Experimental Refutation of Quantum Mysticism,

[Ben6993]

Hi Joy

That is an interesting website and I believe what you and he are saying about the higher algebra that is required to cope with spinors. You know that I agree with your formulae in the one page proof and have not seen anything that I disagree with in your other papers, though I have not followed all the more advanced formulae e.g. as in the S7 work.

Quite a long time ago I agreed with you on the micro objects but was not accepting the same for the macro objects. However, I now agree with you also on the macros, but only by divorcing the macro from the micro. I.e. I can see that a spinning ball has rotation and hence should need the higher algebra to fully describe it. But I see that macro spinning hemisphere requires the spinor treatment only because of the above and not because of any dependency on it being made up of countless micro spinors.

Despite now agreeing with you that a macro spinning ball needs the higher algebra, I am not clear how that higher algebra can be used on lab observations. I thought that the hidden variables can only be described using the higher algebra and that the (double cover) full information in the hidden variables is lost as soon as a lab observation (single cover) is made. So how can the single cover lab observations be used within the higher algebra? And if the lab observations are analysed using normal algebra, the full (double cover) information is immediately lost due to not using the spinor algebra? And in your macro experiment are not the lab observations to be analysed using normal algebra?

In other words: how does the need for higher algebra to cope with rotations (which I agree with) fit with the proposed experiment using single cover lab observations analysed using normal algebra?

Assuring you of my continued support.

[Joy Christian]

Hi Ben,

Thank you for your continued support. Paul Snively's website is indeed quite interesting.

Quite a long time ago I agreed with you on the micro objects but was not accepting the same for the macro objects. However, I now agree with you also on the macros, but only by divorcing the macro from the micro. I.e. I can see that a spinning ball has rotation and hence should need the higher algebra to fully describe it. But I see that macro spinning hemisphere requires the spinor treatment only because of the above and not because of any dependency on it being made up of countless micro spinors.

I wouldn't call it "divorcing the macro from the micro", but I understand what you mean. My reservation for the phrase "divorcing the macro from the micro" has to do with the quotation from Bell I have posted on the welcome (or main) page of my blog. In other words, it has to do with the fact that we are actually putting the macro and the micro on equal footing as far as the quantum (or strong) correlations are concerned. But this is a different conceptual point than the one you have in mind.

Despite now agreeing with you that a macro spinning ball needs the higher algebra, I am not clear how that higher algebra can be used on lab observations. I thought that the hidden variables can only be described using the higher algebra and that the (double cover) full information in the hidden variables is lost as soon as a lab observation (single cover) is made. So how can the single cover lab observations be used within the higher algebra? And if the lab observations are analysed using normal algebra, the full (double cover) information is immediately lost due to not using the spinor algebra? And in your macro experiment are not the lab observations to be analysed using normal algebra?

In other words: how does the need for higher algebra to cope with rotations (which I agree with) fit with the proposed experiment using single cover lab observations analysed using normal algebra?

This is of course a very important question --- perhaps the most important question in the context of Bell's argument. It is also the question that drives, for example, Richard Gill's opposition to my proposed experiment (however, as you may appreciate, his manners and tactics of raising this important question is most disagreeable to me). To understand my answer to this question you would have to reflect on the equations (7) and (8) of this new preprint: http://arxiv.org/pdf/1501.03393.pdf .

Notice the strict geometrical relationship between the scalar numbers and the bivectors . It is this strict geometrical relationship between the scalar numbers (single cover) and the bivectors (double cover) that drives the correlation calculated using the pure scalar numbers .

I recommend studying the entire preprint I have linked above and see how far you understand what I am saying. If you get stuck at some point, then please ask me again and I will try to explain what is going on. But since you have read most of my papers you will probably follow my discussion in the preprint.

[Ben6993]

Joy,

Thanks for the kind offer. I will play with the formulae you referred to using Excel VB, that is, once I find VB or install it into my new Excel program on my fairly new computer. I have been without the VB for a good few months now! I lost the R software when my old PC crashed and I have been intending to reload the R software back onto the old computer when it is repaired. (I will understand it better in VB and have not tried your newer formulae yet in VB.)

Do you have a simple visualisation for the hidden variable of a macro spinning object? All I can think of is the normal spin +1 or -1, clockwise or anticlockwise along the linear direction of motion. For a micro object the hidden variable corresponds to a trivector ijk = +1 or -1. If an S3 box is tangentially the same as R3 in the limit as volume -> 0, is the R3 tangential space for the two different trivectors identical? I keep thinking they should somehow be different because they are at opposite ends of the Moibus strip in that analogy. I can believe that for the micro but the mind baulks a little for the macro version.

I have been thinking more about my previous post in general terms. I may have been confounding all those simulations with real experiments in my thinking. In real experiments we can just forget about higher algebra. Nature uses the hidden variables but we can forget about them and just use the observables. If the QM real experiments do work to obtain -cos theta for the micro case, than I agree they should also work for macro case (though it would be nice to get the visualisation for macro mentioned above).

A danger is that if both the QM and macro experiments work, and you will obviously get the kudos for the latter, it could be said [and no doubt will be by some] that neither case depends on your hidden variable formulae. In some ways, I think that the simulations are the best hope for the acceptance of your theory. It still puzzles me why there was no agreed resolution of the outcomes. However, I accept that the time may not be right to air those again but it may need to be done after the experiment is completed. If the macro experiment works, the shock of that result for the establishment should give a fresh impetus to getting agreement on the outcomes of the simulations.

Best wishes

[Joy Christian]

Well, Richard Gill has done it again.

Not satisfied with being banned from this forum as well as from Wikipedia, he has now managed to get himself banned from Paul Snively's blog as well.



He will now have to find some other means to attack me and my work.

[FrediFizzx]

I am sure you guys will find another place to carry on the battle.

Here is a picture of oriented volumes created with GAViewer.

http://1drv.ms/1BpK6hf

[Q-reeus]

I am sure you guys will find another place to carry on the battle.

Here is a picture of oriented volumes created with GAViewer.

http://1drv.ms/1BpK6hf

Fred - how are the two polygonized spheres (hyperspheres?) to be interpreted? It's clear there is a reversal of the presumably equal magnitude surface normals, left wrt to right sphere. Also a slight relative rotation between the two that may be purely an artifact. Beyond that have no idea what for instance the 4 red dots signify. Are they meant to be aids to meditate?

[Ben6993]

Hi Fred

I tried to open the GAviewer website and it failed at first, but later it worked. In the meantime I looked on google and saw some items on the google listing that had moving 3D images, even on the google listing page. So presumably moving 3D images is possible using that software.

I am interested in making a moving image of an electron structure in my preon model. Three colour branes form a triple helix. The coloured preons are joined to the branes at one end of each preon (a string-like object), the other end being free. A red preon attached only to a red brane etc. The free end of a preon attracts a preon of another colour. It is like the double helix which has A/C/T/G instead of the coloured preons. But the triple helix is dynamic. The preons twist and that caused the 3-helix to 1) twist into the helix shape and 2) to keep on twisting. If the ends of the helix join, it could look (at least superficially like a Hopf fibration). Do you think that the GAviewer software can enable a dynamic image of the triple helix to be made?

I note that while Jay seems to have eschewed the wooden ends of his recent structures (wrt fractional charges) I have the mysterious branes put in their place. The preons are attracted together by hypercolour, which is an essential extra force in my model.

[Ben6993]

Footnote to my previous post.

I noted that I think of the coloured branes as mysterous things which seem to take the place of Jay's wooden blocks which have been rejected from his fractional charge model/theory/or whatever, just leaving the strings. I have strings embedded in branes which are extra dimensions, and those dimensions need to be intertwined.

My preons are strings which 'keep on twisting' making the electron a continually dynamic object. So the helix keeps on twisting just as Felix kept on walking. That also is different, I believe, from Jay's strings which spin because of their chiral twist when moving throug the vacuum (which is not null) - rather like a sycamore seed spiralling as it floats to earth. My best image of the preon is a chiral universe which keeps on expanding via dark energy. I don't see how the string could maintain approx speed c if there was no internal motor of some kind.

I know that motion is maintained free of effort in vacuum by inertia, but if the twisting motion is acquired for free just by having a chiral structure ... that seems too much like something for nothing. Unless that spin is set off at t=0 and is maintained by inertia?

[FrediFizzx]

I am sure you guys will find another place to carry on the battle.

Here is a picture of oriented volumes created with GAViewer.

http://1drv.ms/1BpK6hf

Fred - how are the two polygonized spheres (hyperspheres?) to be interpreted? It's clear there is a reversal of the presumably equal magnitude surface normals, left wrt to right sphere. Also a slight relative rotation between the two that may be purely an artifact. Beyond that have no idea what for instance the 4 red dots signify. Are they meant to be aids to meditate?

The spheres are not polygonized nor hyperspheres. I just drew them in wireframe mode so one can see the internal lines for orientation on the right one. The four red dots are points that define the sphere. I could have done it without the red points but it was part of an exercise I was following in the tutorial. In geometric algebra, I just did I=e1^e2^e3 basically which produces the sphere on the left. The sphere on the right is equal to -I. This is part of Joy's basic physics postulate for his local realistic model.

[Joy Christian]

The spheres are not polygonized nor hyperspheres. I just drew them in wireframe mode so one can see the internal lines for orientation on the right one. The four red dots are points that define the sphere. I could have done it without the red points but it was part of an exercise I was following in the tutorial. In geometric algebra, I just did I=e1^e2^e3 basically which produces the sphere on the left. The sphere on the right is equal to -I. This is part of Joy's basic physics postulate for his local realistic model.

Hi Fred,

Nice start!

As you know, the sign of "I" is the "hidden variable" in the model. It specifies the orientation of the 3-sphere. So we need to distinguish the left oriented 3-sphere from the right oriented 3-sphere. Can you color the two "I"'s differently, for example red lines for "+I" and green lines for "-I"? It is difficult to set apart left orientation from the right orientation. At the moment your two pictures look more or less the same to me.

Thanks,

Joy

[FrediFizzx]

Hi Fred,

Nice start!

As you know, the sign of "I" is the "hidden variable" in the model. It specifies the orientation of the 3-sphere. So we need to distinguish the left oriented 3-sphere from the right oriented 3-sphere. Can you color the two "I"'s differently, for example red lines for "+I" and green lines for "-I"? It is difficult to set apart left orientation from the right orientation. At the moment your two pictures look more or less the same to me.

Thanks,

Joy

Here you go!

Or


Or maybe it is better with green for +I and red for -I?

[Joy Christian]

Thanks, Fred. The last two pictures look better. Now we can see clearly that there is indeed a non-trivial change in the orientation. Wonderful.

[Ben6993]

I have found a reasonable dynamic double helix at
http://www.thewebsitedesigncenter.com/F ... fectID=161
The double helix can be continually rotated giving a 3D effect by using the arrow up button. The ACTG between the DNA strands are shown as single twist-less rungs but for my model they would need to be shown as dual rungs (attracting each other via hypercolour force), and in a triple helix not a double helix. And the rungs would all need to be continually spinning in addition to the spinning of the helix. GAViewer however may be able to enable the rungs to be shown spinning? Ideally one would want a dynamic image and to zoom in on demand.

I can see the difference between Fred's two globes. Can the two globes in reality (not easy on a 2D screen!) occupy the same physical space at the same time? Take two of the normal arrows at two corresponding points on the spheres. Does physical occupancy have to be sequential (arrow out, then arrow in at times t1 and t2)or can it be simultaneous (one arrow out and one arrow in both at t3)? I assume it must be sequential because the maths requires a particular trivector to be chosen for a calculation.

[FrediFizzx]

You can also draw the two spheres in "curly tail" mode in GAViewer. Download the GAViewer and play around with it yourself. It does do some kind of animation also.

[FrediFizzx]

I think GAViewer can be used to demonstrate Joy's model simply by doing something like the following.

Code: Select all

 >> a=e1+e2+e3                  (define a vector a)
a = 1.00*e1 + 1.00*e2 + 1.00*e3
 >> b=-e1+e2+e3                 (define a vector b)
b = -1.00*e1 + 1.00*e2 + 1.00*e3
 >> A=I3.a                            (I3 = e1^e2^e3 so this is dot product)
A = 1.00*e2^e3 + 1.00*e3^e1 + 1.00*e1^e2
 >> B=-I3.b
B = 1.00*e2^e3 + -1.00*e3^e1 + -1.00*e1^e2
 >> GAproduct1= A B
GAproduct1 = 1.00 + -2.00*e3^e1 + 2.00*e1^e2
 >> GAproduct2= A (-B)
GAproduct2 = -1.00 + 2.00*e3^e1 + -2.00*e1^e2


So one can see after two runs, the scalars are +/- 1 and the rest cancels out. This is a real simple version of the model.

[FrediFizzx]

I think GAViewer can be used to demonstrate Joy's model simply by doing something like the following.

Code: Select all

 >> a=e1+e2+e3                  (define a vector a)
a = 1.00*e1 + 1.00*e2 + 1.00*e3
 >> b=-e1+e2+e3                 (define a vector b)
b = -1.00*e1 + 1.00*e2 + 1.00*e3
 >> A=I3.a                            (I3 = e1^e2^e3 so this is dot product)
A = 1.00*e2^e3 + 1.00*e3^e1 + 1.00*e1^e2
 >> B=-I3.b
B = 1.00*e2^e3 + -1.00*e3^e1 + -1.00*e1^e2
 >> GAproduct1= A B
GAproduct1 = 1.00 + -2.00*e3^e1 + 2.00*e1^e2
 >> GAproduct2= A (-B)
GAproduct2 = -1.00 + 2.00*e3^e1 + -2.00*e1^e2


So one can see after two runs, the scalars are +/- 1 and the rest cancels out. This is a real simple version of the model.

Oops, a correction on the above. The scalar result part is from -a.b in the geometric product. They just happened to be +/-1. More to come soon.

[Joy Christian]

Albert Jan Wonnink has written a simple code using GAViewer to refute a nonsensical but persistent claim by Richard Gill and other Bell believers concerning my first paper on Bell's theorem. It is in fact a trivial calculation in geometric algebra, but neither Gill nor other Bell believers have been able to do it correctly for years. Now Albert Jan has verified my calculation with the help of GAViewer, just in case there was any residue of doubt: http://challengingbell.blogspot.co.uk/2 ... ng-of.html .

[Ben6993]

Hi Joy

That's great!!

With reference to the result:
res = -0.00*e2^e3 + -0.01*e3^e1 + -0.00*e1^e2

Can the coefficients all be reduced to say < 0.00001?
By testing over a very wide range of random values of A and B and μ?
And reliably reduced to that limit every run, given large enough N.
Or even on the special angles of 45 and 135 degrees (whatever they are ... sorry I have not looked them up, and whereas they were fresh in my mind some months ago, they are now dimmer in memory.)

And if this routine works with random A and B but does not work with fixed 45 and 135 degrees, that would be a useful result too.????

[I have not run the code myself as I have not installed GAViewer.]

[Joy Christian]

Hi Ben,

The coefficients of the bivectors can indeed be reduced to zero by letting .

Also, a and b are arbitrary vectors, so you can choose them at will, or keep them fixed. too is arbitrary, apart from the fact that .

I recommend playing abound with the GAViewer. It is easy to install and work with (I had some help from Fred, which made it easy for me).

[Joy Christian]

Albert Jan Wonnink has written a second, improved code using the GAViewer to refute the nonsensical and persistent claims by Richard Gill and other Bell believers concerning my first and other papers on Bell's theorem. Once again Albert Jan has confirmed my calculations with the help of the GAViewer, in order to remove any remaining doubts about their validity: http://challengingbell.blogspot.co.uk/2 ... of_30.html.

This hopefully drives the final nail in the coffin of Bell's theorem, which has been dead since 2007: http://libertesphilosophica.info/blog/.