If you are aware of an interesting new academic paper (that has been published in a peer-reviewed journal or has appeared on the arXiv), a conference talk (at an official professional scientific meeting), an external blog post (by a professional scientist) or a news item (in the mainstream news media), which you think might make an interesting topic for an FQXi blog post, then please contact us at forums@fqxi.org with a link to the original source and a sentence about why you think that the work is worthy of discussion. Please note that we receive many such suggestions and while we endeavour to respond to them, we may not be able to reply to all suggestions.
Please also note that we do not accept unsolicited posts and we cannot review, or open new threads for, unsolicited articles or papers. Requests to review or post such materials will not be answered. If you have your own novel physics theory or model, which you would like to post for further discussion among then FQXi community, then please add them directly to the "Alternative Models of Reality" thread, or to the "Alternative Models of Cosmology" thread. Thank you.
Please also note that we do not accept unsolicited posts and we cannot review, or open new threads for, unsolicited articles or papers. Requests to review or post such materials will not be answered. If you have your own novel physics theory or model, which you would like to post for further discussion among then FQXi community, then please add them directly to the "Alternative Models of Reality" thread, or to the "Alternative Models of Cosmology" thread. Thank you.
Forum Home
Introduction
Terms of Use
By using the FQXi Forum, you acknowledge reading and agree to abide by the Terms of Use
RSS feed | RSS help
Introduction
Terms of Use
By using the FQXi Forum, you acknowledge reading and agree to abide by the Terms of Use
RSS feed | RSS help
RECENT POSTS IN THIS TOPIC
Brendan Foster: on 5/22/14 at 21:05pm UTC, wrote This forum is closed to further posts, due to repeated violations of the...
Joy Christian: on 5/22/14 at 9:09am UTC, wrote It is also worth noting that an incontrovertible proof that a distribution...
Joy Christian: on 5/22/14 at 8:46am UTC, wrote What Richard Gill has stated is wrong. I have revised my simulation, which...
Richard Gill: on 5/22/14 at 7:30am UTC, wrote So Christian submitted one set of directions for two of the four...
Joy Christian: on 5/21/14 at 20:17pm UTC, wrote Yes, Rick, you are right. The cross product does not vanish unless x = y.
Peter Jackson: on 5/21/14 at 18:15pm UTC, wrote Richard, To save the load time, while you're there why not read a romance;...
Rick Lockyer: on 5/21/14 at 18:05pm UTC, wrote The cross products are all non-zero, so the vectors are not parallel. So...
Richard Gill: on 5/21/14 at 17:50pm UTC, wrote u.v = length(u) times length(v) times cosine angle between u and v. At...
Brendan Foster: on 5/22/14 at 21:05pm UTC, wrote This forum is closed to further posts, due to repeated violations of the...
Joy Christian: on 5/22/14 at 9:09am UTC, wrote It is also worth noting that an incontrovertible proof that a distribution...
Joy Christian: on 5/22/14 at 8:46am UTC, wrote What Richard Gill has stated is wrong. I have revised my simulation, which...
Richard Gill: on 5/22/14 at 7:30am UTC, wrote So Christian submitted one set of directions for two of the four...
Joy Christian: on 5/21/14 at 20:17pm UTC, wrote Yes, Rick, you are right. The cross product does not vanish unless x = y.
Peter Jackson: on 5/21/14 at 18:15pm UTC, wrote Richard, To save the load time, while you're there why not read a romance;...
Rick Lockyer: on 5/21/14 at 18:05pm UTC, wrote The cross products are all non-zero, so the vectors are not parallel. So...
Richard Gill: on 5/21/14 at 17:50pm UTC, wrote u.v = length(u) times length(v) times cosine angle between u and v. At...
FQXi FORUM
September 26, 2021
CATEGORY:
Ultimate Reality
[back]
TOPIC: Classical Spheres, Division Algebras, and the Illusion of Quantum Non-locality: [refresh]
TOPIC: Classical Spheres, Division Algebras, and the Illusion of Quantum Non-locality: [refresh]
I wish to mention a recent preprint of mine---this one---which is about the prevalent (but false) belief in “quantum non-locality.” I am, in fact, required to post this link here, because this preprint is part of my forthcoming book on Bell’s Theorem and Quantum Entanglement, which is kindly supported by FQXi through a generous mini-grant.
Let me begin by mentioning that Michael Atiyah---that wise old sage of mathematical physics---gave a provocative seminar last November, at IAS, Princeton, with the following thesis: There are four fundamental forces of nature, and there are four division rings over the reals (connected with the parallelizability of four classical spheres): the real numbers, the complex numbers, the quaternions, and the octonions. Therefore---according to Atiyah---one should expect all four of these division algebras to play a role in the ultimate theory of physics, allowing octonions, in particular, to account for gravitation. As one would expect from someone like Atiyah, this was not an idle speculation. He described some specific steps in this direction, substantiated his ideas, and made some deep connections. Now you may wonder what this has to do with quantum non-locality. Well, rather astonishingly, the division algebras have popped up in my own work on Bell’s theorem quite unexpectedly. When I started out my critique of Bell’s theorem some four years ago, the division algebras were the last thing on my mind. I was simply trying to clean up the argument by John Bell, which I thought was far too sloppy---at least topologically---to lead to any radical conclusions about the nature of physical reality. But this cleanup operation has led me to uncover a profound connection between quantum correlations and the division algebras. The preprint linked above (and also this one) brings out this connection in a somewhat technical language. My main conclusion---after some four years of battle against the conventional wisdom---is that “quantum non-locality” is nothing but a make-belief of the topologically naive.
this post has been edited by the forum administrator
report post as inappropriate
Let me begin by mentioning that Michael Atiyah---that wise old sage of mathematical physics---gave a provocative seminar last November, at IAS, Princeton, with the following thesis: There are four fundamental forces of nature, and there are four division rings over the reals (connected with the parallelizability of four classical spheres): the real numbers, the complex numbers, the quaternions, and the octonions. Therefore---according to Atiyah---one should expect all four of these division algebras to play a role in the ultimate theory of physics, allowing octonions, in particular, to account for gravitation. As one would expect from someone like Atiyah, this was not an idle speculation. He described some specific steps in this direction, substantiated his ideas, and made some deep connections. Now you may wonder what this has to do with quantum non-locality. Well, rather astonishingly, the division algebras have popped up in my own work on Bell’s theorem quite unexpectedly. When I started out my critique of Bell’s theorem some four years ago, the division algebras were the last thing on my mind. I was simply trying to clean up the argument by John Bell, which I thought was far too sloppy---at least topologically---to lead to any radical conclusions about the nature of physical reality. But this cleanup operation has led me to uncover a profound connection between quantum correlations and the division algebras. The preprint linked above (and also this one) brings out this connection in a somewhat technical language. My main conclusion---after some four years of battle against the conventional wisdom---is that “quantum non-locality” is nothing but a make-belief of the topologically naive.
report post as inappropriate
I eagerly look forward to the book. I found Joy's article through Wikipedia, when I was following up issues raised in the 'Bell's Speakable and Unspeakable' last year. My first impression was very positive, in that it seemed to point out a simple flaw in the Bell's original paper, which overturned 60 years of accepted wisdom on non-locality. I expected to find lots of discussion at a very high level in physics on such a fundamental issue.
Instead, I found relative silence. I understand that a paper is slowly making its way through the Physics Review channels. I did not expect the time to get such a new critical idea accepted or effectively refuted to take so long.
report post as inappropriate
Instead, I found relative silence. I understand that a paper is slowly making its way through the Physics Review channels. I did not expect the time to get such a new critical idea accepted or effectively refuted to take so long.
Graham,
Four years ago I too had such an innocent view of science. Sadly, today I have lost that innocence. I now appreciate that evidence in science---no matter how starkly presented---can be misinterpreted, denied, effectively neutralized, or simply ignored if the scientific community does not like it. Even in mathematics a theorem is not a theorem until the social act of its acceptance. And foundations of quantum mechanics is clearly not as exact a science as mathematics. Recall how von Neumann’s theorem against general hidden variables was believed in by the physics community for 30 years despite its clear-cut refutation by Grete Hermann in 1935 (and despite the existence of explicit counterexample to the theorem by Bohm). It was not until John Bell rediscovered Hermann’s objection in 1965 that the importance of her work began to be appreciated by the community.
report post as inappropriate
Four years ago I too had such an innocent view of science. Sadly, today I have lost that innocence. I now appreciate that evidence in science---no matter how starkly presented---can be misinterpreted, denied, effectively neutralized, or simply ignored if the scientific community does not like it. Even in mathematics a theorem is not a theorem until the social act of its acceptance. And foundations of quantum mechanics is clearly not as exact a science as mathematics. Recall how von Neumann’s theorem against general hidden variables was believed in by the physics community for 30 years despite its clear-cut refutation by Grete Hermann in 1935 (and despite the existence of explicit counterexample to the theorem by Bohm). It was not until John Bell rediscovered Hermann’s objection in 1965 that the importance of her work began to be appreciated by the community.
Thanks. You have confirmed what I assumed to be the case - the simple inertia of introducing new ideas into the system. There must be a strong desire to keep hold of spookiness - it makes good stories.
However, I would have hoped that your work at Oxford Uni and the Perimiter Institute would have acorded you a little more respect than having to respond to the charges of 'fantastical ideas' below. It is hard to understand how adding a few extra dimensions to balance Bell's equation is unfavourably compared with instantaneous action at a distance.
Hopefully more people will simply read the paper for what it is, and appreciate the problem it attempts to solve. Hope you don't have to wait as long as Grete.
report post as inappropriate
However, I would have hoped that your work at Oxford Uni and the Perimiter Institute would have acorded you a little more respect than having to respond to the charges of 'fantastical ideas' below. It is hard to understand how adding a few extra dimensions to balance Bell's equation is unfavourably compared with instantaneous action at a distance.
Hopefully more people will simply read the paper for what it is, and appreciate the problem it attempts to solve. Hope you don't have to wait as long as Grete.
Is there anybody *not* writing a book? ;-)
report post as inappropriate
Hi Bee,
Yes, a new mother of two beautiful baby girls! As far as I know, she is not writing a book. ;-)
J.C.
report post as inappropriate
Yes, a new mother of two beautiful baby girls! As far as I know, she is not writing a book. ;-)
J.C.
Much has happened since 2012. At least four explicit, event-by-event, computer simulations of my local model for the EPR-Bohm correlation have been independently produced by different authors, with codes written in Java, Python, Excel Visual Basic, and Mathematica. I discuss two of these simulations in the appendix of the attached paper. A compact translation of one of these simulations (from Python to Mathematica) can be found here.
Each simulation has given different statistical and geometrical insights into how my local-realistic framework works, and indeed how Nature herself works. The original simulation written by Chantal Roth, which is most faithful to 3-sphere topology, may appeal to more geometrically inclined, whereas Michel Fodje's simulation, which has its own unique features, may appeal to more statistically inclined. In the end, however, all of these simulations, together with the original analytical model, confirm what I have been arguing for, for the past six years. The full details of my argument, which concerns the topological origins of quantum correlations, can be found on my blog.
attachments: 24_whither.pdf
post approved
Each simulation has given different statistical and geometrical insights into how my local-realistic framework works, and indeed how Nature herself works. The original simulation written by Chantal Roth, which is most faithful to 3-sphere topology, may appeal to more geometrically inclined, whereas Michel Fodje's simulation, which has its own unique features, may appeal to more statistically inclined. In the end, however, all of these simulations, together with the original analytical model, confirm what I have been arguing for, for the past six years. The full details of my argument, which concerns the topological origins of quantum correlations, can be found on my blog.
 |
attachments: 24_whither.pdf
Joy et al,
"The original simulation written by Chantal Roth, which is most faithful to 3-sphere topology, may appeal to more geometrically inclined, whereas Michel Fodje's simulation, which has its own unique features, may appeal to more statistically inclined."
This is what I find the most convincing evidence, that a simulation of a continuous function is a continuous function. Regardless of whether one assumes continuous geometry, or discrete points, correlated and anti-correlated values are locally neighboring elements. That is, no matter how apparently entangled two discrete points of a measurement function may appear -- at any distance scale -- random input correlates the entire wave function to an equilibrium state at every distance scale.
In other words, both evolving discrete particle states (Fermi-Dirac) and static geometry (Bose-Einstein) are reconciled to the same unitary and dynamic spacetime.
The implications go far beyond local microscale quantum correlations of the kind described by Bell's theorem. The quantum and classical measure domains are not independent at any time-distance scale.
Ever since the '30s, researchers have tried to find a transition schema to describe where the discrete measures of quantum theory become a classically smooth function. If such an intermediate function is simply the classically random input that we call quantum decoherence (Zeh, Zurek), then all the fundamentally classical wave interactions (reinforcement, destruction, interference) are represented as nonlinear input to the linear order of particle states.
All best,
Tom
report post as inappropriate
"The original simulation written by Chantal Roth, which is most faithful to 3-sphere topology, may appeal to more geometrically inclined, whereas Michel Fodje's simulation, which has its own unique features, may appeal to more statistically inclined."
This is what I find the most convincing evidence, that a simulation of a continuous function is a continuous function. Regardless of whether one assumes continuous geometry, or discrete points, correlated and anti-correlated values are locally neighboring elements. That is, no matter how apparently entangled two discrete points of a measurement function may appear -- at any distance scale -- random input correlates the entire wave function to an equilibrium state at every distance scale.
In other words, both evolving discrete particle states (Fermi-Dirac) and static geometry (Bose-Einstein) are reconciled to the same unitary and dynamic spacetime.
The implications go far beyond local microscale quantum correlations of the kind described by Bell's theorem. The quantum and classical measure domains are not independent at any time-distance scale.
Ever since the '30s, researchers have tried to find a transition schema to describe where the discrete measures of quantum theory become a classically smooth function. If such an intermediate function is simply the classically random input that we call quantum decoherence (Zeh, Zurek), then all the fundamentally classical wave interactions (reinforcement, destruction, interference) are represented as nonlinear input to the linear order of particle states.
All best,
Tom
Joy,
I recently found your papers on Arxiv and am working through them. This is quite a radical, but exciting development in the foundations of QM. I am still trying to work out the wider implications for QM hidden variables and so on. Also your latest paper relates the results to Torsion in the spaces. By coincidence I have also just been trying to understand the role of Torsion in (extended) GR. So there could be several convergences at work here: not just the Division Algebra story.
report post as inappropriate
I recently found your papers on Arxiv and am working through them. This is quite a radical, but exciting development in the foundations of QM. I am still trying to work out the wider implications for QM hidden variables and so on. Also your latest paper relates the results to Torsion in the spaces. By coincidence I have also just been trying to understand the role of Torsion in (extended) GR. So there could be several convergences at work here: not just the Division Algebra story.
Roy,
Thanks for your note. I too find the connection of my work to teleparallel gravity (i.e., torsion) quite intriguing (hence the last sentence of my latest paper). I am also exploring some other avenues unrelated to either gravity or division algebras---so watch this space, as they say.
J.C.
report post as inappropriate
Thanks for your note. I too find the connection of my work to teleparallel gravity (i.e., torsion) quite intriguing (hence the last sentence of my latest paper). I am also exploring some other avenues unrelated to either gravity or division algebras---so watch this space, as they say.
J.C.
A brief addendum to my note above: I have constructed a new counterexample to Bell’s theorem that may be of interest. It can be found here.
Joy Christian
report post as inappropriate
Joy Christian
PS: There is in fact a much closer link between my work and teleparallel gravity. You can find a more recent discussion about this on my blog.
report post as inappropriate
The idea that one should expect all four division algebras to play a role in the ultimate theory of physics, on the basis that there are four fundamental forces of nature, ``allowing octonions, in particular, to account for gravitation'' sounds very convincing, were it not for the fact that according to our modern -- i.e. post-1915 -- views on gravitation, the latter is not a force at all, but rather an aspect of spacetime structure. However, if the gluons (8), resp. electroweak vector bosons (4), are somehow associated with resp. the octonions and the quaternions, one should expect that there are exactly three Higgs bosons, being associated with the remaining two normed division algebras, namely the real and complex numbers. Alternatively, since the mean dimension of the five exceptional Lie algebras is 105, and there are only 25 known fundamental particles -- one of which is still elusive -- one should expect the discovery of 80 new fundamental topologically nontrivial EPR elements of reality at LHC sometime very soon.
report post as inappropriate
Your sarcasm is not entirely unjustified, but it distracts from my main point. While I wholeheartedly endorse the thesis that “gravity is not a force” (see, e.g., some of my older papers on the arXiv), to be fair to Atiyah his arguments were not as simplistic and naive as your comments seem to suggest.
But all that is beside the point. The main concern of my note is the prevalent but false belief in “quantum non-locality”, not the true nature of quantum gravity. And whatever else one may discover at LHC, it certainly won’t be “non-locality”, unless LHC is capable of discovering figments of imagination.
report post as inappropriate
But all that is beside the point. The main concern of my note is the prevalent but false belief in “quantum non-locality”, not the true nature of quantum gravity. And whatever else one may discover at LHC, it certainly won’t be “non-locality”, unless LHC is capable of discovering figments of imagination.
Right, well I find it very amusing to read that my ``sarcasm is not entirely justified'' coming from a person with such fantastical ideas. It seems to me you are taking Feyerabend a little too seriously.
report post as inappropriate
You have misread my sentence. Please read it again and recognize your error. As for my “ideas”, there is nothing fantastical about correcting the incorrect mathematics used within a fallacious theorem. That is all I have done. You will recognize that if you actually read my papers.
report post as inappropriate
Dear Dr Christian,
I am a bit confused regarding your critique of Bell's theorem. While I don't claim to understand your work in detail, it appears on first sight that you allow geometries that not necessarily approximate flat metric, or any metric at all, on small scales. You bring the example of a torsion tensor, and - unless I am mistaken - one could also mention some noncommutative geometry as another example. Doesn't that mean that your work begins on a somewhat different premise as compared to conventional formulation in physics would? It appears to me that giving up "metric" as central concept to guarantee universal applicability of physical law, that indeed there will be far reaching consequences. That would make your work a very interesting opportunity for restricting validity of Bell's theorem to incomplete subspaces of a more general, "complete" geometry of nature. Am I off?
Thanks, Jens
report post as inappropriate
I am a bit confused regarding your critique of Bell's theorem. While I don't claim to understand your work in detail, it appears on first sight that you allow geometries that not necessarily approximate flat metric, or any metric at all, on small scales. You bring the example of a torsion tensor, and - unless I am mistaken - one could also mention some noncommutative geometry as another example. Doesn't that mean that your work begins on a somewhat different premise as compared to conventional formulation in physics would? It appears to me that giving up "metric" as central concept to guarantee universal applicability of physical law, that indeed there will be far reaching consequences. That would make your work a very interesting opportunity for restricting validity of Bell's theorem to incomplete subspaces of a more general, "complete" geometry of nature. Am I off?
Thanks, Jens
Dear Dr. Koeplinger,
Thank you for your comments. I am not doing anything unconventional in my work, apart from correcting the incorrect topology of the co-domain of the local-realistic functions presumed by Bell. This change has nothing to do with the spacetime geometry, or the geometry of the quantum state space. It only amounts to completing the space of all possible measurement results, in the EPR sense, within the orthodox local-realistic framework of Bell. So, I am afraid, you are indeed “off.”
J.C.
report post as inappropriate
Thank you for your comments. I am not doing anything unconventional in my work, apart from correcting the incorrect topology of the co-domain of the local-realistic functions presumed by Bell. This change has nothing to do with the spacetime geometry, or the geometry of the quantum state space. It only amounts to completing the space of all possible measurement results, in the EPR sense, within the orthodox local-realistic framework of Bell. So, I am afraid, you are indeed “off.”
J.C.
Thank you for responding so quickly! I'll have to study this and your work a bit.
There's one more thing I'd like to ask: You mention Sir Atiyah's talk from Simons Center last year. Many people wonder about it, as do I; but beyond the slides I couldn't even find the reference list ... Since you're hinting at it, I thought I'd ask what you're referring to when you wrote about specific steps and substantiated ideas. Sorry for the indiscretion :)
Thanks, Jens
(no Dr/PhD)
report post as inappropriate
There's one more thing I'd like to ask: You mention Sir Atiyah's talk from Simons Center last year. Many people wonder about it, as do I; but beyond the slides I couldn't even find the reference list ... Since you're hinting at it, I thought I'd ask what you're referring to when you wrote about specific steps and substantiated ideas. Sorry for the indiscretion :)
Thanks, Jens
(no Dr/PhD)
Jens,
I myself was not present at Atiyah’s talk and know about its contents only through secondary sources. I have written to him directly and perhaps he will respond (although he is an extraordinarily busy man, as you can imagine). Beyond that I rather not go into details about his talk, because the last thing I want to do is to misrepresent his carefully thought-out argument.
Joy
report post as inappropriate
I myself was not present at Atiyah’s talk and know about its contents only through secondary sources. I have written to him directly and perhaps he will respond (although he is an extraordinarily busy man, as you can imagine). Beyond that I rather not go into details about his talk, because the last thing I want to do is to misrepresent his carefully thought-out argument.
Joy
Joy
Excellent, brilliant and honest, thank you. Physics needs more prepared to let go of old myth and nonsense and develop their brains properly.
I don't pretend to follow much of the maths, but I'm among 3 who have found the same conclusion, all from slightly different routes, with essays in the current competition. It really arose from the string posts under the essays. My own is entirely logic based and maths free http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/803 '2020 Vision' but you'll also want to read at least Edwin Klingsman and Willards essays. Edwin is an ex NASA research scientist and handy with sums, Willards appraoch is philosophical, mine is very Reality/Locality, showing how bells inequity is completely sidelined by a local reality that should keep Roger P happy by producing his Holy Grail of giving SR a (non spooky) quantum mechanism to run it.
I would be delighted if you'd comment. The solution has also opened up many other previously obscured areas of science, and I'd like to cite your paper in the one I'm just finishing deriving a real galactic secular evolution sequence, which is quite dramatic stuff. I hope you can understand my language!
We really must start a movement to clear physics of troglodytes to let it catch up one day!
Thank you again.
Very best wishes
Peter
report post as inappropriate
Excellent, brilliant and honest, thank you. Physics needs more prepared to let go of old myth and nonsense and develop their brains properly.
I don't pretend to follow much of the maths, but I'm among 3 who have found the same conclusion, all from slightly different routes, with essays in the current competition. It really arose from the string posts under the essays. My own is entirely logic based and maths free http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/803 '2020 Vision' but you'll also want to read at least Edwin Klingsman and Willards essays. Edwin is an ex NASA research scientist and handy with sums, Willards appraoch is philosophical, mine is very Reality/Locality, showing how bells inequity is completely sidelined by a local reality that should keep Roger P happy by producing his Holy Grail of giving SR a (non spooky) quantum mechanism to run it.
I would be delighted if you'd comment. The solution has also opened up many other previously obscured areas of science, and I'd like to cite your paper in the one I'm just finishing deriving a real galactic secular evolution sequence, which is quite dramatic stuff. I hope you can understand my language!
We really must start a movement to clear physics of troglodytes to let it catch up one day!
Thank you again.
Very best wishes
Peter
Dear Joy Christian,
your papers are very technical, so i have to ask explicitely my question here.
Does your arguments refuting Bell's theorem rely on the fact that for example in the EPR-Bohm experiment the two particles are "born" out of the same source and with properties that depend on the conservation of spin?
report post as inappropriate
your papers are very technical, so i have to ask explicitely my question here.
Does your arguments refuting Bell's theorem rely on the fact that for example in the EPR-Bohm experiment the two particles are "born" out of the same source and with properties that depend on the conservation of spin?
Dear Joy Christian,
thank you for your quick response that lead me to another question.
If there's no dependence between the two EPR-Bohm particles and their subsequently measurements, shouldn't we observe the same statistics also with "unentangled" particles? The latter could be conducted via 2 EPR-Bohm sources, the first source emitting particles 1 and 2, the second source emitting particles 3 and 4. Particles 2 and 4 fly northwards, the particles 1 and 3 fly southwards and are measured in the same fashion like in the original EPR-Bohm setup.
What's the reason according to your hypothesis that this experiment will output a different statistics than the original EPR-Bohm setup?
report post as inappropriate
thank you for your quick response that lead me to another question.
If there's no dependence between the two EPR-Bohm particles and their subsequently measurements, shouldn't we observe the same statistics also with "unentangled" particles? The latter could be conducted via 2 EPR-Bohm sources, the first source emitting particles 1 and 2, the second source emitting particles 3 and 4. Particles 2 and 4 fly northwards, the particles 1 and 3 fly southwards and are measured in the same fashion like in the original EPR-Bohm setup.
What's the reason according to your hypothesis that this experiment will output a different statistics than the original EPR-Bohm setup?
Regardless of my work, the difference between the two scenarios you describe---the standard scenario and the un-entangled or product-state scenario---is what Bell calls the existence of a “common cause.” In any local realistic theory the standard EPR-Bohm systems do what they do because there has been a common cause linking them (i.e., they have interacted in the past). This common cause is also known as “a complete state” or “a hidden variable.” Within my model this common cause is the handedness of the physical space within which the EPR-Bohm experiment takes place. It is represented by a trivector mu, which is a non-trivial geometric object, and provides a pre-established harmony among the remote observations. For the un-entangled scenario you describe there would be no common handedness of the physical space for each run of the experiment (no common mu), and hence there would be no correlations among the remote observations.
report post as inappropriate
Dear Joy,
Edwin Eugene Klingman just made me aware of your post here. This is very exciting because I followed your archive papers and I would love to debate them with you. I need to understand 1101.1958 first, though.
As a disclaimer, I found the prior papers incomplete in their arguments, and on the recent comments, I am very skeptical about octonions and QM because of their lack of associativity. However, this all is very thought provoking and I really look forward to studying your paper in detail and asking you questions about it.
report post as inappropriate
Edwin Eugene Klingman just made me aware of your post here. This is very exciting because I followed your archive papers and I would love to debate them with you. I need to understand 1101.1958 first, though.
As a disclaimer, I found the prior papers incomplete in their arguments, and on the recent comments, I am very skeptical about octonions and QM because of their lack of associativity. However, this all is very thought provoking and I really look forward to studying your paper in detail and asking you questions about it.
Thank you for your note. I welcome healthy, informed, and constructive scepticism. I will try to answer your questions as much as I can, and as much as the limits of this forum and time permit. As for your scepticism about octonions, I have found an elegant way to handle their non-associativity in the literature, which gives me confidence of their use within my local-realistic framework.
report post as inappropriate
Joy,
I like your paper and I love your method. I agree with you on the infinite measurability of S^2 + S^2 over the S^3 manifold. I derived the same result in my ICCS 2006 paper, 3.2, et seq.
I don't follow, however, why you consider J.S. Bell's choice of local configuration space naive, much less simpleminded. You write:
"In the light of these extraordinary features of S^3, the reader ought to be struck by the naivety of Bell’s choice of a local prescription. Clearly, no simpleminded function like (1) with a totally disconnected codomain S^0 can provide a complete account of all possible measurement results constituting S^3."
(Ref 1 is Bell's mapping of quantum configuration space to physical space.)
Of course, Bell's choice is "topologically naive" as you earlier write, because he wasn't doing topology. And yes of course, the zero sphere S^0 is a totally disconnected set in the context of simply connected spaces. However, Bell's choice does include the two simple poles at infinity required by classical time reversed symmetry; one could not speak of reconciling physical space with quantum mechanical results without this closed algebra on C, because locality implicitly demands that local realism be time symmetric. Generalizing to C*, with the one simple pole at infinity, conectivity is restored with equatorial results that are not just (+ 1, - 1) but (+ 1, - 1, i) such that points that go off to infinity are lodged in the n-dimensional Hilbert space, which is consistent with Bell's demonstration that quantum configuration space cannot map to physical space without a nonlocal model.
I don't quite understand the value you invest in parallelizability (2, 4, 8 dimension spheres). I know vector spaces are useful for calculation, but I can't see the foundational significance. I'll work on it.
It is important to know that I do not write to be contrary, and certainly not to be adversarial. We share more similarities than differences, notoably the topological approach and enthusiasm for the unique properties of S^3. I hope you feel disposed to engage in dialogue.
All best,
Tom
report post as inappropriate
I like your paper and I love your method. I agree with you on the infinite measurability of S^2 + S^2 over the S^3 manifold. I derived the same result in my ICCS 2006 paper, 3.2, et seq.
I don't follow, however, why you consider J.S. Bell's choice of local configuration space naive, much less simpleminded. You write:
"In the light of these extraordinary features of S^3, the reader ought to be struck by the naivety of Bell’s choice of a local prescription. Clearly, no simpleminded function like (1) with a totally disconnected codomain S^0 can provide a complete account of all possible measurement results constituting S^3."
(Ref 1 is Bell's mapping of quantum configuration space to physical space.)
Of course, Bell's choice is "topologically naive" as you earlier write, because he wasn't doing topology. And yes of course, the zero sphere S^0 is a totally disconnected set in the context of simply connected spaces. However, Bell's choice does include the two simple poles at infinity required by classical time reversed symmetry; one could not speak of reconciling physical space with quantum mechanical results without this closed algebra on C, because locality implicitly demands that local realism be time symmetric. Generalizing to C*, with the one simple pole at infinity, conectivity is restored with equatorial results that are not just (+ 1, - 1) but (+ 1, - 1, i) such that points that go off to infinity are lodged in the n-dimensional Hilbert space, which is consistent with Bell's demonstration that quantum configuration space cannot map to physical space without a nonlocal model.
I don't quite understand the value you invest in parallelizability (2, 4, 8 dimension spheres). I know vector spaces are useful for calculation, but I can't see the foundational significance. I'll work on it.
It is important to know that I do not write to be contrary, and certainly not to be adversarial. We share more similarities than differences, notoably the topological approach and enthusiasm for the unique properties of S^3. I hope you feel disposed to engage in dialogue.
All best,
Tom
Thank you for your comments. Bell’s choice of a 0-sphere for the co-domain of his local-realistic functions is extraordinarily naive. Recall that Bell’s goal, and indeed the goal of any Bell-type theorem, is to demonstrate that no *complete* theory (in the sense of EPR) can be locally causal. Indeed, without completeness there is no theorem. But it is clear from the detailed discussions in my papers that the choice of a 0-sphere in his functions can never fulfil the completeness criterion. Thus by making this choice Bell forfeits his game from the start. This is the main message of my papers. Bell’s theorem (and indeed all Bell-type theorems) is a non-starter.
The parallelizable spheres are fundamentally important for several reasons. First, without the parallelizability the completeness criterion cannot be satisfied (as already mentioned). Second, quantum correlations are what they are *because* of the discipline of parallelization, as extensively demonstrated in my papers. Third, without parallelization the factorizability or locality condition of Bell is not satisfied. Thus parallelizability of the four spheres is fundamentally important.
I fail to see how one can maintain the Bell-type party line in the face of detailed and explicit local-realistic counterexamples I have produced---not only for the original EPR-Bohm state, but also for the Hardy and GHZ type rotationally non-invariant entangled states. Moreover, I have the basic framework in place for reproducing *any* quantum mechanical correlations purely local-realistically. So I am puzzled by your comments.
report post as inappropriate
The parallelizable spheres are fundamentally important for several reasons. First, without the parallelizability the completeness criterion cannot be satisfied (as already mentioned). Second, quantum correlations are what they are *because* of the discipline of parallelization, as extensively demonstrated in my papers. Third, without parallelization the factorizability or locality condition of Bell is not satisfied. Thus parallelizability of the four spheres is fundamentally important.
I fail to see how one can maintain the Bell-type party line in the face of detailed and explicit local-realistic counterexamples I have produced---not only for the original EPR-Bohm state, but also for the Hardy and GHZ type rotationally non-invariant entangled states. Moreover, I have the basic framework in place for reproducing *any* quantum mechanical correlations purely local-realistically. So I am puzzled by your comments.
Dear Joy,
Don't be surprised, I am just a little crazzy and sphericentrist.
Hihihhi I love this platform
Steve
report post as inappropriate
Don't be surprised, I am just a little crazzy and sphericentrist.
Hihihhi I love this platform
Steve
Dear Joy,
Let me start here a new thread so we can simplify the exchange.
I re-read the papers you suggested. I also revisites your FQXi talk. I think that the key sentences are as follows:
1"Such a naive map would therefore necessarily fail to satisfy the completeness criterion of EPR."
2."Every element of the physical reality must
have a counterpart in the...
view entire post
Let me start here a new thread so we can simplify the exchange.
I re-read the papers you suggested. I also revisites your FQXi talk. I think that the key sentences are as follows:
1"Such a naive map would therefore necessarily fail to satisfy the completeness criterion of EPR."
2."Every element of the physical reality must
have a counterpart in the...
view entire post
Dear Florin,
To tie local realism with spacetime is to make a serious category error. We do not know the true nature of spacetime. We do not know what is happening at the Planck scale. We do not even know the correct dimensionality of spacetime. I am not a big fan of string theory, but it has taught us some lessons about the dimensionality of spacetime that cannot be unlearned. At any rate,...
view entire post
To tie local realism with spacetime is to make a serious category error. We do not know the true nature of spacetime. We do not know what is happening at the Planck scale. We do not even know the correct dimensionality of spacetime. I am not a big fan of string theory, but it has taught us some lessons about the dimensionality of spacetime that cannot be unlearned. At any rate,...
view entire post
Dear Joy,
I am still digesting your results (I am almost done), but my understanding of your position already benefitted greatly from the past exchanges. For example I see now I was naively tying your approach to Hilbert spaces. Your approach to local realism is much more subtle. As such, my earlier objections about division are void and I withdraw them. I think that the real debate should be around EPR and the meaning of local realism. At core is your mixing of factuals and counterfactuals to get the new topology. I have to think before formulating a for or against position at this time. Hopefuly I will have a position within a few days. I will try to see if I can obtain a meaningful distinction between traditional local realism and "factorizable completness" besides factual-conterfactual.
A few other side remarks. Let me repeat that I was not influenced in any shape or form by Grangier's comments. I did not fully agree with him, but his ideas resonated with mine. Also, QM is incomplete as it cannot account for non-interacting separated systems. I urge you to read Aerts' analasys, it is well worth it.
report post as inappropriate
I am still digesting your results (I am almost done), but my understanding of your position already benefitted greatly from the past exchanges. For example I see now I was naively tying your approach to Hilbert spaces. Your approach to local realism is much more subtle. As such, my earlier objections about division are void and I withdraw them. I think that the real debate should be around EPR and the meaning of local realism. At core is your mixing of factuals and counterfactuals to get the new topology. I have to think before formulating a for or against position at this time. Hopefuly I will have a position within a few days. I will try to see if I can obtain a meaningful distinction between traditional local realism and "factorizable completness" besides factual-conterfactual.
A few other side remarks. Let me repeat that I was not influenced in any shape or form by Grangier's comments. I did not fully agree with him, but his ideas resonated with mine. Also, QM is incomplete as it cannot account for non-interacting separated systems. I urge you to read Aerts' analasys, it is well worth it.
You say "We know that QM cannot be interpreted as a complete, local, and realistic theory (we know this since EPR)."
I don't know where you have seen that but if it's your line of reasoning, thus I am understanding your confusions.Deatils falses ...thus globality false.
The realism is not there.Copenaghen probably can help you but apparently the rationalism is not loved by all.
PS YOUR ALGEBRAS ARE BAD USED, YOUR INFINITIES AND LIMITS ALSO.....THUS YOUR PROPORTIONALITIES WITH THE NEWTONIAN FRACTALIZATION HAS NO SENSE.Your causalities are not locals and rational simply.The realism is objective and all is relativistically the same.
Sincerely
Steve
report post as inappropriate
I don't know where you have seen that but if it's your line of reasoning, thus I am understanding your confusions.Deatils falses ...thus globality false.
The realism is not there.Copenaghen probably can help you but apparently the rationalism is not loved by all.
PS YOUR ALGEBRAS ARE BAD USED, YOUR INFINITIES AND LIMITS ALSO.....THUS YOUR PROPORTIONALITIES WITH THE NEWTONIAN FRACTALIZATION HAS NO SENSE.Your causalities are not locals and rational simply.The realism is objective and all is relativistically the same.
Sincerely
Steve
Perhaps, since this whole thing started with Einstein, it is appropriate to see what he says about spacetime. Peter Jackson quotes Einstein as saying in 1952 that:
"The concept of space as something existing objectively and independent of things belongs to pre-scientific thought, but not so the idea of the existence of an infinite number of spaces in motion relative to each other."
Jackson claims:
"We view Cartesian coordinates as a 'frame', and refer to inertial frame, yet Einstein referred to a body, or coordinate system rigidly connected to a body."
Local gravito-magnetic or C-fields take the form of induced circulation 'rigidly connected to a body' with momentum. The connection is the '=' sign connecting the C-field circulation to momentum: del cross C = p.
Momentum also allows us to treat entities that have zero rest mass, such as photons. Two such entities forming 'discrete fields' each centered on matter in relative motion are shown in the figure on page 6 of my essay.
I believe that this is in support of Joy Christian's points on space-time and I believe it supports local realism.
I also wish to convey to Joy and Florin my appreciation for their exchanges. I'm sure I speak for all of us.
Edwin Eugene Klingman
report post as inappropriate
"The concept of space as something existing objectively and independent of things belongs to pre-scientific thought, but not so the idea of the existence of an infinite number of spaces in motion relative to each other."
Jackson claims:
"We view Cartesian coordinates as a 'frame', and refer to inertial frame, yet Einstein referred to a body, or coordinate system rigidly connected to a body."
Local gravito-magnetic or C-fields take the form of induced circulation 'rigidly connected to a body' with momentum. The connection is the '=' sign connecting the C-field circulation to momentum: del cross C = p.
Momentum also allows us to treat entities that have zero rest mass, such as photons. Two such entities forming 'discrete fields' each centered on matter in relative motion are shown in the figure on page 6 of my essay.
I believe that this is in support of Joy Christian's points on space-time and I believe it supports local realism.
I also wish to convey to Joy and Florin my appreciation for their exchanges. I'm sure I speak for all of us.
Edwin Eugene Klingman
Dear Edwin,
Thank you for your support. As you can see, Florin and I are making progress in understanding each other’s position.
report post as inappropriate
Thank you for your support. As you can see, Florin and I are making progress in understanding each other’s position.
Dear Joy,
I found a reference to your interest in Bell's Theorem in the fqxi discussions of Eugene Klingman's paper in the Digital/Analog essay contest. I have not read your papers yet but I wonder if you are aware of the ideas on the subject of my late friend Caroline Thompson . At the time she has flatly rejected my 2005 Beautiful Universe TOE on which my present fqxi paper is based, but in that paper I essentially explain away EQR and Bell by my premise of rejecting quantum probability as a physical reality - hence the two photons and electrons are identical and measurement differences in the sensors is responsible for subsequent effects.
With all best wishes, Vladimir
report post as inappropriate
I found a reference to your interest in Bell's Theorem in the fqxi discussions of Eugene Klingman's paper in the Digital/Analog essay contest. I have not read your papers yet but I wonder if you are aware of the ideas on the subject of my late friend Caroline Thompson . At the time she has flatly rejected my 2005 Beautiful Universe TOE on which my present fqxi paper is based, but in that paper I essentially explain away EQR and Bell by my premise of rejecting quantum probability as a physical reality - hence the two photons and electrons are identical and measurement differences in the sensors is responsible for subsequent effects.
With all best wishes, Vladimir
My current essay analyzes Anton Zeilinger's logic and concludes that his logic fails if the state of one or more of the entangled particles changes en route from the source to the detector. Others seem to believe that there is no physical reason for the photon to change.
I de-emphasized this argument after becoming aware of Joy Christian's work implying Bell's calculations are in error, but, assuming Joy is wrong (which I do not) my argument still applies.
Yesterday I received Phys Rev Lett 106, 080404 (25 Feb 2011) Antonelli, Shtaif, and Brodsky's paper titled "Sudden Death of Entanglement Induced by Polarization Mode Dispersion" in which they note that the relation between the violation of non-locality and the sudden disappearance of entanglement are due to CHANGES OCCURRING EN ROUTE! The changes are due to the optical birefringence associated with the optical fibers over which the photons travel. They claim that understanding this relation to non-locality is of utmost importance and say "the arbitrary birefringence characterizing fiber-optic transmission produces a PREVIOUSLY UNOBSERVED combination of physical effects" [my emphasis].
They conclude that "The ultimate limits imposed by fiber birefringence to applications based on non-local properties of polarization entanglement were shown to be intriguingly related with the phenomenon of entanglement sudden death."
Without vouching for their calculations, I would point out that the concept of "change en route" as an argument against Zeilinger's (and others') logic is exactly what I proposed in my essay.
I still believe that Joy's work is correct, but I am pointing out here that there are other valid reasons to question non-locality.
Edwin Eugene Klingman
report post as inappropriate
report post as inappropriate
I de-emphasized this argument after becoming aware of Joy Christian's work implying Bell's calculations are in error, but, assuming Joy is wrong (which I do not) my argument still applies.
Yesterday I received Phys Rev Lett 106, 080404 (25 Feb 2011) Antonelli, Shtaif, and Brodsky's paper titled "Sudden Death of Entanglement Induced by Polarization Mode Dispersion" in which they note that the relation between the violation of non-locality and the sudden disappearance of entanglement are due to CHANGES OCCURRING EN ROUTE! The changes are due to the optical birefringence associated with the optical fibers over which the photons travel. They claim that understanding this relation to non-locality is of utmost importance and say "the arbitrary birefringence characterizing fiber-optic transmission produces a PREVIOUSLY UNOBSERVED combination of physical effects" [my emphasis].
They conclude that "The ultimate limits imposed by fiber birefringence to applications based on non-local properties of polarization entanglement were shown to be intriguingly related with the phenomenon of entanglement sudden death."
Without vouching for their calculations, I would point out that the concept of "change en route" as an argument against Zeilinger's (and others') logic is exactly what I proposed in my essay.
I still believe that Joy's work is correct, but I am pointing out here that there are other valid reasons to question non-locality.
Edwin Eugene Klingman
This comment was posted on Florin's "Clothes for the Standard Model Beggar":
John Merryman-- as you know, the Galilean transformation is perfectly correct mathematics, in which any two velocities can be added to produce the resultant velocity. What is missing is the physical concept of a 'maximum velocity', the speed of light. In similar fashion, it is not today's math that is incorrect,...
view entire post
John Merryman-- as you know, the Galilean transformation is perfectly correct mathematics, in which any two velocities can be added to produce the resultant velocity. What is missing is the physical concept of a 'maximum velocity', the speed of light. In similar fashion, it is not today's math that is incorrect,...
view entire post
“quantum non-locality” is nothing but a make-belief of the topologically naive.
-- I wish you would explain this a bit more...
report post as inappropriate
-- I wish you would explain this a bit more...
I have explained what I mean by that in some eight papers, the latest of which can be found here (see especially the last of its references).
report post as inappropriate
Why, if you indeed have a local model, do you not answer the
Quantum Crackpot Randi Challenge that has been developed specifically for you and been published on Science2.0?
report post as inappropriate
Quantum Crackpot Randi Challenge that has been developed specifically for you and been published on Science2.0?
They should put this somewhere with open access, like arxiv.org. I don't recognize hidden science, or science which requires $31.50 for research usually paid by the taxpayers.
Judging from the abstract alone, it may be simply using the detector efficiency loophole, in this case it would be of no interest at all.
report post as inappropriate
Judging from the abstract alone, it may be simply using the detector efficiency loophole, in this case it would be of no interest at all.
Hi Ilja,
We had a big discussion about De Raedt et al, on sci.physics.foundations. I guess you missed it. You can find most all of their papers at,
http://rugth30.phys.rug.nl/dlm/
Click on the download link. There is a new one on arXiv,
http://www.arxiv.com/abs/1108.3583
Joy Christian and De Raedt et al, successfully demostrate that Bell's theorem doesn't make proper contact with physical reality. Plus De Raedt et al show exstensively that the EPRB type experiments are flawed. Mostly by the so-called time coincidence "loophole" not the detector efficiency loophole. The time coincidence loophole is not really a loophole; it is a "problem" for the experiments to be valid.
Best,
Fred Diether
moderator sci.physics.foundations
report post as inappropriate
We had a big discussion about De Raedt et al, on sci.physics.foundations. I guess you missed it. You can find most all of their papers at,
http://rugth30.phys.rug.nl/dlm/
Click on the download link. There is a new one on arXiv,
http://www.arxiv.com/abs/1108.3583
Joy Christian and De Raedt et al, successfully demostrate that Bell's theorem doesn't make proper contact with physical reality. Plus De Raedt et al show exstensively that the EPRB type experiments are flawed. Mostly by the so-called time coincidence "loophole" not the detector efficiency loophole. The time coincidence loophole is not really a loophole; it is a "problem" for the experiments to be valid.
Best,
Fred Diether
moderator sci.physics.foundations
I have discussed older versions Joy Christian's "disproof of Bell's inequality", for example here and in this thread.
A short look at the new papers suggests that nothing has changed.
report post as inappropriate
report post as inappropriate
A short look at the new papers suggests that nothing has changed.
A short look at his propaganda thread suggests that the prejudices and ignorance of Ilja Schmelzer have not changed, and that my work is not everyone's cup of tea.
Joy Christian
report post as inappropriate
Joy Christian
By the way, I have never claimed to have disproved an inequality. No one can disprove an inequality like 2 < 3.
report post as inappropriate
"No one can disprove an inequality like 2 < 3."
Exactly so. Leslie Lamport ("Buridan's Principle," 1984)addressed this problem of making a decision (or measurement) in a bounded length of time:
"A real Stern-Gerlach apparatus does not produce the discrete statistical
distribution of electron trajectories usually ascribed to it in simplified
descriptions. Instead, it...
view entire post
Exactly so. Leslie Lamport ("Buridan's Principle," 1984)addressed this problem of making a decision (or measurement) in a bounded length of time:
"A real Stern-Gerlach apparatus does not produce the discrete statistical
distribution of electron trajectories usually ascribed to it in simplified
descriptions. Instead, it...
view entire post
Joy,
In relation to your work and to Michael Atiyah thesis, I wish to mention a preprint where a clear role is proposed for division and non-division alebras in describing the four fundamental forces of nature. Implementing the information paradigm (Wheeler), both gauge symmetries of the standard model and lorentz invariance emerge, from quantum-information processing, to compensate the arbitrary introduced by any computational basis on a closed quantum system.
report post as inappropriate
In relation to your work and to Michael Atiyah thesis, I wish to mention a preprint where a clear role is proposed for division and non-division alebras in describing the four fundamental forces of nature. Implementing the information paradigm (Wheeler), both gauge symmetries of the standard model and lorentz invariance emerge, from quantum-information processing, to compensate the arbitrary introduced by any computational basis on a closed quantum system.
The preprint mentioned in the post may be found at http://arxiv.org/abs/1106.2133
report post as inappropriate
Very impressive! However, I'd like to present an argument that quantum entanglement and non-locality are not illusions. At the risk of appearing naive and being dismissed; my argument will not involve technical language, topology or algebra (these are confusing to many). I'll use extracts in essay form (from my entry "Unified Field, Relativity and Quantum Mechanics Meet String Theory, Parallel...
view entire post
view entire post
"The path to truth is thinner than a razor's edge."
"The fact that a great many people believe something is no guarantee of its truth."
- W. Somerset Maugham, The Razor's Edge
report post as inappropriate
report post as inappropriate
report post as inappropriate
"The fact that a great many people believe something is no guarantee of its truth."
- W. Somerset Maugham, The Razor's Edge
Hi Fred,
Along this line -- I think the following post of mine was deleted from now closed "Disproofs" thread, and I thought I had not saved it to an offline file. I just found that I did save it though; I am posting again because I think it makes a critical point about seeing what one only expects to see:
"Joy,
As confounding as it is, I think we should be charitable with...
view entire post
Along this line -- I think the following post of mine was deleted from now closed "Disproofs" thread, and I thought I had not saved it to an offline file. I just found that I did save it though; I am posting again because I think it makes a critical point about seeing what one only expects to see:
"Joy,
As confounding as it is, I think we should be charitable with...
view entire post
Hi Tom,
They say in Hollywood here that any publicity is good publicity. So in a way that is true that the real debate is only getting started. It is really too bad though that the playing field for the debate is not level.
The notion that QM spin has no classical analogue is another reason Joy gets so much push back. Thus that notion also fits the quote from Maugham. A classical analogue is easy with parallelized 3-sphere topology.
Best,
Fred
report post as inappropriate
They say in Hollywood here that any publicity is good publicity. So in a way that is true that the real debate is only getting started. It is really too bad though that the playing field for the debate is not level.
The notion that QM spin has no classical analogue is another reason Joy gets so much push back. Thus that notion also fits the quote from Maugham. A classical analogue is easy with parallelized 3-sphere topology.
Best,
Fred
Hi Fred and Tom,
Thanks for your comments. Here is a well known story you might enjoy:
For five years, from December 1903 to September 1908, two young bicycle mechanics from Ohio repeatedly claimed to have built a heavier than air flying machine and to have flown it successfully. But despite scores of public demonstrations, affidavits from local dignitaries, and photographs of...
view entire post
Thanks for your comments. Here is a well known story you might enjoy:
For five years, from December 1903 to September 1908, two young bicycle mechanics from Ohio repeatedly claimed to have built a heavier than air flying machine and to have flown it successfully. But despite scores of public demonstrations, affidavits from local dignitaries, and photographs of...
view entire post
To try and get a new technical discussion started ...
Suppose we contrast the Christian correlation function C_ab with the CHSH correlation function.
The former is deterministic, admitting random input; the latter is probabilistic, producing random output.
Could these functions be dual to each other? -- if so, it venerates Joy Christian's claim that entanglement is an...
view entire post
Suppose we contrast the Christian correlation function C_ab with the CHSH correlation function.
The former is deterministic, admitting random input; the latter is probabilistic, producing random output.
Could these functions be dual to each other? -- if so, it venerates Joy Christian's claim that entanglement is an...
view entire post
Another way to argue the point is to take Lucien Hardy's five reasonable axioms of quantum theory . Hardy uses the first four axioms to rule out classical probability. The fifth axiom (continuity) cannot live with the first axiom (probability).
We would instead drop the first axiom and keep the other four, to rule out quantum entangled probability.
Tom
report post as inappropriate
We would instead drop the first axiom and keep the other four, to rule out quantum entangled probability.
Tom
Like Godfrey Hardy (don't know if there's any relation) Lucien Hardy is the kind of mathematician I trust, because he doesn't hedge his bets on observational (or on non-observed) outcomes. I argued with Gill in the past about the importance of theoretical independence from experiment; Gill claims conventional quantum theory *is* independent of experimental results -- and I think Hardy's paper shows clearly that it is *not*, when the assumption of a probability measure is excluded.
Hardy's axioms subheaded 1) Probabilities; 2) Simplicity; 3) Subspaces; 4) Composite systems; 5) Continuity are consistent with Joy Christian's framework when axiom (1) is dropped.
Though I agree with Hardy (6.1, p 10) that the frequency interpretation of probability measure theory is to be preferred over Bayesian analysis (which I admittedly disdain in any form) -- I have to ask why the state (6.2) is assumed independent of its initial condition, as experimental preparation of the state implies (the experimenter is an element of the quantum system). A continuous function without a probability measure would not normalize the state vector; the function would give up information on the state of the system independent of state preparation.
(Correcting a misstatement in the previous post: I meant to say that Hardy rules out classical probability by adding the fifth axiom, while the first four support both classical and quantum probability.)
Tom
report post as inappropriate
Hardy's axioms subheaded 1) Probabilities; 2) Simplicity; 3) Subspaces; 4) Composite systems; 5) Continuity are consistent with Joy Christian's framework when axiom (1) is dropped.
Though I agree with Hardy (6.1, p 10) that the frequency interpretation of probability measure theory is to be preferred over Bayesian analysis (which I admittedly disdain in any form) -- I have to ask why the state (6.2) is assumed independent of its initial condition, as experimental preparation of the state implies (the experimenter is an element of the quantum system). A continuous function without a probability measure would not normalize the state vector; the function would give up information on the state of the system independent of state preparation.
(Correcting a misstatement in the previous post: I meant to say that Hardy rules out classical probability by adding the fifth axiom, while the first four support both classical and quantum probability.)
Tom
Hi Tom,
Thanks for your comments.
Just to let you know: I have revised my latest paper slightly. It now includes a new footnote on pages 18 and 19, and a new figure on page 22 (please see the attached paper).
It is also worth noting here that the explicit, event-by-event, Java simulation of my model written by Chantal Roth has now been independently verified and reproduced by at least two other investigators, writing codes in two entirely different programming languages. Austin Smith has reproduced the simulation using Excel Visual Basic language, and John Reed has done the same using Mathematica (which, by the way, is an "interpreted" rather than "complied" programming language).
This leaves no doubt about the validity of my local model for the EPR-Bohm correlation, or of Chantal Roth's simulation of it (which, as you know, is discussed in the attached paper).
Best,
Joy
attachments: 17_whither.pdf
report post as inappropriate
Thanks for your comments.
Just to let you know: I have revised my latest paper slightly. It now includes a new footnote on pages 18 and 19, and a new figure on page 22 (please see the attached paper).
It is also worth noting here that the explicit, event-by-event, Java simulation of my model written by Chantal Roth has now been independently verified and reproduced by at least two other investigators, writing codes in two entirely different programming languages. Austin Smith has reproduced the simulation using Excel Visual Basic language, and John Reed has done the same using Mathematica (which, by the way, is an "interpreted" rather than "complied" programming language).
This leaves no doubt about the validity of my local model for the EPR-Bohm correlation, or of Chantal Roth's simulation of it (which, as you know, is discussed in the attached paper).
Best,
Joy
 |
 |
attachments: 17_whither.pdf
Hi Tom,
Let us not forget that
(1) Professor Scott Aaronson claimed on his blog that the correlation predicted by my model is always constant and equal to -1.
(2) The exquisitely qualified FQXi panelist whose report I have seen claimed that the correlation predicted by my model is always constant and equal to -1.
(3) Professor Richard Gill claimed on these pages that the correlation predicted by my model is always constant and equal to -1.
(4) Professor James Owen Weatherall claimed in his paper that the correlation predicted by my model is always constant and equal to -1.
(5) A distinguished Editorial Board Member of Physical Review claimed in her report that the correlation predicted by my model is always constant and equal to -1.
(6) Several less-than-distinguished critics of my work also claimed that the correlation predicted by my model is always constant and equal to -1.
(7) I was declared a completely exposed charlatan and a crackpot, and my tiny research funding from FQXi was cut off.
Now compare the above distinguished opinions with the following opinion of a humble machine:
report post as inappropriate
report post as inappropriate
Let us not forget that
(1) Professor Scott Aaronson claimed on his blog that the correlation predicted by my model is always constant and equal to -1.
(2) The exquisitely qualified FQXi panelist whose report I have seen claimed that the correlation predicted by my model is always constant and equal to -1.
(3) Professor Richard Gill claimed on these pages that the correlation predicted by my model is always constant and equal to -1.
(4) Professor James Owen Weatherall claimed in his paper that the correlation predicted by my model is always constant and equal to -1.
(5) A distinguished Editorial Board Member of Physical Review claimed in her report that the correlation predicted by my model is always constant and equal to -1.
(6) Several less-than-distinguished critics of my work also claimed that the correlation predicted by my model is always constant and equal to -1.
(7) I was declared a completely exposed charlatan and a crackpot, and my tiny research funding from FQXi was cut off.
Now compare the above distinguished opinions with the following opinion of a humble machine:
 |
 |
Joy, I've spent years now trying to understand why your critics' arithmetic differs from yours. And mine.
I concluded at some point that because they always assume the quantum probability measure, they deny the continuous function that completes the correlation measure. They never see it -- it never happens. Anything that might have happened is "nonlocal."
If one computes only on...
view entire post
I concluded at some point that because they always assume the quantum probability measure, they deny the continuous function that completes the correlation measure. They never see it -- it never happens. Anything that might have happened is "nonlocal."
If one computes only on...
view entire post
Joy,
Congratulations. For your critics to retain credibility they must publicly don the hair shirt. The sign of a good scientist is to admit when they were wrong.
I also hope you'll be generous and magnanimous in victory, another sign of a good scientist (if you're still alive when the win is noticed!)
But I'm disappointed to have yet had no response or comment from you on my geometrical analogue of your finding. I have no desire to steal your thunder or give opportunity for others to drag yours down, but I believe important physical insights emerge to consolidate the principle.
I've had success making the point that Neils Bohr would likely say today that we could update 'what we can say' about the lack of structure of a particle, and test the effects of, for instance, toroidal geometry and chirality. The religious adherence to singlet states alone is now untenable.
Have you yet researched the findings of an 'orbital asymmetry' of time-resolved single particle correlations predicted in my essay and now found discarded in Alain Aspect's data? (not in his main paper).
Best wishes.
Peter
report post as inappropriate
Congratulations. For your critics to retain credibility they must publicly don the hair shirt. The sign of a good scientist is to admit when they were wrong.
I also hope you'll be generous and magnanimous in victory, another sign of a good scientist (if you're still alive when the win is noticed!)
But I'm disappointed to have yet had no response or comment from you on my geometrical analogue of your finding. I have no desire to steal your thunder or give opportunity for others to drag yours down, but I believe important physical insights emerge to consolidate the principle.
I've had success making the point that Neils Bohr would likely say today that we could update 'what we can say' about the lack of structure of a particle, and test the effects of, for instance, toroidal geometry and chirality. The religious adherence to singlet states alone is now untenable.
Have you yet researched the findings of an 'orbital asymmetry' of time-resolved single particle correlations predicted in my essay and now found discarded in Alain Aspect's data? (not in his main paper).
Best wishes.
Peter
Hi Peter,
Thank you for your kind words. I thought we had discussed your ideas before; but perhaps not the latest details you mention. Aspect's experiment has been superseded by many more careful and sophisticated experiments. The state-of-the-art experiments are now moving towards completely loophole-free experiments. All of these experiments confirm quantum mechanical predictions. Therefore your obligation is to reproduce the quantum mechanical predictions. I have not seen any derivations from you, even for the simplest cases. I speak equations. You seem to speak a language that I do not understand.
Best,
Joy
report post as inappropriate
Thank you for your kind words. I thought we had discussed your ideas before; but perhaps not the latest details you mention. Aspect's experiment has been superseded by many more careful and sophisticated experiments. The state-of-the-art experiments are now moving towards completely loophole-free experiments. All of these experiments confirm quantum mechanical predictions. Therefore your obligation is to reproduce the quantum mechanical predictions. I have not seen any derivations from you, even for the simplest cases. I speak equations. You seem to speak a language that I do not understand.
Best,
Joy
Tom, Joy,
You should find compressible continuous functions in helical paths. I've been discussing in an APS Quantum Physics blog. I reproduce a recent post below, and can probably dig out a thesis on the Gottfried-Jackson angle and helical frame if you can't find anything helpful.
Post; "I haven't found any hint that it may represent a longitudinal component, but studying...
view entire post
You should find compressible continuous functions in helical paths. I've been discussing in an APS Quantum Physics blog. I reproduce a recent post below, and can probably dig out a thesis on the Gottfried-Jackson angle and helical frame if you can't find anything helpful.
Post; "I haven't found any hint that it may represent a longitudinal component, but studying...
view entire post
Let's take a trip back in time, to just a few months ago, when Richard Gill said, "We can be grateful for Christian that he has had the generosity to write his one page paper with a more or less complete derivation of his key result in a more or less completely explicit context, without distraction from the author's intended physical interpretation of the mathematics. The mathematics should stand on its own, the interpretation is 'free'. My fi nding is that in this case, the mathematics does not stand on its own."
Now that we know that that finding is wrong -- and instead that the mathematical interpretation of Bell's theorem is not free, and in fact imposes a dependent condition on the outcome -- where's Gill?
And where's Aaronson, who said, "I can't think of any better illustration than the comment thread below for my maxim that *computation is clarity.* In other words, if you can't explain how to simulate your theory on a computer, chances are excellent that the reason is that your theory makes no sense!"
The simulation of Joy's function looks pretty clear to me.
C'mon, guys. You dished it out.
Tom
report post as inappropriate
Now that we know that that finding is wrong -- and instead that the mathematical interpretation of Bell's theorem is not free, and in fact imposes a dependent condition on the outcome -- where's Gill?
And where's Aaronson, who said, "I can't think of any better illustration than the comment thread below for my maxim that *computation is clarity.* In other words, if you can't explain how to simulate your theory on a computer, chances are excellent that the reason is that your theory makes no sense!"
The simulation of Joy's function looks pretty clear to me.
C'mon, guys. You dished it out.
Tom
Tom,
As you know, the derivation of the correlation in my one-page paper stands on its own without the backing of the simulation. But, as one of my friends recently noted, in science "it seems to matter to have influential names on ones side." He then proceeded to ask me whether Lucien Hardy agreed with my calculation of the expectation value derived in my one-page paper. The answer is: Yes. Equations (1.22) to (1.25) of my book, as well as those in my one-page paper, have been explicitly verified---in great detail---by Lucien Hardy, Manfried Faber, and several other competent and knowledgeable physicists and mathematicians around the world. In fact any attentive reader with only basic skills in mathematics should be able to reproduce these equations rather effortlessly. The simulation discussed in the attached paper is thus just icing on the cake. It is no more than a feel-good factor. As you well know, the real beef is in the analytical model itself.
Best,
Joy
attachments: 18_whither.pdf
report post as inappropriate
As you know, the derivation of the correlation in my one-page paper stands on its own without the backing of the simulation. But, as one of my friends recently noted, in science "it seems to matter to have influential names on ones side." He then proceeded to ask me whether Lucien Hardy agreed with my calculation of the expectation value derived in my one-page paper. The answer is: Yes. Equations (1.22) to (1.25) of my book, as well as those in my one-page paper, have been explicitly verified---in great detail---by Lucien Hardy, Manfried Faber, and several other competent and knowledgeable physicists and mathematicians around the world. In fact any attentive reader with only basic skills in mathematics should be able to reproduce these equations rather effortlessly. The simulation discussed in the attached paper is thus just icing on the cake. It is no more than a feel-good factor. As you well know, the real beef is in the analytical model itself.
Best,
Joy
attachments: 18_whither.pdf
Joy, I have tried my hardest to understand the sociology of this conflict, and I cannot. Even considering that the stakes are high, and that your idea is new, there are numerous high-stakes, new-idea propositions in theoretical physics that don't attract the level of disdain and uncollegial criticism that yours does.
Einstein was known to warn against the "cult of personality" in matters of scientific importance. He rejected all attempts to enshrine his own work into such a cult, although not altogether successfully.
If your research were such that it substituted techno-babble and mathematical esoterica for meaningful content (as so many papers these days do) -- I could understand the reaction. Such is not the case, however:
Nothing could be clearer than your eqn 3 in the above attached paper, and the conclusion, "Unless based on a prescription of this precise form, any Bell-type analysis simply does not get off the ground, because without completeness there can be no theorem."
Your argument is completely kosher and coherent -- from the precise prescription for a simply connected co-domain to the continuous measurement function that demonstrates the case.
That's exactly what science is suppposed to do: conjecture and predict.
All best,
Tom
report post as inappropriate
Einstein was known to warn against the "cult of personality" in matters of scientific importance. He rejected all attempts to enshrine his own work into such a cult, although not altogether successfully.
If your research were such that it substituted techno-babble and mathematical esoterica for meaningful content (as so many papers these days do) -- I could understand the reaction. Such is not the case, however:
Nothing could be clearer than your eqn 3 in the above attached paper, and the conclusion, "Unless based on a prescription of this precise form, any Bell-type analysis simply does not get off the ground, because without completeness there can be no theorem."
Your argument is completely kosher and coherent -- from the precise prescription for a simply connected co-domain to the continuous measurement function that demonstrates the case.
That's exactly what science is suppposed to do: conjecture and predict.
All best,
Tom
Tom,
I was just reading Alfred Wegener's biography. I think the hostility, disdain, and neglect his work received is unparalleled in the recent history of science. But let us not worry too much about the sociology of science.
You have put your finger on the key equation---Equation 3 of my paper. The rest are details, as Einstein would have put it. The strong correlation necessarily follows from that prescription.
Best,
Joy
report post as inappropriate
I was just reading Alfred Wegener's biography. I think the hostility, disdain, and neglect his work received is unparalleled in the recent history of science. But let us not worry too much about the sociology of science.
You have put your finger on the key equation---Equation 3 of my paper. The rest are details, as Einstein would have put it. The strong correlation necessarily follows from that prescription.
Best,
Joy
Hi Fred and Tom,
Quantum computers would almost certainly require quantum entanglement for exponential speedup. If quantum entanglement is not a fundamental feature of nature, then that is almost certainly a very bad news for exponential speedup, and hence for quantum computers.
Now within my local-realistic framework there is no entanglement of any kind. All physical systems, classical or quantum, are described by intrinsically factorizable measurement results and classical (albeit nonlinear) probabilities, as discussed in the appendix of the attached paper. This goes against the deeply held belief that certain probabilities and associated correlations cannot exist without quantum entanglement. But I have *derived* both quantum probabilities and quantum correlations without any kind of entanglement, as shown in the charts below. Therein lies the origins of hostility and disdain against my work and me personally. If I am right then many people are wrong. It is much easier to discredit me personally than try to understand what I have found.
Best,
Joy
attachments: 19_whither.pdf
report post as inappropriate
Quantum computers would almost certainly require quantum entanglement for exponential speedup. If quantum entanglement is not a fundamental feature of nature, then that is almost certainly a very bad news for exponential speedup, and hence for quantum computers.
Now within my local-realistic framework there is no entanglement of any kind. All physical systems, classical or quantum, are described by intrinsically factorizable measurement results and classical (albeit nonlinear) probabilities, as discussed in the appendix of the attached paper. This goes against the deeply held belief that certain probabilities and associated correlations cannot exist without quantum entanglement. But I have *derived* both quantum probabilities and quantum correlations without any kind of entanglement, as shown in the charts below. Therein lies the origins of hostility and disdain against my work and me personally. If I am right then many people are wrong. It is much easier to discredit me personally than try to understand what I have found.
Best,
Joy
 |
 |
attachments: 19_whither.pdf
Quite right, Joy. The high vulnerability of quantum entanglement to decoherence should have been a clue long ago, that were entanglement a real physical phenomenon, it should exert a physical effect on neighboring states -- I mean, that if superposition is a protected state, it should intefere with the wave function of its environment rather than being semi-stable with the environment.
Nature is not fragile. Computation is performed every moment on every hardware substrate without regard to special conditions. We have spent so much effort learning how to prepare against nature's propensity for decoherence and thermal equilibrium, that we have forgotten how nature uses decoherence to create new forms. Classical probability is a strong manifestation of this principle, because for every question answered (yes/no) there are a countable infinity of questions that remain locally asymmetric to the result; however, even with infinite separation between the two possible answers, evolution of the state is guaranteed unitary with no further assumptions. "All physics is local."
Computing by quantum entanglement assumes that infinities are tamed in the superposition of states, with the further assumption of nonlocality. I have you to thank, Joy, for making it clear to me that these assumptions are superfluous and illusory.
And it isn't that I don't think that computation can be exponentially faster -- distributed and parallel systems of computing that mimic nature's nonlinear way of converting infinite possibilites to local probabilities is identical to a simply connected topological network.
All best,
Tom
report post as inappropriate
Nature is not fragile. Computation is performed every moment on every hardware substrate without regard to special conditions. We have spent so much effort learning how to prepare against nature's propensity for decoherence and thermal equilibrium, that we have forgotten how nature uses decoherence to create new forms. Classical probability is a strong manifestation of this principle, because for every question answered (yes/no) there are a countable infinity of questions that remain locally asymmetric to the result; however, even with infinite separation between the two possible answers, evolution of the state is guaranteed unitary with no further assumptions. "All physics is local."
Computing by quantum entanglement assumes that infinities are tamed in the superposition of states, with the further assumption of nonlocality. I have you to thank, Joy, for making it clear to me that these assumptions are superfluous and illusory.
And it isn't that I don't think that computation can be exponentially faster -- distributed and parallel systems of computing that mimic nature's nonlinear way of converting infinite possibilites to local probabilities is identical to a simply connected topological network.
All best,
Tom
Hi Joy,
For sure there wouldn't be an exponential speedup as many are dreaming of. But there may be a little bit of a gain leveraging quantum-like probabilities based on your model. I guess due to your model, they shouldn't be called "quantum" probabilities any more. So what to call them?
Best,
Fred
report post as inappropriate
For sure there wouldn't be an exponential speedup as many are dreaming of. But there may be a little bit of a gain leveraging quantum-like probabilities based on your model. I guess due to your model, they shouldn't be called "quantum" probabilities any more. So what to call them?
Best,
Fred
Will you be celebrating the past 50 years of Bell's theorem?
Or will you be with me to adventure the next 50 years of physics?
report post as inappropriate
Or will you be with me to adventure the next 50 years of physics?
Interestingly, none of the detractors of my work is among the invited speakers.
report post as inappropriate
I love Vienna, and the university. My wife and I were there summer of 2002 for the Karl Popper centenary. My paper fell flat, though I was so dazzled by the famous scholars in attendance, that it didn't matter to me all that much.
There was a heat wave in Europe, and ice cold beers from the little taprooms lining the streets were a refreshing delight!
I wonder if Vienna will be hot again this year. :-)
Tom
report post as inappropriate
There was a heat wave in Europe, and ice cold beers from the little taprooms lining the streets were a refreshing delight!
I wonder if Vienna will be hot again this year. :-)
Tom
Very diplomatic, Tom, just like so many of my professional colleagues/friends.
You didn't answer my questions. :-)
My professional colleagues/friends also prefer to pretend that they are not hearing what I am saying for the past six years. But they have an excuse. If they pay any constructive attention to me or my work on Bell's theorem, then their own careers and reputations would be in jeopardy. What is your excuse?
report post as inappropriate
You didn't answer my questions. :-)
My professional colleagues/friends also prefer to pretend that they are not hearing what I am saying for the past six years. But they have an excuse. If they pay any constructive attention to me or my work on Bell's theorem, then their own careers and reputations would be in jeopardy. What is your excuse?
Someone didn't like my previous post. No matter.
Below is a sneaky peak of the *fourth*, explicit, event-by-event, simulation of my local model for the EPR-Bohm correlation---this time the code written (independently) in Python (the previous simulations were written in Java, Excel Visual Basic, and Mathematica). The details of the simulation will follow soon.
The model can be found in the attached paper.
attachments: 20_whither.pdf
report post as inappropriate
Below is a sneaky peak of the *fourth*, explicit, event-by-event, simulation of my local model for the EPR-Bohm correlation---this time the code written (independently) in Python (the previous simulations were written in Java, Excel Visual Basic, and Mathematica). The details of the simulation will follow soon.
 |
The model can be found in the attached paper.
attachments: 20_whither.pdf
Tom,
The work on the latest simulation is still in progress. I will post the details soon.
On a different note: What happened to my previous post reminded me once again of the quote from Grisha Perelman you posted earlier: "It is not people who break ethical standards who are regarded as aliens. It is people like me who are isolated."
Best,
Joy
report post as inappropriate
The work on the latest simulation is still in progress. I will post the details soon.
On a different note: What happened to my previous post reminded me once again of the quote from Grisha Perelman you posted earlier: "It is not people who break ethical standards who are regarded as aliens. It is people like me who are isolated."
Best,
Joy
Hi Joy,
I have not shown much interest in your work as I have am inclined to believe like Einstein that QM is incomplete. As a result discussions for and against Bell's theorem have not ignited any interest in me. Moreover most of the discussions are conducted in mathematical language, which like all languages can equally be used to tell lies or tell the truth. I recently took a peek at your site and it appears like Einstein you are on the side of locality and realism so I think I can engage.
To start this engagement, in Fig.1.1 "The Point Bell Missed", you said this statement is fundamental and I am in full agreement. The statement is "Although lines and planes contain the same number of points..."
What does this mean?
Firstly, do lines contain points? And if so, are these numbered? If numbered, how are they to be counted, to know and assert that lines and planes have the SAME number?
Note that I am not a critic of your work neither am I currently endorsing it. It all depends...
Akinbo
*By the way your Bio is impressive so I believe you can unearth the truth.
report post as inappropriate
I have not shown much interest in your work as I have am inclined to believe like Einstein that QM is incomplete. As a result discussions for and against Bell's theorem have not ignited any interest in me. Moreover most of the discussions are conducted in mathematical language, which like all languages can equally be used to tell lies or tell the truth. I recently took a peek at your site and it appears like Einstein you are on the side of locality and realism so I think I can engage.
To start this engagement, in Fig.1.1 "The Point Bell Missed", you said this statement is fundamental and I am in full agreement. The statement is "Although lines and planes contain the same number of points..."
What does this mean?
Firstly, do lines contain points? And if so, are these numbered? If numbered, how are they to be counted, to know and assert that lines and planes have the SAME number?
Note that I am not a critic of your work neither am I currently endorsing it. It all depends...
Akinbo
*By the way your Bio is impressive so I believe you can unearth the truth.
I was not surprised to see Matt Leifer's entry win first place in this year's FQXi essay contest. Yes, it's a good essay, well argued and worthy of a contest prize.
More important to me personally, however, is that it represents what I observe is a longtime Perimeter Institute and FQXi bias toward probability models based on Bayesian philosophy. For those not familiar with the difference...
view entire post
More important to me personally, however, is that it represents what I observe is a longtime Perimeter Institute and FQXi bias toward probability models based on Bayesian philosophy. For those not familiar with the difference...
view entire post
Joy, I get it. I truly do. Without deconstructing the opposing arguments, though, I don't see any way to let your new ideas shine through. One can eventually stop a fire after letting it burn itself out; however, we usually desire ways to rob it of fuel and oxygen, to save the precious assets in its path.
With one exception, I don't have an axe to grind with researchers who accept that reality is fundamentally probabilistic. They just haven't made the effort to learn otherwise.
Best,
Tom
report post as inappropriate
With one exception, I don't have an axe to grind with researchers who accept that reality is fundamentally probabilistic. They just haven't made the effort to learn otherwise.
Best,
Tom
The problem, really, is Bayes' Theorem.
It has no place as a guiding principle in the rationalist enterprise called science. It is just a tool for making inductively open judgements from phenomena, i.e., by Aristotelian method, rather than by the correspondence of logically closed judgments in scientific theory, to the natural world (Tarski, Popper).
To sacrifice truth to probability is not worthy of foundational science.
Let believers in Bell's theorem defend their choice with rational argument -- if they can find one.
Tom
report post as inappropriate
It has no place as a guiding principle in the rationalist enterprise called science. It is just a tool for making inductively open judgements from phenomena, i.e., by Aristotelian method, rather than by the correspondence of logically closed judgments in scientific theory, to the natural world (Tarski, Popper).
To sacrifice truth to probability is not worthy of foundational science.
Let believers in Bell's theorem defend their choice with rational argument -- if they can find one.
Tom
Hi Everyone,
As I promised last week, here are the details of the *fourth*, explicit, event-by-event, simulation of my local model for the EPR-Bohm correlation. It is independently produced by Michel Fodje, with code written in Python. The previous simulations were produced independently by different authors, with codes written in Java, Excel Visual Basic, and Mathematica. The theoretical model itself can be found here, or in the attached paper.
Each simulation has given different statistical and geometrical insights into how my local model works, and indeed how Nature herself works. The original simulation written by Chantal Roth, which is most faithful to 3-sphere topology, may appeal to more geometrically inclined, whereas Michel Fodje's simulation, which has its own unique features, may appeal to more statistically inclined. In the end, however, all of these simulations, together with the original local model, confirm what I have been arguing for the past six years. The full details of my argument, which concerns the origins of quantum correlations, can be found on my blog.
Enjoy :-)
Joy Christian
attachments: 21_whither.pdf
report post as inappropriate
As I promised last week, here are the details of the *fourth*, explicit, event-by-event, simulation of my local model for the EPR-Bohm correlation. It is independently produced by Michel Fodje, with code written in Python. The previous simulations were produced independently by different authors, with codes written in Java, Excel Visual Basic, and Mathematica. The theoretical model itself can be found here, or in the attached paper.
Each simulation has given different statistical and geometrical insights into how my local model works, and indeed how Nature herself works. The original simulation written by Chantal Roth, which is most faithful to 3-sphere topology, may appeal to more geometrically inclined, whereas Michel Fodje's simulation, which has its own unique features, may appeal to more statistically inclined. In the end, however, all of these simulations, together with the original local model, confirm what I have been arguing for the past six years. The full details of my argument, which concerns the origins of quantum correlations, can be found on my blog.
Enjoy :-)
Joy Christian
 |
attachments: 21_whither.pdf
Joy, this is just beautiful! My quick impression is that it may actually be experimentally replicable with electron input. It already reads like an experimental computation model.
Still nothing from the cone of silence where the critics are huddled?
(Great work by Michel Fodje!)
report post as inappropriate
Still nothing from the cone of silence where the critics are huddled?
(Great work by Michel Fodje!)
And I think that because the statistical function of Fodje's simulation verifies the topological structure of Roth's simulation, we can conclude, significantly:
The simulation of a continuous function is a continuous function.
Does it get more physically real and local than that?
report post as inappropriate
The simulation of a continuous function is a continuous function.
Does it get more physically real and local than that?
Thanks, Tom.
I forgot to mention that the top part of the figure shows the familiar cosine correlation, whereas the bottom part shows the actual quantum probabilities predicted by my local model.
report post as inappropriate
I forgot to mention that the top part of the figure shows the familiar cosine correlation, whereas the bottom part shows the actual quantum probabilities predicted by my local model.
 |
One philosophical result of John Bell's choice of measurement space is a school called "super-determinism," which maintains that deterministic theories imply the absence of free will. Bell addressed the issue in a BBC interview with Paul Davies in 1985:*
"There is a way to escape the inference of superluminal speeds and spooky action at a distance. But it involves absolute determinism in...
view entire post
"There is a way to escape the inference of superluminal speeds and spooky action at a distance. But it involves absolute determinism in...
view entire post
You say it well Tom..
Just upstairs, you state "The initial condition of the continuous measurement function is indifferent to which element of nature, the experimenter or the classicly random outcome, decides the question." This sums an important insight up nicely, as both nature and the experimenter may determine some outcomes, but an observer can't know whether what's observed reflects nature's choice or the orientation of the observer and/or observing apparatus.
I think part of it is that for most people there is a disconnect between a continuous range and discrete outcomes, but that is a built-in part of nature's way of representing things. And speaking of what's built-in, I like Fred's comment further up that nature created the number types in the reverse order we humans found them in, because the Reals are a limited special case, where the Octonions are the most general type, and the existence of the Reals - via the sums of squares - proves that the Complex, Quaternion, and Octonion numbers must be part of what defines reality, as well.
So in a way; the Octonions had to exist, for the Reals to come to be.
Just my two cents,
Jonathan
report post as inappropriate
Just upstairs, you state "The initial condition of the continuous measurement function is indifferent to which element of nature, the experimenter or the classicly random outcome, decides the question." This sums an important insight up nicely, as both nature and the experimenter may determine some outcomes, but an observer can't know whether what's observed reflects nature's choice or the orientation of the observer and/or observing apparatus.
I think part of it is that for most people there is a disconnect between a continuous range and discrete outcomes, but that is a built-in part of nature's way of representing things. And speaking of what's built-in, I like Fred's comment further up that nature created the number types in the reverse order we humans found them in, because the Reals are a limited special case, where the Octonions are the most general type, and the existence of the Reals - via the sums of squares - proves that the Complex, Quaternion, and Octonion numbers must be part of what defines reality, as well.
So in a way; the Octonions had to exist, for the Reals to come to be.
Just my two cents,
Jonathan
Hi Jonathan,
"So in a way; the Octonions had to exist, for the Reals to come to be."
This is the kind of thing that makes mathematicians crazy :-) -- we don't tend to think that "pi in the sky" is real, until confronted with the consistency of numerical results that should live in disconnected spaces.
It is one thing to speak of simply-connected spaces in an objective, abstract, mathematical way. To have evidence of that physical reality (Joy's measurement framework), is a wonderful leap in intellectual history.
All best,
Tom
report post as inappropriate
"So in a way; the Octonions had to exist, for the Reals to come to be."
This is the kind of thing that makes mathematicians crazy :-) -- we don't tend to think that "pi in the sky" is real, until confronted with the consistency of numerical results that should live in disconnected spaces.
It is one thing to speak of simply-connected spaces in an objective, abstract, mathematical way. To have evidence of that physical reality (Joy's measurement framework), is a wonderful leap in intellectual history.
All best,
Tom
Indeed!
The basic idea that there are persistent structures in Math, invariant regardless of how we approach or approximate them, seems alien to many. However, if one digs into the Math deeply enough; this seems to happen again and again - to a point where it seems undeniable that there is some pre-existing order to Math, that must appear no matter how it is probed.
That is the wonder of things like Frobenius' conjectures and the Hurwitz theorem, or the Poincare conjecture proof. The results definitively show that certain things believed to be separate or separable are intrinsically linked by the very nature of higher-order numbers and geometry.
It is unavoidable! Specific higher-order numbers and spaces MUST exist; and if higher-order spaces exist in any form, they MUST observe some specific geometric properties. This is hard for many people to wrap their heads around, however.
Regards,
Jonathan
report post as inappropriate
The basic idea that there are persistent structures in Math, invariant regardless of how we approach or approximate them, seems alien to many. However, if one digs into the Math deeply enough; this seems to happen again and again - to a point where it seems undeniable that there is some pre-existing order to Math, that must appear no matter how it is probed.
That is the wonder of things like Frobenius' conjectures and the Hurwitz theorem, or the Poincare conjecture proof. The results definitively show that certain things believed to be separate or separable are intrinsically linked by the very nature of higher-order numbers and geometry.
It is unavoidable! Specific higher-order numbers and spaces MUST exist; and if higher-order spaces exist in any form, they MUST observe some specific geometric properties. This is hard for many people to wrap their heads around, however.
Regards,
Jonathan
Also to mention..
The nature of continuous number fields is different in kind from discrete numbers. If we observe the behavior of squaring over the positive Reals, endlessly iterated, only a value of 1 is stable - and any increment more or less, no matter how small, begins a steady march to either 0 or infinity. Zero, one, and infinity (the point that's typically forgotten), sounds familiar.
This result for multiplication also implies the inverse for division - infinite divisibility - which is part of the significance of the normed division algebras. In my view; their existence is the whole basis for reversibility, and symmetries, and finite groups, and a whole lot of other things considered essential to Physics.
More later,
Jonathan
report post as inappropriate
The nature of continuous number fields is different in kind from discrete numbers. If we observe the behavior of squaring over the positive Reals, endlessly iterated, only a value of 1 is stable - and any increment more or less, no matter how small, begins a steady march to either 0 or infinity. Zero, one, and infinity (the point that's typically forgotten), sounds familiar.
This result for multiplication also implies the inverse for division - infinite divisibility - which is part of the significance of the normed division algebras. In my view; their existence is the whole basis for reversibility, and symmetries, and finite groups, and a whole lot of other things considered essential to Physics.
More later,
Jonathan
This is amazing to me.
Except for some technical programming questions in sci.physics.foundations (which have been addressed and disposed of) I see only internet silence on this simulation that critics IIRC universally said is a prerequisite to having Joy's measurement framework taken seriously.
As they say in American baseball -- what are you waiting for, egg in your beer?
Tom
report post as inappropriate
Except for some technical programming questions in sci.physics.foundations (which have been addressed and disposed of) I see only internet silence on this simulation that critics IIRC universally said is a prerequisite to having Joy's measurement framework taken seriously.
As they say in American baseball -- what are you waiting for, egg in your beer?
Tom
Tom,
As you may recall, many completely bogus claims were made about my local-realistic framework by those committed to Bell's theorem. This wrongfully undermined my perfectly sound work, misled the physics community, and damaged my scientific reputation. Do you see anyone coming out now and saying that they were wrong? What does that tell you about the true intentions of those who made the wrongful claims? What does that tell you about their scientific and moral integrity? What does that tell you about their ability to judge a perfectly sound work that goes against their cherished beliefs?
Best,
Joy
report post as inappropriate
As you may recall, many completely bogus claims were made about my local-realistic framework by those committed to Bell's theorem. This wrongfully undermined my perfectly sound work, misled the physics community, and damaged my scientific reputation. Do you see anyone coming out now and saying that they were wrong? What does that tell you about the true intentions of those who made the wrongful claims? What does that tell you about their scientific and moral integrity? What does that tell you about their ability to judge a perfectly sound work that goes against their cherished beliefs?
Best,
Joy
Joy, I agree. One has to have a personal agenda aside from the good of science to behave this way. Some made their agenda obvious from the beginning. I can't find any excuse for the others.
report post as inappropriate
By the way, John Reed has translated Michel Fodje's simulation of my model from Python to Mathematica (just as he translated Chantal Roth's simulation of my model from Java to Mathematica). The code is now much shorter. It can be found here.
Also, I have updated my paper to include a brief discussion of Michel's simulation.
report post as inappropriate
Also, I have updated my paper to include a brief discussion of Michel's simulation.
 |
Leon Lederman and Dick Teresi asked, "If the universe is the answer, what is the question?"*
Non-Realists such as Anton Zeilinger imply that there are no questions at a foundational level. "Zeilinger says that some of the alternative non realist possibilities are truly weird. For example, it may make no sense to imagine what would happen if we had made a different measurement from the...
view entire post
Non-Realists such as Anton Zeilinger imply that there are no questions at a foundational level. "Zeilinger says that some of the alternative non realist possibilities are truly weird. For example, it may make no sense to imagine what would happen if we had made a different measurement from the...
view entire post
Hello All,
I have attached some notes on Bott Periodicity and Cli fford Algebras from Kyler Siegel, which are of general interest or relevance to this forum topic, but also partially answer the question raised by James Putnam above. He asks if I am talking about "'spaces', in addition to but external to our observed universe" and I must answer that instead it only appears that our universe has 3 Euclidean spatial dimensions plus time, because of the way objects are embedded in spacetime, which relativists see as a curved fabric. And what Joy proposes is that this 4-d fabric is topological, with a geometry that is non-commutative.
Instead of being external to the universe; perhaps the higher-dimensional reality is what underlies or gives rise to the appearance of 3-dimensional objects and space. The thing about parallelization is that it gives the fabric a particular weave - a specific warp and weft for any orientation of a suitably situated observer and/or apparatus. This also produces what appear to be non-local quantum correlations. Of course; if the universe has a parallelized topological fabric, this also accomplishes flatness, and so gives the universe the appearance of a Euclidean local geometry. The paper explains why only specific geometries accomplish this.
I think that is what Joy is talking about.
Jonathan
attachments: BottPeriodicityAndCliffordAlgebras.pdf
report post as inappropriate
I have attached some notes on Bott Periodicity and Cli fford Algebras from Kyler Siegel, which are of general interest or relevance to this forum topic, but also partially answer the question raised by James Putnam above. He asks if I am talking about "'spaces', in addition to but external to our observed universe" and I must answer that instead it only appears that our universe has 3 Euclidean spatial dimensions plus time, because of the way objects are embedded in spacetime, which relativists see as a curved fabric. And what Joy proposes is that this 4-d fabric is topological, with a geometry that is non-commutative.
Instead of being external to the universe; perhaps the higher-dimensional reality is what underlies or gives rise to the appearance of 3-dimensional objects and space. The thing about parallelization is that it gives the fabric a particular weave - a specific warp and weft for any orientation of a suitably situated observer and/or apparatus. This also produces what appear to be non-local quantum correlations. Of course; if the universe has a parallelized topological fabric, this also accomplishes flatness, and so gives the universe the appearance of a Euclidean local geometry. The paper explains why only specific geometries accomplish this.
I think that is what Joy is talking about.
Jonathan
attachments: BottPeriodicityAndCliffordAlgebras.pdf
I think this will help too..
I attach the slides for Michael Atiyah's lecture at the Simons Center, that covers some of the same material as his talk at the IAS which is referenced by Joy in the introduction for this thread. This speaks to the question of why higher dimensions and higher-order algebras are a part of the natural order. It will also help to explain why some of what Siegel says in his notes above is important stuff to Physics people - or should be.
Regards,
Jonathan
attachments: 20101103_Atiyah_-_From_Algebraic_Geometry_to_Physics.pdf
report post as inappropriate
I attach the slides for Michael Atiyah's lecture at the Simons Center, that covers some of the same material as his talk at the IAS which is referenced by Joy in the introduction for this thread. This speaks to the question of why higher dimensions and higher-order algebras are a part of the natural order. It will also help to explain why some of what Siegel says in his notes above is important stuff to Physics people - or should be.
Regards,
Jonathan
attachments: 20101103_Atiyah_-_From_Algebraic_Geometry_to_Physics.pdf
Hi Johnathan,
I don't agree with slide 17 in the first attachment above. I believe octonions are necessary for the triality (3-handedness) in the QCD (strong) sector. Gravity is emergent from the Standard Model if interpreted correctly.
Best,
Fred
report post as inappropriate
I don't agree with slide 17 in the first attachment above. I believe octonions are necessary for the triality (3-handedness) in the QCD (strong) sector. Gravity is emergent from the Standard Model if interpreted correctly.
Best,
Fred
Jonathan,
Thanks for the lovely slides. Makes me wish I had been at the lecture.
I want to pick one nit with your post -- quantum correlations never appear nonlocal. Nonlocality is an assumption of quantum mechanics, to describe results of "the experiment not done" that supposedly imparts action at a distance.
Delighted to see that Sir Michael Atiyah addresses the necessity to incorporate both retarded and advanced solutions to the wave equation.
Best,
Tom
report post as inappropriate
Thanks for the lovely slides. Makes me wish I had been at the lecture.
I want to pick one nit with your post -- quantum correlations never appear nonlocal. Nonlocality is an assumption of quantum mechanics, to describe results of "the experiment not done" that supposedly imparts action at a distance.
Delighted to see that Sir Michael Atiyah addresses the necessity to incorporate both retarded and advanced solutions to the wave equation.
Best,
Tom
I wanted to add to my comments above..
It is common to assume with higher dimensions, that they are somewhere 'out there,' when the reality is that this notion only works up to a point (~5.25-d) and after that adding more dimensions makes the array smaller, or more compact - at least until we reach 24-d.
So rather than being something 'out there,' higher dimensions could be 'in here' instead. This actually corresponds to the fact that the algebras and spaces are first non-commutative, and later non-associative as well. So our common notions of size and distance, and then of interiority/exteriority, become invalid. This explains how the higher-d reality can be situated 'in here' rather than 'out there' "external to the universe."
All the Best,
Jonathan
report post as inappropriate
It is common to assume with higher dimensions, that they are somewhere 'out there,' when the reality is that this notion only works up to a point (~5.25-d) and after that adding more dimensions makes the array smaller, or more compact - at least until we reach 24-d.
So rather than being something 'out there,' higher dimensions could be 'in here' instead. This actually corresponds to the fact that the algebras and spaces are first non-commutative, and later non-associative as well. So our common notions of size and distance, and then of interiority/exteriority, become invalid. This explains how the higher-d reality can be situated 'in here' rather than 'out there' "external to the universe."
All the Best,
Jonathan
Hi Jonathan,
"..the fact that the algebras and spaces are first non-commutative, and later non-associative as well."
I believe you have it backwards from what Nature actually did. I will say it again this time with some more explanation; In the beginning there was no math (rules), then came sedonions, then octonions, then quaternions, then complex rules, then finally the rules for real numbers. Easy to see that the order here is from no rules to the most math rules. Take a bunch of massless point-like entities and let them go in a complete void that has no math rules to start with. The only property that the void has is it is a stage for the actors. You basically end up going from "infinite" dimensional to 4 dimensions. I will explain more if necessary.
Best,
Fred
report post as inappropriate
"..the fact that the algebras and spaces are first non-commutative, and later non-associative as well."
I believe you have it backwards from what Nature actually did. I will say it again this time with some more explanation; In the beginning there was no math (rules), then came sedonions, then octonions, then quaternions, then complex rules, then finally the rules for real numbers. Easy to see that the order here is from no rules to the most math rules. Take a bunch of massless point-like entities and let them go in a complete void that has no math rules to start with. The only property that the void has is it is a stage for the actors. You basically end up going from "infinite" dimensional to 4 dimensions. I will explain more if necessary.
Best,
Fred
Ah So,
Yes you have it exactly right, and I understand - mostly. The point I was making was to clarify that as we move toward discussing higher-dimensions, they need not be seen as something 'out there,' apart from the universe. And accordingly; it is the absence of the rules of commutativity and associativity that mess with our ability to apply the convenient distinction between near and far, or inside and outside, respectively - so that is what makes those dimensions appear compact or within instead.
I like your construction Fred. But I would argue that what you are really talking about is the upper bound on dimensions that shrinks as more rules are applied, and that there is a lower bound at each stage as well. One thing Ray Munroe insisted on that I agree with is that, geometrically speaking, both the minimal case and maximal or extremal cases must be considered as bounding conditions of reality, if we are to completely make sense of things.
All the Best,
Jonathan
report post as inappropriate
Yes you have it exactly right, and I understand - mostly. The point I was making was to clarify that as we move toward discussing higher-dimensions, they need not be seen as something 'out there,' apart from the universe. And accordingly; it is the absence of the rules of commutativity and associativity that mess with our ability to apply the convenient distinction between near and far, or inside and outside, respectively - so that is what makes those dimensions appear compact or within instead.
I like your construction Fred. But I would argue that what you are really talking about is the upper bound on dimensions that shrinks as more rules are applied, and that there is a lower bound at each stage as well. One thing Ray Munroe insisted on that I agree with is that, geometrically speaking, both the minimal case and maximal or extremal cases must be considered as bounding conditions of reality, if we are to completely make sense of things.
All the Best,
Jonathan
Hi Jonathan and Fred,
Let me try to re-express what I think Fred is saying. Having no math rules in this context means having no algebraic rules. Then nature said, let there be sedenions---which is an algebra, so certain algebraic rules---or algebraic restrictions---emerged, but the resulting algebra, being non-alternative, non-associative, and non-commutative, is still pretty structure-less. Or it is structure-full, but not as we know it, because with sedenions we can divide by zero! Then nature decided to drop the zero devisors, and we are left with the division algebra of octonions, which emerged as massive restriction on the sedenions. Next, nature imposed associativity, leading to quaternions, then commutativity, leading to complex numbers, and then unital-ity, leading to reals. Each stage requires a massive restriction on what is possible. Sadly, Bell and his followers are forever stuck on the flatland of the reals, while most of what we know about nature is played out on the 3- and 7-spheres of the quaternions and octonions.
Best,
Joy
report post as inappropriate
Let me try to re-express what I think Fred is saying. Having no math rules in this context means having no algebraic rules. Then nature said, let there be sedenions---which is an algebra, so certain algebraic rules---or algebraic restrictions---emerged, but the resulting algebra, being non-alternative, non-associative, and non-commutative, is still pretty structure-less. Or it is structure-full, but not as we know it, because with sedenions we can divide by zero! Then nature decided to drop the zero devisors, and we are left with the division algebra of octonions, which emerged as massive restriction on the sedenions. Next, nature imposed associativity, leading to quaternions, then commutativity, leading to complex numbers, and then unital-ity, leading to reals. Each stage requires a massive restriction on what is possible. Sadly, Bell and his followers are forever stuck on the flatland of the reals, while most of what we know about nature is played out on the 3- and 7-spheres of the quaternions and octonions.
Best,
Joy
I'd like to continue here..
I'm starting a new thread because this is a shift of topic. In 'NCG 2000' Alain Connes loudly proclaimed "Noncommutative measure spaces evolve with time!" which is a profound insight, central to his program. PC Kainen, in 'Octonion Physics,' extended this, adding that instead of being a problem the non-associative property of the Octonions is actually a blessing and assures that geometry will be emergent. In a sense; the dynamism present in the Quaternion and Octonion algebras is what drives or enables the further evolution of form and structure, perhaps up to and certainly beyond the most elementary forms. As I said; the Reals just sit there, because they do not admit dynamism, and are useless in the continuation of computation without properties of C, H, and O.
One might assert that Connes statement could be reversed to say that if we are in a space where dynamism is allowed and time evolution is displayed, it MUST be a non-commutative measure space, rather than a simple Euclidean one. That is; perhaps the evolution of form is impossible in spaces that are strictly limited by a lower-dimensional bound, and admit no higher-dimensional components, because the properties of higher-dimensional spaces like the quaternionic and octonionic space are essential to assure the continued evolution of possibilities. In my view; the sequentially evolutive aspect of the octonions clearly makes Rick correct, in that they like to drive the process or tell us (and Nature) what to do next.
More later,
Jonathan
report post as inappropriate
I'm starting a new thread because this is a shift of topic. In 'NCG 2000' Alain Connes loudly proclaimed "Noncommutative measure spaces evolve with time!" which is a profound insight, central to his program. PC Kainen, in 'Octonion Physics,' extended this, adding that instead of being a problem the non-associative property of the Octonions is actually a blessing and assures that geometry will be emergent. In a sense; the dynamism present in the Quaternion and Octonion algebras is what drives or enables the further evolution of form and structure, perhaps up to and certainly beyond the most elementary forms. As I said; the Reals just sit there, because they do not admit dynamism, and are useless in the continuation of computation without properties of C, H, and O.
One might assert that Connes statement could be reversed to say that if we are in a space where dynamism is allowed and time evolution is displayed, it MUST be a non-commutative measure space, rather than a simple Euclidean one. That is; perhaps the evolution of form is impossible in spaces that are strictly limited by a lower-dimensional bound, and admit no higher-dimensional components, because the properties of higher-dimensional spaces like the quaternionic and octonionic space are essential to assure the continued evolution of possibilities. In my view; the sequentially evolutive aspect of the octonions clearly makes Rick correct, in that they like to drive the process or tell us (and Nature) what to do next.
More later,
Jonathan
In case you missed it..
I was suggesting that the beginning of Cosmological TIME came with the appearance of Octonionic space. This is because it is the simplest (fewest rules) algebra that flexibly admits sequential evolution. If it is an essential property that continuation or possibilities must be preserved for the universe of form to come into existence, then sequential evolution - through procedural stages - is a must, and the octonions clearly afford and preserve this property. According to Hurwitz, Frobenius, and Bott - we find that only R, C, H, and O satisfy certain essential conditions of regularity - which Nature apparently observes.
Ergo; if the universe exists and evolves with time, where successive states are necessarily dependent on prior results, we are living in octonionic space. So perhaps the new really big questions are "Does the universe actually exist?" and "Does physical reality evolve with time?"
Have Fun,
Jonathan
report post as inappropriate
I was suggesting that the beginning of Cosmological TIME came with the appearance of Octonionic space. This is because it is the simplest (fewest rules) algebra that flexibly admits sequential evolution. If it is an essential property that continuation or possibilities must be preserved for the universe of form to come into existence, then sequential evolution - through procedural stages - is a must, and the octonions clearly afford and preserve this property. According to Hurwitz, Frobenius, and Bott - we find that only R, C, H, and O satisfy certain essential conditions of regularity - which Nature apparently observes.
Ergo; if the universe exists and evolves with time, where successive states are necessarily dependent on prior results, we are living in octonionic space. So perhaps the new really big questions are "Does the universe actually exist?" and "Does physical reality evolve with time?"
Have Fun,
Jonathan
Jonathan,
""Does physical reality evolve with time?""
Or is time simply an effect and measure of the process of evolution?
Is this process truly a vector of evolving configurations, or is it one state that evolves?
Is blocktime necessary, or is it real dynamism?
Regards,
John M
report post as inappropriate
""Does physical reality evolve with time?""
Or is time simply an effect and measure of the process of evolution?
Is this process truly a vector of evolving configurations, or is it one state that evolves?
Is blocktime necessary, or is it real dynamism?
Regards,
John M
Thanks Florin, for the great picture/quote.
And no John I don't think Blocktime captures the essence of time's mode of transit. The dynamism I speak of is both deterministic and open-ended, so I am really mostly in agreement that it is the evolution of form and structure which creates the flow we see as the progress of time, rather than seeing time as something linear or space-like.
I had an interesting discussion with Huw Price about this question at FFP10, championing my view of Entropy as depicting the spreading of energy or substance into a medium - rather than the common view that entropy represents disorder. His talk focused partly on the utility of the Blocktime view for relativists, and I pointed out some drawbacks (or undesirable implications) in our conversation.
On the other hand, maybe if it was an 8-dimensional block... In that case, though; since the Octonions rule, time's evolution would still be a process of becoming and not a straight line.
All the Best,
Jonathan
report post as inappropriate
And no John I don't think Blocktime captures the essence of time's mode of transit. The dynamism I speak of is both deterministic and open-ended, so I am really mostly in agreement that it is the evolution of form and structure which creates the flow we see as the progress of time, rather than seeing time as something linear or space-like.
I had an interesting discussion with Huw Price about this question at FFP10, championing my view of Entropy as depicting the spreading of energy or substance into a medium - rather than the common view that entropy represents disorder. His talk focused partly on the utility of the Blocktime view for relativists, and I pointed out some drawbacks (or undesirable implications) in our conversation.
On the other hand, maybe if it was an 8-dimensional block... In that case, though; since the Octonions rule, time's evolution would still be a process of becoming and not a straight line.
All the Best,
Jonathan