## Royal Society has Accepted my Disproof of Bell's Theorem

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

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

Joy Christian wrote:...And even if computer simulations of such experiments are successful, they prove nothing. Because in the end computer simulations are merely a game, not the real thing...

And yet such 'games' have become increasingly trusted and indeed relied on in all technology based industries. To accurately simulate physical systems far more complex and demanding than the one you have proposed!
...And if the computer simulations are unsuccessful, then they give all sorts of excuses to the detractors to undermine the theory....

Or, possibly call for a painful reevaluation. Of the radical claim that Bell-type strong quantum correlations (in particular for a singlet state particle-pair system) can equally manifest in a classical physics analog setting.

Hard to understand continued reluctance to at least make some serious approaches to experts in computerized physics simulation. Given that no-one seems interested in setting up and performing a 'real life' version of your proposed experiment. Nothing ventured, nothing gained. But it's your show.
Q-reeus

Posts: 314
Joined: Sun Jun 08, 2014 12:18 am

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

Q-reeus wrote:Or, possibly call for a painful reevaluation. Of the radical claim that Bell-type strong quantum correlations can equally manifest in a classical physics analog setting.

Hard to understand continued reluctance to at least make some serious approaches to experts in computerized physics simulation. Given that no-one seems interested in setting up and performing a 'real life' version of your proposed experiment. Nothing ventured, nothing gained. But it's your show.

I now see where you are coming from. You have been hoodwinked by all the noise by the Bell-believers that Bell-type strong quantum correlations cannot be manifested "in a classical physics analog setting." Unfortunately, that folklore is believed by many despite evidence to the contrary. But here is what you seem to have missed from the previous page in this thread:

Joy Christian wrote:***
The PRL authors write "... we have demonstrated the violation of a Bell-type inequality using massive (around 10^10 atoms), macroscopic optomechanical devices, thereby verifying the nonclassicality of their state without the need for a quantum description of our experiment." https://journals.aps.org/prl/abstract/1 ... 121.220404

But isn't that what I have been saying for the past eleven years? https://www.academia.edu/24765800/Propo ... ls_Theorem

The key phrase by the authors here is the following:

"... without the need for a quantum description of our experiment."

What this means is that we have an experimental proof --- published in PRL --- that Bell-type inequalities can be "violated" by purely classical, macroscopic systems!!!

But of course they can be: https://link.springer.com/article/10.10 ... 014-2412-2. That has long been predicted by my local-realistic model for the quantum correlations.

***
Joy Christian
Research Physicist

Posts: 2201
Joined: Wed Feb 05, 2014 4:49 am
Location: Oxford, United Kingdom

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

Joy, unfortunately you replied after I had inserted as edit the following: (in particular for a singlet state paired-particle system), but your reply was too early to capture that addition.
Regardless, I think you have misinterpreted the article you cite above, which has a non-paywall version here:
https://arxiv.org/abs/1806.10615
I reproduce verbatim the third para p1 of that article:
Here we report on the first Bell test using correlations between light and microfabricated mechanical resonators, which constitute massive macroscopic objects, hence verifying non-classical behavior of our system without relying on the quantum formalism. Bell-tests do not require assumptions about the physical implementation of a quantum system such as the dimension of the underlying Hilbert space or the fundamental interactions involved in state preparation and measurement [33]. The violation of a Bell-inequality is hence the most unambiguous demonstration of entanglement with numerous important implications. From a fundamental perspective, the robust entanglement between flying optical photons and a stored mechanical state rules out local hiddenvariables, which can be used for further tests of quantum mechanics at even larger mass scales [34, 35]. From an application perspective, the presented measurements also imply that optomechanics is a promising technique to beused for quantum information processing tasks including teleportation, quantum memories and the possibility of quantum communication with device-independent security [21]

On my reading there it's clear the authors are not at all suggesting their system is a classical one but a macroscopic quantum entangled one.
At any rate, it's your proposed experiment simulating a singlet state particle pair, but in a classical macroscopic setting that imo needs focusing on.
Q-reeus

Posts: 314
Joined: Sun Jun 08, 2014 12:18 am

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

Q-reeus wrote:Joy, unfortunately you replied after I had inserted as edit the following: (in particular for a singlet state paired-particle system), but your reply was too early to capture that addition.
Regardless, I think you have misinterpreted the article you cite above, which has a non-paywall version here:
https://arxiv.org/abs/1806.10615
I reproduce verbatim the third para p1 of that article:
Here we report on the first Bell test using correlations between light and microfabricated mechanical resonators, which constitute massive macroscopic objects, hence verifying non-classical behavior of our system without relying on the quantum formalism. Bell-tests do not require assumptions about the physical implementation of a quantum system such as the dimension of the underlying Hilbert space or the fundamental interactions involved in state preparation and measurement [33]. The violation of a Bell-inequality is hence the most unambiguous demonstration of entanglement with numerous important implications. From a fundamental perspective, the robust entanglement between flying optical photons and a stored mechanical state rules out local hidden variables, which can be used for further tests of quantum mechanics at even larger mass scales [34, 35]. From an application perspective, the presented measurements also imply that optomechanics is a promising technique to be used for quantum information processing tasks including teleportation, quantum memories and the possibility of quantum communication with device-independent security [21]

On my reading there it's clear the authors are not at all suggesting their system is a classical one but a macroscopic quantum entangled one.
At any rate, it's your proposed experiment simulating a singlet state particle pair, but in a classical macroscopic setting that imo needs focusing on.

The authors are suggesting what is required from them to suggest to get their paper published in PRL. There is academic double-talk in their paragraph you have quoted. But we don't have to be fooled by their double-talk. Just examine what they have done physically, ignoring the quantum language they have used to justify it. This is what I wrote earlier on this thread:

Joy Christian wrote:***
It has been claimed elsewhere on the Internet that by “nonclassicality” the authors of the above PRL paper mean “violation of local realism.”; and they do seem to support this orthodox interpretation by providing a quantum description of their massive, macroscopic, mechanical system. I very much doubt that their paper would have been accepted by PRL if they didn’t.

However, to their credit, the key phrase also used by the PRL authors to describe their experiment is the following: ... without the need for a quantum description of our experiment."

Thus we have an experimental proof that Bell-type inequalities can be violated also by purely classical, massive, macroscopic, mechanical systems without requiring quantum quackery.

But you are quite right. In my proposed experiment there is no room for such a double-talk. There is no possibility of a "quantum" description of the experiment. It is so manifestly classical.

***
Joy Christian
Research Physicist

Posts: 2201
Joined: Wed Feb 05, 2014 4:49 am
Location: Oxford, United Kingdom

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

Besides all that, NOTHING CAN VIOLATE THE BELL INEQUALITIES! It is mathematically impossible.
FrediFizzx
Independent Physics Researcher

Posts: 1743
Joined: Tue Mar 19, 2013 7:12 pm
Location: N. California, USA

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

Joy Christian wrote:***Check out this video (HT: Austin Fearnley): https://youtu.be/1n-HMSCDYtM

It is quite cool. Note the random flipping of the spin axis, like what is observed for electron spins. But this is purely classical physics! The quaternionic rotation physics is at work. ***
Very nice. Here's something else that's nice:

the mechanical model that led to the geometric solution to the Dirac equation

It's from Geometric Model for Fundamental Particles by Batty-Pratt and Racey.

Here's something that's even nicer:

That's spin ½ spin. See Adrian Rossiter's Torus animations. You need to make the torus much fatter for the electron. Not just a little bit fatter:

You need to go all the way:

Only then does it have a spherical symmetry like the electron has.

Last edited by JohnDuffield on Sat Mar 09, 2019 12:00 pm, edited 1 time in total.
JohnDuffield

Posts: 14
Joined: Sat Mar 02, 2019 10:52 am

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

FrediFizzx wrote:Besides all that, NOTHING CAN VIOLATE THE BELL INEQUALITIES! It is mathematically impossible.

But it would be good to answer Joy's question with an actual mechanical experiment. Originally I was on the fence about it but after a few recent experiments that show the correlations classically, I think he may be right. All the GAViewer simulations we have done also point to the fact that Joy is right.
FrediFizzx
Independent Physics Researcher

Posts: 1743
Joined: Tue Mar 19, 2013 7:12 pm
Location: N. California, USA

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

The mechanical experiment that proves Joy is right is an electron going round in circles in a uniform magnetic field. It goes round in circles because electron spin is a real rotation. See Hans Ohanian’s 1984 paper What is spin?

https://staff.fnwi.uva.nl/m.renzo/mater ... IsSpin.pdf

Ohanian says this: “the means for filling the gap have been at hand since 1939, when Belinfante established that the spin could be regarded as due to a circulating flow of energy”. Frederik Belinfante’s paper was On the spin angular momentum of mesons. Also see Gordon decomposition of Dirac current: a new interpretation by Suresh C Tiwari. He says this: “wherever matter-radiation interaction is involved, eg the Newton-Lorentz equation or Dirac equation, factoring out e from electromagnetic quantities one always ends up with the combination e²/c that curiously has the dimension of angular momentum”. He also says he put forward a conjecture that electric charge is a manifestation of mechanical rotation. That was in 1997. He was right too.
JohnDuffield

Posts: 14
Joined: Sat Mar 02, 2019 10:52 am

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

JohnDuffield wrote:
Joy Christian wrote:***Check out this video (HT: Austin Fearnley): https://youtu.be/1n-HMSCDYtM

It is quite cool. Note the random flipping of the spin axis, like what is observed for electron spins. But this is purely classical physics! The quaternionic rotation physics is at work. ***
Very nice. Here's something else that's nice:

the mechanical model that led to the geometric solution to the Dirac equation

It's from Geometric Model for Fundamental Particles by Batty-Pratt and Racey.

Here's something that's even nicer:

You need to go all the way:

Only then does it have a spherical symmetry like the electron has.

That doesn't work as far as the electron's electric charge goes. You still have poles. All experimental indications are that an electron has no electric poles. It does work for its "magnetic charge" though.
FrediFizzx
Independent Physics Researcher

Posts: 1743
Joined: Tue Mar 19, 2013 7:12 pm
Location: N. California, USA

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

***
Also, what is essential is that we have a correlation experiment of EPR-Bohm type. Single electron spin is interesting, but it does not address the key questions in Einstein-Bohr debate.

***
Joy Christian
Research Physicist

Posts: 2201
Joined: Wed Feb 05, 2014 4:49 am
Location: Oxford, United Kingdom

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

FrediFizzx wrote:That doesn't work as far as the electron's electric charge goes. You still have poles. All experimental indications are that an electron has no electric poles. It does work for its "magnetic charge" though.

I'm curious to understand this. Why can't an electron have poles? Aren't you assuming that the poles you are seeing are "electric"?

I think the understanding of the structure and dynamics of electrons needs to be done at the same time as understanding the origin of electric charge.

I suspect a lot of good ideas have been brushed off because everytime we see an extended electron we assume the "charge" is evenly distributed on its surface like a sphere. Take for example the arguments against a spinning electron.
minkwe

Posts: 1151
Joined: Sat Feb 08, 2014 10:22 am

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

FrediFizzx wrote:That doesn't work as far as the electron's electric charge goes. You still have poles. All experimental indications are that an electron has no electric poles. It does work for its "magnetic charge" though.
Strictly speaking there's no such thing as the electron's electric charge. Or its magnetic charge. The electron has an electromagnetic field. That's because it looks like a standing electromagnetic wave. It has a magnetic dipole because of the spin ½ energy flow, but there's no discernible electric dipole:

Search for electron's electric dipole moment narrows – Physicsworld

There's no cowlick either. Take a look at what Feynman said in the Feynman lectures: “Suppose we take the example of a point charge sitting near the center of a bar magnet, as shown in Fig. 27–6. Everything is at rest, so the energy is not changing with time. Also, E and B are quite static. But the Poynting vector says that there is a flow of energy, because there is an E × B that is not zero. If you look at the energy flow, you find that it just circulates around and around. There isn’t any change in the energy anywhere – everything which flows into one volume flows out again. It is like incompressible water flowing around. So there is a circulation of energy in this so-called static condition. How absurd it gets!” He wasn't actually talking about an electron, but he should have been.
JohnDuffield

Posts: 14
Joined: Sat Mar 02, 2019 10:52 am

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

minkwe wrote:I'm curious to understand this. Why can't an electron have poles? Aren't you assuming that the poles you are seeing are "electric"?

I think the understanding of the structure and dynamics of electrons needs to be done at the same time as understanding the origin of electric charge.

I suspect a lot of good ideas have been brushed off because everytime we see an extended electron we assume the "charge" is evenly distributed on its surface like a sphere. Take for example the arguments against a spinning electron.
I think charge is easier than people think. Get some scissors and cut a strip of paper like this:

That represents the 4-potential for an electromagnetic wave. Now make a Möbius strip out of it. Note how you end up with a double loop, and a strip that's the same width all round? That's what underlies gauge invariance, which is really phase invariance. Then take a a look at the Wikipedia spinor article. Then imagine it's an inner tube and inflate it into a torus, then a fat torus, then a torus that's so fat it's spherical.
JohnDuffield

Posts: 14
Joined: Sat Mar 02, 2019 10:52 am

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

Joy Christian wrote:Also, what is essential is that we have a correlation experiment of EPR-Bohm type. Single electron spin is interesting, but it does not address the key questions in Einstein-Bohr debate.
See the Wikipeda EPR paradox article and note that bit that says this: "they attempted to mathematically show that the wave function does not contain complete information about physical reality". Then take a look at my double slit article and note the reference to Jeff Lundeen's semi technical explanation.

It says Niels Bohr’s view was that the wavefunction was merely a mathematical tool, and that this the Copenhagen Interpretation ended up being accepted by most physicists. It also says this: “with weak measurements, it’s possible to learn something about the wavefunction without completely destroying it”. And this: “We hope that the scientific community can now improve upon the Copenhagen Interpretation, and redefine the wavefunction so that it is no longer just a mathematical tool, but rather something that can be directly measured in the laboratory”. What they’re saying is wavefunction is physical reality.

Also note that the essence of the EPR paradox is that "particles can interact in such a way that it is possible to measure both their position and their momentum more accurately than Heisenberg's uncertainty principle allows". Jeff Lundeen et al and Aephraim Steinberg et al did precisely that, via weak measurement.
JohnDuffield

Posts: 14
Joined: Sat Mar 02, 2019 10:52 am

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

minkwe wrote:
FrediFizzx wrote:That doesn't work as far as the electron's electric charge goes. You still have poles. All experimental indications are that an electron has no electric poles. It does work for its "magnetic charge" though.

I'm curious to understand this. Why can't an electron have poles? Aren't you assuming that the poles you are seeing are "electric"?

I think the understanding of the structure and dynamics of electrons needs to be done at the same time as understanding the origin of electric charge.

I suspect a lot of good ideas have been brushed off because everytime we see an extended electron we assume the "charge" is evenly distributed on its surface like a sphere. Take for example the arguments against a spinning electron.

For sure an electron has magnetic poles. But probably not really. Here is my take on it. We can express a Bohr magneton for the electron as,

$\mu_B = \frac{e\hbar c}{2 m_e c} = \frac{e c \lambda}{2}$

where lambda is the reduced Compton wavelength and e c is "magnetic charge". I believe that expresses that an electron is jiggling around in the quantum vacuum at the speed of light about the reduced Compton wavelength. The "jiggling" could be and probably is uniform like the closed torus that John has shown. Zitterbewegung produces the dipole magnetic field as a consequence of the electron interacting with the quantum vacuum. However, our research shows that electron also has a radius near Planck length,

https://arxiv.org/abs/1705.06036

This radius near Planck length is probably the true "size" of the point-like "bare" entity. Which I suspect is a 3-sphere. No electric poles but uniform electric charge.

Ok, we have some serious thread drift here. We probably should move this to a new thread.
FrediFizzx
Independent Physics Researcher

Posts: 1743
Joined: Tue Mar 19, 2013 7:12 pm
Location: N. California, USA

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

JohnDuffield wrote:
Joy Christian wrote:Also, what is essential is that we have a correlation experiment of EPR-Bohm type. Single electron spin is interesting, but it does not address the key questions in Einstein-Bohr debate.
See the Wikipeda EPR paradox article and note that bit that says this: "they attempted to mathematically show that the wave function does not contain complete information about physical reality". Then take a look at my double slit article and note the reference to Jeff Lundeen's semi technical explanation.

It says Niels Bohr’s view was that the wavefunction was merely a mathematical tool, and that this the Copenhagen Interpretation ended up being accepted by most physicists. It also says this: “with weak measurements, it’s possible to learn something about the wavefunction without completely destroying it”. And this: “We hope that the scientific community can now improve upon the Copenhagen Interpretation, and redefine the wavefunction so that it is no longer just a mathematical tool, but rather something that can be directly measured in the laboratory”. What they’re saying is wavefunction is physical reality. ...

Of course there is not much doubt now-a-days that the wavefunctions of quantum mechanics are based on probability waves. However, the success of QM in prediction of certain physics lends to the notion that they are somehow real and not just a mathematical tool. IMHO, there are real waves involved in micro physics but we just don't know how to exactly model them correctly. QM is a great mathematical tool for getting around our lack of knowledge it seems.
.
FrediFizzx
Independent Physics Researcher

Posts: 1743
Joined: Tue Mar 19, 2013 7:12 pm
Location: N. California, USA

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

Q-reeus wrote:Which brings me to the point: several years ago I suggested searching around for a computer games developer. One willing and able to accurately simulate your proposed classical macroscopic experiment.

Why do you think a computer games developer would be able to pull this off? As far as I know, no computer games incorporate a Friedmann-Robertson-Walker spacetime, which is an integral part of Joy Christians theory. See here:

https://philpapers.org/rec/CHRLCI
Heinera

Posts: 708
Joined: Thu Feb 06, 2014 1:50 am

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

Heinera wrote:...Why do you think a computer games developer would be able to pull this off? As far as I know, no computer games incorporate a Friedmann-Robertson-Walker spacetime, which is an integral part of Joy Christians theory. See here:
https://philpapers.org/rec/CHRLCI

Well since all cosmological surveys are consistent with large scale spatial flatness, it follows one can dispense with 'constant spatial curvature' as a factor.
Further, Bell-type correlations have never been found to depend on spatial separation. Hence even if one posits non-zero curvature locally, how could constant curvature possibly account for distance independence in actual experiments?
Bottom line - a 'physics engine' that accurately reproduces all of flat-space Newtonian dynamics should be perfectly adequate. The proposed experiment is after all nothing more than a specific application of Newton's laws of motion.

As I have tried to emphasize numbers of times in the past, an accurate simulation has many advantages over a physical implementation. Easily setup to eliminate all those undesirable complications like gravity, air friction/turbulence, 'stiction' & unwanted elastic resonant modes in 'balls' or whatever one uses as 'particles', detector imprecision, and maybe more. Further, one can run simulations many more timnes at negligible cost and time penalty compared to a physical implementation.
The code used, presuming an open-source simulator, can easily be inspected for any flaws by critics and supporters alike. On top of the fact it will already have a proven track record for fidelity. What's not to like there?
Q-reeus

Posts: 314
Joined: Sun Jun 08, 2014 12:18 am

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

Q-reeus wrote:Well since all cosmological surveys are consistent with large scale spatial flatness, it follows one can dispense with 'constant spatial curvature' as a factor.
Further, Bell-type correlations have never been found to depend on spatial separation. Hence even if one posits non-zero curvature locally, how could constant curvature possibly account for distance independence in actual experiments?
Bottom line - a 'physics engine' that accurately reproduces all of flat-space Newtonian dynamics should be perfectly adequate. The proposed experiment is after all nothing more than a specific application of Newton's laws of motion.

If this is correct, then how does the Friedmann-Robertson-Walker spacetime enter Joy Christian's theory?

Besides, with flat-space Newtonian dynamics the simulation would be unnecessary, since we would obviously only get the classical correlations.
Heinera

Posts: 708
Joined: Thu Feb 06, 2014 1:50 am

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

Heinera wrote:If this is correct, then how does the Friedmann-Robertson-Walker spacetime enter Joy Christian's theory?

Besides, with flat-space Newtonian dynamics the simulation would be unnecessary, since we would obviously only get the classical correlations.

I am flabbergasted to be agreeing with Heinera so unequivocally since in the past I have disagreed with him so almost comprehensively.

Yes, it pays to read my paper beyond the title. Despite appearances, it has nothing to do with cosmology or spatial separation. It has to do with quaternionic 3-sphere, or S^3 = SU(2).

***
Joy Christian
Research Physicist

Posts: 2201
Joined: Wed Feb 05, 2014 4:49 am
Location: Oxford, United Kingdom

PreviousNext