Dear Akinbo,

Thanks for you helpful suggestions; one excuse and some actions follow:

1. As you rightly say, it "would help those allergic to symbols to put the meaning under each string of symbols." Alas I had no authority to interrupt the flow of the opening speech: delivered, as it were, by Nature herself. And where I do later intervene … there's work to be done.

2. The...

view entire post

Dear Akinbo,

Thanks for you helpful suggestions; one excuse and some actions follow:

1. As you rightly say, it "would help those allergic to symbols to put the meaning under each string of symbols." Alas I had no authority to interrupt the flow of the opening speech: delivered, as it were, by Nature herself. And where I do later intervene … there's work to be done.

2. The symbols thus stand as an elementary qualifying test: which I considered OK, given the mathematical nature of the theme and the opportunities here to learn via questions.

3. I've posted at Armin's Forum and a nice challenging exchange has begun. I hope you might join in?

3. Re SR, note that I rely (only) on the only aspect of SR that you endorse: that which forbids influences travelling instantaneously between Alice and Bob.

4. I am interested in discussions with SR dissidents sometime; for the moment I happily rely on Armin's adherence to SR: thus SR does not distract from us each clarifying the original components in our work. And given my limited need from SR, I doubt I'll be led astray.

5. I am very happy to continue the dialectic in your Forum; as is young Hugh. He has a proof that a point CANNOT perish. When I said your point had extension, he said that's OK and asked its shape.

My thanks again; Gordon

view post as summary

I will be asking Armin directly to fault the math in your essay. That is, if he can.

Your limited need from SR is just fine. It will not remove from the proof you have put forward showing Einstein was right and Bell was wrong.

Regarding what Hugh asked, can an extended point outlive the Universe itself? Just food for thought. According to Euclid's definition and how it came about...

view entire post

I will be asking Armin directly to fault the math in your essay. That is, if he can.

Your limited need from SR is just fine. It will not remove from the proof you have put forward showing Einstein was right and Bell was wrong.

Regarding what Hugh asked, can an extended point outlive the Universe itself? Just food for thought. According to Euclid's definition and how it came about which I discussed in my 2013 essay, first a point cannot have parts, i.e. a boundary part and an inner part and so it cannot also have a shape. Refer here to paragraph 3 in Leibniz Monadology.

Regards,

Akinbo

view post as summary

Dear Akinbo,

1. I trust you enjoy pondering experiment V, instituted as soon a I received your message above. For the benefit of others, V goes thus:

2. Challenging your sock example, I immediately arranged for 10 pristine pairs of very small socks to be sent to you, ex stock, direct from the manufacturer. In the parcel they put a sealed envelope with my 2-letter prediction re your...

view entire post

Dear Akinbo,

1. I trust you enjoy pondering experiment V, instituted as soon a I received your message above. For the benefit of others, V goes thus:

2. Challenging your sock example, I immediately arranged for 10 pristine pairs of very small socks to be sent to you, ex stock, direct from the manufacturer. In the parcel they put a sealed envelope with my 2-letter prediction re your answer to this question: Please, Akinbo, given these 10 pristine pairs of socks straight from the maker and routinely packed in pairs by them: Can you distinguish Left from Right? My point being: to show that smaller things may be trickier to assess, catalog and understand than bigger things.

3. Now, while we play as above, my technician has delivered to you the calibrated polariser-analyzer (Alice's D with printer) required for experiment T: a simplified version of experiment C_1/2 (see Table A2 in my essay). And, as he told you, the principal-axis of D is initially oriented b and you can freely reorient it to any orientation a (or return it to b) as and when you choose. (To be clear, you are Alice here.)

4. At this point, please note that all my C-based experiments -- see Para. #A4.9 of my essay -- aim to build confidence: for they may be understood via the physics of Etienne-Louis Malus (ca.1812) and of modern undergraduates. NB: The Q-based experiments are wholly quantum. Also note that (unless stated otherwise or in error), my terminology, etc., is always meant to be specified and understood as in my essay.

5. Now, in that I am the inventor, designer and manufacturer of the black-box in this experiment,** I choose to use it on this occasion as follows: every particle sent to you will be U (= Up; signalled to you via a blink of the Ultramarine-coloured light on top of D) in relation to orientation b. Thus your Dandelion-coloured light (signalling D = Down) remains untriggered whenever D is set to b.

6. This latter fact can be checked by switching to b at will (seeking to catch me or my black-box out), and calling for my data (since I test, at b', the twin of every particle that you test). My data will show that, on every occasion, I have D (= Down: as signalled to me (and printed) via a blink of the Dandelion light on top of my D'). Clearly, the binary identifiers U/D are meant to correspond with the binary Left/Right of your original socks.

7. Now, since the particles come to you at the rate of one every second (let me know if that's too fast, etc.), you can now play around and determine the proportion of Dandelion blinks (signalling D-particles) as a function of angle (a,b) when you choose any arbitrary a. Checking against my essay, I trust you'll be surprised by your results. The point here being that you should now better understand Paras. #A4.5 - A4.8 in my essay: and now clearly appreciate the inadequacy of the naive realism associated Bell (who once used Bertlmann's socks in his argumentation) and d'Espagnat when they depart from Bohr's important insight in #A4.5.

8. Since your correlated pair of socks cannot be as you wished, I trust the above provides a satisfactory explanation of why that is the case. To be clear: though we and our socks live in a quantum world, a pair of wearable socks (no matter how small) does not behave like a pair of correlated particles (bound, as they are, by Bohr's oft-forgotten insight).

9. NB: Whereas the extension of your sock experiment to smaller socks produced difficulties: there are no such difficulties (it is in fact easier) to extend T to Q_1/2 as defined in Table A2 of my essay; for we simply remove the black-box. It is the Q-based experiments that give Bellian nonlocality the flick.

10: I conclude: Though controversies generated by Bell's theorem cannot be fully addressed via things like socks, they can be adequately addressed and resolved (consistent with the principles of common-sense local realism) via the very small refinement of sock-like thinking in our Q-based experiments!

* To be clear: I ordered 10 pairs of standard socks for premature neonates.

** That is, the back-boxes are not mere "black-box" reformulations; they can be built.

With my thanks for your interest, and hoping the above helps somewhat; Gordon

view post as summary

Many thanks Akinbo,

1. If you take these enquiries elsewhere, it would be best to clearly number all you questions so that you can collate the answers and more easily find inconsistencies.

2. Given that your examples indicate some bulk confusion (and expense; DHL to Venus and Mars does not come cheap), let's see if some low-cost bulk answers can do the job.

3. In my terms, in...

view entire post

Many thanks Akinbo,

1. If you take these enquiries elsewhere, it would be best to clearly number all you questions so that you can collate the answers and more easily find inconsistencies.

2. Given that your examples indicate some bulk confusion (and expense; DHL to Venus and Mars does not come cheap), let's see if some low-cost bulk answers can do the job.

3. In my terms, in the tests you define: classical black/white balls, quantum positive/negative charges AND ordinary black/white buttons are isomorphic (= corresponding or similar in form or relations in so far as your specified tests are concerned).

4. I therefore know of no one who would not accept the findings that you make at your desk with ordinary black/white buttons (or similars; like Left/Right socks). So please do this "classical" test and let us have a report confirming your above conjectures.

5. We now turn to bypassing your incorrect "using spin therefore" statements at your point #2:

5a. Spin is NOT isomorphic to the 3 "classical" classes above.

5b. Spin is a typical quantum property: which is just what we want!

5c. For spin is typically perturbed when a particle interacts with a polariser.

6. Which nicely brings us to that experiment T defined 2 posts above:* with its spin-half particles for comparison with Bell (1964). For there we have a "classical" experiment (in my terms; see essay), with quantum-style perturbations of spin-half particles to boot.

* Alas Akinbo, there is no escaping experiment T; even here where we do your bidding.

7. However, and beautifully, old Malus' Law [as adapted by me to the spin-half particles that we have here; see equations (1)-(2) below] is all you need for complete understanding: remembering that T is NOT the full-monty EPR-Bohm test in Bell (1964) but is a real (executable) non-misleading test for pedagogic purposes.

8. So, BIG HINT, with you being Alice.

P(U|T, Alice) = cos² [(1/2)(a,b)]; (1)

P(D|T, Alice) = sin² [(1/2)(a,b)]; (2)

E(UD|T, Alice) = (1) - (2) = a.b; (3)

since +1 is typically assigned to U, -1 to D.

9. When you are clear on this (it takes a while, but re-reading my essay may help; especially re Bohr's important insight): you will note that we have not used those tricky terms in your point #3; and we invoke no "orientation inconsistencies" per your point #4.

10. Trusting the above moves us, we growing band of CLRs (convinced local realists), to much closer agreement: please do not hesitate to raise any ongoing issues.

With thanks for the opportunity to address your concerns; and with best regards; Gordon

PS: Typos corrected and this added: I therefore know of no one who would not accept the findings that you make at your desk using equations (1)-(3) to derive E(AB|T) = -a.b.

view post as summary

Dear Gary,

Addressing your key comments (some seeming typos fixed):

1. Essay (AB|CQ) = 1 was profoundly sublime. I had to read it several times of course. I'm still digesting it. The formalisms are challenging but comprehensible.

Please see #4 below as added motivation to check the physics in detail. Please ask questions as the need arises (privately if you wish); no...

view entire post

Dear Gary,

Addressing your key comments (some seeming typos fixed):

1. Essay (AB|CQ) = 1 was profoundly sublime. I had to read it several times of course. I'm still digesting it. The formalisms are challenging but comprehensible.

Please see #4 below as added motivation to check the physics in detail. Please ask questions as the need arises (privately if you wish); no matter how simple or daft.

2. If I had named the essay, I would have titled it "Bell's Inequality, revision 2.0 - The Missing Pieces".

I could have done with that improvement at essay-closing time! But the version here is a Draft and v2. has this new working title: "Nature's mathematics settles the physics in Bell-v-Einstein." I look forward to the day when we have: GA settles the physics in Bell-v-Einstein.

Reason: Reading many of the essays here, I see the need for terms like GA or Nature's mathematics in many places. We need, in my view, the ultimate mathematics for realists: having no irrelevant abstractions and all relevant laws satisfied continuously. See #4 again; noting, of course, that our work with relevant abstractions is just fine for man-made gadgets from submarines, through LHCs and skyscrapers, to rockets.

3. I assume that you have read Dr. Klingman's essay. If not, you should - no, you MUST. You and he are on exactly the same page.

Yes, thank you; many times. Alas, at the moment, I suspect we are not in the same library. But I hope that will change; hopefully helped along by work such as yours. Note that Ed's model could not address the simple test proposed by Cristi Stoica (a leading essayist here); nor Aspect's results; and how is Ed's 'realism' defined; etc.

4. Geometric Algebra is peeking its head out regarding the beables and their local values.

I am so glad that you see that! Please be the first to help that shy, beautiful (and sometimes tricky) GA out of the closet and work with her in the unified "BT" context proposed in my essay. For I'd love to see elementary GA taught in primary schools: with GA on its way to becoming Nature's local realistic Mathematics.

5. Re GA.

How is your work received within the GA community? Have you any rejections from journals? If so, what do they say? (Write to me privately if you wish.) Are you familiar with Elio Conte's efforts? For example: Conte, E. (2001). Biquaternion Quantum Mechanics. Bologna, Pitagora Editrice? (Alas, he supports nonlocality!) How about this Caves, Fuchs, Schack essay [arxiv.org/pdf/quant-ph/0104088v1.pdf] and the view that amplitudes should be complex numbers rather than reals or quaternions?

With best regards, and looking forward to spending time with your ideas; Gordon

view post as summary

Thanks Jonathan; I very much appreciate your interest. My work it is indeed intended to be serious. A local-realistic unification and examination of four experiments: challenging Bell's views and his conclusions re nonlocality ...

… all in the context of Trick or truth: the [as supposed] mysterious connection between physics and mathematics.

So I hope you'll be back...

view entire post

Thanks Jonathan; I very much appreciate your interest. My work it is indeed intended to be serious. A local-realistic unification and examination of four experiments: challenging Bell's views and his conclusions re nonlocality ...

… all in the context of Trick or truth: the [as supposed] mysterious connection between physics and mathematics.

So I hope you'll be back soon with some questions! For I'd welcome the chance to show you that: (i) the maths is little more than high-school stuff; (ii) the defining of new things is little more than my ensuring that all definitions are cleaned-up mathematically.

In this way I'd expect you to find that long conversations might be reserved for areas of common interest; like the benefit of videos/lecture/pictures/animations. Which all sounds more like your department and some near-future co-operation.

To that end, my immediate goal is to invite serious critiques of my work so that it is clear what I must fix/improve. The point being that the four unified experiments do deliver the results that I claim: for all my results are consistent with actual experiments; or consistent with accepted quantum theory where experiments have not yet been done.

With my thanks again; Gordon

view post as summary

Hi Joe,

Many thanks for initiating a fresh dialogue here. I fondly recall our discussions from 2013. I hope you do too?

In my view (which has not changed) we share a crucial common passion for being precise about the important difference between Abstract and Concrete objects. (In many ways, Joe: it is, alas, an UNCOMMON passion.)

Now: from your new essay, you might be...

view entire post

Hi Joe,

Many thanks for initiating a fresh dialogue here. I fondly recall our discussions from 2013. I hope you do too?

In my view (which has not changed) we share a crucial common passion for being precise about the important difference between Abstract and Concrete objects. (In many ways, Joe: it is, alas, an UNCOMMON passion.)

Now: from your new essay, you might be best discussing this next point with Akinbo Ojo (re the nature of real points and surfaces): "Each real object has a real material surface that seems to be attached to a material sub-surface."

For my part, on the same p.2 of your essay, I find:

"All surfaces, no matter the apparent degree of separation, must travel at the same constant speed. No matter in which direction one looks, one will only ever see a plethora of surfaces and those surfaces must all be traveling at the same constant speed or else it would be physically impossible for one to observe them simultaneously."

JOE: Please DO NOT concretely ATTEMPT this next experiment but think about this abstract scenario: In my experience, if you attempt to exit an American freeway incorrectly (eg., say, at night), you will typically see a large sign; typically red: "WRONG WAY: GO BACK!"

However, if you do NOT go back but continue on (here, by thinking about one headlight in each pair), you will soon OBSERVE SIMULTANEOUSLY many distinct headlights coming in your direction THOUGH THEY TRAVEL at different non-constant speeds toward you. Thus, Joe, please: how then am I to understand the quoted statement?

PS: At (almost) the same time that I received your message, I received another with a suggestion. The messages are so similar that I've decided to test a by-line with my FQXi signature (see below).

In my opinion, the byline goes to the heart of your (FQXI 2015) essay (as captured in its title). So I really would welcome your critical comments … and such will be very relevant to my essay this year … in the hope of coming to a new agreement. Thanks Joe.

……………...

"Nature speaks in many ways, from big bangs to the whisper of an apple falling (which can be tricky), but just one grammar, Nature's beautiful concrete mathematics, governs all her languages: thus all her laws," Watson (2015:5).

With best regards, I'll pop a link in your comment box; Gordon Watson: Essay Forum. Essay Only.

view post as summary

Gordon,

Since you already posted your comment on both of our pages, there wasn’t anything of value I could still bring over here from my page.

I think you are looking for a logical challenge to your arguments. I doubt you will get that here. Not that some of these people aren’t capable of following your logic. It’s just that in their opinion the investment of time and effort...

view entire post

Gordon,

Since you already posted your comment on both of our pages, there wasn’t anything of value I could still bring over here from my page.

I think you are looking for a logical challenge to your arguments. I doubt you will get that here. Not that some of these people aren’t capable of following your logic. It’s just that in their opinion the investment of time and effort necessary to follow your arguments is greater (in some sort of subjective valuation system) than the expected benefit. Most people (as you well know) have already accepted the tenets of QM, and are prejudiced against views that challenge “the establishment.”

In other words, most people expect your logic to have a failing somewhere, and even if it didn’t, they believe that the conclusions would not be somehow valid or substantive enough to truly challenge accepted interpretations of QM.

I am used to thinking in English, simultaneously accompanied by a visual imagery of the thing under consideration (they happen seamlessly together). I don’t recognize a single “symbol” in your essay. For me to learn those symbols would take too long (the way such things work is that if you work with symbols for some years, your mind fluidly treats them as meaningful language), and since I don’t expect to be doing this kind of thinking in the future, it would not be an optimal use of my time.

Because of my jobs in finance, I had to become proficient in MS Excel, and I will admit to being able to “program” logical statements that run into thousands of characters and still be able to “keep the logic” in my conscious working memory (so to speak). Over time, Lotus 123 and MS Excel varied their capability of handling formulas of certain lengths, as well as the number of nested “if” statements, so sometimes it had to be broken up into several cells that (in combination) resulted in the formula I needed. But this does not guarantee that I could do what you do with your symbols. I think you have a unique gift.

But your problem is that you aren’t getting the right people to spend the time learning to understand the logic of your arguments. Worse still, because of that, they do not realize the consequences (or, rather, they prefer to not acknowledge them). If you want to make a difference (and not just have a chat), then you need to get your work reviewed by the right people. It won’t be easy. They have jobs, reputations, funding, and peers to consider.

I think you get the drift.

En

view post as summary

Hi Peter, and thanks for getting in touch, etc; and for me so fortuitously with you following Richard with the same points.

Certainly I agree with your analogy about receivers and senders. So please do not hesitate to enter your own difficulties in this thread of yours as you follow my dialogue with Richard. That way we two crackpots (under the widely accepted definition of that term) can...

view entire post

Hi Peter, and thanks for getting in touch, etc; and for me so fortuitously with you following Richard with the same points.

Certainly I agree with your analogy about receivers and senders. So please do not hesitate to enter your own difficulties in this thread of yours as you follow my dialogue with Richard. That way we two crackpots (under the widely accepted definition of that term) can maximise the benefits of the above serendipity. Especially as Richard is widely read and published in matters Bellian.

I have not read you essay; you are fifth on my current FQXi to-do list and I will get there before the deadline!

However, as you will recall, the depth of your analyses leaves mine looking very superficial. Though I take hope from this one fact: we are both conscientious local realists (CLRs).

PS: I need to write up a small but serious difference of opinion with fellow CLR Alan Kadin and his Figure 4. Have you looked at it? Any opinion? (It's a promising essay and it reminds me of some of your ideas.)

Thanks again, with more at your thread soon; Gordon

view post as summary

Gordon,

Thanks. I do like Alan Kadins paper. I checked fig 4, only penetrating a) so far, which I think is incorrect. The particles approaching the splitter will be random +/-, so even if ALL are reversed at a normal SG splitter the outcomes will still be random! It's the strange nature of randomness (Alex Soiguine has a couple of useful papers on that). The (rather complex) diagrams in my...

view entire post

Gordon,

Thanks. I do like Alan Kadins paper. I checked fig 4, only penetrating a) so far, which I think is incorrect. The particles approaching the splitter will be random +/-, so even if ALL are reversed at a normal SG splitter the outcomes will still be random! It's the strange nature of randomness (Alex Soiguine has a couple of useful papers on that). The (rather complex) diagrams in my paper track the full mechanism. But we must be very careful as there are many different set ups.

Peter

view post as summary

Gordon,

Thanks for the compliments and comments on my thread.

It does appear you've seen the 'width' of consistency rather than the depth of deriving non-local state reduction using the key circumvention of Bells inequality, as you don't mention that part. I think it's a shame all seem to want to work only alone. I responded to your comment there, reproduced...

view entire post

Gordon,

Thanks for the compliments and comments on my thread.

It does appear you've seen the 'width' of consistency rather than the depth of deriving non-local state reduction using the key circumvention of Bells inequality, as you don't mention that part. I think it's a shame all seem to want to work only alone. I responded to your comment there, reproduced below.;

Gordon,

I don't see my derivation as 'the full monty', just the minimum required to reproduce the findings termed quantum non-locality (QNL) without abandoning local reality. I don't quite understand what it is you 'have to offer' beyond that simple need to circumvent the Bell constraint. What else is needed? Can you elucidate?

Once that tough nut was cracked, sure a whole lot of other solutions to anomalies came flooding out. They're mainly just verification, though ok, many are also important in themselves, and yes, far too much flooded out for most human brains to assimilate, but noe of thet detracts from the accomplishment of the simple task rationalising QM and QNL.

I do agree we've approached from opposite aspects, but I think that'd be useful as the problem can't 'get away' and both together have 3 times the value. I'm used to working with top teams to accomplish complex projects individuals can't, but if you don't think you could collaborate that's fine. I'm sure someone will. but I hope you'll stay in touch.

Best

Peter

view post as summary