Page 6 of 7

Re: Royal Society has Accepted my Disproof of Bell's Theorem

PostPosted: Tue Mar 12, 2019 2:29 am
by Q-reeus
Heinera wrote:If this is correct, then how does the Friedmann-Robertson-Walker spacetime enter Joy Christian's theory?

Best to let Joy answer that one. I do seem to recall him stating regarding one of his more recent articles that quantum correlations can now be explained without recourse to a physically curved spacetime i.e. that S7 (or S8) could be viewed as just a mathematical framework. Again, Joy is the obvious go to for clarification on that.
[Composed this before Joy answered. But I will let it stand anyway. Because I'm sure now Joy has stated that a physically curved spacetime is not (now) a prerequisite.]
Besides, with flat-space Newtonian dynamics the simulation would be unnecessary, since we would obviously only get the classical correlations.

Which is my expectation also. Actually realizing the proposed macroscopic classical experiment, via simulation or physically, is the only way to settle it for sure to hopefully everyone's satisfaction.

Re: Royal Society has Accepted my Disproof of Bell's Theorem

PostPosted: Tue Mar 12, 2019 2:59 am
by Joy Christian
Q-reeus wrote:I do seem to recall him stating regarding one of his more recent articles that quantum correlations can now be explained without recourse to a physically curved spacetime i.e. that S7 (or S8) could be viewed as just a mathematical framework. Again, Joy is the obvious go to for clarification on that.
[Composed this before Joy answered. But I will let it stand anyway. Because I'm sure now Joy has stated that a physically curved spacetime is not (now) a prerequisite.]

That is not quite correct. The physical space in the model is still a quaternionic 3-sphere, S^3, which is better represented using torsion rather than as a curved space with constant spatial curvature. The algebraic representation of the physical space S^3 is then S^7, which is necessary only for more general quantum correlations. The issue raised by some in the past was that of the apparent "extra dimensions" of S^7. But in my latest RSOS paper I have shown that S^7 is an algebraic representation space of S^3. It is not itself a physical space. Thus the issue of "extra dimensions" is a non-issue.

But since my proposed experiment only concerns the singlet correlations, we don't have to worry about S^7 at all. And for the S^3 based EPR-Bohm experiment, a numerical simulation using GAViewer already exists, thanks to Albert Jan and Fred: viewtopic.php?f=6&t=200&p=5550#p5514

***

Re: Royal Society has Accepted my Disproof of Bell's Theorem

PostPosted: Tue Mar 12, 2019 3:17 am
by Q-reeus
Joy Christian wrote:...a numerical simulation using GAViewer already exists,...

Yes but it's an evident implementation and confirmation of your GA maths. How to be sure that corresponds to reality? To simulate or physically implement your proposed macroscopic experiment is something quite distinct.
Doing so is the only way to settle for sure whether the claim Bell-type strong quantum correlations are possible in classical physics systems.

Re: Royal Society has Accepted my Disproof of Bell's Theorem

PostPosted: Tue Mar 12, 2019 8:42 am
by FrediFizzx
Q-reeus wrote:
Joy Christian wrote:...a numerical simulation using GAViewer already exists,...

Yes but it's an evident implementation and confirmation of your GA maths. How to be sure that corresponds to reality? To simulate or physically implement your proposed macroscopic experiment is something quite distinct.
Doing so is the only way to settle for sure whether the claim Bell-type strong quantum correlations are possible in classical physics systems.

I think there is a better thread for the GAViewer simulation for S^3 but here is one for S^7 4-particle.

viewtopic.php?f=6&t=324&p=7924#p7911

Recent actual experiments are showing the strong correlations classically so that gives credence to these GAViewer simulations indirectly.

Here is the S^3 2D version for GAViewer.

viewtopic.php?f=6&t=296

We have one also for S^3 3D but I don't think we actually put the graph up for it.

Re: Royal Society has Accepted my Disproof of Bell's Theorem

PostPosted: Tue Mar 12, 2019 5:42 pm
by Q-reeus
FrediFizzx wrote:Recent actual experiments are showing the strong correlations classically so that gives credence to these GAViewer simulations indirectly.

The inappropriate example cited earlier in this p5 post:
viewtopic.php?f=6&t=342&start=80#p8399
https://journals.aps.org/prl/abstract/1 ... 121.220404
was subsequently dealt with. I can think of only one example where supposedly quantum only correlations occur in a classical system. It involved optical fibers iirc. Not sure if that interpretation has survived criticisms.

The issue to settle is whether Joy's proposed macroscopic classical experiment obeys 'flat land' i.e. fapp Euclidean space Newtonian physics, as most believe, or that pertaining to a claimed S^3 reality. Where strong quantum level correlations are predicted. This is a running sore that needs addressing via completion of that experiment. Simulation is as I have argued the far better and easier way. Anyway, without doing that experiment, the ongoing battle of claims and counterclaims between Joy and Richard (and others) could go on till one party dies of old age.

Re: Royal Society has Accepted my Disproof of Bell's Theorem

PostPosted: Wed Mar 13, 2019 2:05 pm
by Heinera
Q-reeus wrote:The issue to settle is whether Joy's proposed macroscopic classical experiment obeys 'flat land' i.e. fapp Euclidean space Newtonian physics, as most believe, or that pertaining to a claimed S^3 reality. Where strong quantum level correlations are predicted. This is a running sore that needs addressing via completion of that experiment. Simulation is as I have argued the far better and easier way.

I've looked through Joy's papers to see if I could find any formulas that could facilitate such a simulation. Here is a thought:

Correlation says something about the relationship between two entities. In section IV of the paper https://arxiv.org/pdf/1211.0784.pdf, the experiment is described. Here it is explicitly stated that if the spin angular momentum vector is observed to be s^k for Alice, it must be -s^k for Bob. Thus the two vectors must point in exactly opposite directions. But this completely determines the relationship between the two vectors (if we know one, we know the other), and should thus also determine their correlation.

What else would we need to know?

Re: Royal Society has Accepted my Disproof of Bell's Theorem

PostPosted: Wed Mar 13, 2019 3:21 pm
by Joy Christian
Heinera wrote:What else would we need to know?

The geometry and topology of the physical space in which the experiment would be taking place.

***

Re: Royal Society has Accepted my Disproof of Bell's Theorem

PostPosted: Wed Mar 13, 2019 4:32 pm
by Q-reeus
Heinera wrote:...Here it is explicitly stated that if the spin angular momentum vector is observed to be s^k for Alice, it must be -s^k for Bob. Thus the two vectors must point in exactly opposite directions. But this completely determines the relationship between the two vectors (if we know one, we know the other), and should thus also determine their correlation.

What else would we need to know?

I never gave much thought to Joy's idea of completely randomly placed masses afixed to the surface of each shell half. That would yield only partially random spin orientations - since such a setup cannot generate spin along the axes of linear momenta. Further, there would be a huge spread in the magnitude of spin angular momenta - e.g. if by chance each weight was close to a 'pole' of each shell half, very little angular momenta results.
So at best, to ensure constant spin magnitudes for each run, the randomness must be confined to longitudinal locations along a particular latitude line (constant elevation angle) for each shell half. Hmmm....

Maybe this can be short circuited. Consider a macroscopic version of Stern-Gerlach experiment. Is there any doubt that macroscopic linearly magnetized hard magnets passing through the non-uniform B-field will yield a continuous spectrum of transverse locations at the detector? In sharp contrast to the discrete locations observed for e.g. silver atoms as per original experiment?

Re: Royal Society has Accepted my Disproof of Bell's Theorem

PostPosted: Thu Mar 14, 2019 10:28 am
by Joy Christian
Q-reeus wrote:I never gave much thought to Joy's idea of completely randomly placed masses afixed to the surface of each shell half. That would yield only partially random spin orientations - since such a setup cannot generate spin along the axes of linear momenta. Further, there would be a huge spread in the magnitude of spin angular momenta - e.g. if by chance each weight was close to a 'pole' of each shell half, very little angular momenta results.
So at best, to ensure constant spin magnitudes for each run, the randomness must be confined to longitudinal locations along a particular latitude line (constant elevation angle) for each shell half. Hmmm....

These issues have been addressed previously. Please see the last paragraph of this page (reproduced below): http://libertesphilosophica.info/blog/e ... taphysics/

With the bomb made out of two squashy balls (instead of a single ball) which rapidly reshape to perfectly round spheres, the determination of spin directions would be easier, since the spin and rotation axes for each sphere would then be the same. It would still be important to eliminate aerodynamic effects before the final shapes are stabilized. A good quality check of the setup would be to compare how accurately the spins are anti-parallel, thus making sure that the singlet property for each pair of the measured spins is maintained.

***

Re: Royal Society has Accepted my Disproof of Bell's Theorem

PostPosted: Thu Mar 14, 2019 7:20 pm
by Q-reeus
Joy Christian wrote:These issues have been addressed previously. Please see the last paragraph of this page (reproduced below): http://libertesphilosophica.info/blog/e ... taphysics/

With the bomb made out of two squashy balls (instead of a single ball) which rapidly reshape to perfectly round spheres, the determination of spin directions would be easier, since the spin and rotation axes for each sphere would then be the same. It would still be important to eliminate aerodynamic effects before the final shapes are stabilized. A good quality check of the setup would be to compare how accurately the spins are anti-parallel, thus making sure that the singlet property for each pair of the measured spins is maintained.

***

It addresses the particular complications of discerning between spin axis and angular momentum, and unpredictable aerodynamic turbulence, that a rigid shell half would present. I guess squash balls might suffice as the squishy balls. But otherwise does not answer the fact that at best there one can only generate quasi-randomness in spins. Also, how exactly are the squishy balls held together under compression, before an instant and clean release is enacted? The devil is in the details here.

There is no possible 'spooky action at a distance' going on here, hence, it should suffice to reduce the setup to that of a single spinning ball and detector. Relying on exact anti-parallel spins and common lineaqr momentum axis, IF two balls were involved. Exactly how to induce truly random spin still seems tricky, but at least now one could use a vertical, gravity powered drop path for the sole ball used, paradoxically eliminating gravity as a complication i.e. no parabolic trajectory(s) involved.

But even if that matter of obtaining truly random spin could be practically solved, it misses one fundamental fact. Here, the classical detection involves no appreciable physical interaction between ball and detector (or rather detection system). Whereas in the quantum version, it's 'traditionally' all about entanglement between BOTH particle(s) AND detector(s). There is strong particle-detector physical coupling involved. If detection is say spin up, the particle then really has fully spin up. Not merely just getting over the line via a mathematical assignment based on sign((s^2).a) = +1 or -1 (as per that article you cited). This seems like a crucial distinction to me.

Re: Royal Society has Accepted my Disproof of Bell's Theorem

PostPosted: Fri Mar 15, 2019 9:18 am
by Heinera
Q-reeus wrote:There is no possible 'spooky action at a distance' going on here, hence, it should suffice to reduce the setup to that of a single spinning ball and detector. Relying on exact anti-parallel spins and common lineaqr momentum axis, IF two balls were involved. Exactly how to induce truly random spin still seems tricky, but at least now one could use a vertical, gravity powered drop path for the sole ball used, paradoxically eliminating gravity as a complication i.e. no parabolic trajectory(s) involved.

Well, if you think the spin should be random, what prevents you from simulating spin vectors s^k for Alice, uniformly distributed over the sphere, and then use -s^k for Bob's spin, and compute the correlation for that? After all the computation of the correlation is a simple mathematical formula.

Re: Royal Society has Accepted my Disproof of Bell's Theorem

PostPosted: Fri Mar 15, 2019 5:29 pm
by Q-reeus
Heinera wrote:Well, if you think the spin should be random, what prevents you from simulating spin vectors s^k for Alice, uniformly distributed over the sphere, and then use -s^k for Bob's spin, and compute the correlation for that? After all the computation of the correlation is a simple mathematical formula.

Unless it can be pinpointed just where the 'inherent torsion' existing in S^3 reality impacts classical physics in general (above and beyond statistical correlations in a singlet state experiment), I'm inclined to think that strong quantum correlations in a classical setting is purely a consequence of the mathematical massaging of recorded data.

Re: Royal Society has Accepted my Disproof of Bell's Theorem

PostPosted: Sat Mar 16, 2019 11:49 am
by Heinera
Q-reeus wrote:
Heinera wrote:Well, if you think the spin should be random, what prevents you from simulating spin vectors s^k for Alice, uniformly distributed over the sphere, and then use -s^k for Bob's spin, and compute the correlation for that? After all the computation of the correlation is a simple mathematical formula.

Unless it can be pinpointed just where the 'inherent torsion' existing in S^3 reality impacts classical physics in general (above and beyond statistical correlations in a singlet state experiment), I'm inclined to think that strong quantum correlations in a classical setting is purely a consequence of the mathematical massaging of recorded data.

Yes, indeed. The simulation I proposed gives the classical correlations, and not quantum correlations. So as long as the classical relationship "s^k for Alice implies -s^k for Bob" holds, how can we possibly expect to get quantum correlations mathematically? The simulation is trivial; no point in doing the experiment.

Re: Royal Society has Accepted my Disproof of Bell's Theorem

PostPosted: Sat Mar 16, 2019 1:26 pm
by Joy Christian
Joy Christian wrote:
Heinera wrote:What else would we need to know?

The geometry and topology of the physical space in which the experiment would be taking place.

Heinera wrote:
Q-reeus wrote:I'm inclined to think that strong quantum correlations in a classical setting is purely a consequence of the mathematical massaging of recorded data.

Yes, indeed. The simulation I proposed gives the classical correlations, and not quantum correlations. So as long as the classical relationship "s^k for Alice implies -s^k for Bob" holds, how can we possibly expect to get quantum correlations mathematically? The simulation is trivial; no point in doing the experiment.

Where and how, in your simulation, did you take into account the fact that the proposed experiment would necessarily be taking place within the S^3 geometry of the 3D physical space?

***

Re: Royal Society has Accepted my Disproof of Bell's Theorem

PostPosted: Sat Mar 16, 2019 5:26 pm
by Q-reeus
If indeed our universe is permeated by a physically real, intrinsic, intensive non-zero torsion, it's just not credible that the sole effect is to generate strong quantum correlations in macroscopic, classical physics analogs to Bell-type experiments. There should be a host of more general classical physics effects distinguishing S^3 reality from R^3 flat-land expectations. Demonstrable examples, with explicit formulae please.

Re: Royal Society has Accepted my Disproof of Bell's Theorem

PostPosted: Sat Mar 16, 2019 5:35 pm
by Joy Christian
Q-reeus wrote:If indeed our universe is permeated by a physically real, intrinsic, intensive non-zero torsion, it's just not credible that the sole effect is to generate strong quantum correlations in macroscopic, classical physics analogs to Bell-type experiments. There should be a host of more general classical physics effects distinguishing S^3 reality from R^3 flat-land expectations. Demonstrable examples, with explicit formulae please.

Nature does not behave according to what is credible to you. I have made an educated prediction. My prediction is that strong correlations will be observed in my proposed experiment.

***

Re: Royal Society has Accepted my Disproof of Bell's Theorem

PostPosted: Sat Mar 16, 2019 6:32 pm
by Q-reeus
Joy Christian wrote:Nature does not behave according to what is credible to you. I have made an educated prediction. My prediction is that strong correlations will be observed in my proposed experiment.
***

I take it then you have never explored the consequences of S^3 intrinsic torsion on Newtonian dynamics, beyond just correlations?

Re: Royal Society has Accepted my Disproof of Bell's Theorem

PostPosted: Sat Mar 16, 2019 6:54 pm
by Joy Christian
Q-reeus wrote:
Joy Christian wrote:Nature does not behave according to what is credible to you. I have made an educated prediction. My prediction is that strong correlations will be observed in my proposed experiment.
***

I take it then you have never explored the consequences of S^3 intrinsic torsion on Newtonian dynamics, beyond just correlations?

It is irrelevant for the success of the experiment in question whether I have or have not explored other consequences of the S^3 geometry.

***

Re: Royal Society has Accepted my Disproof of Bell's Theorem

PostPosted: Mon Apr 15, 2019 9:58 am
by Heinera
I see that Sabine Hossenfelder has not yet mentioned this substantial paper on her now famous blog. This a COMPLETE DISGRACE! ! I know she is a friend of Joy Christian, and that they have some commercial operation going together. So WHY wouldn't SHE MENTION HIM ON HER BLOG? DISGRACEFUL!

Re: Royal Society has Accepted my Disproof of Bell's Theorem

PostPosted: Mon Apr 15, 2019 10:08 am
by Joy Christian
Heinera wrote:I see that Sabine Hossenfelder has not yet mentioned this substantial paper on her now famous blog. This a COMPLETE DISGRACE! ! I know she is a friend of Joy Christian, and that they have some commercial operation going together. So WHY wouldn't SHE MENTION HIM ON HER BLOG? DISGRACEFUL!

Disgrace indeed! Why don't you ask her yourself? She is a public figure who doesn't owe me or my work any special treatment. No one is obliged to mention my "substantial paper" anywhere.

***