***

Today the total number of PDF downloads of my Royal Society paper has reached 2,000. That is, 2,000 PDF downloads in 143 days; or about 14 PDF downloads per day.

Today the total number of PDF downloads of my Royal Society paper has reached 2,000. That is, 2,000 PDF downloads in 143 days; or about 14 PDF downloads per day.

- Joy Christian
- Research Physicist
**Posts:**1788**Joined:**Wed Feb 05, 2014 3:49 am**Location:**Oxford, United Kingdom

- Joy Christian
- Research Physicist
**Posts:**1788**Joined:**Wed Feb 05, 2014 3:49 am**Location:**Oxford, United Kingdom

***

Is the Moon there when no one is looking?

Is she spinning clockwise or counterclockwise?

Quantum entanglement is an illusion, not reality!

***

Is the Moon there when no one is looking?

Is she spinning clockwise or counterclockwise?

Quantum entanglement is an illusion, not reality!

***

- Joy Christian
- Research Physicist
**Posts:**1788**Joined:**Wed Feb 05, 2014 3:49 am**Location:**Oxford, United Kingdom

***

Here is the link to Glashow's comments: https://inference-review.com/article/no ... EFDlXyJAs4

***

Here is the link to Glashow's comments: https://inference-review.com/article/no ... EFDlXyJAs4

***

- Joy Christian
- Research Physicist
**Posts:**1788**Joined:**Wed Feb 05, 2014 3:49 am**Location:**Oxford, United Kingdom

***

Here is perhaps the simplest possible explanation of the results presented in my RSOS paper:

Let A(a, h) and B(b, h) be the results observed independently by Alice and Bob in their EPR-Bohm type experiment. Here h is a randomness shared between Alice and Bob and a and b are their freely chosen experimental parameters. Then, Bell correctly claimed that the correlation E(a, b) = << A(a, h) B(b, h) >> between their results cannot exceed the linear limit. This claim is, in fact, correct, regardless of what one thinks of the Bell inequalities. But Bell’s oversight in his claim is that the randomness h is not the only thing that is shared between Alice and Bob. What they also share, inevitably, are the algebraic, geometrical and topological properties of the physical space within which they are confined to perform their experiment. Once this is understood and the properties of the physical space are taken into account correctly, the correlation between the results A(a, h) and B(b, h) is inevitably equal to E(a, b) = -cos(a, b).

***

Here is perhaps the simplest possible explanation of the results presented in my RSOS paper:

Let A(a, h) and B(b, h) be the results observed independently by Alice and Bob in their EPR-Bohm type experiment. Here h is a randomness shared between Alice and Bob and a and b are their freely chosen experimental parameters. Then, Bell correctly claimed that the correlation E(a, b) = << A(a, h) B(b, h) >> between their results cannot exceed the linear limit. This claim is, in fact, correct, regardless of what one thinks of the Bell inequalities. But Bell’s oversight in his claim is that the randomness h is not the only thing that is shared between Alice and Bob. What they also share, inevitably, are the algebraic, geometrical and topological properties of the physical space within which they are confined to perform their experiment. Once this is understood and the properties of the physical space are taken into account correctly, the correlation between the results A(a, h) and B(b, h) is inevitably equal to E(a, b) = -cos(a, b).

***

- Joy Christian
- Research Physicist
**Posts:**1788**Joined:**Wed Feb 05, 2014 3:49 am**Location:**Oxford, United Kingdom

***

And here is what talented experimental physicists with a lot of funding but little or no intelligence believe: https://journals.aps.org/prl/abstract/1 ... 121.220404

In my view, such "violations" of any Bell-type inequalities, in any actual experiment, simply mean a confirmation of quantum mechanical predictions, not a disproof of locality or realism.

I have long predicted such "violations" of Bell inequalities for macroscopic systems (cf. this paper) because they are simply a manifestation of the algebraic, geometrical and topological properties of the physical space we live in, not because of a failure of local-realism. Bell inequalities would be exceeded for any system, classical or quantum, microscopic or macroscopic.

***

And here is what talented experimental physicists with a lot of funding but little or no intelligence believe: https://journals.aps.org/prl/abstract/1 ... 121.220404

Over the past few decades, experimental tests of Bell-type inequalities have been at the forefront of understanding quantum mechanics and its implications. These strong bounds on specific measurements on a physical system originate from some of the most fundamental concepts of classical physics—in particular that properties of an object are well-defined independent of measurements (realism) and only affected by local interactions (locality). The violation of these bounds unambiguously shows that the measured system does not behave classically, void of any assumption on the validity of quantum theory. It has also found applications in quantum technologies for certifying the suitability of devices for generating quantum randomness, distributing secret keys and for quantum computing. Here we report on the violation of a Bell inequality involving a massive, macroscopic mechanical system. We create light-matter entanglement between the vibrational motion of two silicon optomechanical oscillators, each comprising approximately 10^10 atoms, and two optical modes. This state allows us to violate a Bell inequality by more than 4 standard deviations, directly confirming the nonclassical behavior of our optomechanical system under the fair sampling assumption.

In my view, such "violations" of any Bell-type inequalities, in any actual experiment, simply mean a confirmation of quantum mechanical predictions, not a disproof of locality or realism.

I have long predicted such "violations" of Bell inequalities for macroscopic systems (cf. this paper) because they are simply a manifestation of the algebraic, geometrical and topological properties of the physical space we live in, not because of a failure of local-realism. Bell inequalities would be exceeded for any system, classical or quantum, microscopic or macroscopic.

***

- Joy Christian
- Research Physicist
**Posts:**1788**Joined:**Wed Feb 05, 2014 3:49 am**Location:**Oxford, United Kingdom

***

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 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

***

- Joy Christian
- Research Physicist
**Posts:**1788**Joined:**Wed Feb 05, 2014 3:49 am**Location:**Oxford, United Kingdom

***

I have written up an explicit proof of the equation (2.40) --- or equivalently of the equation (2.59) of my RSOS paper, because its validity had been aggressively questioned by Richard D. Gill for several months with intentions to have the paper retracted. The proof is in the form of the following self-contained note: http://einstein-physics.org/wp-content/ ... tonion.pdf

***

I have written up an explicit proof of the equation (2.40) --- or equivalently of the equation (2.59) of my RSOS paper, because its validity had been aggressively questioned by Richard D. Gill for several months with intentions to have the paper retracted. The proof is in the form of the following self-contained note: http://einstein-physics.org/wp-content/ ... tonion.pdf

***

- Joy Christian
- Research Physicist
**Posts:**1788**Joined:**Wed Feb 05, 2014 3:49 am**Location:**Oxford, United Kingdom

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:**1788**Joined:**Wed Feb 05, 2014 3:49 am**Location:**Oxford, United Kingdom

Joy Christian wrote:

The key phrase by the authors here is the following:"... without the need for a quantum description of our experiment."

I have made a post about the above experiment at my RSOS paper's website: http://disq.us/p/1y83ysk

***

- Joy Christian
- Research Physicist
**Posts:**1788**Joined:**Wed Feb 05, 2014 3:49 am**Location:**Oxford, United Kingdom

***

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.

***

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.

***

- Joy Christian
- Research Physicist
**Posts:**1788**Joined:**Wed Feb 05, 2014 3:49 am**Location:**Oxford, United Kingdom

***

In addition to what I have written above, note well that "violations" of Bell inequalities have absolutely nothing to do with Einstein's local realism: https://arxiv.org/abs/1704.02876.

***

In addition to what I have written above, note well that "violations" of Bell inequalities have absolutely nothing to do with Einstein's local realism: https://arxiv.org/abs/1704.02876.

***

- Joy Christian
- Research Physicist
**Posts:**1788**Joined:**Wed Feb 05, 2014 3:49 am**Location:**Oxford, United Kingdom

***

It is worth noting that we did not have to wait until the publication of my RSOS paper for a local-realistic model for the singlet correlations.

Such an explicit local-realistic model was already published in 2015 in my IJTP paper: https://link.springer.com/article/10.10 ... 014-2412-2

This paper contains a definitive disproof of Bell's theorem, and, despite intense efforts, Richard D. Gill has failed to have this paper retracted:

***

It is worth noting that we did not have to wait until the publication of my RSOS paper for a local-realistic model for the singlet correlations.

Such an explicit local-realistic model was already published in 2015 in my IJTP paper: https://link.springer.com/article/10.10 ... 014-2412-2

This paper contains a definitive disproof of Bell's theorem, and, despite intense efforts, Richard D. Gill has failed to have this paper retracted:

***

- Joy Christian
- Research Physicist
**Posts:**1788**Joined:**Wed Feb 05, 2014 3:49 am**Location:**Oxford, United Kingdom

***

As of today, my RSOS paper is the 12th most downloaded paper out of 2,517 papers published by RSOS so far: https://royalsocietypublishing.org/acti ... downloaded

***

As of today, my RSOS paper is the 12th most downloaded paper out of 2,517 papers published by RSOS so far: https://royalsocietypublishing.org/acti ... downloaded

***

- Joy Christian
- Research Physicist
**Posts:**1788**Joined:**Wed Feb 05, 2014 3:49 am**Location:**Oxford, United Kingdom

***

Bell has a nice, succinct explanation of von Neumann's mistake in his theorem against hidden variables in Section 3 of the first chapter of his book. That chapter was originally published in Rev. Mod. Phys. vol. 38, pp 447-52 (1966).

At the end of his Section 3 Bell says something that is quite ironic in my view.

But that is precisely the mistake Bell himself has made in his own famous theorem, as I have explained in Section 4 of my RSOS paper and in this preprint!

***

Bell has a nice, succinct explanation of von Neumann's mistake in his theorem against hidden variables in Section 3 of the first chapter of his book. That chapter was originally published in Rev. Mod. Phys. vol. 38, pp 447-52 (1966).

At the end of his Section 3 Bell says something that is quite ironic in my view.

John S. Bell wrote:Thus the formal proof of von Neumann does not justify his informal conclusion. ....... It was not the objective measurable predictions of quantum mechanics which ruled out hidden variables. It was the arbitrary assumption of a particular (and impossible) relation between the results of incompatible measurements either of which might be made on a given occasion but only one of which can in fact be made.

But that is precisely the mistake Bell himself has made in his own famous theorem, as I have explained in Section 4 of my RSOS paper and in this preprint!

***

- Joy Christian
- Research Physicist
**Posts:**1788**Joined:**Wed Feb 05, 2014 3:49 am**Location:**Oxford, United Kingdom

***

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.

***

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.

***

- Joy Christian
- Research Physicist
**Posts:**1788**Joined:**Wed Feb 05, 2014 3:49 am**Location:**Oxford, United Kingdom

Wow, that is fantastic!

- FrediFizzx
- Independent Physics Researcher
**Posts:**1211**Joined:**Tue Mar 19, 2013 6:12 pm**Location:**California, USA

FrediFizzx wrote:

Wow, that is fantastic!

The 180-degree flips are explained in this video as a result of the intermediate axis theorem: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-Si6iRL5Fj8

***

- Joy Christian
- Research Physicist
**Posts:**1788**Joined:**Wed Feb 05, 2014 3:49 am**Location:**Oxford, United Kingdom

Joy Christian wrote:FrediFizzx wrote:

Wow, that is fantastic!

The 180-degree flips are explained in this video as a result of the intermediate axis theorem: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-Si6iRL5Fj8

***

Fascinating. What's more, a related vid https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PZdUSycZHeE makes it perfectly clear the KSP simulations accurately reflect Newtonian physics more generally.

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. In all likelihood done at a small fraction of the cost of an actual laboratory setup, and with none of the limitations and complications inherent in an an actual physical arrangement. Such as air friction/turbulence, gravity, 'stiction' between 'exploding ball' halves, detector imprecision etc.

So instead of this seemingly endless grizzling over unfair treatment for your theory papers Joy, isn't it high time to get a reliable simulation done and settle it once and for all?

Here's one possible starting point I found rather quickly: http://newtondynamics.com/forum/newton.php

There are many alternatives out there, but why not get cracking with that one? Ask for help there - and most likely ye shall receive!

[PS: If you insist on a simulation based on quaternions/GA, just do a search e.g. "quaternion based physics engines". Might be surprised how many handy hits show up.]

- Q-reeus
**Posts:**293**Joined:**Sat Jun 07, 2014 11:18 pm

Q-reeus wrote:So instead of this seemingly endless grizzling over unfair treatment for your theory papers Joy, isn't it high time to get a reliable simulation done and settle it once and for all?

Here's one possible starting point I found rather quickly: http://newtondynamics.com/forum/newton.php

My "grizzling" is not over the unfair treatment of my theory papers. Many new ideas in physics receive similar unfair treatment, including those of Einstein and other eventually successful physicists. No, my "grizzling" is over the academic thuggery, outright dishonesty, personal attacks, and dirty politics employed by some of the two-faced detractors of my work, both online and behind the scenes. For example, as John Duffield put it in another thread, "How on Earth are academics like Scott Aaronson allowed to spray such obnoxious bile and remain in post?"

As for your suggestions for a computer simulation of my proposed experiment, there are several issues to consider: In the context of Bell's theorem computer simulations are a red herring. Bell's claim is an analytical claim, concerning a real physical experiment, not its computer simulation. That is why such a huge amount of money has been spent on the actual EPR-Bohm type experiments over the past 56 years. 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 if the computer simulations are unsuccessful, then they give all sorts of excuses to the detractors to undermine the theory. We have seen that already, even for successful simulations of my model presented in this paper. They are attacked on specious grounds. Those who do not want to accept the theory will always find some excuse to do so.

***

- Joy Christian
- Research Physicist
**Posts:**1788**Joined:**Wed Feb 05, 2014 3:49 am**Location:**Oxford, United Kingdom

Return to Sci.Physics.Foundations

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests