by Q-reeus » Thu Nov 10, 2016 6:49 pm
Joy Christian wrote:A purely Newtonian governed classical physics applied to the EPR-Bohm type experiment with toy balls predicts the correlations E(a, b) = -a.b, as shown in my paper.
The main stumbling block for me to take that seriously is your insistence a physically real torsion is needed and is SOMEHOW present in that purely classical Newtonian setup.
In another recent thread, when asked to explain what the source of this torsion was (in general, not tied to this experiment), you said spin. And that the source of spin was torsion. Not at all enlightening since there was never an attempt to tie down WHERE this spin/torsion existed. Was it just code for the obviously localized spin of a quantum particle? Was it some property inherent in space itself? I got the impression from all your previous talk it was the latter. But NEVER was there a clear, simple explanation as to exactly the what and where and how of this 'torsion' that was so necessary to explain the correlations. No-one else in the anti-Bell camp invokes it.
In the proposed experiment, the only source of spin is obviously that pseudo-randomly generated in each half-shell, owing to 'spot' weights. You wish to call that 'torsion', or at least the source of torsion? That would be a unique nomenclature. If there is some mysterious torsion permeating space that somehow couples to the 'ordinary' equal and opposite spins (more accurately, angular momenta, since there is nothing integer/quantized in this case) of those half-shells, PLEASE EXPLAIN WHERE AND HOW.
Run me through with it Joy. Provide a clear explanation of what your torsion IS exactly, WHERE it resides exactly, and HOW it works it's magic to provide correlations beyond purely classical limits, as claimed.
In the proposed classical mechanics experiment. No, not by pointing to a mass of equations in one of your papers, but with clear wording. The essence of Einstein's equations can and have been so reduced:
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/einstein/node3.htmlNo 'baffling with BS' there. Concept in a nutshell - no advanced undergraduate level specialist maths needed.
[quote="Joy Christian"]
A purely Newtonian governed classical physics applied to the EPR-Bohm type experiment with toy balls predicts the correlations E(a, b) = -a.b, as shown in my paper.[/quote]
The main stumbling block for me to take that seriously is your insistence a physically real torsion is needed and is SOMEHOW present in that purely classical Newtonian setup.
In another recent thread, when asked to explain what the source of this torsion was (in general, not tied to this experiment), you said spin. And that the source of spin was torsion. Not at all enlightening since there was never an attempt to tie down WHERE this spin/torsion existed. Was it just code for the obviously localized spin of a quantum particle? Was it some property inherent in space itself? I got the impression from all your previous talk it was the latter. But NEVER was there a clear, simple explanation as to exactly the what and where and how of this 'torsion' that was so necessary to explain the correlations. No-one else in the anti-Bell camp invokes it.
In the proposed experiment, the only source of spin is obviously that pseudo-randomly generated in each half-shell, owing to 'spot' weights. You wish to call that 'torsion', or at least the source of torsion? That would be a unique nomenclature. If there is some mysterious torsion permeating space that somehow couples to the 'ordinary' equal and opposite spins (more accurately, angular momenta, since there is nothing integer/quantized in this case) of those half-shells, PLEASE EXPLAIN WHERE AND HOW.
Run me through with it Joy. Provide a clear explanation of what your torsion IS exactly, WHERE it resides exactly, and HOW it works it's magic to provide correlations beyond purely classical limits, as claimed. [b]In the proposed classical mechanics experiment[/b]. No, not by pointing to a mass of equations in one of your papers, but with clear wording. The essence of Einstein's equations can and have been so reduced: http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/einstein/node3.html
No 'baffling with BS' there. Concept in a nutshell - no advanced undergraduate level specialist maths needed.
