FrediFizzx wrote:Rick Lockyer wrote:Fred,
if(lambda==1) {q=((-C) A B (-D));} else {q=((-D) B A (-C));} //eq. (6)
This is NOT Joy's equation 6.
??? This is exactly Joy's eq. (6) for the GAViewer simulation. I think you still don't understand the physics. And / or there must be something you don't understand about that code expression.
FrediFizzx wrote:Rick Lockyer wrote:Orientation choice, as I have been telling Joy for years now, is a non-starter.
I think I found your problem. There is no "orientation choice" in Joy's model. And that can well be seen if you understand the GAViewer code and program. GAViewer works in a fixed right handed basis only. There is no "choice". There is only a random 50-50 chance (not "choice") in Nature that a particle pair will be created with a left or right handed orientation. What happens when you look at a left handed system from a right hand only perspective? The order is reversed. Very simple.
Is this when I put up one of your disrespectful "LOL!!"'s? You have a serious problem thinking "physics" can overcome bad math. Taking this position once is too much, you have done it repetitively. How could I not understand the code expression? Seems pretty straight forward to me. I told you why it achieved the result it did, for an even numbers of terms ONLY and for pure bivectors ONLY swapping the order will produce the conjugate. But I also proved Joy's two S^3 orientation choices DO NOT produce a conjugation:
Rick Lockyer wrote:This is a straw man supportive (non)proof.
Joy wants a statistical even chance of something and its conjugate, he just does not have it with his "fair coin orientation choice". The above proof shows this is not possible. C = F, not its conjugate.
Joy Christian wrote:Let me reproduce the essential passage from this paper to bring your point home:
So just what was it you did not understand about the proof, its applicability, and/or "C = F, not its conjugate"? What is it that you do not understand about Joy's position the orientation choice is for S^3 and not characteristics of the particles themselves, by the way something I would have far less issues with?
Chance vs. choice being my problem? I have used both properly. Chance is before pair production, that is before detection, which after all is what we are talking about. It is your only safe ground though, for after the choice is made, either at production time or in the "if" statements within every one of your "simulations" (you would agree this is a choice now, wouldn't you??) both you and Joy are out in the night without a flashlight.
Perhaps it is time for a new topic similarly named as this rude one was. I would suggest adding "or both" to the new one.