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

RSS feed | RSS help

Introduction

Terms of Use

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

RSS feed | RSS help

RECENT POSTS IN THIS TOPIC

**Joy Christian**: *on* 1/28/13 at 5:26am UTC, wrote Here is yet another paper on the topic that may be of interest to readers.

**Joy Christian**: *on* 11/25/12 at 13:17pm UTC, wrote The concepts discussed in this blog are now published in my recently...

**[[ddlink]]**: *on* 11/16/11 at 11:05am UTC, wrote movement with 27 jewels vibration production of 1000 black Admiral Cup This...

**Paul Reed**: *on* 10/9/11 at 6:39am UTC, wrote I am not sure how different people follow posts. So, since this exchange...

**T H Ray**: *on* 10/7/11 at 15:47pm UTC, wrote What Einstein ACTUALLY said is "There is no space empty of field." Without...

**Paul Reed**: *on* 10/7/11 at 15:10pm UTC, wrote Edwin/James Thanks for joining in. Let’s keep it simple though, but...

**Paul Reed**: *on* 10/7/11 at 14:28pm UTC, wrote Eckard You have quoted Einstein as per my statement, a) light always emits...

**Edwin Klingman**: *on* 10/7/11 at 1:57am UTC, wrote Hi James, Yes, I think that's what "Maxwell's equation about the speed of...

RECENT FORUM POSTS

**Georgina Woodward**: "John, Each labs sequence is made of photons that are half of a pair, the..."
*in* On a contextual model...

**Georgina Woodward**: "John, from a quick browse, it seems the breakthrough is the distance the..."
*in* On a contextual model...

**Lorraine Ford**: "In order to more completely model the world, one needs to symbolically..."
*in* How does the brain...

**Steve Dufourny**: "Rudiger, you could explain all what you have told me by mails , regards"
*in* Alternative Models of...

**Ken Meyer**: "Regarding the very nature of pain, it is rather simple. As a definition,..."
*in* How does the brain...

**Steve Dufourny**: "Hello, happy to see you on FQXi, it is a wonderful platform , regards"
*in* Alternative Models of...

RECENT ARTICLES

*click titles to read articles*

**Can Choices Curve Spacetime?**

Two teams are developing ways to detect quantum-gravitational effects in the lab.

**The Quantum Engine That Simultaneously Heats and Cools **

Tiny device could help boost quantum electronics.

**The Quantum Refrigerator**

A tiny cooling device could help rewrite the thermodynamic rule book for quantum machines.

**Time to Think**

Philosopher Jenann Ismael invokes the thermodynamic arrow of time to explain how human intelligence emerged through culture.

**Lockdown Lab Life**

Grounded physicists are exploring the use of online and virtual-reality conferencing, and AI-controlled experiments, to maintain social distancing. Post-pandemic, these positive innovations could make science more accessible and environmentally-friendly.

RECENT FORUM POSTS

RECENT ARTICLES

Two teams are developing ways to detect quantum-gravitational effects in the lab.

Tiny device could help boost quantum electronics.

A tiny cooling device could help rewrite the thermodynamic rule book for quantum machines.

Philosopher Jenann Ismael invokes the thermodynamic arrow of time to explain how human intelligence emerged through culture.

Grounded physicists are exploring the use of online and virtual-reality conferencing, and AI-controlled experiments, to maintain social distancing. Post-pandemic, these positive innovations could make science more accessible and environmentally-friendly.

FQXi BLOGS

June 14, 2021

“ ... what is proved by impossibility proofs is lack of imagination.”--John S. Bell

This post is in response to Florin Moldoveanu’s, “To Be Or Not To Be (a Local Realist),” which discusses my research. You can read his post for some background to the topic, and also view my own talk on my work at the 2009 FQXi conference in the Azores, below:

[video]

I am grateful to...

view entire post

This post is in response to Florin Moldoveanu’s, “To Be Or Not To Be (a Local Realist),” which discusses my research. You can read his post for some background to the topic, and also view my own talk on my work at the 2009 FQXi conference in the Azores, below:

[video]

I am grateful to...

view entire post

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

report post as inappropriate

Wow! Thank you to Joy Christian and Florin Moldoveanu for this excellent, interesting discussion as bloggers. Am looking forward to more exchanges, hopefully contributed to by qualified others.

James

report post as inappropriate

James

report post as inappropriate

Thanks James for your kind words. It will take a bit to prepare my reply, but I hope it will be worth the wait.

report post as inappropriate

report post as inappropriate

The concepts discussed in this blog are now published in my recently published book:

In addition, I have also published the following two papers on the subject (further discussions on my disproof can be found also on my blog):

attachments: 44_Gill.pdf, 6_2piSpinor.pdf

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

report post as inappropriate

In addition, I have also published the following two papers on the subject (further discussions on my disproof can be found also on my blog):

attachments: 44_Gill.pdf, 6_2piSpinor.pdf

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

report post as inappropriate

Here is yet another paper on the topic that may be of interest to readers.

attachments: 3_JimPub.pdf

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

report post as inappropriate

attachments: 3_JimPub.pdf

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

report post as inappropriate

Dear Joy,

Thank you for your post. I appreciate very much that you took the time to write such a detailed answer. I have many things I want to say, and it will take a little while to compile them all. Please give me about a weak to prepare my reply.

Regards,

Florin Moldoveanu

report post as inappropriate

Thank you for your post. I appreciate very much that you took the time to write such a detailed answer. I have many things I want to say, and it will take a little while to compile them all. Please give me about a weak to prepare my reply.

Regards,

Florin Moldoveanu

report post as inappropriate

Dear Florin,

You are welcome. Your critique deserved a detailed response.

I look forward to your reply.

Best,

Joy

report post as inappropriate

You are welcome. Your critique deserved a detailed response.

I look forward to your reply.

Best,

Joy

report post as inappropriate

Dear Joy,

You said "What is important to note here is that, since the eventualities A, B, etc., are pure numbers, there is no non-commutativity involved."

Your 7-sphere is closely related to an Octonion. Jonathan Dickau and I recently wrote a paper about an octonion-like 7-torus. Octonions allow non-associativity. Quaternions allow non-commutativity. Which is then most fundamental - Real, Complex, Quaternion, or Octonion 'numbers'?

There are different ways to look at these Normed Division Algebras (NDA's). We could use Cayley-Dickson construction to build up complex numbers out of pairs of real numbers, to build up quaternions out of pairs of complex numbers, and to build up octonions out of pairs of quaternions. Or we can go the other direction and take the real component of a complex number (and likewise decompose the other NDA's).

Jonathan and I would argue that entropic considerations drive physical systems to sample ALL possibilities, and that the most complex of those 'numbers' (Octonions) must be fundamental because they contain the greatest possible number of options - thus maximizing entropy and complexity. It is thus a mistake to overlook non-associativity and non-commutativity. Obviously, simple examples of non-commutativity exist in quantum theory.

Back to your statement: "What is important to note here is that, since the eventualities A, B, etc., are pure numbers, there is no non-commutativity involved." The act of measurement might compress the 'true' nature of reality into the real eventualities A, B, etc, and overlook effects from quaternions and octonions, but I do not think we should remove these mathematical properties from consideration.

Have Fun!

Ray

report post as inappropriate

You said "What is important to note here is that, since the eventualities A, B, etc., are pure numbers, there is no non-commutativity involved."

Your 7-sphere is closely related to an Octonion. Jonathan Dickau and I recently wrote a paper about an octonion-like 7-torus. Octonions allow non-associativity. Quaternions allow non-commutativity. Which is then most fundamental - Real, Complex, Quaternion, or Octonion 'numbers'?

There are different ways to look at these Normed Division Algebras (NDA's). We could use Cayley-Dickson construction to build up complex numbers out of pairs of real numbers, to build up quaternions out of pairs of complex numbers, and to build up octonions out of pairs of quaternions. Or we can go the other direction and take the real component of a complex number (and likewise decompose the other NDA's).

Jonathan and I would argue that entropic considerations drive physical systems to sample ALL possibilities, and that the most complex of those 'numbers' (Octonions) must be fundamental because they contain the greatest possible number of options - thus maximizing entropy and complexity. It is thus a mistake to overlook non-associativity and non-commutativity. Obviously, simple examples of non-commutativity exist in quantum theory.

Back to your statement: "What is important to note here is that, since the eventualities A, B, etc., are pure numbers, there is no non-commutativity involved." The act of measurement might compress the 'true' nature of reality into the real eventualities A, B, etc, and overlook effects from quaternions and octonions, but I do not think we should remove these mathematical properties from consideration.

Have Fun!

Ray

report post as inappropriate

Hi Ray,

You have misunderstood what I am trying to say. The whole point of using the 7-sphere is of course to exploit its non-trivialities---namely, the non-commutativity and non-associativity of the octonions. But in the geometro-algebraic formulism I am using, the octonions can be represented as spinors in such a way that the real numbers, +1 and -1 (i.e., the measurement results) appear as certain limiting cases. Moreover, these limiting cases in statistical terms are the raw scores. The corresponding standard scores are indeed the non-commuting and non-associating octonions. An example of how this works in the simpler case of the 3-sphere is already given in the two preprints I mention. The devil is in the details. Thus I am by no means overlooking or neglecting the non-commutativity and non-associativity of the octonions. But at the same time it is possible in the formalism to have the commuting real numbers appear as measurement results.

Thanks for your comments,

Joy

report post as inappropriate

You have misunderstood what I am trying to say. The whole point of using the 7-sphere is of course to exploit its non-trivialities---namely, the non-commutativity and non-associativity of the octonions. But in the geometro-algebraic formulism I am using, the octonions can be represented as spinors in such a way that the real numbers, +1 and -1 (i.e., the measurement results) appear as certain limiting cases. Moreover, these limiting cases in statistical terms are the raw scores. The corresponding standard scores are indeed the non-commuting and non-associating octonions. An example of how this works in the simpler case of the 3-sphere is already given in the two preprints I mention. The devil is in the details. Thus I am by no means overlooking or neglecting the non-commutativity and non-associativity of the octonions. But at the same time it is possible in the formalism to have the commuting real numbers appear as measurement results.

Thanks for your comments,

Joy

report post as inappropriate

Hi Joy,

I would agree that the genius is in the generalities and the devil is in the details. If you are allowing the geometry to do the work of representing non-commutativity and non-associativity, then that is good enough for me. It sounds like I need to read those two preprints to better understand your statistics. IMO, simple Bose and Fermi statistics will not work unless they are operating in different spaces, thus requiring dual 7-spheres. I also anticipate my 7-torus to contain the M2 black-brane and Anyonic statistics.

Have Fun!

Ray

report post as inappropriate

I would agree that the genius is in the generalities and the devil is in the details. If you are allowing the geometry to do the work of representing non-commutativity and non-associativity, then that is good enough for me. It sounds like I need to read those two preprints to better understand your statistics. IMO, simple Bose and Fermi statistics will not work unless they are operating in different spaces, thus requiring dual 7-spheres. I also anticipate my 7-torus to contain the M2 black-brane and Anyonic statistics.

Have Fun!

Ray

report post as inappropriate

Dear Joy,

In your paper you have eq (5):

and then you write "where denominators in (5) are standard deviations".

As I understand, and please correct me if I'm wrong, this is supposed to be a standard formula for correlation:

where is the expectation value and is the standard deviation. As far as I understand, in Bell's case individual outcomes +1 and -1 are equally probable, therefore expectation E=0 and standard deviation sigma=1.

Can you please explain how you calculated standard deviation you used in denominator of eq (5).

Thank You,

DK

.

report post as inappropriate

In your paper you have eq (5):

and then you write "where denominators in (5) are standard deviations".

As I understand, and please correct me if I'm wrong, this is supposed to be a standard formula for correlation:

where is the expectation value and is the standard deviation. As far as I understand, in Bell's case individual outcomes +1 and -1 are equally probable, therefore expectation E=0 and standard deviation sigma=1.

Can you please explain how you calculated standard deviation you used in denominator of eq (5).

Thank You,

DK

.

report post as inappropriate

If you look at how the variables A and B are defined in equations (1) and (2), you will see that their standard deviations cannot possibly be the same (or unity), because they are generated with different scales of dispersion for each directions a and b. It is also important to remember that A and B are occurring within a parallelized 3-sphere, and that they are products of two “extensive magnitudes” (or bivectors) in the language of Grassmann. Therefore one has to be very careful in calculating the standard deviations. If you are able to think of “extensive magnitudes” as simply different kind of numbers, then it is trivial to read-off the correct standard deviations from the equations (1) and (2). But if you are not familiar with the language of Geometric Algebra, then I suggest you go through the calculations given in this preprint: http://arxiv.org/abs/1106.0748 (see especially equation (22) onwards).

Joy

report post as inappropriate

Joy

report post as inappropriate

Thank you.

Referring to the paper you cited:

1. At the end of the day functions A(alpha,mu) and B(alpha,mu) are bi-valued functions with the range of {-1, +1}. Therefore their standard deviations can be computed directly using standard textbook formula for standard deviation which I gave you previously. Can you explain why your computation gives different result?

2. Can you explain how is it at all possible for a standard deviation of a real-valued variable to be grassman bivector?

3. Eq (23),(24) are correct in ordinary algebra using ordinary meaning of addition, multiplication and square root. You would have to demonstrate they are still correct in whatever algebra you are using. In particular, where did the norm operation come from? It was not there in the original formula for standard deviation.

4. Here is a counter-example: consider a scalar product where x and y are orthogonal unit vectors (good old Euclidian vectors) and k is a random variable with values {-1, +1} (fair coin toss). It is clear that and therefore However if we follow your strange kind of logic, we can write This is clearly wrong on so many counts, but this is exactly the kind of thing you are doing in eq (23), (24)

report post as inappropriate

Referring to the paper you cited:

1. At the end of the day functions A(alpha,mu) and B(alpha,mu) are bi-valued functions with the range of {-1, +1}. Therefore their standard deviations can be computed directly using standard textbook formula for standard deviation which I gave you previously. Can you explain why your computation gives different result?

2. Can you explain how is it at all possible for a standard deviation of a real-valued variable to be grassman bivector?

3. Eq (23),(24) are correct in ordinary algebra using ordinary meaning of addition, multiplication and square root. You would have to demonstrate they are still correct in whatever algebra you are using. In particular, where did the norm operation come from? It was not there in the original formula for standard deviation.

4. Here is a counter-example: consider a scalar product where x and y are orthogonal unit vectors (good old Euclidian vectors) and k is a random variable with values {-1, +1} (fair coin toss). It is clear that and therefore However if we follow your strange kind of logic, we can write This is clearly wrong on so many counts, but this is exactly the kind of thing you are doing in eq (23), (24)

report post as inappropriate

DK,

I wish I am more profficient with Latex for this editor but I am not, so please bear with me. I did not see any mathematical mistakes in Joy's papers and I think can quicky point out your error in point 4 above. In your example ky is kept orthogonal on x while in Joy's example it can vary all over S3. Therefore your last line is incorrect and in your case sigma(s) is indeed zero.

report post as inappropriate

I wish I am more profficient with Latex for this editor but I am not, so please bear with me. I did not see any mathematical mistakes in Joy's papers and I think can quicky point out your error in point 4 above. In your example ky is kept orthogonal on x while in Joy's example it can vary all over S3. Therefore your last line is incorrect and in your case sigma(s) is indeed zero.

report post as inappropriate

Who is in my computer??? and why I can put the mathjematical program ibn my pc????yOU FEAR AT THIS POINT BAND OF FRUSTRATED. You fear of my maths aahahah You want a course of maths, ok you know at school I had so facilities in this topic and you know what I was in the better college of my region, and you know what in OPTION LATIN MATHS SCIENCES STRONGS AND WHAT ? yOU WANT A COURSE ABOUT HOW YOU MUST STUDY A FUNCTION WITHA MAXIMUM AND A MINIMUM YOU WANT MY DERIVATIONS AHAHAHAH YOU WANT WAHT ,

Steve

report post as inappropriate

Steve

report post as inappropriate

Regarding eq (23), I hope you do understand that in general, if a is constant and X is random variable then don't you? To see that it is so simply let a=-1. I will leave it to you to extend the argument from negative numbers to grassman algebra.

report post as inappropriate

report post as inappropriate

report post as inappropriate

Much of your difficulties stem from the fact that you are not familiar with the language of geometric algebra. But before we get to the correct language, there are errors in your understanding of basic statistics that need to be addressed.

Contrary to what you have written, the range of a function by itself *cannot* be used to determine the dispersion generated by the function. The...

view entire post

Contrary to what you have written, the range of a function by itself *cannot* be used to determine the dispersion generated by the function. The...

view entire post

report post as inappropriate

Indeed they understand nothing,it's incredible these pseudos???And put your name pseudo comicus of irony. And study also delta nothing.

Steve

report post as inappropriate

Steve

report post as inappropriate

In your paper you write: "These deviations can be calculated easily. Since errors in linear relations such as (16) and (17) propagate linearly, the standard deviation of A-script(alpha,mu) is equal to (-I * a-tilde) times the standard deviation of (+mu * a-tilde) (which we write as sigma(A))" And then you write your eq (23) which after substitution amounts to

I pointed out that standard deviation is not a linear function and gave you two examples to show it, the first one (with vectors) directly applicable to the case at hand.

I also noted that you introduced a norm operation in eq(24) with no justification for doing that. I could give you another example to show that sum of squares of norms is not the same as sum of squares when we deal with complex numbers, not to mention grassman numbers.

I also expressed incredulity that a standard deviation of a function that returns the outcome of measurement (either -1 or 1) turns out to be a grassman bivector and asked how to reconsile all that with textbook definition of standard deviation.

You did not address any of these points.

I reiterate: functions A and B were introduced by Bell as returning the outcome of measurement. Their range is a set of integers {-1,1} by definition. Since the functions are themselves deterministic and the probability distribution of random parameter lambda is known (as it happens in your case), their means and standard deviations can be computed directly using textbook definitions of mean and std. deviation. These computations unsurprisingly produce results agreeing with Bell.

Now I'll summarize the bag of tricks:

* You have a function which is a scalar product of two vectors, one constant and another random. You want to compute its standard deviation (sigma)

* You pretend that sigma is linear with respect to scalar product. You pull the constant vector outsude of the sigma, leaving only the random vector inside

* Since you cannot compute standard deviation of a vector, you just quietly replace the vector with its norm. As a result the 'sigma' comes out as a scalar

* What used to be scalar product now quietly becomes a product of a vector and a scalar.

* As a result the value for standard deviation comes out as a vector

I call it gross misuse of notation.

Delta Kilo over and out.

report post as inappropriate

I pointed out that standard deviation is not a linear function and gave you two examples to show it, the first one (with vectors) directly applicable to the case at hand.

I also noted that you introduced a norm operation in eq(24) with no justification for doing that. I could give you another example to show that sum of squares of norms is not the same as sum of squares when we deal with complex numbers, not to mention grassman numbers.

I also expressed incredulity that a standard deviation of a function that returns the outcome of measurement (either -1 or 1) turns out to be a grassman bivector and asked how to reconsile all that with textbook definition of standard deviation.

You did not address any of these points.

I reiterate: functions A and B were introduced by Bell as returning the outcome of measurement. Their range is a set of integers {-1,1} by definition. Since the functions are themselves deterministic and the probability distribution of random parameter lambda is known (as it happens in your case), their means and standard deviations can be computed directly using textbook definitions of mean and std. deviation. These computations unsurprisingly produce results agreeing with Bell.

Now I'll summarize the bag of tricks:

* You have a function which is a scalar product of two vectors, one constant and another random. You want to compute its standard deviation (sigma)

* You pretend that sigma is linear with respect to scalar product. You pull the constant vector outsude of the sigma, leaving only the random vector inside

* Since you cannot compute standard deviation of a vector, you just quietly replace the vector with its norm. As a result the 'sigma' comes out as a scalar

* What used to be scalar product now quietly becomes a product of a vector and a scalar.

* As a result the value for standard deviation comes out as a vector

I call it gross misuse of notation.

Delta Kilo over and out.

report post as inappropriate

Neither Bell’s, nor your calculations agree with what is observed in the experiments. This is because neither Bell, nor you are calculating the correlations correctly. Your calculation, as I pointed out to you more than once, produces statistical nonsense, because it is based on elementary errors. My calculation, on the other hand, agrees with the experiment, event-by-event, number-by-number, because it is based on a conceptually superior framework, and is entirely free of error. It is based on the correct model of the physical space introduced by Grassmann some 160 years ago, and further developed by many people, including Clifford and Hestenes. It is a pity that you do not have the proper background to see this.

report post as inappropriate

report post as inappropriate

Extraordinary. You do not evcn address Delta Kilo's points, and simply make wild and patently false claims with regard to the very well known calculations by Bell, and the very well known results of experiments. Should it not occur to you that if you think you are the only person in the world who can do statistics (since no one else does it the way you do) then perhaps the mistake is yours?

report post as inappropriate

report post as inappropriate

Charles Francis,

"...and simply make wild and patently false claims with regard to the very well known calculations by Bell, and the very well known results of experiments. ..."

As an interested reader, do you have some examples of wild and patently false claims?

"...Should it not occur to you that if you think you are the only person in the world who can do statistics (since no one else does it the way you do) then perhaps the mistake is yours?"

Your apparent purpose for writing this sentence seems critically incomplete without pointing to 'the mistake' or mistakes.

James

report post as inappropriate

"...and simply make wild and patently false claims with regard to the very well known calculations by Bell, and the very well known results of experiments. ..."

As an interested reader, do you have some examples of wild and patently false claims?

"...Should it not occur to you that if you think you are the only person in the world who can do statistics (since no one else does it the way you do) then perhaps the mistake is yours?"

Your apparent purpose for writing this sentence seems critically incomplete without pointing to 'the mistake' or mistakes.

James

report post as inappropriate

How does one go about computing scalars and vectors, as it seems that out here in the real/physical world, they necessarily interact, such as the space shuttle requiring a heat shield?

report post as inappropriate

report post as inappropriate

Dear Joy,

Perhaps the Octonion-like '7-sphere' disentegrates into an M2-brane and its dual NS5-brane. Anyons of phase exp(i*theta), where theta varies from 0 to pi, live on the M2-brane. Theta equals zero corresponds to bosons with statistical phase of positive 1 (symmetric). Theta equals pi corresponds to fermions with statistical phase of negative 1 (anti-symmetric), and all theta between 0 and pi represents these weird 'mixed' statistical phases that may only exist on a 2-brane. The dual NS5-brane is then reponsible for your 5-fold symmetries.

Have Fun!

report post as inappropriate

Perhaps the Octonion-like '7-sphere' disentegrates into an M2-brane and its dual NS5-brane. Anyons of phase exp(i*theta), where theta varies from 0 to pi, live on the M2-brane. Theta equals zero corresponds to bosons with statistical phase of positive 1 (symmetric). Theta equals pi corresponds to fermions with statistical phase of negative 1 (anti-symmetric), and all theta between 0 and pi represents these weird 'mixed' statistical phases that may only exist on a 2-brane. The dual NS5-brane is then reponsible for your 5-fold symmetries.

Have Fun!

report post as inappropriate

Yes of course and harry potter transforms the boson in virtual particules becoming light and travelling in time of course. What are your symmetries in fact and domains??? What are your foundamentals after all. And Lubos also perhaps , no but we dream in live. Make sciences please AND BE RATIONAL thanks for your understanding. We aren 't on a pub for Ex or for me for example. We discuss about the universe, this universal sphere, ooops sorry ,it's just that a sharing of knowledges. Quantum spheres oops sorry. You see Ray, sciences are simple and complex, but are relativelly the same , it's that the secret.

Statistical phases you say and a time travel also due to imaginary numbers and the - inserted like a central symmetry, no but frankly. In fact you have monney from string universities or what?

DEAR ALL THIS IS THE END, BEAUTIFUL STRING THE END ,Sorry to all stringy fans but this is the end of strings.....

Ps the 0 the - and the infinities must be interpreted relativelly.

In fact you don't understand the work of joy ,it's simple the rationalism you know, the laws are the laws. And the finite groups are the finite groups!!!

Steve

report post as inappropriate

Statistical phases you say and a time travel also due to imaginary numbers and the - inserted like a central symmetry, no but frankly. In fact you have monney from string universities or what?

DEAR ALL THIS IS THE END, BEAUTIFUL STRING THE END ,Sorry to all stringy fans but this is the end of strings.....

Ps the 0 the - and the infinities must be interpreted relativelly.

In fact you don't understand the work of joy ,it's simple the rationalism you know, the laws are the laws. And the finite groups are the finite groups!!!

Steve

report post as inappropriate

Bell confounds the "imagination ,subjective" with the" pure deterministic rationalism" of "pure proportions".Of course people can play with maths with a kind of creativity. What I don't understand is why they insist to be in the international language of unities and equations or constants. Bell's theorem is a king anti axiom simply. It's not even necessary to disproof it even....some evidences, indeed, appear easily ....the axioms of the pure generality of our laws are so evident.

Steve

report post as inappropriate

Steve

report post as inappropriate

Greetings all,

I wish to thank Joy for taking the time to further explicate and defend his ideas on this forum. I think the great utility of geometric algebra is overlooked in Physics far too often, and I wish Jaime Keller was still around to explain some of the fine points of Joy's approach to me - because I am sure he could make a wonderful and engaging story out of things I'm struggling to understand. As it is; I've had to put in a lot of research to make sense of this thread, but it is a fascinating topic of with strong links to subjects of my interest.

As octonions were mentioned, I want to strongly agree with and emphasize his point that the Octonion algebra is simply the most general case, with quaternions, complex numbers, and the reals being special cases where some terms are set to zero for convenience (g=0 in QM and h=0 in Relativity) and therefore drop out. But the purview of Bell's experiments requires that we retain constants pertaining to both Quantum and Classical variables, and that makes a strong case for using the most general numbering system and algebra.

Anyhow; I think it bears mentioning that this ties in with the interesting fact that the Ball of dimension 5 (corresponding to the 4-sphere) has maximal content (hypervolume), as defined on MathWorld. What this means is that additional dimensions (beyond 4) are compact, rather than extended, which contributes to the interesting and complex topology of the 7-sphere. The simple fact of maximal content would seem to demand that 3 of its dimensions are rolled up or compact. Is this correct?

If so; it makes your result easy to explain as a confusion about the concept of interiority and exteriority which makes events appear to exhibit non-locality and in some sense still be local to each particle or photon's local reference frame. Very interesting thread. Thanks again.

Jonathan

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

report post as inappropriate

I wish to thank Joy for taking the time to further explicate and defend his ideas on this forum. I think the great utility of geometric algebra is overlooked in Physics far too often, and I wish Jaime Keller was still around to explain some of the fine points of Joy's approach to me - because I am sure he could make a wonderful and engaging story out of things I'm struggling to understand. As it is; I've had to put in a lot of research to make sense of this thread, but it is a fascinating topic of with strong links to subjects of my interest.

As octonions were mentioned, I want to strongly agree with and emphasize his point that the Octonion algebra is simply the most general case, with quaternions, complex numbers, and the reals being special cases where some terms are set to zero for convenience (g=0 in QM and h=0 in Relativity) and therefore drop out. But the purview of Bell's experiments requires that we retain constants pertaining to both Quantum and Classical variables, and that makes a strong case for using the most general numbering system and algebra.

Anyhow; I think it bears mentioning that this ties in with the interesting fact that the Ball of dimension 5 (corresponding to the 4-sphere) has maximal content (hypervolume), as defined on MathWorld. What this means is that additional dimensions (beyond 4) are compact, rather than extended, which contributes to the interesting and complex topology of the 7-sphere. The simple fact of maximal content would seem to demand that 3 of its dimensions are rolled up or compact. Is this correct?

If so; it makes your result easy to explain as a confusion about the concept of interiority and exteriority which makes events appear to exhibit non-locality and in some sense still be local to each particle or photon's local reference frame. Very interesting thread. Thanks again.

Jonathan

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

report post as inappropriate

Whoops! I think that should be...

"additional dimensions (beyond 5) are compact" and since the 7-sphere lives in 8-dimensional space, the rest of that paragraph would be correct.

Jonathan

report post as inappropriate

"additional dimensions (beyond 5) are compact" and since the 7-sphere lives in 8-dimensional space, the rest of that paragraph would be correct.

Jonathan

report post as inappropriate

yes E8 now Jonathan the packager you have a surfite(small disease about surf, me I smoke joint , I AM COOL ALSO you know ahahah) or what?

7 AND 8 NOW AND AFTER WHAT A CONNECTION WITH STRINGS ALSO AND THE BIG UNIFICATION AHAHAHA

QUANTUM SPHERES ...COSOMOLOGICAL SPHERES....UNIQUE UNIVERSAL SPHERE....mvv'V AND E=(c²o²s²)m there you have the maximum entropy it lacked something.And of course the number is the same for the quant number and the cosmological number, then the uniqueness appears , a little help of van nieuman and IBM,dear Jonathan or a courses about fourier series and the harmonical and spherical oscillations. 3D against what eight it's that ....let me laugh.

Steve

report post as inappropriate

7 AND 8 NOW AND AFTER WHAT A CONNECTION WITH STRINGS ALSO AND THE BIG UNIFICATION AHAHAHA

QUANTUM SPHERES ...COSOMOLOGICAL SPHERES....UNIQUE UNIVERSAL SPHERE....mvv'V AND E=(c²o²s²)m there you have the maximum entropy it lacked something.And of course the number is the same for the quant number and the cosmological number, then the uniqueness appears , a little help of van nieuman and IBM,dear Jonathan or a courses about fourier series and the harmonical and spherical oscillations. 3D against what eight it's that ....let me laugh.

Steve

report post as inappropriate

I forget of course Jonathan the corrzlator of 7 to 8 dimensions with smolin.And after what Jonathan?, a beer in 8 dimensions also no? It is too late even with your biggest strategy.And after you ask why your country is in this state like our global economy.Well the loobyings are a pure joke. The China arrives my friend with India , Africa and Europa ................and of course the capitals are the capitals, yes of course and also we are going to pay soon the air .Smolin it is that .well Let's continue.

Steve

report post as inappropriate

Steve

report post as inappropriate

One more thing...

Regarding your paper on Restoring Local Causality.." Joy. I think the idea of adopting Grassman's notion that point, lines, planes, and volumes be placed on an equal footing is particularly apt in questions like Bell's experiments. It is easy to take our privileged everyday view of 3-d plus 1 as fundamental, but perhaps this is a mistake. We must leave open the question of whether a particle or photon 'sees' the same dimensionality we do, and Grassman's prescription accomplishes this aim.

People forget that these issues are not only about the microworld, as they arise for all massive objects, according to Relativity. What dimensionality of space is 'seen' by a particle inside the Earth's gravitational radius? It appears that an octonionic framework (simply assuming that their generality or universality indicates they are fundamental) makes some of this confusion go away, by incorporating both the inward facing and the outward facing aspects equally in a unified geometric description.

To restate again; the failure to understand Joy's work is because there is confusion about concepts like proximal and distal space or interior and exterior of objects and spaces. Up to a point; adding more dimensions makes things more spacious, but past that point additional dimensions become increasingly compact - apparently topping out at 24-d in the Leech lattice, as the most compact regular arrangement. But the 7-sphere is both extended and compact, so it represents both local and non-local aspects simultaneously.

Fun Stuff, Thanks!

Jonathan

report post as inappropriate

Regarding your paper on Restoring Local Causality.." Joy. I think the idea of adopting Grassman's notion that point, lines, planes, and volumes be placed on an equal footing is particularly apt in questions like Bell's experiments. It is easy to take our privileged everyday view of 3-d plus 1 as fundamental, but perhaps this is a mistake. We must leave open the question of whether a particle or photon 'sees' the same dimensionality we do, and Grassman's prescription accomplishes this aim.

People forget that these issues are not only about the microworld, as they arise for all massive objects, according to Relativity. What dimensionality of space is 'seen' by a particle inside the Earth's gravitational radius? It appears that an octonionic framework (simply assuming that their generality or universality indicates they are fundamental) makes some of this confusion go away, by incorporating both the inward facing and the outward facing aspects equally in a unified geometric description.

To restate again; the failure to understand Joy's work is because there is confusion about concepts like proximal and distal space or interior and exterior of objects and spaces. Up to a point; adding more dimensions makes things more spacious, but past that point additional dimensions become increasingly compact - apparently topping out at 24-d in the Leech lattice, as the most compact regular arrangement. But the 7-sphere is both extended and compact, so it represents both local and non-local aspects simultaneously.

Fun Stuff, Thanks!

Jonathan

report post as inappropriate

A side comment to Steve Dufourny;

I think that Joy Christian has brought life and meaning to some of the concepts you have nurtured over the years. Yes too; I agree that they were and are your ideas, and that you deserve some credit for putting them out there. But I would not go so far as to say that Joy C. or Ray M. has stolen your ideas as you have chosen to remain vague and they are trying to create something more mathematically precise.

It takes more courage, or perhaps a willingness to look foolish on occasion, to put concrete ideas forward that are precise enough to be falsified. This requires some diligence. I think perhaps you have needed to write a paper or two showing exactly how your spheres within spheres are nested. In the meanwhile, the rest of us must make do with examining those ideas that have had their share of due diligence - in order to create a more precise description which can be tested or compared with other theories.

And for now; Joy has done us a great service by spelling things out about the geometry of spheres.

All the Best,

Jonathan

report post as inappropriate

report post as inappropriate

I think that Joy Christian has brought life and meaning to some of the concepts you have nurtured over the years. Yes too; I agree that they were and are your ideas, and that you deserve some credit for putting them out there. But I would not go so far as to say that Joy C. or Ray M. has stolen your ideas as you have chosen to remain vague and they are trying to create something more mathematically precise.

It takes more courage, or perhaps a willingness to look foolish on occasion, to put concrete ideas forward that are precise enough to be falsified. This requires some diligence. I think perhaps you have needed to write a paper or two showing exactly how your spheres within spheres are nested. In the meanwhile, the rest of us must make do with examining those ideas that have had their share of due diligence - in order to create a more precise description which can be tested or compared with other theories.

And for now; Joy has done us a great service by spelling things out about the geometry of spheres.

All the Best,

Jonathan

report post as inappropriate

a packaging of a part of the sceinces community. I am happy for them It's well , very good. In fact you have the answer in live why the world doesn't turn correctly Jonathan, It's that New York and The america, It's that Jonathan, Lisi, Ray, Joy..... I am simply sad and not angry after all, I understand your frustration and the fact that you have seen the potential of my theory. It's easy to steal...

view entire post

view entire post

report post as inappropriate

Well said Steve.

I had thought that perhaps issuing a challenge would get you to take the plunge and write all the important details down. I apologize if I offended, as there is no hatred, but perhaps a bit of conceit. For many years, I let the barriers to publication be more real than the possibility of actually doing Science.

However now there are editors who will be glad to publish my next paper, once it is finished, but that is still a lot of work - unfunded by any institution. Likewise with the conferences. I have a chance to give two 15 minute talks at FFP12 - and to show a poster.

However, even neglecting budget and logistical issues which might prevent my attendance; the amount of effort required to prepare for my presentations is considerable. On the other hand, if I can do the work needed; one of the talks I'll be giving is on a topic I've been nurturing for 25 years - connections between the Mandelbrot Set and cosmology.

So; you might say I'm being rewarded for my patience, but I might say "consider yourself lucky, Steve, if it doesn't take 25 years to have the chance to present your ideas to a roomful of professional scientists." Otherwise; you should consider yourself lucky you don't have to do that yet.

Regards,

Jonathan

report post as inappropriate

I had thought that perhaps issuing a challenge would get you to take the plunge and write all the important details down. I apologize if I offended, as there is no hatred, but perhaps a bit of conceit. For many years, I let the barriers to publication be more real than the possibility of actually doing Science.

However now there are editors who will be glad to publish my next paper, once it is finished, but that is still a lot of work - unfunded by any institution. Likewise with the conferences. I have a chance to give two 15 minute talks at FFP12 - and to show a poster.

However, even neglecting budget and logistical issues which might prevent my attendance; the amount of effort required to prepare for my presentations is considerable. On the other hand, if I can do the work needed; one of the talks I'll be giving is on a topic I've been nurturing for 25 years - connections between the Mandelbrot Set and cosmology.

So; you might say I'm being rewarded for my patience, but I might say "consider yourself lucky, Steve, if it doesn't take 25 years to have the chance to present your ideas to a roomful of professional scientists." Otherwise; you should consider yourself lucky you don't have to do that yet.

Regards,

Jonathan

report post as inappropriate

It's the reason why you are frustrated , just because you aren't recognized seriously, it's not my fault if you and yoyur friends you haven(t found an interesting thing. My works humbly are different and I understand that people are jealous.You know when a wotrk is rational and when the transparence is respected, it's not necessary to publish a papper. For what, for a pseudo recognizing and for the system Jonathan let me laugh. If you want really evolve , I suggest that you study my equations with a deeper analyze, more foundamental respecting a pure 3D and a time constant like duration in its pure proportionalities. But I doubt, when a person has no innovantions in sciences, why they insist then? you know if you and your freinds aren't simply generalists or if you aren't global in theory.Why you need to be like the real innovators, it's just that it's not your road simply. Then we return about the frustration. It's just frank, for example, I play piano and guitar, but I don't say I can play saxo for example. It's just that only a minority in the scientists see really the whole and the genrality. And of course we see a kind of false road simply chosen. There are persons who are skillings for theoretical physics and others no simply. I am not better than you Jonathan. I just say that some people see the globality , others no simply.

I am frank, you make a pub for e8 just because you are frustrated lisi, jonathan Ray....then you try in a kind of business pseudo sciences strategies. Some people , and i say that humbly, have the capacity to ponder an equation or a theory, and others utilise these equations. It's not a superior comportment, it's a simple reality. I think that the secret is that a real searcher, never stop, he searches in all centers of interests, and after a kind of globality or generality appears. I am obliged to speak like that Jonathan. Lisi, Ray and You are good scientists , even skillings, but you aren't generalists in theoretical physics and maths which are the most complicated matters.

Steve

report post as inappropriate

I am frank, you make a pub for e8 just because you are frustrated lisi, jonathan Ray....then you try in a kind of business pseudo sciences strategies. Some people , and i say that humbly, have the capacity to ponder an equation or a theory, and others utilise these equations. It's not a superior comportment, it's a simple reality. I think that the secret is that a real searcher, never stop, he searches in all centers of interests, and after a kind of globality or generality appears. I am obliged to speak like that Jonathan. Lisi, Ray and You are good scientists , even skillings, but you aren't generalists in theoretical physics and maths which are the most complicated matters.

Steve

report post as inappropriate

And of course Joy possesses the diamond number 7, lisi the 8 and me the 3 for a rational logic in 3 dimensions, but of course the next world and universal festival won't speak about the diamond 3.and of course there is 878 miles between perimeter and new york and of course mickey mouse will be president after obama.

Interesting film, it lack spielberg here.

Steve

report post as inappropriate

Interesting film, it lack spielberg here.

Steve

report post as inappropriate

I wanted to ask, does this construction explain varying decay rates, cyclical with variations in Earth-Sun distance and the Sun's rotation. Originally; I saw this written up for yearly variations by Jenkins and Fischbach, and I saw a similar result from a Russian scientist using other data, but now I read they have observed a 33 day cycle - which corresponds with the Sun's rotation.

Jenkins' team have asserted it could be neutrinos, but this appears to be ruled out now, and they are looking for a missing particle. Could it be geometry instead? Alex Mayer thinks it plays an important role. And Joy's description of the 7-sphere's properties, and the part played by geometric algebra, appear to highlight a similar connection between microscale and macroscale observables.

One could describe the Earth and Sun as a massively entangled system. It is certain that the two objects each possess a significant amount of matter content which once resided, or will reside, with the other. However; one could explain this more simply as a case where geometric relations are felt both locally and at a distance.

Any thoughts?

Jonathan

report post as inappropriate

Jenkins' team have asserted it could be neutrinos, but this appears to be ruled out now, and they are looking for a missing particle. Could it be geometry instead? Alex Mayer thinks it plays an important role. And Joy's description of the 7-sphere's properties, and the part played by geometric algebra, appear to highlight a similar connection between microscale and macroscale observables.

One could describe the Earth and Sun as a massively entangled system. It is certain that the two objects each possess a significant amount of matter content which once resided, or will reside, with the other. However; one could explain this more simply as a case where geometric relations are felt both locally and at a distance.

Any thoughts?

Jonathan

report post as inappropriate

Jonathan,

In "Chromodynamics War" on pages 415-416 I address the varying decay rates, cyclical with variation in Earth-Sun distance. At the time that I requested permission to use their data, they had no explanation. My model suggested the neutrino explanation. I would be curious to know how neutrinos have been ruled out.

Edwin Eugene Klingman

report post as inappropriate

In "Chromodynamics War" on pages 415-416 I address the varying decay rates, cyclical with variation in Earth-Sun distance. At the time that I requested permission to use their data, they had no explanation. My model suggested the neutrino explanation. I would be curious to know how neutrinos have been ruled out.

Edwin Eugene Klingman

report post as inappropriate

Hi Edwin Eugene,

Following the trail of crumbs from the article I was sent, I find:

This entry on slashdot

An NIST press release, and this paper..

Study of the dependence of 198Au half-life on source geometry

I hope that helps, or gives what you need.

Regards,

Jonathan

report post as inappropriate

Following the trail of crumbs from the article I was sent, I find:

This entry on slashdot

An NIST press release, and this paper..

Study of the dependence of 198Au half-life on source geometry

I hope that helps, or gives what you need.

Regards,

Jonathan

report post as inappropriate

Jonathan,

Thank you very much for these links. I haven't yet studied the last paper, but the slashdot entry did answer the key question I had.

I think I agree with one of the commenters who said:

"This experiment covered only the decay of Gold-198; The ones that were found to be changing were exhibiting electron capture decays, a completely different mechanism. ... Neutrinos also oscillate forms; perhaps the emitted form doesn't interact the same way."

The other comments are also interesting. The result seems not fully established.

Thanks again,

Edwin Eugene Klingman

report post as inappropriate

Thank you very much for these links. I haven't yet studied the last paper, but the slashdot entry did answer the key question I had.

I think I agree with one of the commenters who said:

"This experiment covered only the decay of Gold-198; The ones that were found to be changing were exhibiting electron capture decays, a completely different mechanism. ... Neutrinos also oscillate forms; perhaps the emitted form doesn't interact the same way."

The other comments are also interesting. The result seems not fully established.

Thanks again,

Edwin Eugene Klingman

report post as inappropriate

Dear Joy, Florin, and Lawrence,

I made some comments earlier with minor errors and never received a proper response, so I am correcting those errors and reposting those ideas. Joy said that the devil is in the details, and yet some of those details bother me.

Joy is working with a parallelizable and potentially-stable 7-sphere, but he also has these weird statistics that continuously range from negative one (an anti-symmetric fermion wave-function) to positive one (a symmetric boson wave-function). This looks like the real projection of Anyonic statistics with phases of exp(i*theta), where theta ranges from zero to 2*pi. Anyons are quantum particles on 2-dimensional surfaces that don’t behave exactly like fermions or bosons (and may thus be a good place to start in an effort to unify quantum statistics into a TOE). Some examples of possibly important 2-D surfaces are the M2 Blackbrane and the effectively 2-D Graphene lattice of Holographic Theory.

Now suppose that the potentially-stable 7-sphere were to spontaneously decay into an M2 Blackbrane, its dual NS5-brane, and an eighth dimension of time. The M2-brane could explain the occurrence of Anyonic statistics, while the NS5-brane explains why the five-fold Pentagon color graph (see Florin’s Color Me Surprised post with the Kochen-Specker Theorem) is a minimal model for quantum behavior.

The devil may be in the details, but these details seem consistent with M-Theory…

report post as inappropriate

I made some comments earlier with minor errors and never received a proper response, so I am correcting those errors and reposting those ideas. Joy said that the devil is in the details, and yet some of those details bother me.

Joy is working with a parallelizable and potentially-stable 7-sphere, but he also has these weird statistics that continuously range from negative one (an anti-symmetric fermion wave-function) to positive one (a symmetric boson wave-function). This looks like the real projection of Anyonic statistics with phases of exp(i*theta), where theta ranges from zero to 2*pi. Anyons are quantum particles on 2-dimensional surfaces that don’t behave exactly like fermions or bosons (and may thus be a good place to start in an effort to unify quantum statistics into a TOE). Some examples of possibly important 2-D surfaces are the M2 Blackbrane and the effectively 2-D Graphene lattice of Holographic Theory.

Now suppose that the potentially-stable 7-sphere were to spontaneously decay into an M2 Blackbrane, its dual NS5-brane, and an eighth dimension of time. The M2-brane could explain the occurrence of Anyonic statistics, while the NS5-brane explains why the five-fold Pentagon color graph (see Florin’s Color Me Surprised post with the Kochen-Specker Theorem) is a minimal model for quantum behavior.

The devil may be in the details, but these details seem consistent with M-Theory…

report post as inappropriate

M theory now, Mr Baez is in you or what, or is it still a patriotic american pub.....strings are just a pure joke where only perhaps 1 per cent, and i am nice, is interesting(oscillations, spherical and still the convergences must be deterministic) the rest is sciences fiction like time travel or exotic particles, bizare or decoherences.....

the rotations of entangled spheres are proportional with mass....the physicality possesses its laws, intrinsic.

No but you dream in fact , you are comics in fact, with your extradimensions,

Steve

report post as inappropriate

the rotations of entangled spheres are proportional with mass....the physicality possesses its laws, intrinsic.

No but you dream in fact , you are comics in fact, with your extradimensions,

Steve

report post as inappropriate

the truth is the thruth, the business decreases the velocity of evolution.You can be a kind of team, that won't change. If your country is in this state and if the hour is serious, it's just due to that. The republican must understand that the world is not to them.The monney , the power and the vanity aklways like main parameters of this chaos. And they insist furthermore, just because they fear to loose their investments. It's not important, they are humans like all.Equals then of course the evidence appears easily. With or without their approvements, the world will change. Obama I am with you, yes all is possible with a simple evidence, the united of good people.....If it exists problems, these problems must disappear. Mr The president , you musty stabilize all that for a correct evolutive and harmonious future of this earth.If those persons continue to imply these chaotics series, never the world will be on the good and quiet road. GOOD OR BAD GOVERNANCES all is there......with UNIVERSALITY OF COURSE.

Steve

report post as inappropriate

Steve

report post as inappropriate

Joy,

It's great to see your new work. You say, "I feel that it is not appropriate to try to fit my framework in any pre-existing conceptual box, not the least because it uses the unusual tools of Geometric Algebra."

I think this is an extremely important point. Let us consider two incompatible theories A and B, both of which are reasonably effective in their respective realms of application (say A=QM, B=GR). We desire a new theory, C. We may reasonably require that both A and B "fit" into C's conceptual box. We should *not* require that C fit into A or B's box(es).

Thanks again for all your contributions.

Edwin Eugene Klingman

report post as inappropriate

It's great to see your new work. You say, "I feel that it is not appropriate to try to fit my framework in any pre-existing conceptual box, not the least because it uses the unusual tools of Geometric Algebra."

I think this is an extremely important point. Let us consider two incompatible theories A and B, both of which are reasonably effective in their respective realms of application (say A=QM, B=GR). We desire a new theory, C. We may reasonably require that both A and B "fit" into C's conceptual box. We should *not* require that C fit into A or B's box(es).

Thanks again for all your contributions.

Edwin Eugene Klingman

report post as inappropriate

Hi Edwin Eugene,

Thank you for your comments. Needless to say, I fully agree with your point about the incompatible theories. My main concern about Florin’s attempt to reinterpret my work is very similar.

Joy

report post as inappropriate

Thank you for your comments. Needless to say, I fully agree with your point about the incompatible theories. My main concern about Florin’s attempt to reinterpret my work is very similar.

Joy

report post as inappropriate

EPR VS COPENAGHEN now , well without me ,oh my god, sciences are lost in an ocean of ironical things. and for what always the same parameters(monney,vanity,power, differences, borders and frontiers....)what a bizare and stupid world. A scientist must act , the rest is vain...

SPHERICALLY YOURS

:)

A little experiment, calculate the number of x where the word sphere is utilized on this platform and all correlations.You shall see the date of my inscription, you shall see the exponential since this date ahahah and now they use all the word sphere.No but we dream, I dream , a sphere here , a ball there, and a theory here, and what after the spherical toe also and the spherical nobel prize, no but I dream. I want continue to beleive in human nature, but frankly sometimes i am so disgusted, trickled. It's sad simply.It's not a bohrian complementarity or a reinterpretation that, but just a kind of packaging.

Steve

report post as inappropriate

SPHERICALLY YOURS

:)

A little experiment, calculate the number of x where the word sphere is utilized on this platform and all correlations.You shall see the date of my inscription, you shall see the exponential since this date ahahah and now they use all the word sphere.No but we dream, I dream , a sphere here , a ball there, and a theory here, and what after the spherical toe also and the spherical nobel prize, no but I dream. I want continue to beleive in human nature, but frankly sometimes i am so disgusted, trickled. It's sad simply.It's not a bohrian complementarity or a reinterpretation that, but just a kind of packaging.

Steve

report post as inappropriate

Dear Joy,

I find your paper Disproof of Bell's Theorem by Clifford Algebra Valued Local Variables technically correct, but I have a different view of the interpretation you gave to the result. More precisely, I think that equation (19) is in fact a restatement of equation (4). Apparently, equation (4) involves a finite sum, and (19) an integral, but if we recall that the singlet state (1) is spherically symmetric, we realize that we can change the direction n in (1) as we wish and obtain the same singlet state. So, we can average over all possible directions n, and put (4) in an integral form too. The prediction of quantum mechanics, encoded in (4), follows from the non-commutativity of the spin observables (Pauli's Clifford algebra), in the same way as (19) does.

In my opinion, it is an illusion that (19) is obtained so that the local variable corresponding to a ignores the state of b and conversely. The correlations are in fact implicit in using the Clifford product, which is non-commutative. Therefore, for each pair a and b in the integral (19), the correlation between them is included.

So, I would not count this as a disproof of Bell's theorem. But I think your paper introduces something very interesting: the expectation values (4) can be obtained by a straight generalization of classical correlations (equations 7,9) to Pauli's algebra, via (19). I like this feature, because it suggests that quantum mechanics is connected to classical mechanics in a deeper way than the canonical quantization allows us to see (at least for the particular case of two 1/2 spin particles). I would speculate that it worth investigating whether (19) can be a gateway to a theory of non-commutative probabilities which reveals better the connection between classical and quantum, eventually enriching our understanding of quantum mechanics.

Best regards,

Cristi Stoica

report post as inappropriate

I find your paper Disproof of Bell's Theorem by Clifford Algebra Valued Local Variables technically correct, but I have a different view of the interpretation you gave to the result. More precisely, I think that equation (19) is in fact a restatement of equation (4). Apparently, equation (4) involves a finite sum, and (19) an integral, but if we recall that the singlet state (1) is spherically symmetric, we realize that we can change the direction n in (1) as we wish and obtain the same singlet state. So, we can average over all possible directions n, and put (4) in an integral form too. The prediction of quantum mechanics, encoded in (4), follows from the non-commutativity of the spin observables (Pauli's Clifford algebra), in the same way as (19) does.

In my opinion, it is an illusion that (19) is obtained so that the local variable corresponding to a ignores the state of b and conversely. The correlations are in fact implicit in using the Clifford product, which is non-commutative. Therefore, for each pair a and b in the integral (19), the correlation between them is included.

So, I would not count this as a disproof of Bell's theorem. But I think your paper introduces something very interesting: the expectation values (4) can be obtained by a straight generalization of classical correlations (equations 7,9) to Pauli's algebra, via (19). I like this feature, because it suggests that quantum mechanics is connected to classical mechanics in a deeper way than the canonical quantization allows us to see (at least for the particular case of two 1/2 spin particles). I would speculate that it worth investigating whether (19) can be a gateway to a theory of non-commutative probabilities which reveals better the connection between classical and quantum, eventually enriching our understanding of quantum mechanics.

Best regards,

Cristi Stoica

report post as inappropriate

Hi Cristi,

Eqs. (4) and (19) of the paper you cite are two ontologically different representations of one and the same correlation observed in nature. As is well known, the correlation described by Eq.(4) cannot be interpreted locally, whereas that described by Eq.(19) result from an integral over two manifestly local and realistic variables. Bell claimed that such a thing was impossible. In any case, the paper I much prefer is this one. It makes the same basic ontological point much more succinctly---namely that entanglement and non-locality are illusions.

Joy

report post as inappropriate

Eqs. (4) and (19) of the paper you cite are two ontologically different representations of one and the same correlation observed in nature. As is well known, the correlation described by Eq.(4) cannot be interpreted locally, whereas that described by Eq.(19) result from an integral over two manifestly local and realistic variables. Bell claimed that such a thing was impossible. In any case, the paper I much prefer is this one. It makes the same basic ontological point much more succinctly---namely that entanglement and non-locality are illusions.

Joy

report post as inappropriate

Hi Joy,

Thank you for your answer. You say that there is a difference between the ontologies. My current understanding is that the two ontologies are the same, and equations (4) and (19) are equivalent, being different only formally. If I am wrong, I'd like to go beyond this. Could you please explain the ontology you proposed? More precisely, how does your hidden variable predict the outcome of a measurement?

For example, could you provide a description of the EPR-Bohm experiment, from the viewpoint of the ontology you proposed? Say that a spin-0 particle decayed into two spin-1/2 particles. Say that Alice measures the spin of one of them, and Bob of the other, at a time t. What would be an example of the values of the hidden variables just prior to the time t, and how would they determine the outcome?

Best regards,

Cristi Stoica

report post as inappropriate

Thank you for your answer. You say that there is a difference between the ontologies. My current understanding is that the two ontologies are the same, and equations (4) and (19) are equivalent, being different only formally. If I am wrong, I'd like to go beyond this. Could you please explain the ontology you proposed? More precisely, how does your hidden variable predict the outcome of a measurement?

For example, could you provide a description of the EPR-Bohm experiment, from the viewpoint of the ontology you proposed? Say that a spin-0 particle decayed into two spin-1/2 particles. Say that Alice measures the spin of one of them, and Bob of the other, at a time t. What would be an example of the values of the hidden variables just prior to the time t, and how would they determine the outcome?

Best regards,

Cristi Stoica

report post as inappropriate

Hi Cristi,

I have described my approach to the EPR experiments in great detail in these two preprints: this one and this one. I hope you find the answers to your questions in them. If not, then the full list of my papers on the subject can be found here.

Joy

report post as inappropriate

I have described my approach to the EPR experiments in great detail in these two preprints: this one and this one. I hope you find the answers to your questions in them. If not, then the full list of my papers on the subject can be found here.

Joy

report post as inappropriate

Dear Joy,

Thank you for pointing me to the references. About the article arXiv:1106.0748. May I ask you about the local variables / bivectors A and B defined in equations (27) and (28), page 6. I understand that they are the elements of reality. Are they contextual? (it seems to me that they are, because they depend on the orientation of the measurement devices.)

Thank you,

Cristi

report post as inappropriate

Thank you for pointing me to the references. About the article arXiv:1106.0748. May I ask you about the local variables / bivectors A and B defined in equations (27) and (28), page 6. I understand that they are the elements of reality. Are they contextual? (it seems to me that they are, because they depend on the orientation of the measurement devices.)

Thank you,

Cristi

report post as inappropriate

Hi Cristi,

No, the variables A and B are not contextual. They do refer to the orientations of the measurement devices (as they must), but the measurement results themselves (+1 or -1) are determined entirely by the orientation (i.e., handedness) of the 3-sphere (i.e., by the hidden variable “mu”).

Joy

report post as inappropriate

No, the variables A and B are not contextual. They do refer to the orientations of the measurement devices (as they must), but the measurement results themselves (+1 or -1) are determined entirely by the orientation (i.e., handedness) of the 3-sphere (i.e., by the hidden variable “mu”).

Joy

report post as inappropriate

Hi Joy,

Thank you for the quick answer. If I understand well, the bivectors A and B represent the states obtained by the measurements, while the correlation is encoded in the choice of the orientation mu.

What if we take A and B as representing independent particles, which don't form a singlet state, it seems to me that from equations (32) and (33) from arXiv:1106.0748 we obtain the same correlation -cos 2(alpha - beta) (even though they may have different orientations mu). Probably I am missing something, because otherwise it seems that any two particles are correlated like this.

Thank you for the patience, it seems that I have many questions.

Best regards,

Cristi

report post as inappropriate

Thank you for the quick answer. If I understand well, the bivectors A and B represent the states obtained by the measurements, while the correlation is encoded in the choice of the orientation mu.

What if we take A and B as representing independent particles, which don't form a singlet state, it seems to me that from equations (32) and (33) from arXiv:1106.0748 we obtain the same correlation -cos 2(alpha - beta) (even though they may have different orientations mu). Probably I am missing something, because otherwise it seems that any two particles are correlated like this.

Thank you for the patience, it seems that I have many questions.

Best regards,

Cristi

report post as inappropriate

Hi Cristi,

For two independent particles not forming a singlet state the random variables A and B would represent two independent events. Therefore the product (32) would no longer be meaningful. This is because A and B, as bivectors, would then belong to two entirely different spaces. Moreover, the joint expectation value of A and B would then be, not equal to E(AB), but equal to E(A)E(B). As a result the correlation between A and B would be much weaker than –cos 2(alpha – beta).

Joy

report post as inappropriate

For two independent particles not forming a singlet state the random variables A and B would represent two independent events. Therefore the product (32) would no longer be meaningful. This is because A and B, as bivectors, would then belong to two entirely different spaces. Moreover, the joint expectation value of A and B would then be, not equal to E(AB), but equal to E(A)E(B). As a result the correlation between A and B would be much weaker than –cos 2(alpha – beta).

Joy

report post as inappropriate

Cristi,

You ask above, "How does your hidden variable predict the outcome of a measurement?"

I do not pretend to speak for Joy, but John Bell made a few remarks worth noting. In his discussion of EPR (on p.143 in 'Speakable...') Bell says, -- [I use asterisks for italics]:

"It is important to note that, to the limited degree to which *determinism* plays a role in the EPR argument, it is not assumed but *inferred*. What is held sacred is the principle of 'local causality' - or 'no action at a distance'. ...mere *correlation* between distant events does not by itself imply action at a distance..."

Further, he states:

"It is remarkably difficult to get this point across, that determinism is not a presupposition of the analysis. There is a widespread and erroneous conviction that for Einstein determinism was always *the* sacred principle."

Later Bell points out that

"It was only in the context of perfect correlation...that *determinism* could be inferred for the relation of observation results to pre-existing particle properties... [and] it is a preoccupation with determinism that creates the problem."

He then proceeds to argue while pointedly making no mention of determinism.

Cristi, I believe that focus on local realism leaves the door open for conscious (willed) behavior or chaotic (random) behavior, neither of which is incompatible with local realism, but both of which are problematical with strict determinism.

Edwin Eugene Klingman

report post as inappropriate

You ask above, "How does your hidden variable predict the outcome of a measurement?"

I do not pretend to speak for Joy, but John Bell made a few remarks worth noting. In his discussion of EPR (on p.143 in 'Speakable...') Bell says, -- [I use asterisks for italics]:

"It is important to note that, to the limited degree to which *determinism* plays a role in the EPR argument, it is not assumed but *inferred*. What is held sacred is the principle of 'local causality' - or 'no action at a distance'. ...mere *correlation* between distant events does not by itself imply action at a distance..."

Further, he states:

"It is remarkably difficult to get this point across, that determinism is not a presupposition of the analysis. There is a widespread and erroneous conviction that for Einstein determinism was always *the* sacred principle."

Later Bell points out that

"It was only in the context of perfect correlation...that *determinism* could be inferred for the relation of observation results to pre-existing particle properties... [and] it is a preoccupation with determinism that creates the problem."

He then proceeds to argue while pointedly making no mention of determinism.

Cristi, I believe that focus on local realism leaves the door open for conscious (willed) behavior or chaotic (random) behavior, neither of which is incompatible with local realism, but both of which are problematical with strict determinism.

Edwin Eugene Klingman

report post as inappropriate

Dear Eugene,

Indeed, as far as I know, not only Bell, but also Bohm clarified that he was interested in causal interpretations of QM, and not necessarily in determinism. And indeed, the attacks against the EPR argument on the basis that Einstein believed in determinism, IMO, came from the belief that quantum mechanics introduced for the first time genuine randomness in physics, and by this, allowed the free-will. It is still generally believed that a necessary condition for free-will is the indeterminism of physical law. My own view on quantum mechanics happens to be deterministic (but not a la Bohm), and yet compatible with randomness and free-will, as I tried to explain here.

Best regards,

Cristi

report post as inappropriate

Indeed, as far as I know, not only Bell, but also Bohm clarified that he was interested in causal interpretations of QM, and not necessarily in determinism. And indeed, the attacks against the EPR argument on the basis that Einstein believed in determinism, IMO, came from the belief that quantum mechanics introduced for the first time genuine randomness in physics, and by this, allowed the free-will. It is still generally believed that a necessary condition for free-will is the indeterminism of physical law. My own view on quantum mechanics happens to be deterministic (but not a la Bohm), and yet compatible with randomness and free-will, as I tried to explain here.

Best regards,

Cristi

report post as inappropriate

Pub for the free will simply, you repeat this word several x like Ray with toe and lawrence for Ex and exeptional , can you see the irony???,

a free will yes, stupidities no simply.Christi you must be rational.

Bohm EPR and Bell Well why ? just because you forget the generality of newton, Borh ,Euler,they are better than Bell Bohm or others irrationalists.

TO OR NOT TO BE INDEED.

Steve

report post as inappropriate

a free will yes, stupidities no simply.Christi you must be rational.

Bohm EPR and Bell Well why ? just because you forget the generality of newton, Borh ,Euler,they are better than Bell Bohm or others irrationalists.

TO OR NOT TO BE INDEED.

Steve

report post as inappropriate

Dear Eugene,

I reviewed your question and I think that maybe the first time I missed the point. When I asked "How does your hidden variable predict the outcome of a measurement?", the reason was to understand the ontology, and not to ask for determinism. If the purpose of a hidden variable theory is to complete quantum mechanics, I understand that it has to give a better prediction of the results than the Born rule, and by this, to explain the correlations.

Best regards,

Cristi

report post as inappropriate

I reviewed your question and I think that maybe the first time I missed the point. When I asked "How does your hidden variable predict the outcome of a measurement?", the reason was to understand the ontology, and not to ask for determinism. If the purpose of a hidden variable theory is to complete quantum mechanics, I understand that it has to give a better prediction of the results than the Born rule, and by this, to explain the correlations.

Best regards,

Cristi

report post as inappropriate

I agree with Cristi. The issue is not philosophical (free will vs. determinism). The physical issue is whether nonlocal effects determine local outcomes.

Going back to Einstein's definition of "physically real" " ... independent in its physical properties, having a physical effect but not itself influenced by physical conditions ..." classical physics is all local. Communication among...

view entire post

Going back to Einstein's definition of "physically real" " ... independent in its physical properties, having a physical effect but not itself influenced by physical conditions ..." classical physics is all local. Communication among...

view entire post

report post as inappropriate

Tom,

Instead of "the issue is not", it might be more appropriate to say "my issue is not"...

Just because you are not interested does not make it not an issue.

But, as I've remarked to Cristi above, the issue I was trying to highlight was not 'free will', but the separability of the issues of local realism from the issue of determinism. You've many times stated that quantum mechanics is "incoherent without nonlocality". I don't believe that to be true, but we've failed to communicate on this issue often enough that it makes no sense to argue it.

You say that "Joy's among others' results aim to obviate quantum theory". It is not clear to me that that is his aim. He appears rather to confirm the quantum mechanical results, while claiming that Bell's calculation is incorrect. I too feel that Bell's calculation is incorrect but for different reasons than Joy.

Of course "if Planck's constant were zero, we would have an ontologically classical world."

But you claim that "What must be established as "physically real" in a quantum mechanical model that is finite in space and unbounded in time, is information loss" and "Information loss, however slight, IS a nonlocal effect and "physically real."

This appears to assume that one accepts information as ontologically real, which I do not. Nevertheless, I look forward to your posting your ideas in the next few days. I would like to understand you.

Finally, I have asked Florin several times, but he may have missed my question. My question is this:

Is it correct to say that "violation of Bell's inequality is *the* basis for the rejection of local realism in physics"?

Do you have an opinion on this?

Edwin Eugene Klingman

report post as inappropriate

Instead of "the issue is not", it might be more appropriate to say "my issue is not"...

Just because you are not interested does not make it not an issue.

But, as I've remarked to Cristi above, the issue I was trying to highlight was not 'free will', but the separability of the issues of local realism from the issue of determinism. You've many times stated that quantum mechanics is "incoherent without nonlocality". I don't believe that to be true, but we've failed to communicate on this issue often enough that it makes no sense to argue it.

You say that "Joy's among others' results aim to obviate quantum theory". It is not clear to me that that is his aim. He appears rather to confirm the quantum mechanical results, while claiming that Bell's calculation is incorrect. I too feel that Bell's calculation is incorrect but for different reasons than Joy.

Of course "if Planck's constant were zero, we would have an ontologically classical world."

But you claim that "What must be established as "physically real" in a quantum mechanical model that is finite in space and unbounded in time, is information loss" and "Information loss, however slight, IS a nonlocal effect and "physically real."

This appears to assume that one accepts information as ontologically real, which I do not. Nevertheless, I look forward to your posting your ideas in the next few days. I would like to understand you.

Finally, I have asked Florin several times, but he may have missed my question. My question is this:

Is it correct to say that "violation of Bell's inequality is *the* basis for the rejection of local realism in physics"?

Do you have an opinion on this?

Edwin Eugene Klingman

report post as inappropriate

Edwin,

It's not my personal issue. It's a question of objectivity -- one cannot impose philosophical/religious ideals on a scientific theory without sacrificing factual clarity and often, facts themselves.

Nevertheless, thanks for clarifying your perceived separation of local realism from determinism. I don't see how one can do that, and preserve either concept. "Locally real" classical theories obviate hidden variables, so that all dependent results are causally determined by independent variables. I agree with Florin that Joy stretches the meaning of "locality" in that he actually constructs a hidden variables theory, although he does a capital job of correlating his variables to the orientation-dependent results. I do think his method is mathematically superior, and have said that I can be convinced that it subsumes Bell's result(though not yet).

You misunderstand Joy vis a vis Bell's Inequality. He does not say Bell's mathematical result is incorrect ("disproof" is a truly unfortunate choice of words)-- he says that Bell's starting assumptions are inferior to his (Joy's) own, and he may be right. Look at it this way: say something in English is untranslatable to Urdu; then English would be the superior language to explain the point, though it is still possible to insert the English phrase into the Urdu translation.

You are correct that I assume in my (own) mathematical theory, that the world is made of information alone. Of course, I am not the only one who holds with this assumption, nor even the only one who identifies information with time. Having seen the criticism that Joy is encountering, I decided to delete every bit of reference to physics from the paper I am working on and present the mathematical theory alone -- this has precedence; e.g., Claude Shannon's classic paper that became "information entropy" and quickly found physical applications. He didn't try to beg the quesiton, and neither will I. The working title is: "Applications of number theory to information, time and geometry."

You ask, "Is it correct to say that 'violation of Bell's inequality is *the* basis for the rejection of local realism in physics'?"

I wouldn't put it that way. I would say that Bell's result is a sufficient but not necessary condition to reject local realism (there are many more ways in which quantum mechanics is incoherent without nonlocality). By the same logic I would say that Joy's result is a necessary but not sufficient reason to _accept_ local realism -- as Florin makes a point of asking, what does "local" really mean in Joy Christian's theory? Not, to be sure, what we accept as classical physics.

Tom

report post as inappropriate

It's not my personal issue. It's a question of objectivity -- one cannot impose philosophical/religious ideals on a scientific theory without sacrificing factual clarity and often, facts themselves.

Nevertheless, thanks for clarifying your perceived separation of local realism from determinism. I don't see how one can do that, and preserve either concept. "Locally real" classical theories obviate hidden variables, so that all dependent results are causally determined by independent variables. I agree with Florin that Joy stretches the meaning of "locality" in that he actually constructs a hidden variables theory, although he does a capital job of correlating his variables to the orientation-dependent results. I do think his method is mathematically superior, and have said that I can be convinced that it subsumes Bell's result(though not yet).

You misunderstand Joy vis a vis Bell's Inequality. He does not say Bell's mathematical result is incorrect ("disproof" is a truly unfortunate choice of words)-- he says that Bell's starting assumptions are inferior to his (Joy's) own, and he may be right. Look at it this way: say something in English is untranslatable to Urdu; then English would be the superior language to explain the point, though it is still possible to insert the English phrase into the Urdu translation.

You are correct that I assume in my (own) mathematical theory, that the world is made of information alone. Of course, I am not the only one who holds with this assumption, nor even the only one who identifies information with time. Having seen the criticism that Joy is encountering, I decided to delete every bit of reference to physics from the paper I am working on and present the mathematical theory alone -- this has precedence; e.g., Claude Shannon's classic paper that became "information entropy" and quickly found physical applications. He didn't try to beg the quesiton, and neither will I. The working title is: "Applications of number theory to information, time and geometry."

You ask, "Is it correct to say that 'violation of Bell's inequality is *the* basis for the rejection of local realism in physics'?"

I wouldn't put it that way. I would say that Bell's result is a sufficient but not necessary condition to reject local realism (there are many more ways in which quantum mechanics is incoherent without nonlocality). By the same logic I would say that Joy's result is a necessary but not sufficient reason to _accept_ local realism -- as Florin makes a point of asking, what does "local" really mean in Joy Christian's theory? Not, to be sure, what we accept as classical physics.

Tom

report post as inappropriate

Tom,

Whether "free will" versus "determinism" is an objective issue or not is debatable. As I understand it, the current view of consciousness is that it is an artifact that can (presumably) be explained as emerging from the structure of Lego blocks or conceptual equivalents. In my mind a fully deterministic physics precludes free will of any meaningful kind. Nevertheless, I have no...

view entire post

Whether "free will" versus "determinism" is an objective issue or not is debatable. As I understand it, the current view of consciousness is that it is an artifact that can (presumably) be explained as emerging from the structure of Lego blocks or conceptual equivalents. In my mind a fully deterministic physics precludes free will of any meaningful kind. Nevertheless, I have no...

view entire post

report post as inappropriate

Computer Simulation of the Physical Reality:

Much has been made out of a possible demonstration of the validity of my arguments by means of a computer simulation. It has been suggested that if my ideas are correct, then one can write a computer program modelling them and obtain the Tsirelson bounds. While such a demonstration would indeed be sociologically important (especially considering...

view entire post

Much has been made out of a possible demonstration of the validity of my arguments by means of a computer simulation. It has been suggested that if my ideas are correct, then one can write a computer program modelling them and obtain the Tsirelson bounds. While such a demonstration would indeed be sociologically important (especially considering...

view entire post

report post as inappropriate

Dear Joy,

You state: "An analytical model such as mine cannot possibly be proved or disproved by its numerical simulation. A simulation of a model is a mere implementation of its analytical details, not an experiment that can either prove or disprove its validity. If reality can always be so simply simulated then there would be no need for the staggeringly expensive actual experiments....

view entire post

You state: "An analytical model such as mine cannot possibly be proved or disproved by its numerical simulation. A simulation of a model is a mere implementation of its analytical details, not an experiment that can either prove or disprove its validity. If reality can always be so simply simulated then there would be no need for the staggeringly expensive actual experiments....

view entire post

report post as inappropriate

Your models to both of you are so weaks, your simulations about quantization of mass is then weaks also.Then your future simulations shall be falses and weaks simply. Grassman and tirelson, yes of course.You are going to simulate nothing yes, then dear investors , be rational. An isntitute is just an institute. THEY TRY THAT IS ALL.

ahahahah

SPHERICALLY YOURS.AND YES ONE THING EUREKA FROM BELGIUM FRUSTRATING NO,

StevE

report post as inappropriate

ahahahah

SPHERICALLY YOURS.AND YES ONE THING EUREKA FROM BELGIUM FRUSTRATING NO,

StevE

report post as inappropriate

I find myself in agreement with Joy Christian on the computer simulation question.

Looking over that criticism on the web we were talking about elsewhere, the critic said or implied something to the effect that Joy admits he can't write a single line of computer code, so he can't possibly know what he's talking about. That's a telling, and profoundly stupid, statement, demonstrating that the critic cannot tell the difference between computation theory and programming.

Joy Christian's theory depends on continuous functions throughout. That is the characteristic that keeps it true to classical physics and therefore to EPR criteria. Differential equations can be machine modeled to arbitrary accuracy by substituting difference equations, and error correction can be written in. The problem is in preventing the multiplication of errors over time; i.e., replicating results. Gregory Chaitin has dramatically demonstrated arithmetic randomness -- calculating the value of Omega by the same algorithm in different languages produces different numerical results as random as a single coin toss. (I wrote a nontechnical treatment of the consequences of Omega for ICCS 2007.)

A machine model of Joy Christian's theory would have to be networked to control for random output, so that correlations between input and output results at an arbitrary time can distinguish between pseudorandom (continuous) phenomena in which input and output are correlated by continuous function (i.e., analytical) criteria, and random (discrete) output. There would never be a way to correlate input data to output data even in a nonlinear algorithm that faithfully replicates results time after time.

The upshot is that Christian's theory is time-dependent, as are all classical models of continuous spacetime events.

Considering the challenges to networking computations to simulate continuous real world events, a true real world experiment would indeed seem to be much less complicated and less costly.

Tom

report post as inappropriate

Looking over that criticism on the web we were talking about elsewhere, the critic said or implied something to the effect that Joy admits he can't write a single line of computer code, so he can't possibly know what he's talking about. That's a telling, and profoundly stupid, statement, demonstrating that the critic cannot tell the difference between computation theory and programming.

Joy Christian's theory depends on continuous functions throughout. That is the characteristic that keeps it true to classical physics and therefore to EPR criteria. Differential equations can be machine modeled to arbitrary accuracy by substituting difference equations, and error correction can be written in. The problem is in preventing the multiplication of errors over time; i.e., replicating results. Gregory Chaitin has dramatically demonstrated arithmetic randomness -- calculating the value of Omega by the same algorithm in different languages produces different numerical results as random as a single coin toss. (I wrote a nontechnical treatment of the consequences of Omega for ICCS 2007.)

A machine model of Joy Christian's theory would have to be networked to control for random output, so that correlations between input and output results at an arbitrary time can distinguish between pseudorandom (continuous) phenomena in which input and output are correlated by continuous function (i.e., analytical) criteria, and random (discrete) output. There would never be a way to correlate input data to output data even in a nonlinear algorithm that faithfully replicates results time after time.

The upshot is that Christian's theory is time-dependent, as are all classical models of continuous spacetime events.

Considering the challenges to networking computations to simulate continuous real world events, a true real world experiment would indeed seem to be much less complicated and less costly.

Tom

report post as inappropriate

Dear Joy

I congratulate you on work which should unlock the truths of nature. I have cited your earlier papers in my own because your thesis is essential to allow mine, as outlined in a finalist essay in the competition here. It is conceptual not mathematical, but I would greatly appreciate your reading it to see if you can conceive the local reality derived, providing a quantum mechanism for the SR postulates and principles. (courtesy of Chandrasekhara Raman's much ignored Nobel prize work, and learning from Bohr's lesson to VH about knowing how lenses work).

A number of other more detailed jointly authored papers on various aspects are on the way now, but they may all be simply written off at page 1 if Bells theorem remains as misunderstood as it has been.

I an not qualified to comment on the details or mathematics of yours so can only agree with the approach, principles and, importantly, results, which allow the unified field theory of the 'Discrete Field' Model (DFM) described; http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/803 I believe the maths need to develop in the direction of yours as well as using 'time stepping' techniques.

Note there are a number of errors in the essay, (now corrected in the papers), it is raw and very limited in scope, but describes a dynamic conceptual construction which resolves many issues. (direct Email on P1). One simple way to perceive it not (referred) is that on considering Doppler shift and constancy of c is; c = d/t, EM signals do not react to an observer until they reach him, and when they do both f and wavelength lambda change equally on frame transformation to maintain local c, in c = fLambda, and also conserve E = fLambda.

As Lorentz said, "Science cannot progress without changes that may at first appear alarming." I greatly look forward to any comments.

Peter

report post as inappropriate

I congratulate you on work which should unlock the truths of nature. I have cited your earlier papers in my own because your thesis is essential to allow mine, as outlined in a finalist essay in the competition here. It is conceptual not mathematical, but I would greatly appreciate your reading it to see if you can conceive the local reality derived, providing a quantum mechanism for the SR postulates and principles. (courtesy of Chandrasekhara Raman's much ignored Nobel prize work, and learning from Bohr's lesson to VH about knowing how lenses work).

A number of other more detailed jointly authored papers on various aspects are on the way now, but they may all be simply written off at page 1 if Bells theorem remains as misunderstood as it has been.

I an not qualified to comment on the details or mathematics of yours so can only agree with the approach, principles and, importantly, results, which allow the unified field theory of the 'Discrete Field' Model (DFM) described; http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/803 I believe the maths need to develop in the direction of yours as well as using 'time stepping' techniques.

Note there are a number of errors in the essay, (now corrected in the papers), it is raw and very limited in scope, but describes a dynamic conceptual construction which resolves many issues. (direct Email on P1). One simple way to perceive it not (referred) is that on considering Doppler shift and constancy of c is; c = d/t, EM signals do not react to an observer until they reach him, and when they do both f and wavelength lambda change equally on frame transformation to maintain local c, in c = fLambda, and also conserve E = fLambda.

As Lorentz said, "Science cannot progress without changes that may at first appear alarming." I greatly look forward to any comments.

Peter

report post as inappropriate

Hi Peter,

Where can I find your latest papers ? very interested as you may know...

keep on thinking free

Wilhelmus

report post as inappropriate

Where can I find your latest papers ? very interested as you may know...

keep on thinking free

Wilhelmus

report post as inappropriate

Wil.

I'm disappointed Joy either missed my post or didn't respond, but thanks for your continued interest. As you know, I don't have a website or intend to have one, but do have a few papers on Phil's viXra. I'll send you a link with anything new, which is a specialist paper I'm working on for my own institutes monthly notices, plus a major joint work, which may first see light as an Ebook. So obviously I'm flat out on these!

I've derived an interesting result for the domain limitation of geometric algebra which I must catch up with Joy's papers on. It say's we can't have two times. i.e. if we use it with Descartres system we can't then add it back again in space time, but rather than question the latter the DFM shows that the former is the mistake. Very interesting stuff emerges.

I hope you're well. Do stay in touch.

Peter

report post as inappropriate

I'm disappointed Joy either missed my post or didn't respond, but thanks for your continued interest. As you know, I don't have a website or intend to have one, but do have a few papers on Phil's viXra. I'll send you a link with anything new, which is a specialist paper I'm working on for my own institutes monthly notices, plus a major joint work, which may first see light as an Ebook. So obviously I'm flat out on these!

I've derived an interesting result for the domain limitation of geometric algebra which I must catch up with Joy's papers on. It say's we can't have two times. i.e. if we use it with Descartres system we can't then add it back again in space time, but rather than question the latter the DFM shows that the former is the mistake. Very interesting stuff emerges.

I hope you're well. Do stay in touch.

Peter

report post as inappropriate

Dear Peter,

Thank you for your kind words and for citing my papers. I am sorry to have missed your message earlier, but there were some technical issues being raised by various people (including Florin) which required my immediate attention. In any case, I will have a look at your work when I get a chance.

Best regards,

Joy

report post as inappropriate

Thank you for your kind words and for citing my papers. I am sorry to have missed your message earlier, but there were some technical issues being raised by various people (including Florin) which required my immediate attention. In any case, I will have a look at your work when I get a chance.

Best regards,

Joy

report post as inappropriate

Dear Joy,

I would like to introduce myself in quantum terminology and share the truth that I have experienced with you. who am I?

I am one of our kind, I is every one of all kinds.

I superpositioned myself to be me, to disentangle reality from virtuality and reveal the absolute truth.

Love,

Sridattadev.

report post as inappropriate

I would like to introduce myself in quantum terminology and share the truth that I have experienced with you. who am I?

I am one of our kind, I is every one of all kinds.

I superpositioned myself to be me, to disentangle reality from virtuality and reveal the absolute truth.

Love,

Sridattadev.

report post as inappropriate

Dear Joy Christian,

The last in alphabet but certainly not the least FQXi member is Zeh. He wrote a paper "Quantum discreteness is an illusion" arXiv0809.2904v7, to be published in Foundations of Physics (DOI 10.1007/s10701-009-9383-9). The published version can be found at www.springerlink.com. Via FQXi I got the file NoDiscreteness.pdf.

Did you deal with Zeh's view? I recall you illustrating in a figure the plurality of possible future parts of a world-line. Did you also take into account something like half-life, i.e., ending or ramifying world-lines?

Perhaps I should briefly explain my own reasoning: I see the future not observable and therefore any integration over time from minus infinity to plus infinity with arbitrarily chosen t=0 inadequate for a description of an open to unseen influences physical reality, which I understand as the ultimate basis of abstraction.

Regards,

Eckard Blumschein

report post as inappropriate

The last in alphabet but certainly not the least FQXi member is Zeh. He wrote a paper "Quantum discreteness is an illusion" arXiv0809.2904v7, to be published in Foundations of Physics (DOI 10.1007/s10701-009-9383-9). The published version can be found at www.springerlink.com. Via FQXi I got the file NoDiscreteness.pdf.

Did you deal with Zeh's view? I recall you illustrating in a figure the plurality of possible future parts of a world-line. Did you also take into account something like half-life, i.e., ending or ramifying world-lines?

Perhaps I should briefly explain my own reasoning: I see the future not observable and therefore any integration over time from minus infinity to plus infinity with arbitrarily chosen t=0 inadequate for a description of an open to unseen influences physical reality, which I understand as the ultimate basis of abstraction.

Regards,

Eckard Blumschein

report post as inappropriate

Alternatively goto http://www.zeh-hd.de Quantum theory, and the offered download of the paper "Quantum discreteness is an illusion". Prof. em Zeh belongs to the advisory board of FQXi.

report post as inappropriate

report post as inappropriate

Dear all,

Is NoDiscreteness.pdf irrelevant? Or does Zeh not deserve our attention?

Incidentally, I wonder why Tom wrote "random (discrete)". Well, computers generate random (discrete) numbers. However, I understood random as without a definite plan or pattern. Shouldn't this also include irrational numbers?

Eckard

report post as inappropriate

Is NoDiscreteness.pdf irrelevant? Or does Zeh not deserve our attention?

Incidentally, I wonder why Tom wrote "random (discrete)". Well, computers generate random (discrete) numbers. However, I understood random as without a definite plan or pattern. Shouldn't this also include irrational numbers?

Eckard

report post as inappropriate

Dear Joy Christian,

Your work has given rise to the best conversation that I think has occurred here. I do not know where it is going to end nor whether or not I will understanding and recognize that ending, but I hope it continues for now, especially among those who are professionally qualified.

James

report post as inappropriate

Your work has given rise to the best conversation that I think has occurred here. I do not know where it is going to end nor whether or not I will understanding and recognize that ending, but I hope it continues for now, especially among those who are professionally qualified.

James

report post as inappropriate

and the winner is elected by Yoda, Joy because it is like that amen .

Professional, that doesn't mean they are trues.I know professionals in all domains who are not skillings. Qualified to ponder or qualified by an university, it's different.We retrun about the real understanding of the generality. Yoda stop also to make the nice baby with a politness of pseudo recognizing, already that you do not undertand what is this universal sphere and the rotations then don't insist really.A time for all , it exists philosophical platform, me I am rationalist and I have invented equationas and a pure genral and rational model, then of course I am not here to laugh. the end you say , yes of course you shall be invited aahahah the force is with you, a debate no but frankly, a cyclic debate yes. don't be offensed but the transparence and the truth is essential and of course the short distance between 2 points is the line of course.

Steve

report post as inappropriate

Professional, that doesn't mean they are trues.I know professionals in all domains who are not skillings. Qualified to ponder or qualified by an university, it's different.We retrun about the real understanding of the generality. Yoda stop also to make the nice baby with a politness of pseudo recognizing, already that you do not undertand what is this universal sphere and the rotations then don't insist really.A time for all , it exists philosophical platform, me I am rationalist and I have invented equationas and a pure genral and rational model, then of course I am not here to laugh. the end you say , yes of course you shall be invited aahahah the force is with you, a debate no but frankly, a cyclic debate yes. don't be offensed but the transparence and the truth is essential and of course the short distance between 2 points is the line of course.

Steve

report post as inappropriate

"Science cannot progress without changes that may at first appear alarming." -- The greatest truths often go ignored and unrealized. Witness my work.

True and fundamental inertial and gravitational equivalency involves instantaneity and balanced attraction and repulsion. Space then manifests as gravitational/inertial/electromagnetic energy. I proved this.

report post as inappropriate

True and fundamental inertial and gravitational equivalency involves instantaneity and balanced attraction and repulsion. Space then manifests as gravitational/inertial/electromagnetic energy. I proved this.

report post as inappropriate

Professor Joy Christian,

I apologize, but I have some questions about the macroscopic experiment proposed by you in arxiv:0806.3078, page 4.

I understand that the experiment takes place in two steps:

STEP 1: Explode non-rotating spheres. Measure and record the rotation axes of the resulting half-spheres. "The interfaced computers can then record this data, in the form of a 3D map of all such directions."

The output of the first step is therefore a pair of lists of (pseudo)vectors, so that a vector is on a list if and only if the opposite vector is on the other list.

STEP 2: "the two computers are instructed to randomly choose the reference directions, a for one station and b for the other station - from within their already existing 3D maps of data - and then calculate the corresponding dynamical variables sign (Lj · a) and sign (-Lj · b)". Then it is calculated the correlation function, and then "this result, which would give purely local correlations, should then be compared (in N -> infinite limit) with the predictions (3) and (15)."

QUESTION 1 (about step 1): After a large number of such explosions, will each of the two 3D maps consist in uniformly distributed directions on the sphere? If not, can you provide the probability distribution?

QUESTION 2 (about step 2): Is there a reason why, when the computers randomly choose the directions a and b, it has to be "from within their already existing 3D maps of data"? (Peres seems to allow equally any possible direction.)

Respectfully,

Cristi Stoica

report post as inappropriate

I apologize, but I have some questions about the macroscopic experiment proposed by you in arxiv:0806.3078, page 4.

I understand that the experiment takes place in two steps:

STEP 1: Explode non-rotating spheres. Measure and record the rotation axes of the resulting half-spheres. "The interfaced computers can then record this data, in the form of a 3D map of all such directions."

The output of the first step is therefore a pair of lists of (pseudo)vectors, so that a vector is on a list if and only if the opposite vector is on the other list.

STEP 2: "the two computers are instructed to randomly choose the reference directions, a for one station and b for the other station - from within their already existing 3D maps of data - and then calculate the corresponding dynamical variables sign (Lj · a) and sign (-Lj · b)". Then it is calculated the correlation function, and then "this result, which would give purely local correlations, should then be compared (in N -> infinite limit) with the predictions (3) and (15)."

QUESTION 1 (about step 1): After a large number of such explosions, will each of the two 3D maps consist in uniformly distributed directions on the sphere? If not, can you provide the probability distribution?

QUESTION 2 (about step 2): Is there a reason why, when the computers randomly choose the directions a and b, it has to be "from within their already existing 3D maps of data"? (Peres seems to allow equally any possible direction.)

Respectfully,

Cristi Stoica

report post as inappropriate

Hi Cristi,

Please just call me Joy.

Answer to your question (1): I do not think the directions would be uniformly distributed, because angular momenta obey rather non-linear equations (as in equations (3) and (4) of my 1-page paper). I also cannot provide a probability distribution for the directions (for the same reason). If that was possible, Bell's theorem would have been forgotten a long time ago.

Answer to your question (2): I do not mean the directions a and b have to be two of those recorded directions of angular momenta. The added requirement is simply to mimic what is done in the actual EPR experiments. There, the directions are randomly chosen while the particles are already in-flight to ensure that there is no communication of any kind between Alice and Bob. What I am allowing is a possibility of choosing the reference directions months after the data is collected, so that one can be sure there was no communication between the two sides of the experiment.

Joy

report post as inappropriate

Please just call me Joy.

Answer to your question (1): I do not think the directions would be uniformly distributed, because angular momenta obey rather non-linear equations (as in equations (3) and (4) of my 1-page paper). I also cannot provide a probability distribution for the directions (for the same reason). If that was possible, Bell's theorem would have been forgotten a long time ago.

Answer to your question (2): I do not mean the directions a and b have to be two of those recorded directions of angular momenta. The added requirement is simply to mimic what is done in the actual EPR experiments. There, the directions are randomly chosen while the particles are already in-flight to ensure that there is no communication of any kind between Alice and Bob. What I am allowing is a possibility of choosing the reference directions months after the data is collected, so that one can be sure there was no communication between the two sides of the experiment.

Joy

report post as inappropriate

Dear Cristi,

I know I cannot convince Joy, but maybe I can convince you. Peres' analasys is really easy: (http://www.fisica.net/quantica/Peres%20-%20Quantum%20Theory

%

20Concepts%20and%20Methods.pdf page 176)

Assume that the rotation direction is randomly distributed with equal weight on the sphere. We know each pair of fragments is perfectly anticorrelated from angular momentim conservation. Pick 2 arbitrary directions a and b and project the angular momentum of a fragment on those 2 directions. Half will spin in one direction and the other the opposite way. It all depends on which semi-sphere the angular momentum points. The semi-sphere is bounded by the plane perpendicular to a or b. The two planes cut the sphere in 4 segments with alternating signs for the projection for both a and b. The area for plus or minus is proportional with the angle between the vectors and you recover the standard Bell answer.

So to your question 1, the answer is yes. Assuming uniform distribution and random measuring a and b directions, Bell's result is a straightforward trivial mathematical consequnce.

In this case the elements of reality are the actusl angular momenta of the fragments. There is no freedom to redefine them for whatever reasons; they are set in stone by the measurement procedure for this experiment. The random distribution is also set in stone by the proposed preparation procedure of the experiment.

This is where Joy's analasys goes bad. He is confusing this experiment with the hidden variable case where one is indeed free to choose the elements of reality anyway one sees fit, provided that the QM results are recovered in the end. Once the experiment is proposed, there is no such freedom anymore. Joy thinks his mathematical model apply here, and I say (and Peres' elementary analasys proves) it does not. If needed, I can break the proof into simple elementary steps and arrive at Bell's result in the end (and each step would be completely and totally non-objectionable).

Florin

report post as inappropriate

I know I cannot convince Joy, but maybe I can convince you. Peres' analasys is really easy: (http://www.fisica.net/quantica/Peres%20-%20Quantum%20Theory

%

20Concepts%20and%20Methods.pdf page 176)

Assume that the rotation direction is randomly distributed with equal weight on the sphere. We know each pair of fragments is perfectly anticorrelated from angular momentim conservation. Pick 2 arbitrary directions a and b and project the angular momentum of a fragment on those 2 directions. Half will spin in one direction and the other the opposite way. It all depends on which semi-sphere the angular momentum points. The semi-sphere is bounded by the plane perpendicular to a or b. The two planes cut the sphere in 4 segments with alternating signs for the projection for both a and b. The area for plus or minus is proportional with the angle between the vectors and you recover the standard Bell answer.

So to your question 1, the answer is yes. Assuming uniform distribution and random measuring a and b directions, Bell's result is a straightforward trivial mathematical consequnce.

In this case the elements of reality are the actusl angular momenta of the fragments. There is no freedom to redefine them for whatever reasons; they are set in stone by the measurement procedure for this experiment. The random distribution is also set in stone by the proposed preparation procedure of the experiment.

This is where Joy's analasys goes bad. He is confusing this experiment with the hidden variable case where one is indeed free to choose the elements of reality anyway one sees fit, provided that the QM results are recovered in the end. Once the experiment is proposed, there is no such freedom anymore. Joy thinks his mathematical model apply here, and I say (and Peres' elementary analasys proves) it does not. If needed, I can break the proof into simple elementary steps and arrive at Bell's result in the end (and each step would be completely and totally non-objectionable).

Florin

report post as inappropriate

Cristi, and Joy,

Apparently I was writing my reply at the same time Joy was writing his. Now Joy claims something interesting: the distribution is not uniform. In this case it will be possible to generate correlations different from Bell, but I need to think a bit about this before I will reply. (I highly suspect the correlations will be under Bell's limit).

Florin

report post as inappropriate

Apparently I was writing my reply at the same time Joy was writing his. Now Joy claims something interesting: the distribution is not uniform. In this case it will be possible to generate correlations different from Bell, but I need to think a bit about this before I will reply. (I highly suspect the correlations will be under Bell's limit).

Florin

report post as inappropriate

As to how to a physics model big enough to contain Gravity and the Standard Model

might be constructed consistently with the Joy Christian 7-sphere structure,

here is a suggestion:

when you look at the algebra of the 7-sphere

you see that it does not close into a 7-dim Lie algebra

but does expand into 28-dim D4 Lie algebra

which is the bivector algebra of the real Clifford algebra Cl(8)

which is the 8-periodicity building block of all real Clifford algebras

since

Cl(8) x ...(N times tensor product)... x Cl(8) = Cl(8N)

and

in particular, Cl(8) x Cl(8) = Cl(16) which has D8 bivector Lie algebra.

Cl(16) contains 248-dim E8 = 120-dim adjoint D8 + 128-dim half-spinor D8

so

that any physics model with Lagrangian structure based on E8

should be consistent with Joy Christian's quantum model.

Further,

if you take the union of all tensor products of the type

Cl(16) x ...(N times tensor product)... x Cl(16)

and take the completion of that union

you should get a generalization of the II1 von Neumann factor algebra

that describes an Algebraic Quantum Field Theory

derived from the Lagrangians based on the E8 contained in each Cl(16).

Tony Smith

report post as inappropriate

might be constructed consistently with the Joy Christian 7-sphere structure,

here is a suggestion:

when you look at the algebra of the 7-sphere

you see that it does not close into a 7-dim Lie algebra

but does expand into 28-dim D4 Lie algebra

which is the bivector algebra of the real Clifford algebra Cl(8)

which is the 8-periodicity building block of all real Clifford algebras

since

Cl(8) x ...(N times tensor product)... x Cl(8) = Cl(8N)

and

in particular, Cl(8) x Cl(8) = Cl(16) which has D8 bivector Lie algebra.

Cl(16) contains 248-dim E8 = 120-dim adjoint D8 + 128-dim half-spinor D8

so

that any physics model with Lagrangian structure based on E8

should be consistent with Joy Christian's quantum model.

Further,

if you take the union of all tensor products of the type

Cl(16) x ...(N times tensor product)... x Cl(16)

and take the completion of that union

you should get a generalization of the II1 von Neumann factor algebra

that describes an Algebraic Quantum Field Theory

derived from the Lagrangians based on the E8 contained in each Cl(16).

Tony Smith

report post as inappropriate

Hi Tony,

I agree, but the short-cut to that answer is something I posted on another thread:

Joy's 7-sphere represents the (7+1)-D math of an octonion. Furthermore, Kissing-7-Spheres leads directly to the 8-D E8 Gosset lattice.

I live in Tallahassee. Perhaps we could try to get together and talk about these ideas the next time you visit Valdosta?

Have Fun!

report post as inappropriate

I agree, but the short-cut to that answer is something I posted on another thread:

Joy's 7-sphere represents the (7+1)-D math of an octonion. Furthermore, Kissing-7-Spheres leads directly to the 8-D E8 Gosset lattice.

I live in Tallahassee. Perhaps we could try to get together and talk about these ideas the next time you visit Valdosta?

Have Fun!

report post as inappropriate

Well the team seems more important than I thoughts.How many are you in fact, me I am alone and just like that I eat your pseudos sceinces, you imagine if I had a tealm also with me, kill me really before.ahahah yes I am crazzy and already dead ahahah do you listen me during your nights, and beforze your dreams, be sure I will be there to say you my theory.Yopur last strategy is to be nice with me or to kill me.Meditate on that.You are very bad fallen.

Ray, when you speak with your friends, say them that it is time to be in the universal reason. But it is just a suggestion. The patriotism is just a human invention, we are all humans, brothers without borders, you can see the universality in this simple evidence.The complexity always returns to simplicity. To be or not to be , That is the question ray.In the past, I thought you shall be in my team in the future, I know now where you go and why you go.

Steve

report post as inappropriate

Ray, when you speak with your friends, say them that it is time to be in the universal reason. But it is just a suggestion. The patriotism is just a human invention, we are all humans, brothers without borders, you can see the universality in this simple evidence.The complexity always returns to simplicity. To be or not to be , That is the question ray.In the past, I thought you shall be in my team in the future, I know now where you go and why you go.

Steve

report post as inappropriate

Hi Steve,

Currently, I am primarily corresponding with Jonathan Dickau and Owen Cunningham. Of the three of us, I think that Jon is the best writer, I have the broadest physics background, and Owen is the best programmer - we each have our strengths and contributions to the group. Every once in a while, we bounce an idea off of Lawrence Crowell - whom I think is corresponding with Christian Corda. I think that Tom Ray has some interesting ideas, but we have not yet worked together. In our last paper, Jon and I studied the websites of some physics mavericks like Tony Smith and Doug Sweetser. I bounce an occasional idea off of Lubos Motl, but try not to overextend my welcome because he is the 'star' of his blog site, and he will cut some people short. Garrett Lisi defriended me on Facebook - we have not had any contact in about a year. To my knowledge, I have not had any direct contact with John Baez. And I mailed Lee Smolin a copy of my book three years ago, but I have never heard from him.

The funny thing is I have not met any of these people. Just like you and me, we all have our own ideas as to what should comprise a TOE, and we may not necessarily agree with everything that the other is doing.

As a Floridian, I am isolated from most of these people. Tony Smith lives about 500 km from me, but he occasionally does business in Valdosta - which is only about 150 km away. That is a reasonable day trip in my opinion.

As a Belgian, you are also isolated from most of these people. Probably the closest regular FQXi bloggers are your Dutch neighbors: Wilhelmus de Wilde and Peter van Gaalen.

Have Fun and Keep Thinking Free!

Ray

report post as inappropriate

Currently, I am primarily corresponding with Jonathan Dickau and Owen Cunningham. Of the three of us, I think that Jon is the best writer, I have the broadest physics background, and Owen is the best programmer - we each have our strengths and contributions to the group. Every once in a while, we bounce an idea off of Lawrence Crowell - whom I think is corresponding with Christian Corda. I think that Tom Ray has some interesting ideas, but we have not yet worked together. In our last paper, Jon and I studied the websites of some physics mavericks like Tony Smith and Doug Sweetser. I bounce an occasional idea off of Lubos Motl, but try not to overextend my welcome because he is the 'star' of his blog site, and he will cut some people short. Garrett Lisi defriended me on Facebook - we have not had any contact in about a year. To my knowledge, I have not had any direct contact with John Baez. And I mailed Lee Smolin a copy of my book three years ago, but I have never heard from him.

The funny thing is I have not met any of these people. Just like you and me, we all have our own ideas as to what should comprise a TOE, and we may not necessarily agree with everything that the other is doing.

As a Floridian, I am isolated from most of these people. Tony Smith lives about 500 km from me, but he occasionally does business in Valdosta - which is only about 150 km away. That is a reasonable day trip in my opinion.

As a Belgian, you are also isolated from most of these people. Probably the closest regular FQXi bloggers are your Dutch neighbors: Wilhelmus de Wilde and Peter van Gaalen.

Have Fun and Keep Thinking Free!

Ray

report post as inappropriate

Our origins trace back to the center of the human body.

There is no true difference between inanimate and animate in keeping with the fact that being and experience and thought are ultimately inseparable and interactive.

You physicists here at FQXi.org are in the Stone Ages compared to me because you refuse to admit to the fundamentally integrated and interactive nature of being, experience, and thought.

This is, in fact, too much for you all to handle -- both emotionally and thoughtfully -- but I'm not finished with your lessons boys.

Reality/truth/nature just doesn't go away, however -- not without a fight.

You better start seriously examining what (including the effects of) you are doing here.

Have you ever noticed that the invisible eye/body seamlessly adjoins invisible/visible space? Now take this together with the visible body adjoining the visible ground.

What does this mean to you weirdos here who cannot think? I really don't care, but it proves how lost you all are.

report post as inappropriate

There is no true difference between inanimate and animate in keeping with the fact that being and experience and thought are ultimately inseparable and interactive.

You physicists here at FQXi.org are in the Stone Ages compared to me because you refuse to admit to the fundamentally integrated and interactive nature of being, experience, and thought.

This is, in fact, too much for you all to handle -- both emotionally and thoughtfully -- but I'm not finished with your lessons boys.

Reality/truth/nature just doesn't go away, however -- not without a fight.

You better start seriously examining what (including the effects of) you are doing here.

Have you ever noticed that the invisible eye/body seamlessly adjoins invisible/visible space? Now take this together with the visible body adjoining the visible ground.

What does this mean to you weirdos here who cannot think? I really don't care, but it proves how lost you all are.

report post as inappropriate

Hi Joy,

Let's assume that there is such a probability distribution like that predicted by you: so that the correlations it provides depend only on a·b. I will call such a thing "Joy probability distribution" or JPD. I will present a succession of steps leading from this hypothesis to a contradiction.

#1. The dot product is invariant under rotations: we can apply a rotation to a and b and we get the same a·b. It follows that the rotation of a JPD is also a JPD.

#2. From equation (16) in arxiv:0806.3078, page 4, we can easily see that if two sets of directions satisfy JPD, their union also satisfy it. Therefore, the arithmetic mean of some JPDs having the same N is again a JPD.

#3. Let us take all rotations of a JPD. By #1, they are also JPD's. By #2, their arithmetic mean is also a JPD. Of course, we will have to take the limit and instead of summing, integrate over all possible rotations of the initial JPD, with respect to the uniform spherical measure which gives the area of the sphere 1, and we obtain again a Joy probability distribution.

#4. But the Joy probability distribution from #3 is nothing but the uniform spherical distribution. This means that the uniform spherical distribution is a JPD.

#5. The uniform spherical distribution leads to a correlation linear in the angle, and not at -a·b, contradicting thus #4.

Hence, unless you point a mistake in my reasoning, the hypothesis that there is a JPD (a probability distribution so that the correlations it provides depend only on a·b) is incorrect.

Respectfully,

Cristi Stoica

report post as inappropriate

Let's assume that there is such a probability distribution like that predicted by you: so that the correlations it provides depend only on a·b. I will call such a thing "Joy probability distribution" or JPD. I will present a succession of steps leading from this hypothesis to a contradiction.

#1. The dot product is invariant under rotations: we can apply a rotation to a and b and we get the same a·b. It follows that the rotation of a JPD is also a JPD.

#2. From equation (16) in arxiv:0806.3078, page 4, we can easily see that if two sets of directions satisfy JPD, their union also satisfy it. Therefore, the arithmetic mean of some JPDs having the same N is again a JPD.

#3. Let us take all rotations of a JPD. By #1, they are also JPD's. By #2, their arithmetic mean is also a JPD. Of course, we will have to take the limit and instead of summing, integrate over all possible rotations of the initial JPD, with respect to the uniform spherical measure which gives the area of the sphere 1, and we obtain again a Joy probability distribution.

#4. But the Joy probability distribution from #3 is nothing but the uniform spherical distribution. This means that the uniform spherical distribution is a JPD.

#5. The uniform spherical distribution leads to a correlation linear in the angle, and not at -a·b, contradicting thus #4.

Hence, unless you point a mistake in my reasoning, the hypothesis that there is a JPD (a probability distribution so that the correlations it provides depend only on a·b) is incorrect.

Respectfully,

Cristi Stoica

report post as inappropriate

erratum: please instead of "so that the correlations it provides depend only on a·b"

read

"so that the correlations it provides =- a·b".

report post as inappropriate

read

"so that the correlations it provides =- a·b".

report post as inappropriate

what I proved above is that if a probability distribution of the lambdas is such that the correlations depend only on a·b, for example E(a,b)=f(a·b), then f(a·b) has to be the same as for the uniform spherical distribution.

report post as inappropriate

report post as inappropriate

Cristi,

Your mistake is that you insist on talking about probability distributions. You will not find any mention of probabilities in my papers, and for good reasons. I deal directly with measurement results for individual physical systems, and so do Einstein, Bell, and Peres. It is well known that factorized probabilites cannot lead to correlations stronger than linear. So why bother with such a useless concept? The goal is to make a correct prediction for the experiemnt at hand using correct physics. Probabilites are not physics. They may be useful elsewhere, but not for the problem at hand. You will find the correct physics and mathematics for the problem at hand in my papers.

Joy

report post as inappropriate

Your mistake is that you insist on talking about probability distributions. You will not find any mention of probabilities in my papers, and for good reasons. I deal directly with measurement results for individual physical systems, and so do Einstein, Bell, and Peres. It is well known that factorized probabilites cannot lead to correlations stronger than linear. So why bother with such a useless concept? The goal is to make a correct prediction for the experiemnt at hand using correct physics. Probabilites are not physics. They may be useful elsewhere, but not for the problem at hand. You will find the correct physics and mathematics for the problem at hand in my papers.

Joy

report post as inappropriate

Hi Joy,

You said "Your mistake is that you insist on talking about probability distributions. You will not find any mention of probabilities in my papers, and for good reasons."

I can obtain the same conclusion without mentioning "probabilities", as you did in your papers. You predicted that for large numbers the correlation (whatever "correlation" is) is E(a,b) = -a·b (*).

#1. The dot product is invariant under rotations: we can apply a rotation to a and b and we get the same a·b. It follows that if for a set of lambdas (*) holds, it also holds for a rotation of this set.

#2. From equation (16) in arxiv:0806.3078, page 4, we can easily see that if two sets of directions satisfy (*), their union also satisfy it. Therefore, the arithmetic mean of some such sets having the same N satisfies again (*).

#3. Let us take all rotations of a set of lamdas which satisfies (*). By #1, these rotations also satisfy it. By #2, their arithmetic mean also satisfy it. Of course, we will have to take the limit and instead of summing, integrate over all possible rotations of the initial set of lambdas, with respect to the uniform spherical measure which gives the area of the sphere 1, and we obtain again a set of lambdas satisfying (*).

#4. But the set of lambdas from from #3 is uniformly distributed on the sphere.

#5. But such a set of lambdas as in #3 leads to a correlation linear in the angle, and not at -a·b, contradicting thus the hypothesis that such a set of lambdas satisfying (*) which you predicted exists.

Therefore your prediction is incorrect.

Best regards,

Cristi Stoica

report post as inappropriate

You said "Your mistake is that you insist on talking about probability distributions. You will not find any mention of probabilities in my papers, and for good reasons."

I can obtain the same conclusion without mentioning "probabilities", as you did in your papers. You predicted that for large numbers the correlation (whatever "correlation" is) is E(a,b) = -a·b (*).

#1. The dot product is invariant under rotations: we can apply a rotation to a and b and we get the same a·b. It follows that if for a set of lambdas (*) holds, it also holds for a rotation of this set.

#2. From equation (16) in arxiv:0806.3078, page 4, we can easily see that if two sets of directions satisfy (*), their union also satisfy it. Therefore, the arithmetic mean of some such sets having the same N satisfies again (*).

#3. Let us take all rotations of a set of lamdas which satisfies (*). By #1, these rotations also satisfy it. By #2, their arithmetic mean also satisfy it. Of course, we will have to take the limit and instead of summing, integrate over all possible rotations of the initial set of lambdas, with respect to the uniform spherical measure which gives the area of the sphere 1, and we obtain again a set of lambdas satisfying (*).

#4. But the set of lambdas from from #3 is uniformly distributed on the sphere.

#5. But such a set of lambdas as in #3 leads to a correlation linear in the angle, and not at -a·b, contradicting thus the hypothesis that such a set of lambdas satisfying (*) which you predicted exists.

Therefore your prediction is incorrect.

Best regards,

Cristi Stoica

report post as inappropriate

Hi Joy,

Can you show a set of lambdas for which E(a,b) = -a·b for any a and b, where E(a,b) is calculated by the formula (16) from your paper arxiv:0806.3078?

Cristi

report post as inappropriate

Can you show a set of lambdas for which E(a,b) = -a·b for any a and b, where E(a,b) is calculated by the formula (16) from your paper arxiv:0806.3078?

Cristi

report post as inappropriate

Nature and life prefer LOW ENERGY, not high energy, FQXi.org. Again, you really need to, and you are going to, stop lying.

True/fundamental gravitational and inertial equivalency fundamentally balances attaction and repulsion and combines and includes larger and smaller space in conjunction with low energy and instantaneity.

I demonstrated all of this, and more, in/as dream experience FQXi.org.

FQXi.org, your credibility is ruined. How do you think that it will be salvaged?

report post as inappropriate

True/fundamental gravitational and inertial equivalency fundamentally balances attaction and repulsion and combines and includes larger and smaller space in conjunction with low energy and instantaneity.

I demonstrated all of this, and more, in/as dream experience FQXi.org.

FQXi.org, your credibility is ruined. How do you think that it will be salvaged?

report post as inappropriate

Hi Joy, Hi all,

HERE IS THE SECOND HALF OF JOY'S EXPERIMENT!

In the paper arxiv:0806.3078v2, page 4, Joy proposes an experiment.

The first part of the experiment consists in exploding balls in a particular way and collect the resulting angular momenta.

The second part of his experiment is done by a computer, which calculates the correlations according to equation (19) from Joy's paper. To perform the second part of the experiment, you need the list of angular momenta from the first part.

I created an application which does precisely the second part of the experiment. You can paste a list of angular momenta which is produced by the first part of Joy's experiment, and then test it as in Joy's article (unfortunatelly it will not work in Internet Explorer, but feel free to use Mozilla, Chrome, or Opera).

Of course, I do not require anyone to actually do the experiment, YOU CAN PRODUCE THE LIST OF ANGULAR MOMENTA BY ANY MEANS YOU WANT. You can calculate such a list, assuming that Joy's theory provides the means. Use any Geometric Algebra and any Hopf fibrations you wish, if you believe that only they can provide the correct results.

In my application you can also see what correlations a random list of angular momenta can provide. The randomly generated data looks like it is predicted. You can use it to exemplify Bell's theorem.

If you don't trust me, you can ask your browser to show you the source code and check it yourself (this is why I implemented it in JavaScript).

In a comment above I proved mathematically that Joy's prediction is impossible, and that the only correlations depending only on the angle between a and b are those linear in the angle.

If you disagree with my proof but are unable to find a mistake, please produce a counterexample, and you are free to test it in my application.

Best regards,

Cristi Stoica

report post as inappropriate

HERE IS THE SECOND HALF OF JOY'S EXPERIMENT!

In the paper arxiv:0806.3078v2, page 4, Joy proposes an experiment.

The first part of the experiment consists in exploding balls in a particular way and collect the resulting angular momenta.

The second part of his experiment is done by a computer, which calculates the correlations according to equation (19) from Joy's paper. To perform the second part of the experiment, you need the list of angular momenta from the first part.

I created an application which does precisely the second part of the experiment. You can paste a list of angular momenta which is produced by the first part of Joy's experiment, and then test it as in Joy's article (unfortunatelly it will not work in Internet Explorer, but feel free to use Mozilla, Chrome, or Opera).

Of course, I do not require anyone to actually do the experiment, YOU CAN PRODUCE THE LIST OF ANGULAR MOMENTA BY ANY MEANS YOU WANT. You can calculate such a list, assuming that Joy's theory provides the means. Use any Geometric Algebra and any Hopf fibrations you wish, if you believe that only they can provide the correct results.

In my application you can also see what correlations a random list of angular momenta can provide. The randomly generated data looks like it is predicted. You can use it to exemplify Bell's theorem.

If you don't trust me, you can ask your browser to show you the source code and check it yourself (this is why I implemented it in JavaScript).

In a comment above I proved mathematically that Joy's prediction is impossible, and that the only correlations depending only on the angle between a and b are those linear in the angle.

If you disagree with my proof but are unable to find a mistake, please produce a counterexample, and you are free to test it in my application.

Best regards,

Cristi Stoica

report post as inappropriate

I also attach the source code here, for those who want to see it.

attachments: correlations.html

report post as inappropriate

attachments: correlations.html

report post as inappropriate

Cristi's simulation has nothing whatsoever to do with my proposed experiment.

Joy

report post as inappropriate

Joy

report post as inappropriate

Hi Joy,

If it is your word against mine, I have no chance here, and you know it. So I ask you to precisely point the mistake in my proof. Also, please point what is wrong with my algorithm, because it does exactly the second part of the experiment you wrote in your paper.

Please read carefully. I DID NOT MADE A SIMULATION OF YOUR EXPERIMENT, as you said. I made the program which does precisely THE SECOND PART OF YOUR EXPERIMENT. It just takes a list of angular momenta and calculates your equation (19).

The only thing you should provide to my program is the outcome of the first part of your experiment - the list of angular momenta.

I already gave a proof that this list cannot provide the correlations you claim it does. But if you can produce the list, by any means you want, you can just paste it in my application.

I did the application to help you, but if you don't like, please provide the code you consider correct for the second part of your experiment. This way, you will allow other people to test various sets of angular momenta, and see if anyone can obtain your prediction.

report post as inappropriate

If it is your word against mine, I have no chance here, and you know it. So I ask you to precisely point the mistake in my proof. Also, please point what is wrong with my algorithm, because it does exactly the second part of the experiment you wrote in your paper.

Please read carefully. I DID NOT MADE A SIMULATION OF YOUR EXPERIMENT, as you said. I made the program which does precisely THE SECOND PART OF YOUR EXPERIMENT. It just takes a list of angular momenta and calculates your equation (19).

The only thing you should provide to my program is the outcome of the first part of your experiment - the list of angular momenta.

I already gave a proof that this list cannot provide the correlations you claim it does. But if you can produce the list, by any means you want, you can just paste it in my application.

I did the application to help you, but if you don't like, please provide the code you consider correct for the second part of your experiment. This way, you will allow other people to test various sets of angular momenta, and see if anyone can obtain your prediction.

report post as inappropriate

Dear Florin, and anyone else who knows math and/or at least elementary computer programming

I need your help.

1) Please check my mathematical proof that any list of angular momenta which provide E(a,b) depending exclusively on the angle between a and b, when introduced in equation (19) of arxiv:0806.3078v2, page 4, provides the same correlation as a list of angular momenta uniformly distributed in all directions. This means that any such correlation is linear, and not -cos, as Joy claims.

2) Please check whether the script I created actually does the second part of Joy's experiment.

Then, please post the results of your verifications. If you find a mistake, please state it clearly. If not, please write that you did not find any mistake. Please do not fill the space with pure speculations of why Joy or me cannot be right, but be precise.

After all, my arguments reduce just to simple math operations, and a simple implementation of the algorithms calculating them, as it is described in Joy's paper, so it should not be so hard for you guys.

Thank you,

Cristi Stoica

report post as inappropriate

I need your help.

1) Please check my mathematical proof that any list of angular momenta which provide E(a,b) depending exclusively on the angle between a and b, when introduced in equation (19) of arxiv:0806.3078v2, page 4, provides the same correlation as a list of angular momenta uniformly distributed in all directions. This means that any such correlation is linear, and not -cos, as Joy claims.

2) Please check whether the script I created actually does the second part of Joy's experiment.

Then, please post the results of your verifications. If you find a mistake, please state it clearly. If not, please write that you did not find any mistake. Please do not fill the space with pure speculations of why Joy or me cannot be right, but be precise.

After all, my arguments reduce just to simple math operations, and a simple implementation of the algorithms calculating them, as it is described in Joy's paper, so it should not be so hard for you guys.

Thank you,

Cristi Stoica

report post as inappropriate

Correct me when I'm wrong, but one of the problems might be your angle calculation between a and b: you take both a and b as random 3d unit vectors, and use the angle between them. This doesn't correspond to the normal angle difference in a 2d plane between Alice's and Bobs filter setting.

report post as inappropriate

report post as inappropriate

Well, this is not the experiment with photons polarizations. It is the experiment described in Joy's paper, which is in fact the thought experiment from Peres's book, and it allows all directions in space. Anyway, before making it public, I tried what you say: to have the photons in just one plane, along one line, and other constraints. You can simply replace the z axis with 0 in the javascript code and get what you say.

You are free to try any rules you think may help constructing the correlations predicted by Joy.

report post as inappropriate

You are free to try any rules you think may help constructing the correlations predicted by Joy.

report post as inappropriate

I attach an annotated version of page 4 from Joy's article. I draw on it what part my program does. It does not "simulate" Joy's complete experiment, as Joy misunderstood. His experiment has two parts. Part 1 outputs a list of angular momenta. Part 2 is done by computer: generate random pairs a and b, and applies equation (16) to the list of angular momenta generated by the first part.

My program receives as input a list of angular momenta. Then it just generate the a and b pairs, and calculates (16), as described in Joy's paper. This can be done as well with pen and paper.

My program waits Joy or anyone else to provide the list of angular momenta, and to plot the results.

Until then, you can use it to generate random lists of angular momenta and see what happens.

Or you can try to guess a list of angular momenta which will make the results be along the -cos curve, rather than along the line segment.

report post as inappropriate

My program receives as input a list of angular momenta. Then it just generate the a and b pairs, and calculates (16), as described in Joy's paper. This can be done as well with pen and paper.

My program waits Joy or anyone else to provide the list of angular momenta, and to plot the results.

Until then, you can use it to generate random lists of angular momenta and see what happens.

Or you can try to guess a list of angular momenta which will make the results be along the -cos curve, rather than along the line segment.

report post as inappropriate

Unless I forgot again, something is happening to my attachments. I provide instead a link.

report post as inappropriate

report post as inappropriate

No one can provide Cristi the list of angular momenta he demands. No list of angular momenta within Cristi's scheme can generate the cosine curve. We know this since 1964.

Joy

report post as inappropriate

Joy

report post as inappropriate

Everyone

Somewhere in all this, has the basic constitution of reality been lost?

In very simple terms: 'something exists independently of us, and we experience it, individually'.

In more words:

While it has to be assumed that understanding of our existence involves presuppositions and limitations, for the scientific process that is irrelevant. Because, as it is not possible to transcend our existence, we cannot experience anything beyond its confines. So, since the possible state of ‘not-existence’ is unknowable, by definition we can deem experience of our existence a valid closed system. For the scientific process then, the task is to investigate reality as experienced by us, and not conjecture about the unknowable.

Evidence shows that reality exists independently of experience, which is effected at the individual level. The information from reality which we experience is, in the initial phases of the entire process of knowledge acquisition, enabled by different media. So for every existent event in reality, there exist sensory representations thereof. The reality we experience, individually, is a reality of sensory representations. We do not ‘know’ reality directly. Optical images, sound, vibration, etc, are all the result of real physical phenomena, instigated by an independent reality.

This reality can only ever be approximated, by a process of extrapolation, from those individual sensory experiences. The aim of that process being to identify, and then eliminate, any aspect of the outcome which is a function of the process itself. However, at the practical level, it is unlikely that we are able to experience all types of phenomena. Therefore, in order to avoid the loss of potential knowledge, the criteria for what can be accepted as reality must be extended to include entities whose existence can only be determined logically from other validated experiences. Albeit their status remains that of a hypothetical reality, until proven otherwise.

© Paul Reed

10 June 2011

report post as inappropriate

Somewhere in all this, has the basic constitution of reality been lost?

In very simple terms: 'something exists independently of us, and we experience it, individually'.

In more words:

While it has to be assumed that understanding of our existence involves presuppositions and limitations, for the scientific process that is irrelevant. Because, as it is not possible to transcend our existence, we cannot experience anything beyond its confines. So, since the possible state of ‘not-existence’ is unknowable, by definition we can deem experience of our existence a valid closed system. For the scientific process then, the task is to investigate reality as experienced by us, and not conjecture about the unknowable.

Evidence shows that reality exists independently of experience, which is effected at the individual level. The information from reality which we experience is, in the initial phases of the entire process of knowledge acquisition, enabled by different media. So for every existent event in reality, there exist sensory representations thereof. The reality we experience, individually, is a reality of sensory representations. We do not ‘know’ reality directly. Optical images, sound, vibration, etc, are all the result of real physical phenomena, instigated by an independent reality.

This reality can only ever be approximated, by a process of extrapolation, from those individual sensory experiences. The aim of that process being to identify, and then eliminate, any aspect of the outcome which is a function of the process itself. However, at the practical level, it is unlikely that we are able to experience all types of phenomena. Therefore, in order to avoid the loss of potential knowledge, the criteria for what can be accepted as reality must be extended to include entities whose existence can only be determined logically from other validated experiences. Albeit their status remains that of a hypothetical reality, until proven otherwise.

© Paul Reed

10 June 2011

report post as inappropriate

Cristi,

It is too complicated to navigate around this website, and I am starting a new thread here. You asked for my help in checking your proof and source code. I will be happy to. Please do me a favor though:

Can you please copy paste it in a file and attach them to a reply to this post? For the code, please do not add any HTML formatting and just put the Java script functions?

Thanks,

Florin

PS: I accepted your linked in invitation. It's a small world. I see that you know Stupariu Sorin. He did a PhD in geometry in Switzerland I think. I was coleague with him for 4 years in high school and we even sat next to each other for a year or so. He was the best in math in our class.

report post as inappropriate

It is too complicated to navigate around this website, and I am starting a new thread here. You asked for my help in checking your proof and source code. I will be happy to. Please do me a favor though:

Can you please copy paste it in a file and attach them to a reply to this post? For the code, please do not add any HTML formatting and just put the Java script functions?

Thanks,

Florin

PS: I accepted your linked in invitation. It's a small world. I see that you know Stupariu Sorin. He did a PhD in geometry in Switzerland I think. I was coleague with him for 4 years in high school and we even sat next to each other for a year or so. He was the best in math in our class.

report post as inappropriate

Florin,

Thank you.

I attach a document with almost no html formatting. I kept it minimal: there is the text area where the user can introduce the angular momenta, and three buttons. I used JSXGraph. Maybe I will LaTeX the proof, so that I can add the equations, which are anyway those from Joy's paper. Anyway, Joy said that it is impossible to construct a list like that, except by his experiment. And that it is irrelevant if my proof is correct anyway.

Best regards,

Cristi Stoica

attachments: 1_correlations.html

report post as inappropriate

Thank you.

I attach a document with almost no html formatting. I kept it minimal: there is the text area where the user can introduce the angular momenta, and three buttons. I used JSXGraph. Maybe I will LaTeX the proof, so that I can add the equations, which are anyway those from Joy's paper. Anyway, Joy said that it is impossible to construct a list like that, except by his experiment. And that it is irrelevant if my proof is correct anyway.

Best regards,

Cristi Stoica

attachments: 1_correlations.html

report post as inappropriate

Great work Cristi,

I checked your source code and it is perfect.

About the proof, there are a few things I did not get at first in what you posted so far. Forget about LaTeX. My advice is to make it 100% self consistent and with clear references to whatever you define. For example in #2 you state:

"It follows that if for a set of lambdas (*) holds" What lambdas are you talking about? It comes out of nowhere (in the context of the proof) and they are ill-defined. I am not criticizing the correctness of your proof. The point is to make the proof as understandable as possible and that the reader should not have to do any mental gymnastics to get it. (I think I do get your proof and where you disagree with Joy).

If you are interested, I can collaborate with you to polish its presentation. We can do it on line publicly right here, or off line (my email is fmoldove@gmail.com), whatever you like.

Florin

report post as inappropriate

I checked your source code and it is perfect.

About the proof, there are a few things I did not get at first in what you posted so far. Forget about LaTeX. My advice is to make it 100% self consistent and with clear references to whatever you define. For example in #2 you state:

"It follows that if for a set of lambdas (*) holds" What lambdas are you talking about? It comes out of nowhere (in the context of the proof) and they are ill-defined. I am not criticizing the correctness of your proof. The point is to make the proof as understandable as possible and that the reader should not have to do any mental gymnastics to get it. (I think I do get your proof and where you disagree with Joy).

If you are interested, I can collaborate with you to polish its presentation. We can do it on line publicly right here, or off line (my email is fmoldove@gmail.com), whatever you like.

Florin

report post as inappropriate

Cristi,

Oops, I did find a mistake after playing with you code,

Your function RandomDirection() does not generate a uniform distribution. Here is the corrected code:

function RandomDirection()

{

var ret = new Array(3);

ret[0] = 2*(Math.random()-0.5);

ret[1] = 2*(Math.random()-0.5);

ret[2] = 2*(Math.random()-0.5);

if(GetNorm(ret) > 1)

return RandomDirection();

return Normalize(ret);

};

Your function was generated a randomed filled 3D cube which does not traslate to a uniform S2 distribution. In the fixed version I exclude the values outside the inscribed sphere. With this change now when running your program for large enough data points the points converge to the straight line.

Florin

report post as inappropriate

Oops, I did find a mistake after playing with you code,

Your function RandomDirection() does not generate a uniform distribution. Here is the corrected code:

function RandomDirection()

{

var ret = new Array(3);

ret[0] = 2*(Math.random()-0.5);

ret[1] = 2*(Math.random()-0.5);

ret[2] = 2*(Math.random()-0.5);

if(GetNorm(ret) > 1)

return RandomDirection();

return Normalize(ret);

};

Your function was generated a randomed filled 3D cube which does not traslate to a uniform S2 distribution. In the fixed version I exclude the values outside the inscribed sphere. With this change now when running your program for large enough data points the points converge to the straight line.

Florin

report post as inappropriate

Professor Joy,

You said:

"You are not kidding anyone. Why do you keep uploading just the last page out of context I wonder?"

Please count how many times I gave the link to your full paper (9 times), versus how many times I provided the link to the last page with my annotations (3 times). These are cold, impartial numbers. Someone may think that you are trying to misrepresent my position...

I linked to the page 4 when I wanted to show something which was there: your proposed experiment. Because you misunderstood my program as being a simulation of your full experiment, I annotated on the copy of your page 4 to show which part of your experiment is done by my program, and that it is not a simulation.

So many brilliant ideas are rejected just because are not mainstream, without being given a good reason for this. I think that it is the duty of the reviewers and critics to actually explain where a particular "impossible" theory goes wrong, not to refute it "without opening it", just on the basis of a no-go theorem.

This is why I invested with pleasure two weeks in studying your papers, with the intention to help you, with the little I can. The help can come as blindly acceptance, but also can come as constructive criticism. It also came as a modest computer program which does the second part of your experiment.

I feel that my help is not welcome and the pleasure was not reciprocal. I regret that my good intentions are perceived as aggression on your theory. It's fine, I am busy these days, and I cannot continue to provide you my unsolicited help.

I have anyway the feeling that you are about to understand what I was trying to communicate to you.

Respectfully,

Cristi Stoica

report post as inappropriate

You said:

"You are not kidding anyone. Why do you keep uploading just the last page out of context I wonder?"

Please count how many times I gave the link to your full paper (9 times), versus how many times I provided the link to the last page with my annotations (3 times). These are cold, impartial numbers. Someone may think that you are trying to misrepresent my position...

I linked to the page 4 when I wanted to show something which was there: your proposed experiment. Because you misunderstood my program as being a simulation of your full experiment, I annotated on the copy of your page 4 to show which part of your experiment is done by my program, and that it is not a simulation.

So many brilliant ideas are rejected just because are not mainstream, without being given a good reason for this. I think that it is the duty of the reviewers and critics to actually explain where a particular "impossible" theory goes wrong, not to refute it "without opening it", just on the basis of a no-go theorem.

This is why I invested with pleasure two weeks in studying your papers, with the intention to help you, with the little I can. The help can come as blindly acceptance, but also can come as constructive criticism. It also came as a modest computer program which does the second part of your experiment.

I feel that my help is not welcome and the pleasure was not reciprocal. I regret that my good intentions are perceived as aggression on your theory. It's fine, I am busy these days, and I cannot continue to provide you my unsolicited help.

I have anyway the feeling that you are about to understand what I was trying to communicate to you.

Respectfully,

Cristi Stoica

report post as inappropriate

I don't want to get sucked into a flame war, but I don't think that Joy Christian lacks any understanding of what you're trying to do, Cristi. It just doesn't have relevance to his theory.

Did I not explain in sufficient detail the difference between quantum configuration space (the space investigated both in the Bell-Aspect experiments and in any computer program relating to quantum nonlocality) and physical spacetime? We're all busy, and none of us are getting paid for this.

Tom

report post as inappropriate

Did I not explain in sufficient detail the difference between quantum configuration space (the space investigated both in the Bell-Aspect experiments and in any computer program relating to quantum nonlocality) and physical spacetime? We're all busy, and none of us are getting paid for this.

Tom

report post as inappropriate

Cristi,

I appreciate your trying to help me (and I take your word for your good intentions), but sadly you have completely missed the point of my proposed experiment. Both your "proof" and your "simulation" are totally irrelevant for my argument. What I have proposed in the experiment is to test the actual physical behaviour of the two angular momenta in tandem. By starting at the output end rather than the input end of the physical problem you have confused operationally relevant quantities with the physically relevant quantities in my argument. In statistical terms, you have confused raw scores with standard scores in my argument. To fully understand my argument it should be read as a whole, not as two separate pieces. Better still, it should be read in conjunction with my latest papers, which explains it more fully. If you do that, then you might understand way what you are doing is completely irrelevant for my argument.

Joy

report post as inappropriate

I appreciate your trying to help me (and I take your word for your good intentions), but sadly you have completely missed the point of my proposed experiment. Both your "proof" and your "simulation" are totally irrelevant for my argument. What I have proposed in the experiment is to test the actual physical behaviour of the two angular momenta in tandem. By starting at the output end rather than the input end of the physical problem you have confused operationally relevant quantities with the physically relevant quantities in my argument. In statistical terms, you have confused raw scores with standard scores in my argument. To fully understand my argument it should be read as a whole, not as two separate pieces. Better still, it should be read in conjunction with my latest papers, which explains it more fully. If you do that, then you might understand way what you are doing is completely irrelevant for my argument.

Joy

report post as inappropriate

Joy, et al

OK, so this comes from 'left of field', BUT has anybody taken a few minutes to relate all this maths, etc to existent reality? The reality we inhabit exists independently of us. So, many of the concepts that underpin QM do not exist. The point is we only know reality through experienceable representations thereof (sight, hearing, etc). For example, an observation is a light based representation of reality. The problems we have in understanding reality at the particle level are purely a function of the process of detection, they do not reflect inherent characteristics of reality. Reality is not indeterminate, it does not exist in 'various' forms until we experience it, etc, etc. Objective and subjective knowledge, as used in QM, relate to knowledge of the 'system'. But that is all it is, knowledge. Real objectivity is concerned with whether any given entity alluded to actually exists, independently of us, not as a concept.

What I am saying is, perhaps investigating any given theorm is a 'red herring' because the fundamental flaw lies in the assumption in QM as to how we relate to reality, which is incorrect.

Paul

report post as inappropriate

OK, so this comes from 'left of field', BUT has anybody taken a few minutes to relate all this maths, etc to existent reality? The reality we inhabit exists independently of us. So, many of the concepts that underpin QM do not exist. The point is we only know reality through experienceable representations thereof (sight, hearing, etc). For example, an observation is a light based representation of reality. The problems we have in understanding reality at the particle level are purely a function of the process of detection, they do not reflect inherent characteristics of reality. Reality is not indeterminate, it does not exist in 'various' forms until we experience it, etc, etc. Objective and subjective knowledge, as used in QM, relate to knowledge of the 'system'. But that is all it is, knowledge. Real objectivity is concerned with whether any given entity alluded to actually exists, independently of us, not as a concept.

What I am saying is, perhaps investigating any given theorm is a 'red herring' because the fundamental flaw lies in the assumption in QM as to how we relate to reality, which is incorrect.

Paul

report post as inappropriate

Okay, so long as we're focusing on only that last page of Joy's proposed experiment (actually, it's a sketch of experimental protocol), why don't we talk about the meaning of a statement that you didn't comment on:

"(mu.n)are elements of two different grades in the algebra Cl3,0 (one is a scalar and the other a bivector), physically they represent one and the same rotor quantity [2]."

I'm seeing that the chief difficulty Joy is having in communicating his intent is truly the reviewer's unfamiliarity with the mathematical terms. It's clear to me that the dimensionless magnitude represented by the scalar coupled to a one dimension channel represented by the bivector implies pair correlation of differently weighted quantities at arbitrary distance from the origin that contains 100% information of the initial condition. (I tried to illustrate this independently of Joy's theory by showing a correlated pair of irreducible prime integers [P_1,P_2] that remain correlated regardless of the difference in magnitude between the primes, i.e., the distance separating them on R.)

Just previously, Joy had made the point that the derivations of (lambda.n) and (mu.n) are operationally identical. So there's no point in plugging a computer-generated list of lambdas which obviously do not convey 100% information of the initial condition into the pair correlation that does. Just as Joy said, the lambdas are a calculational artifact.

Tom

report post as inappropriate

"(mu.n)are elements of two different grades in the algebra Cl3,0 (one is a scalar and the other a bivector), physically they represent one and the same rotor quantity [2]."

I'm seeing that the chief difficulty Joy is having in communicating his intent is truly the reviewer's unfamiliarity with the mathematical terms. It's clear to me that the dimensionless magnitude represented by the scalar coupled to a one dimension channel represented by the bivector implies pair correlation of differently weighted quantities at arbitrary distance from the origin that contains 100% information of the initial condition. (I tried to illustrate this independently of Joy's theory by showing a correlated pair of irreducible prime integers [P_1,P_2] that remain correlated regardless of the difference in magnitude between the primes, i.e., the distance separating them on R.)

Just previously, Joy had made the point that the derivations of (lambda.n) and (mu.n) are operationally identical. So there's no point in plugging a computer-generated list of lambdas which obviously do not convey 100% information of the initial condition into the pair correlation that does. Just as Joy said, the lambdas are a calculational artifact.

Tom

report post as inappropriate

I was composing my post to Cristi conccurently with Joy's last post. Mine was not intended as a followup to Joy's, but it's gratifying to see we agree in principle. I do hope we can get the terms clear and move forward on this significant work.

Tom

report post as inappropriate

Tom

report post as inappropriate

Everyone

Paul,

I am not sure what your background is, but the problems we are concerned with here revolve around a very specific criterion or reality put forward by Einstein, Podolsky, and Rosen (EPR) in 1935. I, for one, take for granted that anyone interested in the issues raised by Bell's theorem is familiar with the history of this notion of reality presumed by EPR. You, however, do not seem to be familiar with this history, which is intimately tied with the history of quantum mechanics.

Joy

This illuminates the problem. Worrying about the correctness of EPR, Bell, etc is irrelevant. Because the problem lies in a fundamental premise of QM, as to how we interact with reality. Take the projector Joy uses in the video. If we brought the entire human race AND all animal life forms into the room (the latter is important because most arguments presume reality is a human preserve), then EVERY SINGLE organism would recognise its existence. The animals would sit, walk/swim round it, etc. The differences in describing the reality of projector would be due to sensory capability, culture, etc. In other words, the differences are a function of the PROCESS of experiencing reality, not reality itself. Within the constraints of our existence, which we cannot transcend, reality exists, in one form, independently, of all living life forms capable of experiencing it.

Now, until proven otherwise, there is no reason whatsoever to presume that elementary particles behave in any form of 'irrational' way when compared to more composite entities. As stated some 100 years ago, studying them is certainly a different, and problematic, enterprise. But those practical issues must not be reified and attributed to inherent characteristics of the reality of elementary particles. Neither should the way in which we actually intereact with reality be contravened, because we are considering elementary particles rather than elephants. Even if the simple fault has been disguised by a whole range of complex sounding concepts such as uncertainty, complementarity, entanglement, superposition, waveform collapse, local reality, hidden variables, etc, etc.

Just put your pens down for 5 minutes and think about it.

Paul

report post as inappropriate

Paul,

I am not sure what your background is, but the problems we are concerned with here revolve around a very specific criterion or reality put forward by Einstein, Podolsky, and Rosen (EPR) in 1935. I, for one, take for granted that anyone interested in the issues raised by Bell's theorem is familiar with the history of this notion of reality presumed by EPR. You, however, do not seem to be familiar with this history, which is intimately tied with the history of quantum mechanics.

Joy

This illuminates the problem. Worrying about the correctness of EPR, Bell, etc is irrelevant. Because the problem lies in a fundamental premise of QM, as to how we interact with reality. Take the projector Joy uses in the video. If we brought the entire human race AND all animal life forms into the room (the latter is important because most arguments presume reality is a human preserve), then EVERY SINGLE organism would recognise its existence. The animals would sit, walk/swim round it, etc. The differences in describing the reality of projector would be due to sensory capability, culture, etc. In other words, the differences are a function of the PROCESS of experiencing reality, not reality itself. Within the constraints of our existence, which we cannot transcend, reality exists, in one form, independently, of all living life forms capable of experiencing it.

Now, until proven otherwise, there is no reason whatsoever to presume that elementary particles behave in any form of 'irrational' way when compared to more composite entities. As stated some 100 years ago, studying them is certainly a different, and problematic, enterprise. But those practical issues must not be reified and attributed to inherent characteristics of the reality of elementary particles. Neither should the way in which we actually intereact with reality be contravened, because we are considering elementary particles rather than elephants. Even if the simple fault has been disguised by a whole range of complex sounding concepts such as uncertainty, complementarity, entanglement, superposition, waveform collapse, local reality, hidden variables, etc, etc.

Just put your pens down for 5 minutes and think about it.

Paul

report post as inappropriate

For me, the question of whether Joy's theory is true or not, is settled. It is.

Knowing that in the larger world it will probably be controversial for a while longer, however, I'd like to get a dialogue started along the line that "If Joy Christian is right, these consequences follow ..."

Having found my "lost notebook" as I mentioned in Florin's blog "To be or not to be ..." I...

view entire post

Knowing that in the larger world it will probably be controversial for a while longer, however, I'd like to get a dialogue started along the line that "If Joy Christian is right, these consequences follow ..."

Having found my "lost notebook" as I mentioned in Florin's blog "To be or not to be ..." I...

view entire post

report post as inappropriate

Dear Tom,

I'm not sure that 'settled' is the proper term.

My concern is that Equation 8 of paper 11060748 leads Joy to an answer of ±1 and Joy interprets this as the spin of the photon – either up or down. On my first read-through of his paper, I interpreted this as the wavefunction symmetry, and a full solution should include all complex phases exp(iθ)(Anyons) between −1 (Fermions with θ=π) and +1 (Bosons with θ=0,2π).

Anyons exist on a 2-D membrane, have continuous symmetry characteristics ranging from Fermion to Boson, and MAY also be tachyons. If Joy is accidentally using tachyons (and is interpreting it differently) then this completely negates any conclusions about locality vs. non-locality because theoretical tachyons of imaginary mass always travel faster than the speed of

light.

Thus far, my comments have been ignored. Am I 'crazzy', or am I looking at it wrong? Regardless - no one has responded to my concerns.

Furthermore, Cristi and Delta Kilo have expressed concerns. I know that Cristi is tired of being teamed-up on (and this is part of why I have been somewhat quiet), and I haven't seen an answer to D.K's concerns.

Even if Joy's math is 100% correct (and I am concerned about a potential fault for not including all complex solutions, and D.K. is concerned about a possibly inconsistent use of scalars, vectors and tensors), we must be sure that his interpretations are 100% correct.

Have Fun!

report post as inappropriate

I'm not sure that 'settled' is the proper term.

My concern is that Equation 8 of paper 11060748 leads Joy to an answer of ±1 and Joy interprets this as the spin of the photon – either up or down. On my first read-through of his paper, I interpreted this as the wavefunction symmetry, and a full solution should include all complex phases exp(iθ)(Anyons) between −1 (Fermions with θ=π) and +1 (Bosons with θ=0,2π).

Anyons exist on a 2-D membrane, have continuous symmetry characteristics ranging from Fermion to Boson, and MAY also be tachyons. If Joy is accidentally using tachyons (and is interpreting it differently) then this completely negates any conclusions about locality vs. non-locality because theoretical tachyons of imaginary mass always travel faster than the speed of

light.

Thus far, my comments have been ignored. Am I 'crazzy', or am I looking at it wrong? Regardless - no one has responded to my concerns.

Furthermore, Cristi and Delta Kilo have expressed concerns. I know that Cristi is tired of being teamed-up on (and this is part of why I have been somewhat quiet), and I haven't seen an answer to D.K's concerns.

Even if Joy's math is 100% correct (and I am concerned about a potential fault for not including all complex solutions, and D.K. is concerned about a possibly inconsistent use of scalars, vectors and tensors), we must be sure that his interpretations are 100% correct.

Have Fun!

report post as inappropriate

Another interesting thing in that notebook. I found a longhand message to Lev Goldfarb in a forum that Brendan had set aside titled "Limits of mathematics in cosmology" for the sole purpose of discussing Lev's ETS program (colloquially speaking, numberless computing). Lev and I have been going around about this for several years. Insofar as Lev and I share many opinions on computing and information theory (including the role of time independent of space), one wonders if Lev's "pairs of primitives" correspond to pair correlations in Joy's theory. I'll leave that judgment to others. The dialoque is in the thread "Lev Goldfarb wrote on Aug. 23, 2010 @ 14:48 GMT" "T H Ray replied on Aug. 26, 2010 @ 16:58 GMT"

Tom

report post as inappropriate

Tom

report post as inappropriate

Ray,

There are no complex numbers or complex solutions in geometric algebra. And Bell's theorem is about local-realistic (or "classical") theories, not quantum theory.

Joy

report post as inappropriate

There are no complex numbers or complex solutions in geometric algebra. And Bell's theorem is about local-realistic (or "classical") theories, not quantum theory.

Joy

report post as inappropriate

Dear Joy,

I agree that if we stay on the surface of an imaginary 7-sphere or an imaginary 3-sphere, then all points on the surface are real/space-like (all radii are imaginary/time-like), but you still require a phase between 0 and 2 pi to define a point on the circle of 2-spheres intersecting a 3-sphere (each 'point' on the 3-sphere surface requires 4 coordinates, which can be reduced down to the phase within a 3-D plane). I don't see a simple plus or minus unity solution.

Bell's Theorem seems to contradict some quantum postulates, but a complete proof must include some quantum concepts. I think that a particularly quantum property that needs to be considered is wavefunction symmetry. Why are Bosons and Fermions so different? Why do antisymmetric Fermions obey the Pauli Exclusion Principle, but symmetric Bosons do not? Classical physics cannot explain these phenomena. Have you accomplished anything if you use purely classical operators to prove a classical concept? Have you proven locality vs. non-locality if your solution necessitates non-local Anyonic tachyons?

I'm not interested in a long-term debate. I just wanted to say my 'nickel's worth'.

Have Fun!

report post as inappropriate

I agree that if we stay on the surface of an imaginary 7-sphere or an imaginary 3-sphere, then all points on the surface are real/space-like (all radii are imaginary/time-like), but you still require a phase between 0 and 2 pi to define a point on the circle of 2-spheres intersecting a 3-sphere (each 'point' on the 3-sphere surface requires 4 coordinates, which can be reduced down to the phase within a 3-D plane). I don't see a simple plus or minus unity solution.

Bell's Theorem seems to contradict some quantum postulates, but a complete proof must include some quantum concepts. I think that a particularly quantum property that needs to be considered is wavefunction symmetry. Why are Bosons and Fermions so different? Why do antisymmetric Fermions obey the Pauli Exclusion Principle, but symmetric Bosons do not? Classical physics cannot explain these phenomena. Have you accomplished anything if you use purely classical operators to prove a classical concept? Have you proven locality vs. non-locality if your solution necessitates non-local Anyonic tachyons?

I'm not interested in a long-term debate. I just wanted to say my 'nickel's worth'.

Have Fun!

report post as inappropriate

Ray,

I appreciate your questions and concerns. The numbers +1 and -1 appear in my formalism as limiting cases of the general multivectors (see, e.g., eq. (19) and the discussion that follows). These limiting cases behave exactly as the measurement results considered by Bell in his first paper. There is no question of looking for solutions of the kind you are suggesting. Bell's theorem concerns only about coming up with a correct set of Bell-like functions that reproduce the quantum correlations in a local-realistic manner. In particular, Bell's theorem is not about quantum theory at all, and Bell's proof does not employ a single postulate of quantum theory. I recommend going through Bell's original paper and his proof. I am afraid you have fundamentally misunderstood what Bell's theorem is all about. What I have to show to counter Bell's theorem (and what I have indeed shown) is that I can reproduce any quantum mechanical correlation (i.e., any quantum mechanical expectation value) purely local-realistically. That is all one has to do to counter Bell's theorem (in fact one has to do much less, but let me be generous to Bell).

Joy

report post as inappropriate

I appreciate your questions and concerns. The numbers +1 and -1 appear in my formalism as limiting cases of the general multivectors (see, e.g., eq. (19) and the discussion that follows). These limiting cases behave exactly as the measurement results considered by Bell in his first paper. There is no question of looking for solutions of the kind you are suggesting. Bell's theorem concerns only about coming up with a correct set of Bell-like functions that reproduce the quantum correlations in a local-realistic manner. In particular, Bell's theorem is not about quantum theory at all, and Bell's proof does not employ a single postulate of quantum theory. I recommend going through Bell's original paper and his proof. I am afraid you have fundamentally misunderstood what Bell's theorem is all about. What I have to show to counter Bell's theorem (and what I have indeed shown) is that I can reproduce any quantum mechanical correlation (i.e., any quantum mechanical expectation value) purely local-realistically. That is all one has to do to counter Bell's theorem (in fact one has to do much less, but let me be generous to Bell).

Joy

report post as inappropriate

Dear Joy,

I understand that Bell's original inequality is based on classical statistics, and Tom is the one who says "think classically", but if you really want to settle the local vs. non-local question, you need to include QUANTUM entanglement, and you can't accidentally include NON-LOCAL Anyons.

A 3-sphere could decompose into a circle of 2-spheres, not a two-valued bivector of 2-spheres. I think that you have artificially collapsed the 3rd spatial dimension, and this confusion has led to further confusion in your interpretation of spin-up and spin-down photons (how would a longitudinal Z boson behave in your scenario?).

Perhaps we are on different wavelengths, and need to "agree to disagree" for now. I did not come here to "kick sand in your face" on your blog thread. I was simply disagreeing with Tom's opinion that this question is "settled".

Have Fun!

report post as inappropriate

I understand that Bell's original inequality is based on classical statistics, and Tom is the one who says "think classically", but if you really want to settle the local vs. non-local question, you need to include QUANTUM entanglement, and you can't accidentally include NON-LOCAL Anyons.

A 3-sphere could decompose into a circle of 2-spheres, not a two-valued bivector of 2-spheres. I think that you have artificially collapsed the 3rd spatial dimension, and this confusion has led to further confusion in your interpretation of spin-up and spin-down photons (how would a longitudinal Z boson behave in your scenario?).

Perhaps we are on different wavelengths, and need to "agree to disagree" for now. I did not come here to "kick sand in your face" on your blog thread. I was simply disagreeing with Tom's opinion that this question is "settled".

Have Fun!

report post as inappropriate

As I read some of the responses to my blog post, I think the following four reasons may explain why my ideas are not understood by some:

(1) The first reason is my own limitations of presenting my ideas. The nine papers I have written on the subject were written in the course of four years, with the earlier papers inevitably being less clear in presentation than the latter. Ideally I would like to go back and rewrite all of the nine papers to make a single comprehensible argument out of them. But that is of course not possible for all sorts of practical reasons.

(2) The second reason is the unusual language of geometric algebra I have used in my papers. Geometric algebra is a powerful and comprehensive mathematical language, but unfortunately it is also based on rather unfamiliar ideas that require getting used to. At first sight the symbols appearing in this language may appear the same as the ones we are used to, but they are not. The physical and mathematical meanings of the symbols are quite different.

(3) The third reason is the incredible confusion that exists in the community about what exactly Bell's theorem is all about and what exactly it is supposed to say about the future theory of physics. It is ironic that for a theorem that has made such an impressive sociological impact on the community, not a single clear and universally-agreed statement exists. In most commentaries on the theorem one only finds some vague and non-rigorous ideas of the theorem, compounded by much inflated informal claims. For example, claims like: "no local and realistic theory can reproduce all of the predictions of quantum mechanics." It is of course impossible to give a rigorous proof of such a nebulous statement. Nevertheless, it is this non-rigorous statement that is believed-in by many. Worse still, the actual rigorous proof of the theorem, as it appears for example in Bell's original paper in the limited context of the EPR-Bohm correlations, is itself interpreted differently by different proponents of the theorem. This has been quite a self-serving strategy for the followers of Bell, since it allows them to obligingly move the goalpost whenever the previously held goalpost comes under attack. For a non-expert it then becomes impossible to judge who is right and who is wrong.

(4) Finally, the fourth reason for the miscomprehension of my ideas is plain and simple intellectual inertia. We are indoctrinated by Bell's theorem for the past 47 years and we understand it well. So why bother with a new perspective? It goes against the paradigm in any case, and moreover it relies on a mathematical language that is not what we were brought up with. It is not necessary to leave our mathematical and conceptual comfort zones.

Joy Christian

report post as inappropriate

(1) The first reason is my own limitations of presenting my ideas. The nine papers I have written on the subject were written in the course of four years, with the earlier papers inevitably being less clear in presentation than the latter. Ideally I would like to go back and rewrite all of the nine papers to make a single comprehensible argument out of them. But that is of course not possible for all sorts of practical reasons.

(2) The second reason is the unusual language of geometric algebra I have used in my papers. Geometric algebra is a powerful and comprehensive mathematical language, but unfortunately it is also based on rather unfamiliar ideas that require getting used to. At first sight the symbols appearing in this language may appear the same as the ones we are used to, but they are not. The physical and mathematical meanings of the symbols are quite different.

(3) The third reason is the incredible confusion that exists in the community about what exactly Bell's theorem is all about and what exactly it is supposed to say about the future theory of physics. It is ironic that for a theorem that has made such an impressive sociological impact on the community, not a single clear and universally-agreed statement exists. In most commentaries on the theorem one only finds some vague and non-rigorous ideas of the theorem, compounded by much inflated informal claims. For example, claims like: "no local and realistic theory can reproduce all of the predictions of quantum mechanics." It is of course impossible to give a rigorous proof of such a nebulous statement. Nevertheless, it is this non-rigorous statement that is believed-in by many. Worse still, the actual rigorous proof of the theorem, as it appears for example in Bell's original paper in the limited context of the EPR-Bohm correlations, is itself interpreted differently by different proponents of the theorem. This has been quite a self-serving strategy for the followers of Bell, since it allows them to obligingly move the goalpost whenever the previously held goalpost comes under attack. For a non-expert it then becomes impossible to judge who is right and who is wrong.

(4) Finally, the fourth reason for the miscomprehension of my ideas is plain and simple intellectual inertia. We are indoctrinated by Bell's theorem for the past 47 years and we understand it well. So why bother with a new perspective? It goes against the paradigm in any case, and moreover it relies on a mathematical language that is not what we were brought up with. It is not necessary to leave our mathematical and conceptual comfort zones.

Joy Christian

report post as inappropriate

Dear Joy Christian,

You wrote: "The physical and mathematical meanings of the symbols are quite different." Indeed.

Tom wrote: "The 1's in Joy Christian's framework are not hyperspace elements. They are results in real analysis, Lebesgue integrable."

Did you ever consider the possibility that there might be serious flaws at least in the physical interpretation of what we inherited e.g. from Dirichlet and related real analysis? For instance, I looked in vain for a compelling justification of

lim n-->oo sn(x) = ½ ((f(x + 0) + f(x − 0))

James questioned the theory of relativity. You cautiously avoided being misunderstood as a crank. I am not quite sure. On one hand, there are experimental results that seem to confirm the relativistic addition of velocities. On the other hand, neo-Lorentzian interpretation is likewise possible, and Einstein's idea requires a tense-less theory.

I tend to guess: We must not comprehend the world as a closed system. Maybe, relativity is just a simplification that fits well in Galilean mechanics. Electromagnetic fields are not likewise locally enclosed. Isn't possibly the situation similar to the linearized theory of sound. The absolute pressure of air is also restricted to positive values as is elapsed time. Isn't it?

Regards,

Eckard

report post as inappropriate

You wrote: "The physical and mathematical meanings of the symbols are quite different." Indeed.

Tom wrote: "The 1's in Joy Christian's framework are not hyperspace elements. They are results in real analysis, Lebesgue integrable."

Did you ever consider the possibility that there might be serious flaws at least in the physical interpretation of what we inherited e.g. from Dirichlet and related real analysis? For instance, I looked in vain for a compelling justification of

lim n-->oo sn(x) = ½ ((f(x + 0) + f(x − 0))

James questioned the theory of relativity. You cautiously avoided being misunderstood as a crank. I am not quite sure. On one hand, there are experimental results that seem to confirm the relativistic addition of velocities. On the other hand, neo-Lorentzian interpretation is likewise possible, and Einstein's idea requires a tense-less theory.

I tend to guess: We must not comprehend the world as a closed system. Maybe, relativity is just a simplification that fits well in Galilean mechanics. Electromagnetic fields are not likewise locally enclosed. Isn't possibly the situation similar to the linearized theory of sound. The absolute pressure of air is also restricted to positive values as is elapsed time. Isn't it?

Regards,

Eckard

report post as inappropriate

Joy,

This paragraph seems to me to be key, or at least one of the keys, to understanding your work:

"What is important to note here is that, since the eventualities A, B, etc., are pure numbers, there is no non-commutativity involved. Thus contrary to Florin’s assertions, I do not start with assumptions any different from those of Bell as far as the eventualities themselves are concerned. Moreover, as already mentioned, there is no contextuality involved either, because all local eventualities are predetermined entirely by the orientation of the 7-sphere. Only the correlations among these eventualities depend on the dispositions of various apparatus, as they must. Thus the reason for the existence of the quantum correlations is not the local variables themselves, but the global twists and turns within the 7-sphere. The local variables are, as always, purely random, and hence they by themselves cannot possibly reproduce the quantum mechanical correlations, as correctly recognized by Bell. But what Bell failed to recognize is that this conclusion depends on the topology of the co-domain of the variables A, B, etc. In my view this topology, in general, is that of a parallelized 7-sphere."

If my messages are too far off the mark, please just say so and I will return to studying what you and others are saying.

What I see under consideration are theoretical problems that result from concessions made to relativity theory with regard to quantum effects. It is not clear to me why physicists would allow one theory to interfere with the development of the other theory when the two theories seem overall to be so incompatible (my understanding).

Your approach appears to allow for the reality of a speed limit on signalling while established a physical framework that is neither subject to that restriction nor in violation of it. If my understanding is close, do you consider "...a parallelized 7-sphere." to be a 'physical framework' or would you object to that characterization? My intent here is to free myself from preconceptions that do not apply to your work.

James

report post as inappropriate

This paragraph seems to me to be key, or at least one of the keys, to understanding your work:

"What is important to note here is that, since the eventualities A, B, etc., are pure numbers, there is no non-commutativity involved. Thus contrary to Florin’s assertions, I do not start with assumptions any different from those of Bell as far as the eventualities themselves are concerned. Moreover, as already mentioned, there is no contextuality involved either, because all local eventualities are predetermined entirely by the orientation of the 7-sphere. Only the correlations among these eventualities depend on the dispositions of various apparatus, as they must. Thus the reason for the existence of the quantum correlations is not the local variables themselves, but the global twists and turns within the 7-sphere. The local variables are, as always, purely random, and hence they by themselves cannot possibly reproduce the quantum mechanical correlations, as correctly recognized by Bell. But what Bell failed to recognize is that this conclusion depends on the topology of the co-domain of the variables A, B, etc. In my view this topology, in general, is that of a parallelized 7-sphere."

If my messages are too far off the mark, please just say so and I will return to studying what you and others are saying.

What I see under consideration are theoretical problems that result from concessions made to relativity theory with regard to quantum effects. It is not clear to me why physicists would allow one theory to interfere with the development of the other theory when the two theories seem overall to be so incompatible (my understanding).

Your approach appears to allow for the reality of a speed limit on signalling while established a physical framework that is neither subject to that restriction nor in violation of it. If my understanding is close, do you consider "...a parallelized 7-sphere." to be a 'physical framework' or would you object to that characterization? My intent here is to free myself from preconceptions that do not apply to your work.

James

report post as inappropriate

James,

I hope I am not becoming a pawn between you and Tom, but the paragraph you quote does indeed summarize the key features of my framework. However, the credit for initiating a framework within which one can formulate the meta-principle of local causality without requiring a commitment to special relativity should go to Bell himself, not me. He introduced locally causal functions, A = +1 or -1, B = +1 or -1 etc., without making any commitment to special relativity, and claimed that no such local functions can reproduce the quantum mechanical correlations. What I have shown is that they certainly can, provided the topology of their co-domain in general is taken to be that of a parallelized 7-sphere. This co-domain, however, need not be assigned any physical significance as far as the logic of my argument against Bell is concerned. On the other hand, I have arrived at the parallelized 7-sphere not by accident, but because it happens to have profound physical and mathematical significance (as I discuss in this paper). Let me put this significance in more precise but somewhat technical terms: Every single quantum mechanical correlation is what it is because the tangent bundle of the 7-sphere happens to be trivial. This elementary topological fact (which allows one to parallelize the 7-sphere by octonions), is responsible for every single quantum mechanical correlation we ever see in nature (cf. the theorem stated in my discussion above). Physically, then, the very existence of quantum correlations suggests that we live in a parallelized 7-sphere. So, to answer your question, the parallelized 7-sphere not only has logical and conceptual significance within my locally causal framework, but also has physical and mathematical significance.

Joy

report post as inappropriate

I hope I am not becoming a pawn between you and Tom, but the paragraph you quote does indeed summarize the key features of my framework. However, the credit for initiating a framework within which one can formulate the meta-principle of local causality without requiring a commitment to special relativity should go to Bell himself, not me. He introduced locally causal functions, A = +1 or -1, B = +1 or -1 etc., without making any commitment to special relativity, and claimed that no such local functions can reproduce the quantum mechanical correlations. What I have shown is that they certainly can, provided the topology of their co-domain in general is taken to be that of a parallelized 7-sphere. This co-domain, however, need not be assigned any physical significance as far as the logic of my argument against Bell is concerned. On the other hand, I have arrived at the parallelized 7-sphere not by accident, but because it happens to have profound physical and mathematical significance (as I discuss in this paper). Let me put this significance in more precise but somewhat technical terms: Every single quantum mechanical correlation is what it is because the tangent bundle of the 7-sphere happens to be trivial. This elementary topological fact (which allows one to parallelize the 7-sphere by octonions), is responsible for every single quantum mechanical correlation we ever see in nature (cf. the theorem stated in my discussion above). Physically, then, the very existence of quantum correlations suggests that we live in a parallelized 7-sphere. So, to answer your question, the parallelized 7-sphere not only has logical and conceptual significance within my locally causal framework, but also has physical and mathematical significance.

Joy

report post as inappropriate

Joy,

My message had only to do with understanding your work. I have been re-reading your posts, and those of Florin, Tom, Christi, and Ray. The discussions between you, Florin, and Tom are great. My participation has become uncomfortable for me also. Thank you for your reply.

James

report post as inappropriate

My message had only to do with understanding your work. I have been re-reading your posts, and those of Florin, Tom, Christi, and Ray. The discussions between you, Florin, and Tom are great. My participation has become uncomfortable for me also. Thank you for your reply.

James

report post as inappropriate

Joy,

You wrote, "Every single quantum mechanical correlation is what it is because the tangent bundle of the 7-sphere happens to be trivial. This elementary topological fact (which allows one to parallelize the 7-sphere by octonions), is responsible for every single quantum mechanical correlation we ever see in nature (cf. the theorem stated in my discussion above). Physically, then, the very existence of quantum correlations suggests that we live in a parallelized 7-sphere."

I cannot but agree. However, I don't thnk that a retrodiction is compelling. This is precisely the predicament that string theory is in -- complete retrodiction of known physics, and no novel predictions.

Fact is, physical results from the 2-slit experiment tell us unequivocally that quantum mechanics is nonlocal. One can't simply wish it away; Bell's theorem is just one aspect of quantum theory and nothing of the theory is coherent without nonlocality.

Let's try and play our own hand instead of asking for a re-deal:

Now that you have the framework for predicting pair correlations in Bell-Aspect, take the extra step of experimentally restoring locality by continuing rotation through 4pi. What I mean is that if you are correct in your framework, i.e., if 100% of the information in an arbitrary initial condition (all the way, in fact, to the cosmological limit) is contained on the bivector axis of arbitrary endpoints -- then the 2pi rotation of Bell-Aspect correctly correlates the pairs only 50% of the time as predicted by the "at a time" measure criteria of the experiment. Continuing through 4pi shoould restore local measure by returning a null result.

What should happen is that pair correlations corresponding to Bell-Aspect that hit (1,1) or "yes," after rotation through 2pi, when carried through to 4pi should record (0,0). Bell-Aspect correlations of (0,1), or "no," are random results that return equally random answers by rotation through 4pi. The null result, however, tells us that EVERY yes answer is 100% correlated to the initial condition, such that a continuous function eliminates nonlocal solutions and creates time dependence. This supports continuous function measure without dependence on arbitrary boundary conditions.

Experimental technical details are lacking; however, I am confident that the principle is sound. Perhaps Wineland can help.

Tom

report post as inappropriate

You wrote, "Every single quantum mechanical correlation is what it is because the tangent bundle of the 7-sphere happens to be trivial. This elementary topological fact (which allows one to parallelize the 7-sphere by octonions), is responsible for every single quantum mechanical correlation we ever see in nature (cf. the theorem stated in my discussion above). Physically, then, the very existence of quantum correlations suggests that we live in a parallelized 7-sphere."

I cannot but agree. However, I don't thnk that a retrodiction is compelling. This is precisely the predicament that string theory is in -- complete retrodiction of known physics, and no novel predictions.

Fact is, physical results from the 2-slit experiment tell us unequivocally that quantum mechanics is nonlocal. One can't simply wish it away; Bell's theorem is just one aspect of quantum theory and nothing of the theory is coherent without nonlocality.

Let's try and play our own hand instead of asking for a re-deal:

Now that you have the framework for predicting pair correlations in Bell-Aspect, take the extra step of experimentally restoring locality by continuing rotation through 4pi. What I mean is that if you are correct in your framework, i.e., if 100% of the information in an arbitrary initial condition (all the way, in fact, to the cosmological limit) is contained on the bivector axis of arbitrary endpoints -- then the 2pi rotation of Bell-Aspect correctly correlates the pairs only 50% of the time as predicted by the "at a time" measure criteria of the experiment. Continuing through 4pi shoould restore local measure by returning a null result.

What should happen is that pair correlations corresponding to Bell-Aspect that hit (1,1) or "yes," after rotation through 2pi, when carried through to 4pi should record (0,0). Bell-Aspect correlations of (0,1), or "no," are random results that return equally random answers by rotation through 4pi. The null result, however, tells us that EVERY yes answer is 100% correlated to the initial condition, such that a continuous function eliminates nonlocal solutions and creates time dependence. This supports continuous function measure without dependence on arbitrary boundary conditions.

Experimental technical details are lacking; however, I am confident that the principle is sound. Perhaps Wineland can help.

Tom

report post as inappropriate

The true unification of gravity and inertia requires instantaneity. A true and fundamental equivalency of force/energy and distance in/of space requires instantaneity. Instantaneity combines, includes, and balances larger and smaller space as the same space in keeping with this space being both (and equally) invisible and visible).

Einstein's theory of gravity entirely fails in all this regarding instantaneity. Dreams do all of this.

Again, this is why physics is so lost; and this is also why dreams unify physics.

report post as inappropriate

Einstein's theory of gravity entirely fails in all this regarding instantaneity. Dreams do all of this.

Again, this is why physics is so lost; and this is also why dreams unify physics.

report post as inappropriate

Joy,

You say, "Quantum mechanics is nonlocal. This was discovered by EPR in 1935."

I interpret that as follows: Since psi^2 is the probability that a given particle is found at a certain point at a certain time, then it could happen that the same process could produce an action in two or more places on the screen. But the detection at only one place implies some kind of non-local 'action at a distance' that prevents it from being at any other point.

Is this the 'non-local' implication of quantum mechanics that EPR implied, or is there something else I'm unaware of?

Thanks again for the fascinating discussion.

Edwin Eugene Klingman

report post as inappropriate

You say, "Quantum mechanics is nonlocal. This was discovered by EPR in 1935."

I interpret that as follows: Since psi^2 is the probability that a given particle is found at a certain point at a certain time, then it could happen that the same process could produce an action in two or more places on the screen. But the detection at only one place implies some kind of non-local 'action at a distance' that prevents it from being at any other point.

Is this the 'non-local' implication of quantum mechanics that EPR implied, or is there something else I'm unaware of?

Thanks again for the fascinating discussion.

Edwin Eugene Klingman

report post as inappropriate

Edwin,

EPR produced a much stronger argument using what we now call "quantum entanglement." In a simplified version of their argument one considers entanglement between two photons polarized along two different directions. Measurement of the polarization of one of the photons along one direction then instantaneously gives information about the polarization of the second photon, regardless of the distance between the two. This is the spooky implication of quantum mechanics EPR discovered, and used it to argue against the completeness of quantum mechanics.

Joy

report post as inappropriate

EPR produced a much stronger argument using what we now call "quantum entanglement." In a simplified version of their argument one considers entanglement between two photons polarized along two different directions. Measurement of the polarization of one of the photons along one direction then instantaneously gives information about the polarization of the second photon, regardless of the distance between the two. This is the spooky implication of quantum mechanics EPR discovered, and used it to argue against the completeness of quantum mechanics.

Joy

report post as inappropriate

Joy,

If one assumes local realism and conservation of energy and momenta, how does this imply non-locality, without a belief in superposition, which is an interpretation that is placed on top of quantum mechanics?

Edwin Eugene Klingman

report post as inappropriate

If one assumes local realism and conservation of energy and momenta, how does this imply non-locality, without a belief in superposition, which is an interpretation that is placed on top of quantum mechanics?

Edwin Eugene Klingman

report post as inappropriate

Edwin,

Without superposition there is no nonlocality. But simply denying superposition is not going to get you very far.

Joy

report post as inappropriate

Without superposition there is no nonlocality. But simply denying superposition is not going to get you very far.

Joy

report post as inappropriate

Here's quantum gravity:

The true unification of gravity and inertia requires instantaneity. A true and fundamental equivalency of force/energy and distance in/of space requires instantaneity. Instantaneity combines, includes, and balances larger and smaller space as the same space in keeping with this space being both (and equally) invisible and visible.

Ultimately, iInertia and gravity are fundamental to physics.

report post as inappropriate

The true unification of gravity and inertia requires instantaneity. A true and fundamental equivalency of force/energy and distance in/of space requires instantaneity. Instantaneity combines, includes, and balances larger and smaller space as the same space in keeping with this space being both (and equally) invisible and visible.

Ultimately, iInertia and gravity are fundamental to physics.

report post as inappropriate

The intelligibility of quantum mechanics is lacking. What is needed is the constancy/stability/sameness/cancelling/balancing of fundamental and true inertial/gravitational equivalency. Unity in variety. Complexity and order.

Space manifesting as electromagnetic/inertial/gravitational energy does the trick.

report post as inappropriate

Space manifesting as electromagnetic/inertial/gravitational energy does the trick.

report post as inappropriate

Quantum gravity is: Space manifesting as electromagnetic/inertial/gravitational energy does the trick.

report post as inappropriate

report post as inappropriate

Einstein's theory of gravity is clearly wrong on the basis [lack of] of instantaneity alone.

report post as inappropriate

report post as inappropriate

Let's see how this makes out:

joy christian local realism experiment

Tom

report post as inappropriate

joy christian local realism experiment

Tom

report post as inappropriate

Tom,

I am off to attend the FQXi conference. When I get back I will try to understand your argument.

Joy

report post as inappropriate

I am off to attend the FQXi conference. When I get back I will try to understand your argument.

Joy

report post as inappropriate

Attached is a cleaned up version of my interpretation of the Joy Christian local realism experiment that I linked earlier.

Tom

attachments: Local_Realism_Experiment1.pptx

report post as inappropriate

Tom

attachments: Local_Realism_Experiment1.pptx

report post as inappropriate

Tom,

Thank you. This time I was going to print it. I am not used to using 'powerpoint(?)'. I couldn't see how to print it. Even more important, it appeared to open so that I could make changes to it. Am I off the mark or does it need some further closing?

James

report post as inappropriate

Thank you. This time I was going to print it. I am not used to using 'powerpoint(?)'. I couldn't see how to print it. Even more important, it appeared to open so that I could make changes to it. Am I off the mark or does it need some further closing?

James

report post as inappropriate

Dang it, I'm sorry. This should be the right one!

Tom

attachments: Local_Realism_Experiment4.pptx

report post as inappropriate

Tom

attachments: Local_Realism_Experiment4.pptx

report post as inappropriate

The true unification of gravity and inertia requires instantaneity. A true and fundamental equivalency of force/energy and distance in/of space requires instantaneity. Instantaneity combines, includes, and balances larger and smaller space as the same space in keeping with this space being both (and equally) invisible and visible.

Ultimately, inertia and gravity are fundamental to physics.

Clearly, we see that this resolves the problem or paradox of object/frame.

All of this happens in dreams as the fundamental union of physics.

report post as inappropriate

Ultimately, inertia and gravity are fundamental to physics.

Clearly, we see that this resolves the problem or paradox of object/frame.

All of this happens in dreams as the fundamental union of physics.

report post as inappropriate

Sorry, the intelligibility of outer space is compromised relative to the understanding of this space -- that means comapred to dreams and typical/waking experience because being and thought and feeling and vision are ultimately and naturally balanced in a fundamental fashion.

Again boys, start with A and B before you try to leap to y and Z.

report post as inappropriate

Again boys, start with A and B before you try to leap to y and Z.

report post as inappropriate

This 2009 FQXi Forum article about octonions didn't draw a very wide response. Perhaps it's time to reconsider Tevian Dray's suggestion that spacetime is not fundamental, but rather emergent in four dimensions. I don't personally agree with the conclusion (I think every odd n of S^n incorporates a spacetime of 0 + 1 description) but it does fit into the current dialogue.

Tom

report post as inappropriate

Tom

report post as inappropriate

Hi Tom,

I almost agree with you, but would like to emphasize the exceptions. The most important S^n are the parallelizable ones, n = 0,1,3 and 7, and these correspond directly to 1-D 0-spheres, 2-D 1-spheres, 4-D 3-spheres, and 8-D 7-spheres. The 0-spheres are an 'oddball' that we should not ignore (probably related to global transformations such as the U(1) of Electromagnetism), but close-packing of the other hyper-spheres leads directly to a G2 Graphene-like lattice, an F4 24-cell lattice, and an E8 Gosset lattice. I think it is fair to say that G2 and E8 are both very relevant in current literature. F4 may be the most under-appreciated structure...

Forget S^5, S^9, etc. - a rotating S^5 would decompose into the equivalent of a 2-brane of S^3's.

By the way, I did not ignore those papers by Dray and Manogue. Lawrence and I wrote a paper that utilized the Jordan Matrix ideas in PSTJ in 2010, and some of my latest private ideas build on a similar concept.

Scales and fractals are relevant, but I have been focusing more on Octonions lately. I am playing around with multi-dimensional models in which Spacetime *MUST* be emergent.

Have Fun!

report post as inappropriate

I almost agree with you, but would like to emphasize the exceptions. The most important S^n are the parallelizable ones, n = 0,1,3 and 7, and these correspond directly to 1-D 0-spheres, 2-D 1-spheres, 4-D 3-spheres, and 8-D 7-spheres. The 0-spheres are an 'oddball' that we should not ignore (probably related to global transformations such as the U(1) of Electromagnetism), but close-packing of the other hyper-spheres leads directly to a G2 Graphene-like lattice, an F4 24-cell lattice, and an E8 Gosset lattice. I think it is fair to say that G2 and E8 are both very relevant in current literature. F4 may be the most under-appreciated structure...

Forget S^5, S^9, etc. - a rotating S^5 would decompose into the equivalent of a 2-brane of S^3's.

By the way, I did not ignore those papers by Dray and Manogue. Lawrence and I wrote a paper that utilized the Jordan Matrix ideas in PSTJ in 2010, and some of my latest private ideas build on a similar concept.

Scales and fractals are relevant, but I have been focusing more on Octonions lately. I am playing around with multi-dimensional models in which Spacetime *MUST* be emergent.

Have Fun!

report post as inappropriate

Hi Ray,

I probably shouldn't have inserted my own result into the post, because if I talk about it I will have to say a lot more. I do understand the limit of the algebra at S^7, but my method allows analytic continuation. That's really all I will have to say about it in this forum.

Anyway, my motive was to try and stimulate more discussion here that illustrates the differences -- both quantitative and qualitative -- between events in the space of quantum probabilities, and in physically real spacetime. Thanks for getting the ball rolling!

Tom

report post as inappropriate

I probably shouldn't have inserted my own result into the post, because if I talk about it I will have to say a lot more. I do understand the limit of the algebra at S^7, but my method allows analytic continuation. That's really all I will have to say about it in this forum.

Anyway, my motive was to try and stimulate more discussion here that illustrates the differences -- both quantitative and qualitative -- between events in the space of quantum probabilities, and in physically real spacetime. Thanks for getting the ball rolling!

Tom

report post as inappropriate

Hi Tom,

I think that most of us are trying to 'fit' our own results into these blogs. I don't mind you teasing us with ideas of future publications, but I *MUST* draw the line at S^5. S^7 corresponds directly with a hyperbolic octonion. Likewise, S^3, S^1 and S^0 correspond with quaternions, complex and real numbers; respectively. Coincidentally, *ALL* of these hyper-spheres are parallelizable, and *ALL* may represent normed divisor algebras. The G2, F4 and E8 Lie lattice groups that result from close-packing of S^1, S^3 and S^7, respectively, are *ALL* self-dual.

On the other hand, S^5 may be some sort of complex tri-vector, is *NOT* parallelizable (such that spinning S^5's would be unstable), and close-packing of S^5's leads to an E6 Lie group that is "NOT" self-dual. In my opinion, S^5 and E6 are 'too ugly' to be fundamental, but I know others who would argue for E6.

These dimensions and lattices are discrete in nature. I do not see how you can analytically continue the 'dimensionality' of possible Spacetimes. I agree with 'patterns', but disagree with 'continuation'.

Have Fun!

report post as inappropriate

I think that most of us are trying to 'fit' our own results into these blogs. I don't mind you teasing us with ideas of future publications, but I *MUST* draw the line at S^5. S^7 corresponds directly with a hyperbolic octonion. Likewise, S^3, S^1 and S^0 correspond with quaternions, complex and real numbers; respectively. Coincidentally, *ALL* of these hyper-spheres are parallelizable, and *ALL* may represent normed divisor algebras. The G2, F4 and E8 Lie lattice groups that result from close-packing of S^1, S^3 and S^7, respectively, are *ALL* self-dual.

On the other hand, S^5 may be some sort of complex tri-vector, is *NOT* parallelizable (such that spinning S^5's would be unstable), and close-packing of S^5's leads to an E6 Lie group that is "NOT" self-dual. In my opinion, S^5 and E6 are 'too ugly' to be fundamental, but I know others who would argue for E6.

These dimensions and lattices are discrete in nature. I do not see how you can analytically continue the 'dimensionality' of possible Spacetimes. I agree with 'patterns', but disagree with 'continuation'.

Have Fun!

report post as inappropriate

JC,

Einstein always thought quantum mechanics was incomplete. He was almost certain there must be some underlying classical-like logic to it. He said his cosmological constant was his “greatest blunder,” but I think it could be argued that this stance really turned out to be his biggest mistake.

If I am right the states of nature are given by modular forms which have an integer counting of those states as microstates in macrostates. These modular states have Borel group and parabolic group realizations. The parabolic groups give the projective geometry of light cones and the Borel groups are Heisenberg groups. There is nothing here which requires any adjustment on the logic of quantum mechanics to make it more palatable. The properties of quantum mechanics are given by projections or the span on state space, while classical logic involves unions and intersections. At the heart this is where the Bell theorem comes from.

I think what is mysterious is not quantum mechanics. Seriously, if one looks at basic QM it is a theory of linear states and a linear state space, unitary evolution, Hermitean operators and eigenvalues. What could be simpler? The existence of the macroscopic world or classical mechanics is what is mysterious. How is it that classical states of the world obtain from QM, when this theory has no contextuality? Quantum states are really in effect blind to what we call space, and only have representations of space or configuration variables. We then think of this space in a classical setting and this is what gets our panties all wedged up our butts. We orient a Stern-Gerlach apparatus according to this classical picture of space, which is what establishes the context by which we then measure eignvalues.

The counting or integer partition I indicate above pertains to black holes and AdS ~ CFT. Yet Zeh has referred to a “quantum horizon,” which might then serve a similar purpose. So maybe this might lead to an understanding of how the classical or macroscopic world emerges. The Count Rules!

Cheers LC

attachments: The_Count.JPG

report post as inappropriate

Einstein always thought quantum mechanics was incomplete. He was almost certain there must be some underlying classical-like logic to it. He said his cosmological constant was his “greatest blunder,” but I think it could be argued that this stance really turned out to be his biggest mistake.

If I am right the states of nature are given by modular forms which have an integer counting of those states as microstates in macrostates. These modular states have Borel group and parabolic group realizations. The parabolic groups give the projective geometry of light cones and the Borel groups are Heisenberg groups. There is nothing here which requires any adjustment on the logic of quantum mechanics to make it more palatable. The properties of quantum mechanics are given by projections or the span on state space, while classical logic involves unions and intersections. At the heart this is where the Bell theorem comes from.

I think what is mysterious is not quantum mechanics. Seriously, if one looks at basic QM it is a theory of linear states and a linear state space, unitary evolution, Hermitean operators and eigenvalues. What could be simpler? The existence of the macroscopic world or classical mechanics is what is mysterious. How is it that classical states of the world obtain from QM, when this theory has no contextuality? Quantum states are really in effect blind to what we call space, and only have representations of space or configuration variables. We then think of this space in a classical setting and this is what gets our panties all wedged up our butts. We orient a Stern-Gerlach apparatus according to this classical picture of space, which is what establishes the context by which we then measure eignvalues.

The counting or integer partition I indicate above pertains to black holes and AdS ~ CFT. Yet Zeh has referred to a “quantum horizon,” which might then serve a similar purpose. So maybe this might lead to an understanding of how the classical or macroscopic world emerges. The Count Rules!

Cheers LC

attachments: The_Count.JPG

report post as inappropriate

Lawrence,

Yes, I am working in the tradition of Einstein and therefore getting all these heat from all sides. I have few friends these days, intellectually speaking. It is clearly not a fashionable line of research. However, by "incomplete" Einstein did not mean "incorrect." Even Bell's theorem does not rule out a possible completion of quantum mechanics and allows, for example, a Bohm-type completion. My goal is to find out whether one can do better than Bohm. It seems to me that it is in everyone's interest to find out whether quantum mechanics is truly a complete theory of nature.

Joy

report post as inappropriate

Yes, I am working in the tradition of Einstein and therefore getting all these heat from all sides. I have few friends these days, intellectually speaking. It is clearly not a fashionable line of research. However, by "incomplete" Einstein did not mean "incorrect." Even Bell's theorem does not rule out a possible completion of quantum mechanics and allows, for example, a Bohm-type completion. My goal is to find out whether one can do better than Bohm. It seems to me that it is in everyone's interest to find out whether quantum mechanics is truly a complete theory of nature.

Joy

report post as inappropriate

Not long ago I was reading an interview with Zeilinger about closing loopholes on Bell and KS theorems. I think that if major developments along these lines take place that experimental tests will be the deciding method. Anton said there are only a couple of loopholes left to close, and this should be decided in a few years.

Cheers LC

report post as inappropriate

Cheers LC

report post as inappropriate

Lawrence,

Do you have a link to that interview? Or how long ago was it? Recently De Raedt et al, have blown the Weihs et al 1998 experiment (Zeilinger) out of the water. If the time window is thrown out, then the experiment produces Bell's result and does not violate the inequality. They also show Bell's theorem can't match physical reality just as Joy has shown for an EPRB type of scenario. It is back to square one for the experiments. But of course, I don't think a classical experiment has ever even been attempted. If a classical experiment violates the inequalities, then we would know for sure.

Best FD

report post as inappropriate

Do you have a link to that interview? Or how long ago was it? Recently De Raedt et al, have blown the Weihs et al 1998 experiment (Zeilinger) out of the water. If the time window is thrown out, then the experiment produces Bell's result and does not violate the inequality. They also show Bell's theorem can't match physical reality just as Joy has shown for an EPRB type of scenario. It is back to square one for the experiments. But of course, I don't think a classical experiment has ever even been attempted. If a classical experiment violates the inequalities, then we would know for sure.

Best FD

report post as inappropriate

Hello,

maybe this is a silly question to ask (I come from computer science, not physics), but is it not that "The quantum eraser experiment", also to a degree confirms the quantum entanglement?

Thanks. Frank

PS.: Best of luck to Mr. Christian, I truly hope you are correct.

report post as inappropriate

maybe this is a silly question to ask (I come from computer science, not physics), but is it not that "The quantum eraser experiment", also to a degree confirms the quantum entanglement?

Thanks. Frank

PS.: Best of luck to Mr. Christian, I truly hope you are correct.

report post as inappropriate

Frank,

Thank you for your question. It is not a silly question. However, nothing can really confirm quantum entanglement, because in the end all one sees in ANY experiment are correlations, not entanglement. One can have more and more confidence in the notion of quantum entanglement, but that is not the same thing. What I am trying to do is to reproduce quantum correlations without using any form of quantum entanglement.

Joy

report post as inappropriate

Thank you for your question. It is not a silly question. However, nothing can really confirm quantum entanglement, because in the end all one sees in ANY experiment are correlations, not entanglement. One can have more and more confidence in the notion of quantum entanglement, but that is not the same thing. What I am trying to do is to reproduce quantum correlations without using any form of quantum entanglement.

Joy

report post as inappropriate

Dear Joy Christian,

As you know I have been supportive of your approach to Bell's problem, although I have not felt competent to judge its correctness.

My "preference" is for a 3D plus time model of existence (4D with reservations) and I have trouble understanding a 7-dimensional reality. For example, if two 3D particles are linked or coupled by time or distance, then I can understand why the appropriate analysis would involve a 2 x (3D) plus 1 = 7 dimensional formulation, but I sense that this is not what you are suggesting.

Can you explain in simple fashion, for me and other 4D-Neanderthals who wish to better comprehend what you are up to, why 7D is required and taken as physically meaningful? That might help in 'selling' your theory. I am frustrated (as, I'm sure are you,) by the stalemate that you and Florin have reached. Tom has been a great help to you, but certainly no resolution has been reached in these FQXi blogs that would leave everyone happy.

What demands 7D? Is it the parallel transport aspect of the formulation?

I know you may prefer to stick to the math and not mess with a physics "justification", but sometimes it is useful to try to answer questions in another preferred frame of reference. One sometimes sees aspects of the problem that are not so visible in their own preferred framework.

I hope you find it worthwhile to formulate an answer for me. I hope this makes sense to you and look forward to any response.

Respectfully,

Edwin Eugene Klingman

report post as inappropriate

report post as inappropriate

As you know I have been supportive of your approach to Bell's problem, although I have not felt competent to judge its correctness.

My "preference" is for a 3D plus time model of existence (4D with reservations) and I have trouble understanding a 7-dimensional reality. For example, if two 3D particles are linked or coupled by time or distance, then I can understand why the appropriate analysis would involve a 2 x (3D) plus 1 = 7 dimensional formulation, but I sense that this is not what you are suggesting.

Can you explain in simple fashion, for me and other 4D-Neanderthals who wish to better comprehend what you are up to, why 7D is required and taken as physically meaningful? That might help in 'selling' your theory. I am frustrated (as, I'm sure are you,) by the stalemate that you and Florin have reached. Tom has been a great help to you, but certainly no resolution has been reached in these FQXi blogs that would leave everyone happy.

What demands 7D? Is it the parallel transport aspect of the formulation?

I know you may prefer to stick to the math and not mess with a physics "justification", but sometimes it is useful to try to answer questions in another preferred frame of reference. One sometimes sees aspects of the problem that are not so visible in their own preferred framework.

I hope you find it worthwhile to formulate an answer for me. I hope this makes sense to you and look forward to any response.

Respectfully,

Edwin Eugene Klingman

report post as inappropriate

Hi Edwin,

It all boils down to this conversation that Rick and Georgina are having. If you saw my latest paper with Jonathan Dickau in PSTJ 2(6), you would see that we presented clear arguments for our observed reality being Quaternion (H) - 1) the Riemann-Sommerfeld Equation clearly puts Maxwell's Inhomogeneous Equations in a form that is fully-compatible with both Quaternion and Spacetime algebra, 2) Dirac's gamma matrices are clearly Quaternion and Spacetime 4x4 solutions (that may be Cayley-Dickson constructed from pairs of Complex Numbers - the Pauli 2x2 Spin matrices), and gamma^5 is the Quaternion Pseudoscalar, and 3) the Minkowski metric (-1,+1,+1,+1) is simply an inversion of Hamilton's original Quaternion metric (+1,-1,-1,-1) whereby we interpret the quaternion scalar as 'time' and the quaternion 3-vector as 'space'.

In the same paper, we also presented ideas for an Octonuion (O) based reality.

At the very least, we should expect Scales to require that we define both small and large, which could relate to a doubling of dimensions (coincidentally this is exactly what we expect from SUSY, so I suspect a relationship between Scales and SUSY).

If we 'twist' two (3+1)-D Quaternions together, then we can 'create' a (7+1)-D Octonion via Cayley-Dickson Construction. But please note that we have performed a 'magi-matical trick' - we have converted 6 space + 2 time dimensions (two separate 3-spheres) into 7 space and 1 time dimensions (one 7-sphere). We can perform this trick at the expense of introducing imaginary numbers. Imaginary numbers might permit faster-than-light tachyons (that is one explanation for the OPERA results that is similar to, but far less complex, than my upcoming explanation of 'superluminal' neutrinos), which are the most non-local quanta that we can imagine, and therefore cannot answer the question of 'local reality'.

These 7-spheres are 8-D (and close-packing of the 7-spheres leads directly to the 8-D E8 Gosset lattice and ties in with ideas such as Heterotic Strings and Lisi's TOE) with a 1-D time-like radius, and 7-D space-like hyper-surface dimensions. Joy claims that if you stay on the surface of the hypersphere, then every hypersurface dimension can be described by 'real' coordinates at right angles to each other. I agree with this - as long as you aren't trying to split the Octonion into two Quaternions that obey different coordinate systems.

I would like to see Joy carefully detail this decomposition of the Octonion. It is relevant to theoretical physics.

Have Fun!

report post as inappropriate

It all boils down to this conversation that Rick and Georgina are having. If you saw my latest paper with Jonathan Dickau in PSTJ 2(6), you would see that we presented clear arguments for our observed reality being Quaternion (H) - 1) the Riemann-Sommerfeld Equation clearly puts Maxwell's Inhomogeneous Equations in a form that is fully-compatible with both Quaternion and Spacetime algebra, 2) Dirac's gamma matrices are clearly Quaternion and Spacetime 4x4 solutions (that may be Cayley-Dickson constructed from pairs of Complex Numbers - the Pauli 2x2 Spin matrices), and gamma^5 is the Quaternion Pseudoscalar, and 3) the Minkowski metric (-1,+1,+1,+1) is simply an inversion of Hamilton's original Quaternion metric (+1,-1,-1,-1) whereby we interpret the quaternion scalar as 'time' and the quaternion 3-vector as 'space'.

In the same paper, we also presented ideas for an Octonuion (O) based reality.

At the very least, we should expect Scales to require that we define both small and large, which could relate to a doubling of dimensions (coincidentally this is exactly what we expect from SUSY, so I suspect a relationship between Scales and SUSY).

If we 'twist' two (3+1)-D Quaternions together, then we can 'create' a (7+1)-D Octonion via Cayley-Dickson Construction. But please note that we have performed a 'magi-matical trick' - we have converted 6 space + 2 time dimensions (two separate 3-spheres) into 7 space and 1 time dimensions (one 7-sphere). We can perform this trick at the expense of introducing imaginary numbers. Imaginary numbers might permit faster-than-light tachyons (that is one explanation for the OPERA results that is similar to, but far less complex, than my upcoming explanation of 'superluminal' neutrinos), which are the most non-local quanta that we can imagine, and therefore cannot answer the question of 'local reality'.

These 7-spheres are 8-D (and close-packing of the 7-spheres leads directly to the 8-D E8 Gosset lattice and ties in with ideas such as Heterotic Strings and Lisi's TOE) with a 1-D time-like radius, and 7-D space-like hyper-surface dimensions. Joy claims that if you stay on the surface of the hypersphere, then every hypersurface dimension can be described by 'real' coordinates at right angles to each other. I agree with this - as long as you aren't trying to split the Octonion into two Quaternions that obey different coordinate systems.

I would like to see Joy carefully detail this decomposition of the Octonion. It is relevant to theoretical physics.

Have Fun!

report post as inappropriate

Hi Ray,

Thanks for the response. Of course you know that I already have some understanding of your model and am not buying it. What I don't know is how Joy views things. I've read most of his papers, and I don't see him pushing all of the dimensionality that you believe in, so I'm curious as to what he views as the most significant supporting argument for 7D (or more-D if he so subscribes.)

In particular, the only justification I've seen so far is the 'parallel transport' aspect of his approach. I'd like to know if this is his basis for going to 7D or if I'm missing the point.

Have fun, my friend.

Edwin Eugene Klingman

report post as inappropriate

Thanks for the response. Of course you know that I already have some understanding of your model and am not buying it. What I don't know is how Joy views things. I've read most of his papers, and I don't see him pushing all of the dimensionality that you believe in, so I'm curious as to what he views as the most significant supporting argument for 7D (or more-D if he so subscribes.)

In particular, the only justification I've seen so far is the 'parallel transport' aspect of his approach. I'd like to know if this is his basis for going to 7D or if I'm missing the point.

Have fun, my friend.

Edwin Eugene Klingman

report post as inappropriate

Dear Edwin,

I know you have been sympathetic to my work on Bell, and I am grateful to you for that. I am also grateful to Tom for both his strong defence of my work and his support for my wider perspective. I am grateful to Ray too, for his relentless questions, but I do not think he has understood what I am saying.

Your question is of course a very important one. Why 7D? Well, there...

view entire post

I know you have been sympathetic to my work on Bell, and I am grateful to you for that. I am also grateful to Tom for both his strong defence of my work and his support for my wider perspective. I am grateful to Ray too, for his relentless questions, but I do not think he has understood what I am saying.

Your question is of course a very important one. Why 7D? Well, there...

view entire post

report post as inappropriate