Are Gill and Moldoveanu disingenuous or incompetent?

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

Re: Are Gill and Moldoveanu disingenuous or incompetent?

Postby FrediFizzx » Thu Jul 30, 2015 10:28 am

Joy Christian wrote:Since our schoolboy is determined to endlessly spam this thread with his absolute and utter garbage that has nothing to do with either my model or the physics and mathematics of the EPR-Bohm correlation, I too will indulge in spamming the thread and reproduce what I have already said before in several different ways by now:

It is really sad that Lockyer doesn't realize that everything in the GAViewer code and program as well as in the Python code and program are in the fixed right hand basis so no need to map anything. Well... he can just continue to embarrass himself further if he wishes.
FrediFizzx
Independent Physics Researcher
 
Posts: 2905
Joined: Tue Mar 19, 2013 7:12 pm
Location: N. California, USA

Re: Are Gill and Moldoveanu disingenuous or incompetent?

Postby FrediFizzx » Thu Jul 30, 2015 1:29 pm

Rick Lockyer wrote:The coefficients for the non-scalar terms here absolutely do change signs just as you claim when the product is made in the other handedness system. I have never had a problem with this, and that CLEARLY is indicated in my proof above, my response to Ben, everywhere. The rub is, these coefficients are attached to basis elements with opposite handedness, so the coefficients cannot be directly added, but Joy and you by blindly following him do just that. Before adding, either right non-scalar bases need to be mapped to left, or left to right. then and ONLY then may the coefficients be combined. Either of these mappings does an ADDITIONAL NEGATION YOU ALL HAVE NEGLECTED. When put into an addable form, the coefficients have the same sign.

For Ben and lurkers that might be confused by Lockyer's statement above, here is what he is missing. In the GAViewer code and program and in the Python code and program, everything is in the fixed right handed basis. So no mapping is required or needed before the summation. These programs prove that his "proof" is garbage as related to the physics involved here. It is all quite simple. When lambda is -1, then we see what the left handed system looks like from the right handed perspective. The result is still in the fixed right hand basis so no mapping is required before the summation.
FrediFizzx
Independent Physics Researcher
 
Posts: 2905
Joined: Tue Mar 19, 2013 7:12 pm
Location: N. California, USA

Re: Are Gill and Moldoveanu disingenuous or incompetent?

Postby Joy Christian » Thu Jul 30, 2015 1:56 pm

FrediFizzx wrote:For Ben and lurkers that might be confused by Lockyer's statement above, here is what he is missing. In the GAViewer code and program and in the Python code and program, everything is in the fixed right handed basis. So no mapping is required or needed before the summation. These programs prove that his "proof" is garbage as related to the physics involved here. It is all quite simple. When lambda is -1, then we see what the left handed system looks like from the right handed perspective. The result is still in the fixed right hand basis so no mapping is required before the summation.

What is more, there is no issue of "sign" even in the original analytical calculation. One has to be completely blind, dense, disingenuous, and incompetent to claim otherwise. Given that by construction in the model, it is utterly elementary to transit from Eq. (1.24) to Eq. (1.25) in the following derivation:

Image

Here transition from Eq. (1.23) to Eq. (1.24) follows from geometric product, and transition from Eq. (1.25) to Eq. (1.26) follows from the fact that is a fair coin.
Joy Christian
Research Physicist
 
Posts: 2793
Joined: Wed Feb 05, 2014 4:49 am
Location: Oxford, United Kingdom

Re: Are Gill and Moldoveanu disingenuous or incompetent?

Postby Rick Lockyer » Thu Jul 30, 2015 6:31 pm

FrediFizzx wrote:
Rick Lockyer wrote:The coefficients for the non-scalar terms here absolutely do change signs just as you claim when the product is made in the other handedness system. I have never had a problem with this, and that CLEARLY is indicated in my proof above, my response to Ben, everywhere. The rub is, these coefficients are attached to basis elements with opposite handedness, so the coefficients cannot be directly added, but Joy and you by blindly following him do just that. Before adding, either right non-scalar bases need to be mapped to left, or left to right. then and ONLY then may the coefficients be combined. Either of these mappings does an ADDITIONAL NEGATION YOU ALL HAVE NEGLECTED. When put into an addable form, the coefficients have the same sign.

For Ben and lurkers that might be confused by Lockyer's statement above, here is what he is missing. In the GAViewer code and program and in the Python code and program, everything is in the fixed right handed basis. So no mapping is required or needed before the summation. These programs prove that his "proof" is garbage as related to the physics involved here. It is all quite simple. When lambda is -1, then we see what the left handed system looks like from the right handed perspective. The result is still in the fixed right hand basis so no mapping is required before the summation.


The only thing your GAViewer program has demonstrated is what AB and BA look like in a right handed system. We only have your assertion that BA is a representation of AB done in a left handed system but viewed from the right handed system. Your only justification is you get the results Joy wants, you have offered no proof your assertion is correct.

I think 95% of the readers can look at what I sent Ben, which I paste below, and see inside 5 minutes, maybe 20 if they need to go online to review GA, that there is no geometric algebra error. It clearly demonstrates you and Joy have things wrong.

You and Joy have put a lot of effort into trying to convince people I do not know what I am talking about. I think about two orders of magnitude longer than it should take you to prove me wrong by attacking what I sent Ben. I don't think for a second neither you nor Joy has looked at it. I think you both have, and have not been able to find any geometric algebra errors. You just do not like the conclusion that it absolutely proves you both are in error, so you bob and weave, obfuscate, use personal attack as a deflection.

What follows is a BABY STEP straight up geometric algebra derivation that the non-scalar component from the left handed orientation is THE SAME SIGN as what you get in the right handed system when both are cast in the right handed basis. I would appreciate it if EVERYONE reading would examine it closely trying to find a mistake. Don't just take my word it is correct, nor Joy's and Fred's claim it is not. Clearly if it is correct, Joy and Fred are not. Please weigh in.

Rick Lockyer wrote:
Ben6993 wrote:Hi Rick

Relying in haste before going out and while the thread is still available.

I know very little GA but I am not sure if anyone is going to respond from joy's side and I would like to keep the discussion going.

I have followed all your last post up to the last two line of formulae. Just as a maths exercise not related to the GA program.

AFAIK, and that isn't very much, those last two line follow on as an exact equality within the LH basis. I am not sure why you are mentioning the RH equivalence?

e2^e1 =-e1^e2 within the LH basis doesn't it?

To convert the bases to a different e1e2e3 handedness would need more than that wouldn't it?


Ben,

To be able to relate the left and right handed GA products, we must stick with identical scalar and vector basis elements. So for both we must have {1, e1, e2, e3}.

The left handed bivector basis elements are built from the product of the orientation determining trivector basis element +I and {e1, e2, e3} where I = e1^e2^e3.

We have for the three left handed bivector basis elements

I^e1 = e1^I = - e2^e3 = e3^e2 call this L1
I^e2 = e2^I = - e3^e1 = e1^e3 call this L2
I^e3 = e3^I = - e1^e2 = e2^e1 call this L3

The right handed bivector basis elements are built from the product of the orientation determining trivector basis element - I and {e1, e2, e3} where

- I = - e1^e2^e3 = e1^e3^e2 = e2^e1^e3 = e3^e2^e1

We have for the three right handed bivector basis elements

- I^e1 = e1^- I = e2^e3 = - e3^e2 call this R1
- I^e2 = e2^- I = e3^e1 = - e1^e3 call this R2
- I^e3 = e3^- I = e1^e2 = - e2^e1 call this R3

Of course the right and left names, and the definition of I are arbitrary. The above choices allow e1, e2 and e3 to map to familiar x, y and z physical coordinates, allowing the right handed bivector bases to map to the right hand rule for vector cross products in e.

To answer one of your questions, the wedge product always anti-commutes.

We have clearly R1 = - L1, R2 = - L2 and R3 = - L3. Also

L1^L2 = - L3 = - L2^L1
L2^L3 = - L1 = - L3^L2
L3^L1 = - L2 = - L1^L3

R1^R2 = R3 = - R2^R1
R2^R3 = R1 = - R3^R2
R3^R1 = R2 = - R1^R3

If you look up the multiplication rules for quaternions, you will find the above multiplication rules are identical to those for quaternions if we assign quaternion basis sets {1, R1, R2, R3} and {1, L1, L2, L3} of course now not really wedge products, just wedge equivalent results. This is why quaternion algebra is isomorphic to the bivector – scalar basis algebra. I used quaternions in my proof above because it involves less typing.

So what is the bottom line here? The sign difference in the Lx^Ly = - Lz verses Rx^Ry = +Rz gives one sign change to all of the coefficients with bivector result bases in the same handedness. The sign change Joy missed is the one required to map between Left and Right in order to have the same basis element handedness on all terms, the ONLY way they can be combined (added here). So two negations is no negation, and we have an equivalence. Another way of looking at it is he is only correct if +1 = -1. The complaints by me and others are quite legitimate.

You are correct, Joy will probably say nothing, or say that I do not know what I am talking about. One thing we will never see out of him is a baby-step proof of his claim there is an orientation change conjugation that allows the non-scalar sums to tend to zero in the limit with his program. Nor will you get a explicit statement of WHERE any of my above analysis is not correct, just blanket statements.

Hope this is clear enough for you.


If the above is correct, then eq. 1.26 here is incorrect. This is a straight up question of geometric algebra, it's correctness has absolutely NOTHING to do with physics. Don't go there Fred


Image
Rick Lockyer
 
Posts: 46
Joined: Tue May 27, 2014 6:22 am
Location: Nipomo

Re: Are Gill and Moldoveanu disingenuous or incompetent?

Postby Joy Christian » Thu Jul 30, 2015 6:45 pm

Joy Christian wrote:The above comments by Rick Lockyer only serve to illustrate how easy it is to commit the straw-man fallacy. To be fair to Lockyer, unlike Gill, Moldoveanu, and Weatherall, he is mathematically competent. Sadly, however, he is physically quite clueless, and that undermines his mathematical abilities dramatically.

As Einstein once said to have said: "the man can calculate, but he cannot think."

What Lockyer describes above has little or nothing to do with either my actual model, or with the physics and mathematics of the EPR-Bohm type experiments. I have discussed and described my actual model in connection with the actual EPR-Bohm experiments literally hundreds of times, so I will not bother to repeat my arguments here. Instead, I will simply point to my own papers as well as the simulations done by others where my actual model can be found and understood by a neutral reader:

http://link.springer.com/article/10.100 ... 014-2412-2

http://arxiv.org/abs/1211.0784

http://arxiv.org/abs/1501.03393

http://arxiv.org/abs/1203.2529

http://arxiv.org/abs/1110.5876

http://arxiv.org/abs/1103.1879

http://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0703179

http://challengingbell.blogspot.co.uk/2 ... of_30.html

http://challengingbell.blogspot.co.uk/2 ... f-joy.html

Until Lockyer learns my actual model and learns the physics and mathematics of the EPR-Bohm experiment, I will not be responding to any further comments by him.
Joy Christian
Research Physicist
 
Posts: 2793
Joined: Wed Feb 05, 2014 4:49 am
Location: Oxford, United Kingdom

Re: Are Gill and Moldoveanu disingenuous or incompetent?

Postby FrediFizzx » Thu Jul 30, 2015 7:44 pm

Rick Lockyer wrote:The only thing your GAViewer program has demonstrated is what AB and BA look like in a right handed system. We only have your assertion that BA is a representation of AB done in a left handed system but viewed from the right handed system. Your only justification is you get the results Joy wants, you have offered no proof your assertion is correct.

It is not just my assertion; Joy's, Michel's, Albert Jan's and others. And... it doesn't really matter. The GAViewer and Python implementations are what the model is. Sorry you don't like the model but it is 100 percent correct.

But perhaps this will help. Hold your left hand up to a mirror with palm facing the mirror. Now compare that left hand image in the mirror with your right hand (not mirror image) with palm facing toward you. They look the same. What is the difference? The order is reversed! This is just real basic physics.
FrediFizzx
Independent Physics Researcher
 
Posts: 2905
Joined: Tue Mar 19, 2013 7:12 pm
Location: N. California, USA

Re: Are Gill and Moldoveanu disingenuous or incompetent?

Postby Joy Christian » Thu Jul 30, 2015 7:59 pm

FrediFizzx wrote:
Rick Lockyer wrote:The only thing your GAViewer program has demonstrated is what AB and BA look like in a right handed system. We only have your assertion that BA is a representation of AB done in a left handed system but viewed from the right handed system. Your only justification is you get the results Joy wants, you have offered no proof your assertion is correct.

It is not just my assertion; Joy's, Michel's, Albert Jan's and others. And... it doesn't really matter. The GAViewer and Python implementations are what the model is. Sorry you don't like the model but it is 100 percent correct.

But perhaps this will help. Hold your left hand up to a mirror with palm facing the mirror. Now compare that left hand image in the mirror with your right hand (not mirror image) with palm facing toward you. They look the same. What is the difference? The order is reversed! This is just real basic physics.

It is not a random assertion of anyone. It is a trivial mathematical fact, proved with baby steps in the first appendix of this paper: http://arxiv.org/abs/1501.03393:

Image

Lockyer has of course never bothered to read any of my papers, because he was already born with the knowledge of the entire Universe, and ego of the size of Mount Everest.
Joy Christian
Research Physicist
 
Posts: 2793
Joined: Wed Feb 05, 2014 4:49 am
Location: Oxford, United Kingdom

Re: Are Gill and Moldoveanu disingenuous or incompetent?

Postby FrediFizzx » Thu Jul 30, 2015 8:37 pm

Joy Christian wrote:
FrediFizzx wrote:
Rick Lockyer wrote:The only thing your GAViewer program has demonstrated is what AB and BA look like in a right handed system. We only have your assertion that BA is a representation of AB done in a left handed system but viewed from the right handed system. Your only justification is you get the results Joy wants, you have offered no proof your assertion is correct.

It is not just my assertion; Joy's, Michel's, Albert Jan's and others. And... it doesn't really matter. The GAViewer and Python implementations are what the model is. Sorry you don't like the model but it is 100 percent correct.

But perhaps this will help. Hold your left hand up to a mirror with palm facing the mirror. Now compare that left hand image in the mirror with your right hand (not mirror image) with palm facing toward you. They look the same. What is the difference? The order is reversed! This is just real basic physics.

It is not a random assertion of anyone. It is a trivial mathematical fact, proved with baby steps in the first appendix of this paper: http://arxiv.org/abs/1501.03393:

Image

Lockyer has of course never bothered to read any of my papers, because he was already born with the knowledge of the entire Universe, and ego of the size of Mount Everest.

Thanks Joy. I forgot about that proof which is great.
FrediFizzx
Independent Physics Researcher
 
Posts: 2905
Joined: Tue Mar 19, 2013 7:12 pm
Location: N. California, USA

Re: Are Gill and Moldoveanu disingenuous or incompetent?

Postby Rick Lockyer » Thu Jul 30, 2015 9:23 pm

So just what is it you do not understand about a x b being a pseudovector?? In Joy's eqs (A2) and (A3) one should be a x b and the other b x a = -(a x b). This once again yields that nagging missing negation that has tripped you up. But why bother even bringing it in when the bivector basis multiplications clearly show what is going on?

Why is it you continue to obfuscate, repeat incorrect math in a different form as a subterfuge?

So easy for you, only 5-10 minutes of your time. Take my exceedingly simple baby step geometric algebra demonstration above that you have it wrong, which I replied to Ben with, and tell all of us why it is incorrect? I firmly believe you HAVE looked at it, can't find any algebra errors, but unfortunately just can't admit you made a mistake.

Most people reading this blog are intelligent enough to see there are no issues with my math, so I really do not understand who you think your accepting audience is that will swallow your swill. You are really looking foolish.
Rick Lockyer
 
Posts: 46
Joined: Tue May 27, 2014 6:22 am
Location: Nipomo

Re: Are Gill and Moldoveanu disingenuous or incompetent?

Postby FrediFizzx » Thu Jul 30, 2015 11:38 pm

Rick Lockyer wrote:So just what is it you do not understand about a x b being a pseudovector?? In Joy's eqs (A2) and (A3) one should be a x b and the other b x a = -(a x b). This once again yields that nagging missing negation that has tripped you up.

Looks like it has totally tripped you up. :lol: Same old problem the rest have; right handed brain can't figure out the left handed part.
FrediFizzx
Independent Physics Researcher
 
Posts: 2905
Joined: Tue Mar 19, 2013 7:12 pm
Location: N. California, USA

Re: Are Gill and Moldoveanu disingenuous or incompetent?

Postby Joy Christian » Thu Jul 30, 2015 11:50 pm

Rick Lockyer wrote:So just what is it you do not understand about a x b being a pseudovector?? In Joy's eqs (A2) and (A3) one should be a x b and the other b x a = -(a x b). This once again yields that nagging missing negation that has tripped you up. But why bother even bringing it in when the bivector basis multiplications clearly show what is going on?

Why is it you continue to obfuscate, repeat incorrect math in a different form as a subterfuge?

So easy for you, only 5-10 minutes of your time. Take my exceedingly simple baby step geometric algebra demonstration above that you have it wrong, which I replied to Ben with, and tell all of us why it is incorrect? I firmly believe you HAVE looked at it, can't find any algebra errors, but unfortunately just can't admit you made a mistake.

Most people reading this blog are intelligent enough to see there are no issues with my math, so I really do not understand who you think your accepting audience is that will swallow your swill. You are really looking foolish.

For the millionth time, your idiotic "proof" has nothing whatsoever to do with either my model or the physics and mathematics of the EPR-Bohm experiment. I couldn't care less about your "proof" even if it were correct. And now you yourself have exposed your error in the first line of your post above. This proves that you are clueless not only about physics but also about elementary mathematics ( PS: right after posting this I noticed that Fred also immediately spotted your silly mistake :lol: ).

Also for the millionth time, my model is discussed in my papers, as I have noted above. Read my papers, especially my replies to Gill. And don't come back until you have read them and understood your idiotic mistakes. I am not going to point them out to you. Ask your local school teacher if your can't figure them out yourself.

Let me assure you that you are not as smart as you think you are. So come down from your high-horse and do some learning for a change from my flawless papers:

Joy Christian wrote:I find it amusing that our schoolboy simply ignored the crucial point made by Michel; for if he faced up to it then he would be running home with tail between his legs:

minkwe wrote:So you want Alice to map her results to Bob's basis in order to be able to do manipulate them together? Or you want Alice to map the result she gets for one particle, to the same basis as the result she got for the next particle in order to manipulate those outcomes? The outcomes are what they are, manipulating them as they are gives the correlations. Your arguments remind me of a proof that clockwise (+1) = counterclockwise(-1), because we are comparing readings of a single clock from two separate people Alice and Bob. And a third person Cindy, not privy to their bases, is calculating the correlation. A single person describing the clock can do so in two different bases, and both descriptions must agree with each other. In that case, you need a mapping between both. But once Alice and Bob are recording outcomes from their perspectives, and Cindy must calculate correlations from those outcomes without any knowledge of how the observation was made (cf HIDDEN VARIABLES), purists may indeed be so pedantic as to find that counterclockwise (+1) = clockwise (-1). Algebra does not help you in this situation without proper understanding of the physics that is going on.


As for the proof of my argument, there are fifteen papers, a book, and literally thousands of my posts on the internet at ones disposal, in particular these two papers:

http://arxiv.org/abs/1211.0784

and

http://arxiv.org/abs/1501.03393.

:)
Joy Christian
Research Physicist
 
Posts: 2793
Joined: Wed Feb 05, 2014 4:49 am
Location: Oxford, United Kingdom

Re: Are Gill and Moldoveanu disingenuous or incompetent?

Postby Joy Christian » Fri Jul 31, 2015 2:42 am

* * *
Image

Rick Lockyer wrote:
In Joy's eqs (A2) and (A3) one should be a x b and the other b x a = -(a x b).

To anyone who is reading this, please ignore the worthless noise Lockyer has generated in this thread. The above statement by him exposes the key mistake that Gill, Moldoveanu, and Lockyer have been making for the past several years. I have been the victim of their idiotic mistake. I have paid a very heavy price for their idiotic mistake. But more importantly, the scientific community has been misled about my work on Bell's theorem by these incompetent amateurs for the past several years.

Here is their mistake: In the above statement Lockyer is referring to the two equations on the top of this post. He, like Gill and Moldoveanu, thinks that the RHS of the second equation should have a + sign in the middle. This is their mistake. The two equations as they are written are absolutely correct and represent the right-handed and left-handed set of equations, respectively. To understand the mistake made by Gill, Moldoveanu, and Lockyer, please see the discussion in my first reply to Gill.
Joy Christian
Research Physicist
 
Posts: 2793
Joined: Wed Feb 05, 2014 4:49 am
Location: Oxford, United Kingdom

Re: Are Gill and Moldoveanu disingenuous or incompetent?

Postby FrediFizzx » Fri Jul 31, 2015 10:12 am

Joy Christian wrote:* * *
Image

Rick Lockyer wrote:
In Joy's eqs (A2) and (A3) one should be a x b and the other b x a = -(a x b).

To anyone who is reading this, please ignore the worthless noise Lockyer has generated in this thread. The above statement by him exposes the key mistake that Gill, Moldoveanu, and Lockyer have been making for the past several years. I have been the victim of their idiotic mistake. I have paid a very heavy price for their idiotic mistake. But more importantly, the scientific community has been misled about my work on Bell's theorem by these incompetent amateurs for the past several years.

Here is their mistake: In the above statement Lockyer is referring to the two equations on the top of this post. He, like Gill and Moldoveanu, thinks that the RHS of the second equation should have a + sign in the middle. This is their mistake. The two equations as they are written are absolutely correct and represent the right-handed and left-handed set of equations, respectively. To understand the mistake made by Gill, Moldoveanu, and Lockyer, please see the discussion in my first reply to Gill.

Yep, it always seems to go back to your physics postulate. It is amazing that after all this debate that they still don't understand what a physics postulate is. Fortunately, the GAViewer and Python programs have proved them wrong decisively.
FrediFizzx
Independent Physics Researcher
 
Posts: 2905
Joined: Tue Mar 19, 2013 7:12 pm
Location: N. California, USA

Re: Are Gill and Moldoveanu disingenuous or incompetent?

Postby Ben6993 » Fri Jul 31, 2015 10:16 am

Hi Rick

Thanks for your replies.
I have looked at them and do not see anything wrong with the algebra as purely maths.
I also checked with https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pseudovector

Going back to your first post and summarising;
Say x= a1b1 + a2b2
and y = a1b2 - a2b1

Then the quantity in RH mode was -x + y e1 e2
and in LH mode was -x + y f2 f1.
These quantities were calculated separately from first principles in the RH and LH bases.

I think your point was mainly that the sum is identical in both modes because one can rewrite the RH sum as -x - y e2 e1, because e1 e2 = -e2 e1.
But if you then switch to a LH basis, that becomes -x + y f2 f1, because e2 e1 = -f2 f1
So the sum is the same whichever basis it is calculated in.

I don't think Joy or Fred or Michel are disagreeing with your maths.
What they appear to me to be saying is that this approach does not fully represent physical space.
They appear to be saying that space for a particle can be a LH or a RH trivector, and that there must be a physical consequence of that choice of handedness that nature provides, assuming that it really is provided. If the maths says that there is no consequence to be had for a particle being in a LH space rather than a RH space, then it is very odd that nature is providing the particles with a meaningless choice.

What I am convinced of is that particles do not make a random choice on detection, and I came to that point independently of reading Joy's papers. I have always had difficulty assimilating the idea of physically different trivectors of space. Personally, I could believe in them more if the electron went into -I and the positron went into +I, but that is not the case with the model. I think that the physical importance of the different trivectors is also hard for me to see as Joy says that there is no extra dimension in his model, it is only 3D. It would be easier to see with additional dimensions. But I accept that Joy may be correct, and if he is correct it is very important.

I need to re-read Joy's rebuff to Gill: http://arxiv.org/abs/1203.2529 for a refresher of the details.
Last edited by Ben6993 on Fri Jul 31, 2015 10:45 am, edited 1 time in total.
Ben6993
 
Posts: 287
Joined: Sun Feb 09, 2014 12:53 pm

Re: Are Gill and Moldoveanu disingenuous or incompetent?

Postby Joy Christian » Fri Jul 31, 2015 10:28 am

FrediFizzx wrote:Yep, it always seems to go back to your physics postulate. It is amazing that after all this debate that they still don't understand what a physics postulate is. Fortunately, the GAViewer and Python programs have proved them wrong decisively.

The statement by Lockyer I have quoted, namely
Rick Lockyer wrote:In Joy's eqs (A2) and (A3) one should be a x b and the other b x a = -(a x b) ,

is wrong even mathematically. It is very easy to check that if we change the middle sign on the RHS in second equation from minus to plus, then both equations represent the right-handed system, thus missing the whole point of my model. What a bunch of incompetent amateurs we have had to deal with all these years!
Joy Christian
Research Physicist
 
Posts: 2793
Joined: Wed Feb 05, 2014 4:49 am
Location: Oxford, United Kingdom

Re: Are Gill and Moldoveanu disingenuous or incompetent?

Postby FrediFizzx » Fri Jul 31, 2015 10:53 am

Ben6993 wrote:I don't think Joy or Fred or Michel are disagreeing with your maths.
What they appear to me to be saying is that this approach does not fully represent physical space.
They appear to be saying that space for a particle can be a LH or a RH trivector, and that there must be a physical consequence of that choice of handedness that nature provides, assuming that it really is provided. If the maths says that there is no consequence to be had for a particle being in a LH space rather than a RH space, then it is very odd that nature is providing the particles with a meaningless choice.

It is not "choice". It is chance. And... it is not for a single particle; it is for a pair with a common creation. Think of the pair as a system. It is the system that is either left hand oriented or right hand oriented.

Ben6993 wrote:What I am convinced of is that particles do not make a random choice on detection, and I came to that point independently of reading Joy's papers. I have always had difficulty assimilating the idea of physically different trivectors of space. Personally, I could believe in them more if the electron went into -I and the positron went into +I, but that is not the case with the model. I think that the physical importance of the different trivectors is also hard for me to see as Joy says that there is no extra dimension in his model, it is only 3D. It would be easier to see with additional dimensions. But I accept that Joy may be correct, and if he is correct it is very important.

Again, think of the particle pair that had a common creation event as a system that is either right or left hand oriented. I believe the 50-50 random chance in Nature only happens involving a singlet state. And yes, Joy is correct and it is very important.
FrediFizzx
Independent Physics Researcher
 
Posts: 2905
Joined: Tue Mar 19, 2013 7:12 pm
Location: N. California, USA

Re: Are Gill and Moldoveanu disingenuous or incompetent?

Postby Ben6993 » Fri Jul 31, 2015 11:40 am

Hi Fred

Having 50% random "chance" of a particular trivector on creation seems to be as bad as the QM 50% chance of +1 or -1 on detection.
What is the point of denying random chance at detection if an equal amount of chance is introduced at creation?
Well, I suppose it removes the FTL aspect as the pair of particles are together at birth, but I still don't like there being random chance.
Fred wrote:
I believe the 50-50 random chance in Nature only happens involving a singlet state.

OK. Agreed, that is the only situation that occurs in the model, but it has made me think of a few questions.
Presumably, any electron always lives in a trivector space. Does an electron change trivector sign after a normal particle interaction?
(Thinking about the ice skaters' analogy) Can an electron transit smoothly from -I to +I over time?
Sorry, I know I should not be expecting detailed answers about hidden variables.
Ben6993
 
Posts: 287
Joined: Sun Feb 09, 2014 12:53 pm

Re: Are Gill and Moldoveanu disingenuous or incompetent?

Postby minkwe » Fri Jul 31, 2015 1:01 pm

Ben6993 wrote:Having 50% random "chance" of a particular trivector on creation seems to be as bad as the QM 50% chance of +1 or -1 on detection.
What is the point of denying random chance at detection if an equal amount of chance is introduced at creation? Well, I suppose it removes the FTL aspect as the pair of particles are together at birth, but I still don't like there being random chance.

Hi Ben,
I don't understand your statement that random chance is bad. Could you clarify? Take for example a photonic EPRB experiment. In a PDC crystal, you have millions of electrons being impinged on by a beam of pump photons. Each pump photon produces a pair of singlet photons. Even if you send a single pump photon at a time, experimentally there is no control over the full state of the electron it interacts with, or which specific electron it interacts will. It is this ambiguity that gives the 50-50 chance. The difference with QM is that it is often claimed (I believe falsely) that the 50-50 chance of QM is irreducible.

I don't believe Joy's model is an attempt to model of the full particle emission mechanism completely (ala EPR). If it was, you'd be justified in not liking a 50-50 chance. It is a model of how the correlations arise and for that, it is not a problem at all to assume a 50-50 chance of orientation at particle-pair emission. I also don't think it is correct to even think of a smooth transition between -I to +I over time. You simply have -I or +I. The 50-50% chance is not that a specific particle pair has a 50% probability of being found to be in -I or +I, but that 50% of the particle-pairs leaving the source have +I while the remaining 50% have -I. IMHO this is another distinction that is glossed over in QM -- that is, the probability of a dynamical system being found in one of it's states vs the probability of finding one member of an ensemble in a specific state. The former entails a given particle changing from state to state over time such that measurements at different times might find different states, governed by a probability distribution which reveals how much time the particle spends in a given state. For the latter, the state might not change at all over time and be fixed from emission, in which case the probability distribution describes the source process and not an individual particle. I believe that in Joy's model, the 50-50% chance is like the latter case, and agrees with Einstein's views.

Einstein wrote:The attempt to conceive the quantum-theoretical description as the complete description of the individual systems leads to unnatural theoretical interpretations, which become immediately unnecessary if one accepts the interpretation that the description refers to ensembles of systems and not to individual systems.
—Albert Einstein


Does an electron change trivector sign after a normal particle interaction?
(Thinking about the ice skaters' analogy) Can an electron transit smoothly from -I to +I over time?

Joy can correct me if I'm wrong here but the S^3 description is for the combined system of a pair of particles. Any interaction between one of the members with another particle will destroy it's dynamics such that they are no longer in a singlet state. You get decoherence.

One other comment about the extra dimension you talked about
Joy says that there is no extra dimension in his model, it is only 3D. It would be easier to see with additional dimensions.

Orientation is an extra degree of freedom. It accomplishes the same thing as an extra dimension would but you don't need an extra dimension. A two dimensional clock can have two different orientations, without any extra dimension.
minkwe
 
Posts: 1441
Joined: Sat Feb 08, 2014 10:22 am

Re: Are Gill and Moldoveanu disingenuous or incompetent?

Postby Joy Christian » Fri Jul 31, 2015 1:30 pm

minkwe wrote:
Ben6993 wrote:Does an electron change trivector sign after a normal particle interaction?
(Thinking about the ice skaters' analogy) Can an electron transit smoothly from -I to +I over time?

Joy can correct me if I'm wrong here but the S^3 description is for the combined system of a pair of particles. Any interaction between one of the members with another particle will destroy it's dynamics such that they are no longer in a singlet state. You get decoherence.

This is correct. There is no interaction between the electrons after the pair leaves the source. So the electron, or rather its spin, is stuck with a given trivector. That is why people were puzzled by the persistent strong correlation between the pair: How can there be strong correlation when the electrons are no longer interacting?

Well, you know my answer to that question.
Joy Christian
Research Physicist
 
Posts: 2793
Joined: Wed Feb 05, 2014 4:49 am
Location: Oxford, United Kingdom

Re: Are Gill and Moldoveanu disingenuous or incompetent?

Postby Joy Christian » Sat Aug 01, 2015 3:11 am

* * *
Image

Well, Lockyer seems to have finally recognized his error. I hope he has the courage to admit his error in public (I expect no such decency from Gill and Moldoveanu).

Let me spell out the key point explicitly here so there remains no doubt in anyone's mind. The mathematical demonstration is exceedingly simple and easy to follow.

What we want to show is that the first equation above (as written by me in these two papers) forms a right-handed system; and the second equation (again, as written by me in these two papers) forms a left-handed system. Gill, Moldoveanu, and Lockyer falsely claim that I have made a sign error on the RHS of the second equation.

To check the handedness of these equations, let us set the angle between and to be 90 degrees and define for this case. Now multiply (using the geometric product) the first equation, on both sides, by , from the left. Since we have set and to be orthogonal to each other, and since all bivectors such as square to , the first equation (in this special case of orthogonal and reduces to



Now if we follow the same procedure for the second equation -- this time using the bivector , it also reduces to



So far so good. Both equations, as long as they remain "unaware" of each other, can be taken to represent a right-handed system, because their RHS equals to .

But now suppose we wish to compare the two systems, as done in the successive trials of EPR-B type experiments ( is the spin "up", or "down" in a given trial? ). Then we must find a functional mapping between the two equations. But that is a trivial task in the present set up, since we see that the respective bivectors are related as



for any directional vector . If we now substitute the above mapping in the second of the two equations we have derived, we obtain at once, for this second system,



Thus we see at once that the second equation represents a left-handed system with respect to the first system, because now the RHS of this equation equals to .

In conclusion, a sign mistake has indeed been made for the past several years, but it is made by Gill, Moldoveanu, and Lockyer. They should go back to their schools.
Joy Christian
Research Physicist
 
Posts: 2793
Joined: Wed Feb 05, 2014 4:49 am
Location: Oxford, United Kingdom

PreviousNext

Return to Sci.Physics.Foundations

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 70 guests

cron
CodeCogs - An Open Source Scientific Library