My Talk at AGACSE 2021 in Honor of David Hestenes

[Joy Christian]

.
I will be presenting my work on understanding quantum correlations at the upcoming conference AGACSE 2021 in Honor of Prof. David Hestenes, the creator of Geometric Algebra.

The opening talk will be by Prof. Hestenes himself, on "Maxwell-Dirac QED" [using Geometric Algebra]: http://agacse2021.fme.vutbr.cz/main.php.

My talk is number 13 in the list of talks: http://agacse2021.fme.vutbr.cz/participants.php. It is tentatively scheduled to take place on Tuesday, the 7th of September, 2021.

The title and abstract of my talk are as follows:

Title: "Quantum correlations are weaved by the spinors of the Euclidean primitives"

Abstract: I will review my approach to local-realistically underpinning the origins and strengths of quantum correlations using geometric algebra. My approach turns out to be related to the “1d up approach” to conformal geometric algebra advocated by Prof. Anthony Lasenby in a different context. The framework I have proposed is based on an interplay between the quaternionic
3-sphere and an octonion-like 7-sphere. It circumvents Bell’s theorem by allowing a locally causal underpinning of quantum correlations, without requiring backward causation, superdeterminism, or any other conspiracy loophole. After reviewing my approach, I will respond to its partial critique by Prof. Lasenby.

I am still preparing the slides for my talk, but once they are ready, I will post them here. As a teaser, here is the first slide:



The papers associated with all of the talks will be published in the proceedings of the conference, possibly in a Royal Society journal.


.

[FrediFizzx]

That should stir the pot up a little bit at the conference.
.

[gill1109]

That should stir the pot up a little bit at the conference.
.

Wow! That will be fun. Derek Abbot, George Lasenby, … Fireworks! I indeed hope there’ll be a published “Proceedings”.

[Joy Christian]

That should stir the pot up a little bit at the conference.

Wow! That will be fun. Derek Abbot, George Lasenby, … Fireworks! I indeed hope there’ll be a published “Proceedings”.

Not "George Lasenby." The correct name is Anthony N. Lasenby. The co-author of the famous textbook on Geometric Algebra: https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/ge ... 7505925091.
.

[local]

LOL. George Lasenby was an actor that played James Bond after Sean Connery.

[gill1109]

LOL. George Lasenby was an actor that played James Bond after Sean Connery.

Sorry, you're right, I am glad I generate laughter as well as anger! I think it's the "Geo..." in Geometry which triggers me to think of George; not just the surname.

[Justo]

My goodness, I am very old but I don't remember who came after Sean Conery, I thought it was Roger Moore.

[gill1109]

My goodness, I am very old but I don't remember who came after Sean Conery, I thought it was Roger Moore.

Lazenby was in just one film. Some people think he was the worst Bond ever, others think he was the best. But that one movie was (relatively speaking) a big flop… https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Portrayal_of_James_Bond_in_film

[gill1109]

I will be presenting my work on understanding quantum correlations at the upcoming conference AGACSE 2021 in Honor of Prof. David Hestenes, the creator of Geometric Algebra. The opening talk will be by Prof. Hestenes himself, on "Maxwell-Dirac QED" [using Geometric Algebra]: http://agacse2021.fme.vutbr.cz/main.php. My talk is number 13 in the list of talks: http://agacse2021.fme.vutbr.cz/participants.php. It is tentatively scheduled to take place on Tuesday, the 7th of September, 2021. The title and abstract of my talk are as follows:

Title: "Quantum correlations are weaved by the spinors of the Euclidean primitives"
Abstract: I will review my approach to local-realistically underpinning the origins and strengths of quantum correlations using geometric algebra. My approach turns out to be related to the “1d up approach” to conformal geometric algebra advocated by Prof. Anthony Lasenby in a different context. The framework I have proposed is based on an interplay between the quaternionic 3-sphere and an octonion-like 7-sphere. It circumvents Bell’s theorem by allowing a locally causal underpinning of quantum correlations, without requiring backward causation, superdeterminism, or any other conspiracy loophole. After reviewing my approach, I will respond to its partial critique by Prof. Lasenby.

…
The papers associated with all of the talks will be published in the proceedings of the conference, possibly in a Royal Society journal.

Selected papers will appear in a certain Wiley journal “Mathematical Methods in the Applied Sciences”, all others in a journal of the University of Brno, “Mathematics for Applications”.

Selected contributions will be invited for publication in the special volume of Mathematical Methods in the Applied Sciences. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/journal/10991476This has been already confirmed by the publisher. Only contributions presented at the conference will be considered for publication. Also at least one author per paper has to pay the conference fee. Generally, the contributions will be published as a special issue of Mathematics for Applications http://ma.fme.vutbr.cz/. However, the standard peer review procedure will apply.

[Joy Christian]

.
Slides for my invited talk at the conference in honor of Prof. David Hestenes, the creator of Geometric Algebra:

http://einstein-physics.org/wp-content/ ... public.pdf



The conference details can be found here: http://agacse2021.fme.vutbr.cz/main.php.
.

[gill1109]

.
Slides for my invited talk at the conference in honor of Prof. David Hestenes, the creator of Geometric Algebra:
http://einstein-physics.org/wp-content/ ... public.pdf
The conference details can be found here: http://agacse2021.fme.vutbr.cz/main.php.

I think there is a problem with both of the two big (two line) displayed equations on slide number 5.

Something is defined and then an alternative expression is given as a limit. Then there is again a limit statement. The limit (which must be a now fixed point in S3) is then said to coverage to something else. For A: to +1 if lambda is +1, -1 if lambda is -1; for B: -1 if lambda is +1, +1 if lambda is -1.
Those last superfluous limits should, I suppose, in each case, just be equals.

[Austin Fearnley]

Wrt slide 5 and Richard's point.

If the hv is +1 for A, then A = 1.
If the hv is +1 for B, then B = -1.

How can such an asymmetrical outcome arise? Surely that is too asymmetrical. Why does Alice always measure the +1 in this context and Bob always measure the -1 outcome?
This may be possible in a simulation (?) but in a real experiment, how would the particle know that Alice was measuring it rather than Bob?

[Joy Christian]

Wrt slide 5 and Richard's point.

If the hv is +1 for A, then A = 1.
If the hv is +1 for B, then B = -1.

How can such an asymmetrical outcome arise? Surely that is too asymmetrical. Why does Alice always measure the +1 in this context and Bob always measure the -1 outcome?
This may be possible in a simulation (?) but in a real experiment, how would the particle know that Alice was measuring it rather than Bob?

The fermions are emerging from the source in a singlet state. That means their net spin angular momentum is zero throughout their free evolution. Consequently, if one spin is found "up" then the other will necessarily be found "down." In other words, the product AB of the measurement results A and B of Alice and Bob will always be equal to -1 for the directions "a" = "b".
.

[FrediFizzx]

7-spheres from Euclidian primitives! That is completely astounding! Make sure the folks at the conference get that. And good luck today with your talk.
.

[gill1109]

.
Slides for my invited talk at the conference in honor of Prof. David Hestenes, the creator of Geometric Algebra:
http://einstein-physics.org/wp-content/ ... public.pdf
The conference details can be found here: http://agacse2021.fme.vutbr.cz/main.php.

I think there is a problem with both of the two big (two line) displayed equations on slide number 5.

Something is defined and then an alternative expression is given as a limit. Then there is again a limit statement. The limit (which must be a now fixed point in S3) is then said to coverage to something else. For A: to +1 if lambda is +1, -1 if lambda is -1; for B: -1 if lambda is +1, +1 if lambda is -1.
Those last superfluous limits should, I suppose, in each case, just be equals.

I see the slides are not changed. But maybe that will still happen.

To amplify my point: On slide 5 we learn that "A(a, lambda)" equals the limit as "s1" tends to "a" of "-D(a)L(s1, lambda)".
[I put the maths expressions in quotes because I simplify them a little bit for ease of typing and reading. For instance, in Joy's typeset formulas, "lambda" actually has a superscript "k"]
The limit as "s1" tends to "a" of "-D(a)L(s1, lambda)" cannot depend anymore on "s1", it can only depend on "a" and "lambda". But in the next line, you say it converges, as "s1" converges to "a", to yet another expression.

You also mention the mean value of "A(a, lambda^k" but when you take the mean value, you average over values of "k" from 1 to "n", so this is also a bit odd.

Sorry to be pedantic about notation. But in my experience it is important that in the early slides, the notation is crystal clear, otherwise people in the audience will be distracted from the content of subsequent slides... The audience consists of folk from physics, maths, computer science ...

Wrt slide 5 and Richard's point.

If the hv is +1 for A, then A = 1.
If the hv is +1 for B, then B = -1.

How can such an asymmetrical outcome arise? Surely that is too asymmetrical. Why does Alice always measure the +1 in this context and Bob always measure the -1 outcome?
This may be possible in a simulation (?) but in a real experiment, how would the particle know that Alice was measuring it rather than Bob?

I think the apparent lack of symmetry is illusory. lambda represents a fair coin toss. We could just as well call its outcomes "HEADS" and "TAILS". These are just arbitrary names or labels. The point is, they can be distinguished.

[Austin Fearnley]

Joy Christian wrote on Mon Sep 06, 2021 10:28 am

Austin Fearnley wrote:
Wrt slide 5 and Richard's point.

If the hv is +1 for A, then A = 1.
If the hv is +1 for B, then B = -1.

How can such an asymmetrical outcome arise? Surely that is too asymmetrical. Why does Alice always measure the +1 in this context and Bob always measure the -1 outcome?
This may be possible in a simulation (?) but in a real experiment, how would the particle know that Alice was measuring it rather than Bob?

The fermions are emerging from the source in a singlet state. That means their net spin angular momentum is zero throughout their free evolution. Consequently, if one spin is found "up" then the other will necessarily be found "down." In other words, the product AB of the measurement results A and B of Alice and Bob will always be equal to -1 for the directions "a" = "b".

I completely agree with your statement, Joy, but that is not my point. I still have my reservation.

Richard wrote about my comment:

I think the apparent lack of symmetry is illusory. lambda represents a fair coin toss. We could just as well call its outcomes "HEADS" and "TAILS". These are just arbitrary names or labels. The point is, they can be distinguished.

I am surprised at this reply. To put my point in a different way, A(a, lambda) = lambda. This is just taking the beginning and end of that first line Richard mentioned. I have no issue with the Geometric algebra terms in between.
This means that if lambda= 1 then A=1 irrespective of the value of Alice's detector setting, vector a. Surely that is odd.

Best wishes for your presentation, Joy.

[FrediFizzx]

... To amplify my point: On slide 5 we learn that "A(a, lambda)" equals the limit as "s1" tends to "a" of "-D(a)L(s1, lambda)".
[I put the maths expressions in quotes because I simplify them a little bit for ease of typing and reading. For instance, in Joy's typeset formulas, "lambda" actually has a superscript "k"]
The limit as "s1" tends to "a" of "-D(a)L(s1, lambda)" cannot depend anymore on "s1", it can only depend on "a" and "lambda". But in the next line, you say it converges, as "s1" converges to "a", to yet another expression.

You also mention the mean value of "A(a, lambda^k" but when you take the mean value, you average over values of "k" from 1 to "n", so this is also a bit odd.

Sorry to be pedantic about notation. But in my experience it is important that in the early slides, the notation is crystal clear, otherwise people in the audience will be distracted from the content of subsequent slides... The audience consists of folk from physics, maths, computer science ...

After all this years you still don't know how Joy's model works. Very pathetic.



Exact match!!!!!!!
.

[Heinera]

Strange sequence for the presentations. First Lazenby will present his critique of Joy's work, then comes Joy's presentation. Must be confusing to the audience.

[Joy Christian]

Strange sequence for the presentations. First Lazenby will present his critique of Joy's work, then comes Joy's presentation. Must be confusing to the audience.

I made a very spirited defense of my work. I disagreed with the two of the main issues Lasenby raised and presented my arguments to demonstrate that both of his claims were wrong.

At one point, I was even polite to Gill during the question time after a different talk, unrelated to my work, by someone else. What are the odds of that?

Gill did not interrupt my talk or asked any questions after my talk. What are the odds of that?
.

[gill1109]

Strange sequence for the presentations. First Lazenby will present his critique of Joy's work, then comes Joy's presentation. Must be confusing to the audience.

I made a very spirited defense of my work. I disagreed with the two of the main issues Lasenby raised and presented my arguments to demonstrate that both of his claims were wrong.

At one point, I was even polite to Gill during the question time after a different talk, unrelated to my work, by someone else. What are the odds of that?

Gill did not interrupt my talk or asked any questions after my talk. What are the odds of that?

It was a great talk! (An excellent pair of talks, in fact). A great afternoon! I was just a guest, I'm not an expert in GA as you all know (heavens above, I'm merely a statistician!). There was discussion by the GA experts. I actually supported Joy during question time in a different talk because some guy (Carsten Held) was trying to do something like what Joy already did in 2007 and hadn't realised the essential mathematical core and physical application of Bell's theorem.