EPR-Bell is proof that we live in a quaternionic 3-sphere

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: EPR-Bell is proof that we live in a quaternionic 3-sphere

Re: EPR-Bell is proof that we live in a quaternionic 3-spher

Post by Joy Christian » Wed Mar 08, 2017 3:12 am

***
Image
***

Re: EPR-Bell is proof that we live in a quaternionic 3-spher

Post by lkcl » Mon Feb 27, 2017 1:00 am

p.s. that was quite subtle because it requires that he engage and *cooperate* - take the initiative - in working out the errors. his ego will feel better because you *asked for his advice* :) he will also need to actually think about the answer, and might - just might - spot his own error in the process.

Re: EPR-Bell is proof that we live in a quaternionic 3-spher

Post by lkcl » Sat Feb 25, 2017 8:11 pm

ask him which symbols he recommends be used instead.

Re: EPR-Bell is proof that we live in a quaternionic 3-spher

Post by Joy Christian » Wed Feb 22, 2017 2:28 am

***
The following is my latest post at Retraction Watch. The actual refutation of Gill can be found here: https://arxiv.org/abs/1203.2529.

Image
***

Re: EPR-Bell is proof that we live in a quaternionic 3-spher

Post by Joy Christian » Mon Feb 20, 2017 10:43 am

thray wrote:Joy, if Lockyer doesn't understand what domain you're working in by now, he never will.

True. His ego is also a big problem. Nothing much we can do about either.

***

Re: EPR-Bell is proof that we live in a quaternionic 3-spher

Post by thray » Mon Feb 20, 2017 9:56 am

Joy, if Lockyer doesn't understand what domain you're working in by now, he never will.

Re: EPR-Bell is proof that we live in a quaternionic 3-spher

Post by Joy Christian » Mon Feb 20, 2017 12:47 am

***

I have written up a formal response to the mathematical mistakes Lockyer has been making for many years: http://einstein-physics.org/wp-content/ ... ockyer.pdf .

His mistake can be summarized as follows: Missing how the EPR-Bohm type experiments (or any physics experiments for that matter) are actually done, he uses right-handed frame of vectors { e_i } to observe right-handed spins { alpha_i } and left-handed frame of vectors { -e_i } to observe left-handed spins { beta_i = -alpha_i }, and thereby ends up with a physically incorrect identity (14) of my document above. In other words, he never leaves the right-handed basis but mistakenly believes that he has done so. It is then not surprising that he ends up back where he had started from, namely with the right-handed identity (8) of my document, and thus ends up getting a wrong result.

Physically what that means is that he implicitly assumes that counter-clockwise spins in physics are measured about right-handed vectors but clockwise spins are measured in physics about left-handed vectors. But all one has to do to see the mistake in that is to use our thumb and fingers to see that that is one and the same spin, not two different spins! In the actual experiments we do not change the coordinate system back and forth to observe the spins. We keep the vector basis { e_i } fixed for everything, for the entire course of the experiment. That is the only way we can measure that a spin is actually “up”, not “down”, and vice versa.

In mathematical terms what Lockyer has been missing for years is the overall 8-dimensional orientation of the algebra, as I have explained in my document above.

***

Re: EPR-Bell is proof that we live in a quaternionic 3-spher

Post by lkcl » Sat Feb 11, 2017 5:56 am

hi jay, after a lot of thought (which i tend to have to do on these things), i believe the answer to my question is, "because the timescale is reduced to the wavelength of the particle for the FRW spacetime in question". would that be about the right answer? so if you are in a universe that is a FRW spacetime you set the scale of interactions (timescale) to "size of universe", but it is equally perfectly valid to apply *in the same universe* the FRW spacetime characteristics *locally* to a particle of size compton-wavelength. in the case of black holes they similarly carve out a section (in one universe) and have their own local timescale, even though they're *in* another FRW spacetime with a completely different scale.

does that solve the contradiction that i was trying to raise as a concern?

Re: EPR-Bell is proof that we live in a quaternionic 3-spher

Post by lkcl » Tue Jan 31, 2017 2:11 am

joy: question for you, in context of the above.

is it *really* the case that space may be concluded to be an quaternionic 3-sphere, or is that purely limited to the local interactions of matter?

by that i mean that, from what i have seen of dr randell mill's work, the group that you've come up with (which after doing a google search "SU(2)xU(1)xU(1)" comes up with some veerry interesting publications... dating back to *1977* (1)) could be said to be a solution of maxwell's equations for mobius elliptically-polarised light (2) (3).

by virtue of the quite reasonable statement that *not every* photon is elliptically-polarised, we may logically surmise that the work that you did *only* applies to photons (aka "particles") which *are* elliptically-polarised mobius double-exponentials... and thus, logically refute the assertion that we "live in a quarternionic 3-sphere".

now, please please note: i am simply asking the question. if you were to go into detail to the level which would satisfy people with experience at the level of mathematics that you and they will comprehend, you will lose me *instantly* :)

however, the question still stands, as best i can ask it. and i have to say that even if the answer turns out to be "oops, yes you're right", the fact that you've discovered a group which can help solve elliptically-polarised mobius light superposition maxwell's equations is... well... absolutely fantastic and (understatement, here) an incredibly important breakthrough in its own right.


(1) Progress of Theoretical Physics, Vol. 58, No. 6, December 1977
SU(2) X U(l) X U(l) Gauge Theory of Weak
and Electromagnetic Interactions in a Unified SU(6) Scheme
Kenzo INOUE, tl Akira KAKUTO, * Hiromasa KOMATSU and Y oshimasa NAKANO

note IN PARTICULAR equation (10) which involves sin2 which means double the angle which means "mobius" topology. randall mills (4) also uses sin2 in a formula representing the neutrino... just in pure maxwell's equations, no "groups"... but it's the same thing.


(2) Multi-twist optical Mobius strips
Isaac Freund

arxiv:0910.1663

and other papers by freund.

(3) Optical Polarization Mobius Strips and Points of Purely Transverse Spin Density
Thomas Bauer,1, 2 Martin Neugebauer,1, 2 Gerd Leuchs,1, 2, 3 and Peter Banzer1, 2, 3,

arxiv:1601.06072

note especially figure 2(b) BUT, remember: the nonradiating condition has NOT been applied in this work (nor in freund's work).

(4) http://brilliantlightpower.com/book-dow ... streaming/ - current edition sep 2016 http://brilliantlightpower.com/wp-conte ... ok-Web.pdf

Re: EPR-Bell is proof that we live in a quaternionic 3-spher

Post by lkcl » Mon Jan 30, 2017 9:19 am

Joy Christian wrote:***
Thanks for your comments, lkcl. I think both Fred and Jay may also find your comments interesting.

***


appreciated. if i can (after a couple of days thought) summarise the main point: the nature of the exponential (gaussian) function is such that, after reading the wikipedia page on the gaussian function and especially noting what happens with convolution, if you needed a mobius double-exponential to analyse two electrons to the depth that you did, chances are extremely high that mobius double-exponentials *describe* electrons. the rest is logical inference and exploration from other angles by other people.

i would be veery interested to see what happens when the group that you came up with is explored in depth. i really simply cannot get my head round SU(3)xU(1) etc. etc. but i know enough now to be able to suggest that the key may lie in the eigenvectors representing the base particles around a clock (1 for up quark, 2 for anti-down, 3 for neutrino... the left-handed quarks are on there as well). compound particles are simply the superposition of those (i have a huge number of them mapped out already: yes that includes the W, Z and two higgs boxons).

the "mass problem" - that "mass gap" problem - is simply that the particles have to reach a balance-point between their rotating EM field and the centrifugal force of their rotation. compound particles made from multiple quarks (aka photons on a mobius double-exponential) are simply phase-coherently superimposed... thus there is *mostly* cancellation of the quark's EM field(s) taking place.... which means that if they don't properly superimpose (because their radius is increased because they got some extra energy from being pushed around or someone buzzed them with a photon) then their EM fields *don't* cancel properly any more, i.e. increase in *excess* of the centrifugal force of their rotation, thus the balance of forces works to bring them *closer back together*.

in other words we may write a solution for quarks in balance with each other that is near-identical to the equations used to solve electron shells. no need for gluons to be involved at all. this *drastically* simplifies the calculations: no supercomputers needed, no postulation. the only thing to remember is that the non-radiating condition is absolutely, absolutely critical. so, application of schroedinger's equation or any other equation that permits any energy to be emitted (leaked) - schroedinger's equation breaks down unless v<<<c for example - is completely out of the question.

from all the research i've done gluons are just a pair of superimposed mobius double-exponentials which have a fantastically-short lifespan. i.e. they're just an ultra-ultra-ultra-short-lived pion. the three main gluons that keep the three quarks together within the proton may be viewed as simply being a snapshot at a different angle of the superposition of the three quark's waveforms. they don't *actually* exist at all... thus there *is* no such thing as a "bare mass quark". the quarks *have* been excited (just like an electron shell) to *include* the full energy which has been (mistakenly?) attributed to separate gluons. that's the working hypothesis so far.

Re: EPR-Bell is proof that we live in a quaternionic 3-spher

Post by Joy Christian » Sun Jan 29, 2017 11:12 am

***
Thanks for your comments, lkcl. I think both Fred and Jay may also find your comments interesting.

***

Re: EPR-Bell is proof that we live in a quaternionic 3-spher

Post by lkcl » Sun Jan 29, 2017 1:00 am

joy: going right back to the very beginning of this thread, you may be interested to know that equation 81 is identical to the (independent) breakthrough insight which provides the mathematical underpinnings for the Extended Rishon Model, along with the (again, independent) additional key insight of the mobius topology. this insight came initially from that paper on "elliptical mobius light" but whether that is actually *really* what's going on or not is irrelevant to having been the basis for noticing that double-exponent relationship.

looking at dr randall mill's work (which i believe is not complete but it gives accuracy to 1e-10 in most instances so must be doing something right) he also has signs - in cartesian coordinates - of this double-exponential mobius relationship.

where it gets *really* interesting is where you express quarks (and the electron and neutrino) as a static phase offset within the mathematical framework of that mobius double-exponent, with each phase offset being around the hour-hand of a clock, superimpose three quarks then apply jones calculus to the result.... turns out that because the up quark is at 1 o'clock (1/12 2/pi) and the down quark is at 8 o'clock (8/12 2pi) the doubling of the mobius angle allows clean and simple factorisation of the second part of the exponent....

... leaving a static phase offset in the first part...

... which means that you can simply *ADD* the E0 elliptical polarisation axes of the three quarks....

... which in the case of the proton comes to a unit vector in the electro-magnetic field corresponding to a REAL number...

... which is of unit charge +1

basically what i'm saying is: whilst i've been working on going back to the original maxwell's equations instead of working with the fantastically-complicated frequency domain (yang-mills *being* maxwell's equations moved to the frequency domain aka quantum mechanics), essentially the key is the same regardless of whether it's in the frequency domain or not: that double-multiplied (mobius) exponential. the insight you've come up with is to have spotted some serious breakthrough fundamental errors in the way that people have been doing the maths for years in the standard model, which has prevented and prohibited them from moving it forward.

you should be celebrating and jumping up and down, not jumping up and down because of some entrenched people: they're done. they're old and they're gonna die soon of crotetchiness, grump, anger and old-dog-ism-ness. best to stay the hell away from them... unless you want to become *like* them!

in short: go with it... because you're right. and for goodness sake give jay a rocket and tell him to enjoy his vacation.

Re: EPR-Bell is proof that we live in a quaternionic 3-spher

Post by Joy Christian » Sat Jan 28, 2017 1:08 pm

FrediFizzx wrote:
Joy Christian wrote:
FrediFizzx wrote:Yeah, there is not much point in arguing with him since he is too stubborn to admit his double mapping error.

There is yet another breathtakingly dishonest individual who is trolling at Retraction Watch; namely, HR, aka Heinera. He has been able to fool Jay for some reason, but to me he will always remain a dishonest and incompetent individual who is too blinded by his dogmatic belief in Bell's silly theorem to ever see the light of truth.

***

It just comes down to the fact that they are rejecting your S^3 postulate. But it is really dishonest that they fight tooth and nail to not even admit that you are right if S^3 is true.

To reject the S^3 postulate Lockyer and Heinera would have to know what S^3 is. In my opinion both of them are far too incompetent to even have an idea what it is.

***

Re: EPR-Bell is proof that we live in a quaternionic 3-spher

Post by FrediFizzx » Sat Jan 28, 2017 11:44 am

Joy Christian wrote:
FrediFizzx wrote:Yeah, there is not much point in arguing with him since he is too stubborn to admit his double mapping error.

There is yet another breathtakingly dishonest individual who is trolling at Retraction Watch; namely, HR, aka Heinera. He has been able to fool Jay for some reason, but to me he will always remain a dishonest and incompetent individual who is too blinded by his dogmatic belief in Bell's silly theorem to ever see the light of truth.

***

It just comes down to the fact that they are rejecting your S^3 postulate. But it is really dishonest that they fight tooth and nail to not even admit that you are right if S^3 is true.

Re: EPR-Bell is proof that we live in a quaternionic 3-spher

Post by Joy Christian » Fri Jan 27, 2017 9:46 am

FrediFizzx wrote:Yeah, there is not much point in arguing with him since he is too stubborn to admit his double mapping error.

There is yet another breathtakingly dishonest individual who is trolling at Retraction Watch; namely, HR, aka Heinera. He has been able to fool Jay for some reason, but to me he will always remain a dishonest and incompetent individual who is too blinded by his dogmatic belief in Bell's silly theorem to ever see the light of truth.

***

Re: EPR-Bell is proof that we live in a quaternionic 3-spher

Post by FrediFizzx » Thu Jan 19, 2017 4:34 pm

Yeah, there is not much point in arguing with him since he is too stubborn to admit his double mapping error.

Re: EPR-Bell is proof that we live in a quaternionic 3-spher

Post by Joy Christian » Wed Jan 18, 2017 5:36 pm

FrediFizzx wrote:
Joy Christian wrote:
FrediFizzx wrote:The reason Lockyer doesn't want to see the cross product because it so easily proves how wrong he is. The fact that (b x a) = -(a x b) perfectly demonstrates that the order is reversed in the relationship between left and right handedness.

Lockyer is either utterly incompetent or shamelessly dishonest. You and I have pointed out his mathematical mistakes to him hundreds of times in the past six years. Michel has also pointed out his mistakes to him a few times: viewtopic.php?f=6&t=183&start=80#p5080. And now Jay has thoroughly exposed his misconceptions at Retraction Watch: http://retractionwatch.com/2016/09/30/p ... nt-1253891. And yet he carries on year after year with the same cacophony, like a broken record.

***

Well... one good thing about it is that Jay now has a better understanding of GA and how it works in your model. The thing that boggles my mind is that Lockyer doesn't understand how he doubled up on the multiplication table. Perhaps pure math makes you crazy or something. :?: But it is probably more like a case of extreme stubbornness. I was a bit of an online friend of his father so if that is the case, I know where it comes from. I credit his father for getting me interested in physics again, but I was never successful at getting Thomas to explore different aspects of his theories; very stubborn about that. Even though I didn't agree with some of his ideas, I would read and study all of his self-published books that he sent me. And even helped him with one of his DVD's one time. You might even like some of his work. It was about how to do quantum particle physics the semi-classical way.
.

He is double-mapping again at RW. :roll:

***

Re: EPR-Bell is proof that we live in a quaternionic 3-spher

Post by FrediFizzx » Tue Jan 17, 2017 10:38 pm

Joy Christian wrote:
FrediFizzx wrote:The reason Lockyer doesn't want to see the cross product because it so easily proves how wrong he is. The fact that (b x a) = -(a x b) perfectly demonstrates that the order is reversed in the relationship between left and right handedness.

Lockyer is either utterly incompetent or shamelessly dishonest. You and I have pointed out his mathematical mistakes to him hundreds of times in the past six years. Michel has also pointed out his mistakes to him a few times: viewtopic.php?f=6&t=183&start=80#p5080. And now Jay has thoroughly exposed his misconceptions at Retraction Watch: http://retractionwatch.com/2016/09/30/p ... nt-1253891. And yet he carries on year after year with the same cacophony, like a broken record.

***

Well... one good thing about it is that Jay now has a better understanding of GA and how it works in your model. The thing that boggles my mind is that Lockyer doesn't understand how he doubled up on the multiplication table. Perhaps pure math makes you crazy or something. :?: But it is probably more like a case of extreme stubbornness. I was a bit of an online friend of his father so if that is the case, I know where it comes from. I credit his father for getting me interested in physics again, but I was never successful at getting Thomas to explore different aspects of his theories; very stubborn about that. Even though I didn't agree with some of his ideas, I would read and study all of his self-published books that he sent me. And even helped him with one of his DVD's one time. You might even like some of his work. It was about how to do quantum particle physics the semi-classical way.
.

Re: EPR-Bell is proof that we live in a quaternionic 3-spher

Post by Joy Christian » Tue Jan 17, 2017 9:31 pm

FrediFizzx wrote:The reason Lockyer doesn't want to see the cross product because it so easily proves how wrong he is. The fact that (b x a) = -(a x b) perfectly demonstrates that the order is reversed in the relationship between left and right handedness.

Lockyer is either utterly incompetent or shamelessly dishonest. You and I have pointed out his mathematical mistakes to him hundreds of times in the past six years. Michel has also pointed out his mistakes to him a few times: viewtopic.php?f=6&t=183&start=80#p5080. And now Jay has thoroughly exposed his misconceptions at Retraction Watch: http://retractionwatch.com/2016/09/30/p ... nt-1253891. And yet he carries on year after year with the same cacophony, like a broken record.

***

Re: EPR-Bell is proof that we live in a quaternionic 3-spher

Post by FrediFizzx » Sun Jan 08, 2017 1:07 am

The reason Lockyer doesn't want to see the cross product because it so easily proves how wrong he is. The fact that (b x a) = -(a x b) perfectly demonstrates that the order is reversed in the relationship between left and right handedness.

Top

cron
CodeCogs - An Open Source Scientific Library