neg_adotb = 0.574949
theta = 234.903931
correlation = 0.574949
neg_adotb = 0.386546
theta = 247.260223
correlation = 0.386546
neg_adotb = 0.006321
theta = 90.362167
correlation = 0.006321
neg_adotb = -0.487911
theta = 60.796616
correlation = -0.487911
neg_adotb = 0.196614
theta = 101.339050
correlation = 0.196614
neg_adotb = -0.526722
theta = 58.215748
correlation = -0.526722
neg_adotb = 0.898704
theta = 153.988235
correlation = 0.898704
neg_adotb = -0.832386
theta = 33.655334
correlation = -0.832386
neg_adotb = 0.113726
theta = 96.530151
correlation = 0.113726
neg_adotb = 0.461435
theta = 242.520279
correlation = 0.461435
neg_adotb = 0.399192
theta = 246.472336
correlation = 0.399192
neg_adotb = 0.532410
theta = 122.168465
correlation = 0.532410
neg_adotb = -0.392552
theta = 66.886620
correlation = -0.392552
neg_adotb = 0.254378
theta = 104.736710
correlation = 0.254378
mean = 0.001660 + 0.004355*e2^e3 + -0.001763*e3^e1 + -0.002109*e1^e2
aveA = 0.004108
aveB = 0.000323
local wrote:Happy Thanksgiving to all!
And thank you FrediFizzx for the great forum.
Joy Christian wrote:***
Ok., here is the new paper: https://arxiv.org/abs/1911.11578.Title: Dr. Bertlmann's Socks in the Quaternionic World of Ambidextral Reality
Abstract:
In this pedagogical paper, John S. Bell's amusing example of Dr. Bertlmann's socks is reconsidered, first within a toy model of a two-dimensional one-sided world of a non-orientable Möbius strip, and then within a real world of three-dimensional quaternionic sphere, S^3, which results from an addition of a single point to R^3 at infinity. In the quaternionic world, which happens to be the spatial part of a solution of Einstein's field equations of general relativity, the singlet correlations between a pair of entangled fermions can be understood as classically as those between Dr. Bertlmann's colorful socks.
Joy Christian wrote:
By the way, the entire second term in eq. (60) is a null bivector. And, just like a null vector, a null bivector is an additive identity. Therefore step (61) is not needed for the derivation of the strong correlation. In other words, eq. (60) is already equal to eq. (62). And with that, all the hullabaloo of a "sign error" by some unscrupulous critics of my work goes down the drain.
Joy Christian wrote:I have revised my pedagogical paper again: https://arxiv.org/abs/1911.11578.
gill1109 wrote:
Good to see you are active and making progress! Take care of yourself!
Joy Christian wrote:All I can do in the current situation is to think about physics.
Joy Christian wrote:***
Watch this space.
Return to Sci.Physics.Foundations
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 23 guests