EPR-Bell is proof that we live in a quaternionic 3-sphere

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

Re: EPR-Bell is proof that we live in a quaternionic 3-spher

Postby Joy Christian » Sat Oct 29, 2016 12:41 am

Q-reeus wrote:You have at various times agreed that a physically real spatial torsion is responsible for QM correlations being over and above classical ones. ... For instance, why such torsion exists (source?) and why it seems to effect only the results of Bell-type experiments and otherwise 'invisible'.

Torsion is indeed physically real, and it is essential in understanding the origins of quantum correlations, but without having to interpret the necessary 8-dimensions as physical dimensions, like in string theory. The source of the torsion is spin. This is quite well known. See for example my recent paper with Fred (which is not about quantum correlations, and it is based on the ECSK theory of gravity, but it brings out the fact that the source of torsion is spin, and spin is a consequence of torsion --- a bit like the matter-curvature interplay in Einstein's theory of gravity. Torsion does not affect only the results of Bell-type experiments. It may be important in other types of experiments as well, but we may have to dig deeper to see its effects elsewhere.

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

Re: EPR-Bell is proof that we live in a quaternionic 3-spher

Postby thray » Sat Oct 29, 2016 9:12 am

Spacetime torsion is critical in explaining the dynamics of interacting fields, and in solving the cosmological horizon problem.

If the big bang theory of creation is true, the two original hemispheres are connected by non-vanishing torsion which implies a non-vanishing horizon in all directions. That these directions are parametrized by 4 dimension spacetime implies recursion at the boundary, described by the metric + + + + - .

Obviously, the boundary is very big, globally.

What Einstein's unrecognized genius bequeathed to us, is the realization that the same effect is manifest locally.

Another way of saying it, is that every explosion is self-similar to the big bang. Joy Christian's genius is realizing that this self-similarity can be measured. And Jay Yablon's genius exploits the time dilation effect that leaves no boundary between quantum and classical domains.

There are a number of us eager to complete Einstein's quest, not to explain the origin of matter; rather, the origin of creation, which opens up research into the origin of matter. In big bang theory, matter precedes a creation event.

Joy took the giant leap of topology necessary to the framework of experimental self-similarity -- consistent with general relativity, a coordinate free geometry which denies any privileged point -- and thus results in a non-arbitrary initial condition at any point in spacetime. Jay explains the dynamic of interacting fields at the smallest scale.

This experiment must be done.
thray
 
Posts: 143
Joined: Sun Feb 16, 2014 6:30 am

Re: EPR-Bell is proof that we live in a quaternionic 3-spher

Postby Joy Christian » Sat Oct 29, 2016 11:21 am

***
I have posted the following response to Gill on Retraction Watch, but it is still awaiting moderation:

Joy Christian wrote:
Gill has reproduced a standard or a typical Bell-CHSH argument. The mistake in this standard argument is easy to see. It is between the following two steps from his argument:

“Therefore E(A1B1 – A1B2 – A2B1 – A2B2) lies between -2 and +2

Thus E(A1B1) – E(A1B2) – E(A2B1) – E(A2B2) lies between -2 and +2”

But there is a massive logical gulf between the above two sentences. Let me explain this:

Gill: “Therefore E(A1B1 – A1B2 – A2B1 – A2B2) lies between -2 and +2” … (1)

Me: The claim (1) is correct. But the average E(A1B1 – A1B2 – A2B1 – A2B2) has nothing to do with any physically possible experiment. It implicitly assumes anti-realism (not realism). It assumes that Alice can measure the spin along a1 and a2 at the same time, and Bob can measure the spin along b1 and b2 at the same time — which they obviously cannot. Therefore, as far as any physically possible world is concerned, the above single average, and the bounds -2 and +2 on it, are worthless mathematical curiosities.

Gill: “Thus E(A1B1) – E(A1B2) – E(A2B1) – E(A2B2) lies between -2 and +2” … (2)

Me: The claim (2) is ridiculous. (1) does not imply (2) at all. It is like saying that Y lies between -2 and +2, therefore X lies between -2 and +2, where Y is an average pertaining to a physically impossible experiment, but X is an average pertaining to a physically possible experiment that we are interested in. If we use such a logic in the market place, then we would surely get in trouble with the law.

In fact the sum of the four averages E(A1B1) – E(A1B2) – E(A2B1) – E(A2B2) lies between -4 and +4, or between -2root2 and +2root2 if we do not neglect the crucial geometrical and topological properties of the physical space, as I have demonstrated in my paper. Of course, both the quantum mechanical predictions and the experimental observations agree with the bounds -2root2 and +2root2, just as predicted by my local-realistic 3-sphere model.

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

Re: EPR-Bell is proof that we live in a quaternionic 3-spher

Postby FrediFizzx » Sat Oct 29, 2016 12:04 pm

Joy Christian wrote:***
I have posted the following response to Gill on Retraction Watch, but it is still awaiting moderation:
***


The moderation is weird over there. I think that they have a program that randomly selects posts for moderation. Some of mine go thru and some don't that should have went thru (nothing derogatory about anyone). Probably they have a list of key words of some sort that triggers the post to go to moderation. And there are quite a few posts by others that shouldn't have gone thru.
FrediFizzx
Independent Physics Researcher
 
Posts: 2905
Joined: Tue Mar 19, 2013 7:12 pm
Location: N. California, USA

Re: EPR-Bell is proof that we live in a quaternionic 3-spher

Postby Joy Christian » Sat Oct 29, 2016 8:20 pm

***
My latest post at Retraction Watch:

Joy Christian wrote:
Stephen Parrott wrote: “A *hypothesis* of Bell’s theorem is that *it is possible in principle* to measure A1B1, A1B2, A2B1, A2B2 *simultaneously*. This is the “realistic” part of “local realistic”. It is *not* a hypothesis that *all* experimenters can do this. But maybe God can. Gill’s hypothetical computer can.”

But this hypothesis has nothing to do with realism. It is anti-realistic, in the sense that it amounts to being able to be in New York and Miami at exactly the same time. I don’t know about “God”, but I am confident that Gill’s hypothetical computer cannot be in New York and Miami at exactly the same time. Let me explain why I call this hypothesis anti-realistic:

Let me first define some objects and possible events that I hope everyone will agree are manifestly real (i.e., they do not compromise Einstein’s Local Realism in anyway):

(1) New York City is a manifestly Real place.

(2) Miami is a manifestly Real place.

(3) You are a manifestly Real person.

(4) You can be in New York City on 4th of July 2017, at 1:00 PM. A manifestly possible, Real event.

(5) You can be in Miami on 4th of July 2017, at 1:00 PM. A manifestly possible, Real event.

(6) You can be in New York City AND in Miami on 4th of July 2017, at 1:00 PM. An impossibility, in any possible world. I don’t believe even “God” can make this possible.

But the last impossibility is precisely what is claimed by Bell and his followers to be possible when they consider the average of impossible events like:

E( a1, b1, a2, b2 ) = Average of [ A(a1) B(b1) + A(a1) B(b2) + A(a2) B(b1) – A(a2)B(b2) ].

These events simply cannot occur in ANY possible world. They are absurdities, like the item (6) above.

Consequently, anything derived from considering such absurdities, such as the upper bound of 2 on the Bell-CHSH-type inequality, is also an absurdity. It has nothing whatsoever to do with the notion of Realism, or locality, or causality, or anything in physics in general.

On the other hand, note that it is perfectly legitimate to make counterfactual statements like:

(7) You can be in New York City OR in Miami on 4th of July 2017, at 1:00 PM. A manifestly possible, Real event.

But if the Bell-followers replace AND of (6) with OR of (7) in this manner, then the upper bound on their Bell-CHSH inequality is 4, not 2. And the upper bound of 4 has never been “violated” in any experiment (indeed, nothing can violate it). So the hypothesis you mention has nothing to do with realism. It is simply an absurdity, in any possible physical world.

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

Re: EPR-Bell is proof that we live in a quaternionic 3-spher

Postby Joy Christian » Mon Oct 31, 2016 3:09 am

***
Another one of my recent posts at Retraction Watch that may be of general interest here (cf. Appendix D of this paper: https://arxiv.org/abs/1501.03393):

Joy Christian wrote:
Regardless of whether Jay succeeds in his efforts, my concerns are only about physics.

It is physically meaningful to write the sum of four averages in the manner of CHSH:

E(A1B1) + E(A1B2) + E(A2B1) – E(A2B2).

In other words, the above quantity is a physically meaningful quantity.

On the other hand, the following single average is physically meaningless, because it involves an average of four incompatible experiments performed about mutually exclusive directions:

E(A1B1 + A1B2 + A2B1 – A2B2).

Now Bell-CHSH inequality is derived by equating the above two expressions:

E(A1B1) + E(A1B2) + E(A2B1) – E(A2B2) = E(A1B1 + A1B2 + A2B1 – A2B2).

Even if someone can rigorously prove that the above equality holds mathematically, I would not be impressed at all. Because physically it is equivalent to the following absurdity:

A physically meaningful quantity = A physically meaningless quantity.

As long as the above absurdity is used in the derivation of any Bell-CHSH type inequality, Bell’s theorem has no relevance for physics.

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

Re: EPR-Bell is proof that we live in a quaternionic 3-spher

Postby Joy Christian » Mon Oct 31, 2016 7:20 am

***
Actually, the following equality is not true even purely mathematically:

E(A1B1) + E(A1B2) + E(A2B1) – E(A2B2) = E(A1B1 + A1B2 + A2B1 – A2B2) .................... (1)

Here is a simple proof: The LHS of (1) is bounded by -4 and +4, since each of the four terms in it are bounded by -1 and +1. The quantity on the RHS of (1), however, is bounded by -2 and +2, which is easy to prove, as I have done in the Appendix D of my paper attached above. Therefore equality (1) cannot be true in general, even mathematically. Thus it is physically an absurdity and mathematically false. In other words, Bell's so-called "theorem" is worthless nonsense. But we knew that already.

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

Re: EPR-Bell is proof that we live in a quaternionic 3-spher

Postby FrediFizzx » Mon Oct 31, 2016 11:22 am

Joy Christian wrote:***
Actually, the following equality is not true even purely mathematically:

E(A1B1) + E(A1B2) + E(A2B1) – E(A2B2) = E(A1B1 + A1B2 + A2B1 – A2B2) .................... (1)

Here is a simple proof: The LHS of (1) is bounded by -4 and +4, since each of the four terms in it are bounded by -1 and +1. The quantity on the RHS of (1), however, is bounded by -2 and +2, which is easy to prove, as I have done in the Appendix D of my paper attached above. Therefore equality (1) cannot be true in general, even mathematically. Thus it is physically an absurdity and mathematically false. In other words, Bell's so-called "theorem" is worthless nonsense. But we knew that already.

***


I don't think you are expressing it correctly but I know what you mean. On the LHS, A1 in the first term can't necessarily be the same as the A1 in the second term, etc. in order to get the bound of |4|. IOW, the A result you get from E(a, b) is not necessarily going to be the same as the A result you get from E(a, b'). And the same for the B's.
.
FrediFizzx
Independent Physics Researcher
 
Posts: 2905
Joined: Tue Mar 19, 2013 7:12 pm
Location: N. California, USA

Re: EPR-Bell is proof that we live in a quaternionic 3-spher

Postby FrediFizzx » Mon Oct 31, 2016 3:42 pm

Well Retraction Watch is officially screwed up for me. Someone else is posting in my name.

"Fred Diether
Jay, you are getting bogged down in a bunch of nonsense. Cut to the chase as I have already presented.

Comment awaiting moderation.

To the moderators; I did not write that so someone has hijacked my postings."
FrediFizzx
Independent Physics Researcher
 
Posts: 2905
Joined: Tue Mar 19, 2013 7:12 pm
Location: N. California, USA

Re: EPR-Bell is proof that we live in a quaternionic 3-spher

Postby Joy Christian » Mon Oct 31, 2016 4:06 pm

FrediFizzx wrote:Well Retraction Watch is officially screwed up for me. Someone else is posting in my name.

"Fred Diether
Jay, you are getting bogged down in a bunch of nonsense. Cut to the chase as I have already presented.

Comment awaiting moderation.

To the moderators; I did not write that so someone has hijacked my postings."

You better let them know. Here is their email address: ivan-oransky@rcn.com

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

Re: EPR-Bell is proof that we live in a quaternionic 3-spher

Postby Joy Christian » Mon Oct 31, 2016 5:41 pm

FrediFizzx wrote:
Joy Christian wrote:***
Actually, the following equality is not true even purely mathematically:

E(A1B1) + E(A1B2) + E(A2B1) – E(A2B2) = E(A1B1 + A1B2 + A2B1 – A2B2) .................... (1)

Here is a simple proof: The LHS of (1) is bounded by -4 and +4, since each of the four terms in it are bounded by -1 and +1. The quantity on the RHS of (1), however, is bounded by -2 and +2, which is easy to prove, as I have done in the Appendix D of my paper attached above. Therefore equality (1) cannot be true in general, even mathematically. Thus it is physically an absurdity and mathematically false. In other words, Bell's so-called "theorem" is worthless nonsense. But we knew that already.

***


I don't think you are expressing it correctly but I know what you mean. On the LHS, A1 in the first term can't necessarily be the same as the A1 in the second term, etc. in order to get the bound of |4|. IOW, the A result you get from E(a, b) is not necessarily going to be the same as the A result you get from E(a, b'). And the same for the B's.
.

Yes, that is correct. What I have used above is Gill's notation, which we were following on Retraction Watch. But you are right, I should have used better notation.

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

Re: EPR-Bell is proof that we live in a quaternionic 3-spher

Postby FrediFizzx » Mon Oct 31, 2016 8:20 pm

Joy Christian wrote:
FrediFizzx wrote:Well Retraction Watch is officially screwed up for me. Someone else is posting in my name.

"Fred Diether
Jay, you are getting bogged down in a bunch of nonsense. Cut to the chase as I have already presented.

Comment awaiting moderation.

To the moderators; I did not write that so someone has hijacked my postings."

You better let them know.

***

They know because they killed that post after it went live. But that means I won't be posting anymore to RW. That is the danger of allowing people to post without having to sign in with a password. Another post I did today completely disappeared so I can't even copy it to here. But I will try to reproduce in reply to your other post.
.
FrediFizzx
Independent Physics Researcher
 
Posts: 2905
Joined: Tue Mar 19, 2013 7:12 pm
Location: N. California, USA

Re: EPR-Bell is proof that we live in a quaternionic 3-spher

Postby FrediFizzx » Mon Oct 31, 2016 8:48 pm

Joy Christian wrote:
FrediFizzx wrote:
Joy Christian wrote:***
Actually, the following equality is not true even purely mathematically:

E(A1B1) + E(A1B2) + E(A2B1) – E(A2B2) = E(A1B1 + A1B2 + A2B1 – A2B2) .................... (1)

Here is a simple proof: The LHS of (1) is bounded by -4 and +4, since each of the four terms in it are bounded by -1 and +1. The quantity on the RHS of (1), however, is bounded by -2 and +2, which is easy to prove, as I have done in the Appendix D of my paper attached above. Therefore equality (1) cannot be true in general, even mathematically. Thus it is physically an absurdity and mathematically false. In other words, Bell's so-called "theorem" is worthless nonsense. But we knew that already.

***


I don't think you are expressing it correctly but I know what you mean. On the LHS, A1 in the first term can't necessarily be the same as the A1 in the second term, etc. in order to get the bound of |4|. IOW, the A result you get from E(a, b) is not necessarily going to be the same as the A result you get from E(a, b'). And the same for the B's.
.

Yes, that is correct. What I have used above is Gill's notation, which we were following on Retraction Watch. But you are right, I should have used better notation.

***


In the post to RW that disappeared, I was responding to Jay but your eq. (D3) works as well because Jay was just copying it. (D3) is impossible in an EPR-Bohm scenario. It is because of the sub k's on the A and B terms. You can't have any of the primed a's or b's combos if you do a, b in the first pair run as an example. And the other 3 terms will just be zero for that first pair run. So for every pair run, 3 of the terms will be zero. Or perhaps better to label as N/A; not applicable.

It should be A_j B_j, A_k B_k, A_l B_l, and A_m B_m for the four expectation terms if they are separate and independent. Look back at how Michel did this sort of thing. The way it is now, for the first pair you would have, <A_1(a) B_1(b)> and the second term <A_1(a) B_1(b')> which implies that the A from the first term is the same as the A in the second term. And so forth for the B's. That will have a bound of |2|. It gets kind of gnarly to figure out this notation labelling.
.
FrediFizzx
Independent Physics Researcher
 
Posts: 2905
Joined: Tue Mar 19, 2013 7:12 pm
Location: N. California, USA

Re: EPR-Bell is proof that we live in a quaternionic 3-spher

Postby Joy Christian » Wed Nov 02, 2016 1:56 pm

***
The following is my latest post at Retraction Watch (a slightly edited version):

Joy Christian wrote:
Thanks, Jay. As you have asked, let me address the above claim by Stephen Parrott of my supposed mistake in some detail. To avoid any confusion, let me note that Jay’s equation (1) is my equation (D3) from the Appendix D of this paper:

https://arxiv.org/pdf/1501.03393v6.pdf.

In Gill’s notation, my equations (D3) says that the bounds on the CHSH sum of averages,

E(A1B1) + E(A1B2) + E(A2B1) – E(A2B2) …. (1) ,

is in fact -4 to +4, and not -2 to +2 as claimed by the adherents of Bell’s theorem. This is not a mistake (or confusion, or misunderstanding) on my part at all, but an explicit claim of mine. Here, for simplicity, I am ignoring the fact that the actual local-realistic physical bounds on the above CHSH sum are in fact -2sqrt(2) to +2sqrt(2), provided we do not ignore the geometry and topology of the physical space we live in. Thus, it is my claim that the experimentally observed bounds of -2sqrt(2) to +2sqrt(2) “violating” the Bell-imposed limits of -2 to +2 has nothing to do with quantum entanglement, or non-locality, or non-reality, or lack of determinism, but has to do with the geometry and topology of the 3-sphere. Again, this is not a mistake on my part but an explicit claim, with abundance of evidence presented for it, sometimes with the kind help from others.

Now let me turn the argument presented in the Appendix D of my paper upside down to show, in a different way, where the bounds of -4 to +4 come from, even though physically only -2sqrt(2) to +2sqrt(2) is attainable for the reasons mentioned above. Let me now start with equation (D14), the last equation of my Appendix D. Again in Gill’s notation, it is the single average

E(A1B1 + A1B2 + A2B1 – A2B2) …. (2)

Everyone agrees that the bounds on this single average are from -2 to +2. However, as I have demonstrated in my Appendix D, physically this single average is an absurdity. It is an average of events that cannot possibly exist in any possible physical world, classical or quantum. Therefore anything derived or inferred from the above single average, such as the bounds of -2 to +2, are also an absurdity. Indeed it is not surprising that the bounds of -2 to +2 are “violated” in the actual experiments, and I have claimed that they will also be “violated” in my proposed classical experiment involving exploding toy balls.

Everyone also agrees that the equality between (1) and (2) is a mathematical identity:

E(A1B1 + A1B2 + A2B1 – A2B2) = E(A1B1) + E(A1B2) + E(A2B1) – E(A2B2) …. (3)

Therefore the adherents of Bell’s theorem claim that the bounds on (1) are also from -2 to +2. But how can that be? As I have demonstrated in my Appendix D the bounds of -2 to +2 are derived or inferred from considering an average of physical events that are impossible in any possible world. Even the God of Spinoza cannot make them possible. Therefore the claims of the bounds form -2 to +2 on the CHSH sum (1) are also absurd in the light of the identity (3), even if they are not mathematically wrong.

The question then is, what are the correct bounds on the CHSH sum (1) if not -2 to +2?

Well, I claim that if, for simplicity, we ignore the geometry and topology of the physical space, then the correct bounds are -4 to +4, which are in fact attainable at least in a computer simulation such as this one: http://rpubs.com/jjc/84238. In fact it is quite easy to verify that the bounds are -4 to +4 by a simple observation, as done in the introduction of my Appendix D. All one needs for this is the assumption that the summation index used for the four separate sums in equation (1) above is not the same, as Jay verified earlier. Each of the four averages ranges from -1 to +1, and therefore CHSH sum can range from -4 to +4.

But what about the mathematical identity (3) that everyone (apart from me, at least) is so keen to exploit. Well, it is just a mathematical equality that leads to a physical absurdity. Once the summation indices on the four averages in the CHSH sum (1) are different from each other, the equality (3) no longer holds, as verified by Jay earlier.

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

Re: EPR-Bell is proof that we live in a quaternionic 3-spher

Postby Joy Christian » Thu Nov 03, 2016 8:37 am

***
My latest post at Retraction Watch:

Joy Christian wrote:
Richard Gill wrote:To Jay: You’ve essentially given us a novel proof of Bell’s theorem.

And the same old mistake in the “novel proof” by Jay lies in this step:

-4 le E[A(a)*[B(b) + B(b’)] + A(a’)*[B(b) – B(b’)]]_k le +4 (10)

On what basis A(a) has been factored out for two different B(b) and B(b’)? Does Bob live in an impossible fantasy world where he can align his detector along b and b’ at the same time while Alice aligns her detector along a? Does Bob live in an impossible fantasy world where he can be in New York and Miami at exactly the same time?

The “novel proof” by Jay is based on exactly the same absurdity as the same old proof by Bell, and therefore the bounds -2 and +2 on CHSH sum derived by Jay are equally meaningless curiosities. It is then no surprise at all that they are frequently “violated” in the real world.

***

Note for the lay readers: All the discussion about Bell and his inequalities is quite misleading. The real physics lies only in the correlations E(a, b) = -a.b observed in Nature. But the Bell-believers like Richard Gill are so fanatically committed to Bell's erroneous argument that they are unable to let go of his misleading inequalities.

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

Re: EPR-Bell is proof that we live in a quaternionic 3-spher

Postby Joy Christian » Thu Nov 03, 2016 12:18 pm

***
Tow of my latest replies to Jay at Retraction Watch:

Joy Christian wrote:
No, Jay. (9) and (10) are of course the same. But (10) brings out the absurdity of the Bell-type manipulation very clearly. When you factor out A(a) and A(a’) from the sum and difference of B(b) and B(b’), and write a product like

A(a) * [B(b) + B(b’)] ,

then it becomes more obvious than in your previous equations that such a product is physically absurd. It is not OK to pretend that you (or Bell, or Gill) are just taking some intermediate mathematical steps, precisely because of the identity everyone loves; namely

E(A1B1 + A1B2 + A2B1 – A2B2) = E(A1B1) + E(A1B2) + E(A2B1) – E(A2B2).

This identity says that if what you end up getting on its LHS turns out to be physically absurd, then what appears on its RHS is also physically absurd. It is an absolute equality. Therefore there is no way out of this conclusion.

Now you were able to avoid this trap in your equation (1). But then you found your way back into it in your equation (10). How did that happen?

***
Joy Christian wrote:
OK, so you did some statistical manipulation (presumably following Gill’s suggestion) and added in your physically meaningful equation (6) some imagined unperformed experiments to arrive at equation (7), which then led you to a physically absurd expression like

E(A1B1 + A1B2 + A2B1 – A2B2) ,

giving the bounds of -2 to +2. Well, you know what they say about statistics:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lies,_dam ... statistics

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

Re: EPR-Bell is proof that we live in a quaternionic 3-spher

Postby Joy Christian » Sun Jan 01, 2017 7:37 am

***
I have added a small paragraph in this paper, containing equations (85) and (86), as shown below:

Image

What this paragraph shows is that the conservation of zero spin angular momentum is not needed as an assumption in addition to to derive the strong correlations. It follows as a consequence of the Mobius-like twists in the Hopf bundle of the 3-sphere. All one needs to derive the strong correlations is the hypothesis that we live in a quaternionic 3-sphere (which is just a 3-dimensional space) of unspecified orientation (or parity) defined by . Given such , the derivation of the strong correlations follows like a clockwork. :)

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

Re: EPR-Bell is proof that we live in a quaternionic 3-spher

Postby FrediFizzx » Sun Jan 01, 2017 9:48 am

I thought the conservation of angular momentum is a physical law that follows from Noether's theorem? Why would it be an assumption in this case?
FrediFizzx
Independent Physics Researcher
 
Posts: 2905
Joined: Tue Mar 19, 2013 7:12 pm
Location: N. California, USA

Re: EPR-Bell is proof that we live in a quaternionic 3-spher

Postby Joy Christian » Sun Jan 01, 2017 10:02 am

FrediFizzx wrote:I thought the conservation of angular momentum is a physical law that follows from Noether's theorem? Why would it be an assumption in this case?

You are right of course. All conservation laws follow from Noether's theorem as physical laws stemming from the symmetries of the system. But in our case I have been able to derive it from the twist in the Hopf bundle of S^3, which is just another expression for the symmetries of the system. Ultimately the spin conservation law for our system stems from the fact that the singlet state is rotationally invariant (a very special property). It is not strictly an assumption, but it is good to understand it also as stemming from the geometrical properties of the 3-sphere itself.

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

Re: EPR-Bell is proof that we live in a quaternionic 3-spher

Postby minkwe » Mon Jan 02, 2017 11:15 am

Hi Joy,
I just want to state my disagreement on the record. While I agree that your model reproduces the Quantum predictions, I do not agree that EPR-Bell is proof that we live in a quaternionic 3-sphere. In other words, I agree with your mathematics, but disagree with your physical interpretation of it. I'll be willing to explain why I believe that if you guys are interested.
minkwe
 
Posts: 1441
Joined: Sat Feb 08, 2014 10:22 am

PreviousNext

Return to Sci.Physics.Foundations

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 73 guests

cron
CodeCogs - An Open Source Scientific Library