Login or
create account to post reply or comment.
FQXi Administrator Brendan Foster wrote on Jan. 22, 2013 @ 19:11 GMT
On behalf of Max Tegmark and Anthony Aguirre, FQXi Directorate ---
In a previous post, we wrote about our plans for maintaining helpful, useful and interesting scientific discussion in our online forums. In this post, we want to discuss a second important institutional issue. This issue touches on the question of FQXi's reputation and what constitutes an endorsement by FQXi.
FQXi exists to serve the scientific community and the broader community interested in science, and not to serve FQXi in and of itself. Nevertheless, we at FQXi must pay attention to our reputation, since our reputation helps us serve our function as a supporter of research at the frontiers of physics. Along similar lines, FQXi cannot serve a positive purpose in the scientific community if its reputation is inappropriately leveraged to support a particular scientific opinion or agenda. We have heard concerns expressed from various people that certain activities and representations made by others may have damaged FQXi's reputation as well as its ability to effectively support its community.
Our strengthened forum policy gives one way for us to address this issue, by encouraging constructive scientific discussion. The following set of explanations provides another way for us to address this issue. These statements explain what constitutes an 'endorsement' by FQXi, in terms of Membership, Large Grants, and Mini-Grants.
1) Membership means that at least two independent Members nominated the person, and a review by FQXi agreed that the person has done strong work; OR that a review panel has awarded either a Large Grant or 1st, 2nd or 3rd essay contest prize.
2) A Large Grant (or essay contest prize) means that a panel of experts appointed by FQXi granted an award, and as such implies a peer-review process. FQXi reviews the recommendations of its panels for due diligence, but prefers not to second-guess the panels.
3) A Mini-Grant means that a Member submitted a small proposal appropriate to the funding program, and then basically got lucky -- Mini-Grants are chosen by a random lottery. We might in the future raise the bar on 'appropriate'; currently, however, a Mini-Grant does not mean a proposal has passed any serious peer-review process.
As corollaries of these facts, Membership does not imply endorsement of any particular research project, and financial support from FQXi does not alone imply endorsement of the supported work.
FQXi as an institution does not take on the job of an arbiter of scientific truth or validity. Rather, we hope to support an open, constructive, and collegial forum for the scientific process to play out. FQXi does, however, have the job of deciding on the basis of peer-review which projects merit our limited fiscal resources. It is important that we do this job carefully prior to grantmaking, and that we also keep careful track of how effectively projects spent the money.
A recent situation involving intense controversy surrounding the work of FQXi Member Joy Christian brought many of these considerations to our attention (though it is far from the only case to which the considerations apply). To study this issue, we convened a special panel composed of experts exquisitely qualified to read, understand, and evaluate both Christian's work, and the way discussion of the work has played out in the public sphere. This panel provided detailed reports to FQXi, and came to three unanimous conclusions:
a) Christian's work on Bell's theorem is flawed, and they would recommend against funding any research that is part of Christian's work on Bell's inequalities.
b) The recommendation in (a) does not reflect on the quality of Christian's work on any other topic.
c) The manner of discussion of Christian's work on FQXi's forum and elsewhere has been unfortunate, with an unacceptable lack of decorum. That discussion has also at times misleadingly suggested that FQXi endorses Christian's work on Bell's inequalities, and that this work has passed peer-review by FQXi.
The panel did not recommend any action on FQXi's part going beyond recommendation (a), and was split as to what degree its findings should be made public.
We felt that (with the panel's permission) making the panel's recommendations public, but not the panelists' identities or detailed reports, would be useful both for the scientific community interested in this controversy, and as a case-in-point for the discussion above.
Although we could in principle use this panel model in the future, we hope, frankly, to avoid it. Rather, we hope that public discussion of scientific matters on FQXi's forums and elsewhere will seek a more elevated level of discussion, accuracy and propriety that will avoid such a need, as does the vast majority of scientific discussion and even controversy that takes place in the FQXi community and elsewhere. We also hope that enforcement of our strengthened terms of use for the forums can prevent discussions of future scientific controversies from becoming uncivil.
this post has been edited by the forum administrator
Joy Christian wrote on Jan. 22, 2013 @ 20:45 GMT
Are we engaged in Science or Politics?
While I fully appreciate the difficult position FQXi has been put in because of the reactions to my work on the origins of quantum correlations, I am compelled to make the following statement:
I strongly object to the hollow conclusion by the anonymous panel of supposed experts that "Christian's work on Bell's theorem is flawed." I demand FQXi...
view entire post
Are we engaged in Science or Politics?While I fully appreciate the difficult position FQXi has been put in because of the reactions to my work on the
origins of quantum correlations, I am compelled to make the following statement:
I strongly object to the hollow conclusion by the anonymous panel of supposed experts that "Christian's work on Bell's theorem is flawed." I demand FQXi to remove this slanderous characterization of my work from the public domain at once, or provide detailed scientific arguments justifying the claim. I categorically reject their unwarranted opinion of my work regardless of their supposed expertise or political status. I will yield to no such anonymous
panel of experts, nor will I respect anyone's judgement on my work but that of Nature.
I reiterate what I have said many times on these pages before:
Bell's so-called theorem is a fundamentally flawed argument. There is a
blatant error in the very first equation of Bell's famous paper and you can see it if you are willing to see it (cf.
the attached paper). By contrast, my work transcending Bell's theorem has provided one of the most profound understandings of the
origins of quantum correlations. Therefore the honest observation by the panel should have been this: "What Christian has found is very inconvenient for some of the rival investigators within FQXi, and this has produced tremendous peer perssure on FQXi. The easiest way to release this peer pressure is to find some excuse such as "Christian's work on Bell's theorem is flawed" to stop funding any research that is part of Christian's work violating Bell inequalities."
Having said this, I do appreciate that science is a social enterprise and FQXi's primary goal is to serve the community as a whole. Therefore I do not object to the rest of the message above.
--------------------------------------
PS: There is something I wrote below in response to James Putnam that I must reproduce here:
...my work on Bell's theorem has been directly and bluntly attacked by the so-called "exquisitely qualified" experts from behind the veil of anonymity. I do not take this lightly. In fact I condemn the attack as cowardly. I challenge the anonymous experts to state their arguments explicitly and openly. They do not have to reveal their identities, but they are obliged to provide detailed arguments explaining why my work is "flawed." Furthermore, they should also allow me to respond to their arguments in the same forum in equal terms. They owe that much to physics. FQXi does not have to be part of this. My fight is with the exquisiteness of the so-called experts.
----------------------------------------
PPS: Fred Diether found this FQXi news blurb from last April,
"Book on Bell
Apr 11, 2012
Congratulations to Joy Christian, who has published a new book Disproof of Bell's Theorem: Illuminating the Illusion of Entanglement, with the help of a FQXi mini-grant. To discuss its controversial content, visit our blog."
This does sound like a happy "endorsement" by FQXi of my work on Bell's theorem. The only significant thing that seems to have occurred since then is the
attempted public mockery by Scott Aaronson of a rival FQXi member (namely, me) by holding FQXi to ransom.
I think I deserve better than how I am being treated. History will not look kindly on you FQXi when the significance of my work is finally recognized by the sleeping majority.
----------------------------------------
PPPS: From the comments below by Vladimir F. Tamari I just learned a new word:
“Infqxiuisition.”
----------------------------------
----
PPPPS: An update:
On 31 of January 2013 FQXi released a report of one of the panelists to me privately. It turns out that the arguments presented in this report have already been refuted by me elsewhere, for example in the
attached paper. In particular, the report contains elementary mathematical errors and misreadings. For further comments see my post below of Feb. 1, 2013 @ 06.29 GMT.
--------------------------------------
PPPPPS: Another update (April 6, 2013):
As I predicted earlier this year, FQXi's reprehensible announcement about my work on Bell's theorem has given several people---including Florin Moldoveanu---a perfect propaganda tool against me personally. For example, Moldoveanu has posted maliciously selected bits of FQXi's announcement on the Amazon.com website for my book. Elsewhere on the Internet he has referred to me as “a discredited physicist.” Others have used much stronger words to describe me on the Internet. I am therefore forced to make the following corrective statement here:
Equations (1.22) to (1.25) on page 10 of
my book, as well as similar set of equations in
this paper of mine, have been explicitly verified, in great detail, by Lucien Hardy, Manfried Faber, and several other exceptionally competent and talented physicists and mathematicians. Evidently Moldoveanu has failed to understand these equations (
just as Gill) to carry out the relevant calculations correctly. Any attentive reader with only basic mathematical skills should be able to reproduce equations (1.22) to (1.25) of
my book rather easily. Contrary to the claims made by Moldoveanu on the Amazon.com website for my book, these equations compute precisely the statistical correlation between the measurement results A = +1 or -1 and B = +1 or -1, exactly as required by Bell's theorem. A more detailed refutation of Moldoveanu's fallacious claims about my work can be found in
this paper. It is also important to note that Moldoveanu has not been able to get a single of his preprints published in a peer-reviewed journal in his entire lifetime. Therefore he is hardly qualified to make any kind of negative judgement about my work.
Further information about my argument against Bell's theorem can be found on
my blog.
--------------------------------------
PPPPPPS: Another update (September 20, 2013):
On 23rd of August I sent the FQXi administration an updated version of the attached paper, to be forwarded to the panelist whose report I was sent by FQXi earlier this year (see my note above).
This paper now contains a spectacular confirmation of my model for the EPR-Bohm correlation in two explicit event-by-event simulations (cf. pp 16 to 26 of the paper). As we can see from the charts shown below, my local-realistic model reproduces not only the EPR-Bohm correlation exactly, but also the corresponding quantum probabilities exactly.
This proves, once and for all, that *ALL* of the detractors of my work were simply wrong.
view post as summary
attachments:
25_whither.pdf
this post has been edited by the author since its original submission
report post as inappropriate
Constantinos Ragazas replied on Jan. 23, 2013 @ 04:54 GMT
“Christian's work on Bell's theorem is flawed, ... We felt that (with the panel's permission) making the panel's recommendations public, but not the panelists' identities or detailed reports,”
Suddenly, FQXi is flawed! Secret panels deciding truth without reasons is intellectually dishonest. Are we engaged in Science or Politics?
Constantinos
report post as inappropriate
Fred Diether replied on Jan. 23, 2013 @ 07:30 GMT
At least it would be good to know what the panel's specific reasons were in coming to their decision. IOW, that should really be made public. I suspect that we could easily find flaws in their reasoning should they be made public. I suggest that a polite discussion should follow once FQXi makes logging in to post effective.
Fred
report post as inappropriate
Joy Christian replied on Jan. 23, 2013 @ 11:07 GMT
Thank you, Constantinos and Fred.
Constantinos,
You are right on the money (pun intended). I would only add that it is politics only of a small vocal minority within the vast ocean of the larger physics community. It is sad to see the noble goals of FQXi being hijacked by this minority to their own political ends.
Fred,
You too are right on the money. We would indeed find flaws in the reasoning of the supposed experts should they be made public. One only has to witness my detailed rebuttals to every little criticism put forward to me to date, by anyone, both publicly and privately. Perhaps that is what they are afraid of. I challenge them to come out of their comfort zones and put their mouth where their money is. They can continue to hide behind the veil of anonymity if they like, but (in Constantinos's words) have the guts to recognize their own intellectual dishonesty.
---------------------------
Note added on 28 Sep. 2013:
What is shown below are charts of two explicit, event-by-event, numerical simulations of my local-realistic model for the EPR-Bohm correlation (discussed in detail in the first attached paper). These charts prove---once and for all---that, not only the FQXi's exquisite panelists, but *ALL* of the detractors of my work were, and are wrong. Is there no accountability in science for willful wrongdoing?
attachments:
17_2piSpinor.pdf,
26_whither.pdf
this post has been edited by the author since its original submission
report post as inappropriate
Fred Diether replied on Jan. 24, 2013 @ 07:27 GMT
Hi Joy,
You're welcome. I have to agree with you and Constantinos that this is some kind of behind the scenes politics and nothing to do with science. And yes, it all seems very dishonest to me also. It is also kind of weird that the people on this panel would need to remain anonymous (if there even really was a panel of experts; I'm having my doubts now). Are they afraid that you are going to maliciously attack them like a few people have done and are still doing to you? This is all very strange.
IMHO, you have discovered what is probably going to be one of the greatest physics breakthroughs of this century. "The Origins of Quantum Correlations". Sheesh! I thought this was the kind of stuff FQXi was all about. I guess I was wrong. I am really super disappointed by FQXi right now.
Best,
Fred
report post as inappropriate
Joy Christian replied on Jan. 25, 2013 @ 06:07 GMT
Hi Fred,
Thanks for your comments. You may be right in doubting if there ever was a panel of experts. So far we have no evidence for it, apart from Brendan's word.
Best,
Joy
report post as inappropriate
Fred Diether replied on Jan. 25, 2013 @ 07:25 GMT
Hi Joy,
Here is a FQXi news blurb from back last April,
"Book on Bell
Apr 11, 2012
Congratulations to Joy Christian, who has published a new book Disproof of Bell's Theorem: Illuminating the Illusion of Entanglement, with the help of an FQXi mini-grant. To discuss its controversial content, visit our blog."
This sure is not consistent with what Brendan posted in this blog thread. Something does smell aweful fishy about this. Well, if there is no fair resolution about this soon, I surely will not be recommending the FQXi forums on sci.physics.foundations any more.
Hey! Secret experts panel... Dr. Christian's work on "The Origins of Quantum Correlations" is not flawed. And I can show you exactly where you made mistake(s). Don't be afraid. Let's discuss it. If no discussion then we have to assume there is no experts panel and this is all about politics.
Best,
Fred
report post as inappropriate
Joy Christian replied on Jan. 25, 2013 @ 10:49 GMT
Hi Fred,
Does the name Scott Aaronson ring a Bell?
Best,
Joy
--------------------------
PS: FQXi's announcement about my work on Bell's theorem has given several unqualified and unpublished people---including Florin Moldoveanu---a perfect propaganda cue against me. For example, Moldoveanu has posted maliciously selected bits of FQXi's announcement at least on...
view entire post
Hi Fred,
Does the name Scott Aaronson ring a Bell?
Best,
Joy
--------------------------
PS: FQXi's announcement about my work on Bell's theorem has given several unqualified and unpublished people---including Florin Moldoveanu---a perfect propaganda cue against me. For example, Moldoveanu has posted maliciously selected bits of FQXi's announcement at least on the Amazon.com website for my book. I am therefore forced to make the following corrective statement here:
Eqations (1.22) to (1.25) on page 10 of
my book, as well as similar set of equations in
this paper of mine, have been explicitly verified, in great detail, by Lucien Hardy, Manfried Faber, and several other exceptionally competent and talented physicists and mathematicians. Evidently Moldoveanu has failed to understand these equations (
just as Gill) to carry out the relevant calculations correctly. Any attentive reader with only basic mathematical skills should be able to reproduce equations (1.22) to (1.25) of
my book rather easily. Contrary to the claims made by Moldoveanu on the Amazon.com website for my book, these equations compute precisely the statistical correlation between the measurement results A = +1 or -1 and B = +1 or -1, exactly as required by Bell's theorem. A more detailed refutation of Moldoveanu's fallacious claims about my work can be found in
this paper.
Further information about my argument against Bell's theorem can be found on
my blog.
--------------------------
It is also worth noting here that Moldoveanu and Gill's error was spotted by Bill Schnieder at once. Here is what he wrote on Physics Forums long time ago:
"Richard Gill's refutation is not a new critique. It is essentially the same as one of the critiques advanced by a certain Florin Moldoveanu in the fall last year to which Joy Christian has already replied. It originates from a misunderstanding of Joy's framework which admittedly is not very easy to understand, especially for those who have blinders of one kind or another.
Gill thinks Joy is using a convoluted more difficult method to do a calculation and prefers a different method which ultimately leads him to a different result, not realizing/understanding that the calculation method Joy used is demanded by his framework. This is hardly a serious critique, not unlike his failed critique of Hess and Phillip. He should at least have read Joy's response to Moldoveanu which he apparently did not, since he does not cite or mention it. It's been available since October 2011, one-month after Moldoveanu posted his critique.
I remember Florin came here to boast about his critique and I pointed out his misunderstanding at the time in this thread:
"... you are missing the point because Joy Christian is not using handedness as a convention but as the hidden variable itself."
This is the same error Gill has made. See section (II) of Joy's response to Moldoveanu."
view post as summary
this post has been edited by the author since its original submission
report post as inappropriate
hide replies
Bee wrote on Jan. 23, 2013 @ 09:02 GMT
I think you're taking the wrong perspective here. It should be clear that whichever way you select members or decide on grants you cannot possibly scrutinize every paper each of your members produces. What you are 'endorsing', in my opinion, is what you think is a promising inquiry on an interesting topic by researchers who have demonstrated good scientific practice. Some of the research outcomes will inevitably be controversial, some will be wrong, but that's how science works. It has been said before, but it's worth repeating, if all the research you fund is uncontroversial and successful in meeting its goals, it just means you're not taking enough risk and thereby defeating the purpose of your own existence.
That having been said, you should think about the criteria to make people members. It might seem funny I say that since I acquired membership by virtue of an essay contest, but writing a good essay is imo not sufficient demonstration that the author pursues promising research and has demonstrated good scientific practice.
report post as inappropriate
T H Ray replied on Jan. 24, 2013 @ 12:34 GMT
I second Bee's opinion as the voice of reason and impartiality. Though institutions and their anonymous panels may decide whom to endorse and fund, science is not decided by institutional fiat, and if research weren't flawed, we wouldn't call it research. Credibility has to be earned; it cannot be bought.
Tom
report post as inappropriate
Fred Diether replied on Jan. 27, 2013 @ 20:37 GMT
Hi Tom,
For me, what FQXi has done here is mind-bogglingly bizarre! They are attacking one of their own members that they have given financial support to with no chance of allowing that member to properly defend himself against the criticism. What's up with that?
All I can say is that Dr. Christian must be on the right track since people's buttons are getting pushed because they see some kind of threat to their "religion" and don't want to allow further proper discussion of the issues. I personally challenge any one of this "expert" panel to come on the blog here tell us why this particular research is "flawed". "The moon is still there even when no one is looking."
Best,
Fred
report post as inappropriate
Joy Christian replied on Jan. 27, 2013 @ 22:23 GMT
Hi Fred,
My book is also "still there even when no one is looking." :-)
The expert panel will just have to live with that, I am afraid.
Best,
Joy
report post as inappropriate
T H Ray replied on Jan. 28, 2013 @ 12:53 GMT
I agree, Fred. It would have been one thing if FQXi simply said, "Support for members' research does not imply endorsement." That's not what they did. They ostensibly enlisted the services of a de facto peer review jury. Common fairness and decency, let alone academic protocol, demands that those findings be released to the originator (to Joy -- not to the public -- in this I disagree with some other opinions). Ironically, the institution declares that such secret judgments are in the interest of protecting the institution's reputation.
The political gamble is obvious -- most non-experts can, like Nick, be expected to fall in line with the argument from authority. Fortunately, science doesn't work like that; the only arbiter of scientific correctness is strict correspondence of abstract theory to physical result. Bell loyalists can claim such correspondence only in a nonconstructive theory that begs its own conclusion, i.e., their theory demonstrably does not exist independent of the experiments that validate it. When a viable construction, independent of experimental results, challenges that weakest of theoretical foundations -- one must refute it with facts and reason. It cannot be refuted with hollow pronouncements as if delivered on tablets from Mt. Sinai.
Tom
report post as inappropriate
hide replies
James Putnam wrote on Jan. 24, 2013 @ 12:01 GMT
Without regard for who is right or wrong:
"a) Christian's work on Bell's theorem is flawed, and they would recommend against funding any research that is part of Christian's work on Bell's inequalities."
Choices of funding are FQXi's prerogative.
"c) The manner of discussion of Christian's work on FQXi's forum and elsewhere has been unfortunate, with an unacceptable lack of decorum. That discussion has also at times misleadingly suggested that FQXi endorses Christian's work on Bell's inequalities, and that this work has passed peer-review by FQXi."
FQXi made at least one clear statement that this was not the case.
"We felt that (with the panel's permission) making the panel's recommendations public, but not the panelists' identities or detailed reports, would be useful both for the scientific community interested in this controversy, and as a case-in-point for the discussion above."
The claimed flawed work must be made public. There is no way to avoid it. Maybe not here and maybe not now; but, it must come out and be discussed. I expect that it will come out somewhere sometime soon. The free exchange of ideas, along with its stresses, has no substitute. It is the means by which science progresses.
Wrappings cannot be made attractive enough to make up for a box being empty.
With respect and appreciation for all that FQXi has stood for,
James Putnam
report post as inappropriate
Joy Christian replied on Jan. 24, 2013 @ 13:10 GMT
James,
Just to be clear, funding is not the main issue.
Nor have I misleading implied more than the extent to which FQXi *has* endorsed my work.
The main issue is the following. It was nailed by Constantinos above:
"Secret panels deciding truth without [providing] reasons is intellectually dishonest."
For me, this is the main issue. I smell a rat, and for good reasons.
Best,
Joy
report post as inappropriate
James Putnam replied on Jan. 24, 2013 @ 15:10 GMT
Joy,
"Secret panels deciding truth without [providing] reasons is intellectually dishonest."
Reviewers do not have to risk becoming targets for me to appreciate learning their scientifically expressed opinions. I have read accounts about past bitter scientific rivalries. Having witnessed, and, been involved at a minor level in this one over a variety of platforms, I realize that personal attacks and insults are tolerated in scientific debate. I know that voices will immediately cry out that this is not true. However, it appears to me to be true. Condemnation appears to me to be selective and late. The last recourse of belatedly condeming the practice in some general form is too weak to be effective. I am saying this in relation to the several platforms, some being far worse than others. Some resorting to censoring opposing views. FQXi has been open to the free exchange of ideas.
It is the ideas that matter to me. If the panel's ideas remain undisclosed while grand pronouncements are made about them then, for me, the task undertaken by FQXi remains undone. I want to know if the panel determined unanimously that the mathematics is incorrect and why? I will not be using the words 'intellectually dishonest'. I will ask what and why? If there was an answer, then I would read the discussion that followed. Ideas have to be free flowing and discussion has to take place. This statement is not meant to suggest that professionals should have to tolerate pointless interruptions by amateurs. I am part of the amateur class. I want to know what the professionals think.
James Putnam
report post as inappropriate
Joy Christian replied on Jan. 24, 2013 @ 15:39 GMT
James,
Fair enough.
Note, however, that my work on Bell's theorem has been directly and bluntly attacked by the so-called "exquisitely qualified" experts from behind the veil of anonymity. I do not take this lightly. In fact I condemn the attack as cowardly. I challenge the anonymous experts to state their arguments explicitly and openly. They do not have to reveal their identities, but they are obliged to provide detailed arguments explaining why my work is "flawed." Furthermore, they should also allow me to respond to their arguments in the same forum in equal terms. They owe that much to physics. FQXi does not have to be part of this. My fight is with the exquisiteness of the so-called experts.
Best,
Joy
this post has been edited by the author since its original submission
report post as inappropriate
Rick Lockyer replied on Jan. 24, 2013 @ 18:06 GMT
Joy,
FQXi must be involved in the process of sorting this out, and they must release the report from their expert panel for several reasons. They had every right to enlist the services of a panel of experts to provide guidance for future decisions about funding your research on Bell. If they kept this to themselves as well as the results, they would have no obligation to make public any of...
view entire post
Joy,
FQXi must be involved in the process of sorting this out, and they must release the report from their expert panel for several reasons. They had every right to enlist the services of a panel of experts to provide guidance for future decisions about funding your research on Bell. If they kept this to themselves as well as the results, they would have no obligation to make public any of the conclusions or the report itself. But they did not do this; they presented the bottom line results in a public forum with the “flawed” characterization without any supporting facts. This is clearly unfair to you, and keeping the details a secret does a great disservice to the FQXi community at large, going against the basic charter for the institution. They owe it now to all of us to release this report.
I do not think all of this is a matter of “intellectual dishonesty”. The experts may have agreed to work with FQXi with the understanding they would not get sucked into a protracted and potentially unpleasant debate on the points of contention. I do not think they feel it would be unpleasant out of fear of being shown to be wrong, but for the historic rancor between you and your detractors. I have brought up publicly and privately my issues on your work related to the strict definition of addition within an algebra, suggesting you should look for a conjugate effect within a single algebra rather than a choice between two algebras with different chirality, the results of which cannot be combined as you do in your thesis. I do not think you will be able to extract yourself from this without modification, but unlike others I do not throw out the baby with the bath water. You have interesting and possibly valid perspectives.
I think most everyone that followed the threads on your work would like to know every point of contention within this report, and would be OK with the experts maintaining their anonymity. It would be more optimal if there was a dialog, even if it is with one or more "anonymous".
I call on FQXi to post the report in a new forum topic up for discussion by all.
Rick
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
James Putnam replied on Jan. 24, 2013 @ 18:38 GMT
Quoting from Rick Lockyer's message above, I think he makes a strong case:
"They had every right to enlist the services of a panel of experts to provide guidance for future decisions about funding your research on Bell. If they kept this to themselves as well as the results, they would have no obligation to make public any of the conclusions or the report itself. But they did not do this; they presented the bottom line results in a public forum with the “flawed” characterization without any supporting facts. This is clearly unfair to you, and keeping the details a secret does a great disservice to the FQXi community at large, going against the basic charter for the institution. They owe it now to all of us to release this report."
James putnam
report post as inappropriate
Joy Christian replied on Jan. 24, 2013 @ 18:41 GMT
Rick,
Leaving the technical issues concerning my work aside, I agree with almost everything you have written. I do not think, however, that the debate would be either protracted or unpleasant. I expect the "experts" to be highly professional people---of the level I used to engage with when I was a welcome part of the mainstream foundations community. I do not expect them to be at the level of some of the detractors I have had to endure on these pages. More to the point, I expect the actual exchange, if it ever happens, to take place on something like the arXiv. I do not see it happening on these pages. And the exchanges I have had on the arXiv, even with some unpleasant characters, have been collegial---or at least seemingly collegial. This is largely because arXiv is a moderated forum. So, to reiterate, the debate, if it ever takes place, does not have to be either protracted or unpleasant, and FQXi need not be involved in it.
Joy
report post as inappropriate
Rick Lockyer replied on Jan. 24, 2013 @ 19:43 GMT
Brendan,
The last three posts to this thread disappeared from the "Recent forum Posts" list. Is there some explanation for this?
Regards,
Rick Lockyer
report post as inappropriate
Fred Diether replied on Jan. 24, 2013 @ 22:36 GMT
Hi Rick,
The "Recent Forum Posts" list usually only links to the two most recent posts per blog thread.
Best,
Fred
report post as inappropriate
Rick Lockyer replied on Jan. 24, 2013 @ 23:41 GMT
Hello Fred,
It seems to be time sequential across all blogs/threads. The odd thing that I noticed was the third most recent (mine), then the second most recent (James) then the most recent (Joy's) disappeared all while in the middle of the displayed list. Older and newer entries were displayed after this within the list. Then my post you just answered disappeared, which at the time was the most recent in the thread. Took some screen shots, think it was a bit odd.
Rick
report post as inappropriate
James Putnam replied on Feb. 1, 2013 @ 00:20 GMT
The decision was unanymous for a panel experts. All of those individual reports must be made available for public evaluation. The report from those members declining to do so need to be subtracted from the decision. The final decision can consist only of opinions by experts whose reports are available for public evaluation. In the end, reports included in the decision process cannot be kept secret.
Jmes Putnam
report post as inappropriate
hide replies
Constantinos Ragazas wrote on Jan. 24, 2013 @ 15:56 GMT
James,
Since you referenced my quote I feel I should respond. The issue for me here is not whether FQXi can refuse to fund specific research. But whether FQXi can take sides in a scientific dispute. And do this without a “trial”. To proclaim an idea is “flawed” without a “trial” is intellectually dishonest.
I too have been very supportive of FQXi and all it has stood for. But just as the true character of a government is revealed in a crisis, the intent of an institution is revealed when those behind it are challenged. I am hopeful FQXi will rise to this challenge and defend principle and not personalities.
Constantinos
report post as inappropriate
James Putnam replied on Jan. 24, 2013 @ 16:34 GMT
Constantnos,
I don't consider funding to be the issue either. That is why I separated it out and dispensed with it.
"But whether FQXi can take sides in a scientific dispute. And do this without a “trial”. To proclaim an idea is “flawed” without a “trial” is intellectually dishonest."
I did not see FQXi take sides. They convened a panel of experts. They reported the findings of those experts. They are holding back the detailed findings, but, I think it is up to the panel to decide to release their findings. I presume that FQXi purposefully played a minimalist role in order to not take sides. If the findings had been the opposite, I have no doubt that FQXi would have reported those in the same manner. I fully accept that the panel gave its honest opinion. However, their opinion should be subjected to discussion. I prefer to be patient and let matters develop over time. I expect the findings to come out, perhaps leak out, somewhere, sometime soon.
James Putnam
report post as inappropriate
Constantinos Ragazas replied on Jan. 24, 2013 @ 17:46 GMT
James, you write “I did not see FQXi take sides.”. Quoting from the FQXi report, “Christian's work on Bell's theorem is flawed,”. That is taking sides! Put yourself in Joy Christian shoes if you have trouble seeing this!
What makes the bias most evident is that FQXi chose to make this “expert opinion” public, but kept all else secret! There can be only one reason to do so. Namely to discredit one side of a scientific dispute. Not providing reasons for the panel's conclusion I find to be intellectually dishonest.
We must adhere to principle above personalities! Otherwise all is a lie!
Constantinos
report post as inappropriate
James Putnam replied on Jan. 24, 2013 @ 18:28 GMT
Constantinos,
Ok, you see it differently. I do not see it the same way. The report was of the panel's findings. A full quote shows that to be the case. I assume the panel served independently. I think that is the right way for them to have done it. They shared their results with FQXi apparently along with the restriction that the panel retains the right to release or not release the details. FQXi could have stated their own conclusions after having received the details. They did not do that.
The panel consisted of qualified experts who arrived at unanimous conclusions. This panel should have carried great weight in the debate. They chose to report their conclusions in a manner that I think cannot carry great weight. I don't know why they would do that. FQXi reported their undetailed conclusions. I don't think that is enough, but, I think under the circumstances it was all they could do. The result appears to me to be unhelpful and prone to being used harmfully. What I mean is that the lack of details undermines the conclusions. Now the unsupported conclusions become part of the debate instead of resolving it.
"Put yourself in Joy Christian shoes if you have trouble seeing this!"
The result is that Joy has not lost the debate. The panel has not fruitfully intervened in the debate. The undetailed presentation of their conclusions is not a debate. It is not scientifically sufficient to add to the debate regardless of whom they are. If the details are not released then the panel's findings are at most only a footnote. That is what I think.
James putnam
report post as inappropriate
Constantinos Ragazas replied on Jan. 24, 2013 @ 18:58 GMT
James, I do believe we agree. I may be more alarmed with the precedent set. Though Joy Christian may not have lost the debate, surely you see he has been harmed! What does this say of the panelists who remain secret and silent? And how can we be sure they acted in the best interest of Truth and Reason, and not of themselves?
Constantinos
report post as inappropriate
John Merryman replied on Jan. 24, 2013 @ 19:00 GMT
Reminds me of the old saying; Perfect is enemy of the good.
I say this not because I understand Joy's theory, or the argument against it, but that I suspect there is an inherent property of information that it is not absolute. That it is possible to construct mutually incompatible arguments that are both true in their respective contexts and that fine tuning the arguments doesn't create agreement, but only accentuates the conflict. Physically a mutual state is the elemental, not the ideal. I think as soon as one departs from the elemental, complexity compounds until it becomes unstable, then collapses back to the point of stability for the particular context. Biology reflects this through mortality, as the genes are the stable state from which organisms emerge and absorb more environmental input, transferring some of this progression to the genetic structure of the next generation. Given nature has been dealing with this dynamic cycle from time immemorial, isn't it likely to be manifest in our mental models as well?
report post as inappropriate
Constantinos Ragazas replied on Jan. 24, 2013 @ 19:19 GMT
John, you may very well be right. What this controversy may have unwittingly unveiled is the true metaphysical essence of physics! What my
last essay tried to argue! Still, I for one would like to know the arguments and counterarguments. And done in a non-technical way that reveal the underlying metaphysical assumptions.
Constantinos
report post as inappropriate
James Putnam replied on Jan. 24, 2013 @ 20:45 GMT
Constantinos,
"And how can we be sure they acted in the best interest of Truth and Reason, and not of themselves?"
I do not believe that FQXi would present conclusions that they could see were not in the best interest of Truth and Reason. I need to be clear that by 'truth and reason' I mean honest expert opinion. Anyway, I do not doubt that the panel gave their honest expert unanymous opinion. I think that if the details become public that Joy will be strongly challenged. However, strongly challenged does not mean wrong.
I don't know yet if Joy has been harmed or not. The presentation of conclusions without the supporting details may be received coldly by many professionals. I mentioned time passing earlier. I think that this is a situation that needs a little time to work itself out. I think it is best to not back anyone up against the wall. The target should be the merits of the scientific arguments. Of course, the scientific arguments must first be available before their merits can be judged.
I didn't expect to be posting this many messages. I think I will go off the air for a while. I am interested in reading what others have to say. Thank you for sharing your opinion.
James Putnam
report post as inappropriate
Constantinos Ragazas replied on Jan. 24, 2013 @ 21:01 GMT
James,
"And how can we be sure they acted in the best interest of Truth and Reason, and not of themselves?" does not imply they did not act in the best interest of Truth and Reason. Only that we cannot know that without knowing what their reasons were. But if the panelists remain silent, what other conclusion can we draw?
As for Joy Christian being harmed, I think we need to ask him that.
Constantinos
report post as inappropriate
Joy Christian replied on Jan. 24, 2013 @ 21:24 GMT
Constantinos,
You wrote: "As for Joy Christian being harmed, I think we need to ask him that."
I am obviously being harmed. Just Look at the tone and wording of the message by Brendan. "Exquisitely qualified" "experts" supposedly have concluded that "Christian's work on Bell's theorem is flawed", and that they "recommend against funding any research that is part of Christian's work on Bell's inequalities."
How can this possibly not harm me? How can this not provide a perfect propaganda tool for those who are opposed to my work for whatever reasons? Let me tell you exactly how I feel by simply quoting what you wrote to James:
---------------------------------
"James, you write "I did not see FQXi take sides.". Quoting from the FQXi report, "Christian's work on Bell's theorem is flawed,". That is taking sides! Put yourself in Joy Christian shoes if you have trouble seeing this!
What makes the bias most evident is that FQXi chose to make this "expert opinion" public, but kept all else secret! There can be only one reason to do so. Namely to discredit one side of a scientific dispute. Not providing reasons for the panel's conclusion I find to be intellectually dishonest.
We must adhere to principle above personalities! Otherwise all is a lie!"
----------------------------------
I couldn't have said it better!
Joy
report post as inappropriate
Constantinos Ragazas replied on Jan. 24, 2013 @ 21:37 GMT
Joy,
What I find most disturbing and incriminating is the silence of the panelists in spite of the controversy they have created and the harm they have done to you.
Constantinos
report post as inappropriate
John Merryman replied on Jan. 25, 2013 @ 01:31 GMT
Constantinos,
While we are looking outside the box, here is a recent example which Pentcho pointed me in the direction of. It's from an excerpt of Lee Smolin's upcoming book;
" This is already happening in the unified theories we have so far. In the Standard Model of Particle Physics, which is the best theory we have so far of the elementary particles, the properties of an electron,...
view entire post
Constantinos,
While we are looking outside the box, here is a recent example which Pentcho pointed me in the direction of. It's from
an excerpt of Lee Smolin's upcoming book;" This is already happening in the unified theories we have so far. In the Standard Model of Particle Physics, which is the best theory we have so far of the elementary particles, the properties of an electron, such as its mass, are dynamically determined by the interactions in which it participates. The most basic property a particle can have is its mass, which determines how much force is needed to change its motion. In the Standard Model, all the particles’ masses arise from their interactions with other particles and are determined primarily by one — the Higgs particle. No longer are there absolutely “elementary” particles; everything that behaves like a particle is, to some extent, an emergent consequence of a network of interactions.
Emergence is an important term in a relational world. A property of something made of parts is emergent if it would not make sense when attributed to any of the parts. Rocks are hard, and water flows, but the atoms they’re made of are neither solid nor wet. An emergent property will often hold approximately, because it denotes an averaged or high-level description that leaves out much detail.
As science progresses, aspects of nature once considered fundamental are revealed as emergent and approximate. We once thought that solids, liquids, and gases were fundamental states; now we know that these are emergent properties, which can be understood as different ways to arrange the atoms that make up everything. Most of the laws of nature once thought of as fundamental are now understood as emergent and approximate. Temperature is just the average energy of atoms in random motion, so the laws of thermodynamics that refer to temperature are emergent and approximate."
Now consider that last line, "Temperature is just the average energy of atoms in random motion, so the laws of thermodynamics that refer to temperature are emergent and approximate."
In relation to this from the first paragraph, "No longer are there absolutely “elementary” particles; everything that behaves like a particle is, to some extent, an emergent consequence of a network of interactions."
What is temperature, but a measure of that very network of interactions!!!! The fundamental assumption is the classic western object oriented thinking, where "particles" must be fundamental, so it seems weird they would be a product of their environment, yet from eastern, context oriented thinking, this would be quite natural. Not to mention the old architectual saying that 'Form follows function." I'm not trying to get too far in over my head, but from what I've seen over the years, physics has become so isolated in various ways, that it doesn't consider many ideas that might be consequential and assumes anyone without a PhD in math is little more than a talking ape.
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
Constantinos Ragazas replied on Jan. 25, 2013 @ 03:45 GMT
John,
I have no doubt much of what is enigmatic with modern physics stems from the Western outlook of “atomism”. A metaphysical belief, even if not acknowledged as such by 'true believers'.
Understanding Nature through such mind set is like fitting infinity into a point. It can be done, but at the cost of being non-sensical. Our best guide to physical truth is not math but sense.
Constantinos
report post as inappropriate
John Merryman replied on Jan. 25, 2013 @ 11:44 GMT
Constantinos,
Math is a tool, not a god. Tools properly used have created civilization. They can also be very destructive if impropoerly used.
report post as inappropriate
James Putnam replied on Jan. 25, 2013 @ 23:01 GMT
Dear Joy,
Quoting me:
"I don't know yet if Joy has been harmed or not. The presentation of conclusions without the supporting details may be received coldly by many professionals. I mentioned time passing earlier. I think that this is a situation that needs a little time to work itself out. I think it is best to not back anyone up against the wall. The target should be the merits of the scientific arguments. Of course, the scientific arguments must first be available before their merits can be judged."
I didn't intend for this message to offend you. I will explain what I was thinking in more detail:
"I think it is best to not back anyone up against the wall."
I think Your messages are 'against the wall' types thus far.
"The target should be the merits of the scientific arguments. Of course, the scientific arguments must first be available before their merits can be judged."
I think that you may have been done a valuable service. You have in existence a detailed report evaluating your work and prepared by exquisitely qualified experts. That report is the important target. Asking for it to be made publicly available is reasonable and, I think, exactly what you have been in need of. Once it is available and assuming you demonstrate that it is the one that is flawed; then, you will have reached the level of success that you need.
I think it would have been best to immediately set your sights on the important target. Other personalities are not the important target. What you feel anyone representing FQXi may think is not the important target. Formally and respectfully requesting that the report be made public in the accepted scientific pratice of giving detailed support for scientific claims for anyone to evaluate cannot be faulted or offensive.
I have not been in your place. If you know of a better way of handling this matter, then please disregard mine. I also very much want the report to be made public.
James Putnam
report post as inappropriate
Joy Christian replied on Jan. 25, 2013 @ 23:43 GMT
Dear James,
I think what you have just written and suggested is quite rational, reasonable, and balanced. My reaction to Brendan's post has clearly been more emotional than rational. However, I think you can understand why that is the case. Moreover, I don't think what Fred and Constantinos are suspecting is totally off the mark. Contrary to your confidence in the existence of a detailed report, I am increasingly suspicious that there was even an actual panel of experts. If the claimed report does indeed exist, then how hard can it be to make it available?
Nevertheless, I will take your advice, calm down, and wait for the report to appear.
Best,
Joy
report post as inappropriate
James Putnam replied on Jan. 27, 2013 @ 14:26 GMT
Constantinos,
"James, you write “I did not see FQXi take sides.”. Quoting from the FQXi report, “Christian's work on Bell's theorem is flawed,”. That is taking sides!"
Reading back through everything, I believe you are correct. Quoting from the announcement:
"We felt that (with the panel's permission) making the panel's recommendations public, but not the panelists' identities or detailed reports, would be useful both for the scientific community interested in this controversy, and as a case-in-point for the discussion above."
That 'we' is FQXi. There were no flaws given to support this position. The flaws have to be given or it is 'taking sides'.
James Putnam
report post as inappropriate
Constantinos Ragazas replied on Jan. 27, 2013 @ 15:05 GMT
James,
I am by nature inclined to see in others 'positive spirit'. But I just can't see much positive in the intent and action taken by fqxi with regards to Joy Christian. Yet I am optimistic something good and positive will result from all this. Often, the 'good' needs a 'bad' nudge to trigger inevitable events to happen. And this episode may just be that 'imperfection' in fqxi which changes everything.
But this action not only reveals the 'metaphysical' nature of physics but also the structure of fqxi. I have, as you know, been very supportive of fqxi and all they seek to do. And in particular, I have always felt Brendan has been 'fair and balanced' in administering fqxi. This decision to go after Joy Christian and his work on Bell's Theorem was made by others behind the scene. Who truly call the shots at fqxi. That is unsettling, since they remain anonymous and unaccountable. Leaving poor Brendan to take the heat. A 'resignation in protest' could save the light here.
Constantinos
report post as inappropriate
James Putnam replied on Jan. 27, 2013 @ 22:52 GMT
Constantinos, Joy and Nick,
"Yet I am optimistic something good and positive will result from all this. Often, the 'good' needs a 'bad' nudge to trigger inevitable events to happen. And this episode may just be that 'imperfection' in fqxi which changes everything."
Again, I believe you are correct.
"But this action not only reveals the 'metaphysical' nature of physics but also...
view entire post
Constantinos, Joy and Nick,
"Yet I am optimistic something good and positive will result from all this. Often, the 'good' needs a 'bad' nudge to trigger inevitable events to happen. And this episode may just be that 'imperfection' in fqxi which changes everything."
Again, I believe you are correct.
"But this action not only reveals the 'metaphysical' nature of physics but also the structure of fqxi. I have, as you know, been very supportive of fqxi and all they seek to do. And in particular, I have always felt Brendan has been 'fair and balanced' in administering fqxi. This decision to go after Joy Christian and his work on Bell's Theorem was made by others behind the scene. Who truly call the shots at fqxi. That is unsettling, since they remain anonymous and unaccountable. Leaving poor Brendan to take the heat. A 'resignation in protest' could save the light here."
Here I am cautious. I have been involved in both corporate experience and political experience. Some truths can be difficult to defend against determined adversaries. They add-on half truths and some falsehoods to grant themselves larger than real caliber ammunition. Joy knows this for sure and I assume you do also. Everything one says in a no-compromise contest becomes available for use against oneself, usually after being distorted or just plain corrupted. Precision, using only what one knows for certain, is the method I follow along with making certain that I am aiming for and directing my actions against the main target.
For me, the main target is the detailed report. I do not know what the final verdict will be, but, scientific validity depends upon that report becoming public. The principal persons must soon recognize the unavoidably required importance of adhering to the accepted scientific practice of giving detailed support for claims made so that anyone can evaluate them and express their opinions. I think it is important to keep everything that might detract from, including what are or maybe accurate additional transgressions, and delay release of the detailed report should be avoided. What I am stressing is that nothing else compares to the necessity of having that report made publicly available to all.
Nick, I included you in the salutation because you registered complaints about previous messages of Joy's. You disapprove of them. However, you have neglected to speak equally disapprovingly of his adversary's messages. Have you actually followed the discourse for yourself? I have observed it and saw that there is clearly no one-sidedness to it. Your stand in favor of the report being made public is clearly correct. The rest of your messages make clear your one sided disapproval of past exchanges concerning Joy's work.
James Putnam
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
Constantinos Ragazas replied on Jan. 27, 2013 @ 23:25 GMT
James,
I have always appreciated and respected your insistence on 'precision'. I do acknowledge I may not always restrain my comments to that standard. As I seek to make sense of what I see. Always reserving the right to change my mind in the light of day.
Constantinos
report post as inappropriate
hide replies
Nick Mann wrote on Jan. 25, 2013 @ 06:42 GMT
FQXi quite simply owes the scientific community a report justifying its panel's public (repeat: public) conclusion that Christian's work is flawed. I say this as no friend of that work.
Christian's attack on BT is important if only because it generates confusion extending outside of science into the broader intellectual community. There cannot be too much clarification. Guys, you've a public duty.
report post as inappropriate
Fred Diether replied on Jan. 25, 2013 @ 07:32 GMT
Hi Nick,
Yes, there is that aspect also. If they really have found something that decisively shows that Dr. Christian's work is flawed, they should let everyone know about it. Because I have been all over his work with a fine tooth comb and there are no flaws that I found. Yep, we all definitely deserve a definitive report about this.
Best,
Fred
report post as inappropriate
Joy Christian wrote on Jan. 25, 2013 @ 17:09 GMT
Dear FQXi
Timing is everything.
If the detailed arguments by the panel of supposed experts are not forthcoming soon, then I demand that FQXi remove the unwarranted slander against my work from this page and apologize to me publicly for wrongfully condemning my work for reasons other than science.
If the detailed arguments *are* forthcoming, then I apologize for being impatient and continue to sharpen my pen while I wait for writing my equally detailed response.
Joy Christian
report post as inappropriate
Nick Mann replied on Jan. 25, 2013 @ 20:24 GMT
Joy --
An intellectual precision problem here. "Slander" is legal terminology and not applicable in this context. You've not been slandered and you'd never win a slander suit in any Developed World court of law.
Maybe you've been insulted. But probably not.
report post as inappropriate
Joy Christian replied on Jan. 25, 2013 @ 21:10 GMT
I don't care what words are used. The bottom line is that FQXi---given its standing in the community---cannot make a public claim like "Christian's work on Bell's theorem is flawed" without providing any scientific arguments to support that claim. You have no idea what such a claim can do to the life and career of a researcher like me. As grateful as I am to FQXi for supporting my work in the past, I find its current stand against my work quite unacceptable. My demand is very simple: removal of the unjustified claim above and public apology, or scientific arguments to support the claim and willingness to let me respond to the arguments. I do not think this is an unreasonable demand.
report post as inappropriate
Fred Diether replied on Jan. 26, 2013 @ 00:21 GMT
All,
"Public humiliation" of Dr. Christian is the words I would use. FQXi should just remove this whole blog thread as this is not the way to deal with science debates. FQXi, what the heck are you thinking???? This is really a terrible way to handle this and smells BIGTIME of behind the scenes politicking.
I do think *unjust* public humiliation is a form of slander, BTW.
Best,
Fred
report post as inappropriate
Nick Mann replied on Jan. 26, 2013 @ 00:43 GMT
J.C.,
We agree on the need for full disclosure. I care less about your reputation than about rectifying the confusion you've generated. One runs across laypersons, reasonably well-informed about physics, who say in effect, "Hey -- what's this stuff about Bell's Theorem? According to this credentialed guy it's baloney." Thanks. Doubtless that makes you proud. People have heard of you who wouldn't recognize the names Hess and Philipp. A Galileo for Our Time. Not a Bruno, of course.
Methinks FQXi's responsibility is clear and unavoidable. Little teasy press-releases or blog headers are not sufficient.
report post as inappropriate
Constantinos Ragazas replied on Jan. 26, 2013 @ 00:48 GMT
Fred,
Certainly FQXi has a great responsibility to Joy Christian (and the public) to explain their actions. But I also feel the panelists themselves have an equal (if not greater) responsibility to speak up. Their continued silence I find very puzzling and incriminating. This whole matter can be easily cleared up to everyone's satisfaction if the panelists explain their reasoning that Joy Christian's work on BT is flawed. Hopefully, some of the panelists will come forth. But if none do, their actions can only be characterized as suspect. Joy Christian is justifiably emotional over this. As anyone would be in the face of injustice.
Constantinos
report post as inappropriate
John Merryman replied on Jan. 26, 2013 @ 04:20 GMT
Constantinos,
Spin. Particles, theories, politics.
Wake me when they make connections.
report post as inappropriate
Constantinos Ragazas replied on Jan. 26, 2013 @ 04:58 GMT
John,
They are all the same! Just as sleeping is another form of waking. What physicists don't realize is they are seeking to describe “how thinks comes to be”. ANY THINK! But let's not be too loud, or we'll wake them up.
Constantinos
report post as inappropriate
T H Ray replied on Jan. 26, 2013 @ 14:57 GMT
The legal question of whether the libel against Joy Christian is actionable, is separate from the moral question of whether a libel has been committed. It most certainly has.
Does anyone know of any case, anywhere, of a peer review panel passing judgment on a scientific work without releasing the panel's comments to the originator? The general tack is to decline comment. Given that this panel did not decline comment, and instead rejected the work with prejudice, clearly constitutes a crime against conscience.
If Joy, in Nick Mann's opinion, did no more damage to physics than "confusing" the community, it ought to be ridiculously simple for experts to "unconfuse" the issue.
I have witnessed many moral transgressions in this struggle of science against institutional intransigence, but none more egregious than this. It teeters on anti- intellectualism. I would hate to see FQXi fall over that ledge.
Tom
report post as inappropriate
Fred Diether replied on Jan. 26, 2013 @ 18:14 GMT
That is just it, Tom. They must not have any sure way of showing that Joy's model is flawed so they can't really present it. IOW, they must really believe that his model is a correct model of quantum correlations!
Best,
Fred
report post as inappropriate
Nick Mann replied on Jan. 26, 2013 @ 20:21 GMT
"If Joy, in Nick Mann's opinion, did no more damage to physics than "confusing" the community ..."
He hasn't confused the physics community, almost all of whom understand his stuff for what it is: "science" on a par with Cold Fusion. He has, however, confused many educated laypeople. That's less forgivable.
He's an embarrassment as a scientist, and his online conduct throughout the past several months has humiliated the profession. At least Perimeter understood the proper way to deal with him.
report post as inappropriate
T H Ray replied on Jan. 26, 2013 @ 20:32 GMT
So what are you, Nick, scientist or educated layperson? Perhaps you would like to assuage the embarrassment to the physics community and save its honor, by setting things straight.
Dying to read your review.
Tom
report post as inappropriate
Constantinos Ragazas replied on Jan. 26, 2013 @ 20:43 GMT
More name calling will not help resolve the more substantive scientific dispute. The real embarrassment here are the actions taken by FQXi (and the wizards behind the curtains) denying reasoned discussion in refuting Christian's claims.
Constantinos
report post as inappropriate
Joy Christian replied on Jan. 26, 2013 @ 21:35 GMT
I would be interested to know from Nick Mann how exactly
Perimeter understood the proper way to deal with
me; for I haven't a clue.
I would also like to know what online conduct is he talking about---the posts signed by Joy Christian (not verified), or the posts signed by Joy Christian (not verified)? Or perhaps he is talking about the posts signed by Joy Christian (not verified).
report post as inappropriate
John Merryman replied on Jan. 27, 2013 @ 00:33 GMT
Nick,
Multiworlds, blocktime, string theory, inflationary cosmology, multiverses, supersymmetry etc and Joy has confused the laity and embarrassed the priesthood? That must have quite a faux pas. Joy have you been molesting small children?
Constatinos,
I'll contact you when I'm at home, but that wont be till Monday. This phone is just entertainment.
report post as inappropriate
Constantinos Ragazas replied on Jan. 27, 2013 @ 01:04 GMT
Nick Mann writes, “[Joy Christian] ... has humiliated the profession.” Placing the interests of 'the profession' above the interests of Truth is an insult to Reason.
Constantinos
report post as inappropriate
hide replies
Constantinos Ragazas wrote on Jan. 26, 2013 @ 04:38 GMT
Quoting from Brendan's post, “The panel ... was split as to what degree its findings should be made public.”
The question of public disclosure was, therefore, discussed by the panel. With dissenting opinions. Yet the decision was made to release the statement “Christian's work on Bell's theorem is flawed”. But not their reasons. This was deliberate. Thus, some members of the panel felt it was more important to publicly discredit Christian's work than refute it with reasoned arguments.
I have been a strong supporter of FQXi and continue to be. But I am having great difficulties understanding how this action fits their stated mission. I have to believe this was forced on the FQXi administrators. Who many be no more than the public face of the wizards behind the curtains.
Constantinos
report post as inappropriate
Joy Christian replied on Jan. 26, 2013 @ 05:16 GMT
Constantinos,
FQXi was held to ransom by Scott Aaronson on his blog last year. He is a FQXi member with very strong views about Bell's failed theorem. He teaches computers at MIT and thinks that he also knows physics. He demanded on his blog last year that FQXi stop legitimising my work by funding it. There is no mystery here. He is your wizard.
Joy
report post as inappropriate
Fred Diether replied on Jan. 26, 2013 @ 06:47 GMT
Hi Joy,
But why the long delay? I think there is more to this than just Aaronson. Plus he has been busy lately having a child. That takes up a lot of time; been there done that.
Hmm... FQXi = Foundational Questions Institute
But I guess it is only for scientific researchers that don't rock the foundations too much? And why make themselves look bad and foolish by publicly humiliating one of their own members? This just doesn't make much sense at all. Are we in some kind of time warp and it is April Fool's day every day?
Best,
Fred
report post as inappropriate
Joy Christian replied on Jan. 26, 2013 @ 07:45 GMT
Hi Fred,
Well, whoever are the real wizards behind the curtain it is quite clear that the whole expert-thing is a purely politically concocted nonsense. It is deeply disappointing to see FQXi sliding down the same slippery slope I have seen one other institute slide down before.
Best,
Joy
report post as inappropriate
Constantinos Ragazas replied on Jan. 26, 2013 @ 15:08 GMT
Joy,
Asking FQXi not to fund your BT work is not the same as publicly declaring it “flawed”. Yet providing no reasons. This goes way beyond funding. It seems your work has touched on an intellectual nerve. With real consequences to the established theories. For me, this reaction both affirms your claims and reveals the 'metaphysical' in physics. Can't imagine mathematicians, for example, acting in such fashion! They are more accepting of ideas and scrutinize validity only.
Constantinos
report post as inappropriate
Joy Christian replied on Jan. 26, 2013 @ 16:02 GMT
Constantinos,
"It seems your work has touched on an intellectual nerve."
That is an understatement of the century. The political and financial measures being taken against me by FQXi is just a "yet another" in a long series of such measures being taken against me since 20th March 2007---i.e., since my first anti-Bell paper appeared on the arXiv. The list is quite long.
As for metaphysics, BT concerns a deeply metaphysical issue. It concerns the nature of physical reality, as debated, for example, by Einstein and Bohr, and the nature of local causality, as debated, for example, by Einstein of special relativity and Einstein of general relativity.
Joy
this post has been edited by the author since its original submission
report post as inappropriate
Constantinos Ragazas replied on Jan. 26, 2013 @ 18:35 GMT
Joy,
How do 'metaphysical' disputes get settled? I fear in just the way you have experienced! Through denial and persecution. Yet, Physics has long prided itself as being 'beyond metaphysics'. My
last essay concerned just that intellectual blind spot. Yet, I can't help hope we (all human beings) can go beyond beliefs, seeking to convert (by any means) everyone else to our view of 'what is' the Universe.
I have sought to show in my own feeble way such 'religious wars' are not necessary. It is possible to base Physics on mathematical tautologies that describe our measurement interactions. While leaving 'what is' undefined. This undefined 'prime physis' quantity I argue is the 'time-integral of energy'. What I call the 'quantity eta'. But that's another story.
Constantinos
report post as inappropriate
John Merryman replied on Jan. 26, 2013 @ 19:41 GMT
Constantinos,
I think the point you are making is that rationality and logic naturally mimic the structure of matter, but have to edit out the dynamic of energy. The result, when carried to extremes, is a form of gravitational vortex, as information is distilled into ever more dense arrangements devoid of dynamism. I don't see those engaged in this changing their methods because it is an entirely logical and consuming process. Consider Einstein thought gravity would collapse space to a point. He also dismissed the idea of a dynamic present as illusion. Detail oriented people don't do meta. They just can't figure out what connects the points. To use an analogy, it would be like having a debate over an Escher sketch of stairs going in a circle. One side(non-local) thinks it must be real because every step fits the next. The other side(hidden variables) thinks there must be a break somewhere. Unfortunately the unspoken strictures don't allow discussion of what might appear possible in two dimensions, wouldn't work in three dimensions because an additional dimension goes against the reductionist impulse. Once you fall into it, you can only go further, not back. Only light can climb out, not structure.
Now if we looked at it as waves, naturally contracting waves fall together, as expanding waves push apart. Particles are contracted waves.
report post as inappropriate
Constantinos Ragazas replied on Jan. 26, 2013 @ 20:32 GMT
John,
You are raising many interesting ideas here which, regrettably, do not address the purpose of this thread. I have already suggested that FQXi provide some chat-room-like space where such discussions as you wish to have can be initiated without infringing on a forum/blog topic. Out of respect and concern for Joy Christian's plight and hurt, I will cease and desist. But if you wish to email me, feel free to do so at KostaDinos@aol.com
Constantinos
report post as inappropriate
hide replies
Gregory Timms wrote on Jan. 28, 2013 @ 17:34 GMT
Quite honestly, I don't know who is correct on this issue - but since I am familiar with how FQXi organized an essay contest voting procedure that actually encouraged corruption, I am inclined to be very suspicious of FQXi's motives with anything.
Since FQXi has a history of receiving large sums of $$$ from organizations with strong ties to religion, I'm wondering of any conclusions that can be drawn as a result of Joy's work are in direct conflict with the agenda of any funding source?? Maybe others can chime in on that.
Seems ironic that a so-called science organization with such religious ties is now throwing a Christian to the Lions.
report post as inappropriate
Joy Christian replied on Jan. 28, 2013 @ 18:03 GMT
Gregory,
I will not speculate on FQXi's motives in general, for I think their heart is in the right place. Plus I like most of my colleagues, and believe that---despite their human fallibilities---they are all doing the best they can.
I want to make one thing clear, however: My name, Joy Christian, is most ironic. Personally, let alone being a Christian, I am not even a theist. I am a scientist, if only a rather unappreciated one. And the closest I have come to believe in is in the god of Spinoza.
Thanks for your thoughts in any case,
Joy
report post as inappropriate
Constantinos Ragazas replied on Jan. 28, 2013 @ 18:40 GMT
Gregory,
The issue is lntellectual integrity. What is it about this you don't know?
Constantinos
report post as inappropriate
Joy Christian replied on Jan. 28, 2013 @ 20:09 GMT
John Merryman replied on Jan. 29, 2013 @ 02:53 GMT
Joy,
That is an interesting description of the current situation. It should be noted though, that it describes an ecosystem that promotes growth of atomized and packaged knowledge as a survival mechanism. In order to transcend that, you would have to rewrite much of the current human condition. Is there one universal "truth" to be found and deified, or is knowledge a bit like Newton's grains of sand on a beach? We mostly do try to distill information down to a few little hard nuggets of idealized truth, but what if someone else's grain of truth is actually different from yours? That debate has motivated theology and philosophy for millennia, but ideals and absolutes are not the same thing. One is apex and the other is basis. What one might have distilled away as inconsequential, might be foundational to another. Belief is a function of the gravitational focus of the crowd and physics tries to distill information into the most irreducible grains of knowledge. Not surprisingly everything is now modeled as dimensionless points. Waves, space, time, temperature, action, etc. are all reduced to mathematical abstractions. Might this very tendency toward reductionsim backfire? Nature does have a way of making us look foolish. Light travels through those slits as waves and only reduces to a point when stopped by the detector. Might reality, and non-locality, make more sense if we didn't treat everything as a particle?
report post as inappropriate
Vladimir F. Tamari replied on Jan. 31, 2013 @ 02:58 GMT
"My name, Joy Christian, is most ironic"
Not necessarily: "Joy Christian" conjures a figure from John Bunyan's Pilgrim's Progress - a humble monk seeking after truth. One wishes him godspeed and safety in this Lake of Despond that theoretical physics seems to have become. Also wishes for courage at the ongoing martyrdom by this Infqxiuisition complete with a trial and judgement by hooded figures. For shame!
report post as inappropriate
Joy Christian replied on Jan. 31, 2013 @ 05:52 GMT
Vladimir,
Wow!
You are either a poet, or a writer, or an artist (or all three).
"Infqxiuisition" has quite a ring to it.
Joy
report post as inappropriate
Vladimir F. Tamari replied on Jan. 31, 2013 @ 06:22 GMT
Joy
Just an artist with physics as an important sideline. I cannot pretend to understand the finer points of your Bell's Theorem disproof, but I admire the way you have gone on your own, following your intuitions and defending them. I found the sneaky way that fqxi has behaved towards you rather pathetic. Bell or no Bell, linear local causal interactions may well turn out to be the only thing real in physics. See my fqxi paper and references therein
Fix Physics! Vladimir
report post as inappropriate
hide replies
James Putnam wrote on Jan. 28, 2013 @ 23:06 GMT
Will the report concerning the purported flaw or flaws in Joy's 'Disproof' of Bell's Theorem be released?
My opinion:
The unsupported declaration of finding will not suffice. It is necessary to support the announcement of the panel's decision of scientific right versus wrong. The panel is exquisitely qualified to support their decision. If it is desired to respect the panel's anonymity, that is acceptable from my perspective. The proof of the finding cannot be secret. In the end, it just cannot be kept secret.
James Putnam
report post as inappropriate
Joy Christian replied on Jan. 29, 2013 @ 11:45 GMT
Dear FQXi,
You owe me either public apology or scientific arguments.
Why have you stooped to lying?
There never was a panel of sufficiently qualified experts who can understand my work, was there?
There never were detailed reports (let alone scientific arguments) against my disproof, were there?
Why resort to slandering one of your own members in public without a prior warning?
Are any of your members safe tonight from such a lopsided, tyrannical, and politically motivated attack on their work by you?
You could have simply stopped funding my research in order to appease your Scott Aaronson.
Why did you have to lie for it?
You can still redeem yourself by releasing the detailed scientific arguments showing exactly how my work is "flawed" as you claim it is.
Until then your actions are inconsistent with your proclaimed charter.
Joy Christian
report post as inappropriate
T H Ray replied on Jan. 29, 2013 @ 13:20 GMT
I am compelled to concur. FQXi's argument from authority is fallacious, and not a refutation.
FQXi, will you stake your reputation on a logical fallacy?
Tom
report post as inappropriate
Rick P. replied on Jan. 29, 2013 @ 21:38 GMT
IIRC Aaronson threatened publicly on his blog to resign his FQXi membership unless some kind of action were taken by the organization to [renounce, discredit, disavow] Joy Christian. Implicit in that threat was the requirement that the punitive action be publicly declared (unless, of course, JC made all that unnecessary by conveniently resigning his own membership). Aaronson also noted that he put his faith in the judgment of Tegmark and Aguirre.
FQXi has complied in full.
report post as inappropriate
Joy Christian replied on Jan. 30, 2013 @ 04:29 GMT
It is called seeking truth by
aggression, coercion, and punitive measures against rivals.
See also
the attached paper for more details:
attachments:
2_ethics.pdf
this post has been edited by the author since its original submission
report post as inappropriate
hide replies
John Merryman wrote on Jan. 29, 2013 @ 00:23 GMT
Obviously none of us know FQXi's organizational structure, but it seems diffuse enough that no one will be taking the blame for this snafu and it appears the convenient route is to ignore it and assume the dust will eventually settle. This would amount to a win by default for Joy.
report post as inappropriate
Constantinos Ragazas replied on Jan. 29, 2013 @ 03:27 GMT
John,
The wizards behind FQXi responsible for this would like nothing better than for us to think of this as a “snafu”. No “snafu” here! This is very deliberate! There is no winning by default. Only truth which must be known sooner or later. Knowing so is no consolation to Joy, however. Who is hurting through this. As we all, with any intellectual conscience, should also be!
Constantinos
report post as inappropriate
John Merryman replied on Jan. 29, 2013 @ 05:18 GMT
Constantinos,
If one has truly reached the heights of awareness and knowledge, there is no judge and jury of peers. On the other hand, if you are trying to patch a hole in the current model, there will always be competition.
To me the discipline of physics goes about its goal about like sticking an apple in a food processor and then wondering how it ever fit together in the first place. You grind it down to little bitty bits, then wonder what held it together. Like boiling away a pot of water, then thinking the white stuff in the bottom must be the essence of water. Space, waves, the thermodynamic equilibrium that is temperature, all forms of connectivity, are all relegated to statistical effects and measures. Then they find "entangled particles" still seem to have some mysterious, uneliminatable connection and it's a massive puzzle of how you turn the particles! I'm not buying it. Joy seems a nice enough guy, but I still think they are all fighting over just how many angels can dance on a pin. Where the missing epicycle must be.
Energy manifests information. Energy is conserved and dynamic, so it is constantly destroying information. Information must adher to the rules of energy. If the information seems fuzzy, it is because the ability to measure the energy is not sufficiently dynamic. Math is a very effective tool, but it has to be demythologised.
report post as inappropriate
Fred Diether replied on Jan. 29, 2013 @ 06:07 GMT
John said, "This would amount to a win by default for Joy."
In a strange sort of way. Joy could say, "Look... I challenged them to produce the reason they called my model flawed and they couldn't do it so my model must be correct." But knowing Joy, I would say that he would rather explain why they are wrong in calling his model flawed. I would like to also.
In words, his model is really not all that complicated if you understand a little bit about parallelized 3-sphere topology. Do a YouTube search for Hopf Fibration and look at Niles Johnson's excellent lecture about it.
Best,
Fred
report post as inappropriate
John Merryman replied on Jan. 29, 2013 @ 17:10 GMT
Fred,
Thanks for the suggestion. I'll have to explore it more to be able to tie it into Joy's work though. The animation did illustrate my observation about time, that past events/information must be erased/recede, in order for the present to manifest. I bring this up because in Joy's paper on time, he was arguing the creation of the past pushes the present into the future, but in that video, the old shapes needed to vanish, in order for it not to fill up with overlapping forms. It's a bit like what part of your brain you use. Some might see the constant creation of the new, but us slower thinking people are trying to absorb the old before it vanishes. There is no external dimension of time carrying us into the future, but simply the dynamic pushing the old further into the past.
It's been my experience that FQXi can be a bit of a blank wall for long stretches of time. Seems like its workings are unplugged again.
report post as inappropriate
Constantinos Ragazas replied on Jan. 29, 2013 @ 22:03 GMT
John,
I see a gleamer of light through your poetic license. Now if you just capture that in a mathematical formulation, you may get physicists attention. Joy has. And look all the attention (and condemnation) he is getting! Can you feel the heat? He needs our support. Not so much because we agree with his theory (which I confess I don't really understand) but because we believe in intellectual integrity. If he is to be refuted, it must be done with reasoned debate in the light of day. And not by decree of some anonymous and irresponsible secret panel. For me, that is what this is all about. And James Putnam (and others) have come to agree with this. But the longer fqxi remains silent and comatose on this, the more they decay.
Constantinos
report post as inappropriate
John Merryman replied on Jan. 30, 2013 @ 02:24 GMT
Constantinos,
All is physics. To put it poetically, the fish rots from the head down. Systems build up complexity until they become unstable, then "reset" back to a point of stability, before building back up again. FQXi is an attempt at glasnost by the physics community, in the assumption they are fundamentally right and just need more growing room, but it is raising uncomfortable questions and creating instability. So the institutional response is to call the perpetrator(s) a crank and ignore them.
As for me devising a math formula for time as measure of frequency of action, rather than geometric basis for it? Math is conceptual shorthand. It assigns symbols to concepts in order to speed up communication among those fluent in the language. I really don't think my point is complicated enough to need shorthand. I think the problem is that it refutes a basic assumption of how time is treated and that is not convenient. Condensing it into a formula won't make it convenient.
report post as inappropriate
hide replies
Fred Diether wrote on Jan. 30, 2013 @ 07:37 GMT
Hi Folks,
Some of you on this thread have shown an interest in Joy Christian's work but admit that you don't fully understand it. Well... now might a good time to learn more about it. I am sure that Joy would answer any questions you might have about his model and I can possibly help with that also since Joy was patient enough with me to learn quite a bit about his model. Maybe we can turn a negative here into something more positive?
You interested lurkers out there can join in also if you wish. We can start with
his one page paper and work out from there. I am sure you all can print out a single page and ask some question about what you don't understand with it.
The bottom line is that you will probably gain a better understanding of Bell's theorem and other good stuff like 3-sphere topology, etc. even if you don't come to agree with Joy's model. Let do it before the party poopers start showing up! :-)
Best,
Fred
PS. Link above fixed
this post has been edited by the author since its original submission
report post as inappropriate
Joy Christian replied on Jan. 30, 2013 @ 07:59 GMT
Excellent idea, Fred. I will be happy to answer any questions. Here is a link to all 14 of
my papers on the subject. Feel free to ask questions about any one of them.
report post as inappropriate
Constantinos Ragazas replied on Jan. 31, 2013 @ 02:07 GMT
Fred,
Great idea! Tried the link several times unsuccessfully. As soon as I read the paper I'll respond with questions. Having a reasoned discussion of Joy's work is very apropos under the very blog where his work is deemed “flawed”; without giving reasons. But any discussion we should have here does not absolve FQXi's 'secret panel' from their intellectual dishonesty.
As a precursor to that discussion, let me say: though more math may refute other math, more math cannot fix Physics! Only a 'physical view that makes sense' may do that. What is that 'physical view' (Einstein's 'picture') in Joy's refutation of Bell?
Constantinos
report post as inappropriate
Fred Diether replied on Jan. 31, 2013 @ 05:51 GMT
Thanks Constantinos,
I fixed the link to the one page paper so should be working now. Your question is a good segue to more about the model. Einstein thought (via EPR) that quantum mechanics was not complete. Not that it was wrong but that it was missing something. Of course everyone thinks that in 1964, Bell put an end to that proposition. Fast forward to 2007 and Joy Christian discovered what was missing! And that is the topology of a parallelized 3-sphere applied to the EPR-Bohm scenario. The 3-sphere topology is really not anything that is all that radical or new. It basically involves spinors that we already knew about from quantum theory and math. But no one ever applied it to the problem before like Joy did. When you come right down to thinking about it, it really is a natural choice to try. Lo and behold, it actually works to solve Einstein's problem with QM! Basically said, space has similar properties to say... fermions.
Now, since the 3-sphere topology is parallelized, it has zero curvature (flat) but a non-zero torsion (twist). Joy, in his model, has normalized the topology to a unit 3-sphere so that points on the 3-sphere can be +1 or -1. However, an interesting thing is that the topology also has a left or right handed orientation. Basically opposite. So the signs of the 1's become flipped in the two different orientations. When the particle pair is created in the EPR-Bohm scenario, there is a 50-50 chance in Nature that the orientation of that particular pair's topology will be left or right handed. That is Joy's hidden variable. And this is all involving physical postulates here. That hidden variable coupled with the torsion of the topology (space) is what gives us quantum correlations in the EPR-Bohm scenario.
Well, I will break here for any possible questions about the above or corrections or comments by Joy. :-) Also, once you have the one page paper, we can reference some of the above to it.
Best,
Fred
this post has been edited by the author since its original submission
report post as inappropriate
Joy Christian replied on Jan. 31, 2013 @ 06:14 GMT
Hi Fred,
That is beautifully and succinctly presented!
There is nothing much I can add, except to say that things do get a bit more complicated once we try to implement these ideas in concrete mathematical terms.
Best,
Joy
report post as inappropriate
Fred Diether replied on Jan. 31, 2013 @ 07:28 GMT
Thanks Joy,
I think it is more fun (and productive) to discuss and explain your discovery than sittin' around scratching our heads as to what's up with FQXi. Probably won't know anything new anywise until they have their next board meeting or whatever they do. So might as well do like Obama does in the meantime and take the argument to the people. :-) The more people that understand your model and the issues involved the better.
And... I would just like to add here that I think Einstein AND Bell would be proud of you for your discovery and probably would be very good supporters of it if they were still around.
Best,
Fred
report post as inappropriate
T H Ray replied on Jan. 31, 2013 @ 12:31 GMT
Fred, Joy & all,
I would like to add why it's important that a manifold is orientable. This and simple connectedness are the only properties that guarantee continuous measurement functions.
S^3 (the 3-sphere) is oriented by one simple pole at infinity -- when we translate that to complex functions across the equator of S^3, we find that the 2-dimension, i.e., complex, analysis on...
view entire post
Fred, Joy & all,
I would like to add why it's important that a manifold is orientable. This and simple connectedness are the only properties that guarantee continuous measurement functions.
S^3 (the 3-sphere) is oriented by one simple pole at infinity -- when we translate that to complex functions across the equator of S^3, we find that the 2-dimension, i.e., complex, analysis on S^2 X S^2 (the 2-dimension surface of the 3-ball, or S^2, which on S^2 X S^2 forms S^3) we find that the only possible results are + 1, - 1 and the imaginary number i.
Manipulation by geometric algebra (spacetime algebra) eliminates the imaginary term, because continuous production of the sine wave, as Joy explains, never degenerates. The result that Bell finds impossible: E(a,b) = -a.b is impossible only in a mathematical sense of non-orientability; in other words, the arithmetic model which is disconnected, and the quantum measurement which is multiply connected, cannot close the gap between the input argument of the initial condition and the discrete result of the measurement.
Joy has explained this compactly, in a post at least as long ago as
24 Sept 2009:
" . . . EPR-Bohm elements of reality have a very specific topological structure -- they live on a unit 2-sphere (i.e., on the surface of a unit ball). This topological structure differs from the topological structure presumed by Bell in the functions A ( a, L ) = +1 or -1, which live on a unit 0-sphere, not 2-sphere. Thus Bell's theorem simply does not apply to the EPR argument, unless one modifies his main assumption by writing his function as A ( a, L ) = +1 or -1 about a. After all, no one has ever observed a 'click' in an experiment other than about some experimental direction a. With this simple change the function A now takes on values in a topological 2-sphere, not the real line, thereby correctly representing the EPR elements of reality. The values of the spin components are still +1 or -1, but they now reside on the surface of a unit ball. This, in essence, is the only change I have made in any of my papers. But once this change is made, no contradiction with quantum mechanics arises."
Tom
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
Vladimir F. Tamari replied on Jan. 31, 2013 @ 13:10 GMT
Hello
Fred and Tom's explanations of how Joy invoked the 3-sphere and approach suddenly clicked in a very positive way with my way of thinking. In my
2005 Beautiful Universe theory space, radiation, matter etc. are all made up of dielectric spherically symmetrical spinning nodes that influence the orientation and spin of their neighbors to transmit radiation or get 'locked' into matter. All local and causal. In such a Universe every node is a sort of Bloch sphere ('unit-ball' !) that has inbuilt chirality, hence the right-hand rule of e/m (see attached figure 5 from my paper). I still do not understand Joy's topological approach in its mathematical details (my loss), but it makes a lot more sense now how Bell could have gotten the scenario wrong.
Hope this makes some sense!
Cheers
Vladimir
attachments:
FIG5_6286.jpg
report post as inappropriate
Anonymous replied on Jan. 31, 2013 @ 18:25 GMT
Dear Fred,
The (con)densed 1 page Joy paper linked in your prior post requires volumes of scriptures to descript. And years of monastic study, meditation and prayer. In a recent past lifetime, I use to pride myself for making complex concepts simple to my bright prep-school students. E.g. Stokes Theorem for Differential Forms. Such was the standard for my 'real' understanding of the abstract formulations in symbols. Can I expect the same?
I ask, knowing full well everything in that 1 page obstruction is fooly physical to the devotees. But that points to the need for having people like me point to the need for a 'physical view that makes sense'. And ask for better explanations. Simply, if it doesn't make sense to the 'man in the street' it shouldn't be physics. But it can be math. As math, I admire the intellectual prowess and high wire acrobatics. But my senses remain consistent.
If you're still with me, I ask …
How can we have 'local realism' and 'entanglement' too? What is the 'physical view' here? You can use the broad range of human experience to illustrate this.
Constantinos
PS. By “parallelized” do you mean “parameterized”?
report post as inappropriate
T H Ray replied on Jan. 31, 2013 @ 18:58 GMT
Constantinos,
You wrote to Fred, "How can we have 'local realism' and 'entanglement' too?"
The issue is *quantum* entanglement, which Joy's framework explains as illusion. Classical orientation entanglement as characterizes the spinor model is something that even a reasonably informed man in the street should understand.
"By 'parallelized' do you mean 'parameterized'?"
Two different things. The parallelized spheres S^0, S^1, S^3, S^7 -- that live in 1,2,4 and 8 dimensions -- describe consistent relations among points as one might find in a Cartesian plane. Thus, the extension of complex (2-dimensional) analysis that gives us, besides the closed algebra of the complex plane, the "hyper" classes of numbers, quaternions (4 dimensions) and octonions (8 dimensions).
Tom
report post as inappropriate
Joy Christian replied on Jan. 31, 2013 @ 19:09 GMT
Constantinos,
By "parallelized" Fred means "parallelized," not "parameterised." It essentially means that the 3-sphere is "flat", like the Euclidean space. It is not curved, like a curved space that could be a solution of Einstein's field equation of general relativity.
You may ask: How can a sphere be flat? Well, it can be if the torsion within it is non-zero. Recall that spaces (or...
view entire post
Constantinos,
By "parallelized" Fred means "parallelized," not "parameterised." It essentially means that the 3-sphere is "flat", like the Euclidean space. It is not curved, like a curved space that could be a solution of Einstein's field equation of general relativity.
You may ask: How can a sphere be flat? Well, it can be if the torsion within it is non-zero. Recall that spaces (or manifolds) can be characterized by two tensors, the Riemann curvature tensor and the torsion tensor. An ordinary round 3-sphere has its curvature tensor non-zero but torsion tensor zero. We can swap these two properties of the 3-sphere by parallelizing it, which is a mathematical process. The result would be a Euclidean-like 3-sphere with zero curvature but non-zero torsion.
But you are right to stress on the physical view. The physical view is quite simple, and it is the view held by both Einstein and Bell (remember that Bell was quite fond of Bohm's hidden variable theory).
You ask: "How can we have 'local realism' and 'entanglement' too?"
Einstein did not object to entanglement as a statistical description of reality. What the quantum mystics will not tell you is that no one has ever observed entanglement. What one does see in the laboratory are the correlations. In orthodox quantum theory these are statistical predictions, derived, in general, from entangled quantum states, by applying the projection or measurement postulate. So, in the end, one must reduce everything even theoretically to statistical correlations. And it is such correlations that we actually see in the laboratory. Now in Einstein's view this meant that there must be an underlying local-realistic mechanism that gives rise to what we actually see in the laboratory, with entanglement being just a short-cut for calculating what we see. I have found this mechanism. It is the non-trivial topology of the parallelized 7-sphere, of which the 3-sphere Fred is talking about is a special case (one of its fibres).
Joy
view post as summary
this post has been edited by the author since its original submission
report post as inappropriate
Constantinos Ragazas replied on Jan. 31, 2013 @ 19:16 GMT
Tom, you write “Classical orientation entanglement as characterizes the spinor model is something that even a reasonably informed man in the street should understand.”
Try me!
Constantinos
report post as inappropriate
Joy Christian replied on Jan. 31, 2013 @ 19:22 GMT
Constantinos Ragazas replied on Jan. 31, 2013 @ 20:01 GMT
Thanks, Joy
I appreciate the bother. And respect your willingness to explain. But much more is needed to explain this to a mere mortal like me. Indulge me if you can.
In the same past life I spoke about with Fred, I understood and was very fond of “exterior products”. These I associated with the geometric “hypervolume” of “parallelopipes”. But didn't have much use for “tensors”. Which physicists like and I am told are equivalent to “exterior products”. If you could bridge that gap in my understanding and re-frame your explanations above in terms of “exterior products” that would be great. But don't let me impose. Only if you are so inclined. How can a “flat sphere”, for example, be formulated in terms of “exterior products”? And how is a 3-sphere “parallelized”? All this is math and not physics, of course. For physics, we also need a 'physical view that makes sense' to the 'man in the street'. Who, imho, continues to be the final judge of any physical theory!
Constantinos
report post as inappropriate
Joy Christian replied on Jan. 31, 2013 @ 21:20 GMT
Constantinos,
I am glad you were fond of exterior products. They are anti-symmetric counterparts,
a /\ b = ½ (ab - ba),
of the symmetric inner products:
a.b = ½ (ab + ba).
In terms of exterior products the hypervolume of a parallelepiped can be written as
v = a /\ b /\ c.
Suppose now you decide to walk along the sides of a parallelogram with a flag in your hand. Suppose the lengths of the vectors that make up the parallelogram are a and b. Then the area you will encircle can be written as a /\ b. Now suppose you kept the pole of the flag at a certain fixed angle with your chest while you are walking around. Then you may expect that the direction of the flag would return to the same direction when you returned back. This, however, would not be the case if you were walking around a curved space. Try the same on the globe, for example, and the flag pole will not return to the same direction despite the fact that you kept it at the same angle to your chest. The two directions---the initial and final---would itself subtend a different area, say c /\ d. Thus, in general, if you find c /\ d = 0 upon returning, then you know that you have been walking around a flat space. But if you find c /\ d not= 0 then you know that you have been walking around a curved space.
Walking around a parallelogram within a flat 3-sphere you would find that c /\ d = 0.
Does this "physical view" make sense to the "man in the street"?
Joy
this post has been edited by the author since its original submission
report post as inappropriate
John Merryman replied on Feb. 1, 2013 @ 02:58 GMT
Constantinos,
Keep in mind this is a situation where even those who have spent their lives studying the math can't keep all the pieces in order. Hence the whole controversy in the first place.
Maybe as an encore, Joy can resolve the multiworlds non-collapsing wave function issue and really get Tegmark's goat.
report post as inappropriate
Constantinos Ragazas replied on Feb. 1, 2013 @ 04:49 GMT
Joy,
I am beginning to understand you! Your explanation is very helpful to this “man in the street”. It puts some 'physicality' to abstract ideas. Just as our experience of space can be used to make sense of hyperspace. But how can a 3-sphere be physically transformed to have zero curvature and non-zero torsion? And why should that matter when calculating correlations? Are the calculated results mathematical artifacts which become physical illusions when applied to physics? A high minded “smoke and mirrors” trick? Where is the 'physics' here? Or is it all math!
But I wont belabor the point for now. I am content with what you, Tom and Fred wrote and will need to digest it more. Many thanks,
Constantinos
report post as inappropriate
Fred Diether replied on Feb. 1, 2013 @ 06:48 GMT
Hi Constantinos,
I still struggle a bit with trying to visualize about your question that you have about the 3-sphere topology. I think you have to completely give up the notion of thinking about a regular 2-sphere when thinking about a parallelized 3-sphere. Maybe this will help some. A 2-sphere like the earth when trying to map it, has two poles. You can't get rid of them. A parallelized 3-sphere has no poles if you could map it. IOW, if it had hair on it, you would be able to smoothly comb it without a cowlick appearing. Well, that has more to do with the parallelizability than flatness but I suspect they are connected. Yes, it is a bizarre kind of manifold of which I need to learn more about for my own research now that Joy has given us a good path to follow forward.
Best,
Fred
report post as inappropriate
Vladimir F. Tamari replied on Feb. 1, 2013 @ 11:43 GMT
Fred, Constantinos, Joy
I am enjoying Constantin's insistence to understand in a physical way what the 3-sphere means, and Fred's explanations by analogy. Fred said: " A parallelized 3-sphere has no poles if you could map it. IOW, if it had hair on it, you would be able to smoothly comb it without a cowlick appearing". This would be a reference to Brewer's Theorem which also cropped up in my
Beautiful Universe BU theory - see Fig. 40 attached. A spherical array of ether-lattice nodes with their axes tangent to the surface of a sphere and parallel to each other will always leave one vortex. As I understand it Joy's work points to a physical property of the vacuum that makes entanglement a natural physical outcome. If so (BU) theory may provides the excruciatingly precise "nuts and bolts" workings of such a vacuum structure.
Vladimir
attachments:
BUFIG40.jpg
report post as inappropriate
T H Ray replied on Feb. 1, 2013 @ 16:58 GMT
Hi Vladimir,
I'm confused as to how you apply Brewer's theorem of distributed computing to a simply connected topological model. A computing network is multiply connected.
In Joy's framework, the spin results on the manfold of a 2-sphere (S^2) -- which is a 3-dimensional object and not simply connected -- depend on the topology of a 3-sphere (S^3) as a fiber of the Hopf bundle whose...
view entire post
Hi Vladimir,
I'm confused as to how you apply Brewer's theorem of distributed computing to a simply connected topological model. A computing network is multiply connected.
In Joy's framework, the spin results on the manfold of a 2-sphere (S^2) -- which is a 3-dimensional object and not simply connected -- depend on the topology of a 3-sphere (S^3) as a fiber of the Hopf bundle whose limit is the 7-sphere (S^7). That's what Fred is referring to, a perfectly flat and smooth manifold oriented by a point at infinity which prevents a field tangent to the surface ("cowlick").
Leslie Lamport first described distributed computing as that in which the failure of a computer that you didn't know existed causes your own computer to fail. Thus in the topological sense, multiple connectedness cannot escape its own halting mechanism.
The "cowlick" phenomenon, or "hairy ball theorem" or "porcupine theorem" as it is variously called -- is a special case of the Poincare-Hopf theorem, which is a theorem central to topology that unites topology and analysis in an important way. By analytic continuation from S^1 -- the 2-dimension version that Poincare proved -- to the 8 dimension generalization of Hopf, we find the flat and smooth manifold central to Joy's framework that constitutes a space of continuous and mathematically complete measurement functions.
I appreciate your illustration, but your statement "As I understand it Joy's work points to a physical property of the vacuum that makes entanglement a natural physical outcome ..." is not true. The kind of entanglement that Joy means is actually an un-entanglement of related bodies; i.e., the entangled relation is reversible in principle (as in all classical equations, operates both forward and backward in time), and in which a potential integral valued at zero guarantees completeness and continuity. The quantum entanglment of QM orthodoxy is neither integrable nor complete (at least, in the sense used by EPR-Bohm).
If, OTOH, you mean by " ... physical property of the vacuum ..." the non-zero torsion of the measure space in Joy's framework, then you've got it -- because it is the presence of that torsion in a classicly entangled measurement process that reverses the integral. Think of an up-pointing arrow that points down after making a complete circuit of a Mobius strip.
Tom
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
Constantinos Ragazas replied on Feb. 1, 2013 @ 18:35 GMT
Dear Fred,
I do appreciate your efforts to visualize for me a “parallelized 3-sphere”. And value all your comments. These (as well as those from Joy, Tom and others) have been very useful. And further the outreach to 'the Laity'. Who, imho, remain the ultimate judge of 'physical validity'. Were this 'just math', it wont be so and I wont have asked. But this being physics, the asking is valid. As physics needs to provide a 'physical view that makes sense'.
Why is that important for Physics? Because 'the Laity' provides the roots and foundations of 'what makes sense'. Otherwise and without this requirement Physics morphs into Mathematics, or something worse: Metaphysics! The response by the physics orthodoxy to Joy's work leads me to believe it's more of the latter. When the Math cannot be refuted, the 'faithful' resort to 'authoritative decrees'. And though one courageous panelist came forth to release publicly his report on Joy's work, two others remain behind the curtains. A telling metaphor for the State of Physics presently.
The central question for me is this: “can we know 'what is' the Universe?” Since all we can know are our thoughts and experiences, this question is equivalent to asking if we can know another human being truly as they are. The answer is clear: “No!”. Believing that we can has led to 'common sense violations' and worse. And physicists, with their unswerving conviction we can know “what is”, and act on that knowledge, have a special responsibility here in misleading (and confusing) 'the Laity'. And though Joy's work may have disproved Bell's Theorem, it has yet to lift the 'quantum fog'.
Best,
Constantinos
report post as inappropriate
John Merryman replied on Feb. 1, 2013 @ 20:41 GMT
I would like to second Constantinos' views on the relation between math and physics. I've certainly made my own thoughts on the subject frequently enough not to clutter up this particular thread, though I would say that when you describe someone walking around a parallelogram as a continuous vector, it is math. When you describe it as a process, it is physics.
Zeeya has been generous enough to start a topic I suggested, about the building disconnect in cosmology between theory and observation, so it might be a more appropriate venue for discussing the inherent limits of models and not the contradictions within particular models. Those invested in the capture of physics by mathematical modeling and its speculative excesses are not going to consider the subject until the evidence reachs a tipping point, but that might not be too far away.
report post as inappropriate
Vladimir F. Tamari replied on Feb. 2, 2013 @ 10:40 GMT
Tom
I must apologize for muddying the waters by misspelling Brouwer and typing Brewer instead! A century separates them. Brouwer's 'hairy ball' or 'fixed point' theorem (first stated by Poincare) is the one that describes the inevitable cow-lick on a sphere of aligned vectors.
The whole thrust of my approach to physics is to find - if possible - the simple physical explanation that...
view entire post
Tom
I must apologize for muddying the waters by misspelling Brouwer and typing Brewer instead! A century separates them. Brouwer's 'hairy ball' or 'fixed point' theorem (first stated by Poincare) is the one that describes the inevitable cow-lick on a sphere of aligned vectors.
The whole thrust of my approach to physics is to find - if possible - the simple physical explanation that may underlie the cumbersome models (both physical and mathematical) imposed on reality over the centuries. Quantum probability is definitely one such false model, in the sense that it is mathematically emergent from a physical reality, and not in itself part of reality. I have discussed elsewhere how this came about because of Einstein's mistaken idea that the photon is a point particle. Einstein's ironical acceptance of this probabilistic reasoning is behind EPR, and the rest is the sort of confusion ( i.e. quantum fog that Constantinos mentions) about entanglement that Bell's Theorem only made worse. The photons or electrons etc. are entangled because they have the identical opposite spin from their creation until they reach the detectors.
The mention of the hairy-ball topological concept gave me hope that Joy's work is based on a fundamentally simple physical vision of reality that can be described simply, as Constantinos demanded.
You said: "If, OTOH, you mean by " ... physical property of the vacuum ..." the non-zero torsion of the measure space in Joy's framework, then you've got it -- because it is the presence of that torsion in a classicly entangled measurement process that reverses the integral. Think of an up-pointing arrow that points down after making a complete circuit of a Mobius strip." I was not thinking of Joy's work or of reversibility per se, but of a vacuum actually physically capable of transmitting quantum states including torsion (as angular momenta in units of Planck's constant, and with exquisitely defined orientations on an imagined Bloch sphere at any point of the vacuum, field on or within a fermion. This preserves whatever entangled states the two particles or quanta had before going off in opposite directions (as in Joy's Fig. 2) referenced in his pdf above.
As another Ray admonished us in his fqxi posts
have fun
Vladimir
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
T H Ray replied on Feb. 2, 2013 @ 17:21 GMT
Thanks, Vladimir, that makes more sense to me.
Speaking of " ... a vacuum actually physically capable of transmitting quantum states including torsion (as angular momenta in units of Planck's constant, and with exquisitely defined orientations on an imagined Bloch sphere at any point of the vacuum, field on or within a fermion ..." I'm working on an
idea along that line, myself.
Tom
report post as inappropriate
T H Ray replied on Feb. 2, 2013 @ 17:24 GMT
Ah, I can never get the
link right.
Tom
report post as inappropriate
T H Ray replied on Feb. 2, 2013 @ 17:30 GMT
Okay, last time.
This should work.
Tom
report post as inappropriate
Vladimir F. Tamari replied on Feb. 3, 2013 @ 13:20 GMT
Tom
Thanks for the link to your paper which I read with interest. In another thread I urged Brendan to make linking in these forums easier - I think whether the http:// is or is not included makes a difference but I can never remember which!.
Your idea of studying causality and locality in a Bose Einstein condensate makes sense because - thinking naiively - it has that one state, and is be definition pre-entangled.
But you then go on to employ concepts of an e+ as an e- in backward-flowing time and - again thinking naiively causality evaporates. I remember something about Joy teaching that time does not exist. I also think it does not exist as a dimension, and any physics that is based on it flowing forward or backward is physically unreal and needs to be revised. Not an trivial job of course!
report post as inappropriate
hide replies
T H Ray wrote on Jan. 30, 2013 @ 12:14 GMT
Most of the criticisms I have read fail to understand that Joy's model is fundamentally analytical. Perhaps a detailed exposition of this basic point will help steer the discussion away from irrelevant arguments concerning arithmetic and probability (and as a consequence, eliminate every computer simulation so far suggested).
Toom
report post as inappropriate
Vladimir F. Tamari wrote on Jan. 30, 2013 @ 15:28 GMT
Bee's comment sums my own views very well:
"It has been said before, but it's worth repeating, if all the research you fund is uncontroversial and successful in meeting its goals, it just means you're not taking enough risk and thereby defeating the purpose of your own existence"
Exactly, and what a pity. This has been obvious by the generally tame choice of winning essays for the contests, presumably because of a tame choice of judges. The most interesting ideas are necessarily incomplete and controversial, but by seemingly self-imposing a filter of "academic credentials and reputation come first" fqxi has allowed some great work to be neglected. Eric Reiter's experimental challenge to quantum mechanics (see his 2012 Contest essay ) has been all but neglected. His and Joy's is just the sort of research fqxi should be supporting without any embarrassment or retraction.
report post as inappropriate
John Merryman replied on Jan. 30, 2013 @ 16:29 GMT
Vladimir,
Consider the ways this is following a basic, normal pattern. The establishment recognizes there are problems and seeks to get ahead of them. Whether constructing computer operating systems, or biological evolution, old systems are patched together, until they can no longer compete, then something new comes along. I don't really blame FQXi. Obviously there are competing interests within it, but the old guard naturally controls the money and would like to do whatever is required to survive. Those working under them are going to have very mixed feelings. Time. Patience.
As for Joy's work, I'd better stick the meta questions and leave the fine detail to those wired for it.
report post as inappropriate
Vladimir F. Tamari replied on Jan. 31, 2013 @ 02:24 GMT
John yes that is how things evolve. But rapid change also occurs in some scenarios, when a situation drags on and on and becomes intolerable. Time and patience for those who can afford it, but 'revolutionary' change may be the only way to go forward at other times. Humans (and institutions large and small) act in both modes as the need arises.
Yes one wishes that Joy's work was easier to understand. Eric Reiter's on the other hand can be presented in everyday language and images - a light quanta hits a beamsplitter and is recorded in two detectors simultaneously, which would be impossible if the photon is a point particle.
report post as inappropriate
John Merryman replied on Jan. 31, 2013 @ 03:51 GMT
Vladimir,
The irony here is that as Reiter proposes and shows in his loading experiments, quanata are just such an example of
punctuated equilibrium. The pressure builds gradually, until change occurs suddenly.
By patience, I don't mean don't do anything, by all means keep up the pressure in every way possible, just don't lose hope if nothing seems to be happening.
report post as inappropriate
Vladimir F. Tamari wrote on Jan. 31, 2013 @ 15:39 GMT
John
Good, yes, punctuated equilibrium is one way for radical changes to happen.
Catastrophe Theory is the mathematics of sudden change, so it does occur! Another way is to start anew from new first principles. That takes time and patience, and it might work out. Or not. Either way there was no need for the moralistic accusing tone Joy's work has evoked.
report post as inappropriate
Joy Christian wrote on Jan. 31, 2013 @ 23:18 GMT
Dear All,
Just to let you know that FQXi has finally released a report on my work by one of the panelists (who apparently volunteered to make his or her report available to me).
This partially restores my faith in FQXi.
They are in learning process about how to handle such situations, and I am in a forgiving mood.
I have already looked at the report briefly, and---as I suspected---the panelist has failed to understand my model altogether, despite considerable effort to understand it.
In due course I will write up my detailed response to the report, seek the anonymous panelist's permission somehow, and release both the report and my response to it at an appropriate venue.
Now we are talking the proper intellectually respectable way of doing things.
Joy Christian
this post has been edited by the author since its original submission
report post as inappropriate
James Putnam replied on Feb. 1, 2013 @ 00:05 GMT
Vladimir F. Tamari replied on Feb. 1, 2013 @ 02:04 GMT
Joy, Brendan,
This seems to be a good development, and we look forward to seeing the report and your answer to it.
In the heated exchanges above we missed commenting on the other points Brendan has raised concerning fqXi's reputation. Echoing Feynman's "What do you care what other people think?" I urge fqXi administrators to quietly think through their original mission, with a view first of continuing to be open and support physics research and discussions that more mainstream universities and institutions are not open to. Almost by definition new ideas will have flaws in them that will have to be ironed out. Whether this applies to Joy's work or not is immaterial: fqXi's mandate is not to judge the work, but to support it and allow open discussions of it on its forums.
fqXi's reputation (for being too careless in choosing sponsored work? for being too conservative? whatever) comes as a second consideration to this. New ideas are sure to jar the establishment and there are always sparks when diehard traditionalists meet with new thinkers. By worrying too much about its reputation, fqXi is sabotaging the very mission it set out to do. Such discussions could get heated but yes decorum and mutual respect are essential. Thank you fqXi and Joy for your patience while these matters are ironed out. Physics will be the winner. Perhaps one day a Nobel prizewinner may say from the podium in Sweden "...and a special thanks to fqXi where my ideas were first supported, encouraged and discussed."
Vladimir
report post as inappropriate
Constantinos Ragazas replied on Feb. 1, 2013 @ 03:39 GMT
Great! I am pleased. Now perhaps a good honest discussion can ensue.
Constantinos
report post as inappropriate
Fred Diether replied on Feb. 1, 2013 @ 06:20 GMT
Hi Joy, all,
That was nice of that person to come forward and have FQXi give you the report. As we suspected according to what you have seen, they don't fully understand your model. We need to fix that somehow. :-) Of course I mean find a way to make your discovery more fully understandable to more people. It may take some time and you know it took me a bit of time to get a more complete grasp of it. But I was coming from a different perspective of physics than probably most people and was able to see that it works because it fits with my own ideas about the quantum vacuum. But that is another story we don't need to go into for now.
Best,
Fred
report post as inappropriate
T H Ray replied on Feb. 1, 2013 @ 11:20 GMT
"Now we are talking the proper intellectually respectable way of doing things."
Exactly true. Let the dialogue between researcher and referee produce a coherent outcome. There has been entirely too much hip-shooting these past few years.
Tom
report post as inappropriate
hide replies
Joy Christian wrote on Feb. 1, 2013 @ 06:29 GMT
Dear All,
It would seem ironically unfair to the anonymous panelist if I declared that the report just released to me by FQXi has already been refuted by me several times over. But I feel compelled to do just that.
It is a 15 pages long well-written analysis of two of my papers---the first paper of 2007 and the one-page paper. As far as I can see it fails to mention the words "parallelized 3-sphere" even once. It elaborates on some technical issues which I have already addressed elsewhere in my replies to various critics. Most importantly, the report essentially contains the same mistakes that James Owen Weatherall has made in his criticism of my work (see the attached paper for my reply to him). Thus, in that sense, this report too is a
straw-man argument, but with a much better disguised straw-man.
Note again that the report concentrates only on my paper of 2007 and on my one-page paper, and never mentions "parallelized 3-sphere." Nor does it mention the completeness criterion of EPR, or consider any of my more substantive papers on the subject. The technical issues it does raise are worth refuting, however, and I will do that in due course. But those of you who are curious to know what my reply would be like can check out the attached papers, which already refute the report in great detail. In the past five years my model for quantum correlations has evolved miles beyond my first paper on which the report is based. In other words, the report is a
straw-man argument, albeit of an exquisite kind.
Joy Christian
attachments:
14_2piSpinor.pdf,
16_whither.pdf
this post has been edited by the author since its original submission
report post as inappropriate
Fred Diether replied on Feb. 1, 2013 @ 07:21 GMT
Hi Joy,
Looking forward to the reports. Your research is an interesting experiment as it is basically getting peer reviewed outside of the traditional peer review process of journal publishing. Of course, the tradional route for this topic is probably not available very easily. At least not for the most respected journals. "Ah, you have a paper disproving Bell's theorem. Please go away." That is what they would be saying. At least FQXi is not doing that so far.
Best,
Fred
report post as inappropriate
Joy Christian replied on Feb. 1, 2013 @ 07:51 GMT
Hi Fred,
Ideally it would be nice if we can concentrate on moving my program forward, with the kind of discussion we had at Michael Goodband's essay page. Writing a response to a criticism is much less exciting for several reasons. First, it is like correcting the homework written by a bad student. But with this particular report it is even less exciting because, like most of my recent critics, it wants to drag us back to my first paper, which has been superseded by much more substantive and careful presentations of my model in my most recent papers attached above.
Nevertheless, it is important that I systematically refute all of the issues raised by the panelist, at least to my own satisfaction. By now we know that a skeptic will never be satisfied with my work no matter what.
Best,
Joy
report post as inappropriate
Joy Christian replied on Feb. 1, 2013 @ 10:54 GMT
Dear All,
Just an update: Although I have not yet proved this publicly, at least to my satisfaction the report released to me by FQXi does not contain a single valid argument that could undermine my work on Bell's theorem. In broad terms, what the panelist has missed is the fact that singlet correlations are correlations among the points of a parallelized 3-sphere. As a result, the report has missed the most important physical and mathematical basis of my model. However, although vacuous, the report is elaborately and carefully written. It will take me days, if not weeks, to go through it line-by-line and prove to everyone's satisfaction that the arguments of the panelist indeed do not undermine my model by a whisker. I am, nevertheless, content to discount the released report as essentially valueless. This leaves reports by two other panelists that have not been released to me by FQXi. The validity of the conclusion drawn about my work in Brendan's post above thus rests on the unseen arguments of these unreleased reports.
Joy Christian
------------------------------
Note added on 28 Sep. 2013:
What is shown below are charts of an explicit, event-by-event, numerical simulation of my local-realistic model for the EPR-Bohm correlation (discussed in detail in the first attached paper). These charts prove---once and for all---that, not only the FQXi's exquisite panelists, but *ALL* of the detractors of my work were, and are wrong.
attachments:
20_2piSpinor.pdf,
15_whither.pdf
this post has been edited by the author since its original submission
report post as inappropriate
T H Ray replied on Feb. 1, 2013 @ 11:40 GMT
I think a week long international conference devoted to this singular subject would be a truly productive use of grant funds.
Let the arguments be aired point to counterpoint, conjecture to refutation.
Tom
report post as inappropriate
T H Ray replied on Feb. 1, 2013 @ 19:29 GMT
Joy, I don't think it's a good idea to shoot the messenger. It could very well be that the referee's results released to you represent the unanimous opinion of the panel, since there was no indication in Brendan's article that the panel members reviewed the work independently. A refutation of this report in that case, is a refutation of the panel's findings.
Tom
report post as inappropriate
Joy Christian replied on Feb. 1, 2013 @ 20:29 GMT
Tom,
I am going by the information I received from FQXi. Here is what their message said:
"Please find attached a report that one of the FQXi panelists volunteered to make available to you; this is one of three detailed reports provided to FQXi by the reviewers. We did not ask the panelists to merge their reports into a single consensus document; rather, the overall conclusions of the panel are represented in the posting to the FQXi community site."
Joy
report post as inappropriate
Joy Christian replied on Feb. 1, 2013 @ 20:56 GMT
Just for the record, this nice gesture by the panelist and by FQXi to send me one of the three reports does not alter my opinion that this entire exercise of evaluating my work in this manner was politically motivated, whether consciously or subconsciously. Not for a second do I believe that it had anything to do with seeking Truth. There are extremely powerful people out there with tremendous vested interest in keeping the myth of Bell's theorem alive. I am, on the other hand, entirely expendable. Not a soul in the foundations community is going to miss me if I am completely crushed and wiped out from the academia.
report post as inappropriate
Constantinos Ragazas replied on Feb. 1, 2013 @ 21:38 GMT
Joy, we'll miss you! Just as we'll miss any other true 'Truth seeker'. The Academia can be overcome! But rarely from the 'inside'. Being on the 'outside' has its advantages. It enables you to speak the Truth!
Constantinos
report post as inappropriate
Joy Christian replied on Feb. 1, 2013 @ 21:45 GMT
Thanks, Constantinos. I know you guys will miss me. I can see that being on the "outside" has its advantages. You are not corrupted by power and politics.
report post as inappropriate
Bill Miller replied on Feb. 1, 2013 @ 22:23 GMT
A week-long international conference? On an idea that has never passed peer review? You've got to be kidding. It reminds me of the demands to have an "independent investigation" into what caused the World Trade Center to collapse, you know, to settle the "controversy."
Of course Joy Christian is unhappy with the panelist's analysis. Could we possibly expect anything else? The only thing that would satisfy Joy Christian is the complete and total acceptance of Joy Christian's disproof of Bell's theorem. I challenge anyone to imagine any other possible scenario -- "Well, they got me." Yeah, I don't think so.
One has to wonder at this point, since after several years no referees, judging panels, etc., have been able to understand Joy Christian's alleged disproof to his satisfaction...at the very best, apparently the world is just not ready for this. Perhaps it's time to move on. After all, insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results. I hope it hasn't come to that.
report post as inappropriate
James Putnam replied on Feb. 1, 2013 @ 22:31 GMT
Joy Christian replied on Feb. 1, 2013 @ 22:46 GMT
Hi Bill,
It would make me very happy if you read
this paper at least once, very carefully.
Let us take one step at a time.
Joy
report post as inappropriate
T H Ray replied on Feb. 2, 2013 @ 02:00 GMT
Bill, it's not been the same thing over and over. I have followed the development of this framework since 2009 (I was skeptical then) and I've seen it grow ever more coherent. None of the many criticisms I've read even admit the validity of a topological argument and many make probabilistic arguments despite what should be the obvious fact that Joy's framework is analytical -- betraying the critic's innocence of the most basic meaning of this research that would be required to make a counterargument.
When one accounts for two key classical EPR-B requirements -- 1) mathematical completeness; and 2)measurement functions continuous from the initial condition -- the topological argument falls into place as neat as a pin, and lightly erases the quantum-classical boundary.
Yes, that's a big deal.
Tom
report post as inappropriate
Austin Fearnley replied on Feb. 4, 2013 @ 11:40 GMT
The accusation by FQXi, in its announcement above, that there are flaws
in Joy's work is unsubstantiated. I cannot believe that there are new
arguments against his model as they would surely have been specified.
Falsification of a model cannot be made by an unsubstantiated
announcement. It seems to me that falsification could one day occur
(though I hope it doesn't) based on wider/deeper understanding of
geometric algebra. Rather than try to squash the model by dictat, it
seems to me that there need to be more experts in geometric algebra. Or
more contributions about the model from existing experts. A genuine
falsification of the model does not seem to me to have happened yet as
there seems to be no concerted opposition to the model by geometric
algebrists. The only lasting geometric algebra opposition that I
remember is the objection to using both +ijk and -ijk algebra
simultaneously ie in the same mathematical equation. That may or may
not be crucial, but I do not know. I had hoped for more geometric
algebrists/ topologists commenting on this model in previous FQXi blogs.
So many of the arguments against the model fail to get past "line one"
where Bell assumes points are on a line rather than on a sphere. That
seems to be a rejection by opponents of the model to the use of
geometric algebra and to the implications that Clifford Algebra has for
dimensionality of particles.
It is unclear if the dictat by FQXi is assigning the supposed flaw of
the model to the use of geometric algebra or only in the way in which
geometric algebra has been used.
Austin
report post as inappropriate
Joy Christian replied on Feb. 4, 2013 @ 12:00 GMT
Austin,
For what it's worth, in my opinion the above diktat by FQXi is a purely politically concocted drama. It is a Faustian deal made by FQXi with Scott Aaronson, who is one of its members.
In any case, I have seen a report produced by one of the panelists and it completely misses the point of my model.
If you are truly interested to know my point of view, then please read the attached paper. Since you seem to be genuinely interested in both my model and the Truth, I would be quite happy to answer any of your questions concerning the model, once you have read the attached paper.
Thanks,
Joy
attachments:
5_whither.pdf
this post has been edited by the author since its original submission
report post as inappropriate
Joy Christian replied on Feb. 4, 2013 @ 16:24 GMT
Finally some
good news (thanks, Tom).
While it may be too late for my academic wellbeing, the paper indicates that the days of my detractors are numbered.
[This post has been edited to remove potentially insulting personal comments. Z]
PS: FQXi admin has edited my post above, but I fail to see what was "potentially insulting personal comments" in it. Apparently I am not allowed to mention the name of Scott Aaronson in my posts.
this post has been edited by the author since its original submission
report post as inappropriate
Anonymous replied on Feb. 5, 2013 @ 18:27 GMT
Thanks Joy
I assure you of my best wishes and support. Thank you for pointing me
at your recent paper. I skimmed through your new paper not too long ago
when it was referred to on a different thread, but it will take time to
take it in as I am not expert. I have read most of your Bell issue
papers referred to in previous threads and have been working at learning
CA. I have absolutely no problem in believing that the geometry
required is different from what it naively appears to be and that
geometric algebra is appropriate.
If I can ask a question about Dirac belt, or the waiter's tray, which
you have sometimes resorted to by way of analogy for 4pi rotations.
(You have a paper available on spinorial sign changes which I have only
just noticed and not read yet.) The explanation for the layman is
usually given as it being caused by there being a point at infinity, eg
the south pole of a Riemann sphere. But for an electron, the 4pi
rotation is a local effect. I can see that a paper strip can become a
moibus strip by one cut and twist at its 'infinity'. I find that taking
one's belt off or twirling a cup around one's head to test for 4pi
rotations is too dubious, though I have tried both. It is easier with
two die or two dominoes, or even just with two hands. Palm's together,
keep one hand still and it takes a 4pi rotation of one hand to travel
round the other. After 2pi, the knuckle sides of the hands are
together. It seems to me, by analogy, that there are local extra
compactified dimensions which the electron has to circumnavigate when
rotating. Is this viewpoint compatible with the 'point at infinity' or
moibus strip explanation?
With best wishes
Austin
report post as inappropriate
hide replies
Cris Landrieu wrote on Feb. 2, 2013 @ 00:12 GMT
Dr. Christian:
Okay ... since BT is, among other things, sound classical logic and as such Venn-diagrammable, and of course formulable in terms of set algebra, and moreover commonly applied in physics classes using students as set elements and their physical characteristics as experimental parameters, and under these macroscopic classical conditions isn't violated ...
Are you maintaining that formal logic and set theory are invalid in the macroworld along with BT? (Your proposed physical experiment would violate BT macroscopically, to my understanding.) In other words, where does the unraveling end?
report post as inappropriate
Joy Christian replied on Feb. 2, 2013 @ 00:51 GMT
Cris,
We have to distinguish between physics and mathematics. I have no problem with BT as a mathematical, or even a logical theorem. What I am saying is that this mathematical theorem has no relevance for physics---either for microphysics or for macrophysics. It is derived under certain physical and mathematical assumptions that are simply not valid for the real-life experiments---conducted either in the micro domain or in the macro domain. Thus you are correct to observe that I expect my proposed experiment to violate Bell inequalities macroscopically. But that does not mean that classical logic itself is thereby violated.
Joy
report post as inappropriate
Constantinos Ragazas replied on Feb. 2, 2013 @ 03:58 GMT
Joy,
... you write, "We have to distinguish between physics and mathematics." Point well made. Too often it is assumed if the math is correct, the conclusions must be physically true. This just isn't so! Quoting from
my essay of two years ago,
"We can have beautiful mathematical results based on any view of the Universe we have. ... But if the view leads to physical explanations which are counter-intuitive and defy common sense ... than we must not confuse mathematical deductions with physical realism. Rather, we should change our view! And just as we can write bad literature using good English, we can also write bad physics using good math. In either case we do not fault the language for the story. We can't fault Math for the failings of Physics.
The failure of Modern Physics is in not providing us with 'physical explanations' that make sense."
I have no doubt the math here (in BT and in your disproof of BT) is correct. So the real difference must be in the 'physics' used. This raises a question I have been wanting to ask: what is your 'physical view' in your disprove of BT and how does that view differ from Bell's?
Constantinos
report post as inappropriate
Joy Christian replied on Feb. 2, 2013 @ 06:29 GMT
Constantinos,
"...just as we can write bad literature using good English, we can also write bad physics using good math."
Indeed.
As for your question, "...what is your 'physical view' in your disprove of BT and how does that view differ from Bell's?", you can find the answer in the Figure 2 on the page 4 of the attached paper. As you can see from the figure, both BT and my disproof of it concern measuring pure numbers, +1 or -1. But Bell unjustifiably discounted the fact that these numbers occur, in the real physical experiments involving the singlet states, on the surface of a ball of radius 1, by construction. This is the physical difference. The rest is math and politics.
Joy
attachments:
1_Disproof_GHZ.pdf
report post as inappropriate
Fred Diether replied on Feb. 2, 2013 @ 06:46 GMT
Hi Constantinos,
The difference in physics is mostly all in the topology. Bell assumed wrongly that the topology of the EPR-Bohm scenario was S^0 or two points on a line. If you make that assumption then the math of his theorem fits the physics. What Joy has shown us is that the topology of the scenario is S^3 and more specifically parallelized S^3. So what you have here is exactly what you said above. Also, it is possible to prove a math theory and have it be a theorem. It is not possible to prove a physics theory and have it become a physics theorem. A physics theory can only be validated by experiment. And we know from the quantum experiments that Nature does seem to violate the Bell inequalities so that is no physical proof. And in simple macroscopic experiments, the Bell inequalities seem to hold. But Bell's physical theory has not been fully tested as you would expect. Most people just assume that it is correct. It needs to be more fully tested macroscopically. But it is not an easy thing to do.
The thing is though, even if BT holds for every macroscopic test, Joy's model still can hold for microscopic physics since it does in fact produce the results of quantum theory. So what can rule out Joy's model physically for microscopic physics? If someone shows convincingly that the topology is other than what Joy is using could rule it out. But I have to say that modern physics actually is currently more supportive of the topology that he is using.
Best,
Fred
report post as inappropriate
Constantinos Ragazas replied on Feb. 2, 2013 @ 15:34 GMT
Joy, Fred
Thanks! Succinct and to “two points on a sphere”! This “man in the street” understands the difference between Bell and Joy. And adds: two points on a line (+1 , -1) is a more classical representation of measurements. While two points on a sphere represent the greater possibilities of measurements in the actual experiments. So Bell uses classical logic on a straight line to disprove 'local realism'. While all the experiments are done with “points on the sphere” as outcomes. And that is the problem. Do I have it right on?
Constantinos
report post as inappropriate
Joy Christian replied on Feb. 2, 2013 @ 15:38 GMT
Joy Christian replied on Feb. 2, 2013 @ 15:41 GMT
Just to add: This is terribly difficult for the "experts" to understand!
report post as inappropriate
T H Ray replied on Feb. 2, 2013 @ 17:01 GMT
The experts also say that simple arithmetic is sufficient to prove reality can be described by nothing more than discrete points on a line, such as can be simulated by a computing machine. There is another simple theorem of arithmetic: any point can simultaneously approach a set of points, provided that it is far enough away.
Tom
report post as inappropriate
John Merryman replied on Feb. 2, 2013 @ 17:21 GMT
I have to say I'm not clear on the mechanics, but I can see how it would cause problems to show the math can lead theory astray. Think in terms of a legal situation where an expert witness is shown to be a fraud. It will call into question every case he ever testified in. Given the amount of speculative nonsense being propagated in physics today, there are alot of dominos. I doubt the establishment will roll over too easily on this. Anyone have any ideas as to other venues it could be considered in? Maybe an article somewhere. Zeeya be interested in running it by the editors at Discover?
report post as inappropriate
Constantinos Ragazas replied on Feb. 2, 2013 @ 18:56 GMT
Joy to All,
This “man in the street” has the advantage of not seeing the world through the dark glasses of dogma! We must be forgiving of experts. For they know not what they are doing!
Constantinos
report post as inappropriate
John Merryman replied on Feb. 2, 2013 @ 19:37 GMT
Constantinos,
On that, I would beg to differ. Everyone has paradigms/models/beliefs by which they make sense of existence. The issue is how do new models come into being, that are both an improvement on the old models and genuinely compelling enough to replace them. Obviously the human species is in dire need of new ways of thinking. Probably the most basic shift would be from an atomized to a networked view of reality. While this view is taking hold in various disciplines, from computer sciences to neurology, it is still a long way from a broad social paradigm. Given the extent to which theoretical physics still functions in the "quantized" realm and has codified and canonized the logical consequences, such as light being particles that can only be redshifted by recession of the source, thus necessitating a singular and expanding universe, etc. possibly the resulting earthquake when this nonsense implodes will reverberate through some of the other conceptual houses of cards.
report post as inappropriate
Constantinos Ragazas replied on Feb. 2, 2013 @ 20:02 GMT
John,
Nothing I say is the 'last word'. I reserve the right to change my mind. Thus, I can never be wrong!
Constantinos
report post as inappropriate
John Merryman replied on Feb. 3, 2013 @ 02:35 GMT
Constantinos,
We try to be objective, or think what we believe is objective.
You are right it's the crowd that eventually selects what direction to go. Of course, the crowd follows rules.
report post as inappropriate
Constantinos Ragazas replied on Feb. 3, 2013 @ 03:11 GMT
John,
The issue here is 'dogma'. Not 'thinking' or even 'objectivity'. The crowd will follow rules (dogma) up to a point. Then the crowd follows instinct (sense). That's when Physics as we now know it loses!
Constantinos
report post as inappropriate
hide replies
Vladimir F. Tamari wrote on Feb. 2, 2013 @ 01:13 GMT
Joy said: "I can see that being on the "outside" has its advantages. You are not corrupted by power and politics."
Exactly. There is a case to be made that some of the greatest advances in physics were made by outsiders: Hassan Ibn Al-Haytham in his Cairo imprisonment writing about his experimental and theoretical proofs of his theory how light rays propagate (and by doing so establishing the scientific method), Newton ensconced on his farm away from plague-threatened Cambridge, thinking up his calculus and optics, Einstein in his patent office gedungexperimenting his Special Relativity... (although many fqxi essayists, myself included, feel that SR was not an advance so much as an alternative, a deviation from the physics of Lorentz).
report post as inappropriate
nmann wrote on Feb. 3, 2013 @ 00:14 GMT
"And in simple macroscopic experiments, the Bell inequalities seem to hold. [...] The thing is though, even if BT holds for every macroscopic test, Joy's model still can hold for microscopic physics since it does in fact produce the results of quantum theory. So what can rule out Joy's model physically for microscopic physics?"
BT holds macroscopically because it's a statement of local realism -- i.e., it succinctly defines a measurable feature of the macroworld's distinctive ontology. Per Abner Shimony, although undoubtedly he was thinking in micro terms, it's experimental metaphysics. Metaphysics only, not genuine physics, here in the coarse-grained macroworld. Unless of course Joy gets his experiment and the results, loophole-free, go his way.
Otherwise -- absent the experiment, or without the conducted experiment yielding a positive outcome -- Joy's construct remains only a curiosity. Unlike BT it couldn't define any difference between macroworld and microworld ("Bell entanglement") because in the macroworld it would be either experimentally unproven or disproven and in the microworld remain entirely conjectural along with other plausible (assuming the math is correct) but unprovable ideas. How it places on the Occam totem pole I dunno.
report post as inappropriate
Joy Christian replied on Feb. 3, 2013 @ 00:42 GMT
"BT holds macroscopically..."
This is a statement of faith and dogma, not science.
No one has ever tested this dogma experimentally.
Attached is a proposal which could test the dogma experimentally.
The experiment would cost as little as 200k.
I am no longer eligible to apply for even 10k.
Therefore the dogma will remain a dogma for now.
attachments:
33_0806.3078v2.pdf,
15_2piSpinor.pdf
this post has been edited by the author since its original submission
report post as inappropriate
Constantinos Ragazas replied on Feb. 3, 2013 @ 04:06 GMT
Joy, et al
You have triggered a whole line of thinking I wasn't inclined to think before. Seeking to understand this better, these thoughts come to my mind. Correct me if any are incorrect.
1)Bell's “quantum world” was assumed to be “flat”
2)Joy has shown this world to be “round”
3)Bell's disproof of “local realism” rests on such measurements obeying Bell's Inequality. And the experimental fact that they don't.
4)Joy's disproof of Bell's disproof argues the “flat” logic of Bell is incorrect since the experimental apparatus used have a spherical geometry (which is reflected in the analysis of the data). Were the math done on the sphere (instead of the plane) we would have consistency between theory and experiments.
5)This is analogous to measuring the distance between two places on a flat map and measuring the distance between the same two places on a globe.
6)Q: Is “quantum entanglement” analogous to the difference between measurements on a “plane” and same measurements on a “sphere”? Thus, by explaining that difference Joy's work explains “quantum entanglement” and shows this to make sense? So why are people objecting?
nmann: you write, “How it[Joy's disproof] places on the Occam totem pole I dunno.” Though Occam's Razor asks we choose the “simpler theory” I like to suggest and expand this principle to include the most “sensible theory”! If Joy's work removes the QM weirdness, do we still hesitate?
Constantinos
report post as inappropriate
Joy Christian replied on Feb. 3, 2013 @ 08:36 GMT
Hi Constantinos,
Your observations 1 to 6 are essentially correct. Since I have gone to great length to address all technicalities in my papers, let me not get too pedantic here and simply agree with all 6 of your observations, because they capture the essence of my argument correctly.
As to your questions in 6, the answers to the first two parts are: Yes, modulo the above comments.
As to your question, "So why are people objecting?", you will get different answers from different people.
The detractors of my work will tell you that my claims are simply false; that I haven't understood Bell's theorem; that you cannot disprove a theorem; that I have made a mistake or mistakes of either mathematical or conceptual or whatever kind.
This is all nonsense, of course.
If you ask me, then it is the detractors who are making the mistakes, and it is Bell who got things all wrong. The resistance to my work is thus no different from how the scientific community always resists a new idea. It takes the community sometimes decades or centuries to accept a new idea. My work just rocks the boat too much. Or worse still, it completely destroys their castle in the air, which they have been embellishing for the past 50 years. And let us not mention the billions of dollars at stake; the prestige and egos of hundreds of distinguished scientists at stake; and the future Nobel Prizes for the followers of Bell at stake. I have experienced all sorts of underhand tactics from all sorts of people to shut me out, and have overcome all sorts of academic blocks to stifle my work from seeing the light of day. The measures taken by FQXi against my work is just another in a long series of such measures taken against it during the past five years.
This is how science works, I am afraid.
Best,
Joy
report post as inappropriate
T H Ray replied on Feb. 3, 2013 @ 12:54 GMT
nmann wrote, "Per Abner Shimony, although undoubtedly he was thinking in micro terms, it's experimental metaphysics. Metaphysics only, not genuine physics, here in the coarse-grained macroworld."
There has been much abuse here of the term 'metaphysics' in the technical sense. It does not mean "metaphysics as opposed to genuine physics," and it certainly does not oppose realism. Metaphysical realism is the term that philosophers use to describe the assumption that the world is objectively real ("The moon is really there ...").
There is no demonstrable boundary where microphysics "smooths out" to become the classical world.
Tom
report post as inappropriate
Constantinos Ragazas replied on Feb. 3, 2013 @ 15:09 GMT
Joy,
Armed with Status or armed with Truth, I'd take Truth any time. Take heart! A group is coalescing to bring the Castle in the Air down! It shouldn't be hard! Since the Castle lacks sensible foundations. But don't waist your energy “fighting them”. Continue to “speak Truth to Power”. And watch the walls crumble.
You have shown what I (and others) have suspected for a long time. Quantum weirdness is the result of a “slight of hand” gone undetected for a long time! The Laity will rejoice.
Constantinos
report post as inappropriate
John Merryman replied on Feb. 4, 2013 @ 11:58 GMT
Tom,
"There is no demonstrable boundary where microphysics "smooths out" to become the classical world."
A bit like there is no line where the emergent is distinct from its components, yet the view from either direction doesn't seem smooth.
report post as inappropriate
T H Ray replied on Feb. 4, 2013 @ 15:05 GMT
"A bit like there is no line where the emergent is distinct from its components ..."
That's not true, John. Dynamical systems have a critical attractor point. There is a sharp division between stasis and change. In the mathematical framework (self organized criticality) that supports the model of punctuated equilibrium, e.g., the system can be shown to spend most of its time in equilibrium except at those "spikes" of change in behavior. Similarly, in game theory, a two player game with equilibrium point can be shown to have a critical stage at which the game can go either way.
In the case of the assumption that nonlocal quantum mechanics smooths out to become classical mechanics, however, there is no such identifable point.
Tom
report post as inappropriate
John Merryman replied on Feb. 4, 2013 @ 15:26 GMT
Tom,
That's true. I guess the thought percolating around my brain is that emergent concepts and their underlaying input go through a melding process similar to a physical melting process by which constituent materials combine into some other molecular process. Whether is iron and various other metals going into steel, or pixels combining to create a picture, as the various colors meld and melt together in our vision. Words creating a larger concept, etc. So the idea I'm suggesting is whether this transition from a world of quantum components has a similar melting/melding process to create the classical set of assumptions we view as reality. Possibly even the quantum state is itself part of this process/transition. This goes to the particle/field relationship and how they function in the combined non-linear/ thermal process, creating that linear transition.
report post as inappropriate
John Merryman replied on Feb. 4, 2013 @ 19:46 GMT
I guess the transition would be the quantum wave that doesn't collapse, just as the pixels are still discrete, while there is still one classical reality,ie. a singular picture, emerging from them.
So while transition from the quantum pixel to the singular picture of the cat may seem smooth, like the light from the screen to your eye, it may be a matter of how the situation is being examined.
This goes back to one of my previous points about the general and the focused observations being mutually exclusive. Information blurs together, but the energy doesn't evaporate.
report post as inappropriate
T H Ray replied on Feb. 5, 2013 @ 11:18 GMT
Hi John,
"This goes back to one of my previous points about the general and the focused observations being mutually exclusive. Information blurs together, but the energy doesn't evaporate."
Yes, that's what physicists generally refer to as coarse-grained and fine-grained observations. A relativist wants to show that there is no mutual exclusivity in the physical sense, i.e., no boundary between quantum and classical domains. If there is such a boundary, then conventional quantum theory is correct: the world is observer-created, not objective. One could think of information "blurring together" as gradations of coherence between relatively coarse and fine phases of interaction.
Tom
report post as inappropriate
John Merryman replied on Feb. 5, 2013 @ 11:47 GMT
Tom,
But doesn't it raise the issue of which is "real," in the sense of top down feedback. Planets and galaxies are not "observer generated', but they are definitely "coarse grained" and likely affect quantum activity within. The moon really is there. It seems to me that it is "knowledge" which is observer generated, in being a function of what we are looking at and how much we study it.
report post as inappropriate
T H Ray replied on Feb. 5, 2013 @ 16:24 GMT
John,
I'm content to let philosophers decide what reality is. For my part, if we ever do discover physical reality at its foundation, it will have a formal description by which theoretical abstractions can be shown experimentally to correspond with measured physical events. This may at any moment include, or not, those metaphysically real objects (the moon) depending on what information I'm looking for, what questions I mean to answer. For example, there is no debate over whether the moon is real if I am asking what its orbital trajectory looks like. If I want to know, OTOH, how or if the moon's trajectory affects, say, the behavior of various objects on Earth, there is no direct path of causality from the moon itself -- it's the effects of the moon's mass on spacetime that communicates those changes, so I can only infer the Moon's existence by those effects.
So that being said, we see that system feedback is neither top down nor bottom up. Positive feedback is a continuous self-reinforcing loop, an out of control condition whose origin cannot be determined in principle. Negative feedback is a one-way laterally-induced control mechanism, like a switching gate in a computer. My own research characterizes gravity as a universal negative feedback control mechanism for this reason.
When we speak of top down causality -- perhaps you are thinking of George Ellis' essay -- we mean a hierarchical system, in which the initial condition indentures all action below that point. Where does the hierarchy start? -- one can fix it arbitrarily. In so doing, one can create a complex network schema (e.g. Bar-Yam's theory of multiscale variety), in which nested hierarchies become irrelevant, and independently acting systems interface in a network whose nodes do not depend on a central hierarchy -- something like distributed computing but within a larger context.
Tom
report post as inappropriate
John Merryman replied on Feb. 5, 2013 @ 18:46 GMT
Tom,
What if reality is a positive feedback loop? Then isn't one left with just picking out the relevant hierarchies and negative feedback loops, leaving us with our particular fields of observation based knowledge? Some as specialists and some as generalists.
The assumption of a formal description of reality would seem to be a quest for a Holy Grail which would be more a product of desire than logic.
report post as inappropriate
T H Ray replied on Feb. 5, 2013 @ 19:14 GMT
John,
If reality were a positive feedback loop, one would find it impossible to "pick out" negative feedback (which isn't a loop and isn't in the loop). These terms are used to describe dynamics, not real physical things.
Logic or desire? -- I guess you're right -- most mathematicians would choose desire. As long as it doesn't conflict with logic, of course.
Tom
report post as inappropriate
John Merryman replied on Feb. 5, 2013 @ 19:46 GMT
Tom,
As I understand them, positive feedback loops increase and negative ones decrease, so doesn't the first build up and the second collapse? Thus gravity is a negative feedback, while energy, of which mass and gravity are ultimately components, keeps expanding. So that reality /energy exists, is the positive, while gravity is marginalized by the fact it doesn't cause the universe to collapse and vanish. Speculation....
report post as inappropriate
T H Ray replied on Feb. 5, 2013 @ 21:20 GMT
John,
As I tried to explain, negative feedback is not a loop. A loop in this context is closed, continuous. Think of negative feedback as a control mechanism, like a 2-position switch; it is either on or off. Positive feedback can't be switched off from within the loop; it is continuously self-reinforcing.
Gravity as universal negative feedback is always "on" but not self-reinforcing, because as Newton found, its influence decreases by the square of the distance from the source.
Tom
report post as inappropriate
John Merryman replied on Feb. 6, 2013 @ 00:49 GMT
Tom,
I suppose I was looking at it from the other direction; The greater the gravity, the more dense, the more dense, the greater the gravity.
In theory, positive feedback is continously self-reinforcing. In practice, the bubble pops eventually.
I suppose the resulting implosion is a form of negative feedback, since the resulting cascade doesn't stop until it knocks down the whole house of cards, ie. the switch stays on until it runs its course?
report post as inappropriate
hide replies
Vladimir F. Tamari wrote on Feb. 3, 2013 @ 12:44 GMT
Joy,
You said "And let us not mention the billions of dollars at stake; the prestige and egos of hundreds of distinguished scientists at stake; and the future Nobel Prizes for the followers of Bell at stake. I have experienced all sorts of underhand tactics from all sorts of people to shut me out"
All this resistance to your contradicting a mere Bell. How about those of us trying to
Fix Physics! by showing that a result by Einstein is wrong, such as
Eric Reiter who experimentally disproved the point-photon concept. Or by suggesting that Einstein's premises have alternatives that just may solve the logjam of ideas facing physics. Including Bell's can of worms. Einstein was a great physicist who was open to revisions of his work. Now however as a cultural icon and TIME magazine Man of the Century only fools or those with nothing to lose dare question his work.
Vladimir
report post as inappropriate
Pentcho Valev replied on Feb. 3, 2013 @ 15:45 GMT
Vladimir wrote: "How about those of us trying to Fix Physics! by showing that a result by Einstein is wrong, such as Eric Reiter who experimentally disproved the point-photon concept. Or by suggesting that Einstein's premises have alternatives that just may solve the logjam of ideas facing physics."
"Those of us" have no chance at all. Einsteinian "science" is dead but to show that dead science is dead proves impossible. Those who try sooner or later find themselves in Mr. Praline's situation:
Owner: Oh yes, the, uh, the Norwegian Blue...What's,uh...What's wrong with it?
Mr. Praline: I'll tell you what's wrong with it, my lad. 'E's dead, that's what's wrong with it!
Owner: No, no, 'e's uh,...he's resting.
Mr. Praline: Look, matey, I know a dead parrot when I see one, and I'm looking at one right now.
Owner: No no he's not dead, he's, he's restin'! Remarkable bird, the Norwegian Blue, idn'it, ay? Beautiful plumage!
........................
Mr. Praline: No, I'm sorry! I'm not prepared to pursue my line of inquiry any longer as I think this is getting too silly!Pentcho Valev
report post as inappropriate
Vladimir F. Tamari replied on Feb. 4, 2013 @ 04:25 GMT
Pentcho
Thanks for the amusing sketch, welcome comic relief from the heavy discussions here.
I would not say Einstein's "science" is dead, nor would I belittle it with quotation marks. Rather I would say that it works very well in predicting physical effects such as mass change measured regularly at CERN or clock time changes in satellite communications. However, because of the conceptual artificial premises it is built upon (the photon is a point, c is constant, and the imposition of an observer-point-of view on physics) it leads to dead-ends. Joy has enough on his hands with Bell, let others reverse-engineer Einstein and start afresh to the degree we would wish.
Cheers
Vladimir
report post as inappropriate
T H Ray replied on Feb. 4, 2013 @ 11:18 GMT
Joy's framework is classical, and therefore fully relativistic.
Tom
report post as inappropriate
Peter Jackson wrote on Feb. 3, 2013 @ 19:50 GMT
Vlad, Kostas.
Wise words. The flat Earthers are 'reactionarying!' Bell like Einstein had no compunction about honestly addressing contradictions. If only their followers were the same and relied less on beliefs. Kostas I do love your 6 points. In astronomy the complex and handed anisotropies of the CBMR are intimately known, why on (a round not flat) Earth do current theoretical physicists cling on to old guesswork and close their receptors like the 3 monkeys when real findings abound showing it looks like Bell's original conditions are not met!??? We don't seem to have 'joined up physics' from some quarters at present.
There's a pretty definitive set here for instance; Copi C. J., et al. Large-Angle Anomalies in the CMB., Adv. Astron.2010; 2010:847541. Summarised in Fig;
CMBR Anisotropies linkPeter
report post as inappropriate
Constantinos Ragazas replied on Feb. 3, 2013 @ 20:41 GMT
Vlad, Peter, Pentcho
We cannot underestimate the profound importance Joy's work has. If this was about disproving Bell it wont have stirred so much resistance and controversy. But Joy's work has shaken the very core meaning of QM as a 'physical theory' (but NOT the math). This being, of course, “quantum entanglement”. With Bell, Einstein's objection to “spooky action at a distance” became the “way Nature works”. Weird and mysterious. But not to be questioned. And all the experiments confirmed this belief. Since all these were designed, analyzed and interpreted through the same flawed reasoning.
From what I understand, Joy has shown “quantum entanglement” is as sensible as “apple pie”. If we were to consider the “apple” to be on a sphere and not on a flat plane. Through his work, “quantum entanglement” makes sense. Mystery resolved. No “spooky action at a distance” need apply. Local realism is saved. We do not need to live in constant contradiction and fear. Our senses are restored! The people are happy. But the Priestly Class is brooding, left naked and exposed for what they are: quantum-magicians.
Constantinos
report post as inappropriate
Pentcho Valev replied on Feb. 3, 2013 @ 22:00 GMT
Constantinos,
Joy Christian is the author of the so-called
Heraclitean generalization of special relativity. Not a shred of criticism for Einstein - just an elaboration on his absurdities. If a revolution in science is coming, Christian is hardly the originator.
Pentcho Valev
report post as inappropriate
Constantinos Ragazas replied on Feb. 4, 2013 @ 04:33 GMT
Pentcho,
From what I know of Joy's work on Bell, I find it significant. As it explains “quantum entanglement” to make sense and takes away “quantum mysticism”. Like all men (great and small) some ideas are correct while other ideas may not be. Newton, for example, believed in Alchemy. Does this discredit him or his Physics? And some of our politicians like sex. Are they all wrong in their public service to the people? Why do we need to discredit Einstein in order to uphold what is true. I just can't prescribe to science or politics by personal attacks. Just as I reject “personality cults”. Better to stick to what is true than to who is true.
By the way, how do you know Joy's Heraclitean SR is wrong? I happen to believe in Becoming. And Parmenides too! Thanks for the link! When I am so inclined I may take time to study it! You write, “If a revolution in science is coming, Christian is hardly the originator”. Is that really important?
Constantinos
report post as inappropriate
Pentcho Valev replied on Feb. 4, 2013 @ 10:32 GMT
Constantinos,
"By the way, how do you know Joy's Heraclitean SR is wrong?"
It is not wrong - rather, it is, to use the popular expression, "not even wrong". To modify special relativity, a deductive theory par excellence, without even mentioning (let alone questioning) the two postulates is either very silly or very dishonest.
Pentcho Valev
report post as inappropriate
Constantinos Ragazas replied on Feb. 4, 2013 @ 15:10 GMT
Pentcho,
Different objectives require different methods. With Math we can derive anything. As long as we are logically consistent. With Physics we have the added burden: the explanations must also 'make sense'. I do not know what Joy did with Heraclitus. But I welcome any attempt to use Becoming (and not just Being) in Physics. My trusted informants tell me both are needed.
So why Joy should not have written such paper? I think we have a disconnect!
Constantinos
report post as inappropriate
hide replies
Vladimir F. Tamari wrote on Feb. 4, 2013 @ 05:04 GMT
Constantinos, Peter, Pentcho, Joy
Noted.
Thank you Kosta for summarizing Joy's work in 6 easy points - all the more valuable because Joy has approved them. Then you added: "But Joy's work has shaken the very core meaning of QM as a 'physical theory' (but NOT the math)"
What do you mean by "not the math" - do you, like me, yearn for a less mathematically difficult explanation of Joy's ideas? Why in physical terms does he think QM is spherical? (Starting from very different premises I agree with that). As for the core meaning of QM I thought it resided in the overwhelming acceptance of probability as a conceptual basis for interpreting reality. What does Joy say about probability - the true origin of Quantum hocus pocus?
Apologies to Joy - this is turning into an interrogation of your work, distracting from the expressions of concern over the unfair campaign fqxi initiated to discredit you! To summarize the latter: to some you may be right, to others wrong, but you "question" - a core process embedded in the "q" in fqxi's very name.
We should all parrot: DO NOT BETRAY THE Q! DO NOT BETRAY THE Q!
Vladimir
report post as inappropriate
Joy Christian replied on Feb. 4, 2013 @ 06:49 GMT
Vladimir.
I think what Constantinos meant by "not the math" is that, like Einstein, I am not questioning the mathematical (or probabilistic) predictions of quantum mechanics, but simply showing that these predictions do not require the concept of quantum entanglement as a fundamental concept. The quantum predictions can be explained as simply correlations among the points of a "parallelized 7-sphere." I whould warn against taking the individual words in Constantinos's 6 points too seriously. I agreed with them because they capture the essence of my argument in broad terms. Unfortunately my actual argument involves highly technical concepts such as the octonionic 7-sphere. But in the end my framework is entirely classical. Most importantly, it rejects probability as a conceptual basis for interpreting reality. Probabilities within my framework are no more fundamental than they are in classical statistical mechanics. In my view all of the quantum world can be understood simply as manifesting correlations among the points of a classical, octonionic 7-sphere.
Joy
report post as inappropriate
T H Ray replied on Feb. 4, 2013 @ 11:30 GMT
I think where many get confused, is that the probabilistic interpretation of quantum mechanics, although derived from statistical mechanics, is not completely predictive, while of course the classical mechanics is.
Mathematically complete measurement functions assign no value to nonlocality.
Tom
report post as inappropriate
France replied on Feb. 4, 2013 @ 12:52 GMT
Vladimir, Joy
Am I wrong or is there a conflict between Joy's work and Eric Reiter's work? As I understand, Joy claims that his theory explains all quantum correlations in classical local way, but Eric on the other hand says that his experiments demonstrate a conflict with QM.
Joy, again I urge you to make a page for beginners (with no maths) of your wonderful work.
Best.
France
PS.: Interesting link about quantum computers link
http://www.theinquirer.net/inquirer/news/2241167/cambridge-r
esearchers-write-off-quantum-computing
report post as inappropriate
Vladimir F. Tamari replied on Feb. 4, 2013 @ 13:36 GMT
Cher France
I will not presume to understand Joy's work beyond his explanations to us math illiterates (relatively speaking) in this page, but he does say it is basically classical and not probabilistic.
Eric is essentially an experimentalist, and has found that light quanta, gamma rays and alpha particles are not point particles. See his
unquantum.net . He has backed up his work with thorough theoretical research - found for example that Compton himself gave an alternative wave explanation for his effect, hitherto used to defend the point-photon idea. I do not think Eric is saying the results (measurements, experimental tests etc. ) of QM are wrong, just its conceptual foundations based on probability.
A point photon is in conflict with its wave nature (the totally unnecesary concept of duality) and gave rise to all the weirdness explanations, probability interpretations, zombie cats - a phrase I coined - and EPR scenarios that we are trying to debunk. Eric explains his results by resurrecting Planck's loading theory of gradual absorption and sudden emission, as Constantinos well understands in his own researches.
Eric does have something to say about entanglement, but you had better read his own words about that.
Vladimir
report post as inappropriate
T H Ray replied on Feb. 4, 2013 @ 13:45 GMT
France, thanks for the news. It validates what we defenders of Joy Christian's research have been saying for several years -- that proposed computer simulations of his framework fail for the reason that the extra degree of freedom required for such a simulation entails quantum entanglement. Christian's framework obviates quantum entanglement as a real physical effect; however, it extends physical space to 8 dimensions. The 3-dimensional hopes of current quantum computing engineers are bound to be dashed -- and soon -- to be replaced by an extradimensional theory of complete, continuous measurement functions with classical orientation entanglement.
I don't think there's a conflict between Eric Reiter's result and Joy's framework. Quoting myself commenting on Eric's excellent essay:
"I think Einstein is being treated a bit unfairly here on the question of whether a photon is a point particle or a blob of energy.
"Fact is, it doesn't matter to the mathematical treatment, in a geometric theory like Einstein's. Just as Poncelet demonstrated point-line duality in ordinary projective geometry (i.e., the concepts are interchangeable) Einstein's duality of point and dispersed objects depends on measurement criteria."
Continuous measurement results do not obviate discrete points. I.e., wavelike phenomena can self organize to point measures, as Einstein demonstrated with LASER phenomena.
Tom
report post as inappropriate
France replied on Feb. 4, 2013 @ 13:55 GMT
Vladimir,
thanks for the reply.
As I understood Eric, he explicitly said in his papers, that either QM or his Loading theory are right.
As far as entanglement - yes, a saw his remark about the tests and patents.
And, as you pointed out before, what a shame that his work just gets overlooked.
Best,
France
report post as inappropriate
T H Ray replied on Feb. 4, 2013 @ 15:52 GMT
Predictably,
Scott Aaronson is asking his allies to refute the Anderson-Brady paper. This might be interesting to watch, though like Scott I have better things to do than engage in the kerfuffle personally.
Tom
report post as inappropriate
Constantinos Ragazas replied on Feb. 4, 2013 @ 16:25 GMT
Vladimir,
My intent was NOT to summarize Joy's work in “six easy pieces”. But rather MY understanding of his work on BT at this time. A “man in the street” point of view, as it were. As is my habit, I described what I understand for confirmation what I understand is sound. Not that I understand all there is to understand. Which I appreciate is highly mathematical and beyond my...
view entire post
Vladimir,
My intent was NOT to summarize Joy's work in “six easy pieces”. But rather MY understanding of his work on BT at this time. A “man in the street” point of view, as it were. As is my habit, I described what I understand for confirmation what I understand is sound. Not that I understand all there is to understand. Which I appreciate is highly mathematical and beyond my expertise. But though the Math may be complicated, the Physics I insist must not!
Addressing your quote of me: "But Joy's work has shaken the very core meaning of QM as a 'physical theory' (but NOT the math)"
I make a distinction here between the Physics ('physical theory' assuming a 'physical view') and the Math used. I don't believe Joy's refutation of BT is purely mathematical. Like finding a mathematical mistake in Bell's derivations. And Joy (and others) have often stressed this fact. I don't think Joy is questioning the Math in QM. Just as I have never questioned the Math. It's all valid. There is nothing wrong with THE MATH. Just what it all means!
For me (and I am repeating myself here, I know) "the failure of Modern Physics is in not providing 'physical explanations' that make sense". 'Quantum entanglement' being among the most glaring offenders of common sense. What I find most significant in Joy's work (as I understand it) is that Joy has explained 'quantum entanglement' as being an 'illusion' when we take our data points on a flat plane. Rather than on a sphere where the data actually occur in our experimental apparatus.
Joy:
Fred likes to use "parallelized" 3-spheres in talking about your work. While you use "parallelized" 7-spheres. Have some follow up questions:
1)The experimental apparatus is obviously 3-D. Why do you need 7-spheres? Is this a 'mathematical requirement' (like using complex numbers) or a 'physical requirement'?
2)Do you use "parallelized" 3-spheres (7-spheres) in order to perform you mathematical derivations more effectively (by equivalently transforming into a more "friendly" space). Or this "parallelized" requirement is necessary for other reasons?
3)Not quite sure about "computer simulations" disproving your results and why these are flawed. Could you say more about that?
Constantinos
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
T H Ray replied on Feb. 4, 2013 @ 17:45 GMT
"3)Not quite sure about "computer simulations" disproving your results and why these are flawed. Could you say more about that?"
Constantinos,
I expect that Joy will have something to say about that, but if you don't mind me putting in my two cents -- this important issue was one of the first to get my attention several years ago, when the you-know-what hit the fan.
If...
view entire post
"3)Not quite sure about "computer simulations" disproving your results and why these are flawed. Could you say more about that?"
Constantinos,
I expect that Joy will have something to say about that, but if you don't mind me putting in my two cents -- this important issue was one of the first to get my attention several years ago, when the you-know-what hit the fan.
If you've followed any of the discussions on Scott's Blog, you'll find that the consensus among computer scientists is that if a thing is not simulable by classical computers, it is not only not worthwhile, it is just plain wrong and not physical. Scott -- who made the snap judgment that Anderson-Brady is already falsified -- reflects this attitude succinctly even on his current blog: "Are the authors aware that, in ion-trap experiments (like those of David Wineland that recently won the Nobel Prize), the qubits generally are arranged in a line?" What this means, is that computer arithmetic language alone should be sufficient for analysis; i.e., that an analytical model can be replaced with quantum numbers that live on the real line. If that were true, there would be nothing left for us analysts to do, other than pure mathematics.
In the Nobel press release, Wineland's accomplishment is headlined, "Particle Control in a Quantum World." A control mechanism, such as an ion trap, functions on the principle of negative feedback. An analytical model like Joy's -- which is designed to study nature in situ -- allows both negative and positive feedback, which we freely witness side-by-side in undisturbed natural phenomena (in-control vs. out-of-control dynamics).
You'll also see a great deal of emphasis on quantum mechanics in the Hilbert space among the computer engineers and scientists that frequent Scott's blog. They will use that to justify their belief in the probabilistic functions of conventional quantum theory. If you are interested, my ICCS 2006 paper shows how to derive well-ordered sequences from the Hilbert space without a probabilistic inference; because the method employs modulo 2 arithmetic, we find it consistent with Joy's parallelized spheres in dimensions 1, 2, 4, 8 (S^0, S^1, S^3, S^7).
Tom
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
Joy Christian replied on Feb. 4, 2013 @ 20:47 GMT
Constantinos,
The 3-sphere is sufficient for reproducing the basic EPR-Bohm correlation (i.e., the correlation predicted by the singlet state). For general quantum correlations, predicted by any arbitrary quantum state, 7-sphere is inevitable. There is no contradiction here, however, because 7-sphere is simply a 4-sphere worth of 3-spheres (technically a Hopf bundle over S^4).
1) The need for the octonionic 7-sphere arises for both mathematical and physical reasons. It is not always possible to disentangle the mathematical necessities from the physical ones. Our universe seems to be governed by physical laws, which in turn seem to be governed by mathematical necessities. The 3-D experimental directions are embedded in the 7-sphere in a rather nontrivial way. For details see the top of the page 19 of the first attached paper.
2) The requirement of parallelization for both the 3- and 7-spheres is absolutely necessary. It imposes the necessary discipline on the observed numbers +1 and -1, and hence produces the observed strong quantum correlations. Without parallelization there would be no quantum correlations. Without parallelization the world would be just as Newton found it.
3) Tom has already answered your question about computer simulations. There is more to physical reality than what can be simulated on a computer. I have a more detailed answer to this question in section VII of the second attached paper.
Joy
attachments:
9_1101.1958v1.pdf,
22_pseudo.pdf
this post has been edited by the author since its original submission
report post as inappropriate
Constantinos Ragazas replied on Feb. 4, 2013 @ 21:13 GMT
Tom you write,
"...the consensus among computer scientists is that if a thing is not simulable by classical computers, it is not only not worthwhile, it is just plain wrong and not physical."
Really? We're in more serious trouble than I previously thought! So now all 'physical reality' is defined and determined by the "computer class". What happened to Nature and to Experiments and to Human Being? Isn't here where all physical existence can only be found? Mind you, it's not that the quote above cannot be true! Since now what is true can apparently be defined by (some of) us and determined by our instruments. What I have argued in my
last essay! But not recognizing this and taking it as “what is” Reality is Metaphysical in the extreme. And as all Metaphysics, to be True everyone must believe IT!
But then there are heretics like Joy … on the rack and tortured for his Truth!
Constantinos
report post as inappropriate
Constantinos Ragazas replied on Feb. 4, 2013 @ 21:48 GMT
Joy,
...thanks for clarifying. I will rest this for now. But this in your comment caught my attention: "Our universe seems to be governed by physical laws, which in turn seem to be governed by mathematical necessitates."
I have in several
places in the past argued that all Basic Laws of Physics are Mathematical Truisms. In my own feeble way, I have shown Newton's Laws of Motion as well as Planck's Law for blackbody radiation to be such mathematical identities (and not physical laws as such depending on our view of Nature, e.g. Planck's Law derivation depending on the physical existence of energy quanta). Planck's Law being in fact a mathematical identity (like the Pythagorean Formula) completely explains why the experimental blackbody spectrum fits so indistinguishably with the theoretical curve.
Just wanted to tell you that. Nothing immediately relevant but possibly very relevant.
Constantinos
report post as inappropriate
John Merryman replied on Feb. 5, 2013 @ 03:13 GMT
Tom,
"that the consensus among computer scientists is that if a thing is not simulable by classical computers, it is not only not worthwhile, it is just plain wrong and not physical."
Isn't that more psychology than proof? Given the extent to which computers have come to dominate society and many people's lives, wouldn't a certain Masters of the Universe syndrome be entirely expected among those at the forefront of computer theory? A certain gravitational warping within the culture. It certainly takes hold in so many other situations, not to take it into account would be foolish. The myopia of expertise.
report post as inappropriate
T H Ray replied on Feb. 5, 2013 @ 18:02 GMT
Hey, Zeeya!
It was a happy result of my looking into the current unpleasantness of the Bell's Theorem debate that I found a link to your June 2011 Nature article, "The Power of Discord." I have done some investigation into Shor's algorithm and quantum discord -- your article is tops, and reinforces my opinion that FQXi hosts some of the best science writers in the world.
Thinking further into the non-quantum-entangled Discord Model, I am reminded of L.E.J. Brouwer's much-neglected Intuitionist philosophy of mathematics of a hundred or so years ago. Brouwer's philosophy rejects the law of the excluded middle and the admission of nonconstructive mathematical proofs built on it. This set of proofs includes the mathermatical proof of Bell's Theorem.
Tom
report post as inappropriate
T H Ray replied on Feb. 5, 2013 @ 18:12 GMT
Maybe so, James. Ross Anderson does have his own
blog page, too, where I expect the environment to be a bit more collegial. (Vladimir, thanks for the tip on fixing links.)
Tom
report post as inappropriate
Eckard Blumschein replied on Feb. 5, 2013 @ 18:28 GMT
Tom,
You seem to have realized that Brouwer's criticism of the LEM is not entirely irrelevant in physics.
Do you agree with the Figs. 2, 3, and 4 of
my last essay ?
At the moment I consider it more important that not just Michelson failed to understand why his expectation was wrong.
By the way, I still consider Ken Wharton's attitude largely wrong but his essay nonetheless not entirely useless. It reminded me of a useful in connection to the MMX principle.
Eckard
report post as inappropriate
T H Ray replied on Feb. 5, 2013 @ 19:07 GMT
Eckard,
Actually, all of Brouwer's Intuitionism is physically based, beginning with the first tenet of his "manifesto:" "Every mathematical act is a move of time ..." (Or something like that. Quoting from memory.)
In fact, it is the inextricable physicality of his famous fixed point theorem that both vexed his effort to create a complete intuition-based mathematical theory, and opened an organic path from abstract math to physical phenomena. The theorem is often explained without mathematics by existence -- consider a hiker who climbs a hill past a marker to the top; she will pass the marker, this fixed point, again on the way down regardless of the time it took to make the climb or descent, either direction. When this is converted to a mathematical proof, it is presented as an existence proof, while Brouwer's actual intent was to have a way to specifically construct every result. Thus, rejecting the LEM, one has no way of saying whether the hiker is above or below the marker at a given time. Using the LEM (as in quantum probability analysis) one may average the times for many climbs and descents and make a conclusion -- which is unacceptable to the inituitionist, whose logic is 3-valued: "above," "below" or "undetermined."
Too much to do right now to answer re your figures. Have looked at them, however, and will reply.
Tom
report post as inappropriate
T H Ray replied on Feb. 5, 2013 @ 21:09 GMT
Here's Scott's latest: "Anderson and Brady are playing the game where first someone else proposes a many-qubit experiment -- any such experiment -- then they think up a creative reason why it doesn't contradict their model. They've left the realm of Popperian falsifiability."
Not true. Scott needs to study up on Popper. It was a watershed moment in his philosophy -- and in fact, in the philosophy of science altogether -- when Popper reversed himself on Darwin's theory of evolution. At first rejecting the theory of common ancestry on the criterion of falsifiability, Popper realized that it is actually a unifying theory of biology, Popper-falsifiable across many disciplines; e.g., geology, archaeology, genetics, information theory, et al.
By the same criterion, analytical models of quantum correlations are Popper-falsifiable over fields of mathematical physics including topology, quantum field theory and topological quantum field theory, relativity, et al. And by the way, supersymmetric string theory also is Popper-falsifiable in this context -- retrodicting all the predictions of physics -- as Witten has commented in the past (although I don't recall if he actually used the words, "Popper falsifiable").
In fact, it is *Bell's Theorem* that is not Popper-falsifiable.
Tom
report post as inappropriate
Fred Diether replied on Feb. 5, 2013 @ 22:03 GMT
Hi Tom,
That is correct. A mathematically proved theorem is not physically falsifiable. However, Bell's *theory* as related to physics is falsifiable. And Joy's model definitely falsifies it physically if his postulates are correct. Joy's postulates look physically reasonable to me knowing what we know about quantum theory which actually supports his postulates. At least microscopically they do.
Now, I am dumbfounded at all the resistance by the quantum computer folks because the effect of quantum correlations is still there even though entanglement is an illusion. I guess they just lack proper physics training to evaluate the physics of all this.
Best,
Fred
report post as inappropriate
Joy Christian replied on Feb. 5, 2013 @ 22:27 GMT
Hi Fred and Tom,
Two points:
1) Bell's so-called theorem, as a physical conjecture, *is* falsifiable. For my proposed experiment it predicts that at most linear correlations between the two spinning fragments of the singlet bomb will be observed. It predicts that Bell-CHSH inequality, with upper bound of 2, will hold in the macroscopic domain of the experiment. My model, on the other hand, or just the classical physics of orientation entanglement, predicts that Bell-CHSH inequality will be violated in my proposed experiment, and correlations will exceed the linear bound of 2. The correlations will be precisely the cosine correlations. Since the experiment can be performed in principle, Bell's theorem, as a physical conjecture, is falsifiable in principle.
2) Scalable quantum computers will almost certainly require quantum entanglement to be a fundamental property of nature. Since it is not a fundamental property, as proven by my model, scalable quantum computers are almost certainly doomed. No wonder, then, why many people want to gag me and discredit my work.
Joy
report post as inappropriate
Fred Diether replied on Feb. 6, 2013 @ 00:25 GMT
Hi Joy,
Yeah, I probably should have worded that differently. I am wondering if the QM computer folks can still exploit that fact that quantum correlations are real. IOW, they can still beat the real line probabilities of Bell. Will that help them at all?
Best,
Fred
report post as inappropriate
Constantinos Ragazas replied on Feb. 6, 2013 @ 01:03 GMT
Tom, Fred and Joy
This discussion of 'Physics Law' vs. 'Math Theorem' is very timely! I have been wanting to ask each of you to precisely define the difference.
Let me suggest a 'Physical Law' is one that depends entirely or partially on experimental outcomes or on a particular 'physical view' used in its derivation. Examples that come to mind is Newton's Laws of Motion, Universal Law of Gravity, and Planck's Law for blackbody radiation. While Newton's Laws depend on experimental outcomes for validation, Planck's Law depends on the 'physical view' of the existence of energy quanta in the otherwise mathematical derivation of it.
Math Theorems, on the other hand, do not presuppose or use in their derivations any 'physical view or assumptions'. Only a 'conceptual framework'. Examples of these are bountiful. The Pythagorean Theorem is one.
Now for my pitch! I claim all Basic Law in Physics can be and should be (to avoid being 'metaphysical') Mathematical Truisms! I have shown this to be true for Newton's Laws of Motion as well as Planck's Law, and many others. That Planck's Law is a mathematical truism helps explain why the experimental blackbody spectrum is identical to the theoretical curve!
Please comment...
Constantinos
report post as inappropriate
hide replies
Vladimir F. Tamari wrote on Feb. 4, 2013 @ 13:08 GMT
Thank you Joy
It was obvious from reading some of your papers that your work is highly mathematical. Thank you for being patient with those of us trying to understand things in more physical ways. Mathematics is precocious in that it can express the same situation in many different ways. I learned from my diffraction research that the field could be described as scattering from every aperture point (Fresnel wavelets) or just from the edges (Young) or, as I proposed, by curved streamlines - the latter being the simplest and closest to actual energy transport. I will take your word that your approach is fundamentally classical. Octonion 7-spheres and Lisi's E8 theory seem to emerge from similar areas of mathematics. Any thoughts on that?
You said " In my view all of the quantum world can be understood simply as manifesting correlations among the points of a classical, octonionic 7-sphere." Now that sounds much more interesting than demolishing Bell. It will be great if this can be explained to the layman. Dirac claimed that he thinks geometrically but never detailed that in figures - I hope you can do better in that respect!
Vladimir
report post as inappropriate
Fred Diether replied on Feb. 5, 2013 @ 00:32 GMT
Hi Vladimir,
Yes, that is not only much more interesting, it is also much more profound! Joy has probably unlocked an important key to making physics progress in the 21st century. Probabilities are no longer constrained to the real line. Realism has been restored. There is an interesting article discussed on Bee's blog
here. "A Clock Directly Linking Time to a Particle's Mass" is the article. This is about real waves (frequency) as opposed to probability waves. It's a whole new ballgame for physics with this research coupled with Joy's research. Every year that goes by now, quantum mysteries become less and less. Of course we do have the mystery now of extra spatial dimensions but that is nothing new. String theory has had that mystery to deal with for a long time now and they did OK for awhile. :-) It does appear though that LHC has ruled out large extra spatial dimensions. Unless we just don't know how to tell.
Best,
Fred
report post as inappropriate
John Merryman replied on Feb. 5, 2013 @ 02:54 GMT
Fred,
Given the conceptual basis of three dimensions is the coordinate system, wouldn't extra dimensions simply be a mathematical artifact, ie, they are due to multiple frames? Such as there are many planes on the surface of a sphere, if every point on it constitutes a different zero point of its own coordinate system. It seems to me dimensions just define space, they don't create it, much as latitude, longitude and altitude define locations on the planet, they don't create the shape of the planet. As I've argued previously, space has two properties. It is inertial and infinite. For example, the gravitational effect of the spaceship on 2001 A Space Odyssey, is due to the centrifugal force of its rotation relative to an inertial frame, not any external points of reference.
As for space being flat and infinite, the notion of an expanding universe overlooks the fact it uses a stable speed of light as reference. If two points were to move apart, so that it requires longer for the light to travel between them, that's not expanding space, just an increased amount of stable distance.
Twisting the topology doesn't change the nature of space, only the shapes within it. When we measure time(frequency) or temperature(amplitude), we are measuring action, but when we measure space, be it 1, 2, or 3 dimensions, we are still fundamentally measuring space.
I predict the LHC will continue to not find curled up dimensions.
(I remember a lava rock being described as forming in five dimensions, because the gravity field was shifting as it hardened.)
report post as inappropriate
Vladimir F. Tamari wrote on Feb. 5, 2013 @ 02:14 GMT
Fred
Real waves. Yes. But the old question - waves of what? And why can they exhibit probabilistic behavior, the uncertainty relations, generate energy in (h) quanta, and so forth? I have the beginnings of a
Beautiful Universe Theory theory that may explain exactly how that can happen in a Universe made up of spherically symmetric dielectric nodes. Three space dimensions and time matter and radiation are emergent from such a lattice. With this very physical model in mind I wonder if Joy's mathematics involves extra hidden dimensions, and, with Constantinos, await a palpable physical explanation. Without such an explanation wouldn't the quantum magical mystery tour - to my naive mind anyway - simply becomes diverted to a mathematical one?
Best Wishes
Vladimir
report post as inappropriate
Fred Diether replied on Feb. 5, 2013 @ 07:51 GMT
Hi Vladimir,
Well, they are not your ordinary waves like you have when you think of the ocean waves. I imagine point-like entities of some sort that basically are confined to circular-like motion. Also being massless and defining space and time they end up being brane-like. But not like branes from super-string theory. Tension within is not all that important. But there is a circulation of sorts within the brane. There is more in
my essay about this.
Actually, I have been meaning to read more about your work since the essay contest but I had a horrible year last year the last few months. Lot's of minor medical problems and just forgot to get back to it. I have printed your paper at the link above and will give it a read.
Joy's work does involve extra spatial dimensions. I wasn't ready for that in my own work but will go down that path now that realism is restored by it.
Best,
Fred
report post as inappropriate
Vladimir F. Tamari replied on Feb. 5, 2013 @ 11:57 GMT
Hi Fred
Yes they are not ordinary waves. In my BU theory they are a wave pattern of pointlike spinning magnets' angular momentum making up the lattice. The energy pattern is transmitted from node to node, like lights "travelling" across a marquee sign showing moving patterns while the light bulbs themselves do not move. In BU it is not just the intensity (momentum) pattern that moves, but also the local spherical phase. Total causality and linearity at the most basic level imaginable. I just read the abstract of your paper
Quantum Vacuum charge by scrolling down the web page. Very interesting. Your quantitative analytic approach is what my work needs, but I think we are on the same page as far as imagining how the Universe ticks, differing only in some details.
Get well soon and keep up the good fight!
Vladimir
report post as inappropriate
Fred Diether replied on Feb. 6, 2013 @ 07:28 GMT
Hi Vladimir,
I am still reading your paper. Yes, there is some intersection of our ideas. You can see that the lattice in my work is a kind fractal based on an Apollonian Gasket type of structure. Plus my cells are composed of two complementary spin 1/2 "less than virtual" fermions (remember that in particle physics, "virtual" just means "off mass shell") so my cell would be similar to your spin 0 cell. But with the advent of Joy's work, my geometrical lattice going to have to be much more complicated now.
I just finished up my last physical therapy session last week (after 3 months) and so far so good. It was pretty terrible for awhile because I couldn't sit at the computer for very long. Still have to watch myself. I'm definitely going to be keeping up the fight for sure. :+)
Best,
Fred
report post as inappropriate
Vladimir F. Tamari wrote on Feb. 5, 2013 @ 02:34 GMT
Tom
Eric and myself think that knowing the actual 'shape' of a photon is very important - for example if it is a point then the double- slit interference of photons generates conceptual quantum fog: As Dirac stated, a photon interferes only with itself. A point cannot do that, but a wave can. To advance in physics one must know what things are made of. If 'magical' Quantum interpretations can be replaced by simple physical explanations, we should not be satisfied with extra dimensions and complicated mathematical explanations. Without the point photon de Broglie would not have had to resort to the gymnastics of a pilot wave, and Schrodinger's equation would have been just a wave..no need for the probabilistic interpretation that has plagued QM, created the EPR conundrum and prevented unification all these years.
Vladimir
report post as inappropriate
John Merryman replied on Feb. 5, 2013 @ 03:00 GMT
And a more rational reason for redshift, than recession/inflation. Not to mention that as an optical effect, dark energy would be moot.
report post as inappropriate
T H Ray replied on Feb. 5, 2013 @ 13:17 GMT
Vladimir,
Very nice summary of the problem with wave-particle duality. You're right, the "shape" of -- not only the photon but space itself -- plays the key role in any theory involving orientable manifolds. (Similar lines of research are being pursued by Julian Barbour's group, and a plethora of researchers, string theorists and others, are following S.T. Yau's research program.)
You say, " ...we should not be satisfied with extra dimensions and complicated mathematical explanations." To topologists and analysts, though, the mathematics is not at all complicated (in fact, some of the opposition considers it too simple to be true). It's based on the simplest Riemann Sphere, S^3. This is where orientability enters -- and the rest is a matter of reconciling continuous measurement functions with discrete correlations.
We are used to thinking that our 4 dimension (3 + 1) experience is all there is to physical reality; however, we don't really "see" the extra dimension that time imparts, either. We infer it, by the metric implied in relative changes of position among mass points. By the same criterion, we (I guess "we" in this case means Joy Christian as the originator of the idea) infer correlated quantum properties from topological extra dimensions, to the limit of eight dimensions (S^7 in topological terms). The idea of 8 dimension physics is hardlly a non-mainstream concept; it's central to Hestenes' spacetime physics -- i.e., geometric algebra -- and to Lisi's E8 theory and and Tevian Dray's model, among others.
I guess the moral outrage I feel toward some of Joy's critics is that the attempt to marginalize his research disregards the fact that, like most breakthroughs whose time has come, it does not veer that far off the path. It comes down to a problem of progressive thinking against reactionary opposition.
Tom
report post as inappropriate
Vladimir F. Tamari wrote on Feb. 5, 2013 @ 02:49 GMT
Constantinos
I enjoy your comments and agree with everything you have said here. Your precision in explaining what you mean by a given statement is commendable, as is your insistence on a physical explanation. Us physics customers should not be satisfied by anything less!
Best,
Vladimir
report post as inappropriate
Constantinos Ragazas replied on Feb. 5, 2013 @ 03:33 GMT
Vladimir,
THEY are defining OUR Universe! We mustn't let them. We are currently in danger of losing our Nature. Replaced, as it were, by “computer simulations” and “cutebits”. Where is the “humanity” in that? Mind you, I am not against computers or math. But Physics must make sense! Or it is something else! Like Metaphysics!
Constantinos
report post as inappropriate
John Merryman replied on Feb. 5, 2013 @ 12:58 GMT
Constantinos,
Keep in mind the "atomization" came looong before computers. It is a function of the left, "distinction" side of the brain. We have to match it with the right, "connection" side of the brain.
report post as inappropriate
Constantinos Ragazas replied on Feb. 5, 2013 @ 14:56 GMT
John, Vladimir
Such 'grasping for Universe' will not stop until we realize we 'create the Universe we Understand'. And shouldn't we, therefore, seek to create a Universe that 'makes sense' to humans? That, I claim, is not only possible it is imperative. It is not a question of whether any other is true. Rather, if it should be true! We must have a Universe that is Free for humans! No Mysticism and no Metaphysics. No "spooky action at a distance". In my
last essay and
elsewhere I show how this is possible.
Constantinos
report post as inappropriate
John Merryman replied on Feb. 5, 2013 @ 19:08 GMT
Constantinos,
I dont have a problem with levels of both physical and intellectual complexity far beyond my own abilities. What I do have a problem with are complex solutions to problem amenable to simpler solutions. Of course I do realize significant institutional structures can develop in these societal niches that are highly resistant to displacement. So it becomes a game of locating and leveraging the weaknesses. Possibly the resulting cascade can be used to leverage other such situations, creating a societal snowball effect. Just so long as you treat it as a game, otherwise you get caught in the loop yourself.
report post as inappropriate
hide replies
Vladimir F. Tamari wrote on Feb. 5, 2013 @ 11:58 GMT
Constantinos
Amen to that!
Vladimir
report post as inappropriate
Vladimir F. Tamari wrote on Feb. 6, 2013 @ 04:32 GMT
Constantinos said "...[why not] seek to create a Universe that 'makes sense' to humans? That, I claim, is not only possible it is imperative. It is not a question of whether any other is true."
In the introduction to my BU theory I wrote "The human brain evolved over millions of years in organisms that interacted directly, causally and locally with inanimate nature on a molecular scale[15]. Is it too much to ask now that our understanding of Mother Nature should also be as simple, direct and realistic as possible?"
John - there are many roads to change, slow inevitable Kuhnian revolutions will occur, but if frustration builds up strongly enough, then "Occupy Physics!"
How many years can a mountain (of physics nonsense) exist? Before it is washed to the sea? The answer, my friends is blowin' in the wind. So let us continue to huff and puff until the rickety structure built by the Quantum Piggies and their Special Relatives is blown away to be replaced by something solid we can all live in and build upon. Hmm that makes us wolves, OK scratch this metaphor.
Vladimir
report post as inappropriate
John Merryman replied on Feb. 6, 2013 @ 11:24 GMT
Vladimir,
I think it's not so much a situation of trying to knock down the old, because the evidence is that its proponents will go to any conceptual length to patch it up and ignore any arguments against it. I think the best route would be to organize another center of gravity, so to speak and try to first outline where it goes wrong, then figure out what does work. This would then present a contrast to the old system. FQXi presumes to attempt this, but it's still tied pretty closely to the current model. The fact is it really will take some serious tearing up the old, not just the last hundred years, but going back to the dawn of conceptual thinking. For example, eastern and western ways of thinking are a real contrast and the western object oriented, atomized view of things is one big reason why the current quantum model seems so weird, as it imposes a particulate presumption on what is increasely clearly a network reality.
report post as inappropriate
Constantinos Ragazas replied on Feb. 6, 2013 @ 14:31 GMT
John, Vladimir
Though I believe in simple Truth, I also don't have problems accepting complexity either. And do believe, as Wolfram states, immense complexity can arise out of simple algorithms. What I object to are 'physical views' and 'physical explanations' that defy and contradict 'human experience'. Such as, for example, 'backward causality' and 'block time'. Though even here I do acknowledge and accept these may 'make sense' in some abstract mathematical derivation. But when they are presented as describing OUR physical universe, they cross the line for me and become 'metaphysical'. As such, such 'truths' can only be true if everyone believes in the 'view'. So we get 'religious wars' with 'us/them' battle lines drawn in the sand; and refutation of arguments by personal attacks and destruction. We see this clearly with Joy Christian's work. So much character assassination. So little well reasoned refutation of this work. It's what brought me to his defense in the first place, on principle.
Such sad State of Physics is just not necessary. We can do away with all the 'metaphysical bickering' if we don't make sweeping claims of "what is". But of our experience and observations of "what is". And the mathematical truisms (what currently passes as physical laws) we use to analyze and organize our senses (the experimental data). Planck's Law, for example, I show
here to be a mathematical truism and not a physical law depending on the existence of energy quanta.
Constantinos
report post as inappropriate
FQXi Administrator Zeeya Merali wrote on Feb. 6, 2013 @ 16:30 GMT
Hi all,
I can see that there are a lot of interesting parallel discussions being conducted on this thread now (including atomization, the conceptual basis of three dimensions, and wave-particle duality). Unfortunately, we've veered quite far from the original topic of this thread, so I'm closing this thread down now.
Please do continue the discussions elsewhere in the forums, in an appropriate thread. If you can't find one, contact forums@fqxi.org for guidance.
[Edited to add that while looking through this thread, I came across a very nice comment from Tom about my Quantum Discord article in Nature, which I hadn't noticed before. Thank you, Tom! I am glad that you liked it.]
this post has been edited by the forum administrator
post approved
Login or
create account to post reply or comment.