Schmelzer's and Gill's mathematical nonsense

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

Re: Schmelzer's and Gill's mathematical nonsense

Postby thray » Sun Oct 16, 2016 8:21 am

This controversy would -- or should -- go away if the detractors would ever admit that Joy's framework is analytical.

However, if they would so admit, there would remain no foundational basis for the digital model. It relegates quantum theory to a subdiscipline of information theory, and eliminates quantum entanglement. That's what they don't want to give up; there's too much research money at stake.

The onus is on Bell loyalists to demonstrate that entanglement exists -- failing that, Einstein's program ("all physics is local") stands to be demonstrated. Joy offers an experiment that includes a non-arbitrary initial condition and a function continuous from that value. In this light, Gill's mathematical arguments are not only wrong, they are superfluous. Newton's hypotheses non fingo applies; the physical experiment is decisive.
thray
 
Posts: 143
Joined: Sun Feb 16, 2014 6:30 am

Re: Schmelzer's and Gill's mathematical nonsense

Postby FrediFizzx » Sun Oct 16, 2016 10:24 am

Joy Christian wrote:
FrediFizzx wrote:So the limit function should actually be,



Or simply,



If you don't want to bother with initial and final.
.

The correct limit is as I have it in the paper. All sign changes are accounted for, and encoded in lambda.

If we have it like then no correlations would be observed. Correlations would average out to zero.

***


Ok, that seems right. It would be,



to model the polarizer correctly. That would just replace the lambda^k in L(s1, lambda^k) so you would have,



which is the same thing as you have. But the limits don't even matter in the correlation calculation anyways because you cancel out L(s1)L(s2) before detection.
As it should be.
.
FrediFizzx
Independent Physics Researcher
 
Posts: 2905
Joined: Tue Mar 19, 2013 7:12 pm
Location: N. California, USA

Re: Schmelzer's and Gill's mathematical nonsense

Postby FrediFizzx » Sun Oct 16, 2016 10:43 am

FrediFizzx wrote:Ok, that seems right. It would be,



to model the polarizer correctly. That would just replace the lambda^k in L(s1, lambda^k) so you would have,



which is the same thing as you have. But the limits don't even matter in the correlation calculation anyways because you cancel out L(s1)L(s2) before detection.
As it should be.
.

That doesn't seem right. It wouldn't take out the lambda^k in L(s1, lambda^k) because you need that for the replacement of . So it should be,



Which is the same result. So essentially, you have just taken a shortcut. The polarizer is in there but hidden in your version. Which confirms what I said on RW is true.
.
FrediFizzx
Independent Physics Researcher
 
Posts: 2905
Joined: Tue Mar 19, 2013 7:12 pm
Location: N. California, USA

Re: Schmelzer's and Gill's mathematical nonsense

Postby Joy Christian » Sat Oct 29, 2016 7:10 am

***
For the future reference, the following is a geometrical identity [cf. eqs. (68) and (72) of this paper]:

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

Re: Schmelzer's and Gill's mathematical nonsense

Postby FrediFizzx » Sat Oct 29, 2016 9:31 am

Joy Christian wrote:***
For the future reference, the following is a geometrical identity [cf. eqs. (68) and (72) of this paper]:

Image
***

Isn't this an identity also given eq. (56)?



I'm not sure why you have the limits even in there when they aren't used. They are only needed for eqs. (54) and (55).
FrediFizzx
Independent Physics Researcher
 
Posts: 2905
Joined: Tue Mar 19, 2013 7:12 pm
Location: N. California, USA

Re: Schmelzer's and Gill's mathematical nonsense

Postby guest » Sat Oct 29, 2016 9:50 am

FrediFizzx wrote:
Joy Christian wrote:***
For the future reference, the following is a geometrical identity [cf. eqs. (68) and (72) of this paper]:

Image
***

Isn't this an identity also given eq. (56)?



I'm not sure why you have the limits even in there when they aren't used. They are only needed for eqs. (54) and (55).


I think the limits were needed to get A(a, lambda) = +/-1, B(b, lambda) = -/+1

So it seems we actually get A(a,lambda)B(b, lambda) = L(a, lambda)L(b, lambda)
guest
 

Re: Schmelzer's and Gill's mathematical nonsense

Postby FrediFizzx » Sat Oct 29, 2016 10:05 am

guest wrote:
FrediFizzx wrote:
Joy Christian wrote:***
For the future reference, the following is a geometrical identity [cf. eqs. (68) and (72) of this paper]:

Image
***

Isn't this an identity also given eq. (56)?



I'm not sure why you have the limits even in there when they aren't used. They are only needed for eqs. (54) and (55).


I think the limits were needed to get A(a, lambda) = +/-1, B(b, lambda) = -/+1

So it seems we actually get A(a,lambda)B(b, lambda) = L(a, lambda)L(b, lambda)


That is correct. You can consider the equation I wrote to be the next step after the equation Joy wrote. The limits aren't used so they can just come out.
.
FrediFizzx
Independent Physics Researcher
 
Posts: 2905
Joined: Tue Mar 19, 2013 7:12 pm
Location: N. California, USA

Re: Schmelzer's and Gill's mathematical nonsense

Postby guest » Sat Oct 29, 2016 10:27 am

FrediFizzx wrote:
guest wrote:
FrediFizzx wrote:
Joy Christian wrote:***
For the future reference, the following is a geometrical identity [cf. eqs. (68) and (72) of this paper]:

Image
***

Isn't this an identity also given eq. (56)?



I'm not sure why you have the limits even in there when they aren't used. They are only needed for eqs. (54) and (55).


I think the limits were needed to get A(a, lambda) = +/-1, B(b, lambda) = -/+1

So it seems we actually get A(a,lambda)B(b, lambda) = L(a, lambda)L(b, lambda)


That is correct. You can consider the equation I wrote to be the next step after the equation Joy wrote. The limits aren't used so they can just come out.
.

OK. But then the left hand side = +/-1 while the right hand side equals - a.b - L(axb, lambda)
guest
 

Re: Schmelzer's and Gill's mathematical nonsense

Postby Joy Christian » Sat Oct 29, 2016 10:42 am

guest wrote:So it seems we actually get A(a,lambda)B(b, lambda) = L(a, lambda)L(b, lambda)

Indeed we do. L(a, lambda)L(b, lambda) is what I used in 2007 without proving A(a,lambda)B(b, lambda) = L(a, lambda)L(b, lambda). But now that gap is bridged.

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

Re: Schmelzer's and Gill's mathematical nonsense

Postby FrediFizzx » Sat Oct 29, 2016 10:47 am

guest wrote:OK. But then the left hand side = +/-1 while the right hand side equals - a.b - L(axb, lambda)


No. The limits come off because they aren't used in the correlation calculation.
FrediFizzx
Independent Physics Researcher
 
Posts: 2905
Joined: Tue Mar 19, 2013 7:12 pm
Location: N. California, USA

Previous

Return to Sci.Physics.Foundations

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: ahrefs [Bot] and 78 guests

CodeCogs - An Open Source Scientific Library