A new, simplified derivation of the EPR-Bohm correlation

Post a reply


This question is a means of preventing automated form submissions by spambots.

BBCode is ON
[img] is ON
[flash] is OFF
[url] is ON
Smilies are OFF
Topic review
   

Expand view Topic review: A new, simplified derivation of the EPR-Bohm correlation

Re: A new, simplified derivation of the EPR-Bohm correlation

Post by Joy Christian » Sun Nov 22, 2015 6:40 am

***
I have now also incorporated the above simplified derivation of the strong correlation in my "local causality" paper: viewtopic.php?f=6&t=55&p=5791#p5791

***

Re: A new, simplified derivation of the EPR-Bohm correlation

Post by Joy Christian » Fri Nov 06, 2015 1:07 am

***
For convenience I have posted the above page from by "Reply to Gill" on Academia.edu: https://www.academia.edu/17783877/Dispr ... 501.03393_

***

Re: A new, simplified derivation of the EPR-Bohm correlation

Post by Joy Christian » Tue Nov 03, 2015 8:56 pm

Gordon Watson wrote:Joy, I'm not across this stuff, and I'm here late, but I wonder: Should the middle term in eq. (C14) have a minus sign to the left. I ask because you use the same λ^k for the A and B results

Conservation of angular momentum suggests to me that Alice's λ^k would be the opposite of Bob's λ^k, at least in 3-space.

Thanks; G

Fred has already answered your question, but let me spell it out more explicitly: The conservation of zero spin angular momentum in the model simply means



for the same (i.e., for the same run of the experiment). must be the same for a given run because that is the initial state of the system for that run.

Re: A new, simplified derivation of the EPR-Bohm correlation

Post by FrediFizzx » Tue Nov 03, 2015 6:39 pm

Gordon Watson wrote:Joy, I'm not across this stuff, and I'm here late, but I wonder: Should the middle term in eq. (C14) have a minus sign to the left. I ask because you use the same λ^k for the A and B results

Conservation of angular momentum suggests to me that Alice's λ^k would be the opposite of Bob's λ^k, at least in 3-space.

Thanks; G

There is no separate λ^k for A and B per particle pair in Joy's model. Angular momentum is conserved in eq. (C5).

Re: A new, simplified derivation of the EPR-Bohm correlation

Post by Gordon Watson » Tue Nov 03, 2015 6:01 pm

Joy, I'm not across this stuff, and I'm here late, but I wonder: Should the middle term in eq. (C14) have a minus sign to the left. I ask because you use the same λ^k for the A and B results

Conservation of angular momentum suggests to me that Alice's λ^k would be the opposite of Bob's λ^k, at least in 3-space.

Thanks; G

Re: A new, simplified derivation of the EPR-Bohm correlation

Post by Joy Christian » Mon Nov 02, 2015 6:29 pm

***
In addition to revising this one-page paper, I have now also added a new one-page appendix to my "Reply to Gill." For convenience, I reproduce the appendix here:

Image
Image
Image

Note that, as before, logically the only new ingredient needed to derive the "quantum" correlation is that of a relationship between the spin bivectors and detector bivectors specified by Eq. (C3). This concept is elaborated in great detail on page 11 (see Definition V.1) of this earlier paper: http://arxiv.org/pdf/1211.0784.pdf.

***

Re: A new, simplified derivation of the EPR-Bohm correlation

Post by FrediFizzx » Thu Oct 29, 2015 1:54 pm

Joy Christian wrote:
FrediFizzx wrote:Yes, and the bottom line here with the new paper and even the old one is that the detector bivectors drop out of the correlation calculation as they should. However, with the realization that Bell's argument is "rigged" against both LHV and QM models as far as +/-1 outcomes go, you can just do,

(mu_k.a)(mu_k.b) = -a.b + 0,

and be done with it, IMHO. What is the point in trying to follow Bell's junk physics?

Well, let us try to look for a silver lining in the dark cloud. Since even after 50 years of misdirection the physics community is still chasing a "spook" out of a Bell jar, that is the best we can do. The silver lining is that we now understand that EPR-Bohm correlations are correlations between the scalar points, A = +/-1 and B = +/-1, of a quaternionic 3-sphere, which is of course the spatial part of one of the most well known cosmological solutions of Einstein's field equations of general relativity:

Image

Ah... yes. And the solution to that is here. So not really following Bell's R^3 junk physics.

Re: A new, simplified derivation of the EPR-Bohm correlation

Post by Joy Christian » Thu Oct 29, 2015 1:11 pm

FrediFizzx wrote:Yes, and the bottom line here with the new paper and even the old one is that the detector bivectors drop out of the correlation calculation as they should. However, with the realization that Bell's argument is "rigged" against both LHV and QM models as far as +/-1 outcomes go, you can just do,

(mu_k.a)(mu_k.b) = -a.b + 0,

and be done with it, IMHO. What is the point in trying to follow Bell's junk physics?

Well, let us try to look for a silver lining in the dark cloud. Since even after 50 years of misdirection the physics community is still chasing a "spook" out of a Bell jar, that is the best we can do. The silver lining is that we now understand that EPR-Bohm correlations are correlations between the scalar points, A = +/-1 and B = +/-1, of a quaternionic 3-sphere, which is of course the spatial part of one of the most well known cosmological solutions of Einstein's field equations of general relativity:

Image

Re: A new, simplified derivation of the EPR-Bohm correlation

Post by FrediFizzx » Thu Oct 29, 2015 12:06 pm

Joy Christian wrote:
FrediFizzx wrote:Perhaps the notation you are using on the RHS might be messing up some people? I think usually it is something like s --> (a', b') or would it be (s, s) --> (a', b')?
http://tutorial.math.lamar.edu/Classes/ ... imits.aspx

Anyways, it is perfectly understandable what you are doing either way.

It is a standard notation. But the above link is a good find. It is convenient to have here, in case someone is confused about my notation. No mathematician would be.

Yes, and the bottom line here with the new paper and even the old one is that the detector bivectors drop out of the correlation calculation as they should. However, with the realization that Bell's argument is "rigged" against both LHV and QM models as far as +/-1 outcomes go, you can just do,

(mu_k.a)(mu_k.b) = -a.b + 0,

and be done with it, IMHO. What is the point in trying to follow Bell's junk physics?

Re: A new, simplified derivation of the EPR-Bohm correlation

Post by Joy Christian » Tue Oct 27, 2015 8:55 pm

FrediFizzx wrote:Perhaps the notation you are using on the RHS might be messing up some people? I think usually it is something like s --> (a', b') or would it be (s, s) --> (a', b')?
http://tutorial.math.lamar.edu/Classes/ ... imits.aspx

Anyways, it is perfectly understandable what you are doing either way.

It is a standard notation. But the above link is a good find. It is convenient to have here, in case someone is confused about my notation. No mathematician would be.

Re: A new, simplified derivation of the EPR-Bohm correlation

Post by FrediFizzx » Tue Oct 27, 2015 4:53 pm

Joy Christian wrote:***

It is worth noting here that, in the context of the equations (5) and (6) of the above paper, the following more general identity of limits also holds:



It is quite easy to verify this identity of limits. Alternatively, one can just look up the general properties of limits in a good schoolbook on calculus.

***

Perhaps the notation you are using on the RHS might be messing up some people? I think usually it is something like s --> (a', b') or would it be (s, s) --> (a', b')?
http://tutorial.math.lamar.edu/Classes/ ... imits.aspx

Anyways, it is perfectly understandable what you are doing either way.

Re: A new, simplified derivation of the EPR-Bohm correlation

Post by Joy Christian » Tue Oct 27, 2015 3:07 pm

***

It is worth noting here that, in the context of the equations (5) and (6) of the above paper, the following more general identity of limits also holds:



It is quite easy to verify this identity of limits. Alternatively, one can just look up the general properties of limits in a good schoolbook on calculus.

***

Re: A new, simplified derivation of the EPR-Bohm correlation

Post by Joy Christian » Tue Oct 27, 2015 6:43 am

jreed wrote:Looking at your paper I can't understand how anyone would believe that it makes sense.

My paper is not written for anyone who believes that factoring out zero is a legitimate mathematical operation: viewtopic.php?f=6&t=199&start=40#p5582

FrediFizzx wrote:
Joy Christian wrote:***
The paper is now also on the arXiv: http://arxiv.org/abs/1103.1879 , as version 2 of my "Disproof of Bell's Theorem" paper.
***

I like it! This new version is absolutely irrefutable. As VP Joe Biden would say, "This is a big freakin' deal!". I smell a revolution in physics coming.

Re: A new, simplified derivation of the EPR-Bohm correlation

Post by jreed » Tue Oct 27, 2015 6:17 am

Joy Christian wrote:
jreed wrote:Joy, please give me a reference where Richard admits that your expression < AB > = -a.b is correct. I can't find that anywhere.

I am not honouring any of your requests. You lost that right long ago.


Then I'll just have to assume that my first thought about your statement was right. That was that he would never agree that you were correct. Looking at your paper I can't understand how anyone would believe that it makes sense.

Re: A new, simplified derivation of the EPR-Bohm correlation

Post by Joy Christian » Tue Oct 27, 2015 6:00 am

jreed wrote:Joy, please give me a reference where Richard admits that your expression < AB > = -a.b is correct. I can't find that anywhere.

I am not honouring any of your requests. You lost that right long ago.

Re: A new, simplified derivation of the EPR-Bohm correlation

Post by jreed » Tue Oct 27, 2015 5:42 am

Joy Christian wrote::o :o :o

After eight years of bogus criticisms of my model, online harassments, cyber-stalking, lying, cheating, and malicious letters writing, Richard Gill has finally admitted that my model does predict the strong correlation < AB > = -a.b, with A = +/-1 and B = +/-1. His admission reminds me of Tony Blair's recent apology for the Iraq war.

:roll: :roll: :roll:


Joy, please give me a reference where Richard admits that your expression < AB > = -a.b is correct. I can't find that anywhere.

Re: A new, simplified derivation of the EPR-Bohm correlation

Post by FrediFizzx » Mon Oct 26, 2015 11:07 pm

Heinera wrote:You should delete your post alluding to a "violent revolution". It makes one wonder about your plan of further actions.

I suspect it is a form of British humour. Get over it.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_humour

Re: A new, simplified derivation of the EPR-Bohm correlation

Post by Heinera » Mon Oct 26, 2015 10:49 am

You should delete your post alluding to a "violent revolution". It makes one wonder about your plan of further actions.

Re: A new, simplified derivation of the EPR-Bohm correlation

Post by Joy Christian » Mon Oct 26, 2015 10:14 am

:o :o :o

After eight years of bogus criticisms of my model, online harassments, cyber-stalking, lying, cheating, and malicious letters writing, Richard Gill has finally admitted that my model does predict the strong correlation < AB > = -a.b, with A = +/-1 and B = +/-1. His admission reminds me of Tony Blair's recent apology for the Iraq war.

:roll: :roll: :roll:

Re: A new, simplified derivation of the EPR-Bohm correlation

Post by Joy Christian » Sun Oct 25, 2015 9:10 am

FrediFizzx wrote:
Joy Christian wrote:***
The paper is now also on the arXiv: http://arxiv.org/abs/1103.1879 , as version 2 of my "Disproof of Bell's Theorem" paper.
***

I like it! This new version is absolutely irrefutable. As VP Joe Biden would say, "This is a big freakin' deal!". I smell a revolution in physics coming.

Image

Top

cron
CodeCogs - An Open Source Scientific Library