Search FQXi

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

Order posts by:
chronological order
most recent first

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

RECENT POSTS IN THIS TOPIC

Joy Christian: on 10/22/12 at 19:19pm UTC, wrote I think differently. I am not trying to explain away anything. On the...

Saibal Mitra: on 10/22/12 at 18:27pm UTC, wrote I think quantum correlations should not be regarded as counter intuitive,...

Joy Christian: on 10/18/12 at 19:38pm UTC, wrote Hi Juan, If your theory satisfies the cluster decomposition principle in...

Juan Ramón González Álvarez: on 10/18/12 at 14:59pm UTC, wrote Hi Joy, in the first place thank you for the congratulations. Effectively,...

Joy Christian: on 10/17/12 at 9:28am UTC, wrote Thanks, Fred. Yes, that work of Michael is perhaps his best. I continue...

Fred Diether: on 10/17/12 at 6:42am UTC, wrote Hi Joy, I also highly recommend "Derivation of a chiral SO(3)xSO(2)xU(1)...

Joy Christian: on 10/17/12 at 4:43am UTC, wrote Do also check out the work of Michael Goodband on the 11D GR as a "theory...

Joy Christian: on 10/15/12 at 16:05pm UTC, wrote Hello Juan, Thank you for your comments. I had a brief look at your paper....

RECENT FORUM POSTS

Joe Fisher: "Dear Steve, Please try to understand that infinite surface am not a..." in Watching the Observers

Steve Agnew: "Supposing the universe is infinite is simply another way of supposing the..." in Watching the Observers

kurt stocklmeir: "spring constant of time and space is not linear - this influences a lot of..." in Alternative Models of...

Kevin Adams: "Very interesting theme! Thanks a lot for this information. I just going to..." in Multiversal Journeys —...

Colin Richardson: ""According to quantum mechanics, a vacuum isn't empty at all. It's actually..." in Manipulating the Quantum...

Lorraine Ford: "Dear Rajiv, I have already addressed your 3 points, but I will put it to..." in FQXi Essay Contest 2016:...

Peter Morgan: "An e-mail sent to me by Springer Nature today tells me that because I am at..." in Manipulating the Quantum...

munized ward: "Variety exists inside all populaces of life forms. This happens somewhat in..." in Natural Selection in...

RECENT ARTICLES

Watching the Observers
Accounting for quantum fuzziness could help us measure space and time—and the cosmos—more accurately.

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.

FQXi BLOGS
June 24, 2017

CATEGORY: Blog [back]
TOPIC: On the Origins of Quantum Correlations [refresh]

Blogger Joy Christian wrote on Nov. 1, 2011 @ 15:59 GMT
John Stewart Bell is undoubtedly one of the icons of contemporary physics. His name has become inseparable from the notion of quantum non-locality, however, Bell himself always stressed that it was Einstein--together with Podolsky and Rosen--who first recognized the non-local implications of quantum mechanics. Neither did Bell like the operational overtone wielded by quantum information theory on...

view entire post

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

report post as inappropriate

James Putnam wrote on Nov. 1, 2011 @ 18:26 GMT
Dear Joy,

Very impressive. I see why you answered in that manner. You are communicating with professionals. I am stumbling through it. Perhaps Tom will begin to post some helpful messages here.

James

report post as inappropriate

Joy Christian replied on Nov. 1, 2011 @ 18:37 GMT
Dear James,

Many thanks for your comments. You have been a voice of reason and moderation throughout this debate. I appreciate that very much.

Joy

report post as inappropriate

Blogger Joy Christian replied on Oct. 15, 2012 @ 11:06 GMT
My views on this topic are now published as Chapter 1 of this book.

Please also see the attached papers, which are not included in the book.

The latest discussion on the Origins of Quantum Correlations can be found on my blog.

Joy Christian

attachments: Spinor.pdf, 91_Gill.pdf

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

report post as inappropriate

Blogger Joy Christian replied on Oct. 17, 2012 @ 04:43 GMT
Do also check out the work of Michael Goodband on the 11D GR as a "theory of everything." His work is based on the same four parallelized spheres (S0, S1, S3, and S7) as my work on the origins of quantum correlations. It is intriguing to see how he has arrived at the same conclusion about the non-fundamental nature of quantum theory by using a very different line of reasoning.

report post as inappropriate

T H Ray wrote on Nov. 1, 2011 @ 18:28 GMT
Joy,

Let me be the first to publicly congratulate you on the extraordinarily clear introduction to your program in this latest reply to critics. I am looking forward to engaging in further dialogue.

Tom

report post as inappropriate

T H Ray wrote on Nov. 1, 2011 @ 18:29 GMT
Okay, then. The second. :-)

report post as inappropriate

Joy Christian replied on Nov. 1, 2011 @ 18:39 GMT
Tom,

You are never second in my books!

Many thanks,

Joy

report post as inappropriate

Ray Munroe wrote on Nov. 1, 2011 @ 21:18 GMT
Hi Joy,

I'm still not sure of the second half of Section V, but I also think that you might not necessarily need that argument to make your point. Lately, I have been working on 'superluminal neutrinos', and I do not have time to dedicate to that idea and this one of yours. My argument involves 10-D, part of which is a broken 7-sphere. I have reasons to think that the 7-sphere is unstable, and this is why we do not directly experience Octonion Physics.

The question is - Do octonion-like 7-spheres decompose into a complex pair of quaternion-like 3-spheres? Or do octonion-like 7-spheres decompose into a quaternion-like 3-sphere within a super-Euclidean 4-ball? The outcomes make a difference as to whether 'measurements' should be considered strictly real: +1, -1; or whether imaginary 'measurements' of +i, -i are permitted somewhere within that 8-D 7-sphere space.

Of course, imaginary mass leads to superluminal tachyons - a possible violation of 'local reality', and a possible agreement with OPERA.

Have Fun!

report post as inappropriate

Joy Christian replied on Nov. 1, 2011 @ 22:00 GMT
Hi Ray,

Thank you for your comments. We have gone through this argument before, haven't we?

Let me break up the idea of local causality into two parts to make my point clear: (1) no-signalling non-locality (or quantum non-locality), and (2) signalling non-locality (or relativistic non-locality).

Now if you are right and OPERA has revealed violation of relativistic locality, then all bets are off. We then enter a major paradigm shift---a major revolution in physics. Let us wait and see what the second run of OPERA reveals, but I am not losing my sleep over it.

This brings us to the no-signalling non-locality, or quantum non-locality. Here, I am afraid, both you and I are talking past each other. I don't understand your worries, and you don't seem to understand the language and framework I have been using. Within my framework measurement results are always real, +1 and -1, and they can always be constructed as limiting cases of classical, real, octonionic spinors. In statistical terms these numbers are then raw scores observed in the experiments. So, I am afraid, we have failed to communicate on this point.

Joy

report post as inappropriate

Ray Munroe replied on Nov. 2, 2011 @ 11:49 GMT
Hi Joy,

Yes - We have been down this road before, and I'm not here to argue ad infinitum.

IF you have a broken 7-sphere, then:

1) it doesn't have the non-associative property of octonions, and

2) it is not particularly symmetrical - a quaternion 3-sphere and a super-Euclidean 4-ball is NOT a bi-quaternion (although Nature does not need to conform to our expectations of symmetry).

I expect the broken octonion-like 7-sphere to more-closely resemble a complex pair of quaternion-like 3-spheres. This introduces complex numbers into our 'measurements', such that a collection of 'measurements' should yield

exp(i*theta), which is a unit-radius 1-sphere within the complex Argand plane. Statistical analysis of this complex 1-sphere should lead to Anyonic Statistics, which are a generalization of Bosons and Fermions that permit superluminal tachyons. We might expect a TOE to require a generalization of Bosons and Fermions. We might also expect the inclusion of superluminal tachyons to help explain the OPERA results. Perhaps tachyons are part of the octonion non-associativity, but that gets beyond my skills.

What does it all mean? It simply means that you and I disagree on how the 7-sphere should decompose. The 7-sphere is not 'unified' or else we would experience an 8-D reality that included non-associative properties. Different 7-sphere fragments can lead to different physics.

Have Fun!

report post as inappropriate

T H Ray replied on Nov. 2, 2011 @ 12:14 GMT
Ray,

I've not been able to understand this claim you continue to make, regarding "imaginary measurements." There is no such thing.

Yes, all division algebras originate in the complex plane, and have to -- because complex numbers are the only algebraically closed set, i.e., tractable to solutions under all the rational, i.e., arithmetic, operations (division, addition, multiplication and extraction of roots). When one moves up to the "hyper" classification of numbers -- quaternions and octonions -- the loss of commutativity (octonions) and loss of both commutativity and associativity (octonions) guarantees solutions restricted to the real line, R.

Further, though, Joy's framework is topological. That is why he can say that Bell's "flat plane" dependence on R independent of complex analysis is a false representation of classical measures, which are continuous, as opposed to independent discrete outcomes on R. (It is also one source of disagreement between Florin and me -- he insists that algebraic closure plays no role in geometric algebra; in fact, it plays the key role, because the algebra depends on 2-dimensional analysis at its foundation.) Let's introduce topology, in which R, which is well ordered in arithmetic (by Zorn's lemma) becomes dependent for partial order on its orientation on the sphere -- either (0, + 1] or (0, - 1]. As I noted in a previous post, these intervals can be translated to the language of improper integrals in order to restore analysis to the algebraic results.

So -- let's take the topology of S^2 (the 3-ball) and make it into a 3-sphere (S^3, the complex, or Riemann, sphere) by the operation S^2 X S^2. This is a 1-point compactification of the 2-dimension complex plane, with a point at infinity. This means that the equator of S^3 accommodates only 3 results: + 1, - 1 and the imaginary number i. And here is where I think you get tripped up, in supposing that the i is a measurement -- not so. Complex analysis (i^2 = - 1) is geomtrically interpreted as rotations in the complex plane. Joy has shown that to the limit of S^7, spherical rotations using spacetime algebra (geometric algebra) guarantee only real measurements on S^3. In other words, though we "live" in S^7, measured events are restricted to S^3 -- classical 4-dimension spacetime.

I find the case to be tightly reasoned and mathematically correct.

Tom

report post as inappropriate

Paul Reed wrote on Nov. 2, 2011 @ 15:20 GMT
Joy

There is no way I can understand the maths, but to me the logic seems to work, which might not be as contradictory a statement as first appears.

I can follow the notions: needing to account for every possibility, standard scores/observed raw scores, correlations, measurements detections of one of two possible orientations (local rotations), hidden variable is the initial orientation of the physical space itself which predetermines all possible outcomes at all possible measurement directions, measurement results are not contextual in any sense, etc, etc. In other words, to me it appears, given X, to be an appropriate mathematical model for quantifying Y.

My one problem is when you say: “we live in a parallelized 3-sphere, which differs from our usual conception of the physical space as IR³ only by a single point at infinity”.

I suppose the first question is, if possible, can you explain this state in simple terms. And then comment on my immediate reaction to this (ie you may not literally mean live in, and I do not understand the state), which is that that appears to me to be a ‘leap of faith’, ie from a valid model for a purpose, to an equivalence to the logical form of the reality we inhabit. In the first place, we do not inhabit an open-ended, infinite, metaphysical reality; it is limited by our awareness. Second, our awareness is of a representation of reality which we receive, it is different from reality. For example, observation is based on a light based representation of reality, not reality.

Paul

report post as inappropriate

Joy Christian replied on Nov. 2, 2011 @ 16:47 GMT
Paul,

By the sentence you quote I simply mean this: In non-relativistic physics one usually models the space we inhabit as a three-dimensional Euclidean continuum, R3. This space is non-compact in a very precise mathematical sense. What I am saying is that the space we actually inhabit is better modelled by a parallelized 3-sphere, S3, which is a one-point compactification of R3 achieved by mapping all of the points of R3 at infinity to a single point, while maintaining the curvature of the resulting topological sphere to be zero. The torsion of S3 will then be non-zero giving rise to the quantum (or EPR) correlations.

What you call "leap of faith" is called "inductive inference" in science. Also, my concerns at the moment are focused on one very specific problem in physics: that of understanding the origins of quantum correlations. The philosophical concerns you raise are a different can of worms.

Joy

report post as inappropriate

Paul Reed replied on Nov. 3, 2011 @ 09:51 GMT
Joy

Thanks for that. Now, of course Uncle Albert came to the same conclusion, in terms of how we mathematically depict reality. It is upsetting people in this forum, but the simple fact is that his basic conception was that we live in a reality which is somewhat amorphous, due to the force of gravitation. Dimensions alter. So one has to be careful to ensure a comparison involves like with...

view entire post

report post as inappropriate

Florin Moldoveanu wrote on Nov. 3, 2011 @ 00:40 GMT
Dear Joy,

I have to admit that I did not believe you would actually reply on the archive to my paper. Hats off to that. However, I do not agree with your reply as you would naturally guess. I will reply to you on the archive, but I am extremely extremely busy at the moment and this debate is on my back burner for now. I hope to revisit the issue in about a month.

Best,

Florin

report post as inappropriate

Joy Christian replied on Nov. 3, 2011 @ 06:59 GMT
I have lost interest in your criticisms. After having spent time on your preprints I have only confirmed my suspicion that you haven't understood the first thing about my framework. Once you tried to vilify Tom by telling him that he was not qualified to comment on my papers. Well, your own arguments contain high-school errors in logic, geometric algebra, basic statistics, phenomenology of the EPR-Bohm experiments, topology of the 3-sphere, the notion of contextuality, and worst of all Bell's theorem itself. I much rather spend time moving my program forward then keep responding to your criticisms. But if I am forced to, then I will.

report post as inappropriate

Florin Moldoveanu replied on Nov. 3, 2011 @ 12:44 GMT
Frankly, I am tired too. Humpty Dumpty is broken and all the king's horses and all the king's men cannot but it together again. No cover up and empty rhetoric can rebuild the castle of cards.

report post as inappropriate

Joy Christian replied on Nov. 3, 2011 @ 13:25 GMT
Indeed, the Humpty Dumpty of Bell-ideology is broken, and all the queen's horses and all the queen's men cannot put it back together again. No cover up, empty rhetoric, twisting of facts, or desperate denials can rebuild the castle over again.

report post as inappropriate

Peter Jackson wrote on Nov. 3, 2011 @ 18:46 GMT
Joy

I suspect perhaps a plant, but I'm sure you're quite well prepared for the usual troglodyte backlash that goes with all advancement and will ebb quite slowly. This is humankind. Those of less open minds who cannot understand and fear their beliefs being corrected will always decry.

I commend you for just about the most rigorous, comprehensive and logical analysis of a construct well beyond the capabilities of most to unravel. It also seems to clarify murky physics and expose incorrect assumptions well into ontological areas beyond your present scope. I believe you may rest assured that these will flow.

Peter

Peter

report post as inappropriate

Joy Christian replied on Nov. 3, 2011 @ 19:29 GMT
Thanks, Peter.

Joy

report post as inappropriate

amrit wrote on Nov. 3, 2011 @ 22:53 GMT
Regarding the recent report of CERN on Higgs boson,

there is an alternative view:

change of density of quantum vacuum might generate mass

see file attached.

yours sincerely amrit

report post as inappropriate

Armin Nikkhah Shirazi wrote on Nov. 4, 2011 @ 08:36 GMT
Hi Joy,

I have a simple conceptual question about your model for which I hope you can give me simple conceptual answer.

You state on the first page that:

"Here mu=lambda I is a hidden variable or the complete state of the system, with lambda=± 1 being a fair coin and I = e_xe_ye_z being the fundamental volume form of the physical space."

and further down that:

"All measurement results, such as A (a,lambda) = ± 1, B(b,lambda) = ± 1, etc., are simply detections of one of the two possible orientations-or one of the two possible senses of local rotations-of this 3-sphere, predetermined by the initial state lambda= ± 1. In other words, the hidden variable in this picture is the initial orientation of the physical space itself, which predetermines all possible outcomes at all possible measurement directions in the EPR-Bohm scenario. As a result, the measurement results are not contextual in any sense. "

What I would like to know is what is the boundary of the region of space to which a particular orientation in the sense you describe applies (e.g. does a particular orientation apply to all of space, or just a region of it? If it is just a region, what separates it from another region of space which has a different orientation etc.)

Thank you

Armin

report post as inappropriate

Joy Christian replied on Nov. 4, 2011 @ 12:43 GMT
Hi Armin,

Good question.

We are only concerned about the space confining the closed EPR-Bell system. As a closed physical system, the two particles in it start out in an initial state defined by the sign of the volume form characterizing this space. There is no definite boundary to this space of course, because in the course of time the two particles can get as far apart from each other as they like (as long as no measurement takes place). We are not concerned about other regions of space or their possible orientations.

Joy

report post as inappropriate

Peter Jackson replied on Nov. 4, 2011 @ 13:31 GMT
Joy, Armin

May I get a view on the following possible alternative conception;

Any space confining a closed system must be bounded, so we propose it is bounded, and so defined, by particles of the certain orientation, and at rest in the inertial frame they bound. Perhaps free electrons at around 1m/cm^3, (as found at planetary and 'system' bow shocks).

Particles travelling within the system retain their initial state and precise qualities. Any moving between inertial systems will change state and orientation due to interaction and the system co-motion motion. (We may here consider that shocks are where two inertial systems meet, which causes the high Navier-Stokes magnetohydrodynamic 'mixing' turbulence).

This seems to derive local reality and observed effects. The changes would be lambda, frequency and orientation (optical axis rotation), which makes c co-variant, (for an observer also changing frame with the particle). [Faraday rotation, inc. IFR, and any Huygens refraction due to relative speed change are separate effects]. Subject to relative system vector the changes may be left or right handed (Chirality) and explain elliptical polarisation. This preserves the SR postulates and principles. May this also ontologically derive the correct results?

Peter

report post as inappropriate

Joy Christian replied on Nov. 4, 2011 @ 13:48 GMT
Peter,

It is important to distinguish no-signalling non-locality (or quantum non-locality) from signalling non-locality (or relativistic non-locality). Bell's theorem is primarily about the former, whereas what you are talking about is the latter. Your suggestion cannot address the issue of quantum non-locality.

Joy

report post as inappropriate

T H Ray wrote on Nov. 4, 2011 @ 11:45 GMT
Ever since Paul brought up the question "why inductive inference?" (and I also see others asking for more intuitive examples of continuous measurement criteria vs. discrete experimental outcomes), I have been mulling over ways to explain it.

Let's examine a modified version of Bell's famous "Bertlmann's socks" analogy.

(Briefly, for those unfamiliar with the analogy, Professor...

view entire post

report post as inappropriate

John Merryman replied on Nov. 4, 2011 @ 12:42 GMT
Tom,

Isn't that a closed system and are not closed systems inherently entropic? Which would re-introduce unpredictability.

report post as inappropriate

T H Ray replied on Nov. 4, 2011 @ 13:07 GMT
Entropy can be defined on either open or closed systems. No issue there.

report post as inappropriate

Pentcho Valev replied on Nov. 4, 2011 @ 13:14 GMT
T H Ray wrote: "Entropy can be defined on either open or closed systems."

Paul Feyerabend would comment: "Anything goes".

Pentcho Valev pvalev@yahoo.com

report post as inappropriate

Paul Reed wrote on Nov. 4, 2011 @ 16:43 GMT
Tom

Thanks for picking up my point on “inductive inference”. I think I need to stress first of all that my point was: this is a mathematical model, for a purpose, why the assumption that it therefore represents the reality we actually inhabit, ie picking up on Joy’s phrase in the paper (section 1, para 4) that “we live in”.

Perhaps we can have models, to solve a problem,...

view entire post

report post as inappropriate

Paul Reed replied on Nov. 4, 2011 @ 16:50 GMT
I must go to specsavers. This is the second time today I've misposted something. Though it is obvious where it should be. More importantly, there should be the word 'not' before conjecture in the last sentence.

Paul

report post as inappropriate

T H Ray replied on Nov. 4, 2011 @ 17:08 GMT
Paul,

You wrote, " ... my point was: this is a mathematical model, for a purpose, why the assumption that it therefore represents the reality we actually inhabit, ie picking up on Joy’s phrase in the paper (section 1, para 4) that “we live in”."

Joy's deduction of the space we live in (the manifold of S^7) is independent of the space in which we measure (the manifold of S^4); because the unique properties of S^7 allow (and perhaps, compel) continuous measurement functions (correlations)on S^4, however, the judgment is sound, and closed, both topologically and algebraically. The important thing to understand from a scientific perspective is that we ONLY understand "reality" through our models and their correspondence to measurement. Science isn't philosophy -- we don't assume reality and then set out to prove what we assume.

"Perhaps we can have models, to solve a problem, that do not necessarily reflect reality."

Perhaps. That does not imply, however, that we have scientific understanding of physical phenomena, beyond the models that DO correspond to reality, i.e., predicted measurement.

"On your analogy. Surely, 'The simple inference is that I shower at home if and only if I didn't shower at the gym the day before', is incorrect."

No it isn't.

"All you have stated is that each day there is a wash, and either it occurs at home in the morning, or it occurs at the gym in the afternoon/evening. Therefore, to be able to take a decision on whether to wash in the morning, you have to have decided whether you are going to the gym later, on any given day."

The analogy doesn't have anything to do with what I "really" choose to do. Does a photon "really" choose to be spin up or spin down because it was observed? -- standard QM says yes, because the theory assigns value to nonlocality and therefore reality is observer-created. Classical reality isn't.

"Now, as far as I could understand, Joy’s model is an attempt to create a dependence free mathematical model which can calculate probabilities in respect of a certain form of circumstance."

No. Coordinate-free. Meaning that the model is non-contextual, and -- being mathematically complete -- can in principle calculate all outcomes with knowledge of topology and initial condition.

"Indeed, it should not be taking account of the time parameter, as such, because time does not exist."

Says who?

"Reality is changing, different entities/attributes thereof, at different rates."

Science does not assume reality.

"There is no overall ‘clock’. We use a duration measuring system, based on the best devices available."

I thought you said time doesn't exist. How do you measure something that doesn't exist?

"PS: do you wash your socks every day, and if so, when & where? I think we should be told!!"

I wash my socks every week in an undisclosed, but not unknown, location.

Tom

report post as inappropriate

Eckard Blumschein replied on Nov. 4, 2011 @ 19:44 GMT
Tom,

You wrote: "Science does not assume reality." Can you please explain your notion of reality? I already asked you to do so, but I did not get aware of an answer.

Eckard

report post as inappropriate

Author Frank Martin DiMeglio wrote on Nov. 5, 2011 @ 20:21 GMT
Bodily experience (including visual) and thoughful experience -- and also instantaneity -- present the biggest and ultimate challenge for physics and unification theory.

report post as inappropriate

Fred Diether wrote on Nov. 6, 2011 @ 01:20 GMT
Hi Everyone,

Joy, congrats on your new arXiv paper linked above. It should hopefully commpletely dispell any doubts that your math and model are correct and is in fact a valid counter-example to Bell. IMHO, it is a substantial breakthough in physics. Not just because of being a counter-example to Bell but more because of your title of this blog.

I was doing some more studying of Hopf Fibration and stumbled across a very good 1 hour video lecture by Niles Johnson of the University of Georgia on "Visuualizations of the Hopf Fibration". Now I know that Tom, Ray, Joy and probably some others already know this material but for those that don't and want to know more I highly recommend watching the lecture as it is a good explanation of some the topology involved in Joy's model. Also, if you search Youtube for Hopf Fibration you will find some incredible animations.

After seeing these animations, I would think that sophisticated software such as this producing these animations could in fact successfully simulate Joy's model on a computer.

Fred

report post as inappropriate

Joy Christian replied on Nov. 6, 2011 @ 10:38 GMT
Hi Fred,

Many thanks for your kind words about my work. Yes, it is indeed the origins (or raison d'être) of quantum correlations that interests me more than Bell's theorem itself. I am quite intrigued by the fact that I am driven to 7-sphere in this regard which people like Ray Munroe, Garrett Lisi, Michael Atiyah, and others have also arrived at from very different direction.

Thanks also for the link to Niles Johnson's lecture on Hopf fibration. I enjoyed the lecture very much.

I also agree that some sophisticated software such as those you mention may lead to a computer simulation of my model. That would be a nice.

Best,

Joy

report post as inappropriate

T H Ray replied on Nov. 6, 2011 @ 11:57 GMT
Thanks, Fred! I think Johnson's computer animation at the end should give one a more or less intuitive idea of why Joy's functions are complete, continuous, integrable and orientable.

Unlike Joy, I am skeptical about the possibilities of computer simulation, because the mathematical parameters do not map one for one to the physical space in a time-symmetric way. For example, while we can simulate Kepler's elliptic orbits, real time observation in physical space gives us an infinite number of curve fits to the trajectory.

Sure, we can probably create a simulation in the form of computer animation. That won't satisfy Bell loyalists on the nature of physical spacetime, however.

Tom

report post as inappropriate

Joy Christian replied on Nov. 6, 2011 @ 12:24 GMT
Tom,

I completely agree with your comments. I have expressed somewhat similar skepticism myself in section VII of my paper. However, I think Fred is talking about simulation simply to have a better intuitive understanding of the model. As for Bell loyalists, nothing will satisfy them, so it is best to concentrate our efforts on moving the program forward rather than worrying about their support.

Joy

report post as inappropriate

Edwin Eugene Klingman wrote on Nov. 7, 2011 @ 04:47 GMT
Dear Joy Christian,

The problem that you address focuses on Bell's challenge that a 'hidden variable' -- representing any equations or properties or parameters not normally included in the standard quantum formulation -- cannot produce the correlations predicted by quantum mechanics. You have met this challenge by choosing not a set of equations or properties but by altering the topology...

view entire post

report post as inappropriate

Joy Christian replied on Nov. 7, 2011 @ 09:51 GMT
Dear Edwin,

Thank you for your comments. You write: "Bell assumes a unit vector ^a or ^b to represent the inhomogeneous field required by the experiment..."

Bell's theorem does not depend on any such assumption. He allows arbitrary experimental contexts that can be represented by any old symbols: say s or t, or whatever. It does not matter. Neither does his theorem depend on physical assumptions like homogenous magnetic field, or spin systems.

Bell has made no mistake in logic of the kind you claim he has. I am afraid you have not understood Bell's theorem. I highly recommend understanding the theorem first before criticising it. A good place for understanding the theorem is the Report on it by Clauser and Shimony (Ref. [22] of my paper). See especially section 3.5 of the Report to recognize that Bell's theorem does not depend on the kind of assumptions you claim it does.

Moreover, the real problem is not the EPR correlations, but ALL quantum correlations, whatever the underlying quantum state. I claim that this real problem can be solved ONLY by recognizing that we live in a parallelized 7-sphere. It can be solved ONLY by my analysis and no other. This is my claim.

Best regards,

Joy

report post as inappropriate

Paul Reed replied on Nov. 7, 2011 @ 10:01 GMT
Edwin

Fundamentally, I think it would help if everybody could agree on what the actual underlying probem is that this model is trying to resolve. That is, what is its purpose, potentially disproving Bell just being a consequence.

Paul

report post as inappropriate

Edwin Eugene Klingman replied on Nov. 7, 2011 @ 20:44 GMT
Joy,

You may be correct that Bell's theorem does not depend upon physical assumptions like the homogeneous field or spin systems. But the EPR experiment certainly does, and he has, in my opinion, formulated an incorrect model of this. Therefore the model is incorrect. We will just have to disagree on this.

Your other point is that EPR correlations can ONLY be solved by your analysis and no other. That is a very strong claim and I wish you well with it. My post in the thread above implies that an 'extra field' can perhaps achieve the same effect as an 'extra dimension' and this may or may not apply to EPR. I think it does. But a field can provide a chiral aspect (that corresponds to experiments) that an extra dimension apparently fails to do.

Do you believe that the chirality seen in physics is of no consequence or does it somehow fall out of the 7-sphere?

Best regards,

Edwin Eugene Klingman

report post as inappropriate

Eckard Blumschein wrote on Nov. 11, 2011 @ 07:57 GMT
"... disciplined ... in a mathematically very precise sense." My suspicion is so incredibly simple that it must be wrong - in the eyes of well educated physicists: What about the possibility that precise symmetry just indicates redundancy? Well, this questions some very foundations. Isn't the wave function complex?

Here I am claiming to be careful: As I tried to explain in my essays, use of negative time implies complex calculus and loss of commutativity. It is often clever to use linearized models with coordinates like x or t assumed to extend to both sides of zero. Extension from minus infinity to plus infinity seems to provide unlimited applicability. Students are told: The solution is in general complex.

I appreciate in particular a Fig. 2 in a paper by Joy Christian that illustrates the difference between the written for good past and the undecided future. This distinction clearly contradicts to the celebrated spacetime, whose assumed a priori existence is inextricably linked with Einstein's hypothesis of relativity.

I do not support those like Pentcho Valev who are denies the postulate of constant speed of light or like Peter Jackson who is suggesting something that can experimentally be proved wrong for any wave. The mistakes I am after seem to be older. Why not taking into account the possibility that the postulate of relativity is just an albeit clever illusion?

Eckard

report post as inappropriate

Paul Reed replied on Nov. 11, 2011 @ 10:56 GMT
Eckard

Think on this. If a precise symmetry is not real, but a function of the maths, then yes there is redundancy, because actually, there is nothing there. I am not saying this is happening, just a, somewhat obvious, comment.

"negative time", what is this?

I am not sure what your point re a fig 2 and inextricable links to Einstein refers to. His principle of relativity was that laws must be operable in all circumstances. His theory of relativity was that reality is somewhat amorphous (a function of the gravitation force), so standard measurement techniques will not suffice. And that one, obviously, had to factor in the timing delay when considering the individual observations of any given existent event.

A judgement as to whether the "postulate of relativity is just an albeit clever illusion" must be based on a proper understanding as to what that postulate was, according to Einstein.

Paul

report post as inappropriate

Eckard Blumschein replied on Nov. 11, 2011 @ 19:48 GMT
Paul,

Your comment is correct and appreciated.

Physics operates so far with an event-bound time scale with arbitrarily chosen zero. Isn't a moving relative to it scale more of just elapsed time more natural? The zero of this alternative scale is permanently located at the border between past and future. If we count (backward in usual time) elapsed time positive, then the not yet decided future is negative (elapsed) time.

Mentioned Fig. 2 illustrates an unchangeable single world line showing the past that splits at t=0, where the cones of past and future have a point in common, into a not yet calculable so far amorphous bundle of possibilities inside the cone of future.

The intentions of Einstein as well as the ideas he incorporated are clearly understandable to me. I just consider Lorentz contraction at least questionable and Einstein's first postulate (unrestricted applicability of time shift) not even an original but a illusory idea, although the illogical reference of c to the observer seemed to provide an elegant solution.

While I do not expect that the laws do not hold in future, prediction of the future will always remain somewhat uncertain since the required for exact prediction amount of initial conditions is in reality infinite.

Eckard

report post as inappropriate

Paul Reed replied on Nov. 13, 2011 @ 07:33 GMT
Eckard

Yes I do not think (ie some hesitation on my part)that arbitrarily chosen zero matters. Because with many attributes, one is comparing and identifying difference. It is the difference that is real, within our reality. So the scale deployed in measurement systems is irrelevant. They are just units, a common denominator in which to consider various examples of the attribute. For...

view entire post

report post as inappropriate

Cristi Stoica wrote on Nov. 11, 2011 @ 09:42 GMT
Dear Joy,

In Can Bell's Prescription for Physical Reality Be Considered Complete?, page 4, you wrote the following equation:

${\cal E}({\bf a},\,{\bf b})\,=\,\frac{1}{N}\sum_{j\,=\,1}^{N}\,\{{sign}\,({\bf\lambda}_j\cdot{\bf a})\}\,\{{sign}\,(-{\bf\lambda}_j\cdot{\bf b})\},\,\, (16)$

There, you claim that the experiment you proposed to be performed in the macroscopic domain will provide a collection of angular momenta lambdaj which, when inserted into equation (16) for large number of trials N, will give

${\cal E}({\bf a},\,{\bf b})=-\,{\bf a}\cdot{\bf b}\,\, (15)$

and will refute

${\cal E}({\bf a},\,{\bf b})\,=\,\frac{2}{\pi}\,\cos^{-1}\left({\bf a}\cdot{\bf b}\right)-1\,\, (3)$

Q1: Do you claim that it is mathematically possible to exist a collection of lambdaj which, when plugged into eqn. (16), vindicate (15) and refute (3)?

(in the cited paper you wrote "we believe the experiment will vindicate prediction (15) and refute prediction (3)")

Q2: Do you agree that dot products in the above equations can be written using real numbers and the usual operations with real numbers, in the form

$-{\bf\lambda}_j\cdot{\bf b} = -{\lambda}_{jx}{ b}_x -{\lambda}_{jy}{ b}_y -{\lambda}_{jz}{ b}_z,$

respectively

$-\,{\bf a}\cdot{\bf b} = -\,{ a}_x{ b}_x-\,{ a}_y{ b}_y-\,{ a}_z{ b}_y?$

Q3: In this case (Q2=TRUE), isn't already proven mathematically that there is no such collection of lambdaj which refute the linear (in the angle) (3) in favor of the cos-shaped (15)?

Thank you,

Cristi Stoica

P.S. I formulated the questions so that you can give simple yes/no answers to them, but of course you are welcome to explain your answers.

report post as inappropriate

Cristi Stoica replied on Nov. 11, 2011 @ 10:18 GMT
Erratum: Please replace the second equation in Q2 by:

$-\,{\bf a}\cdot{\bf b} = -\,{ a}_x{ b}_x-\,{ a}_y{ b}_y-\,{ a}_z{ b}_z$

P.S. wrote equation (3) (and the Q2 equations) in a way which avoids the plus sign, which is not rendered, probably because of some url encoding reason.

report post as inappropriate

Joy Christian replied on Nov. 11, 2011 @ 12:42 GMT
Cristi,

We have gone through your questions at great length before (for example on this page). Equation (16) is a phenomenological equation, not a theoretical computation of the observed correlation.

Joy

report post as inappropriate

Cristi Stoica replied on Nov. 11, 2011 @ 17:03 GMT
Dear Joy,

Such a collection of lambdaj as you claimed cannot exist, because mathematics forbids it to exist. Calling eqn. (16) phenomenological doesn't make it immune to the math rules governing the operations which you used in it.

I don't say that IF you calculate the lambdas from some assumptions, they will not contradict eqn. (3). I say more than this: that no matter how you obtain them, they can't contradict eqn. (3) in favor of equation (15). Never. No matter how you obtain them. That's math.

The answer to my 3 questions above is "yes".

Cristi

report post as inappropriate

Joy Christian wrote on Nov. 11, 2011 @ 21:57 GMT

report post as inappropriate

Cristi Stoica replied on Nov. 12, 2011 @ 06:22 GMT
Joy,

It is easy to give replies like this, to avoid answering my three questions above. Answering them will reveal where is the problem: if your claim is true, this would lead directly to the existence of some numbers which would contradict a well-established mathematical result. Established before I was even born, so it's not *my math*.

You claim that your experiment can provide numbers which, introduced in

${\cal E}({\bf a},\,{\bf b})\,=\,\frac{1}{N}\sum_{j\,=\,1}^{N}\,\{{sign}\,({\bf\lambda}_j\cdot{\bf a})\}\,\{{sign}\,(-{\bf\lambda}_j\cdot{\bf b})\},\,\, (16)$

${\cal E}({\bf a},\,{\bf b})=-\,{\bf a}\cdot{\bf b}\,\, (15)$

and will refute

${\cal E}({\bf a},\,{\bf b})\,=\,\frac{2}{\pi}\,\cos^{-1}\left({\bf a}\cdot{\bf b}\right)-1\,\, (3)$

It is equation (3) which is mathematically proven to hold, in contrast to equation (15). So your claim contradicts math, not "my math".

QED

Cristi

report post as inappropriate

Fred Diether replied on Nov. 12, 2011 @ 07:10 GMT
Cristi,

If eq. (15) is the result of quantum theory, then how can what you are saying be true?

Fred

report post as inappropriate

Cristi Stoica replied on Nov. 12, 2011 @ 07:56 GMT
Fred,

I never said that eq. (15) is not true in quantum mechanics.

The question is whether it can be true in the macroscopic domain, as Joy claims in his paper Can Bell's Prescription for Physical Reality Be Considered Complete? cited above. In fact, the question is whether it can be obtained as Joy claims. In that paper, it is claimed that the equation (15) is obtained in the macroscopic domain, not as a result of quantum mechanics.

In quantum mechanics, eqn. (15) is true and (3) false, because they are not obtained by plugging angular momenta into Joy's eqn. (16), but rather from the formalism of quantum mechanics. Joy's claim is that (15) can be obtained by putting some numbers in (16), which can't be true, because mathematics forbids the existence of such numbers.

So I am not saying that (15) is not true for quantum mechanics, only that the right hand side of eqn (16) cannot be equal to the right hand side of the eqn. (15) (instead of (3)).

Cristi

report post as inappropriate

Saibal Mitra wrote on Nov. 11, 2011 @ 22:36 GMT
This being a determinstic theory, is there any way to demonstrate a deviation from randomness? In Bohm theory, this would require devations of quantum equilibrium:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_equilibrium
_hypothesis

report post as inappropriate

Joy Christian replied on Nov. 11, 2011 @ 23:00 GMT
Thank you for your question. What I have proposed so far is a framework that can reproduce any quantum mechanical correlation classically. It is not yet developed sufficiently to address the question you have raised.

report post as inappropriate

Cristi wrote on Nov. 12, 2011 @ 08:29 GMT
I'd like to resume:

In this paper Joy claims that his proposed experiment to be performed in the macroscopic domain will deliver a set of angular momenta

$(\bf\lambda_j)_{j=1}^N$

which, for large N, gives

$\frac{1}{N}\sum_{j\,=\,1}^{N}\,\{{sign}\,({\bf\lambda}_j\cdot{\bf a})\}\,\{{sign}\,(-{\bf\lambda}_j\cdot{\bf b})\},\,\approx\, -\,{\bf a}\cdot{\bf b}.$

This contradicts the mathematically proven result that

$\frac{1}{N}\sum_{j\,=\,1}^{N}\,\{{sign}\,({\bf\lambda}_j\cdot{\bf a})\}\,\{{sign}\,(-{\bf\lambda}_j\cdot{\bf b})\},\,\approx\, \frac{2}{\pi}\,\cos^{-1}\left({\bf a}\cdot{\bf b}\right)-1.$

Cristi

report post as inappropriate

Joy Christian replied on Nov. 12, 2011 @ 10:51 GMT
Cristi,

Equation (16) is a phenomenological equation, not a theoretical computation of the observed correlation. Lambdas are not calculated mathematically---they are observed and recorded directions of the angular momenta. For a full understanding of the experiment read my papers.

Joy

report post as inappropriate

Cristi Stoica replied on Nov. 12, 2011 @ 21:36 GMT
Joy,

Just calling an impossible thing "phenomenological" doesn't make it possible.

"they are observed and recorded directions of the angular momenta"

Where? Could you please show these records? Then show that they satisfy the identity you claimed.

Cristi

report post as inappropriate

Joy Christian replied on Nov. 12, 2011 @ 21:44 GMT
Cristi,

Would you please read my papers and try not to misrepresent my work for a change?

Joy

report post as inappropriate

John Merryman wrote on Nov. 13, 2011 @ 03:54 GMT
Uh oh. We have Lawrence and Tom on opposite sides of this. One's mirror image is another's negative....

report post as inappropriate

Armin Nikkhah Shirazi wrote on Nov. 13, 2011 @ 03:56 GMT
Hi Joy,

Is your hidden variable, "the orientation of space", identifiable with parity for a local region of space? If it is, does the fact that parity is violated in weak interactions not provide indirect evidence against your theory, for if the orientation of space was really variable, then should we not expect that at least sometimes the weak interactions would fail to violate parity? If it is not, then how can it be locally distinguished, e.g. how does the the parity violation of weak interactions fail to be a test of the orientation of space?

report post as inappropriate

Fred Diether replied on Nov. 13, 2011 @ 06:15 GMT
Hi Armin,

I don't think "orientation of space" is the same as parity for quantum objects such as those involved in the weak interations. IOW, I think you are talking about properties of certain quantum objects vs. properties of space. But overall it is an interesting question. How much do the propreties of space affect interations of elementary particles in Joy's model?

Fred

report post as inappropriate

Joy Christian replied on Nov. 13, 2011 @ 11:35 GMT
Hi Armin,

The orientation of the 3-sphere (which is taken as a model of the physical space in my framework), has nothing to do with parity. The orientation of space is not a variable in general (it does not vary from one point of space to another). It defines the initial or complete state of the EPR system (as conceptualized by Bell in his local model).

Joy

report post as inappropriate

Edwin Eugene Klingman replied on Nov. 13, 2011 @ 18:50 GMT
Dear Fred and Joy and Armin,

In response to Armin's query whether "the fact that parity is violated in weak interactions [does] not provide indirect evidence against your theory" Fred remarks "...overall it is an interesting question."

That was the intent behind my query of Nov. 7, 2011 @ 20:44 where I pointed out that a field can provide a chiral aspect (that corresponds to experiments) that an extra dimension apparently fails to do. I asked "Do you believe that the chirality seen in physics is of no consequence or does it somehow fall out of the 7-sphere?"

Joy responded that "The chiral aspect is built-in in the formalism of geometric algebra I have used in my models. The bivectors, for example, are naturally chiral."

Of course I knew that geometric algebraic objects support both left and right handedness. The problem is that the universe or nature exhibits an asymmetry. There are only left-handed neutrinos. Longo has shown an asymmetry favoring left-handed spiral galaxies with respect to the "axis of evil". It is well known that amino acids (and possibly other bio-molecules) favor left-handed symmetry. And, as Armin asked, "does the fact that parity is violated in weak interactions not provide indirect evidence against your theory?"

These are non-trivial facts, and we might legitimately question, when one asks us to re-conceptualize the very nature of space-time in favor of seven dimensions, how does this relate to these known asymmetries. There may be no relation, but this would seem to imply something serious is missing.

Of course, as Joy replied to Mitra below, his theory is a work-in-progress, nevertheless, asking such questions about chirality may stimulate Joy to either look for an explanation in his theory of space-time for the factual asymmetries, or consider why his theory does not address the problem.

As I stated, my preferred solution, a 'new' field, does explain the left-handedness found in nature.

Best Regards,

Edwin Eugene Klingman

report post as inappropriate

Cristi Stoica wrote on Nov. 13, 2011 @ 07:42 GMT
I just asked simple math question concerning the validity of one of Joy's paper. Joy decided again to attack the person instead of the argument, by suggesting that I am not qualified to discuss his work, using lines like these:

"Would you please read my papers and try not to misrepresent my work for a change?"

"Lawrence, [...] You are better than this (at least compared to the other two).

I said repeatedly that I read more than once his articles. This doesn't mean that I should accept without questioning his work.

I would like to submit myself to an exam on Joy's papers. I also would like to ask the presence of at least one specialist in Quantum Mechanics (in addition to Joy). This can be Prof. Shimony (who is acknowledged in Joy's articles) or another FQXi member, or a PI member. I will give to Joy the possibility to propose the qualified person(s).

1. The specialist(s) can then prepare a test from Joy's work, which I will gladly try to pass. I would invite Florin and Tom to participate too. I know that this is not necessary to allow comments, but in this case may be helpful, because critics like me and Florin are ignored, when such a reputed physicist like Joy simply disqualifies us.

2. In the presence of this specialist, I would like to ask questions like those I already asked to Joy on the FQXi's forums regarding his articles. I hope Florin to join me, with his own interesting and justified questions. And Lawrence, if he wishes.

3. Then I would kindly ask the invited expert(s) to evaluate our arguments.

I hope that modern day physics will allow equal opportunity to a reputed Oxford Professor and more modest commentators like us.

Cristi

report post as inappropriate

Paul Reed replied on Nov. 13, 2011 @ 08:51 GMT
I have some sympathy with the underlying point here.

I raised a question as to the extrinsic validity of this model. That is, can a model which addresses the observational issues of quantum correlation be deemed to be a represenation of the reality we live in. Whether or not it is intrinsically valid.

My point has been depicted as philosophy, which it is not. And even if it was, I did not make the assertion. I am just questioning whether there is substantive evidence to support it. And I note that the various threads above have all gone quiet, with my post being the last one.

Paul

report post as inappropriate

Cristi Stoica replied on Nov. 13, 2011 @ 09:46 GMT
I want to clarify that I do not suggest that one should be allowed to comment only if has passed an exam. This would be a wrong precedent, which would make the physics of our times even more closed. It would also contradict the benefit of the doubt principle: one should start by accepting that the comments of a scientific paper are made by people who understand the subject and have good intentions. One should accuse of lack of qualification or of misconduct only if there are reasons for this (others than that we don't like their point). I don't think I gave such reasons. I would prefer simply that the expert(s) just review the comments I already made, and those of Florin and others. But I am willing to give a short list of those arguments, to ease the work of the expert(s). The point 1 I proposed above is only intended to remove the accusations made by Joy. It is like a voluntary submission to the lie detector test.

Cristi

report post as inappropriate

Cristi Stoica replied on Nov. 13, 2011 @ 09:50 GMT
I sincerely regret that the things went this far. I read Joy's articles with interest and curiosity. I never pick a reading to attack the authors, I simply want to learn more physics. Joy's papers seemed to question widely accepted views, and I have great admiration for this kind of enterprises. Unfortunately, I had the lack of inspiration to question some statements from Joy's articles. I am aware that no new theory is born mature, it has to grow up. In software industry, everybody admits that bugs will exist, and that's why there are bug reports and new versions. Software engineers, although may not be happy when receiving bug reports, at least are grateful, because they want that the failure to happen as fast as possible, to minimize the damages. Of course, some adopt the motto "it's not a bug, it's a feature". I did not expect Joy to be grateful for my "bug reports". What I did not expect was such an escalation of commitment, which led to personal attacks against me and others. Normally, we all expect that there are personal attacks on the Internet. But when they come from an authority in the domain, his words may be very harmful for my reputation. So I have to defend myself.

Cristi

report post as inappropriate

Ray Munroe wrote on Nov. 13, 2011 @ 14:17 GMT
Dear Friends,

My latest paper with Jonathan Dickau uses a minimum 10-D TOE to explain superluminal neutrinos, and has been published in Prespacetime Journal.

I would like to draw your attention to the last two sections: "Geometric Attributes of Higher Dimensions" and "Thermo-Geometric Instabilities of the Octonion 7-Sphere" on pages 1806-9.

We present a case for why the 7-sphere should not be stable. In my opinion, this complicates, and may even negate, any conclusions that Joy and Tom may have made regarding 7-sphere geometry.

Have Fun!

attachments: 2968331PB.pdf

report post as inappropriate

Joy Christian replied on Nov. 13, 2011 @ 14:28 GMT
Congratulations, Ray.

I will have a look at your paper to see if it has any relevance for my model.

Joy

report post as inappropriate

Fred Diether replied on Nov. 13, 2011 @ 22:36 GMT
Hi Ray,

Why do you think the 7-sphere topology needs to be stable in application to Joy's model? Would it be sufficient for the 7-sphere topology to exist momentarily and then decay to the 3-sphere topology? Or does not being stable forbid it to exist at all?

I also had a look at your "Symplectic tiling, hypercolour and hyperflavor E12" paper. For your "2-D hexagonal Graphene-like G2 lattice", you might want to investigate an Apollonian gasket type of geometry without the outer circle boundary. If you haven't already.

Best,

Fred

report post as inappropriate

Ray Munroe replied on Nov. 14, 2011 @ 00:58 GMT
Hi Fred,

Yes - You raise some interesting questions. I think it is clear that we live in a quaternion Spacetime, and that we don't directly experience octonion physics. But perhaps Joy's procedure is an indication that the fundamental geometry should be (or was) octonion 7-spheres - close-packing of which leads to the E8 Gosset lattice. I also worry if Joy has over-simplified his octonion algebra by excluding complex numbers. As my latest paper shows, imaginary mass (tachyons) could eliminate everything that we think we understand about 'locality' and 'causality'.

The Apollonian gasket is an interesting combination of a G2-like geometry with fractals that may be the interface between the quantum (G2-like) scale and the classical (fractal-like) scale. My FQXi friend, Steve Dufourny and I blogged about this a lot a couple of years ago. I would also be interested in a 4-D application based on the 24-cell, and an 8-D application based on the Gosset lattice, but these applications are not as obvious as the Apollonian gasket.

Have Fun!

report post as inappropriate

Don Limuti (digitalwavetheory.com) wrote on Nov. 14, 2011 @ 01:45 GMT
Hi Joy Christian,

It is a pleasure to see the moderator participate in the posts.

A simple viewpoint:

An electron is always an electron at any instance. From instant to instant a golf ball is constantly changing. Why does the electron have such a high quality "quantum correlation"?

I believe the reason is that the electron and any quantum particle do not have a continuous existence in space-time.... Quantum particles are always non-local phenomena.

When this concept of non locality is applied to EPR we have:

http://www.digitalwavetheory.com/DWT/3g_EPR.html

When this concept of non locality applied to the arrow of time we have:

http://www.digitalwavetheory.com/DWT/42_The_Arrow_of_Ti
me.html

This viewpoint looks at non locality as a high level concept. If it is broken down and modeled it may well translate as stuff happening in multi-dimensions, perhaps a 7-sphere.

Don L.

report post as inappropriate

Paul Reed replied on Nov. 14, 2011 @ 10:54 GMT
Don

How about the possibility that the conception of the quantum particle and quantum correlation has a fundamental flaw in it, as an alternative approach to the point you raise? One must start with the assumption, until definitely proven otherwise, that all particles, elemetary or otherwise, exist in accord with the same rules.

Another way of putting this is, re your first sentence, the electron is changing "from instant to instant" (eg it moves), just as is the golf ball. Just as will any other 'particle', assuming it is real, and not just a hypothetical outcome of maths. It's all the same stuff, doing the same things, just in different formations. An elemetary particle may have a random movement, for example, but so what? it is still a movement, it's just erratic or random. It's duration of existence may be very short (and it changes, eg moves, in that time), but again so what? It exists, or at least certainly should do.

Paul

report post as inappropriate

Don Limuti (www.digitalwavetheory.com) replied on Nov. 14, 2011 @ 21:04 GMT
Paul,

You understand my viewpoint..Thanks. And you do not agree with it...Understandable.

I believe that there is a fundamental maximum for particle mass. This maximum value is the Planck mass. I show how this comes about on my web site, it is a theory and by no means "reality". However the theory can explain a lot (see www.digitalwavetheory.com).

I believe an experiment can be made to see if the theory has any merit. The experiment involves the observation of an individual Buckyball C60 that is made to move slow. The theory predicts that at a slow enough velocity the Buckyball will be seen to appear and disappear as it moves. The experiment is outlined at www.digitalwavetheory.com/DWT/20_Experiments-_QM.html

Don L.

report post as inappropriate

Paul Reed replied on Nov. 16, 2011 @ 08:56 GMT
Don

Not sure whether I agree or not, but I will take a look at your ref, that's more homework, must read Ray's first, then Eckard!

My concerns in this area are around any assumption that how stuff fundamentally exists is constituted differently as a function of atomic size. That is, in reality all stuff functions to the same basic rules, the problem is in the process of observation. Following on from that, the failure to differentiate light as an existent entity, from light in its evolutionary function as that which enables observation.

Paul

report post as inappropriate

Armin Nikkhah Shirazi wrote on Nov. 14, 2011 @ 07:57 GMT
Hello Joy,

1) You posit as global model of space a parallelized 3-sphere, which however, locally should appear to us exactly like ordinary space (but see my question 3 below). I infer the local indistinguishability between the two from your...

view entire post

report post as inappropriate

Joy Christian replied on Nov. 14, 2011 @ 12:09 GMT
Hi Armin,

Your first question seems to me to be a question of interpretation or language. Suppose we cannot distinguish the local orientation of the physical space from parity transformation. So what? One can then interpret the hidden variable of my model as a parity variable (not an operator, mind you, because we are doing classical, hidden variable physics). One can then say that the quantum state of the EPR system is completed by a hidden variable that specifies the initial parity state of the system. I don't find this interpretation particularly appealing, but it seems to me a perfectly viable interpretation of my hidden variable.

The answer to your second question depends on what one considers to be a closed system. For any closed system, such as the EPR-Bohm system, the orientation of the physical space, or the volume form "I", is part of what Bell called the complete or initial state of the system. In other words, the state of the system that is more complete than what can be specified by its quantum state. For a closed system there are no "other" quantum systems. All systems are part of the closed system.

Your third question goes well beyond the intended scope of the model. But let us extrapolate it to the level of the universe as a whole and speculate. The first point is that the parallelized 3-sphere is a model for very special quantum systems, like the EPR or two-level systems. When it comes to more general quantum systems, like the universe as a whole, the model in fact is a parallelized 7-sphere, which is a 4-sphere worth of 3-spheres, all linked to each other in a highly intricate twisted bundle. From this perspective the flatness of the universe would clearly have to be reassessed. Could it be that the universe is not really flat but only appears to be flat (a bit like in Flatland where the creatures of 2-dimensions could only see the sphere as a flat circle)? As you can see, we are now sliding well and truly into the realm of speculation.

Joy

report post as inappropriate

T H Ray replied on Nov. 14, 2011 @ 13:34 GMT
Armin,

What a breath of fresh air to explore consequences of the model instead of countering false claims.

With your and Joy's permission, my two cents:

1. I think that parity conservation in this context is identical to time-reverse symmetry. This is always apparent in classical and quasi-classical models. Even observed CP violations on the particle scale seem to be restored with CPT conservation on the classical.

2. How does spacetime vary point to point? A discrete quantum mechanical model cannot describe continuous state variations in a dynamic system -- i.e., general relativity, which describes the interaction between mass and spacetime. Since Joy's model is fully relativistic, and locally realistic, the orientation of spacetime would seem to depend on the time scale of observed correlated events -- the smaller the time interval, the greater the angular momentum -- so that quantum events correlated to infinity should exhibit a flat (elliptic) trajectory with zero angular momentum, which answers your question no. 3.

A "which way" question of trajectory orientation at any arbitrary moment -- + 1 (parabolic) or - 1 (hyperbolic) -- gives us observer entanglement with correlated particle pairs (equivalent to correlation of classical events), so that (as in a quantum mechanical system) knowledge of one trajectory implies the other (picture intersecting curves). That's the hidden variable -- i.e., the initial condition coupled to the topology at the time of observation. We are essentially dealing with the evolution of spacetime. The evolution of spacetime determines the trajectory of particle paths, so we use quantum correlations to predict the continuous trajectory with no assumption of nonlocality.

As I read back over this, I appreciate how hard it is to translate the mathematics into natural language. I read Joy's math, and it is very clear to me -- yet I am aware when I try to explain it that more questions will be raised to necessitate explaining the explanation. That's the way science progresses, though, and I know no better way.

Tom

report post as inappropriate

Author Frank Martin DiMeglio wrote on Nov. 14, 2011 @ 20:22 GMT
Inertial and gravitational equivalency and balancing are required of any realistic and fundamental understanding/description of quantum gravity. To fundamentally and truly unite gravity, inertia, and electromagnetism, gravity and inertia must both be at half force/strength.

Dreams fundamentally demonstrate instantaneity and all of the above.

report post as inappropriate

Eckard Blumschein wrote on Nov. 15, 2011 @ 11:03 GMT
Joy,

Let me try and begin to translate the mathematical notions you are using into relevant for physics easily understandable ones.

A 3-sphere corresponds to the the surface of a ball, which is called a 2-sphere, if one adds one more dimension: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/3-sphere .

I guess that we may further reduce the dimensions to just one dimension x of space and one dimension t of time in order to ease understanding of the essence. What remains is a 1-sphere alias a circle that includes an xt-area.

Now let's consider

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/3-sphere#One-point_compactifica
tion .

Instead of resting the south pole on the xy plane and then cutting out the north pole, we may map our circle on the line IR.

Is this correct so far?

Eckard

report post as inappropriate

Paul Reed replied on Nov. 16, 2011 @ 08:16 GMT
Eckard

I am not saying you are, but careful about reifying time into a dimension on a par with spatial. We have a multi spatial dimension reality, which is changing. It is timing, not time. We have, at any given point in time, the values of the spatial position of any given entity which will be x y z (up to however many spatial dimensions there are), or the spatial postion of any given entity,in terms of the dimensions, changed from X to Y in n units of time on the duration measuring system (known colloquially as time.

Paul

report post as inappropriate

Eckard Blumschein replied on Nov. 16, 2011 @ 18:12 GMT
Paul,

Admittedly I am still hoping for a mathematically qualified expert taking issue, in particular Joy to whom I addressed my request. I am aware of some issues that I do not consider worth quarreling about in that context, including the question t or ict. My point will be that we have NOT at any given point in time the values of the spatial position because future does not yet exist. Future data cannot be measured in advance. I already dislike the expression "in time" because it suggests an assumed a priori existing future. "In the past" is correct.

Eckard

report post as inappropriate

T H Ray replied on Nov. 16, 2011 @ 18:48 GMT
"Admittedly I am still hoping for a mathematically qualified expert taking issue ..."

Yes, Eckard, it would be interesting to find even a single mathematician talking about what mathematics has to do with "past" and "future." Unless the subject is the history of mathematics.

Tom

report post as inappropriate

T H Ray wrote on Nov. 15, 2011 @ 19:22 GMT
While trying to trace the exact origin of the "missing dollar" puzzle, which I never did find, I ran across another children's riddle which I found very illuminating in helping explain Joy's program in experimental terms. I think most of us have heard it before in one form or another:

A ferryman has to get a rabbit, a bag of carrots and a fox across the river. He can only take one at a time. Assume that the fox will not eat the rabbit, and the rabbit will not eat the carrots, when the ferryman is present. Neither will the fox or the rabbit run away.

Before you open the attachment, you might want to solve it for yourself. My interest is in showing the relation between random and fluctuating variables and how statistical inference can be determinisitic rather than probabilisitic, in a continuous function model.

Tom

attachments: Ferryman_Puzzle.pdf

report post as inappropriate

T H Ray replied on Nov. 15, 2011 @ 19:25 GMT
I meant fixed and fluctuating variables; i.e., a dependence on initial condition.

report post as inappropriate

Paul Reed replied on Nov. 16, 2011 @ 08:38 GMT
Tom

I do not understand the 'narrative solution'. According to the stated conditions, why not just 3 trips carrots, fox, rabbit. Rabbit and fox, and fox and carrots, can be left alone together. Rabbit and carrots cannot. Those conditions determine the permutation.

Paul

report post as inappropriate

Ferryman Diagram replied on Nov. 16, 2011 @ 08:52 GMT
After reading this illuminating explanation, everything became finally clear to me! All questions and objections raised on this forum and the others are now answered! So, the fox ate the minus sign, the rabbit mediates the correlations, the carrots are the promised angular momenta, and to cross the river is the cross product with ambiguous orientation! Wait, if the sign is a carrot, it means that the rabbit ate it. Or maybe... whatever...

report post as inappropriate

Joy Christian wrote on Nov. 16, 2011 @ 17:31 GMT
Dear Anonymous,

You asked: "Do you have a list containing the open problems and the challenges which remain to be resolved?"

I do not have a list as such but a few ideas about what to do next (after finishing my book). I am however not willing to discuss these ideas in an open forum like this. If you write to me privately, then I may be willing to discuss things more openly (my email address can be found in my papers).

There is one problem that I can discuss here. As you may know, I have proposed an experiment to test my ideas. This is a very difficult experiment to perform. A few months back I wrote to David Wineland about it. He said that the experiment is "doable." That is very encouraging. If performed, the experiment will test not only my central claim, but also the fact that the space we live in is a 3-sphere---i.e., it respects 4pi rotations as null operations not 2pi. Further details of the experiment can be found in this paper. So, the most important open problem is to actually perform this experiment.

One can also try to think about more ambitious experiments. The above experiment concerns only the 3-sphere, which is relevant for the two-level systems in my scheme. More generally, my claim is that we live in a parallelized 7-sphere. How can we test this hypothesis in a manner that would test my point of view? I have no idea how to go about this. But this is something one can explore, at least theoretically.

All the Best,

Joy

report post as inappropriate

Fred Diether replied on Nov. 17, 2011 @ 00:30 GMT
Hi Joy,

Until recently, I don't think anyone ever even considered doing a classical test because it was thought impossible to match the QM predictions. I am glad that you and others have recently raised doubts. But if you think about it, it is silly that a classical test wasn't considered. This is most likely the true way that the question of EPRB vs. Bell can be decided.

I suspect that if a classical test confirms the 3-sphere model, your 7-sphere concept will gain acceptance because it matches what QM predicts. There may be no way to test the 7-sphere model other than by QM results. That does give it some validity.

Fred

report post as inappropriate

Joy Christian replied on Nov. 17, 2011 @ 08:49 GMT
Thanks, Fred. I agree with your thoughts. A small correction however: Classical test of Bell inequality were indeed considered by some people in the early days of Bell's theorem. These were not as clear cut or physically well motivated as my experiment, and they were ignored by the Bell followers. I don't have any references, but I am told Piron did consider a classical test in the early days. And in the 80's Aerts (who, I think, was Piron's former student) also considered a classical test. But, as I said, neither of these proposals were experimentally, physically, and statistically as well formulated as mine.

Joy

report post as inappropriate

Fred Diether replied on Nov. 20, 2011 @ 07:56 GMT
Hi Joy,

Is it the same Aerts that wrote this? Check out Sect. 4 if you get a chance. Yes, I will be studying some more of what Aerts had to say about Bell and EPR.

Fred

report post as inappropriate

Cristi Stoica wrote on Nov. 17, 2011 @ 05:59 GMT
And obtain a set of angular momenta

$(\bf\lambda_j)_{j=1}^N$

which, for large N and large number of random choices of the directions a and b, vindicate

$\frac{1}{N}\sum_{j\,=\,1}^{N}\,\{{sign}\,({\bf\lambda}_j\cdot{\bf a})\}\,\{{sign}\,(-{\bf\lambda}_j\cdot{\bf b})\}\,\approx\, -\,{\bf a}\cdot{\bf b}.$

and refute the mathematically proven result that

$\frac{1}{N}\sum_{j\,=\,1}^{N}\,\{{sign}\,({\bf\lambda}_j\cdot{\bf a})\}\,\{{sign}\,(-{\bf\lambda}_j\cdot{\bf b})\}\,\approx\, \frac{2}{\pi}\,\cos^{-1}\left({\bf a}\cdot{\bf b}\right)-1?$

Cristi

P.S. I was just passing by to see if my proposal was accepted.

report post as inappropriate

Fred Diether replied on Nov. 17, 2011 @ 07:53 GMT
Hi Cristi,

I suspect Joy and others are done spending time trying to explain this to you. You might want to study Sect. XI of Joy's latest paper and the mentioned references.

You also might want to consider that De Raedt et al, have also have produced a local realistic math model that gives the QM result of -a.b. Hope this helps.

Fred

report post as inappropriate

Cristi replied on Nov. 17, 2011 @ 08:32 GMT
Hi Fred,

These formulas are from this paper of Joy. I just referred to claims from there.

"De Raedt et al, have also have produced a local realistic math model that gives the QM result of -a.b"

Local realistic models giving -a.b exist for long time, and I do not deny their existence. But they can't provide the angular momenta making work the first of the above formulas. And they don't try to do this. So I don't see how this helps.

Cristi

report post as inappropriate

Steve Dufourny wrote on Nov. 17, 2011 @ 23:12 GMT
Hi Joy,

I see several interesting things. In fact, it is the topology and the computing which interest me here. But I do not understand why you take a paradoxal S7...

You say, the space is quaternionic, not the space time. Could you develop because it is not rational for me? You say also " and 7-sphere is perfectly stable under all small perturbations."

Ok what is a small perturbation? and what is a big perturbation ? because there it is a little bizare at my opinion. Are you sure that the computing is not confound with our pure reality in 3D. If you spoke about the volumes and the evolution with a superimposings of 3D evolutive spheres, there I can agree, but what are these dimensions ???

Furthermore the origins of correlations are not clear, where are the proportions, the symmetries, the associations, the determinsitic serie and recurrences, what are the universal and axiomatic operators? The proportions are these rotating spheres or balls if you prefer and their finite serie, so they are proportional these rotations.

You say"

In non-relativistic physics one usually models the space we inhabit as a three-dimensional Euclidean continuum, R3. This space is non-compact in a very precise mathematical sense. What I am saying is that the space we actually inhabit is better modelled by a parallelized 3-sphere, S3, which is a one-point compactification of R3 achieved by mapping all of the points of R3 at infinity to a single point, while maintaining the curvature of the resulting topological sphere to be zero. The torsion of S3 will then be non-zero giving rise to the quantum (or EPR) correlations."

We are in a pure paradoxal superimposing where we loose our foundamentals, it is not the relativity that Joy ! What are the torsios for example which destabilizes this S3 ? I am curious !

ps the points to infinity ??? WHY ?? the finite groups are better ! with a closed evolutive spherical volume of course where the S3 evolves respecting the evolution.

Regards

report post as inappropriate

Ray Munroe replied on Nov. 18, 2011 @ 00:59 GMT
Hi Steve,

I hope that Joy responds to your questions.

I will answer parts of your questions as I think I understand them.

We have talked about the Hairy Ball Theorem/ Brouwer's Theorem before. If you start with an n-sphere, grow 'hair' on its surface, and then try to 'comb the hair', then you will get a 'cow lick' on most n-spheres. This is definitely true of the 3-D spherical shell that is the 2-sphere (the infinitesimally thin surface of the S^3 Euclidean 3-balls that you usually use) - we get 'cow licks' at the North and South poles. In contrast, certain n-spheres (n=0,1,3 and 7) are parallelizable, so you can comb the hair on those n-spheres without creating a 'cow lick'. Why do we care about 'cow licks' on our hairy spheres? Because a 'cow lick' is a place where a rotational/ cyclonic instability can start. In the case of the rotating 2-sphere, this rotational instability usually deforms the 2-sphere into a 2-torus (the infinitesimally thin surface of a 'donut').

Thus, the 3-sphere is much more stable than the 2-sphere.

I like the octonion 7-sphere and the quaternion 3-sphere. Both structures contain powerful mathematical tools, and both structures are parallelizable and apparently stable against rotational instabilities.

However, the 7-sphere has a different kind of instability. Hypervolume is maximized for the 5-D 5-ball, so adding an extra 3 dimensions to build an 8-D 7-sphere requires making some dimensions spacious (the first 5-D) and other dimensions compact (the last 3-D). Quite frankly, this could be a reason to expect Nature to prefer to arrange herself into Scales. As the spacious dimensions grow, and the compact dimensions shrink, the octonion 7-sphere destabilizes (due to the Thermo-geometric instabilities that Jonathan and I discussed in the last two sections of our latest paper on superluminal neutrinos), and collapses into a quaternion 3-sphere plus decay products.

I suspect that a TOE probably would contain octonion 7-spheres, but our observable Universe looks more like a parallelizable quaternion 3-sphere to me (and more like a non-parallelizable Euclidean 3-ball to you).

Have Fun!

report post as inappropriate

Steve Dufourny replied on Nov. 18, 2011 @ 19:06 GMT
Hi Ray,

I am sorry for my parano,but I am prefering to tell you it! Sorry for my parano but I can not change in my mind lol

About Joy, since the begining he does not answer , probably a strategy also,but it is not serious, I will speak and write !I have nothing against him me , I like people, I know Tom,Lawrence, Eckard, John, Jason, Georgina since the begining here on Fqxi and I beleive they are very skillings. But understand that I have several neurlogical probelms increasing my paranoia.I try to be more quiet but it is not easy Ray, furthermore I must find a job also.I am too much isolated at home. You know, me I am ready for the nobel prize with Fqxi, we make a beautiful team and go.With You, Lawrence, Tom ,Jason and Georgina and Eckard more some others, we can make many things. Ray I must move , I am frank,I must find a job and a team.

I beleive that if he does not answer so that is why I beleive he has no answer. I understand the beautiful strategy but it is not a probelm. After all,if the cake can profit to others, it is cool.I am not for the monney, you know it.

Ray, my mind is more quiet. I am here on FQXI you know it since several years now. Even before Joy. He is appeared from Perimeter institute like that, one day, with a work about the spheres. I have understood at this moment why the english language uses the strategy of words. I have explaied you my theory Ray, ad anybody spoke about the spheres before. What I find sad is this strategy of words. My theory is general Ray, you know it, and it is revolutionary,I like FQXi and I thought they shall help me, I do not understand why several persons have made that, FQXi was for me important. I had a vision of USA so beautiful, I dreamed all my young ages to live there. I have worked hard Ray and I thought that USA was a country of integrity and respect. And on the otehr side I see just a sad strategy. It is not that the USA Ray, it is not that the aim of this USA...Why usa becomes like this ?? People confounds really the sciences and the business Ray. I thought that Usa was more that this.

We can make many revolutionary things.you know it Ray !

Me in all case I am ready to accept to evolve....

Sincerely

report post as inappropriate

Ray Munroe replied on Nov. 18, 2011 @ 19:44 GMT
Hi Steve,

Some people go through great trials and tribulations. Others seem to get to be 'king of the hill' with minimal effort. I do not know why your life must be as difficult as it is and has been, but it should shape you into a stronger person as long as you do not lose track of who you are. There is great power in 'love' and 'humility'. Stay the course.

Joy might be a busy man who only responds to the most serious questions about his work.

I like the seeming 'fundamentality' of spheres, but maybe you should also be using 3-spheres. I would like to see a well-written thesis in English on your ideas, and see if your ideas contain something radically new that physics might require. Have you looked up HAL (Hyper-Articles on Line)?

Have Fun and Take Care of Yourself!

report post as inappropriate

Author Frank Martin DiMeglio wrote on Nov. 18, 2011 @ 01:36 GMT
Instantaneity in physics has never been addressed. In fact, it is avoided like the plague.

report post as inappropriate

Ray Munroe replied on Nov. 18, 2011 @ 02:24 GMT
Hi Frank,

I said this to Joy, Tom and Paul on this blog post about 10 hours ago:

The 3-sphere is the 3-D real spatial hypersurface of a 4-D ball, but excludes the inner hypervolume of said ball.

The spacetime quaternion consists of 3 real spatial dimensions and 1 imaginary time dimension with that relative phase of 'ict'.

Applying these concepts to a quaternion 3-sphere, the 4-D quaternion 3-sphere represents 3 real spatial dimensions with an infinitesimally thin radial shell that corresponds with the present time. Time exists as the 4th dimension of that 3-sphere only for the 'present'. We can model ever-changing time as an ever-expanding (the radial component is equal to 'ict' and is always increasing) 3-sphere. For those people who doubt the reality of time as a 4th dimension, this model allows time to exist as a 4th dimension for 'now', but then yesterday disappears into a fog of memories and tomorrow hasn't yet been written. Our 'time-vision' is extremely 'near-sighted' (Can LASIK surgery correct that type of 'myopia'?).

Have Fun!

report post as inappropriate

Paul Reed replied on Nov. 19, 2011 @ 08:36 GMT
Frank

This is correct, if the point is about the conceptualisation of time, and that it is really about timing.

Then the next question is, instantaniety of what? For physics there are three seperate existent continua, with their own time-lines, to consider. Confusing these leads to the muddling of future, present past, or timing. There is 1) actuality, 2) representation of that, 3) receipt of latter by observer(s). So timing can either be effected a) within the time-line of any of these, or b) across them.

For example. A sequence comprises 10 existent states.

In a) the existence of each state is timed. So state 1 at zero, state 2 at 3n (n being time units), 3 at 5n, 4 at 7n, etc, etc.

In b) at a point in time, in (1) it could be (say) state 7 which exists, 8-10 are still to come into being, states 4-6 are still in existence as representations (2) at certain spatial positions (ie light, or noise, or heat, etc), whilst in respect of (3) states 1-3 have been received (eg hit eyeball, ears, etc) and ceased to exist). For a different, say nearer, observer, then only 6 is still in existence as light/noise/etc, 1-5 having by received by that observer.

Paul

report post as inappropriate

Eckard Blumschein replied on Nov. 19, 2011 @ 15:16 GMT
If I understood Joy Christian correctly he considered compactification a key requisite as to overcome non-locality. Isnt't this remarkable? Some years ago, there was a discussion at sci.phys.research, and if I recall correctly virtually all physicists did not see any necessity to distinguish between rational and real numbers. I would like to be lectured in that respect concerning Hilbert space.

Eckard

report post as inappropriate

Paul Reed wrote on Nov. 20, 2011 @ 08:57 GMT
Ray (all)

This post refers to your post 19/11 16.01 in the thread started by you 13/11 14.17.

It is posted here, although it relates to the conceptualisation of time, so that that thread continues to focus on time, and does not become ‘derailed’ by arguments about Einstein. It must be stressed that this is about what Einstein (and other contributors) said. Not whether they were...

view entire post

report post as inappropriate

Ray Munroe wrote on Nov. 22, 2011 @ 15:05 GMT
Hi Joy,

1) First of all, x^2 + y^2 + z^2 - (ct)^2 = d^2 is a proper quaternion with 3 spatial and one scalar components. It is explicitly relativistic AND quaternion. It is 4 dimensional, we can vary x independently of y independently of z independently of t, but this curve specifies legitimate points within a 4-D world line.

In contrast, w^2 + x^2 + y^2 + z^2 = d^2 is a super-Euclidean 4-ball (4 space dimensions and no time dimension). There is nothing relativistic about it - either explicitly or implicitly. Furthermore, 4 spatial dimensions are not observed, nor does it honor any of the Normed Divisor Algebra symmetries.

2) Secondly, a bi-vector is the skew-symmetric matrix generalization of a vector cross-product. Its rank and *MINIMUM* dimensionality is 2 (i.e. it is a rank-2 tensor capable - in theory - of representing the spin-2 graviton), BUT its order and *MAXIMUM* dimensionality is the same as a Special Orthogonal algebra, SO(D): 3 for D=3, 6 for D=4, 10 for D=5, 15 for D=6, 21 for D=7, 28 for D=8, etc.

A simple example is the G2 algebra in my latest paper. G2 has a rank and minimum dimension of 2 (it is another rank-2 tensor), but an order and maximum dimension of 14. Another example is the E8 algebra with a rank and minimum dimension of 8, but an order and maximum dimension of 248. I don't know if it is the mathematicians or the physicists who are confusing terminology, but a bi-vector is not as simple as you make it sound.

A bi-vector is MORE GENERAL than a vector cross-product. So if the vector cross-product of two 3-vectors is a 3-dimensional pseudo-vector (with the quaternion non-commutative property), why would we expect the bi-vector of two 3-vectors to be 2-dimensional?

Now combine the quaternion scalar component with this 3x3 skew symmetric matrix, and we may define an effectively (3+1)x(3+1) matrix that resembles the Electromagnetic Stress-Energy Tensor in general form. This is not ad-hoc - we have about 100 years worth of examples of spacetime being treated in this manner.

Have Fun!

report post as inappropriate

T H Ray replied on Nov. 22, 2011 @ 16:20 GMT
Hi Ray,

Re:

1. part un: Has nothing to do with Joy's model. A 3 dimension object in 4 space is not the same as a coordinate system of 3 spatial coordinates and a scalar component. Part deux: As has been noted, geometric algebra can be translated to Minkowski space, which no one would mistake for a 4-ball of any kind.

2. Not relevant. The 2-dimension analysis to which Joy refers is straight complex analysis in the plane.

Tom

report post as inappropriate

T H Ray replied on Nov. 22, 2011 @ 17:03 GMT
I think I've linked Davis Hestenes's AJP papers on geometric algebra before. This page links those works, as well as papers by others.

If one wishes a brief introduction, I think Hestenes's PowerPoint for the Oersted award speech is simplicity itself, and so straightforward that one can readily see it taught in high school after one course in plane geometry and an introduction to complex analysis.

Tom

report post as inappropriate

Joy Christian replied on Nov. 22, 2011 @ 18:01 GMT
Hi Ray,

We live in two very different worlds, don't we (you in the world of oranges and embedding coordinates and I in the world of apples and intrinsic geometric algebra)?

You wrote: "First of all, x^2 + y^2 + z^2 - (ct)^2 = d^2 is a proper quaternion with 3 spatial and one scalar components. It is explicitly relativistic AND quaternion."

But of course it is. But it is written in terms of the coordinates of an embedding space, R^4 (with Lorentzian signature), not in terms of the intrinsic coordinates of the 3-sphere. That is the point. I am working with the intrinsic structure of the 3-sphere, but you are not. A point of a 3-dimensional space can be completely specified by three numbers and three numbers only. But you are using four numbers to specify such a point. Why? Because you are working with external coordinates of the embedding space. As Tom said: "A 3 dimension object in 4 space is not the same as a coordinate system of 3 spatial coordinates and a scalar component."

As I have stressed many time, I am not doing relativity. I am concerned about no-signalling quantum non-locality, not about signalling relativistic non-locality. But you attribute the relativity-type equation to me: w^2 + x^2 + y^2 + z^2 = d^2. Why? If relativity is what I wanted to do then there exist a perfectly consistent relativistic extension of geometric algebra, known as space-time algebra. But that is beyond the scope of my papers, as I have been stressing for many months.

You wrote: "A bi-vector is MORE GENERAL than a vector cross-product." But of course it is. What I am unable to understand is why you are stressing this trivial fact. And then you ask: "why would we expect the bi-vector of two 3-vectors to be 2-dimensional?" Are you denying the elementary fact that a wedge or outer product of two 3-vectors is a 2-dimensional plane segment? Perhaps then it is appropriate for me to attach below a pedagogical description of various products in geometric algebra. I wrote this up for my students some time ago. If you don't like it, perhaps Tom and Fred may like it.

In any case, we are still taking apples and oranges. Perhaps it is now time to agree to disagree.

Joy

attachments: magic.pdf

report post as inappropriate