Joy Christian wrote:Seriously: what appears to be non-local to the flatlanders from their perspective from within R^3, is perfectly local and realistic from the perspective from within S^3.
That is what the S^3 model is all about. That is what my theoretical papers 1 and 2 show. And that is what the simulation demonstrates spectacularly. Sorry John Bell.
Joy Christian, Wed Jul 30, 2014 2:09 am wrote:This claim can be refuted by simply demonstrating that in fact the emblematic quantum correlation, i.e., the EPR-Bohm or singlet correlation, can be explained purely locally (http://rpubs.com/jjc/16415), and without needing extra dimensions.
Yablon wrote:Does your model absolutely and unequivocally and irrevocably require using more than just the three observed three space dimensions to make what looks to be non-local in three dimensions, appear local by using the extra dimensions? That is, is there any way you can show locality of the Bob and Alice stuff if you are restricted to three dimensions and not allowed to add any more?
I am confused, because a year ago I believe you said that the extra dimensions are not needed:Joy Christian, Wed Jul 30, 2014 2:09 am wrote:This claim can be refuted by simply demonstrating that in fact the emblematic quantum correlation, i.e., the EPR-Bohm or singlet correlation, can be explained purely locally (http://rpubs.com/jjc/16415), and without needing extra dimensions.
And yet I see persistent talk about extra dimensions throughout these threads. So, if these are not needed, then why is there so much chatter about them in these threads, and why are you now using the (rather delightful, thanks!) flatland video to try to make your points? Maybe I need to better understand exactly what you have mind by R^3 versus S^3. Is it the curvature that does the trick?
Q-reeus wrote:Unless I am on ignore, seem to have made the mistake of not specifically addressing my last post here (currently 3rd post, p5) to Joy as a query rather than just comments. So, Joy, having raised (again), some specific issues, please be good enough to convincingly deal with each, one-by-one, within the appropriate context. Given the imo reasonable assumption there should be a correspondence principle at play that somehow connects your postulated torsion to both QM stats AND physically consistent classical physics observables. Thanks in advance for any useful response, as Americans like to put it.
Q-reeus wrote:Just to add my own angle on what Jay has said above, here's a slightly redacted reproduction of what I wrote recently 'elsewhere':
My position has been to ignore the convoluted stats argument owing to the adage 'lies, damn lies, and statistics'.
What got me doubting Joy was his definitive linkage to an intrinsic physically real torsion as 'physical explanation'. The sole example Joy could give me of a classical observable consequence of such 'intrinsic torsion' was 'gimbal lock', which seemed misplaced to me to put it mildly. Tried to get it boiled down to that any intrinsic spacetime torsion was equivalent to saying there is a uniform chirality to spacetime - as say exists within a solution of a levo-rotatory sugar. Which manifests as rotation of the plane of polarization of linearly polarized light. Or alternately, as a differential in c for RH vs LH circularly polarized light. Classically easily observable. Joy would not comment on such suggestions from me. Nor on my observation that even allowing such existed in vacuo (contrary to observational evidence), inevitably chiral media effects (aka 'intrinsic spacetime torsion') accumulate linearly over distance and imply a periodic (phase) dependence thereby. Whereas EPRB situations and similar are totally independent of spatial separation.
Still, I cannot swallow the implied magic literally at the heart of physics that entanglement implies. Hence keep hoping someone like Hans De Raedt et al will finally provide a convincing resolution preserving both locality and realism.
Joy Christian wrote:I cannot address a question that I don't understand. Torsion is a tensor, locally defined at every point of the physical space, as explained here. So I don't understand what your worry is. As for the Gimbal lock, this post by Paul Snively may be helpful in addressing your question: http://psnively.github.io/blog/2015/01/22/Fallacy/.
FrediFizzx wrote:A fairly simple way of thinking about parallelized 3-sphere topology, is that space has unique spinor properties.
You don't need to wait for Hans De Raedt; both Joy and Michel (minkwe) have thoroughly demolished Bell's theorem right here on this forum.
Q-reeus wrote:Sorry Joy but see no meaningful answer there to the issues I raised. Just did a quick search to find something in the literature connecting torsion to chirality, and found this:
http://iopscience.iop.org/1367-2630/13/ ... 053053.pdf
see e.g. last 2 para p1 there to get the basic drift. I have no expertise in tensor maths but do understand that:
In order to somehow connect to Bell-type Alice-Bob experiments that can be performed reliably anywhere and in any lab orientation, logically a postulated intrinsic spacetime torsion must ab initio have the property of homogeneity, isotropy, linearity and so on. I can conceive of only one property fulfilling that bill - uniform chirality. Of course in the example I gave of a levo or dextro-rotatory sugar solution, such chirality is confined to the solution and has just EM coupling to photons, and over a limited frequency range at that. Whereas an intrinsic thus necessarily uniform spacetime torsion aka chirality presumably couples to all physical phenomena.
Granted even such exists, for the reasons I gave in post #3 p5, one has to sensibly explain how such torsion effects things yet so as to be independent of separation between any parts of an experimental setup.
Now, it would be helpful if you could run me over each of those issues in that post (leave out 'gimbal lock' at least for now), with a dumbed-down yet coherent explanation/resolution that a layman can follow. Cheers.
Q-reeus wrote:FrediFizzx wrote:A fairly simple way of thinking about parallelized 3-sphere topology, is that space has unique spinor properties.
You don't need to wait for Hans De Raedt; both Joy and Michel (minkwe) have thoroughly demolished Bell's theorem right here on this forum.
Fred - I'm sure you are trying to be helpful there, but the specific issues I have raised need addressing in detail. Hopefully Joy will do that.
Joy Christian wrote:Q-reeus,
None of your worries seem to have any relevance to what I am saying. A manifold, such as S^3, can be described by either curvature or torsion. Both are tensors, thus defined locally, at each point of S^3. In other words, they are just fancy "vectors". The effect of the curvaute or torsion manifestes when you consider all four terms of the Bell-CHSH inequality, as shown in Eqs. (20) to (22) of this paper. So, again, I am not sure what your worry is. If you don't like torsion in this context, then think of the strong correlations as curvature effects. That will do just fine. It is, however, more natural to use torsion in this context, as I have shown in the linked paper.
FrediFizzx wrote:Have you read Joy's book yet?
http://www.brownwalker.com/book/1612337244
Q-reeus wrote:Rrrright. Joy, can I just get a simple yes no answer to this question:
We presumably agree that flatness in S^3 (or R^3) implies zero curvature or torsion. Yet there is a postulated non-zero torsion existing - presumably, sans localized e.g. gravitational effects - uniform everywhere. Is such torsion synonymous with, and otherwise able to be accurately termed a uniform spacetime (or just spatial) chirality? [If not, what other term would best describe it's classical physics observable effects?] OK - that's potentially two questions.
Joy Christian wrote:Sorry, Q-reeus, I can't make a head or tail of your question(s). You will have to try again. And please be more specific about why this is relevant at all to my model.
Q-reeus wrote:Joy Christian wrote:Sorry, Q-reeus, I can't make a head or tail of your question(s). You will have to try again. And please be more specific about why this is relevant at all to my model.
Well Joy, can't think how to make earlier posted queries any clearer so guess it's time I called it quits this thread. You or other interested members might though like to at least consider the imo clear corresondence made in particular between torsion and the case of homogeneous chirality in e.g. first section of part 6 of that article I linked to earlier:
http://iopscience.iop.org/1367-2630/13/ ... 053053.pdf
As noted earlier, while the usual application is to EM, generalizing the correspondence to intrinsic spacial torsion seems pretty obvious, even trivial. Maybe I'm alone in thinking along such lines. Best.
Angles = seq(from = 0, to = 360, by = 7.2) * 2 * pi/360
K = length(Angles)
M = 10^5
r = runif(M, 0, 2*pi)
z = runif(M, -1, +1)
h = sqrt(1 - z^2)
x = h * cos(r)
y = h * sin(r)
e = rbind(x, y, z)
s = runif(M, 0, pi)
f = -1 + (2/sqrt(1 + ((3 * s)/pi)))
g = function(u,v,s){ifelse(abs(colSums(u*v)) > f, colSums(u*v), 0)}
i = 1 # fixing i
alpha = Angles[i]
a = c(cos(alpha), sin(alpha), 0) # Measurement direction 'a'
j = 20 # fixing j
beta = Angles[j]
b = c(cos(beta), sin(beta), 0) # Measurement direction 'b'
A = +sign(g(a,e,s)) # Alice's measurement results A(a, e, s) = +/-1
B = -sign(g(b,e,s)) # Bob's measurement results B(b, e, s) = -/+1
> (Cou = length((A*B)[g(a,e,s) & A == 0 & B > 0])) # Number of (0,+) events
[1] 0
> (Cod = length((A*B)[g(a,e,s) & A == 0 & B < 0])) # Number of (0,-) events
[1] 0
> (Cuo = length((A*B)[A > 0 & B == 0 & g(b,e,s)])) # Number of (+,0) events
[1] 0
> (Cdo = length((A*B)[A < 0 & B == 0 & g(b,e,s)])) # Number of (-,0) events
[1] 0
> (Coo = length((A*B)[g(a,e,s) & A == 0 & B == 0])) # Number of (0,0) events
[1] 0
> (CoB = length(A[g(a,e,s) & A == 0])) # Number of A = 0 events within S^3
[1] 0
> (CAo = length(B[g(b,e,s) & B == 0])) # Number of B = 0 events within S^3
[1] 0
Return to Sci.Physics.Foundations
Users browsing this forum: Majestic-12 [Bot] and 91 guests