Joy Christian wrote:In this thread, I want to discuss what in my view is the true difference between "classical" and "quantum" correlations and why "stronger-than-quantum" correlations are never observed in Nature. I have worked on this question for the past eleven years, starting with a short paper in 2007 and culminating in this latest: http://rsos.royalsocietypublishing.org/ ... 5/5/180526.
Joy Christian wrote:In this thread, I want to discuss what in my view is the true difference between "classical" and "quantum" correlations and why "stronger-than-quantum" correlations are never observed in Nature. I have worked on this question for the past eleven years, starting with a short paper in 2007 and culminating in this latest: http://rsos.royalsocietypublishing.org/ ... 5/5/180526.
ivica wrote:Joy I like your work and part of above have reposted at ASIF forum, here.
Off topic, forgive me
Joy Christian wrote:In this thread, I want to discuss what in my view is the true difference between "classical" and "quantum" correlations and why "stronger-than-quantum" correlations are never observed in Nature. I have worked on this question for the past eleven years, starting with a short paper in 2007 and culminating in this latest: http://rsos.royalsocietypublishing.org/ ... 5/5/180526.
Joy Christian wrote:In this thread, I want to discuss what in my view is the true difference between "classical" and "quantum" correlations and why "stronger-than-quantum" correlations are never observed in Nature. I have worked on this question for the past eleven years, starting with a short paper in 2007 and culminating in this latest: http://rsos.royalsocietypublishing.org/ ... 5/5/180526.
Joy Christian wrote:***Joy Christian wrote:In this thread, I want to discuss what in my view is the true difference between "classical" and "quantum" correlations and why "stronger-than-quantum" correlations are never observed in Nature. I have worked on this question for the past eleven years, starting with a short paper in 2007 and culminating in this latest: http://rsos.royalsocietypublishing.org/ ... 5/5/180526.
S^0 and/or S^1 = R and/or C = classical or comutative numbers ==>> |CHSH| < 2
S^3 and/or S^7 = H and/or O = non-commutative numbers ==>> 2 < |CHSH| < 2\/2
No irreducible randomness, no non-reality, no spooky-action-at-a-distance, no non-signaling non-locality, no voodoo in Nature.
Joy Christian
***
FrediFizzx wrote:That's good. Now, how does or how can S^3 and/or S^7 explain the double-slit experiment? The interference pattern is sort of a correlation.
FrediFizzx wrote:It looks like the slit arrangement is dependent on the de Broglie wavelength of the particles being measured after reading that paper. I suspect some other ingredient would be required to translate to wave mechanics.
Joy Christian wrote:FrediFizzx wrote:It looks like the slit arrangement is dependent on the de Broglie wavelength of the particles being measured after reading that paper. I suspect some other ingredient would be required to translate to wave mechanics.
How can that be? I am not sure I understand this. It is up to the experimenters to arrange the slits as they please. The slit arrangement shouldn't depend on the particles being measured.
***
ivica wrote:Uf, I did that again.
Thank you, Joy, for your effort to remove fog from our minds. :thumbs up:
Return to Sci.Physics.Foundations
Users browsing this forum: ahrefs [Bot] and 99 guests