by **gill1109** » Sat Jun 01, 2019 8:27 pm

Joy Christian wrote:FrediFizzx wrote:gill1109 wrote:Sorry Joy, I met it immediately, but you apparently could not understand my argument. It was a simple argument using Fourier analysis, from one of the founders of Geometric Algebra. I recommend you reformulate your challenge so that an independent jury of unbiased observers can objectively determine whether or not a challenge is succesful. That is a difficult job, I know! I gave the "reverse" challenge a lot of thought, and even as it is, I can see issues where an anti-Bellist could object to some of the rules

I never saw how you met the challenge so please reproduce it here. Thanks.

He means this nonsense:

viewtopic.php?f=6&t=275#p6695It is pathetic!

One person's evaluation is "pathetic", another person's is "pure genius". I'm referring to the genius of Steve Gull who wrote those four overhead slides

http://www.mrao.cam.ac.uk/~steve/maxent2009/images/bell.pdf.

I explored Gull's ideas in

https://arxiv.org/abs/1312.6403. I never submitted this to a journal. It ends with a lot of open problems, really I am looking for someone who is interested in collaborating with me to explore these ideas even further.

Steve Gull, one of the great pioneers of Geometric Algebra, presented his brilliant idea at a "max ent" conference. It was about an exam question he used to give to students. Jaynes was there and very very impressed and excited. He wrote that it would take many decades to digest the meaning of this extraordinary result, which completely overturned his earlier judgements on Bell's theorem. (He had earlier, rather arrogantly, written that Bell had simply got in a muddle about the difference between independence and conditional independence.)

My paper

https://arxiv.org/abs/1312.6403 is entitled "The triangle wave versus the cosine (how to optimally approximate EPR-B correlations by classical systems)"

Author: Richard D. Gill

(Submitted on 22 Dec 2013 (v1), last revised 27 Dec 2013 (this version, v2))

Abstract: The famous singlet correlations of a composite quantum system consisting of two spatially separated components exhibit notable features of two kinds. The first kind are striking certainty relations: perfect correlation and perfect anti-correlation in certain settings. The second kind are a number of symmetries, in particular, invariance under rotation, as well as invariance under exchange of components, parity, or chirality. In this note I investigate the class of correlation functions that can be generated by classical composite physical systems when we restrict attention to systems which reproduce the certainty relations exactly, and for which the rotational invariance of the correlation function is the manifestation of rotational invariance of the underlying classical physics. I call such correlation functions classical EPR-B correlations. It turns out that the other three (binary) symmetries can then be obtained for free: they are exhibited by the correlation function, and can be imposed on the underlying physics by adding an underlying randomisation level. We end up with a simple probabilistic description of all possible classical EPR-B correlations in terms of a ``spinning coloured disk'' model, and a research programme: describe these functions in a concise analytic way.

Comments: v2: changed title (saw tooth became triangle)

Subjects: Quantum Physics (quant-ph); Mathematical Physics (math-ph); Applications (stat.AP)

Cite as: arXiv:1312.6403 [quant-ph]

(or arXiv:1312.6403v2 [quant-ph] for this version)

Submission history

From: Richard D. Gill [view email]

[v1] Sun, 22 Dec 2013 16:51:33 UTC (36 KB)

[v2] Fri, 27 Dec 2013 06:52:53 UTC (36 KB)

[quote="Joy Christian"][quote="FrediFizzx"][quote="gill1109"]Sorry Joy, I met it immediately, but you apparently could not understand my argument. It was a simple argument using Fourier analysis, from one of the founders of Geometric Algebra. I recommend you reformulate your challenge so that an independent jury of unbiased observers can objectively determine whether or not a challenge is succesful. That is a difficult job, I know! I gave the "reverse" challenge a lot of thought, and even as it is, I can see issues where an anti-Bellist could object to some of the rules

[/quote]

I never saw how you met the challenge so please reproduce it here. Thanks.

[/quote]

He means this nonsense: http://www.sciphysicsforums.com/spfbb1/viewtopic.php?f=6&t=275#p6695

It is pathetic!

[/quote]

One person's evaluation is "pathetic", another person's is "pure genius". I'm referring to the genius of Steve Gull who wrote those four overhead slides [url]http://www.mrao.cam.ac.uk/~steve/maxent2009/images/bell.pdf[/url].

I explored Gull's ideas in [url]https://arxiv.org/abs/1312.6403[/url]. I never submitted this to a journal. It ends with a lot of open problems, really I am looking for someone who is interested in collaborating with me to explore these ideas even further.

Steve Gull, one of the great pioneers of Geometric Algebra, presented his brilliant idea at a "max ent" conference. It was about an exam question he used to give to students. Jaynes was there and very very impressed and excited. He wrote that it would take many decades to digest the meaning of this extraordinary result, which completely overturned his earlier judgements on Bell's theorem. (He had earlier, rather arrogantly, written that Bell had simply got in a muddle about the difference between independence and conditional independence.)

My paper [url]https://arxiv.org/abs/1312.6403[/url] is entitled "The triangle wave versus the cosine (how to optimally approximate EPR-B correlations by classical systems)"

Author: Richard D. Gill

(Submitted on 22 Dec 2013 (v1), last revised 27 Dec 2013 (this version, v2))

Abstract: The famous singlet correlations of a composite quantum system consisting of two spatially separated components exhibit notable features of two kinds. The first kind are striking certainty relations: perfect correlation and perfect anti-correlation in certain settings. The second kind are a number of symmetries, in particular, invariance under rotation, as well as invariance under exchange of components, parity, or chirality. In this note I investigate the class of correlation functions that can be generated by classical composite physical systems when we restrict attention to systems which reproduce the certainty relations exactly, and for which the rotational invariance of the correlation function is the manifestation of rotational invariance of the underlying classical physics. I call such correlation functions classical EPR-B correlations. It turns out that the other three (binary) symmetries can then be obtained for free: they are exhibited by the correlation function, and can be imposed on the underlying physics by adding an underlying randomisation level. We end up with a simple probabilistic description of all possible classical EPR-B correlations in terms of a ``spinning coloured disk'' model, and a research programme: describe these functions in a concise analytic way.

Comments: v2: changed title (saw tooth became triangle)

Subjects: Quantum Physics (quant-ph); Mathematical Physics (math-ph); Applications (stat.AP)

Cite as: arXiv:1312.6403 [quant-ph]

(or arXiv:1312.6403v2 [quant-ph] for this version)

Submission history

From: Richard D. Gill [view email]

[v1] Sun, 22 Dec 2013 16:51:33 UTC (36 KB)

[v2] Fri, 27 Dec 2013 06:52:53 UTC (36 KB)