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.
By using the FQXi Forum, you acknowledge reading and agree to abide by the Terms of Use RSS feed | RSS help
RECENT POSTS IN THIS TOPIC
Joy Christian: on 10/22/12 at 19:19pm UTC, wrote I think differently. I am not trying to explain away anything. On the...
Saibal Mitra: on 10/22/12 at 18:27pm UTC, wrote I think quantum correlations should not be regarded as counter intuitive,...
Joy Christian: on 10/18/12 at 19:38pm UTC, wrote Hi Juan, If your theory satisfies the cluster decomposition principle in...
Juan Ramón González Álvarez: on 10/18/12 at 14:59pm UTC, wrote Hi Joy, in the first place thank you for the congratulations. Effectively,...
Joy Christian: on 10/17/12 at 9:28am UTC, wrote Thanks, Fred. Yes, that work of Michael is perhaps his best. I continue...
Fred Diether: on 10/17/12 at 6:42am UTC, wrote Hi Joy, I also highly recommend "Derivation of a chiral SO(3)xSO(2)xU(1)...
Joy Christian: on 10/17/12 at 4:43am UTC, wrote Do also check out the work of Michael Goodband on the 11D GR as a "theory...
Joy Christian: on 10/15/12 at 16:05pm UTC, wrote Hello Juan, Thank you for your comments. I had a brief look at your paper....
RECENT FORUM POSTS
Georgina Woodward: "I think i have experienced some aspects of my foetal neuro-biological ..." in Searching for Physical...
Jason Wolfe: "Georgina, The spirit is fully integrated into the biochemistry of the..." in Searching for Physical...
Jason Wolfe: "Many years ago, I learned a difficult truth to practice. I learned that..." in The Nature of Time
Jason Wolfe: "The speed of light is both a clock and a ruler. Speed of light c=..." in The Nature of Time
Zeeya Merali: "You're invited to a special free film screening and panel discussion event,..." in Film Screening: "Infinite...
jim hughes: "I'm not a mathematician, so the math part is mostly lost on me. And I'm..." in Structure Invention by...
Charles Harrow: "The AI only works really well in the "comfort zone", i.e. under test..." in Is Causality Fundamental?
Jason Wolfe: "In all honesty, I'm not even sure what intelligent and educated people..." in Generalised Integrated...
RECENT ARTICLES
click titles to read articles
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.
Is Causality Fundamental?
Untangling how the human perception of cause-and-effect might arise from quantum physics, may help us understand the limits and the potential of AI.
Building Agency in the Biology Lab
Physicists are using optogenetics techniques to make a rudimentary agent, from cellular components, which can convert measurements into actions using light.
Think Quantum to Build Better AI
Investigating how quantum memory storage could aid machine learning and how quantum interactions with the environment may have played a role in evolution.
Outside the Box
A proposed quantum set-up that could predict your game-playing strategy resurrects Newcomb’s classic quiz show paradox.
Joy Christian: on 10/22/12 at 19:19pm UTC, wrote I think differently. I am not trying to explain away anything. On the...
Saibal Mitra: on 10/22/12 at 18:27pm UTC, wrote I think quantum correlations should not be regarded as counter intuitive,...
Joy Christian: on 10/18/12 at 19:38pm UTC, wrote Hi Juan, If your theory satisfies the cluster decomposition principle in...
Juan Ramón González Álvarez: on 10/18/12 at 14:59pm UTC, wrote Hi Joy, in the first place thank you for the congratulations. Effectively,...
Joy Christian: on 10/17/12 at 9:28am UTC, wrote Thanks, Fred. Yes, that work of Michael is perhaps his best. I continue...
Fred Diether: on 10/17/12 at 6:42am UTC, wrote Hi Joy, I also highly recommend "Derivation of a chiral SO(3)xSO(2)xU(1)...
Joy Christian: on 10/17/12 at 4:43am UTC, wrote Do also check out the work of Michael Goodband on the 11D GR as a "theory...
Joy Christian: on 10/15/12 at 16:05pm UTC, wrote Hello Juan, Thank you for your comments. I had a brief look at your paper....
RECENT FORUM POSTS
Georgina Woodward: "I think i have experienced some aspects of my foetal neuro-biological ..." in Searching for Physical...
Jason Wolfe: "Georgina, The spirit is fully integrated into the biochemistry of the..." in Searching for Physical...
Jason Wolfe: "Many years ago, I learned a difficult truth to practice. I learned that..." in The Nature of Time
Jason Wolfe: "The speed of light is both a clock and a ruler. Speed of light c=..." in The Nature of Time
Zeeya Merali: "You're invited to a special free film screening and panel discussion event,..." in Film Screening: "Infinite...
jim hughes: "I'm not a mathematician, so the math part is mostly lost on me. And I'm..." in Structure Invention by...
Charles Harrow: "The AI only works really well in the "comfort zone", i.e. under test..." in Is Causality Fundamental?
Jason Wolfe: "In all honesty, I'm not even sure what intelligent and educated people..." in Generalised Integrated...
RECENT ARTICLES
click titles to read articles
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.
Is Causality Fundamental?
Untangling how the human perception of cause-and-effect might arise from quantum physics, may help us understand the limits and the potential of AI.
Building Agency in the Biology Lab
Physicists are using optogenetics techniques to make a rudimentary agent, from cellular components, which can convert measurements into actions using light.
Think Quantum to Build Better AI
Investigating how quantum memory storage could aid machine learning and how quantum interactions with the environment may have played a role in evolution.
Outside the Box
A proposed quantum set-up that could predict your game-playing strategy resurrects Newcomb’s classic quiz show paradox.
FQXi BLOGS
July 16, 2020
John Stewart Bell is undoubtedly one of the icons of contemporary physics. His name has become inseparable from the notion of quantum non-locality, however, Bell himself always stressed that it was Einstein--together with Podolsky and Rosen--who first recognized the non-local implications of quantum mechanics. Neither did Bell like the operational overtone wielded by quantum information theory on...
view entire post
view entire post
report post as inappropriate
Dear Joy,
Very impressive. I see why you answered in that manner. You are communicating with professionals. I am stumbling through it. Perhaps Tom will begin to post some helpful messages here.
James
report post as inappropriate
Very impressive. I see why you answered in that manner. You are communicating with professionals. I am stumbling through it. Perhaps Tom will begin to post some helpful messages here.
James
Dear James,
Many thanks for your comments. You have been a voice of reason and moderation throughout this debate. I appreciate that very much.
Joy
report post as inappropriate
Many thanks for your comments. You have been a voice of reason and moderation throughout this debate. I appreciate that very much.
Joy
My views on this topic are now published as Chapter 1 of this book.
Please also see the attached papers, which are not included in the book.
The latest discussion on the Origins of Quantum Correlations can be found on my blog.
Joy Christian
attachments: 91_Gill.pdf, Spinor.pdf
this post has been edited by the author since its original submission
report post as inappropriate
Please also see the attached papers, which are not included in the book.
The latest discussion on the Origins of Quantum Correlations can be found on my blog.
Joy Christian
 |
attachments: 91_Gill.pdf, Spinor.pdf
report post as inappropriate
Do also check out the work of Michael Goodband on the 11D GR as a "theory of everything." His work is based on the same four parallelized spheres (S0, S1, S3, and S7) as my work on the origins of quantum correlations. It is intriguing to see how he has arrived at the same conclusion about the non-fundamental nature of quantum theory by using a very different line of reasoning.
report post as inappropriate
Joy,
Let me be the first to publicly congratulate you on the extraordinarily clear introduction to your program in this latest reply to critics. I am looking forward to engaging in further dialogue.
Tom
report post as inappropriate
Let me be the first to publicly congratulate you on the extraordinarily clear introduction to your program in this latest reply to critics. I am looking forward to engaging in further dialogue.
Tom
Hi Joy,
I'm still not sure of the second half of Section V, but I also think that you might not necessarily need that argument to make your point. Lately, I have been working on 'superluminal neutrinos', and I do not have time to dedicate to that idea and this one of yours. My argument involves 10-D, part of which is a broken 7-sphere. I have reasons to think that the 7-sphere is unstable, and this is why we do not directly experience Octonion Physics.
The question is - Do octonion-like 7-spheres decompose into a complex pair of quaternion-like 3-spheres? Or do octonion-like 7-spheres decompose into a quaternion-like 3-sphere within a super-Euclidean 4-ball? The outcomes make a difference as to whether 'measurements' should be considered strictly real: +1, -1; or whether imaginary 'measurements' of +i, -i are permitted somewhere within that 8-D 7-sphere space.
Of course, imaginary mass leads to superluminal tachyons - a possible violation of 'local reality', and a possible agreement with OPERA.
Have Fun!
report post as inappropriate
I'm still not sure of the second half of Section V, but I also think that you might not necessarily need that argument to make your point. Lately, I have been working on 'superluminal neutrinos', and I do not have time to dedicate to that idea and this one of yours. My argument involves 10-D, part of which is a broken 7-sphere. I have reasons to think that the 7-sphere is unstable, and this is why we do not directly experience Octonion Physics.
The question is - Do octonion-like 7-spheres decompose into a complex pair of quaternion-like 3-spheres? Or do octonion-like 7-spheres decompose into a quaternion-like 3-sphere within a super-Euclidean 4-ball? The outcomes make a difference as to whether 'measurements' should be considered strictly real: +1, -1; or whether imaginary 'measurements' of +i, -i are permitted somewhere within that 8-D 7-sphere space.
Of course, imaginary mass leads to superluminal tachyons - a possible violation of 'local reality', and a possible agreement with OPERA.
Have Fun!
Hi Ray,
Thank you for your comments. We have gone through this argument before, haven't we?
Let me break up the idea of local causality into two parts to make my point clear: (1) no-signalling non-locality (or quantum non-locality), and (2) signalling non-locality (or relativistic non-locality).
Now if you are right and OPERA has revealed violation of relativistic locality, then all bets are off. We then enter a major paradigm shift---a major revolution in physics. Let us wait and see what the second run of OPERA reveals, but I am not losing my sleep over it.
This brings us to the no-signalling non-locality, or quantum non-locality. Here, I am afraid, both you and I are talking past each other. I don't understand your worries, and you don't seem to understand the language and framework I have been using. Within my framework measurement results are always real, +1 and -1, and they can always be constructed as limiting cases of classical, real, octonionic spinors. In statistical terms these numbers are then raw scores observed in the experiments. So, I am afraid, we have failed to communicate on this point.
Joy
report post as inappropriate
Thank you for your comments. We have gone through this argument before, haven't we?
Let me break up the idea of local causality into two parts to make my point clear: (1) no-signalling non-locality (or quantum non-locality), and (2) signalling non-locality (or relativistic non-locality).
Now if you are right and OPERA has revealed violation of relativistic locality, then all bets are off. We then enter a major paradigm shift---a major revolution in physics. Let us wait and see what the second run of OPERA reveals, but I am not losing my sleep over it.
This brings us to the no-signalling non-locality, or quantum non-locality. Here, I am afraid, both you and I are talking past each other. I don't understand your worries, and you don't seem to understand the language and framework I have been using. Within my framework measurement results are always real, +1 and -1, and they can always be constructed as limiting cases of classical, real, octonionic spinors. In statistical terms these numbers are then raw scores observed in the experiments. So, I am afraid, we have failed to communicate on this point.
Joy
Hi Joy,
Yes - We have been down this road before, and I'm not here to argue ad infinitum.
IF you have a broken 7-sphere, then:
1) it doesn't have the non-associative property of octonions, and
2) it is not particularly symmetrical - a quaternion 3-sphere and a super-Euclidean 4-ball is NOT a bi-quaternion (although Nature does not need to conform to our expectations of symmetry).
I expect the broken octonion-like 7-sphere to more-closely resemble a complex pair of quaternion-like 3-spheres. This introduces complex numbers into our 'measurements', such that a collection of 'measurements' should yield
exp(i*theta), which is a unit-radius 1-sphere within the complex Argand plane. Statistical analysis of this complex 1-sphere should lead to Anyonic Statistics, which are a generalization of Bosons and Fermions that permit superluminal tachyons. We might expect a TOE to require a generalization of Bosons and Fermions. We might also expect the inclusion of superluminal tachyons to help explain the OPERA results. Perhaps tachyons are part of the octonion non-associativity, but that gets beyond my skills.
What does it all mean? It simply means that you and I disagree on how the 7-sphere should decompose. The 7-sphere is not 'unified' or else we would experience an 8-D reality that included non-associative properties. Different 7-sphere fragments can lead to different physics.
Have Fun!
report post as inappropriate
Yes - We have been down this road before, and I'm not here to argue ad infinitum.
IF you have a broken 7-sphere, then:
1) it doesn't have the non-associative property of octonions, and
2) it is not particularly symmetrical - a quaternion 3-sphere and a super-Euclidean 4-ball is NOT a bi-quaternion (although Nature does not need to conform to our expectations of symmetry).
I expect the broken octonion-like 7-sphere to more-closely resemble a complex pair of quaternion-like 3-spheres. This introduces complex numbers into our 'measurements', such that a collection of 'measurements' should yield
exp(i*theta), which is a unit-radius 1-sphere within the complex Argand plane. Statistical analysis of this complex 1-sphere should lead to Anyonic Statistics, which are a generalization of Bosons and Fermions that permit superluminal tachyons. We might expect a TOE to require a generalization of Bosons and Fermions. We might also expect the inclusion of superluminal tachyons to help explain the OPERA results. Perhaps tachyons are part of the octonion non-associativity, but that gets beyond my skills.
What does it all mean? It simply means that you and I disagree on how the 7-sphere should decompose. The 7-sphere is not 'unified' or else we would experience an 8-D reality that included non-associative properties. Different 7-sphere fragments can lead to different physics.
Have Fun!
Ray,
I've not been able to understand this claim you continue to make, regarding "imaginary measurements." There is no such thing.
Yes, all division algebras originate in the complex plane, and have to -- because complex numbers are the only algebraically closed set, i.e., tractable to solutions under all the rational, i.e., arithmetic, operations (division, addition, multiplication and extraction of roots). When one moves up to the "hyper" classification of numbers -- quaternions and octonions -- the loss of commutativity (octonions) and loss of both commutativity and associativity (octonions) guarantees solutions restricted to the real line, R.
Further, though, Joy's framework is topological. That is why he can say that Bell's "flat plane" dependence on R independent of complex analysis is a false representation of classical measures, which are continuous, as opposed to independent discrete outcomes on R. (It is also one source of disagreement between Florin and me -- he insists that algebraic closure plays no role in geometric algebra; in fact, it plays the key role, because the algebra depends on 2-dimensional analysis at its foundation.) Let's introduce topology, in which R, which is well ordered in arithmetic (by Zorn's lemma) becomes dependent for partial order on its orientation on the sphere -- either (0, + 1] or (0, - 1]. As I noted in a previous post, these intervals can be translated to the language of improper integrals in order to restore analysis to the algebraic results.
So -- let's take the topology of S^2 (the 3-ball) and make it into a 3-sphere (S^3, the complex, or Riemann, sphere) by the operation S^2 X S^2. This is a 1-point compactification of the 2-dimension complex plane, with a point at infinity. This means that the equator of S^3 accommodates only 3 results: + 1, - 1 and the imaginary number i. And here is where I think you get tripped up, in supposing that the i is a measurement -- not so. Complex analysis (i^2 = - 1) is geomtrically interpreted as rotations in the complex plane. Joy has shown that to the limit of S^7, spherical rotations using spacetime algebra (geometric algebra) guarantee only real measurements on S^3. In other words, though we "live" in S^7, measured events are restricted to S^3 -- classical 4-dimension spacetime.
I find the case to be tightly reasoned and mathematically correct.
Tom
report post as inappropriate
I've not been able to understand this claim you continue to make, regarding "imaginary measurements." There is no such thing.
Yes, all division algebras originate in the complex plane, and have to -- because complex numbers are the only algebraically closed set, i.e., tractable to solutions under all the rational, i.e., arithmetic, operations (division, addition, multiplication and extraction of roots). When one moves up to the "hyper" classification of numbers -- quaternions and octonions -- the loss of commutativity (octonions) and loss of both commutativity and associativity (octonions) guarantees solutions restricted to the real line, R.
Further, though, Joy's framework is topological. That is why he can say that Bell's "flat plane" dependence on R independent of complex analysis is a false representation of classical measures, which are continuous, as opposed to independent discrete outcomes on R. (It is also one source of disagreement between Florin and me -- he insists that algebraic closure plays no role in geometric algebra; in fact, it plays the key role, because the algebra depends on 2-dimensional analysis at its foundation.) Let's introduce topology, in which R, which is well ordered in arithmetic (by Zorn's lemma) becomes dependent for partial order on its orientation on the sphere -- either (0, + 1] or (0, - 1]. As I noted in a previous post, these intervals can be translated to the language of improper integrals in order to restore analysis to the algebraic results.
So -- let's take the topology of S^2 (the 3-ball) and make it into a 3-sphere (S^3, the complex, or Riemann, sphere) by the operation S^2 X S^2. This is a 1-point compactification of the 2-dimension complex plane, with a point at infinity. This means that the equator of S^3 accommodates only 3 results: + 1, - 1 and the imaginary number i. And here is where I think you get tripped up, in supposing that the i is a measurement -- not so. Complex analysis (i^2 = - 1) is geomtrically interpreted as rotations in the complex plane. Joy has shown that to the limit of S^7, spherical rotations using spacetime algebra (geometric algebra) guarantee only real measurements on S^3. In other words, though we "live" in S^7, measured events are restricted to S^3 -- classical 4-dimension spacetime.
I find the case to be tightly reasoned and mathematically correct.
Tom
Joy
There is no way I can understand the maths, but to me the logic seems to work, which might not be as contradictory a statement as first appears.
I can follow the notions: needing to account for every possibility, standard scores/observed raw scores, correlations, measurements detections of one of two possible orientations (local rotations), hidden variable is the initial orientation of the physical space itself which predetermines all possible outcomes at all possible measurement directions, measurement results are not contextual in any sense, etc, etc. In other words, to me it appears, given X, to be an appropriate mathematical model for quantifying Y.
My one problem is when you say: “we live in a parallelized 3-sphere, which differs from our usual conception of the physical space as IR³ only by a single point at infinity”.
I suppose the first question is, if possible, can you explain this state in simple terms. And then comment on my immediate reaction to this (ie you may not literally mean live in, and I do not understand the state), which is that that appears to me to be a ‘leap of faith’, ie from a valid model for a purpose, to an equivalence to the logical form of the reality we inhabit. In the first place, we do not inhabit an open-ended, infinite, metaphysical reality; it is limited by our awareness. Second, our awareness is of a representation of reality which we receive, it is different from reality. For example, observation is based on a light based representation of reality, not reality.
Paul
report post as inappropriate
report post as inappropriate
There is no way I can understand the maths, but to me the logic seems to work, which might not be as contradictory a statement as first appears.
I can follow the notions: needing to account for every possibility, standard scores/observed raw scores, correlations, measurements detections of one of two possible orientations (local rotations), hidden variable is the initial orientation of the physical space itself which predetermines all possible outcomes at all possible measurement directions, measurement results are not contextual in any sense, etc, etc. In other words, to me it appears, given X, to be an appropriate mathematical model for quantifying Y.
My one problem is when you say: “we live in a parallelized 3-sphere, which differs from our usual conception of the physical space as IR³ only by a single point at infinity”.
I suppose the first question is, if possible, can you explain this state in simple terms. And then comment on my immediate reaction to this (ie you may not literally mean live in, and I do not understand the state), which is that that appears to me to be a ‘leap of faith’, ie from a valid model for a purpose, to an equivalence to the logical form of the reality we inhabit. In the first place, we do not inhabit an open-ended, infinite, metaphysical reality; it is limited by our awareness. Second, our awareness is of a representation of reality which we receive, it is different from reality. For example, observation is based on a light based representation of reality, not reality.
Paul
Paul,
By the sentence you quote I simply mean this: In non-relativistic physics one usually models the space we inhabit as a three-dimensional Euclidean continuum, R3. This space is non-compact in a very precise mathematical sense. What I am saying is that the space we actually inhabit is better modelled by a parallelized 3-sphere, S3, which is a one-point compactification of R3 achieved by mapping all of the points of R3 at infinity to a single point, while maintaining the curvature of the resulting topological sphere to be zero. The torsion of S3 will then be non-zero giving rise to the quantum (or EPR) correlations.
What you call "leap of faith" is called "inductive inference" in science. Also, my concerns at the moment are focused on one very specific problem in physics: that of understanding the origins of quantum correlations. The philosophical concerns you raise are a different can of worms.
Joy
report post as inappropriate
By the sentence you quote I simply mean this: In non-relativistic physics one usually models the space we inhabit as a three-dimensional Euclidean continuum, R3. This space is non-compact in a very precise mathematical sense. What I am saying is that the space we actually inhabit is better modelled by a parallelized 3-sphere, S3, which is a one-point compactification of R3 achieved by mapping all of the points of R3 at infinity to a single point, while maintaining the curvature of the resulting topological sphere to be zero. The torsion of S3 will then be non-zero giving rise to the quantum (or EPR) correlations.
What you call "leap of faith" is called "inductive inference" in science. Also, my concerns at the moment are focused on one very specific problem in physics: that of understanding the origins of quantum correlations. The philosophical concerns you raise are a different can of worms.
Joy
Joy
Thanks for that. Now, of course Uncle Albert came to the same conclusion, in terms of how we mathematically depict reality. It is upsetting people in this forum, but the simple fact is that his basic conception was that we live in a reality which is somewhat amorphous, due to the force of gravitation. Dimensions alter. So one has to be careful to ensure a comparison involves like with...
view entire post
Thanks for that. Now, of course Uncle Albert came to the same conclusion, in terms of how we mathematically depict reality. It is upsetting people in this forum, but the simple fact is that his basic conception was that we live in a reality which is somewhat amorphous, due to the force of gravitation. Dimensions alter. So one has to be careful to ensure a comparison involves like with...
view entire post
Dear Joy,
I have to admit that I did not believe you would actually reply on the archive to my paper. Hats off to that. However, I do not agree with your reply as you would naturally guess. I will reply to you on the archive, but I am extremely extremely busy at the moment and this debate is on my back burner for now. I hope to revisit the issue in about a month.
Best,
Florin
report post as inappropriate
I have to admit that I did not believe you would actually reply on the archive to my paper. Hats off to that. However, I do not agree with your reply as you would naturally guess. I will reply to you on the archive, but I am extremely extremely busy at the moment and this debate is on my back burner for now. I hope to revisit the issue in about a month.
Best,
Florin
I have lost interest in your criticisms. After having spent time on your preprints I have only confirmed my suspicion that you haven't understood the first thing about my framework. Once you tried to vilify Tom by telling him that he was not qualified to comment on my papers. Well, your own arguments contain high-school errors in logic, geometric algebra, basic statistics, phenomenology of the EPR-Bohm experiments, topology of the 3-sphere, the notion of contextuality, and worst of all Bell's theorem itself. I much rather spend time moving my program forward then keep responding to your criticisms. But if I am forced to, then I will.
report post as inappropriate
Frankly, I am tired too. Humpty Dumpty is broken and all the king's horses and all the king's men cannot but it together again. No cover up and empty rhetoric can rebuild the castle of cards.
report post as inappropriate
Indeed, the Humpty Dumpty of Bell-ideology is broken, and all the queen's horses and all the queen's men cannot put it back together again. No cover up, empty rhetoric, twisting of facts, or desperate denials can rebuild the castle over again.
report post as inappropriate
Joy
I suspect perhaps a plant, but I'm sure you're quite well prepared for the usual troglodyte backlash that goes with all advancement and will ebb quite slowly. This is humankind. Those of less open minds who cannot understand and fear their beliefs being corrected will always decry.
I commend you for just about the most rigorous, comprehensive and logical analysis of a construct well beyond the capabilities of most to unravel. It also seems to clarify murky physics and expose incorrect assumptions well into ontological areas beyond your present scope. I believe you may rest assured that these will flow.
Peter
Peter
report post as inappropriate
I suspect perhaps a plant, but I'm sure you're quite well prepared for the usual troglodyte backlash that goes with all advancement and will ebb quite slowly. This is humankind. Those of less open minds who cannot understand and fear their beliefs being corrected will always decry.
I commend you for just about the most rigorous, comprehensive and logical analysis of a construct well beyond the capabilities of most to unravel. It also seems to clarify murky physics and expose incorrect assumptions well into ontological areas beyond your present scope. I believe you may rest assured that these will flow.
Peter
Peter
Regarding the recent report of CERN on Higgs boson,
there is an alternative view:
change of density of quantum vacuum might generate mass
see file attached.
yours sincerely amrit
attachments: Change_of_density_of_quantum_vacuum_might_generate_mass.pdf
report post as inappropriate
there is an alternative view:
change of density of quantum vacuum might generate mass
see file attached.
yours sincerely amrit
attachments: Change_of_density_of_quantum_vacuum_might_generate_mass.pdf
Hi Joy,
I have a simple conceptual question about your model for which I hope you can give me simple conceptual answer.
You state on the first page that:
"Here mu=lambda I is a hidden variable or the complete state of the system, with lambda=± 1 being a fair coin and I = e_xe_ye_z being the fundamental volume form of the physical space."
and further down that:
"All measurement results, such as A (a,lambda) = ± 1, B(b,lambda) = ± 1, etc., are simply detections of one of the two possible orientations-or one of the two possible senses of local rotations-of this 3-sphere, predetermined by the initial state lambda= ± 1. In other words, the hidden variable in this picture is the initial orientation of the physical space itself, which predetermines all possible outcomes at all possible measurement directions in the EPR-Bohm scenario. As a result, the measurement results are not contextual in any sense. "
What I would like to know is what is the boundary of the region of space to which a particular orientation in the sense you describe applies (e.g. does a particular orientation apply to all of space, or just a region of it? If it is just a region, what separates it from another region of space which has a different orientation etc.)
Thank you
Armin
report post as inappropriate
I have a simple conceptual question about your model for which I hope you can give me simple conceptual answer.
You state on the first page that:
"Here mu=lambda I is a hidden variable or the complete state of the system, with lambda=± 1 being a fair coin and I = e_xe_ye_z being the fundamental volume form of the physical space."
and further down that:
"All measurement results, such as A (a,lambda) = ± 1, B(b,lambda) = ± 1, etc., are simply detections of one of the two possible orientations-or one of the two possible senses of local rotations-of this 3-sphere, predetermined by the initial state lambda= ± 1. In other words, the hidden variable in this picture is the initial orientation of the physical space itself, which predetermines all possible outcomes at all possible measurement directions in the EPR-Bohm scenario. As a result, the measurement results are not contextual in any sense. "
What I would like to know is what is the boundary of the region of space to which a particular orientation in the sense you describe applies (e.g. does a particular orientation apply to all of space, or just a region of it? If it is just a region, what separates it from another region of space which has a different orientation etc.)
Thank you
Armin
Hi Armin,
Good question.
We are only concerned about the space confining the closed EPR-Bell system. As a closed physical system, the two particles in it start out in an initial state defined by the sign of the volume form characterizing this space. There is no definite boundary to this space of course, because in the course of time the two particles can get as far apart from each other as they like (as long as no measurement takes place). We are not concerned about other regions of space or their possible orientations.
Does this answer your question?
Joy
report post as inappropriate
Good question.
We are only concerned about the space confining the closed EPR-Bell system. As a closed physical system, the two particles in it start out in an initial state defined by the sign of the volume form characterizing this space. There is no definite boundary to this space of course, because in the course of time the two particles can get as far apart from each other as they like (as long as no measurement takes place). We are not concerned about other regions of space or their possible orientations.
Does this answer your question?
Joy
Joy, Armin
May I get a view on the following possible alternative conception;
Any space confining a closed system must be bounded, so we propose it is bounded, and so defined, by particles of the certain orientation, and at rest in the inertial frame they bound. Perhaps free electrons at around 1m/cm^3, (as found at planetary and 'system' bow shocks).
Particles travelling within the system retain their initial state and precise qualities. Any moving between inertial systems will change state and orientation due to interaction and the system co-motion motion. (We may here consider that shocks are where two inertial systems meet, which causes the high Navier-Stokes magnetohydrodynamic 'mixing' turbulence).
This seems to derive local reality and observed effects. The changes would be lambda, frequency and orientation (optical axis rotation), which makes c co-variant, (for an observer also changing frame with the particle). [Faraday rotation, inc. IFR, and any Huygens refraction due to relative speed change are separate effects]. Subject to relative system vector the changes may be left or right handed (Chirality) and explain elliptical polarisation. This preserves the SR postulates and principles. May this also ontologically derive the correct results?
Peter
report post as inappropriate
May I get a view on the following possible alternative conception;
Any space confining a closed system must be bounded, so we propose it is bounded, and so defined, by particles of the certain orientation, and at rest in the inertial frame they bound. Perhaps free electrons at around 1m/cm^3, (as found at planetary and 'system' bow shocks).
Particles travelling within the system retain their initial state and precise qualities. Any moving between inertial systems will change state and orientation due to interaction and the system co-motion motion. (We may here consider that shocks are where two inertial systems meet, which causes the high Navier-Stokes magnetohydrodynamic 'mixing' turbulence).
This seems to derive local reality and observed effects. The changes would be lambda, frequency and orientation (optical axis rotation), which makes c co-variant, (for an observer also changing frame with the particle). [Faraday rotation, inc. IFR, and any Huygens refraction due to relative speed change are separate effects]. Subject to relative system vector the changes may be left or right handed (Chirality) and explain elliptical polarisation. This preserves the SR postulates and principles. May this also ontologically derive the correct results?
Peter
Peter,
It is important to distinguish no-signalling non-locality (or quantum non-locality) from signalling non-locality (or relativistic non-locality). Bell's theorem is primarily about the former, whereas what you are talking about is the latter. Your suggestion cannot address the issue of quantum non-locality.
Joy
report post as inappropriate
It is important to distinguish no-signalling non-locality (or quantum non-locality) from signalling non-locality (or relativistic non-locality). Bell's theorem is primarily about the former, whereas what you are talking about is the latter. Your suggestion cannot address the issue of quantum non-locality.
Joy
Ever since Paul brought up the question "why inductive inference?" (and I also see others asking for more intuitive examples of continuous measurement criteria vs. discrete experimental outcomes), I have been mulling over ways to explain it.
Let's examine a modified version of Bell's famous "Bertlmann's socks" analogy.
(Briefly, for those unfamiliar with the analogy, Professor...
view entire post
Let's examine a modified version of Bell's famous "Bertlmann's socks" analogy.
(Briefly, for those unfamiliar with the analogy, Professor...
view entire post
Tom,
Isn't that a closed system and are not closed systems inherently entropic? Which would re-introduce unpredictability.
report post as inappropriate
Isn't that a closed system and are not closed systems inherently entropic? Which would re-introduce unpredictability.
Entropy can be defined on either open or closed systems. No issue there.
report post as inappropriate
T H Ray wrote: "Entropy can be defined on either open or closed systems."
Paul Feyerabend would comment: "Anything goes".
Pentcho Valev pvalev@yahoo.com
report post as inappropriate
Paul Feyerabend would comment: "Anything goes".
Pentcho Valev pvalev@yahoo.com
Tom
Thanks for picking up my point on “inductive inference”. I think I need to stress first of all that my point was: this is a mathematical model, for a purpose, why the assumption that it therefore represents the reality we actually inhabit, ie picking up on Joy’s phrase in the paper (section 1, para 4) that “we live in”.
Perhaps we can have models, to solve a problem,...
view entire post
Thanks for picking up my point on “inductive inference”. I think I need to stress first of all that my point was: this is a mathematical model, for a purpose, why the assumption that it therefore represents the reality we actually inhabit, ie picking up on Joy’s phrase in the paper (section 1, para 4) that “we live in”.
Perhaps we can have models, to solve a problem,...
view entire post
I must go to specsavers. This is the second time today I've misposted something. Though it is obvious where it should be. More importantly, there should be the word 'not' before conjecture in the last sentence.
Paul
report post as inappropriate
Paul
Paul,
You wrote, " ... my point was: this is a mathematical model, for a purpose, why the assumption that it therefore represents the reality we actually inhabit, ie picking up on Joy’s phrase in the paper (section 1, para 4) that “we live in”."
Joy's deduction of the space we live in (the manifold of S^7) is independent of the space in which we measure (the manifold of S^4); because the unique properties of S^7 allow (and perhaps, compel) continuous measurement functions (correlations)on S^4, however, the judgment is sound, and closed, both topologically and algebraically. The important thing to understand from a scientific perspective is that we ONLY understand "reality" through our models and their correspondence to measurement. Science isn't philosophy -- we don't assume reality and then set out to prove what we assume.
"Perhaps we can have models, to solve a problem, that do not necessarily reflect reality."
Perhaps. That does not imply, however, that we have scientific understanding of physical phenomena, beyond the models that DO correspond to reality, i.e., predicted measurement.
"On your analogy. Surely, 'The simple inference is that I shower at home if and only if I didn't shower at the gym the day before', is incorrect."
No it isn't.
"All you have stated is that each day there is a wash, and either it occurs at home in the morning, or it occurs at the gym in the afternoon/evening. Therefore, to be able to take a decision on whether to wash in the morning, you have to have decided whether you are going to the gym later, on any given day."
The analogy doesn't have anything to do with what I "really" choose to do. Does a photon "really" choose to be spin up or spin down because it was observed? -- standard QM says yes, because the theory assigns value to nonlocality and therefore reality is observer-created. Classical reality isn't.
"Now, as far as I could understand, Joy’s model is an attempt to create a dependence free mathematical model which can calculate probabilities in respect of a certain form of circumstance."
No. Coordinate-free. Meaning that the model is non-contextual, and -- being mathematically complete -- can in principle calculate all outcomes with knowledge of topology and initial condition.
"Indeed, it should not be taking account of the time parameter, as such, because time does not exist."
Says who?
"Reality is changing, different entities/attributes thereof, at different rates."
Science does not assume reality.
"There is no overall ‘clock’. We use a duration measuring system, based on the best devices available."
I thought you said time doesn't exist. How do you measure something that doesn't exist?
"PS: do you wash your socks every day, and if so, when & where? I think we should be told!!"
I wash my socks every week in an undisclosed, but not unknown, location.
Tom
report post as inappropriate
You wrote, " ... my point was: this is a mathematical model, for a purpose, why the assumption that it therefore represents the reality we actually inhabit, ie picking up on Joy’s phrase in the paper (section 1, para 4) that “we live in”."
Joy's deduction of the space we live in (the manifold of S^7) is independent of the space in which we measure (the manifold of S^4); because the unique properties of S^7 allow (and perhaps, compel) continuous measurement functions (correlations)on S^4, however, the judgment is sound, and closed, both topologically and algebraically. The important thing to understand from a scientific perspective is that we ONLY understand "reality" through our models and their correspondence to measurement. Science isn't philosophy -- we don't assume reality and then set out to prove what we assume.
"Perhaps we can have models, to solve a problem, that do not necessarily reflect reality."
Perhaps. That does not imply, however, that we have scientific understanding of physical phenomena, beyond the models that DO correspond to reality, i.e., predicted measurement.
"On your analogy. Surely, 'The simple inference is that I shower at home if and only if I didn't shower at the gym the day before', is incorrect."
No it isn't.
"All you have stated is that each day there is a wash, and either it occurs at home in the morning, or it occurs at the gym in the afternoon/evening. Therefore, to be able to take a decision on whether to wash in the morning, you have to have decided whether you are going to the gym later, on any given day."
The analogy doesn't have anything to do with what I "really" choose to do. Does a photon "really" choose to be spin up or spin down because it was observed? -- standard QM says yes, because the theory assigns value to nonlocality and therefore reality is observer-created. Classical reality isn't.
"Now, as far as I could understand, Joy’s model is an attempt to create a dependence free mathematical model which can calculate probabilities in respect of a certain form of circumstance."
No. Coordinate-free. Meaning that the model is non-contextual, and -- being mathematically complete -- can in principle calculate all outcomes with knowledge of topology and initial condition.
"Indeed, it should not be taking account of the time parameter, as such, because time does not exist."
Says who?
"Reality is changing, different entities/attributes thereof, at different rates."
Science does not assume reality.
"There is no overall ‘clock’. We use a duration measuring system, based on the best devices available."
I thought you said time doesn't exist. How do you measure something that doesn't exist?
"PS: do you wash your socks every day, and if so, when & where? I think we should be told!!"
I wash my socks every week in an undisclosed, but not unknown, location.
Tom
Tom,
You wrote: "Science does not assume reality." Can you please explain your notion of reality? I already asked you to do so, but I did not get aware of an answer.
Eckard
report post as inappropriate
You wrote: "Science does not assume reality." Can you please explain your notion of reality? I already asked you to do so, but I did not get aware of an answer.
Eckard
Bodily experience (including visual) and thoughful experience -- and also instantaneity -- present the biggest and ultimate challenge for physics and unification theory.
report post as inappropriate
Hi Everyone,
Joy, congrats on your new arXiv paper linked above. It should hopefully commpletely dispell any doubts that your math and model are correct and is in fact a valid counter-example to Bell. IMHO, it is a substantial breakthough in physics. Not just because of being a counter-example to Bell but more because of your title of this blog.
I was doing some more studying of Hopf Fibration and stumbled across a very good 1 hour video lecture by Niles Johnson of the University of Georgia on "Visuualizations of the Hopf Fibration". Now I know that Tom, Ray, Joy and probably some others already know this material but for those that don't and want to know more I highly recommend watching the lecture as it is a good explanation of some the topology involved in Joy's model. Also, if you search Youtube for Hopf Fibration you will find some incredible animations.
After seeing these animations, I would think that sophisticated software such as this producing these animations could in fact successfully simulate Joy's model on a computer.
Fred
report post as inappropriate
Joy, congrats on your new arXiv paper linked above. It should hopefully commpletely dispell any doubts that your math and model are correct and is in fact a valid counter-example to Bell. IMHO, it is a substantial breakthough in physics. Not just because of being a counter-example to Bell but more because of your title of this blog.
I was doing some more studying of Hopf Fibration and stumbled across a very good 1 hour video lecture by Niles Johnson of the University of Georgia on "Visuualizations of the Hopf Fibration". Now I know that Tom, Ray, Joy and probably some others already know this material but for those that don't and want to know more I highly recommend watching the lecture as it is a good explanation of some the topology involved in Joy's model. Also, if you search Youtube for Hopf Fibration you will find some incredible animations.
After seeing these animations, I would think that sophisticated software such as this producing these animations could in fact successfully simulate Joy's model on a computer.
Fred
Hi Fred,
Many thanks for your kind words about my work. Yes, it is indeed the origins (or raison d'être) of quantum correlations that interests me more than Bell's theorem itself. I am quite intrigued by the fact that I am driven to 7-sphere in this regard which people like Ray Munroe, Garrett Lisi, Michael Atiyah, and others have also arrived at from very different direction.
Thanks also for the link to Niles Johnson's lecture on Hopf fibration. I enjoyed the lecture very much.
I also agree that some sophisticated software such as those you mention may lead to a computer simulation of my model. That would be a nice.
Thanks again for your comments.
Best,
Joy
report post as inappropriate
Many thanks for your kind words about my work. Yes, it is indeed the origins (or raison d'être) of quantum correlations that interests me more than Bell's theorem itself. I am quite intrigued by the fact that I am driven to 7-sphere in this regard which people like Ray Munroe, Garrett Lisi, Michael Atiyah, and others have also arrived at from very different direction.
Thanks also for the link to Niles Johnson's lecture on Hopf fibration. I enjoyed the lecture very much.
I also agree that some sophisticated software such as those you mention may lead to a computer simulation of my model. That would be a nice.
Thanks again for your comments.
Best,
Joy
Thanks, Fred! I think Johnson's computer animation at the end should give one a more or less intuitive idea of why Joy's functions are complete, continuous, integrable and orientable.
Unlike Joy, I am skeptical about the possibilities of computer simulation, because the mathematical parameters do not map one for one to the physical space in a time-symmetric way. For example, while we can simulate Kepler's elliptic orbits, real time observation in physical space gives us an infinite number of curve fits to the trajectory.
Sure, we can probably create a simulation in the form of computer animation. That won't satisfy Bell loyalists on the nature of physical spacetime, however.
Tom
report post as inappropriate
Unlike Joy, I am skeptical about the possibilities of computer simulation, because the mathematical parameters do not map one for one to the physical space in a time-symmetric way. For example, while we can simulate Kepler's elliptic orbits, real time observation in physical space gives us an infinite number of curve fits to the trajectory.
Sure, we can probably create a simulation in the form of computer animation. That won't satisfy Bell loyalists on the nature of physical spacetime, however.
Tom
Tom,
I completely agree with your comments. I have expressed somewhat similar skepticism myself in section VII of my paper. However, I think Fred is talking about simulation simply to have a better intuitive understanding of the model. As for Bell loyalists, nothing will satisfy them, so it is best to concentrate our efforts on moving the program forward rather than worrying about their support.
Joy
report post as inappropriate
I completely agree with your comments. I have expressed somewhat similar skepticism myself in section VII of my paper. However, I think Fred is talking about simulation simply to have a better intuitive understanding of the model. As for Bell loyalists, nothing will satisfy them, so it is best to concentrate our efforts on moving the program forward rather than worrying about their support.
Joy
Dear Joy Christian,
The problem that you address focuses on Bell's challenge that a 'hidden variable' -- representing any equations or properties or parameters not normally included in the standard quantum formulation -- cannot produce the correlations predicted by quantum mechanics. You have met this challenge by choosing not a set of equations or properties but by altering the topology...
view entire post
The problem that you address focuses on Bell's challenge that a 'hidden variable' -- representing any equations or properties or parameters not normally included in the standard quantum formulation -- cannot produce the correlations predicted by quantum mechanics. You have met this challenge by choosing not a set of equations or properties but by altering the topology...
view entire post
Dear Edwin,
Thank you for your comments. You write: "Bell assumes a unit vector ^a or ^b to represent the inhomogeneous field required by the experiment..."
Bell's theorem does not depend on any such assumption. He allows arbitrary experimental contexts that can be represented by any old symbols: say s or t, or whatever. It does not matter. Neither does his theorem depend on physical assumptions like homogenous magnetic field, or spin systems.
Bell has made no mistake in logic of the kind you claim he has. I am afraid you have not understood Bell's theorem. I highly recommend understanding the theorem first before criticising it. A good place for understanding the theorem is the Report on it by Clauser and Shimony (Ref. [22] of my paper). See especially section 3.5 of the Report to recognize that Bell's theorem does not depend on the kind of assumptions you claim it does.
Moreover, the real problem is not the EPR correlations, but ALL quantum correlations, whatever the underlying quantum state. I claim that this real problem can be solved ONLY by recognizing that we live in a parallelized 7-sphere. It can be solved ONLY by my analysis and no other. This is my claim.
Best regards,
Joy
report post as inappropriate
Thank you for your comments. You write: "Bell assumes a unit vector ^a or ^b to represent the inhomogeneous field required by the experiment..."
Bell's theorem does not depend on any such assumption. He allows arbitrary experimental contexts that can be represented by any old symbols: say s or t, or whatever. It does not matter. Neither does his theorem depend on physical assumptions like homogenous magnetic field, or spin systems.
Bell has made no mistake in logic of the kind you claim he has. I am afraid you have not understood Bell's theorem. I highly recommend understanding the theorem first before criticising it. A good place for understanding the theorem is the Report on it by Clauser and Shimony (Ref. [22] of my paper). See especially section 3.5 of the Report to recognize that Bell's theorem does not depend on the kind of assumptions you claim it does.
Moreover, the real problem is not the EPR correlations, but ALL quantum correlations, whatever the underlying quantum state. I claim that this real problem can be solved ONLY by recognizing that we live in a parallelized 7-sphere. It can be solved ONLY by my analysis and no other. This is my claim.
Best regards,
Joy
Edwin
Fundamentally, I think it would help if everybody could agree on what the actual underlying probem is that this model is trying to resolve. That is, what is its purpose, potentially disproving Bell just being a consequence.
Paul
report post as inappropriate
Fundamentally, I think it would help if everybody could agree on what the actual underlying probem is that this model is trying to resolve. That is, what is its purpose, potentially disproving Bell just being a consequence.
Paul
Joy,
Thanks for your reply.
You may be correct that Bell's theorem does not depend upon physical assumptions like the homogeneous field or spin systems. But the EPR experiment certainly does, and he has, in my opinion, formulated an incorrect model of this. Therefore the model is incorrect. We will just have to disagree on this.
Your other point is that EPR correlations can ONLY be solved by your analysis and no other. That is a very strong claim and I wish you well with it. My post in the thread above implies that an 'extra field' can perhaps achieve the same effect as an 'extra dimension' and this may or may not apply to EPR. I think it does. But a field can provide a chiral aspect (that corresponds to experiments) that an extra dimension apparently fails to do.
Do you believe that the chirality seen in physics is of no consequence or does it somehow fall out of the 7-sphere?
Best regards,
Edwin Eugene Klingman
report post as inappropriate
Thanks for your reply.
You may be correct that Bell's theorem does not depend upon physical assumptions like the homogeneous field or spin systems. But the EPR experiment certainly does, and he has, in my opinion, formulated an incorrect model of this. Therefore the model is incorrect. We will just have to disagree on this.
Your other point is that EPR correlations can ONLY be solved by your analysis and no other. That is a very strong claim and I wish you well with it. My post in the thread above implies that an 'extra field' can perhaps achieve the same effect as an 'extra dimension' and this may or may not apply to EPR. I think it does. But a field can provide a chiral aspect (that corresponds to experiments) that an extra dimension apparently fails to do.
Do you believe that the chirality seen in physics is of no consequence or does it somehow fall out of the 7-sphere?
Best regards,
Edwin Eugene Klingman
"... disciplined ... in a mathematically very precise sense." My suspicion is so incredibly simple that it must be wrong - in the eyes of well educated physicists: What about the possibility that precise symmetry just indicates redundancy? Well, this questions some very foundations. Isn't the wave function complex?
Here I am claiming to be careful: As I tried to explain in my essays, use of negative time implies complex calculus and loss of commutativity. It is often clever to use linearized models with coordinates like x or t assumed to extend to both sides of zero. Extension from minus infinity to plus infinity seems to provide unlimited applicability. Students are told: The solution is in general complex.
I appreciate in particular a Fig. 2 in a paper by Joy Christian that illustrates the difference between the written for good past and the undecided future. This distinction clearly contradicts to the celebrated spacetime, whose assumed a priori existence is inextricably linked with Einstein's hypothesis of relativity.
I do not support those like Pentcho Valev who are denies the postulate of constant speed of light or like Peter Jackson who is suggesting something that can experimentally be proved wrong for any wave. The mistakes I am after seem to be older. Why not taking into account the possibility that the postulate of relativity is just an albeit clever illusion?
Eckard
report post as inappropriate
report post as inappropriate
Here I am claiming to be careful: As I tried to explain in my essays, use of negative time implies complex calculus and loss of commutativity. It is often clever to use linearized models with coordinates like x or t assumed to extend to both sides of zero. Extension from minus infinity to plus infinity seems to provide unlimited applicability. Students are told: The solution is in general complex.
I appreciate in particular a Fig. 2 in a paper by Joy Christian that illustrates the difference between the written for good past and the undecided future. This distinction clearly contradicts to the celebrated spacetime, whose assumed a priori existence is inextricably linked with Einstein's hypothesis of relativity.
I do not support those like Pentcho Valev who are denies the postulate of constant speed of light or like Peter Jackson who is suggesting something that can experimentally be proved wrong for any wave. The mistakes I am after seem to be older. Why not taking into account the possibility that the postulate of relativity is just an albeit clever illusion?
Eckard
Eckard
Think on this. If a precise symmetry is not real, but a function of the maths, then yes there is redundancy, because actually, there is nothing there. I am not saying this is happening, just a, somewhat obvious, comment.
"negative time", what is this?
I am not sure what your point re a fig 2 and inextricable links to Einstein refers to. His principle of relativity was that laws must be operable in all circumstances. His theory of relativity was that reality is somewhat amorphous (a function of the gravitation force), so standard measurement techniques will not suffice. And that one, obviously, had to factor in the timing delay when considering the individual observations of any given existent event.
A judgement as to whether the "postulate of relativity is just an albeit clever illusion" must be based on a proper understanding as to what that postulate was, according to Einstein.
Paul
report post as inappropriate
Think on this. If a precise symmetry is not real, but a function of the maths, then yes there is redundancy, because actually, there is nothing there. I am not saying this is happening, just a, somewhat obvious, comment.
"negative time", what is this?
I am not sure what your point re a fig 2 and inextricable links to Einstein refers to. His principle of relativity was that laws must be operable in all circumstances. His theory of relativity was that reality is somewhat amorphous (a function of the gravitation force), so standard measurement techniques will not suffice. And that one, obviously, had to factor in the timing delay when considering the individual observations of any given existent event.
A judgement as to whether the "postulate of relativity is just an albeit clever illusion" must be based on a proper understanding as to what that postulate was, according to Einstein.
Paul
Paul,
Your comment is correct and appreciated.
Physics operates so far with an event-bound time scale with arbitrarily chosen zero. Isn't a moving relative to it scale more of just elapsed time more natural? The zero of this alternative scale is permanently located at the border between past and future. If we count (backward in usual time) elapsed time positive, then the not yet decided future is negative (elapsed) time.
Mentioned Fig. 2 illustrates an unchangeable single world line showing the past that splits at t=0, where the cones of past and future have a point in common, into a not yet calculable so far amorphous bundle of possibilities inside the cone of future.
The intentions of Einstein as well as the ideas he incorporated are clearly understandable to me. I just consider Lorentz contraction at least questionable and Einstein's first postulate (unrestricted applicability of time shift) not even an original but a illusory idea, although the illogical reference of c to the observer seemed to provide an elegant solution.
While I do not expect that the laws do not hold in future, prediction of the future will always remain somewhat uncertain since the required for exact prediction amount of initial conditions is in reality infinite.
Eckard
report post as inappropriate
Your comment is correct and appreciated.
Physics operates so far with an event-bound time scale with arbitrarily chosen zero. Isn't a moving relative to it scale more of just elapsed time more natural? The zero of this alternative scale is permanently located at the border between past and future. If we count (backward in usual time) elapsed time positive, then the not yet decided future is negative (elapsed) time.
Mentioned Fig. 2 illustrates an unchangeable single world line showing the past that splits at t=0, where the cones of past and future have a point in common, into a not yet calculable so far amorphous bundle of possibilities inside the cone of future.
The intentions of Einstein as well as the ideas he incorporated are clearly understandable to me. I just consider Lorentz contraction at least questionable and Einstein's first postulate (unrestricted applicability of time shift) not even an original but a illusory idea, although the illogical reference of c to the observer seemed to provide an elegant solution.
While I do not expect that the laws do not hold in future, prediction of the future will always remain somewhat uncertain since the required for exact prediction amount of initial conditions is in reality infinite.
Eckard
Eckard
Yes I do not think (ie some hesitation on my part)that arbitrarily chosen zero matters. Because with many attributes, one is comparing and identifying difference. It is the difference that is real, within our reality. So the scale deployed in measurement systems is irrelevant. They are just units, a common denominator in which to consider various examples of the attribute. For...
view entire post
Yes I do not think (ie some hesitation on my part)that arbitrarily chosen zero matters. Because with many attributes, one is comparing and identifying difference. It is the difference that is real, within our reality. So the scale deployed in measurement systems is irrelevant. They are just units, a common denominator in which to consider various examples of the attribute. For...
view entire post
Dear Joy,
In Can Bell's Prescription for Physical Reality Be Considered Complete?, page 4, you wrote the following equation:
\,=\,\frac{1}{N}\sum_{j\,=\,1}^{N}\,\{{sign}\,({\bf\lambda}_j\cdot{\bf a})\}\,\{{sign}\,(-{\bf\lambda}_j\cdot{\bf b})\},\,\, (16))
There, you claim that the experiment you proposed to be performed in the macroscopic domain will provide a collection of angular momenta lambdaj which, when inserted into equation (16) for large number of trials N, will give
=-\,{\bf a}\cdot{\bf b}\,\, (15))
and will refute
\,=\,\frac{2}{\pi}\,\cos^{-1}\left({\bf a}\cdot{\bf b}\right)-1\,\, (3))
Q1: Do you claim that it is mathematically possible to exist a collection of lambdaj which, when plugged into eqn. (16), vindicate (15) and refute (3)?
(in the cited paper you wrote "we believe the experiment will vindicate prediction (15) and refute prediction (3)")
Q2: Do you agree that dot products in the above equations can be written using real numbers and the usual operations with real numbers, in the form
respectively
Q3: In this case (Q2=TRUE), isn't already proven mathematically that there is no such collection of lambdaj which refute the linear (in the angle) (3) in favor of the cos-shaped (15)?
Thank you,
Cristi Stoica
P.S. I formulated the questions so that you can give simple yes/no answers to them, but of course you are welcome to explain your answers.
report post as inappropriate
In Can Bell's Prescription for Physical Reality Be Considered Complete?, page 4, you wrote the following equation:
There, you claim that the experiment you proposed to be performed in the macroscopic domain will provide a collection of angular momenta lambdaj which, when inserted into equation (16) for large number of trials N, will give
and will refute
Q1: Do you claim that it is mathematically possible to exist a collection of lambdaj which, when plugged into eqn. (16), vindicate (15) and refute (3)?
(in the cited paper you wrote "we believe the experiment will vindicate prediction (15) and refute prediction (3)")
Q2: Do you agree that dot products in the above equations can be written using real numbers and the usual operations with real numbers, in the form
respectively
Q3: In this case (Q2=TRUE), isn't already proven mathematically that there is no such collection of lambdaj which refute the linear (in the angle) (3) in favor of the cos-shaped (15)?
Thank you,
Cristi Stoica
P.S. I formulated the questions so that you can give simple yes/no answers to them, but of course you are welcome to explain your answers.
Erratum: Please replace the second equation in Q2 by:
P.S. wrote equation (3) (and the Q2 equations) in a way which avoids the plus sign, which is not rendered, probably because of some url encoding reason.
report post as inappropriate
P.S. wrote equation (3) (and the Q2 equations) in a way which avoids the plus sign, which is not rendered, probably because of some url encoding reason.
Cristi,
We have gone through your questions at great length before (for example on this page). Equation (16) is a phenomenological equation, not a theoretical computation of the observed correlation.
Joy
report post as inappropriate
We have gone through your questions at great length before (for example on this page). Equation (16) is a phenomenological equation, not a theoretical computation of the observed correlation.
Joy
Dear Joy,
Such a collection of lambdaj as you claimed cannot exist, because mathematics forbids it to exist. Calling eqn. (16) phenomenological doesn't make it immune to the math rules governing the operations which you used in it.
I don't say that IF you calculate the lambdas from some assumptions, they will not contradict eqn. (3). I say more than this: that no matter how you obtain them, they can't contradict eqn. (3) in favor of equation (15). Never. No matter how you obtain them. That's math.
The answer to my 3 questions above is "yes".
Cristi
report post as inappropriate
Such a collection of lambdaj as you claimed cannot exist, because mathematics forbids it to exist. Calling eqn. (16) phenomenological doesn't make it immune to the math rules governing the operations which you used in it.
I don't say that IF you calculate the lambdas from some assumptions, they will not contradict eqn. (3). I say more than this: that no matter how you obtain them, they can't contradict eqn. (3) in favor of equation (15). Never. No matter how you obtain them. That's math.
The answer to my 3 questions above is "yes".
Cristi
Not *the* math; your math.
report post as inappropriate
Joy,
It is easy to give replies like this, to avoid answering my three questions above. Answering them will reveal where is the problem: if your claim is true, this would lead directly to the existence of some numbers which would contradict a well-established mathematical result. Established before I was even born, so it's not *my math*.
You claim that your experiment can provide numbers which, introduced in
would vindicate your equation
and will refute
It is equation (3) which is mathematically proven to hold, in contrast to equation (15). So your claim contradicts math, not "my math".
QED
Cristi
report post as inappropriate
It is easy to give replies like this, to avoid answering my three questions above. Answering them will reveal where is the problem: if your claim is true, this would lead directly to the existence of some numbers which would contradict a well-established mathematical result. Established before I was even born, so it's not *my math*.
You claim that your experiment can provide numbers which, introduced in
would vindicate your equation
and will refute
It is equation (3) which is mathematically proven to hold, in contrast to equation (15). So your claim contradicts math, not "my math".
QED
Cristi
Cristi,
If eq. (15) is the result of quantum theory, then how can what you are saying be true?
Fred
report post as inappropriate
If eq. (15) is the result of quantum theory, then how can what you are saying be true?
Fred
Fred,
I never said that eq. (15) is not true in quantum mechanics.
The question is whether it can be true in the macroscopic domain, as Joy claims in his paper Can Bell's Prescription for Physical Reality Be Considered Complete? cited above. In fact, the question is whether it can be obtained as Joy claims. In that paper, it is claimed that the equation (15) is obtained in the macroscopic domain, not as a result of quantum mechanics.
In quantum mechanics, eqn. (15) is true and (3) false, because they are not obtained by plugging angular momenta into Joy's eqn. (16), but rather from the formalism of quantum mechanics. Joy's claim is that (15) can be obtained by putting some numbers in (16), which can't be true, because mathematics forbids the existence of such numbers.
So I am not saying that (15) is not true for quantum mechanics, only that the right hand side of eqn (16) cannot be equal to the right hand side of the eqn. (15) (instead of (3)).
Cristi
report post as inappropriate
I never said that eq. (15) is not true in quantum mechanics.
The question is whether it can be true in the macroscopic domain, as Joy claims in his paper Can Bell's Prescription for Physical Reality Be Considered Complete? cited above. In fact, the question is whether it can be obtained as Joy claims. In that paper, it is claimed that the equation (15) is obtained in the macroscopic domain, not as a result of quantum mechanics.
In quantum mechanics, eqn. (15) is true and (3) false, because they are not obtained by plugging angular momenta into Joy's eqn. (16), but rather from the formalism of quantum mechanics. Joy's claim is that (15) can be obtained by putting some numbers in (16), which can't be true, because mathematics forbids the existence of such numbers.
So I am not saying that (15) is not true for quantum mechanics, only that the right hand side of eqn (16) cannot be equal to the right hand side of the eqn. (15) (instead of (3)).
Cristi
This being a determinstic theory, is there any way to demonstrate a deviation from randomness? In Bohm theory, this would require devations of quantum equilibrium:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_equilibrium
_hypothesis
report post as inappropriate
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_equilibrium
_hypothesis
Thank you for your question. What I have proposed so far is a framework that can reproduce any quantum mechanical correlation classically. It is not yet developed sufficiently to address the question you have raised.
report post as inappropriate
I'd like to resume:
In this paper Joy claims that his proposed experiment to be performed in the macroscopic domain will deliver a set of angular momenta
_{j=1}^N)
which, for large N, gives
\}\,\{{sign}\,(-{\bf\lambda}_j\cdot{\bf b})\},\,\approx\, -\,{\bf a}\cdot{\bf b}.)
This contradicts the mathematically proven result that
\}\,\{{sign}\,(-{\bf\lambda}_j\cdot{\bf b})\},\,\approx\, \frac{2}{\pi}\,\cos^{-1}\left({\bf a}\cdot{\bf b}\right)-1.)
Cristi
report post as inappropriate
In this paper Joy claims that his proposed experiment to be performed in the macroscopic domain will deliver a set of angular momenta
which, for large N, gives
This contradicts the mathematically proven result that
Cristi
Cristi,
Equation (16) is a phenomenological equation, not a theoretical computation of the observed correlation. Lambdas are not calculated mathematically---they are observed and recorded directions of the angular momenta. For a full understanding of the experiment read my papers.
Joy
report post as inappropriate
Equation (16) is a phenomenological equation, not a theoretical computation of the observed correlation. Lambdas are not calculated mathematically---they are observed and recorded directions of the angular momenta. For a full understanding of the experiment read my papers.
Joy
Joy,
Just calling an impossible thing "phenomenological" doesn't make it possible.
"they are observed and recorded directions of the angular momenta"
Where? Could you please show these records? Then show that they satisfy the identity you claimed.
Cristi
report post as inappropriate
Just calling an impossible thing "phenomenological" doesn't make it possible.
"they are observed and recorded directions of the angular momenta"
Where? Could you please show these records? Then show that they satisfy the identity you claimed.
Cristi
Cristi,
Would you please read my papers and try not to misrepresent my work for a change?
Joy
report post as inappropriate
Would you please read my papers and try not to misrepresent my work for a change?
Joy
Uh oh. We have Lawrence and Tom on opposite sides of this. One's mirror image is another's negative....
report post as inappropriate
Hi Joy,
Is your hidden variable, "the orientation of space", identifiable with parity for a local region of space? If it is, does the fact that parity is violated in weak interactions not provide indirect evidence against your theory, for if the orientation of space was really variable, then should we not expect that at least sometimes the weak interactions would fail to violate parity? If it is not, then how can it be locally distinguished, e.g. how does the the parity violation of weak interactions fail to be a test of the orientation of space?
report post as inappropriate
Is your hidden variable, "the orientation of space", identifiable with parity for a local region of space? If it is, does the fact that parity is violated in weak interactions not provide indirect evidence against your theory, for if the orientation of space was really variable, then should we not expect that at least sometimes the weak interactions would fail to violate parity? If it is not, then how can it be locally distinguished, e.g. how does the the parity violation of weak interactions fail to be a test of the orientation of space?
Hi Armin,
I don't think "orientation of space" is the same as parity for quantum objects such as those involved in the weak interations. IOW, I think you are talking about properties of certain quantum objects vs. properties of space. But overall it is an interesting question. How much do the propreties of space affect interations of elementary particles in Joy's model?
Fred
report post as inappropriate
I don't think "orientation of space" is the same as parity for quantum objects such as those involved in the weak interations. IOW, I think you are talking about properties of certain quantum objects vs. properties of space. But overall it is an interesting question. How much do the propreties of space affect interations of elementary particles in Joy's model?
Fred
Hi Armin,
The orientation of the 3-sphere (which is taken as a model of the physical space in my framework), has nothing to do with parity. The orientation of space is not a variable in general (it does not vary from one point of space to another). It defines the initial or complete state of the EPR system (as conceptualized by Bell in his local model).
Joy
report post as inappropriate
The orientation of the 3-sphere (which is taken as a model of the physical space in my framework), has nothing to do with parity. The orientation of space is not a variable in general (it does not vary from one point of space to another). It defines the initial or complete state of the EPR system (as conceptualized by Bell in his local model).
Joy
Dear Fred and Joy and Armin,
In response to Armin's query whether "the fact that parity is violated in weak interactions [does] not provide indirect evidence against your theory" Fred remarks "...overall it is an interesting question."
That was the intent behind my query of Nov. 7, 2011 @ 20:44 where I pointed out that a field can provide a chiral aspect (that corresponds to experiments) that an extra dimension apparently fails to do. I asked "Do you believe that the chirality seen in physics is of no consequence or does it somehow fall out of the 7-sphere?"
Joy responded that "The chiral aspect is built-in in the formalism of geometric algebra I have used in my models. The bivectors, for example, are naturally chiral."
Of course I knew that geometric algebraic objects support both left and right handedness. The problem is that the universe or nature exhibits an asymmetry. There are only left-handed neutrinos. Longo has shown an asymmetry favoring left-handed spiral galaxies with respect to the "axis of evil". It is well known that amino acids (and possibly other bio-molecules) favor left-handed symmetry. And, as Armin asked, "does the fact that parity is violated in weak interactions not provide indirect evidence against your theory?"
These are non-trivial facts, and we might legitimately question, when one asks us to re-conceptualize the very nature of space-time in favor of seven dimensions, how does this relate to these known asymmetries. There may be no relation, but this would seem to imply something serious is missing.
Of course, as Joy replied to Mitra below, his theory is a work-in-progress, nevertheless, asking such questions about chirality may stimulate Joy to either look for an explanation in his theory of space-time for the factual asymmetries, or consider why his theory does not address the problem.
As I stated, my preferred solution, a 'new' field, does explain the left-handedness found in nature.
Best Regards,
Edwin Eugene Klingman
report post as inappropriate
In response to Armin's query whether "the fact that parity is violated in weak interactions [does] not provide indirect evidence against your theory" Fred remarks "...overall it is an interesting question."
That was the intent behind my query of Nov. 7, 2011 @ 20:44 where I pointed out that a field can provide a chiral aspect (that corresponds to experiments) that an extra dimension apparently fails to do. I asked "Do you believe that the chirality seen in physics is of no consequence or does it somehow fall out of the 7-sphere?"
Joy responded that "The chiral aspect is built-in in the formalism of geometric algebra I have used in my models. The bivectors, for example, are naturally chiral."
Of course I knew that geometric algebraic objects support both left and right handedness. The problem is that the universe or nature exhibits an asymmetry. There are only left-handed neutrinos. Longo has shown an asymmetry favoring left-handed spiral galaxies with respect to the "axis of evil". It is well known that amino acids (and possibly other bio-molecules) favor left-handed symmetry. And, as Armin asked, "does the fact that parity is violated in weak interactions not provide indirect evidence against your theory?"
These are non-trivial facts, and we might legitimately question, when one asks us to re-conceptualize the very nature of space-time in favor of seven dimensions, how does this relate to these known asymmetries. There may be no relation, but this would seem to imply something serious is missing.
Of course, as Joy replied to Mitra below, his theory is a work-in-progress, nevertheless, asking such questions about chirality may stimulate Joy to either look for an explanation in his theory of space-time for the factual asymmetries, or consider why his theory does not address the problem.
As I stated, my preferred solution, a 'new' field, does explain the left-handedness found in nature.
Best Regards,
Edwin Eugene Klingman
I just asked simple math question concerning the validity of one of Joy's paper. Joy decided again to attack the person instead of the argument, by suggesting that I am not qualified to discuss his work, using lines like these:
"Would you please read my papers and try not to misrepresent my work for a change?"
"Lawrence, [...] You are better than this (at least compared to the other two).
I said repeatedly that I read more than once his articles. This doesn't mean that I should accept without questioning his work.
I would like to submit myself to an exam on Joy's papers. I also would like to ask the presence of at least one specialist in Quantum Mechanics (in addition to Joy). This can be Prof. Shimony (who is acknowledged in Joy's articles) or another FQXi member, or a PI member. I will give to Joy the possibility to propose the qualified person(s).
1. The specialist(s) can then prepare a test from Joy's work, which I will gladly try to pass. I would invite Florin and Tom to participate too. I know that this is not necessary to allow comments, but in this case may be helpful, because critics like me and Florin are ignored, when such a reputed physicist like Joy simply disqualifies us.
2. In the presence of this specialist, I would like to ask questions like those I already asked to Joy on the FQXi's forums regarding his articles. I hope Florin to join me, with his own interesting and justified questions. And Lawrence, if he wishes.
3. Then I would kindly ask the invited expert(s) to evaluate our arguments.
I hope that modern day physics will allow equal opportunity to a reputed Oxford Professor and more modest commentators like us.
Cristi
report post as inappropriate
"Would you please read my papers and try not to misrepresent my work for a change?"
"Lawrence, [...] You are better than this (at least compared to the other two).
I said repeatedly that I read more than once his articles. This doesn't mean that I should accept without questioning his work.
I would like to submit myself to an exam on Joy's papers. I also would like to ask the presence of at least one specialist in Quantum Mechanics (in addition to Joy). This can be Prof. Shimony (who is acknowledged in Joy's articles) or another FQXi member, or a PI member. I will give to Joy the possibility to propose the qualified person(s).
1. The specialist(s) can then prepare a test from Joy's work, which I will gladly try to pass. I would invite Florin and Tom to participate too. I know that this is not necessary to allow comments, but in this case may be helpful, because critics like me and Florin are ignored, when such a reputed physicist like Joy simply disqualifies us.
2. In the presence of this specialist, I would like to ask questions like those I already asked to Joy on the FQXi's forums regarding his articles. I hope Florin to join me, with his own interesting and justified questions. And Lawrence, if he wishes.
3. Then I would kindly ask the invited expert(s) to evaluate our arguments.
I hope that modern day physics will allow equal opportunity to a reputed Oxford Professor and more modest commentators like us.
Cristi
I have some sympathy with the underlying point here.
I raised a question as to the extrinsic validity of this model. That is, can a model which addresses the observational issues of quantum correlation be deemed to be a represenation of the reality we live in. Whether or not it is intrinsically valid.
My point has been depicted as philosophy, which it is not. And even if it was, I did not make the assertion. I am just questioning whether there is substantive evidence to support it. And I note that the various threads above have all gone quiet, with my post being the last one.
Paul
report post as inappropriate
I raised a question as to the extrinsic validity of this model. That is, can a model which addresses the observational issues of quantum correlation be deemed to be a represenation of the reality we live in. Whether or not it is intrinsically valid.
My point has been depicted as philosophy, which it is not. And even if it was, I did not make the assertion. I am just questioning whether there is substantive evidence to support it. And I note that the various threads above have all gone quiet, with my post being the last one.
Paul
I want to clarify that I do not suggest that one should be allowed to comment only if has passed an exam. This would be a wrong precedent, which would make the physics of our times even more closed. It would also contradict the benefit of the doubt principle: one should start by accepting that the comments of a scientific paper are made by people who understand the subject and have good intentions. One should accuse of lack of qualification or of misconduct only if there are reasons for this (others than that we don't like their point). I don't think I gave such reasons. I would prefer simply that the expert(s) just review the comments I already made, and those of Florin and others. But I am willing to give a short list of those arguments, to ease the work of the expert(s). The point 1 I proposed above is only intended to remove the accusations made by Joy. It is like a voluntary submission to the lie detector test.
Cristi
report post as inappropriate
Cristi
I sincerely regret that the things went this far. I read Joy's articles with interest and curiosity. I never pick a reading to attack the authors, I simply want to learn more physics. Joy's papers seemed to question widely accepted views, and I have great admiration for this kind of enterprises. Unfortunately, I had the lack of inspiration to question some statements from Joy's articles. I am aware that no new theory is born mature, it has to grow up. In software industry, everybody admits that bugs will exist, and that's why there are bug reports and new versions. Software engineers, although may not be happy when receiving bug reports, at least are grateful, because they want that the failure to happen as fast as possible, to minimize the damages. Of course, some adopt the motto "it's not a bug, it's a feature". I did not expect Joy to be grateful for my "bug reports". What I did not expect was such an escalation of commitment, which led to personal attacks against me and others. Normally, we all expect that there are personal attacks on the Internet. But when they come from an authority in the domain, his words may be very harmful for my reputation. So I have to defend myself.
Cristi
report post as inappropriate
Cristi
Dear Friends,
My latest paper with Jonathan Dickau uses a minimum 10-D TOE to explain superluminal neutrinos, and has been published in Prespacetime Journal.
I would like to draw your attention to the last two sections: "Geometric Attributes of Higher Dimensions" and "Thermo-Geometric Instabilities of the Octonion 7-Sphere" on pages 1806-9.
We present a case for why the 7-sphere should not be stable. In my opinion, this complicates, and may even negate, any conclusions that Joy and Tom may have made regarding 7-sphere geometry.
Have Fun!
attachments: 2968331PB.pdf
report post as inappropriate
My latest paper with Jonathan Dickau uses a minimum 10-D TOE to explain superluminal neutrinos, and has been published in Prespacetime Journal.
I would like to draw your attention to the last two sections: "Geometric Attributes of Higher Dimensions" and "Thermo-Geometric Instabilities of the Octonion 7-Sphere" on pages 1806-9.
We present a case for why the 7-sphere should not be stable. In my opinion, this complicates, and may even negate, any conclusions that Joy and Tom may have made regarding 7-sphere geometry.
Have Fun!
attachments: 2968331PB.pdf
Congratulations, Ray.
I will have a look at your paper to see if it has any relevance for my model.
Joy
report post as inappropriate
I will have a look at your paper to see if it has any relevance for my model.
Joy
Hi Ray,
Why do you think the 7-sphere topology needs to be stable in application to Joy's model? Would it be sufficient for the 7-sphere topology to exist momentarily and then decay to the 3-sphere topology? Or does not being stable forbid it to exist at all?
I also had a look at your "Symplectic tiling, hypercolour and hyperflavor E12" paper. For your "2-D hexagonal Graphene-like G2 lattice", you might want to investigate an Apollonian gasket type of geometry without the outer circle boundary. If you haven't already.
Best,
Fred
report post as inappropriate
Why do you think the 7-sphere topology needs to be stable in application to Joy's model? Would it be sufficient for the 7-sphere topology to exist momentarily and then decay to the 3-sphere topology? Or does not being stable forbid it to exist at all?
I also had a look at your "Symplectic tiling, hypercolour and hyperflavor E12" paper. For your "2-D hexagonal Graphene-like G2 lattice", you might want to investigate an Apollonian gasket type of geometry without the outer circle boundary. If you haven't already.
Best,
Fred
Hi Fred,
Yes - You raise some interesting questions. I think it is clear that we live in a quaternion Spacetime, and that we don't directly experience octonion physics. But perhaps Joy's procedure is an indication that the fundamental geometry should be (or was) octonion 7-spheres - close-packing of which leads to the E8 Gosset lattice. I also worry if Joy has over-simplified his octonion algebra by excluding complex numbers. As my latest paper shows, imaginary mass (tachyons) could eliminate everything that we think we understand about 'locality' and 'causality'.
The Apollonian gasket is an interesting combination of a G2-like geometry with fractals that may be the interface between the quantum (G2-like) scale and the classical (fractal-like) scale. My FQXi friend, Steve Dufourny and I blogged about this a lot a couple of years ago. I would also be interested in a 4-D application based on the 24-cell, and an 8-D application based on the Gosset lattice, but these applications are not as obvious as the Apollonian gasket.
Have Fun!
report post as inappropriate
Yes - You raise some interesting questions. I think it is clear that we live in a quaternion Spacetime, and that we don't directly experience octonion physics. But perhaps Joy's procedure is an indication that the fundamental geometry should be (or was) octonion 7-spheres - close-packing of which leads to the E8 Gosset lattice. I also worry if Joy has over-simplified his octonion algebra by excluding complex numbers. As my latest paper shows, imaginary mass (tachyons) could eliminate everything that we think we understand about 'locality' and 'causality'.
The Apollonian gasket is an interesting combination of a G2-like geometry with fractals that may be the interface between the quantum (G2-like) scale and the classical (fractal-like) scale. My FQXi friend, Steve Dufourny and I blogged about this a lot a couple of years ago. I would also be interested in a 4-D application based on the 24-cell, and an 8-D application based on the Gosset lattice, but these applications are not as obvious as the Apollonian gasket.
Have Fun!