SciPhysicsForums.com

by **Joy Christian** » Wed Dec 16, 2015 2:18 pm

Joy Christian wrote:
Q-reeus wrote:BTW Joy - has the experimental protocol now firmed to a specific scenario - e.g. will it still be using marked 'exploding' plastic shells and optical tracking? Performed in earth g or simulated zero-g (temporarily/periodically free-falling) environment? Closer to a firm timetable?

I don't yet know the answers to these questions, because there have been some setbacks of personal nature. Consequently, nothing firm about the timetable either.

For the record here, I now have a simplified derivation of the prediction of my proposed experiment: https://www.academia.edu/19235737/Macro ... fied_Proof.

by **Joy Christian** » Wed Sep 16, 2015 5:20 am

Q-reeus wrote:BTW Joy - has the experimental protocol now firmed to a specific scenario - e.g. will it still be using marked 'exploding' plastic shells and optical tracking? Performed in earth g or simulated zero-g (temporarily/periodically free-falling) environment? Closer to a firm timetable?

I don't yet know the answers to these questions, because there have been some setbacks of personal nature. Consequently, nothing firm about the timetable either.

by **Q-reeus** » Wed Sep 16, 2015 5:11 am

Joy Christian wrote:Well, yes, in general. But the current context is about my proposed experiment, which is restricted to testing only one of the S^3 fibers within the general S^7 bundle.

OK, just seemed odd to define the extent of our 'world' via a particular experimental protocol rather than what is believed to be the all-encompassing reality.
BTW Joy - has the experimental protocol now firmed to a specific scenario - e.g. will it still be using marked 'exploding' plastic shells and optical tracking? Performed in earth g or simulated zero-g (temporarily/periodically free-falling) environment? Closer to a firm timetable?

by **Joy Christian** » Wed Sep 16, 2015 4:48 am

Q-reeus wrote:
Joy Christian wrote:...I believe that we actually live in a quaternionic 3-sphere, S^3, and not in a flatland, R^3...

Err...shouldn't that be "I believe that we actually live in an octonic (or octonionic) 7-sphere, S^7, and not in a flatland, R^3"?

Well, yes, in general. But the current context is about my proposed experiment, which is restricted to testing only one of the S^3 fibers within the general S^7 bundle.

by **Q-reeus** » Wed Sep 16, 2015 4:39 am

Joy Christian wrote:...I believe that we actually live in a quaternionic 3-sphere, S^3, and not in a flatland, R^3...

Err...shouldn't that be "I believe that we actually live in an octonic (or octonionic) 7-sphere, S^7, and not in a flatland, R^3"?

by **Joy Christian** » Wed Sep 16, 2015 1:31 am

ericreiter wrote:I like where Joy Christian is coming from, but there is an easier, more relevent, and actually running experiment that defies quantum mysticism.Why not use my well documented working experiments that demonstrate the failure of quantum mechanics in general. It is a beam-split coincidence test. I do it with gamma-rays to lay rest to the photon model, and I do it with alpha-rays to lay rest to the always applicable massive particle. See
http://www.ptep-online.com/index_files/ ... -37-06.PDF
Also see my website http://www.unquantum.net
Also, ask me for my SPIE Proceedings paper of August 11, 2015. the abstract is linked from my website.
Thank you, Eric Reiter.

I am aware of your work, and pleased to see that it is now published. There may be other people interested in your work, so please start a new thread if you wish.

As for the experiment I have proposed, it has a dual purpose. In addition to undermining quantum mysticism, I am also interested in testing my theoretical hypothesis and the associated research program. I believe that we actually live in a quaternionic 3-sphere, S^3, and not in a flatland, R^3. The strong EPR-Bhom correlations we observe in Nature are a direct consequence of this fact. My proposed experiment is thus specifically aimed at confirming this fact. Unfortunately my hypothesis also contradicts the so-called theorem by John Bell, and hence the vicious opposition to and heavy suppression of my work. In any case, I hope this answers your question.

by **ericreiter** » Wed Sep 16, 2015 12:12 am

I like where Joy Christian is coming from, but there is an easier, more relevent, and actually running experiment that defies quantum mysticism.Why not use my well documented working experiments that demonstrate the failure of quantum mechanics in general. It is a beam-split coincidence test. I do it with gamma-rays to lay rest to the photon model, and I do it with alpha-rays to lay rest to the always applicable massive particle. See
http://www.ptep-online.com/index_files/ ... -37-06.PDF
Also see my website http://www.unquantum.net
Also, ask me for my SPIE Proceedings paper of August 11, 2015. the abstract is linked from my website.
Thank you, Eric Reiter.

by **FrediFizzx** » Tue Aug 18, 2015 1:08 pm

Now that this experiment is published, it gives direct support to Joy's proposed macroscopic mechanical singlet experiment. It needs to be freakin' done!

by **FrediFizzx** » Wed Aug 12, 2015 1:19 am

Joy Christian wrote:An interesting comment left on by blog by some "Mr. Rosenblum": http://libertesphilosophica.info/blog/d ... mment-8247

Lovely, just very lovely. Someone must be very concerned.

by **Joy Christian** » Wed Aug 12, 2015 12:47 am

An interesting comment left on by blog by some "Mr. Rosenblum": http://libertesphilosophica.info/blog/d ... mment-8247

by **Joy Christian** » Sat Aug 08, 2015 1:47 am

Mikko wrote:
Joy Christian wrote:
A theoretical computer scientist, Paul Snively, has crystalized the essence of my work in a logical sequence that I find quite interesting.

According to Snively the logic behind my refutation of Bell's theorem is:

algebra with operations lacking the closure property $\rightarrow$ mathematical singularities $\rightarrow$ partial functions $\rightarrow$ logical inconsistency.

A brief discussion of what he means by this sequence can be found on his blog: http://psnively.github.io/blog/2015/01/22/Fallacy/.

That web page doesn't exist anymore.

Yes, I have already noted that here: viewtopic.php?f=6&t=183&start=40#p4991.

All is not lost, however: https://disqus.com/home/discussion/psni ... s_blog_53/.

See also this archive: http://web.archive.org/web/201501230153 ... 2/Fallacy/.

by **Mikko** » Sat Aug 08, 2015 1:38 am

Joy Christian wrote:
A theoretical computer scientist, Paul Snively, has crystalized the essence of my work in a logical sequence that I find quite interesting.

According to Snively the logic behind my refutation of Bell's theorem is:

algebra with operations lacking the closure property $\rightarrow$ mathematical singularities $\rightarrow$ partial functions $\rightarrow$ logical inconsistency.

A brief discussion of what he means by this sequence can be found on his blog: http://psnively.github.io/blog/2015/01/22/Fallacy/.

That web page doesn't exist anymore.

by **Joy Christian** » Fri Jul 17, 2015 10:01 pm

Back to the main topic of the proposed macroscopic experiment, in addition to the numerical confirmation of the Clifford-algebraic calculations,

http://challengingbell.blogspot.co.uk/2 ... f-joy.html ,

we now also have this manifestly local-realistic event-by-event simulation of the N spin vectors to be observed in the proposed experiment.

These N spin vectors have been simulated before (several times), but I think this new simulation is more comprehensive and enlightening.

by **FrediFizzx** » Wed May 27, 2015 1:15 pm

Discussion moved to a new topic.

viewtopic.php?f=6&t=166

by **Schmelzer** » Wed May 27, 2015 1:01 pm

FrediFizzx wrote:You are still non-local so in fact are still prescribing to "action at a distance". You have not gotten yourself out of quantum mysticism completely.

So why should I be afraid of action at a distance? Newton was also not afraid of it. This is something one can leave to the future. It was also clear to Newton that his theory can be only an approximation, because it has this action at a distance. But so what? Realism and causality are preserved, not in danger, with a hidden preferred frame. And if one, in some future, observes violations of quantum theory because the immediate action at a distance it requires is not as immediate as required, I will be happy (if I'm yet alive).

There is certainly much less quantum mysticism in de Broglie-Bohm theory than in all the non-realistic interpretations. Without doubt, there is yet room for improvement, I'm working in this direction right now. But the "action at a distance" is, from the point of view of an ether theorist, not even a problem.

by **FrediFizzx** » Wed May 27, 2015 12:39 pm

You are still non-local so in fact are still prescribing to "action at a distance". You have not gotten yourself out of quantum mysticism completely.

by **Schmelzer** » Wed May 27, 2015 12:19 pm

FrediFizzx wrote:... just curious as to why an etherist like yourself would ever buy into "spooky action at a distance"? IMHO, the only way out is for space to have spinor properties.

Strange question - I thought this is obvious. The "spooky action at a distance" has a quite simple solution, moreover, a realistic one: A hidden preferred frame, as used, for example, in de Broglie-Bohm theory. Such a hidden preferred frame is, of course, the ideal for an ether theorist. So, why should I support the last hope for realists that the spacetime interpretation, which forbids a hidden preferred frame, can be preserved?

No, I'm quite comfortable with a situation where one has or to accept a hidden preferred frame, or to give up realism and causality in exchange for nothing. A hidden preferred frame is the much better way out of quantum mysticism.

by **FrediFizzx** » Wed May 27, 2015 11:12 am

Schmelzer wrote:No. In my theory fermions appear only in electroweak doublets. So that spin and isospin operators can combine into usual nonspinor rotation.

Thanks; just curious as to why an etherist like yourself would ever buy into "spooky action at a distance"? IMHO, the only way out is for space to have spinor properties.

by **Schmelzer** » Wed May 27, 2015 12:39 am

FrediFizzx wrote:Hi Ilja,

Does your theory incorporate space as having spinor properties in any way?

No. In my theory fermions appear only in electroweak doublets. So that spin and isospin operators can combine into usual nonspinor rotation.

by **FrediFizzx** » Tue May 26, 2015 4:07 pm

Hi Ilja,

Does your theory incorporate space as having spinor properties in any way?

SciPhysicsForums.com

Experimental Refutation of Quantum Mysticism,

Post a reply

Expand view Topic review: Experimental Refutation of Quantum Mysticism,

Re: Experimental Refutation of Quantum Mysticism,

Re: Experimental Refutation of Quantum Mysticism,

Re: Experimental Refutation of Quantum Mysticism,

Re: Experimental Refutation of Quantum Mysticism,

Re: Experimental Refutation of Quantum Mysticism,

Re: Experimental Refutation of Quantum Mysticism,

Re: Experimental Refutation of Quantum Mysticism,

Re: Experimental Refutation of Quantum Mysticism,

Re: Experimental Refutation of Quantum Mysticism,

Re: Experimental Refutation of Quantum Mysticism,

Re: Experimental Refutation of Quantum Mysticism,

Re: Experimental Refutation of Quantum Mysticism,

Re: Experimental Refutation of Quantum Mysticism,

Re: Experimental Refutation of Quantum Mysticism,

Re: Experimental Refutation of Quantum Mysticism,

Re: Experimental Refutation of Quantum Mysticism,

Re: Experimental Refutation of Quantum Mysticism,

Re: Experimental Refutation of Quantum Mysticism,

Re: Experimental Refutation of Quantum Mysticism,

Re: Experimental Refutation of Quantum Mysticism,