Quantum Mechanics with HV is Local!

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

Re: Quantum Mechanics with HV is Local!

Postby FrediFizzx » Fri Jul 05, 2019 10:43 am

gill1109 wrote:
FrediFizzx wrote:
gill1109 wrote:
FrediFizzx wrote:Where did I promise that? Don't make things up.
.

I asked you. You said you would code it. I suppose you didn't understand my question.

But there is progress, now you do understand my question! You can simply say "no" if you don't want to do it / don't know how to do it.

It is obvious that there is no sense for me to continue with this since you are going to refuse to understand it anyways. You saw the sample output. That will have to do it. The product calculation is validated via computer program.
.

… I know that you reproduce the singlet correlations exactly.

OK, good. Then as I said there is no point for me to continue as you agree with the product calculation.
.
FrediFizzx
Independent Physics Researcher
 
Posts: 2905
Joined: Tue Mar 19, 2013 7:12 pm
Location: N. California, USA

Re: Quantum Mechanics with HV is Local!

Postby gill1109 » Fri Jul 05, 2019 10:52 am

Joy Christian wrote:
gill1109 wrote:Joy's mathematical derivations involve using some calculus theorems about limits. But he starts with writing down some formulas which use "illegal" notation. Or to be more kind, undefined notation.

There is nothing illegal or undefined about the notation I have used. Anyone who understands GA knows that the limit operations are equivalent to the divisions by bivectors Fred has used.

In that case, it seems that nobody understands GA apart from you, Fred, and maybe Tom. I really think you guys need to work on helping people understand GA enough to understand your limit operations.

I kindly suggested that Fred could maybe interpret those formulas as a bit of GA code itself. Start with some s chosen uniformly at random from the sphere, which then moves in little discrete steps simultaneously towards - sign(a cdot s) times a and to + sign(b cdot s) times b.

If you can programme this, then we understand your notation. If you can't, then I'm afraid we never will. I think it can't be done. I'm willing to bet you, it can't be done.

Fred, there is indeed no point whatsoever in continuing with the product calculation. There is no problem there. The formulas are transparent and are easy to reproduce in code, and they generate the singlet correlations. We have all known that for about five years, I think. Joy's model is a "moving target" and we now have issues with relatively newly introduced features. Like a bump under a carpet ... you can't make it go away. Get rid of it in one place and it turns up in another. Try to hide it under the sofa, but it is always there somewhere, if you look.
gill1109
Mathematical Statistician
 
Posts: 2812
Joined: Tue Feb 04, 2014 10:39 pm
Location: Leiden

Re: Quantum Mechanics with HV is Local!

Postby Joy Christian » Fri Jul 05, 2019 11:01 am

gill1109 wrote:
Joy Christian wrote:
gill1109 wrote:Joy's mathematical derivations involve using some calculus theorems about limits. But he starts with writing down some formulas which use "illegal" notation. Or to be more kind, undefined notation.

There is nothing illegal or undefined about the notation I have used. Anyone who understands GA knows that the limit operations are equivalent to the divisions by bivectors Fred has used.

In that case, it seems that nobody understands GA apart from you, Fred, and maybe Tom. I really think you guys need to work on helping people understand GA enough to understand your limit operations.

I kindly suggested that Fred could maybe interpret those formulas as a bit of GA code itself. Start with some s chosen uniformly at random from the sphere, which then moves in little discrete steps simultaneously towards - sign(a cdot s) times a and to + sign(b cdot s) times b.

If you can programme this, then we understand your notation. If you can't, then I'm afraid we never will. I think it can't be done. I'm willing to bet you, it can't be done.

Fred, there is indeed no point whatsoever in continuing with the product calculation. There is no problem there. The formulas are transparent and are easy to reproduce in code, and they generate the singlet correlations. We have all known that for about five years, I think.

We have been trying to teach you some basic GA for the past eight years with no avail. Perhaps it is just not your cup of tea. Isn't it interesting that no one from the GA community has ever complained about my use of GA in the past twelve years, even in an online comment, let alone in a peer-reviewed journal publication? That is because there is nothing to complain about.

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

Re: Quantum Mechanics with HV is Local!

Postby FrediFizzx » Fri Jul 05, 2019 11:09 am

gill1109 wrote:
Joy Christian wrote:
gill1109 wrote:Joy's mathematical derivations involve using some calculus theorems about limits. But he starts with writing down some formulas which use "illegal" notation. Or to be more kind, undefined notation.

There is nothing illegal or undefined about the notation I have used. Anyone who understands GA knows that the limit operations are equivalent to the divisions by bivectors Fred has used.

In that case, it seems that nobody understands GA apart from you, Fred, and maybe Tom. I really think you guys need to work on helping people understand GA enough to understand your limit operations.

??? The limit process has absolutely nothing to do with GA in particular. It is a mathematical description of the PHYSICAL action of the polarizers. It is the same in GA as it is in QM.
.
FrediFizzx
Independent Physics Researcher
 
Posts: 2905
Joined: Tue Mar 19, 2013 7:12 pm
Location: N. California, USA

Re: Quantum Mechanics with HV is Local!

Postby FrediFizzx » Fri Jul 05, 2019 1:30 pm

gill1109 wrote: … You don't use , so I don't see why you mention it. …

??? Of course we use it.

and so we have



depending on whether the sign function is positive or negative.
.
FrediFizzx
Independent Physics Researcher
 
Posts: 2905
Joined: Tue Mar 19, 2013 7:12 pm
Location: N. California, USA

Re: Quantum Mechanics with HV is Local!

Postby gill1109 » Fri Jul 05, 2019 9:39 pm

FrediFizzx wrote:
gill1109 wrote: … You don't use , so I don't see why you mention it. …

??? Of course we use it.

and so we have



depending on whether the sign function is positive or negative.
.

Seems to me that this "formalism" is just a licence to flip a sign whenever it is needed in order to get the right result. Only people with powerful physics intuition are allowed to do that. Mathematicians should just shut up. Gerhard 't Hooft once followed a mathematics course on integration theory, hoping to learn how to integrate yet more functions than the ones he already could. He was however told that he couldn't integrate functions which he did already know perfectly well how to integrate. He has not had much respect for mathematicians since then.

You call it physics. I call it poetry.

"In science one tries to tell people, in such a way as to be understood by everyone, something that no one ever knew before. But in the case of poetry, it’s the exact opposite!" – Paul Dirac
gill1109
Mathematical Statistician
 
Posts: 2812
Joined: Tue Feb 04, 2014 10:39 pm
Location: Leiden

Re: Quantum Mechanics with HV is Local!

Postby FrediFizzx » Fri Jul 05, 2019 10:07 pm

Sorry you don't understand the physics of a Stern-Gerlach polarizer. But that limit process is probably a pretty close match mathematically as to what is going on. Play around with the polarizer simulator a bit.

https://phet.colorado.edu/sims/stern-ge ... ch_en.html

You might learn something.
.
FrediFizzx
Independent Physics Researcher
 
Posts: 2905
Joined: Tue Mar 19, 2013 7:12 pm
Location: N. California, USA

Re: Quantum Mechanics with HV is Local!

Postby gill1109 » Fri Jul 05, 2019 11:17 pm

FrediFizzx wrote:Sorry you don't understand the physics of a Stern-Gerlach polarizer. But that limit process is probably a pretty close match mathematically as to what is going on.

The Stern-Gerlach experiment is perfectly well understood within quantum mechanics. See https://arxiv.org/abs/1007.2435 "The Stern Gerlach Experiment" by Jeremy Bernstein. Abstract: We present a history and analysis of this experiment.
gill1109
Mathematical Statistician
 
Posts: 2812
Joined: Tue Feb 04, 2014 10:39 pm
Location: Leiden

Re: Quantum Mechanics with HV is Local!

Postby FrediFizzx » Sat Jul 06, 2019 12:47 am

gill1109 wrote:
FrediFizzx wrote:Sorry you don't understand the physics of a Stern-Gerlach polarizer. But that limit process is probably a pretty close match mathematically as to what is going on.

The Stern-Gerlach experiment is perfectly well understood within quantum mechanics. See https://arxiv.org/abs/1007.2435 "The Stern Gerlach Experiment" by Jeremy Bernstein. Abstract: We present a history and analysis of this experiment.

Sure, but do YOU understand it? Since you are having trouble with the limit process I suspect that you don't understand it.
.
FrediFizzx
Independent Physics Researcher
 
Posts: 2905
Joined: Tue Mar 19, 2013 7:12 pm
Location: N. California, USA

Re: Quantum Mechanics with HV is Local!

Postby gill1109 » Sat Jul 06, 2019 4:07 am

FrediFizzx wrote:
gill1109 wrote:
FrediFizzx wrote:Sorry you don't understand the physics of a Stern-Gerlach polarizer. But that limit process is probably a pretty close match mathematically as to what is going on.

The Stern-Gerlach experiment is perfectly well understood within quantum mechanics. See https://arxiv.org/abs/1007.2435 "The Stern Gerlach Experiment" by Jeremy Bernstein. Abstract: We present a history and analysis of this experiment.

Sure, but do YOU understand it? Since you are having trouble with the limit process I suspect that you don't understand it.
.

There is a physical process, yes. I understand that just fine! And a good mathematical description of the process can involve a mathematical limit of several kinds. For instance, one might make simple discrete or even finitary models and take a mathematical limit as various parameters tend to infinity.

Or there might be a limit as a time variable approaches a limiting value.

Many such solutions have been published. See for instance Theo Nieuwenhuizen's solution https://phys.org/news/2013-07-physicists-publish-solution-quantum-problem.html. Zurek's "Einselection" is also one. One can go back further still.
gill1109
Mathematical Statistician
 
Posts: 2812
Joined: Tue Feb 04, 2014 10:39 pm
Location: Leiden

Re: Quantum Mechanics with HV is Local!

Postby FrediFizzx » Sat Jul 06, 2019 9:17 am

gill1109 wrote:
FrediFizzx wrote:
gill1109 wrote:
FrediFizzx wrote:Sorry you don't understand the physics of a Stern-Gerlach polarizer. But that limit process is probably a pretty close match mathematically as to what is going on.

The Stern-Gerlach experiment is perfectly well understood within quantum mechanics. See https://arxiv.org/abs/1007.2435 "The Stern Gerlach Experiment" by Jeremy Bernstein. Abstract: We present a history and analysis of this experiment.

Sure, but do YOU understand it? Since you are having trouble with the limit process I suspect that you don't understand it.
.

There is a physical process, yes. I understand that just fine! And a good mathematical description of the process can involve a mathematical limit of several kinds. For instance, one might make simple discrete or even finitary models and take a mathematical limit as various parameters tend to infinity.

Or there might be a limit as a time variable approaches a limiting value.

Many such solutions have been published. See for instance Theo Nieuwenhuizen's solution https://phys.org/news/2013-07-physicists-publish-solution-quantum-problem.html. Zurek's "Einselection" is also one. One can go back further still.

Sure, one can make something that is fairly simple more complicated easily enough. When the singlet particles start to be affected by the polarizer action, the probability wave (wavefunction) of the singlet disappears/collapses. I have absolutely no problem with probabilistic wavefunctions disappearing. In reality, the singlet wavefunction is actually being converted into two separate states by the polarizer action.

Then the particle's spin can be up or down coming out of the polarizer depending mostly on the original spin vector direction relative to the direction of the polarizer. It is pretty simple. I say "mostly" because as one can see from the polarizer simulation that there will be a few "borderline" cases where the spin could flip either way up or down.
.
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: No registered users and 61 guests

cron
CodeCogs - An Open Source Scientific Library