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 FrediFizzx » Mon Jan 02, 2017 11:43 am

minkwe wrote: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.

I'm certainly interested. But "proof" is perhaps too strong of a word. "Validation" is perhaps better. Of course if the mechanical singlet experiment were to be successful, then that would be some very strong validation. We already have some classical experiments with EM waves that give some validation.
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 minkwe » Mon Jan 02, 2017 12:10 pm

FrediFizzx wrote:
minkwe wrote: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.

I'm certainly interested. But "proof" is perhaps too strong of a word. "Validation" is perhaps better. Of course if the mechanical singlet experiment were to be successful, then that would be some very strong validation. We already have some classical experiments with EM waves that give some validation.

Fred,
I believe the 3-sphere is needed to model the specific experiment. It doesn't mean the world in which the entities of the experiment live is quaternionic 3-sphere. To explain, you have to look at the double-cover property of the belt-trick or other such tricks. Usually it is argued that the belt trick means some objects need 4pi rotation to return to the initial state. But this is not accurate. The correct interpretation is that when you have two closely related objects and rotating one of them by 2pi is not enough to return all the relationships between the two objects to their initial state. You need to rotate both of them by 2pi, or rotate one of them by 4pi.

It does not mean 2pi is not enough for a single object, nor does it mean 4pi is enough if you have more than 2 objects.

What do you think about that.
minkwe
 
Posts: 1441
Joined: Sat Feb 08, 2014 10:22 am

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

Postby FrediFizzx » Mon Jan 02, 2017 12:24 pm

minkwe wrote:
FrediFizzx wrote:
minkwe wrote: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.

I'm certainly interested. But "proof" is perhaps too strong of a word. "Validation" is perhaps better. Of course if the mechanical singlet experiment were to be successful, then that would be some very strong validation. We already have some classical experiments with EM waves that give some validation.

Fred,
I believe the 3-sphere is needed to model the specific experiment. It doesn't mean the world in which the entities of the experiment live is quaternionic 3-sphere. To explain, you have to look at the double-cover property of the belt-trick or other such tricks. Usually it is argued that the belt trick means some objects need 4pi rotation to return to the initial state. But this is not accurate. The correct interpretation is that when you have two closely related objects and rotating one of them by 2pi is not enough to return all the relationships between the two objects to their initial state. You need to rotate both of them by 2pi, or rotate one of them by 4pi.

It does not mean 2pi is not enough for a single object, nor does it mean 4pi is enough if you have more than 2 objects.

What do you think about that.

I believe that Joy addresses that in one of his papers so I will let him respond to it. Probably this one,

https://arxiv.org/abs/1211.0784

Which was published here,

http://link.springer.com/article/10.100 ... 014-2412-2
.
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 minkwe » Mon Jan 02, 2017 12:57 pm

FrediFizzx wrote:
minkwe wrote:
FrediFizzx wrote:
minkwe wrote: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.

I'm certainly interested. But "proof" is perhaps too strong of a word. "Validation" is perhaps better. Of course if the mechanical singlet experiment were to be successful, then that would be some very strong validation. We already have some classical experiments with EM waves that give some validation.

Fred,
I believe the 3-sphere is needed to model the specific experiment. It doesn't mean the world in which the entities of the experiment live is quaternionic 3-sphere. To explain, you have to look at the double-cover property of the belt-trick or other such tricks. Usually it is argued that the belt trick means some objects need 4pi rotation to return to the initial state. But this is not accurate. The correct interpretation is that when you have two closely related objects and rotating one of them by 2pi is not enough to return all the relationships between the two objects to their initial state. You need to rotate both of them by 2pi, or rotate one of them by 4pi.

It does not mean 2pi is not enough for a single object, nor does it mean 4pi is enough if you have more than 2 objects.

What do you think about that.

I believe that Joy addresses that in one of his papers so I will let him respond to it. Probably this one,

https://arxiv.org/abs/1211.0784

Which was published here,

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

Yes Fred, I'm aware of Joy's paper. I think what I'm saying is similar to what he says here in the paper:

To this end, recall that the set of all unit quaternions satisfying Eqs. (4) and (5) forms the group SU(2), which is homeomorphic to the simply-connected space S3
[11]. This group is relevant in the macroscopic world when rotations of objects relative to other “fixed” objects are important. On the other hand, purely local observations
of rotations seem to be insensitive to the sign changes of the quaternions constituting SU(2).


Double cover is only relevant when you deal with relationships. Single objects do not "live" in S3. But you need S3 to model relationships between objects. Perhaps that is what Joy means in the first place.
minkwe
 
Posts: 1441
Joined: Sat Feb 08, 2014 10:22 am

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

Postby Joy Christian » Mon Jan 02, 2017 1:14 pm

minkwe wrote:I believe the 3-sphere is needed to model the specific experiment. It doesn't mean the world in which the entities of the experiment live is quaternionic 3-sphere. To explain, you have to look at the double-cover property of the belt-trick or other such tricks. Usually it is argued that the belt trick means some objects need 4pi rotation to return to the initial state. But this is not accurate. The correct interpretation is that when you have two closely related objects and rotating one of them by 2pi is not enough to return all the relationships between the two objects to their initial state. You need to rotate both of them by 2pi, or rotate one of them by 4pi.

It does not mean 2pi is not enough for a single object, nor does it mean 4pi is enough if you have more than 2 objects.

Michel,

The number of objects is not actually the relevant issue here. What is relevant is that whether two objects or more are linked to each other or not. If you have a belt, one end of which is tied to one object and the other end to another object, then you will see a twist in it upon 2pi rotation of one of the objects, which can then be untwisted by a further rotation by 2pi (of the same object or the one that was held fixed). In short, any free object is a boson, whereas any linked object is a fermion.

But why do I think that EPR-Bell is a proof that we live in a quaternionic 3-sphere? Well, there are several reasons, some of which are explained in the paper linked by Fred. One of the reasons for me is that spinors are the well known properties of the spacetime itself: http://www.cambridge.org/catalogue/cata ... 0521337070 .

***
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 » Tue Jan 03, 2017 12:26 pm

That's excellent, Joy.

As one of your earliest supporters, I was convinced that simple connectedness is the key. It supports general relativity, in that it implies a continuum of matter, as expressed by Einstein:

"If the universe is quasi-Euclidean, and its radius of curvature therefore infinite, then sigma would vanish. But it is improbable that the mean density of matter in the universe in the universe is actually zero; this is our third argument against the assumption that the universe is quasi-Euclidean. Nor does it seem possible that our hypothetical pressure can vanish; the physical nature of this pressure can be appreciated only after we have a better theoretical knowledge of the electromagnetic field." (The Meaning of Relativity, 5th edition, p. 107)

Taking the Bell ‘impossibility’ argument, it is intuitive that only 3 absorption events can be detected at a time, and only 2 events correlated.

Einstein’s measure space is 4-dimensional, however; the suppressed dimension is generally considered to be time. In relativity, time cannot be taken independently of spacetime. This is what makes the LIGO result so crucial to understanding general relativity—time compressed in one direction expands orthogonally as space.

This is the first time I've heard you identify point particles with network language ("... any free object is a boson, whereas any linked object is a fermion.")

I thought Jay was making great progress in time dilation before getting involved in the RW thing. Here's wishing you to get back on task, Jay. :-)

Happy New Year, all ...

Tom
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 » Tue Jan 03, 2017 3:37 pm

***
Thank you, Tom! We are nearly done at RW and Jay will soon be back here doing more creative 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 FrediFizzx » Thu Jan 05, 2017 1:58 pm

Joy Christian wrote:***
Thank you, Tom! We are nearly done at RW and Jay will soon be back here doing more creative physics. :)

***

Two of my posts to RW have completely disappeared this morning. They didn't even show up like they are in the moderation queue. It doesn't look like it is going to be "nearly done" any time soon as of now.
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 » Thu Jan 05, 2017 2:12 pm

FrediFizzx wrote:
Joy Christian wrote:***
Thank you, Tom! We are nearly done at RW and Jay will soon be back here doing more creative physics. :)

***

Two of my posts to RW have completely disappeared this morning. They didn't even show up like they are in the moderation queue. It doesn't look like it is going to be "nearly done" any time soon as of now.

No, it doesn't. Especially when some of the same old confused and incompetent fools keep recycling their already debunked arguments against our 3-sphere model.

Some of my posts are also being rejected by the RW moderators, for no understandable reasons.

***
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 » Fri Jan 06, 2017 11:52 am

Joy Christian wrote:No, it doesn't. Especially when some of the same old confused and incompetent fools keep recycling their already debunked arguments against our 3-sphere model.

Some of my posts are also being rejected by the RW moderators, for no understandable reasons.

***

Weird! Every time I respond to Lockyer's nonsense, my posts disappear from the moderation queue. I think all you need to do is demonstrate that,

(-I.a)(-I.b) = (I.b)(I.a)

like you did in your paper. Doing,

{(-I.a)(-I.b) + (I.a)(I.b)}/2 = -a.b

is not perfectly clear that the bases are not being mixed. Whereas,

{(I.b)(I.a) + (I.a)(I.b)}/2 = -a.b

is perfectly clear that only one basis is being used in the average. Just a suggestion.
.
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 » Fri Jan 06, 2017 2:03 pm

FrediFizzx wrote:
Joy Christian wrote:No, it doesn't. Especially when some of the same old confused and incompetent fools keep recycling their already debunked arguments against our 3-sphere model.

Some of my posts are also being rejected by the RW moderators, for no understandable reasons.

***

Weird! Every time I respond to Lockyer's nonsense, my posts disappear from the moderation queue. I think all you need to do is demonstrate that,

(-I.a)(-I.b) = (I.b)(I.a)

like you did in your paper. Doing,

{(-I.a)(-I.b) + (I.a)(I.b)}/2 = -a.b

is not perfectly clear that the bases are not being mixed. Whereas,

{(I.b)(I.a) + (I.a)(I.b)}/2 = -a.b

is perfectly clear that only one basis is being used in the average. Just a suggestion.
.

Thanks. I just saw your suggestion. In the mean time my post doing exactly that has now appeared. They seem to be very selective of what posts they let through.

***
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 Jan 07, 2017 1:02 am

Joy Christian wrote:Thanks. I just saw your suggestion. In the mean time my post doing exactly that has now appeared. They seem to be very selective of what posts they let through.

***

You're welcome. It is more than selective. They are purposely deleting any replies of mine to Lockyer. Did another one awhile ago and it disappeared again.

But what can you do with a person that can't tell his left hand from his right hand because he doubled up on a multiplication table.
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 Jan 07, 2017 11:15 am

FrediFizzx wrote:
Joy Christian wrote:Thanks. I just saw your suggestion. In the mean time my post doing exactly that has now appeared. They seem to be very selective of what posts they let through.

***

You're welcome. It is more than selective. They are purposely deleting any replies of mine to Lockyer. Did another one awhile ago and it disappeared again.

But what can you do with a person that can't tell his left hand from his right hand because he doubled up on a multiplication table.

Nothing much we can do, Fred. Lockyer will keep coming back as long as we keep responding to his nonsense. It is best to ignore his rant on RW and move on.

PS: If anyone is curious about Lockyer's mathematical and conceptual mistakes, then they can be found on this thread: viewtopic.php?f=6&t=226#p5859.

***
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 » Sat Jan 07, 2017 11:04 pm

***
Jay is unable to concentrate on enjoying his vacation. :) He and I are in touch via his iPhone. The following is my latest reply to him:

Lockyer will not be convinced, Jay, as long as you use the cross product. Have you been reading his latest RW posts? I have stopped responding to them.

In any case, cross product can be eliminated from the argument altogether. The difference between his claim and my calculation is the following.

My result E(a, b) = -a.b follows from the identities

L(a, lambda = +1) L(b, lambda = +1) = D(a) D(b)

and

L(a, lambda = -1) L(b, lambda = -1) = D(b) D(a) .

These identities are derived in my equations (77) to (79), which do not use cross product at all. They use only the geometric product (I.a) (I.b) = -a.b - a /\ b.

But to this elimination of cross product Lockyer now claims, incorrectly, that my second equation above should be

L(a, lambda = -1) L(b, lambda = -1) = D(a) D(b) ,

thus missing the very point of my model. He insists on this incorrect equation so that he can get his incorrect result instead of E(a, b) = -a.b. There is little one can do to convince him.

Best,

Joy
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 08, 2017 1:07 am

The reason Lockyer doesn't want to see the cross product because it so easily proves how wrong he is. The fact that (b x a) = -(a x b) perfectly demonstrates that the order is reversed in the relationship between left and right handedness.
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 » Tue Jan 17, 2017 9:31 pm

FrediFizzx wrote:The reason Lockyer doesn't want to see the cross product because it so easily proves how wrong he is. The fact that (b x a) = -(a x b) perfectly demonstrates that the order is reversed in the relationship between left and right handedness.

Lockyer is either utterly incompetent or shamelessly dishonest. You and I have pointed out his mathematical mistakes to him hundreds of times in the past six years. Michel has also pointed out his mistakes to him a few times: viewtopic.php?f=6&t=183&start=80#p5080. And now Jay has thoroughly exposed his misconceptions at Retraction Watch: http://retractionwatch.com/2016/09/30/p ... nt-1253891. And yet he carries on year after year with the same cacophony, like a broken record.

***
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 » Tue Jan 17, 2017 10:38 pm

Joy Christian wrote:
FrediFizzx wrote:The reason Lockyer doesn't want to see the cross product because it so easily proves how wrong he is. The fact that (b x a) = -(a x b) perfectly demonstrates that the order is reversed in the relationship between left and right handedness.

Lockyer is either utterly incompetent or shamelessly dishonest. You and I have pointed out his mathematical mistakes to him hundreds of times in the past six years. Michel has also pointed out his mistakes to him a few times: viewtopic.php?f=6&t=183&start=80#p5080. And now Jay has thoroughly exposed his misconceptions at Retraction Watch: http://retractionwatch.com/2016/09/30/p ... nt-1253891. And yet he carries on year after year with the same cacophony, like a broken record.

***

Well... one good thing about it is that Jay now has a better understanding of GA and how it works in your model. The thing that boggles my mind is that Lockyer doesn't understand how he doubled up on the multiplication table. Perhaps pure math makes you crazy or something. :?: But it is probably more like a case of extreme stubbornness. I was a bit of an online friend of his father so if that is the case, I know where it comes from. I credit his father for getting me interested in physics again, but I was never successful at getting Thomas to explore different aspects of his theories; very stubborn about that. Even though I didn't agree with some of his ideas, I would read and study all of his self-published books that he sent me. And even helped him with one of his DVD's one time. You might even like some of his work. It was about how to do quantum particle physics the semi-classical way.
.
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 Jan 18, 2017 5:36 pm

FrediFizzx wrote:
Joy Christian wrote:
FrediFizzx wrote:The reason Lockyer doesn't want to see the cross product because it so easily proves how wrong he is. The fact that (b x a) = -(a x b) perfectly demonstrates that the order is reversed in the relationship between left and right handedness.

Lockyer is either utterly incompetent or shamelessly dishonest. You and I have pointed out his mathematical mistakes to him hundreds of times in the past six years. Michel has also pointed out his mistakes to him a few times: viewtopic.php?f=6&t=183&start=80#p5080. And now Jay has thoroughly exposed his misconceptions at Retraction Watch: http://retractionwatch.com/2016/09/30/p ... nt-1253891. And yet he carries on year after year with the same cacophony, like a broken record.

***

Well... one good thing about it is that Jay now has a better understanding of GA and how it works in your model. The thing that boggles my mind is that Lockyer doesn't understand how he doubled up on the multiplication table. Perhaps pure math makes you crazy or something. :?: But it is probably more like a case of extreme stubbornness. I was a bit of an online friend of his father so if that is the case, I know where it comes from. I credit his father for getting me interested in physics again, but I was never successful at getting Thomas to explore different aspects of his theories; very stubborn about that. Even though I didn't agree with some of his ideas, I would read and study all of his self-published books that he sent me. And even helped him with one of his DVD's one time. You might even like some of his work. It was about how to do quantum particle physics the semi-classical way.
.

He is double-mapping again at RW. :roll:

***
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 » Thu Jan 19, 2017 4:34 pm

Yeah, there is not much point in arguing with him since he is too stubborn to admit his double mapping error.
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 » Fri Jan 27, 2017 9:46 am

FrediFizzx wrote:Yeah, there is not much point in arguing with him since he is too stubborn to admit his double mapping error.

There is yet another breathtakingly dishonest individual who is trolling at Retraction Watch; namely, HR, aka Heinera. He has been able to fool Jay for some reason, but to me he will always remain a dishonest and incompetent individual who is too blinded by his dogmatic belief in Bell's silly theorem to ever see the light of truth.

***
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 82 guests

cron
CodeCogs - An Open Source Scientific Library