Experimental Refutation of Quantum Mysticism,

Foundations of physics and/or philosophy of physics, and in particular, posts on unresolved or controversial issues

Re: Experimental Refutation of Quantum Mysticism,

Postby FrediFizzx » Wed May 27, 2015 1:15 pm

Discussion moved to a new topic.

viewtopic.php?f=6&t=166
FrediFizzx
Independent Physics Researcher
 
Posts: 1626
Joined: Tue Mar 19, 2013 7:12 pm
Location: N. California, USA

Re: Experimental Refutation of Quantum Mysticism,

Postby 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.
Joy Christian
Research Physicist
 
Posts: 2034
Joined: Wed Feb 05, 2014 4:49 am
Location: Oxford, United Kingdom

Re: Experimental Refutation of Quantum Mysticism,

Postby 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 mathematical singularities partial functions 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.
Mikko
 
Posts: 152
Joined: Mon Feb 17, 2014 2:53 am

Re: Experimental Refutation of Quantum Mysticism,

Postby 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 mathematical singularities partial functions 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/.
Joy Christian
Research Physicist
 
Posts: 2034
Joined: Wed Feb 05, 2014 4:49 am
Location: Oxford, United Kingdom

Re: Experimental Refutation of Quantum Mysticism,

Postby 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
Joy Christian
Research Physicist
 
Posts: 2034
Joined: Wed Feb 05, 2014 4:49 am
Location: Oxford, United Kingdom

Re: Experimental Refutation of Quantum Mysticism,

Postby 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. :D
FrediFizzx
Independent Physics Researcher
 
Posts: 1626
Joined: Tue Mar 19, 2013 7:12 pm
Location: N. California, USA

Re: Experimental Refutation of Quantum Mysticism,

Postby 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!
FrediFizzx
Independent Physics Researcher
 
Posts: 1626
Joined: Tue Mar 19, 2013 7:12 pm
Location: N. California, USA

Re: Experimental Refutation of Quantum Mysticism,

Postby 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.
ericreiter
 

Re: Experimental Refutation of Quantum Mysticism,

Postby 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.
Joy Christian
Research Physicist
 
Posts: 2034
Joined: Wed Feb 05, 2014 4:49 am
Location: Oxford, United Kingdom

Re: Experimental Refutation of Quantum Mysticism,

Postby 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"?
Q-reeus
 
Posts: 296
Joined: Sun Jun 08, 2014 12:18 am

Re: Experimental Refutation of Quantum Mysticism,

Postby 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.
Joy Christian
Research Physicist
 
Posts: 2034
Joined: Wed Feb 05, 2014 4:49 am
Location: Oxford, United Kingdom

Re: Experimental Refutation of Quantum Mysticism,

Postby 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?
Q-reeus
 
Posts: 296
Joined: Sun Jun 08, 2014 12:18 am

Re: Experimental Refutation of Quantum Mysticism,

Postby 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.
Joy Christian
Research Physicist
 
Posts: 2034
Joined: Wed Feb 05, 2014 4:49 am
Location: Oxford, United Kingdom

Re: Experimental Refutation of Quantum Mysticism,

Postby 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.
Joy Christian
Research Physicist
 
Posts: 2034
Joined: Wed Feb 05, 2014 4:49 am
Location: Oxford, United Kingdom

Previous

Return to Sci.Physics.Foundations

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: ahrefs [Bot] and 5 guests

CodeCogs - An Open Source Scientific Library