice must choose a value for lambda: "they must make a choice of a basis, for all runs of the experiment they plan to perform." Is this the value lambda_i (for the i-th run) in eqn(7)?

What happens if Bob and Alice are hardheaded and always choose lambda_i = plus one? Their data does not change, but what happens to the convergence in the calculated correlation?

And if lambda_i in eqn(7) is not their choice, but represents the actual unknown value that nature chose, how is this associated with specific measurement values on a run by run basis?

My weakness in statistics means that I do not fully understand the distinction between 'standard scores' and 'raw scores', so if this is important to your answer, please try to give me a simple explanation thereof.

Finally, and I know that this has nothing to do with your analysis, the form of which is forced upon you by Bell's approach, I have always been fond of the statement: "If your experiment depends upon statistics, you should have designed a better experiment." (LOL)

Thanks in advance for your answer,

Edwin Eugene Klingman

report post as inappropriate

Joy Christian replied on Mar. 25, 2012 @ 22:51 GMT
Dear Edwin,

Let me begin in the reverse order:

"If your experiment depends upon statistics, you should have designed a better experiment."

I am afraid that is not always possible. We live in the world of intrinsic, irreducible, classical randomness. We can't even predict the outcome of a simple coin toss. More to the point, within any hidden variable approach one is talking...

view entire post


report post as inappropriate

Fred Diether replied on Mar. 25, 2012 @ 23:07 GMT
Hi Edwin,

The lambda^i would have to be Nature's choice. Probably easier to see if we do this for eq. 1 in the one page paper.

A(a,L) = {-a_j B_j}{a_k B_k (L)} = (-I.a)(mu.a)

where mu = LI and L = +/- 1. And I is a standard trivector.

The term (-I.a) is Alice's detector and is fixed; same with Bob at (+I.b). The term (mu.a) is the particle spin and can be either (+I.a) or (-I.a) depending on the random chance of Nature. So Nature's choice. So in eq. 6 after the statistical procedure we find (I will suppress the limit and sum),

E(a,b) = (mu^i.a)(mu^i.b)

mu^i is Nature's choice. So when taking that to eq. 7, it has to be Nature's choice again.

E(a,b) = (mu^i.a)(mu^i.b) = -a.b - mu^i(a x b)

So for run 1 of particle pair creation we may have,

-a.b - I(a x b)

for run 2 we may have,

-a.b + I(a x b)

for run 3 we may have,

-a.b + I(a x b) and so forth.

But I think I will let Joy respond to your other questions.

Best,

Fred

report post as inappropriate

Edwin Eugene Klingman replied on Mar. 25, 2012 @ 23:24 GMT
Joy,

Of course I realize that some experiments require statistics (I am a physicist), and as I said, you must follows Bell's approach by the nature of what you're doing. I should have left off the comment, but I included it because it expresses my personal feeling about statistics.

Now as I understand your answer, Bob and Alice ALWAYS choose lambda = plus one, so the lambda in eqn(7) is the hidden variable that nature chose, not Bob and Alice.

Are you saying that the measurement data they take is **determined by** the variable lambda that nature chose? In which case we therefore know lambda, but only after the fact.

Looks like I have gotten confused. You are correct that "in the end it is beyond my power to make people understand what I understand." As I have repeatedly said, you are dealing with a complex problem, and a phenomenon (quantum mechanical behavior of nature) that no one understands and doing so by formulating it in geometric algebra which is at least complex enough to keep this argument going this long.

Have I got the above correct? And any very simple explanation of 'raw' versus 'standard' scores?

Edwin Eugene Klingman

report post as inappropriate


Florin Moldoveanu wrote on Mar. 26, 2012 @ 03:09 GMT
Here is an EXTREMELY simple proof that Joy is wrong. The 1 page paper math contains limits and sums and this may be intimidating. But we can simplify this mess by looking at a particular case and only 2 representative Alice-Bob measurement pairs instead: one for each handedness.



Let us simplify Joy’s equations. Instead of using the most general detection directions a and b...

view entire post


report post as inappropriate

Joy Christian replied on Mar. 26, 2012 @ 03:43 GMT
Straw Man

report post as inappropriate

Florin Moldoveanu replied on Mar. 26, 2012 @ 03:50 GMT
A small typo correction. In some places above I wrote event instead of "measurement pair" but I hope it is clear what I mean.

Here is another way to see the mistake: Joy does a SUBSTITUTION of Eq. 4:

βj βk = − δjk − λ Epsilon_jkl βl

into Eq. 6 and arrives at Eq. 7

That substitution is ILLEGAL because the sum is not homogeneous in lambda: the terms being summed have different lambda values.

In other words, Lambda^i is the summation index, not a variable. In Eq. 4 Lambda is a VARIABLE and in Eq.6 it is an INDEX. It all becomes clear when the sum is spelled out explicitly.

Yet another way to see the mistake. In Eq. 6-7, you have lambda^i and in Eq. 4 you have just lambda. You need a translation mechanism between lambda^i and lambda if the substitution is to be done correctly. Joy incorrectly assumes

lambda^i = lambda which is equivalent with postulating β_apple = + β_orange

report post as inappropriate

Joy Christian replied on Mar. 26, 2012 @ 04:00 GMT
"Joy does a SUBSTITUTION of Eq. 4 ... into Eq. 6 and arrives at Eq. 7"

A shameless lie.

report post as inappropriate


Anonymous wrote on Mar. 26, 2012 @ 15:44 GMT
Unlike sci.pysics.foundations, sci.physics.research is perhaps more impartially moderated when it comes to debate on Joy Christian's work. For example, see

Joy Christian's Work on Bell's Inequality

report post as inappropriate

Joy Christian replied on Mar. 26, 2012 @ 16:03 GMT
Anonymous,

Thank you for remaining Anonymous. That was very wise. As for sci.physics.research, I beg to differ with your opinion. I found the moderators there -- especially Igor Khavkine -- extremely biased and ignorant. They freely allowed personal attacks on me as well as idiotic comments about by work, but systematically blocked many of my attempts to answer the unjustified criticisms. The result of this overt censorship is evident in what you have linked above. It is a lopsided dialogue manufactured by the moderators of sci.physics.research to make me appear in a lesser light. I have not seen more blatant and unashamed abuse of power anywhere else in the academia.

Joy Christian

report post as inappropriate

T H Ray replied on Mar. 26, 2012 @ 16:20 GMT
I posted earlier my own experience with sci.physics.research that suggests the appearance of a biased view, as well.

Tom

report post as inappropriate

Florin Moldoveanu replied on Mar. 26, 2012 @ 16:25 GMT
I don't follow sci.physics.research or similar places on a regular basis but what Joy ssy is very amusing. " I have not seen more blatant and unashamed abuse of power anywhere else in the academia"

Gee, let me look around here: do we see a moderator from another forum taking partisan sides? Like judge, jury, and executioner? Yes Fred is a shining beacon of ethics LOL.

report post as inappropriate


Lawrence B. Crowell wrote on Mar. 26, 2012 @ 17:15 GMT
I check up on Motl's website a couple of times a week. He generally has decent reviews of physics, even if he is the master at insults, ad homonym remarks and political nonsense maybe somewhat to the left of Genghis Khan. He does in his post get this about right.

Cheers LC

report post as inappropriate

Joy Christian replied on Mar. 26, 2012 @ 17:40 GMT
Lawrence,

What you write above tells me more about you than my work.

To get the correct understanding of the silly mistake Richard has made in his paper -- the one he is flatly refusing to admit -- can be found in the attached paper, if you are at all interested in learning something new -- or if you have a single bone of neutrality in your intellectual outlook.

attachments: 21_Gill.pdf

report post as inappropriate

James Putnam replied on Mar. 26, 2012 @ 18:49 GMT
Naivete! I thought that amatuers had it tough! Anyway, having visited the link, I have gained a cutting edge understanding of advances in artificial intelligence.

James

report post as inappropriate

T replied on Mar. 26, 2012 @ 19:20 GMT
"... a stupid and pathetic fraudster and crackpot obsessed with his own importance ..."

Now that's as clear a case of projection as I've ever seen. In any case, Motl's lecture reveals just another nonconstructive "proof" of Bell as Gill's, Herbert's or anyone else's. A mangled mess of mystical crap.

Let the critics construct a case as clearly as Joy's that actually predicts results without assuming them, in a mathematically complete framework.

Not going to happen.

Tom

report post as inappropriate


Richard Gill wrote on Mar. 26, 2012 @ 17:18 GMT
So Joy's book has recently come out:

http://www.brownwalker.com/book.php?method=ISBN&book=159
9425645

The first 25 pages can be downloaded for free. You'll find the fatal error on the 24th of those 25 pages, the page which numbered as page 10.

Notice the transition from (1.23) to (1.24), which is justified by an appeal to (1.8). However appealing to (1.8) would give beta_l(lambda^i), not beta_l.

Again Joy is either making an error engendered by his sloppy notation around (1.8), or he is deliberately introducing (without any warning) a new postulate, unfortunately contradicting the postulates that he has not only made so far, but has also used.

This is certainly very innovative mathematics.

But I'm glad that Joy's project is now completed, so he can perhaps now turn to some more useful activities. Or retire, on the royalties from his book. Have any reviews come out yet? Nothing like a good controversy to drive up sales.

report post as inappropriate

Joy Christian replied on Mar. 26, 2012 @ 17:53 GMT
The misrepresentation of my work Richard is trying to perpetuate has been systematically debunked in the attached paper. There are no errors anywhere, either in my papers, or in my recently published book. However, there is a silly error in Richard's paper, which you will find debunked in the attached paper of mine (see the discussion around eq.(36)).

For your information, Richard, my book is the first step towards my full research program. I am just begging to warm up. There is a long road ahead.

Let me thank you for publicizing my book, Richard. I am sorry to say, however, that you will not be getting a share of the royalties.

attachments: 22_Gill.pdf

report post as inappropriate

Joy Christian replied on Mar. 26, 2012 @ 18:19 GMT
What a remarkable coincidence! No sooner had Richard mentioned my book online and provided a link to my publishers, their website is hacked and their entirely system is brought down. A major crash! They should have known better.

report post as inappropriate

Fred Diether replied on Mar. 26, 2012 @ 22:53 GMT
The publisher's web site is back up as of 3:52PM Pacific time.

Fred

report post as inappropriate


Edwin Eugene Klingman wrote on Mar. 27, 2012 @ 01:37 GMT
Dear Florin,

There has been so much back and forth mathematically, ignoring unproductive insults, that it becomes hard to see the forest for the trees. On several occasions, and again on Mar 18 @ 17:17 on blog.995 you stated that Joy's model predicts not (-a.b) but (-a.b - a ^ b). Is this still your position?

Thanks,

Edwin Eugene Klingman

report post as inappropriate

Edwin Eugene Klingman replied on Mar. 27, 2012 @ 01:39 GMT
Dear Richard Gill,

There has been so much back and forth mathematically, and much unproductive distraction, but on Mar 10 @ 16:07 on blog.995 you wrote that the right answer for Joy's model is not (-a.b) but (-a.b - a x b). Is this still your position?

Thanks,

Edwin Eugene Klingman

report post as inappropriate

Florin Moldoveanu replied on Mar. 27, 2012 @ 01:55 GMT
Dear Edwin,

My position is really simple. Done right (meaning not having invalid mathematical steps), Joy's theory obtains -a.b -a^b and hence it does not describe nature.

This answer comes when the "beta_apples = -beta_oranges" is used consistently throughout all computations.

If however either from the beginning or in the middle of computation one is using "beta_apples = + beta_oranges" the answer comes out as -a.b AND beta_apples=beta_oranges=0 But betas cannot be zero and therefore the math is inconsistent.

It is very easy to make the beta_apples = + beta_oranges mistake when substituting Eq. 4 into Eq. 6 in Joy's paper to obtain Joy's incorrect Eq. 7

The easiest way to see this is to repeat yourself the critical step from Eq. 6 to Eq. 7 but only when there are 2 representative Alice-Bob pairs: one for left handedness and one for right handedness. In this way you are not concern with limits and complicated sums, or with illegal substitutions, and you will see that the critical -a^b term does not vanish. I posted earlier such a simple breakdown from Step 6 to 7 and I can repeat it if needed.

report post as inappropriate

Florin Moldoveanu replied on Mar. 27, 2012 @ 02:15 GMT
Dear Edwin,

Please see below the computation on getting from Eq.6 to Eq.7 the correct way.

Here is an EXTREMELY simple proof that Joy is wrong. The 1 page paper math contains limits and sums and this may be intimidating. But we can simplify this mess by looking at a particular case and only 2 representative Alice-Bob measurement pairs instead: one for each handedness.

Let...

view entire post


report post as inappropriate


Florin Moldoveanu wrote on Mar. 27, 2012 @ 03:15 GMT
Richard,

I replied to one of your posts above. I have a question. On September 5th 2011 Joy posted the following on http://www.fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/983:

Joy Christian replied on Sep. 5, 2011 @ 14:41 GMT

...

"You may or may not want to take my word for it, but Hestenes did not find anything mathematically wrong in my one page paper. In particular, he did not see anything wrong in my derivation of equation (7), where the bivector part has been averaged out to zero. "...

Now you have talked with David Hestenes recently. Is Joy's statement correct?

report post as inappropriate

Fred Diether replied on Mar. 27, 2012 @ 04:53 GMT
I believe Richard did not talk to Hestenes; he sent him emails and tricked him with his flawed arguments from his arXiv paper.

Fred

report post as inappropriate

Richard Gill replied on Mar. 27, 2012 @ 08:34 GMT
I emailed David Hestenes, sending him Joy's one page paper and my refutation thereof, and politely and neutrally asking his opinion, saying that Joy had told me that he (David) had agreed with the derivation.

He took more than a week to reply, and when he did, he was absolutely clear that he agrees that the one page paper contains a fatal error. He also showed me some earlier correspondence he had had with Abner Shimony. The error is that same bug which Joy nowadays calls a feature; more precisely, a daring and original new postulate. Joy calls my corresponding with David a trick. At that time I dd not know as much about geometric algebra as I do today, I was just checking with an acknowledged expert.

I think Joy's one page paper is a trick (whether deliberate or unconscious, only Joy can say). The same trick is built into Joy's book. It is clearly visible in the 25 pages which you can download for free.

By the way, Joy, I bought a copy of your book (PDF) and I am enjoying reading it very much! I think you have a great career ahead of you as a science fiction author. You could even start a new Scientology-like church.

It certainly is daring and original to introduce new postulates which contradict the postulates you have made and used so far. Also it is quite original, in Science, to introduce such a postulate in the middle of a long computation without any mention at all. Instead there is a reference (in the book) to an earlier formula which contradicts the new postulate.

As Steve Wolfram would say, this is a new kind of Science.

report post as inappropriate

Richard Gill replied on Mar. 27, 2012 @ 08:38 GMT
PS There is nothing wrong *in* line (7). The error occurs in the transition from (6) to (7). Unexplained in the one page paper, "explained" in the book (I believe on page 10; that's the 24th of the 25 pdf pages) by reference to a formula with conflicting notation but which actually contradicts Joy's substitution.

report post as inappropriate


Joy Christian wrote on Mar. 27, 2012 @ 08:26 GMT
Dear All,

I have been accused of committing various intellectual crimes by various people on this blog, on the very eve of the publication of my new book. Please allow me to comment on a handful of these accusations:

(1) I have been accused of deliberately planting an error in my very first paper on Bell's theorem to concoct a hoax against the theorem. To this I say:

Guilty as charged. Just as Kepler planted his elliptical orbits and Dirac planted his delta functions, I planted my hidden variable mu in the very first of my papers on Bell's theorem. Please allow me to quote from the paper itself to reveal the root of all evil: "Thus, in essence, the intrinsic freedom of choice in the initial orientation of the unit pseudoscalar mu would be our "local hidden variable."" This, it is claimed, is a deliberately planted error. Well, what a marvellous error it has turned out to be? It allows one to reproduce nothing less than ALL quantum correlations.

(2) I have been accused of committing all sorts of other errors in my first and subsequent papers, and especially in the one-page summary of my main argument against Bell's theorem. To this I can only offer a modest defense of my program, put together in this, this, and this papers. Fred Diether has also kindly put together a FAQ about my work, which may be worth looking at.

(3) I have been accused of being a crackpot, a fraudster, a hoaxer, and what not. To this I can only say, I am sorry I am not like that I am just painted that way.

(4) I have been accused of being an anonymous arXiv moderator who is systematically blocking all criticisms against my own work. Here I can only point the reader to a dictionary to understand the meaning of the word anonymous. I also urge the reader to recognize that academia, after all, is just another politically, sociologically, and economically hierarchical power base of the modern society where abuse of power is a norm not an exception.

(5) I have been accused of being Bill Schnieder. For this I can only apologize to Bill on behalf of the accuser, and invite him for a drink to celebrate the beginning of the new post-Bell era of physics.

Joy Christian

report post as inappropriate

Joy Christian replied on Mar. 27, 2012 @ 08:45 GMT
PS: I forgot to link my first paper. Let me quote from it again:

"Thus, in essence, the intrinsic freedom of choice in the initial orientation of the unit pseudoscalar mu would be our "local hidden variable.""

Wow, what an incredible error!

report post as inappropriate

Richard Gill replied on Mar. 27, 2012 @ 09:03 GMT
There is something I don't understand about Fred''s FAQ.

Are you saying that nature makes *two* random choices in each run?

Firrstly, whether L=+1 or -1

Secondly, whether B_j(L) satisfies B_j(L)B_k(L) = -delta_jk +/- eps_jkl B_l(L)

Are these two choices supposed to be statistically independent?

Are we still assuming B_j(L) = L B_j in each run?

Are B_1, B_2, B_3 the same for all runs?

I have noticed that anti-Bellists thrive on short-hand notation which suppresses dependence on mathematical variables which they consider unimportant but which retrospectively turn out to be hidden non-local variables responsible for their violation of Bell. Accardi, Hess and Phillip, Geurdes, Christian, and no doubt a host of others use this device.

When challenged, Hess and Phillip agreed to the "mistake", saying that the hidden non-local variable should not be considered an "element of reality", hence did not stop their model from being local-realistic.

Maybe Joy could make use of this reasoning, too? Though ths kind of defeats the purpose, since now the wave-function itself (collapsing non-locally) does the job of a hidden variable which is not an element of reality hence need not satisfy locality constraints.

Of course, the only reason some people think QM is non local is because they want to consider outcomes of not-performed measurements also as elements of reality. If you dny the "reality" of things which don't exist anyway, all problems vanish.

report post as inappropriate

Joy Christian replied on Mar. 27, 2012 @ 09:21 GMT
I must be using incredibly bad short-hand notation. It has ended up generating over 12 papers and 280 pages long book.

report post as inappropriate


Richard Gill wrote on Mar. 27, 2012 @ 10:04 GMT
What I still don't understand, is why Joy does not mention in his one page paper that in going from lines (6) to (7) he is making a daring and innovative new postulate, which contradicts the postulates he has made and used so far. Obviously this is something which ordinary folk shouldn't do, but Joy is allowed to, through his superior insight into His Mind. No wonder dumb people like David Hestenes and Richard Gill and Abner Shimony and Reinhard Werner and Marek Zukowski and Michiel Seevinck and Dan Rohrlich and Florin Moldoveanu think that Joy is either incompetent or a charlatan or a poet.

He also doesn't mention the revolutuonary new postulate in the first ten pages of the book. Instead, he does the transition equivalent to the step from (6) to (7) with reference to an earlier, but contradictory postulate.

I also don't understand why the one page paper has no use for trivectors, no mu. It's a different model from the model in his very first paper. Yet he says it's the same and the one page paper can only be understood by reference after reading half a dozen others. Strange, since it appears entirely self-contained.

I guess it would take anyone 280 pages to explain something as weird as all this. Joy operates in a totally different level from all the rest if us.

report post as inappropriate

Joy Christian replied on Mar. 27, 2012 @ 10:48 GMT
"What I still don't understand, is why Joy does not mention in his one page paper that in going from lines (6) to (7) he is making a daring and innovative new postulate."

I do mention it. It is right there for anyone to see, just after eq.(3) (i.e., after the standard definition of bivector basis). The postulate is the isomorphism

B_j(L) = L B_j.

The only people who would not recognize this are the people who either have not read my first paper, and/or have no knowledge of geometric algebra. This postulate is stated right at the start of the model, both in my one-page paper and my very first paper. The same postulate in the first paper is stated in two different ways. First in words: "Thus, in essence, the intrinsic freedom of choice in the initial orientation of the unit pseudoscalar mu would be our "local hidden variable."" And then as an equation (cf. eq.(15) of the attached paper):

mu . n = +/- I . n = L { n_j B_j }.

Richard does not recognize the fact that the two equations stated above are one and the same postulate, because he is absolutely clueless about geometric algebra.

"...which contradicts the postulates he has made and used so far."

Only a mathematically incompetent person would say something like this in the light of the introductions of both of my papers.

"He also doesn't mention the revolutionary new postulate in the first ten pages of the book."

I do. It is right there just after eq.(1.7), with more detailed physical and mathematical explanations provided both before and after it has been explicitly stated. The reason Richard does not see it is because Richard had never bothered to read my papers before criticising them, and he is still absolutely clueless about geometric algebra (or the topologies of the 3- and 7-spheres for that matter).

"Instead, he does the transition equivalent to the step from (6) to (7) with reference to an earlier, but contradictory postulate."

A shameless lie. Richard has used this very effective tactic against all previous challenges of Bell very successfully, but it is not going to work this time.

"I also don't understand why the one page paper has no use for trivectors, no mu."

It does. The reason Richard is not able to see them in my one-page paper is because he is absolutely clueless about geometric algebra.

"It's a different model from the model in his very first paper."

It is not -- only an algebraically ignorant person would say something like this.

"[The one-page paper] appears entirely self-contained."

It is.

attachments: 2_fibell.pdf

report post as inappropriate

Joy Christian replied on Mar. 27, 2012 @ 14:24 GMT
Let me do a baby calculation here for the benefit of Richard.

Let a and b be ordinary vectors, and let

(1) mu.a = L (I.a), where L = +/- 1 is a fair coin. Here the trivector mu fixes the basis chosen by Nature for the spin pair, and the trivector I fixes the basis chosen by Alice and Bob for their detectors.

The geometric product of the standard scores (mu.a) and (mu.b) is then

(2) (mu.a)(mu.b) = -a.b - mu.(a x b).

Using (1), the RHS of this identity, as seen by Alice and Bob, becomes

(3) -a.b - L I.(a x b).

The covariance of the standard scores (mu.a) and (mu.b) is thus

(4) E(a, b) = Sum_i [ -a.b - L^i I.(a x b) ].

Since L is a fair coin, in the large-n limit this reduces to

(5) E(a, b) = -a.b.

Bell's theorem has been history since 20 March 2007.

report post as inappropriate

Joy Christian replied on Mar. 27, 2012 @ 16:20 GMT
And of course, for completeness I should also add that the raw scores observed by Alice and Bob corresponding to the standard scores (mu.a) and (mu.b) are defined by the variables

A(a, L) = (-I.a)(mu.a) = +/-1

and

B(b, L ) = (mu.b)(+I.b) = -/+1.

report post as inappropriate


Stefan Weckbach wrote on Mar. 27, 2012 @ 13:54 GMT
Richard, Tom, and all others,

do Bell's results exclude all hidden-variable theories or only those ones which aim to precalculate the result of the next mesurement in a certain setting?

Does Joy's model manage to precalculate the result of the next measurement in a certain setting?

report post as inappropriate

T H Ray replied on Mar. 27, 2012 @ 14:42 GMT
Stefan,

You wrote, "do Bell's results exclude all hidden-variable theories or only those ones which aim to precalculate the result of the next mesurement in a certain setting?"

One must recognize a distinction between Bell's inequality -- the formula that predicts the parameters of local realism, which are classical -- and Bell's theorem, the mathematical explanation for the...

view entire post


report post as inappropriate

Richard Gill replied on Mar. 27, 2012 @ 17:03 GMT
Bell's result excludes local realistic hidden variables theories, which are theories within which the outcomes not only of the actually performed measurements, but also of the not performed measurements, are considered to be part of reality, and such that the choice of measurement in one location does not effect the outcomes (both factual and counterfactual) in other locations.

Joy's model is local realistic and it predicts that the outcomes in both wings of the experiment are always equal and opposite, whatever the measurement settings. In other words it predicts perfect anti-correlation, independent of measurement settings.

Joy only obtains interesting correlations when he divides the raw correlations (identically equal to -1) by bivectorial factors which depend on the measurement settings. Unfortunately he makes a mistake in this calculation, which actually results in the bivector correlation - a.b - a x b

So even if Joy's calculations had been correct, his work has zero relevance to Bell's theorem. Some researchers did hope that it might provide an alternative framework to the usual Hilbert space frameword for just reproducing the quantum correlations. That's why some serious people did give it some serious attention for a while. Unfortunately it turned out that the whole research program is based on a typical undergraduate level mistake probably caused by sloppy notation.

report post as inappropriate

Stefan Weckbach replied on Mar. 27, 2012 @ 18:50 GMT
Thank you very much Tom and Richard for your deliberated answers.

So it seems to me that one has to differenciate between non-locality and determinism.

Well, i remember that Bell stated, hidden-variable theories aren't excluded by his theorem, but they had to be non-local.

This is the crucial point for me: If there are hidden variables and they are really non-local, thre is - per definition - no chance for us to prove that. Because we are restricted to time and space and have no access to an infinite realm.

It further seems to me that this could be a reason why the problem of wether there are hidden variables or not cannot be decided. I know that this line of argumentation assumes that Bell's theorem holds, namely that all hidden-variable theories have to be non-local. For me, it further seems that this (the dichotomy between non-locality and determinism) is a logical consequence in its own right, because one cannot prove a strict determinism of the universe by a deterministic proof.

I want to add that i am not a mathematician, so i am absolutely unable to evaluate Joy's work. Furthermore i want to thank Joy for his work, because it perhaps also has much value in its own right for science and deeper understanding of logical connections in science and reality.

report post as inappropriate


Pentcho Valev wrote on Mar. 27, 2012 @ 15:34 GMT
Lawrence B. Crowell wrote: "It is curious that there seem to be people who get it fixed in their mind that something about modern physics is wrong. We have Valev who peppers these blog posts with various fatuities about how relativity is all wrong, which are just too ridiculous to even respond to."

Then respond to your masters who claim that relativity is...

view entire post


report post as inappropriate

Lawrence B. Crowell replied on Mar. 28, 2012 @ 18:36 GMT
These hypotheses by Smolin and Magueijo involve deviations from Lorentz symmetry near the Planck scale. Smolin’s loop variable approach to quantum gravity breaks Lorentz symmetry by the discrete structure of this theory. Magueijo proposed a double relativity near the Planck scale. These theories predict a dispersion of light, where these small fluctuations near the Planck scale will induce a separate velocity of light for different Fourier modes of an optical wave. However, the US FERMI spacecraft and the EU INTEGRAL spacecraft found that frequencies of light emitted from gamma ray burstars billions of light years away did not have this dispersion. The argument against these ideas does not involve theory, but something much stronger; they have been experimentally falsified.

Even if these ideas were correct they still uphold general relativity as the large scale classical theory of gravity. There is no implication from them that at large there is a preferred frame of simultaneity or any similar idea. I resist going deeper into any discussion on this. I figure if the FQXi blogs are to become forums for crank physics that in most cases is out to deny modern physics there is not much I can do about it.

Cheers LC

report post as inappropriate

Jason Wolfe replied on Mar. 28, 2012 @ 20:30 GMT
Dear Lawrence,

The speed of "light", c, shows up in the Einstein equations & Maxwell's equations. Other characteristics of light include frequency and phase. Quantum mechanics is also known as Wave Mechanics. I take that as a clue that the laws of physics are there to support the characteristics of light.

Why don't physicists look at it this way?

report post as inappropriate


Richard Gill wrote on Mar. 27, 2012 @ 16:13 GMT
I am waiting for a response from Fred to the following question about his FAQ, http://fqxi.org/data/forum-attachments/JoyChristian_FAQ.pd

Fr
ed, are you saying that nature makes *two* random choices in each run?

Firstly, whether L=+1 or -1

Secondly, whether B_j(L) satisfies B_j(L)B_k(L) = -delta_jk +/- eps_jkl B_l(L)

Are these two choices supposed to be statistically independent?

Are we still assuming B_j(L) = L B_j in each run?

Are B_1, B_2, B_3 the same for all runs?

No trivectors here, no mu, no I.

report post as inappropriate

Joy Christian replied on Mar. 27, 2012 @ 16:29 GMT
These questions are no-brainers.

report post as inappropriate

Richard Gill replied on Mar. 27, 2012 @ 17:06 GMT
I asked Fred, not you, Joy. He prepared the FAQ. I'm not interested in the (dis-)functioning of your brain at the moment.

report post as inappropriate

Joy Christian replied on Mar. 27, 2012 @ 17:10 GMT
That does not change the fact that your questions are no-brainers.

report post as inappropriate


Edwin Eugene Klingman wrote on Mar. 27, 2012 @ 19:58 GMT
I am waiting for a response from Richard Gill,

Dear Richard Gill,

In your first FQXi comment on Mar 10 @ 16:07 on blog.995 you wrote that the right answer for Joy's model is not (-a.b) but (-a.b - a x b). Is this still your position?

Thanks,

Edwin Eugene Klingman

report post as inappropriate

Edwin Eugene Klingman replied on Mar. 28, 2012 @ 23:35 GMT
Dear FQXi'ers,

Although Richard Gill chooses not to respond directly, he does above (Mar 27, 2012 @17:03) state that Joy "makes a mistake in this calculation, which actually results in the bivector correlation -a.b -a x b." This repeats his original claim of Mar 10, 2012 @16:07 that "the right answer following my approach was actually E(a,b) = -a.b -a x b."

And Florin has replied to confirm that in his opinion: "Done right (meaning not having invalid mathematical steps), Joy's theory obtains -a.b -a^b and hence it does not describe nature."

So, for the record, the correct result of Joy's approach is:

Florin Moldoveanu: -a.b -a ^ b

Richard Gill: -a.b -a x b

Joy Christian: -a.b

Thank you for playing.

Edwin Eugene Klingman

report post as inappropriate


Edwin Eugene Klingman wrote on Mar. 27, 2012 @ 20:15 GMT
Lawrence says, "Quantum physics is the simplest thing there is. It is a theory of linear waves, nice vector space operators (matrices) and so forth --- what could be simpler?"

Not much.

And this theory of linear waves is dispersive, yet at the same time the proton seems to be 'eternal'. I am yet waiting to see an explanation of how these non-local, non-real linear waves, with or without 'collapse' of the wave function, combine to form a structure that does not disperse but lasts forever. I'll ignore the axions, dilatons, unparticles, inflatons, right handed neutrinos, SUSY, Higgs, quantum gravity, strings, multiverse, and too many dimensions to count, because all of these couldn't be simpler, and it doesn't matter that they are taken seriously with no proof or even good reason to believe they exist.

How could anyone "get it fixed in their mind that something about modern physics is wrong"?

Edwin Eugene Klingman

report post as inappropriate

Fred Diether replied on Mar. 28, 2012 @ 01:28 GMT
Hi Edwin,

That is pretty funny. Thanks.

Fred

report post as inappropriate


Jason Wolfe wrote on Mar. 27, 2012 @ 20:55 GMT
Some day the experimentalists will inherit the world of physics. Particularly the warping of space-time with frequency shifting experiments. Currently, the only known way to curve space-time is with huge amounts of mass and energy. The Einstein equations represent everything we know about gravity.

Gravity causes light to frequency shift when it falls along the radii of massive objects such as black holes. The speed of light, c, shows up in both GR and QM equations. There exist some special coupling between E&M frequency shift AND gravity.

It should be possible to get back a gravity field by emitting a frequency shift. Eventually, the physics community will have to try experiments that involve frequency shifting light according to the equation:

f(t) = [df/dt]t + f_0, where df/dt is the change in frequency versus change in time; f_0 is the starting frequency.

report post as inappropriate


Jason Wolfe wrote on Mar. 27, 2012 @ 23:25 GMT
If you decide to test frequency shifting as a means to curve space-time, pay careful attention to the phases. The phases have to line up. The phase of one frequency should begin where the phase of the previous frequency ended.

The laws of physics pay close attention to phase; so should we. Phase shows up in electromagnetism as phasors, and in quantum mechanics as wave functions.

You can run gravitational redshift backwards. You can transmit frequency shift and get back gravity fields. But you'll have to perform the experiments.

report post as inappropriate

James A Putnam replied on Mar. 27, 2012 @ 23:52 GMT
Hi Jason,

Welcome back again. I think maybe this subject doesn't belong in this thread, but, since you decided to put it here with a followup message, I will ask a question. The widest possible frequency range of photons is probably involved practically and theoretically in General Relativity's prediction about increasing frequency as photons descend through a gravitational field. How would varying one or a few frequencies, forced to do so by an experimenter, even begin to replicate what is happening to that 'endless' variety of photons in a gravitational field? Maybe you could find another thread in which to respond. Thank you.

James

report post as inappropriate

Jason Wolfe replied on Mar. 28, 2012 @ 01:44 GMT
Hi James,

I wish I could start my own thread. It took about 3 minutes to download this thread. If I find a more relavent thread that is quick to download, I'll switch to that.

If frequency shift was so easy, someone would have noticed debris piling up on their FM (frequency modulation) broadcast tower. Given that we haven't noticed it yet, it's probably very weak under accidental conditions. Maybe if we could measure gravity down to 1ppm, we might notice something.

This may sound odd, but I had a gut feeling that any technology that could curve space-time using light would have to be extremely high performance. To that end, I came up with these characteristics:

1. The frequency shift has to be as wide as possible. I chose 400 to 800THz.

2. The time for the frequency shift has to be as fast as possible; I chose

report post as inappropriate

Anonymous replied on Mar. 28, 2012 @ 01:51 GMT
Because those who are interested in this topic also experience long download times, there have been several requests to keep unrelated topics off this thread. Perhaps you missed those Jason.

report post as inappropriate


Florin Moldoveanu wrote on Mar. 28, 2012 @ 03:07 GMT
Debunking the HOAX in easy steps:

Have a=(1,0,0) b=(0,1,0)

B(L) = L* B

B1B2 = LB3 - Joy’s Eq. 4

Corr = 1/N Sum_{i=1..N} [B1(Li)B2(Li)] = - Joy’s Eq. 6

1/N [B1(L1)B2(L1) + B1(L2)B2(L2)+B1(L3)B2(L3)+…+B1(Ln)B2(Ln)]

Is this (As Joy does it in Eq. 7)

= 1/N Sum_{i=1..N}[LiB3] = (1/NSum_{i=1..N}[Li])*B3 = 0*B3 = 0

Or is it this?

1/N [B1(L1)B2(L1) + B1(L2)B2(L2)+B1(L3)B2(L3)+…+B1(Ln)B2(Ln)]

=1/N [L1B3(L1) + L2B3(L2)+L3B3(L3)+…+LnB3(Ln)]=

=1/N [L1L1B3 + L2L2B3+L3L3B3+…+LnLnB3]=

=1/N [B3 + B3+B3+…+B3]=N/N B3 = B3

report post as inappropriate

Joy Christian replied on Mar. 28, 2012 @ 03:41 GMT
Straw Man

report post as inappropriate

Florin Moldoveanu replied on Mar. 28, 2012 @ 03:57 GMT
Dishonest

report post as inappropriate


Anonymous wrote on Mar. 28, 2012 @ 06:20 GMT
Dear Joy, Edwin, Fred.

May I advise you Joy, to consider writing a paper or even better a web page in which you would explain what you are doing, without the math and Clifford algebra.

For example, look at this link about Bell's Theorem and the sub links to wave-particle duality and Stern-Gerlach experiment. The author explains the history, his views and explains the experiments in a nice, logical and friendly manner. He included pictures and even flash animations. Great stuff.

I think you should do the same - explain everything you are doing without the math. This is not just for the non-physicists and the rest of us, who does not have enough time to fight our way through octonion algebra. This is also for your critics, who also have trouble understanding your work.

I think, you should collaborate with Edwin and Fred, if you have trouble with the language. Maybe Edwin could write a paper under your supervision.

This is just an idea, but I think you should consider it.

Best regards.

France

report post as inappropriate

Fred Diether replied on Mar. 28, 2012 @ 07:11 GMT
Hi France,

Actually it is fairly easy to describe what Joy is doing in words. No web page really needed. In fact, I believe I already did it in a couple of paragraphs or so somewhere on these blogs over that last couple of weeks if you feel up to searching for it. I'm tired right now and going to hit it.

Best,

Fred

report post as inappropriate

Joy Christian replied on Mar. 28, 2012 @ 08:17 GMT
Hi France,

I have tried to describe what I am doing, without using mathematics, in the first appendix of the attached paper. That explanation is somewhat misleading, however, because the correct picture of what is happening in nature cannot be captured without using mathematics correctly.

Nevertheless, I will think about your suggestion, and will try to create a website or something to explain things at a more elementary level.

Thanks,

Joy

attachments: Origins.pdf

report post as inappropriate


Joy Christian wrote on Mar. 28, 2012 @ 08:55 GMT
Let me do an elementary demonstration of my model for the EPR correlation here.

Let a and b be ordinary vectors, and let

(1) mu.a = L (I.a),

where L = +/- 1 is a fair coin, the trivector mu fixes the basis chosen by Nature for the spin pair, and the trivector I fixes the basis chosen by Alice and Bob for their detectors.

The binary numbers A and B observed by Alice and Bob are then defined by the variables

(2) A(a, L) = (-I.a)(mu.a) = +/-1 if L = +/-1.

and

(3) B(b, L ) = (mu.b)(+I.b) = -/+1 if L = +/-1.

It is clear that the raw scores A and B observed by Alice and Bob are geometric products of two numbers. A is a geometric product of the numbers (-I.a) and (mu.a), and B is a geometric product of the numbers (mu.b) and (+I.b). Since L is a random variable, the corresponding standard scores are (mu.a) and (mu.b), respectively. The geometric product of these standard scores is then

(4) (mu.a)(mu.b) = -a.b - mu.(a x b).

Using (1), the RHS of this identity, as seen by Alice and Bob, becomes

(5) -a.b - L I.(a x b).

The covariance of n such standard scores (mu.a) and (mu.b) is thus

(6) E(a, b) = Sum_i [ -a.b - L^i I.(a x b) ].

Since L is a fair coin, in the large-n limit this reduces to

(7) E(a, b) = -a.b.

Bell's theorem has been history since 20 March 2007 (see the attached papers).

attachments: 3_fibell.pdf, 1106.0748v5.pdf

report post as inappropriate

Florin Moldoveanu replied on Mar. 28, 2012 @ 11:27 GMT
Once again, the HOAX MASTER at work

Let’s work Joy’s latest obfuscation attempt backwards.

Start at

Step 9: Joy gets Nobel Prize

Step 8: March 20, 2007, 17:43:25 Bell’s theorem is history

Step 7: E(a,b) = - a.b (extraordinary achievement, how was it done?) Simple. By performing the sum in Eq.6:

(6) E(a, b) = Sum_i [ -a.b - L^i I.(a x b) ]. (we would forget here about 1/n missing coefficient in front, a distracted genius inconsequential typo). Aha, it is a SUM then what it is being summed? Eq. 5 of course:

(5) -a.b - L I.(a x b). But where is Eq. 5 coming from? What, you don’t know? It was used to be called Hodge duality but I think now it should be called Joy’s equation in honor of its discoverer. But never mind, Joy ALREADY called it Joy’s equation. After all it was AFTER March 20, 2007, 17:43:25 and this was completely justified.

So where is Eq. 5 coming from? Eq. 4 of course:

(4) (mu.a)(mu.b) = -a.b - mu.(a x b). How is this possible. Aha

“mu = L I” got it. So to be sure, it this:

(L I.a)(L I.b) = -a.b – L I.(a x b)? Got it

So what value does L take: +1 and -1. Right.

You mean

(+1 I.a)(+1 I.b) = -a.b – (+1) I.(a x b)? OR

( I.a)( I.b) = -a.b – I.(a x b) Yes of course

but how about this?

(-1 I.a)(-1 I.b) = -a.b – (-1) I.(a x b)? OR

( I.a)( I.b) = -a.b + I.(a x b) This one too. After all, I am SUMMING them like this in Eq. 6 to kill the I.(a x b) term by averaging out, were you not paying attention?

So then ( I.a)( I.b) = -a.b + I.(a x b) = -a.b - I.(a x b) ?

Which means +I.(a x b) = - I.(a x b)

Which means I.(axb) = 0 ?

Aha (scratching head), Fred, Fred, Freeeed, where are you? I need help here.

(Fred): You don’t understand the argument. Go read the FAQ document, it’s all explained there.

report post as inappropriate

Joy Christian replied on Mar. 28, 2012 @ 12:37 GMT
"So then ( I.a)( I.b) = -a.b + I.(a x b) = -a.b - I.(a x b) ?"

The place where the master trickster smuggles-in his up-side-down straw man.

"Which means +I.(a x b) = - I.(a x b)"

The place where the master trickster does a hand trick with a funny face.

"Which means I.(axb) = 0 ?"

The place where the master trickster gets the correct answer by two incorrect twists of his straw man.

The curtain draws.

Behind the curtain the master trickster is applauded by... The rewards are sweet.

report post as inappropriate

Joy Christian replied on Mar. 28, 2012 @ 15:30 GMT
For once, let me try not to be "funny" and point out how idiotic the master trickster's argument is.

Take a fair coin. Call one of its sides heads and the other side tails. Now flip the coin many times. Well, what do you know, half the times it ends up landing heads, and half the times it ends up landing tails.

So, clearly, we have,

(1) Lands = heads

and

(2) Lands = tails.

Well, now, LHS of both of these equations is the same. So the RHS must also be the same.

Viola!

We have

heads = tails.

The logic of the master trickster is absolutely impeccable.

report post as inappropriate


Edwin Eugene Klingman wrote on Mar. 29, 2012 @ 00:44 GMT
Dear Joy,

In your Mar 28 @08:55 comment you again define mu.a = L(I.a) with L a fair coin and the trivector mu fixes the basis chosen by Nature for the spin pair while trivector I fixes the basis chosen by Alice and Bob for their detectors.

I (and I believe Fred) am (are) confused about how Alice and Bob "choose" the basis denoted by trivector I. Can you clarify, or perhaps simply restate this?

I am basically bored with the endless argument over algebra. You claim to derive -a.b while Richard Gill and Florin insist that you derived -a.b -a ^ b (-a.b -a x b for Gill). I am aware of your 'counter-factual' argument to me above, but from my perspective (not Bell's or Einstein's) the presence of an a x b term that does not contribute anything at all to the data is of no significance, and so I do not care whether you or Florin are correct and I don't want to argue about it. (I am beginning to write up my thoughts about 'counterfactual' elsewhere.)

Instead, I wish to begin to focus on your topology, which has received less attention in these blogs (at least recently.) Specifically, I hope to find out exactly where in the equations the 7-D aspects of topology are exhibited (or the 'twist' or 'torsion' that is implied by your topology.) Let's take your 1-pager as the example. At which specific equation does the topology enter the picture, and how? And which equation or equations would change, and in what fashion, if the topological assumptions were altered? ["all of them" is not the answer I'm looking for.]

I know you are frustrated that others fail to understand this, but it falls on you to help them. I have attempted to acquire some expertise in geometric algebra to understand your model, but I don't plan an equivalent study of topology, and you can't afford to demand that the world become expert in geometric algebra AND topology in order to grasp what you are doing.

To summarize:

1.) How do Bob and Alice "choose" the trivector basis for their detectors?

2.) At which equation (1-pager) is the topology 'exhibited'.

3.) What equations change if the topological assumptions change?

I have more questions about topology but I need to understand the above first.

Thanks again for your efforts.

Edwin Eugene Klingman

report post as inappropriate

Florin Moldoveanu replied on Mar. 29, 2012 @ 03:16 GMT
Edwin

Joy is on a different time zone and he is offline now. But I can explain your questions. One correction first: Gill also obtains -a.b -a^b and if he wrote somewhere -a.b-axb it is a typo, he meant -a.b -I.(axb) which is the same as -a.b-a^b

Now onto your questions:

1. Both pick the same handedness and stick with it throughout the process. Then Nature randomly decides a handedness in each run which may or may not be what Alice and Bob selected in the first place.

2. Nowhere. Topology is about the idea of neighborhood. Joy's theory is algebraic. But then Joy claims that locality=separability which is incorrect, but we can follow along. In math you have the 4 normed division associative algebras: reals, complex, quaternions, and octonions. Being normed they admit a norm, meaning a map to real numbers and they obey certain conditions. The key one here is: norm(ab) = norm(a) norm(b) and Joy is exploiting this to get to his cherished separability. In particular, for the EPR-B experiment he is using quaternions, but then claims he had a grandiose theorem involving octonions which includes all smaller cases. But if you follow closely Joy's math you realize (as Cristi Stoica first did) you always get anticorrelated results regardless of the wavefunction. And this is bad because you encounter 4 outcomes in the Bell experiment: ++, +-, -+, --. Joy's theory on the other hand can predict only 2: +- and -+. Joy noticed this himself and concocted a solution: have a manifold with torsion so you will "twist" a +- into a ++ or -- for example. It is here where his topology enters as you rotate 2pi you change the sign. (and whomever believes this I have a bridge to sell)

There is another place where topology enters in Joy's model, but this has to do with physics and the freedom to speak counterfactualy. To beat Bell's theorem Joy needed non-commutative beables as the commutative ones do get to Bell right away and even Joy is not crazy enough to deny that. It is this need to justify non-commutative beables which led Joy to twist the EPR argument into a counterfactual argument, and then it was a nice spin to claim Bell did not consider the right topology. But a counterfactual topology is something very strange because its points are all qualified by "if": strange, but it would have been worth considering provided the math would have stood the consistency check.

3. For EPR-B if you believe Joy, you cannot change the equations, they are set in stone and that is how he "obtains" -a.b The only thing you can do is to embed quaternions into octonions in Joy' "gradiose theorem"

So Joy's research scheme had plenty of boldness and sex-appeal and after Joy's math was proven inconsistent, the question became: OK, is there anything salvageable? An older theorem by Clifton answers that in the negative: it is not possible to have a non-contextual non-commutative beable hidden variable theory.

report post as inappropriate

Fred Diether replied on Mar. 29, 2012 @ 03:24 GMT
Hi Edwin,

I will try to respond to your comments the best I can and hopefully Joy will join the discussion later. As I mentioned before I don't think Alice and Bob can really "choose" their basis. The important point is that their basis will remain fixed during the experiment. But your question does possibly beg for another question. When the angles for a and b are the same direction so that we have b = a, we know from experiments that the AB product will always be -1. So that means if either A or B is (-I.n) and then the other one has to be (+I.n) where n is either a or b. Well... I think I answered my own question. The handedness of the two detection stations have to be opposite each other which I suppose makes physical sense. However, the handedness of the detectors is not important as they drop out of the equation anyways. As they should.

In the one page paper, the topology basically comes in with eq. 3. Which in Joy's framework is equivelant to,

(I.a)(I.b) = -a.b - I.(a x b)

and he says in his arXiv response to Gill, "Geometrically this identity describes all points of a parallelized 3-sphere." at the top of page 2. Then we also have the identity,

(I.a)(I.b) = -a.b + I.(a x b)

which also describes all points of a parallelized 3-sphere. So it is not hard to see that we have a sign ambiguity here in describing the same topology. This is exactly what Joy exploits for his model and makes the necessary postulates and arrives at eq. 4 in the one page paper.

For your 3rd question, I suppose you would need to be more specific as to what the topology is changing to from the parallelized 3-sphere topology. I guess if you go to Bell's two points on a line topology, the equations are going to change to Bell's.

Best,

Fred

report post as inappropriate

Edwin Eugene Klingman replied on Mar. 29, 2012 @ 03:42 GMT
Thanks Florin and Fred,

Florin, I found your answers very informative and that beats the hell out of the insults that have been flying back and forth.

Fred, your answers were also informative.

I'm interested in Joy's answers too, and, having had a glass or two of wine, I'll avoid technical responses tonight.

Edwin Eugene Klingman

report post as inappropriate


Stefan Weckbach wrote on Mar. 29, 2012 @ 10:55 GMT
Tom and Joy,

thank you for your answers above.

As i now understand it, in Joy's model the formation of the EPR mesurement results for each of the two particles is independent from the other one's formation (and surely vice versa). It's the same with my example with the dices, the results of the dices are independent from each other but together form a statistical pattern due to the same intrinsic and extrinsic conditions for both dices (i know this is a somewhat bad example because the probabilities do not change like in EPR-settings if the angles are changed).

My next question is: Do the two particles have to be generated out of the same source to reproduce EPR measurement results or is it sufficient to measure two arbitrary particles which never interacted with each other? Surely the facts and QM say that they have to be generated out of the same source. I am interested how this necessity is reflected in Joy's model as an element of reality and would be happy about answers.

report post as inappropriate

T H Ray replied on Mar. 29, 2012 @ 14:19 GMT
Stefan, I saw this the first time you posted it, but am still unsure how to reply, because you have several glaring misconceptions of EPR and Joy's framework. I think you should go back and study EPR's paper and at least the first chapter of Joy's book, both available online.

This is not about particles and rolls of dice (events) per se. It is about the statistical inference of measured events ("clicks") in a local realistic framework consistent with classical physics and relativity, versus probabilistic measures entailed by the assumption of quantum entanglement and the nonlocal causal influence it implies. QM says that every measurement event is independent of every other; i.e., in reconciling any particular experiment with the real world experience of measurement (quantum mechanical unitarity), the theory is compelled to assign value to nonlocality ("the experiment not performed") thus supporting the idea that nature is intrinsically non-deterministic. There are no extrinsic conditions, as you suggest, because we don't measure anything outside the universe.

So it's an improper question you ask, of whether independent measurements on particles which never interacted with one another can correspond. Every particle in the universe interacted with every other particle at some time, so in principle you are correct, but you are missing the role of time reverse symmetry that is necessary for classical correspondence. This is what QM also ignores, because if every roll of the dice is independent of every other, time drops out of the model altogether. Joy preserves the symmetry of time -- without the troublesome singularity that arises in solutions to the equations of general relativity -- by constructing a physically plausible space of 8 dimensions (parallelized 7-sphere) in which the parallelized 3-sphere of our measure space is but one of infinite possible fibrations.

The simple algebraic arguments here are misleading. Joy's model is analytical; i.e., a classical model of continuous function physics, and mathematically complete. By that, I mean it predicts strict correspondence between mathematical theory and physical result in a locally real framework.

Tom

report post as inappropriate

Stefan Weckbach replied on Mar. 29, 2012 @ 22:51 GMT
Hi Tom,

thank you very much for your response Tom.

Unfortunately i did not formulate my thoughts carefully enough, so you misunderstood some terms i used.

With "intrinsic" and extrinsic" i mean the following (based on my example with two dices but also on the EPR-example with two, say, photons):

Intrinsic: The inner structure of a dice (or a photon) is the same for all...

view entire post


report post as inappropriate


Joy Christian wrote on Mar. 29, 2012 @ 11:06 GMT
After posting his criticism of my one-page paper on the arXiv, Richard Gill has been posting all sorts of negative propaganda about my work on all sorts of blogs and websites, including on various blogs here, on sci.physics.research, on sci.physics.foundations, on PhysicsForums, on Science 2.0, on Wikipedia Talk page, and heaven knows where else.

Finally I have been forced to write the following clarification of the matter on the Wikipedia Talk page:

The facts are quite different from how Gill has presented them here. In truth, Gill is well known among my colleagues to be an incompetent mathematician and a fanatical supporter of Bell's theorem. He did not know anything about geometric algebra when he came to Oxford to learn from me. He still does not know much about it. As a result, Gill has made a very foolish and silly mistake in his criticism of my one-page paper. What is more, he had not bothered to read any of my other papers on the subject before he attempted to criticize the one-page summary of my model. Sadly, even after I have explicitly pointed out his mistake to him here http://arxiv.org/abs/1203.2529, he remains incapable of recognizing it himself. The reason, again, has to do with his total lack of mathematical background for understanding my model. The error he has made is trivial. It is in Eq.(2) of his preprint. This equation is an incorrect counterfeit of the Eq.(4) of my one-page paper: http://arxiv.org/abs/1103.1879. Instead of recognizing his silly mistake, however, he has been aggressively trolling me, both in private emails as well as on various blogs and websites that have been discussing my work. I find this quite disturbing, and do not consider it to be a proper behavior of a professional scholar. Some of my colleagues have confirmed, however, that they have had to endure similar harassment form him when they challenged Bell's theorem in the past.

Joy Christian

report post as inappropriate

Joy Christian replied on Mar. 29, 2012 @ 12:00 GMT
Gill writes in his abstract: ". . .correlation are the bivectors -a .b - a x b..." This statement is in his very abstract, and it is just the beginning of a series of mistakes in his preprint. I am not aware of any mathematician who is capable of writing such a statement in his abstract with a straight face. In my detailed response to his preprint I bring out at least one of the most important of his foolish mistakes (see the discussion around Eq.(36) of my attached paper). For the proof of some of the other things I say above, one only has to follow the private correspondence I have reproduced here between Gill and I. Fortunately, unbiased people around the world are able to see the truth for themselves.

attachments: 26_Gill.pdf

report post as inappropriate

Florin Moldoveanu replied on Mar. 29, 2012 @ 13:36 GMT
Now if Gill wrote -a .b - a x b in the abstract, it is an embarrasing mistake, but is it?

At first glace: http://arxiv.org/abs/1203.1504 he did wrote it like this, but if you follow the PDF link (http://arxiv.org/pdf/1203.1504v3.pdf) you see the correct value "-a.b -a^b" in the abstract.

which means that the rendering software of the archive has a bug and cannot render the "^" character correctly in HTML and replaced it with "X". Latex to PDF does work correctly and you see the actual equation.

Next time, try to download the actual paper Joy and don't stop reading at the archive highlight.

report post as inappropriate

Joy Christian replied on Mar. 29, 2012 @ 14:58 GMT
Ignorant and biased to the extreme as always.

Gill wrote ". . .correlation are the bivectors -a .b - a x b..." in the first version of his preprint, which contains many such "typos."

I pointed out his mistakes to him by email, and both Han Geurdes and Gregor Weihs are witnesses to this fact because my email went to all three of them. The four of us were in close email correspondence about mine and Han's work for several months by then -- close to four/five email exchanges per day.

Gill corrected many of his mistakes and posted the second version of his preprint on the arXiv. But even in the second version he wrote ". . .correlation are the bivectors -a .b - a /\ b..." Worse still, Gill posted the third version of his preprint with this sentence intact, and several other similar errors.

Now neither Gill nor our unbiased master-trickster seems to think that there is anything wrong with this "corrected" sentence. That says it all.

I have also reproduced some parts of the email correspondence between Gill and I in other blogs here for all to see what was being discussed between us before Gill produced his funny preprint, in the middle of our supposedly collegial, private, friendly email correspondence.

report post as inappropriate


Rick Lockyer wrote on Mar. 29, 2012 @ 15:07 GMT
Joy,

I have always been intrigued by your application of S7 to Bell’s Inequality. After looking at your algebraic approach, I have concluded like others have that the math just is not where it needs to be. Hopefully the following will stop the bickering and move the discussion to something more meaningful, for your brilliant idea of changing up the topology was in my opinion on the...

view entire post


report post as inappropriate

Joy Christian replied on Mar. 29, 2012 @ 15:18 GMT
Many thanks, Rick.

I will have to think about this carefully before I can say much. Needless to say, I very much appreciate your mathematical talent and your honorable, collegial attitude.

More soon,

Joy

report post as inappropriate

Florin Moldoveanu replied on Mar. 29, 2012 @ 16:52 GMT
"In truth, Gill is well known among my colleagues to be an incompetent mathematician and a fanatical supporter of Bell's theorem.” - Joy Christian

No comment.

report post as inappropriate

Edwin Eugene Klingman replied on Mar. 29, 2012 @ 21:32 GMT
Rick,

If I follow your Octonion example, you end up with the Octonion equivalent of -a.b + a x b and -a.b - a x b. As you point out, they average to zero. Am I misreading your result?

Edwin Eugene Klingman

report post as inappropriate


Han Geurdes wrote on Mar. 30, 2012 @ 07:05 GMT
In support of Joy's point I would like to point at my:

Adv. Studies Theor. Phys., Vol. 6, 2012, no. 13, 643 - 647

that can be found at:

http://www.m-hikari.com/astp/forth/geurdesASTP13-16-2012.
pdf.

It may appear somewhat unpolite to point at one's own papers in a discussion of that of someone else's. However, my work supports Joy's but it takes a different route. This means that conceptually his views are coroborated.

Han Geurdes

report post as inappropriate

T H Ray replied on Mar. 30, 2012 @ 10:38 GMT
Han, I think it's totally appropriate, particularly in light of critics' repeated claims on this forum and elsewhere that virtually the whole physics community is lined up against Joy's results.

For over a year now, I have listened to claims that I know to be untrue, implying that Joy produced this work in some kind of intellectual vacuum when it is in fact well sourced, well referenced and corroborated in principle and in detail by many independent works in physics and mathematics past and present.

Tom

report post as inappropriate


Richard Gill wrote on Mar. 30, 2012 @ 13:48 GMT
Attached is version 4 of my critique of Joy's one page paper, which I'll put up on arXiv in a few days. Comments are welcome, preferably direct by email as well as here at fqxi, since it is hard to follow all the postings on this site.

The body of the one page paper is included in an appendix, for easy reference.

Joy accused me of lying in my representation of what is in his one page paper. I particularly want to avoid any unfortunate misinterpretations like that. I had hoped that it was clear in my paper what I believed to have taken from his paper, and why; and what I believe I have deduced for myself, and why/how.

But if this is ambiguous, please let me know.

Joy also still continues to accuse me of not having read his other papers. How can he possibly know? It's not true. I plan to ask the moderators of arXiv.org to remove any papers by him which repeat unfounded personal abuse, which he is now spreading around the internet everywhere where people get together to discuss his work.

As they say, it takes a thief to catch a thief. Those who accuse others of lying and trolling are typically well versed in these activities themselves.

attachments: 3_christian.pdf

report post as inappropriate

Joy Christian replied on Mar. 30, 2012 @ 14:39 GMT
There are people out there who have endured similar harassment as what I have been subjected to in the past few months. They have eyes and they can read. Some of them have been sufficiently moved to send me messages of support and/or sympathy. For example, I received the following email from a perfect stranger the other day. It says it all:

[Begin quote

I sympathize with your current struggle. I do not understand why any researcher needs to attack another with inflammatory phrases like ". . . his research program has been set up around an elaborately hidden but trivial mistake," and "Sanity has been restored." I mean "elaborately hidden" implies deliberate deceit. His use of "Sanity has been restored" suggests clinical aberration on your part. Both phrases are personal attacks and pointlessly malicious. On the other hand your reply argument is thoughtful, detailed and free of sarcasm.

end quote].

This is a direct quote from the email. I believe it is admissible in a court of law.

report post as inappropriate

Joy Christian replied on Mar. 30, 2012 @ 17:27 GMT
"Joy does a SUBSTITUTION of Eq. 4 ... into Eq. 6 and arrives at Eq. 7"

A shameless lie.

This lie, and others, have been exposed in the attached papers.

attachments: 2_pseudo.pdf, 28_Gill.pdf

report post as inappropriate

Lawrence B. Crowell replied on Mar. 30, 2012 @ 17:52 GMT
This is becoming a bit like beating a dead horse, or complaining about a dead --- well you get the idea.

Cheers LC

report post as inappropriate


Daryl McCullough wrote on Mar. 30, 2012 @ 17:35 GMT
There are many, many things that I don't understand about Joy's many derivations. However, there's one thing that seems like a simple error of geometric algebra. Maybe Joy could clear this up.

The starting point for geometric algebra (also called Clifford algebra) is the product rule for basis vectors:

(1) e_i e_j + e_j e_i = 2 delta_ij

There is actually a generalization in which we allow the right-hand side to be an arbitrary metric:

e_i e_j + e_j e_i = 2 g_ij

but typically, people choose a basis such that

g_11 = g_22 = g_33 = 1

and all other metric components are zero. It's

also possible to choose g_11 = g_22 = g_33 = -1, which

is sometimes used in SR and GR.

Now, with no further assumptions, if we define I = e_1 e_2 e_3, then

we have:

(3) I e_i = e_i I

(4) I I = -1

(5) (I e_i) (I e_j) = - delta_ij - I epsilon_ijk e_k

If at this point we define the basis bivectors mu_i by:

(6) mu_i = lambda I e_i

where lambda is some real number, either +1 or -1, then

the multiplication rule (5) becomes:

mu_i mu_j = - delta_ij - I epsilon_ijk e_k

we can write I epsilon_ijk e_k as lambda^2 I e_k epsilon_ijk

(since lambda^2 = 1). Since (lambda I e_k) = mu_k, this can be

rewritten as lambda epsilon_ijk mu_k. So we have the following

product rule for mu_i:

(7) mu_i mu_j = - delta_ij - lambda epsilon_ijk mu_k

Now, for arbitrary bivectors a . mu and b . mu, equation (7) implies

(8) (a . mu) (b . mu) = - (a.b) - lambda mu . (a x b)

Note that there is a factor of lambda in rule (8). This is in contrast with Joy's claimed multiplication law:

(8') (a.mu) (b.mu) = -(a.b) - mu . (axb)

(8') is NOT correct, if one starts with the multiplication rule (1) above.

report post as inappropriate

Joy Christian replied on Mar. 30, 2012 @ 17:53 GMT
Your eq.(6) is incorrect. At least mu in it is not my mu.

report post as inappropriate

Florin Moldoveanu replied on Mar. 30, 2012 @ 18:10 GMT
Daryl,

You are absolutely correct. This is how it all started. But faced with a similar argument last Fall, Joy first claimed that he obtain

e_i e_j = - delta_ij + I epsilon_ijk e_k in the another handedness

When I proved to him explicitly that even in the other handedness the equation still remains:

e_i e_j = - delta_ij - I epsilon_ijk e_k

Joy changed his tune and stated no, you got it all wrong, I POSTULATE

e_i e_j = - delta_ij - I epsilon_ijk e_k

for one handedness and

e_i e_j = - delta_ij + I epsilon_ijk e_k for the other

Then I replied: if you do this you have an inconsistent axiomatic system. Still Joy continued and said: the 2 postulates apply to different runs of the experiment, and you never know which one nature picks (it is the “hidden variable” in his model).

Fine then again, but in the end you do want to add the results to compute the final correlation. So let’s see how he gets the correlation in his Eq. 7 in his 1 pager. He substitutes Eq. 4 into Eq. 6 incorrectly. In Eq. 6 lambda^i is an index part of the summation (it is scary I know his paper by heart by now) but in Eq. 4 it is a variable. Substituting a variable into an index amounts to another hidden axiom (and this is what Richard complained in one of the above posts) The sleight of hand is hard to see, but if one expands the sum in Eq. 6 term by term and works out the math to get to Eq. 7 you will get –a.b-a^b and NOT –a.b as Joy claims.

In GA in this case, there are actually 4 representations: left algebra left handedness, left algebra right handedness, right algebra left handedness, right algebra right handedness (and I spelled them out explicitly last fall at FQXi). You should never combine left with right algebras without the proper translation. Left_algebra_element = - right_algebra_element (or B(L) = L B) Joy starts with B(L) = L B in his Eq. 4, but he is introducing a “new postulate” B(L)= B in his computation step from Eq. 6 to Eq. 7. As a new postulate it is inconsistent with the one in Eq. 4. But this “hidden postulate” idea was introduced by Joy in his exchanges with Richard. If you ask Joy, he will never agree that he is using B(L) =B in his transition from 6 to 7. But it does not matter, just expand the sum sign and do it term by term and it will be clear right away that the final answer should be –a.b-a^b

report post as inappropriate

Joy Christian replied on Mar. 30, 2012 @ 18:16 GMT
A complete fabrication of actual facts.

The spin master at work in full swing.

report post as inappropriate