Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Christian's work demystified
166 views
Skip to first unread message
X-Phy
Jan 6, 2012, 5:05:48 PM1/6/12
to
A current discussion on sci.physics.research has revealed the flaw of
his allegation. He uses the topology of S^3 while it must be R^3
since the experiment is local.
Actually, my impression is that the whole story is a hoax with a
revenge purpose toward Bell with whom he worked. It would be the
reason why this work is so obscure, and the answers to the
contradictors so derogatory. Too much lost time for such a pettyness.
The chapter of quantum theory was opened by Plank in the early
twentieth century, and brillantly and definitively closed at the end
of the same century with the experimental confirmation in a very
subtle way devised by Bell of the mysterious nature of quantum
physics. Now we know that quantum theory is not about lacking
information, and that if we want to keep conceptual consistency in our
theories, we need to revisit basic principles taken for granted like
locality and causality.
--
X-Phy
his allegation. He uses the topology of S^3 while it must be R^3
since the experiment is local.
Actually, my impression is that the whole story is a hoax with a
revenge purpose toward Bell with whom he worked. It would be the
reason why this work is so obscure, and the answers to the
contradictors so derogatory. Too much lost time for such a pettyness.
The chapter of quantum theory was opened by Plank in the early
twentieth century, and brillantly and definitively closed at the end
of the same century with the experimental confirmation in a very
subtle way devised by Bell of the mysterious nature of quantum
physics. Now we know that quantum theory is not about lacking
information, and that if we want to keep conceptual consistency in our
theories, we need to revisit basic principles taken for granted like
locality and causality.
--
X-Phy
FrediFizzx
Jan 6, 2012, 6:55:24 PM1/6/12
to
"X-Phy" <xphys...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:e457e1d1-c815-44e7...@m10g2000vbc.googlegroups.com...
thru space. Only the measurements at A and B are local. Do you really
understand the EPR argument and experiments?
> Actually, my impression is that the whole story is a hoax with a
> revenge purpose toward Bell with whom he worked. It would be the
> reason why this work is so obscure, and the answers to the
> contradictors so derogatory. Too much lost time for such a pettyness.
Joy Christian's work is no hoax and no joke. And... you must have some
inside information regarding this "revenge" hoax you are trying to concoct.
Joy has the best regards for Bell as you would notice if you actually took
the time to read his papers and tried to understand them.
> The chapter of quantum theory was opened by Plank in the early
> twentieth century, and brillantly and definitively closed at the end
> of the same century with the experimental confirmation in a very
> subtle way devised by Bell of the mysterious nature of quantum
> physics. Now we know that quantum theory is not about lacking
> information, and that if we want to keep conceptual consistency in our
> theories, we need to revisit basic principles taken for granted like
> locality and causality.
Sorry, but the experiments also confirm Joy Christian's framework / model.
So what do we accept? Non-locality in an EPRB type scenario or extra
dimensions for space with fermionic properties? I would prefer extra
dimensions since quite a few other models have shown that they are probably
required for a more complete understanding of nature.
New paper that you really ought to try to read and understand.
http://arxiv.org/abs/1201.0775
Do you really think someone would write a book about this if it were a hoax?
Best,
Fred Diether
news:e457e1d1-c815-44e7...@m10g2000vbc.googlegroups.com...
> A current discussion on sci.physics.research has revealed the flaw of
> his allegation. He uses the topology of S^3 while it must be R^3
> since the experiment is local.
The experiment is *not* local; the quantum objects being measured travel
> his allegation. He uses the topology of S^3 while it must be R^3
> since the experiment is local.
thru space. Only the measurements at A and B are local. Do you really
understand the EPR argument and experiments?
> Actually, my impression is that the whole story is a hoax with a
> revenge purpose toward Bell with whom he worked. It would be the
> reason why this work is so obscure, and the answers to the
> contradictors so derogatory. Too much lost time for such a pettyness.
inside information regarding this "revenge" hoax you are trying to concoct.
Joy has the best regards for Bell as you would notice if you actually took
the time to read his papers and tried to understand them.
> The chapter of quantum theory was opened by Plank in the early
> twentieth century, and brillantly and definitively closed at the end
> of the same century with the experimental confirmation in a very
> subtle way devised by Bell of the mysterious nature of quantum
> physics. Now we know that quantum theory is not about lacking
> information, and that if we want to keep conceptual consistency in our
> theories, we need to revisit basic principles taken for granted like
> locality and causality.
So what do we accept? Non-locality in an EPRB type scenario or extra
dimensions for space with fermionic properties? I would prefer extra
dimensions since quite a few other models have shown that they are probably
required for a more complete understanding of nature.
New paper that you really ought to try to read and understand.
http://arxiv.org/abs/1201.0775
Do you really think someone would write a book about this if it were a hoax?
Best,
Fred Diether
X-Phy
Jan 7, 2012, 11:59:20 AM1/7/12
to
On 7 jan, 00:55, "FrediFizzx" <fredifi...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> "X-Phy" <xphysic...@gmail.com> wrote in message
infinity, which obviously isn't part of the experiment. See the
thread on s.p.r.
> > Actually, my impression is that the whole story is a hoax with a
> > revenge purpose toward Bell with whom he worked. It would be the
> > reason why this work is so obscure, and the answers to the
> > contradictors so derogatory. Too much lost time for such a pettyness.
>
> Joy Christian's work is no hoax and no joke. And... you must have some
> inside information regarding this "revenge" hoax you are trying to concoct.
> Joy has the best regards for Bell as you would notice if you actually took
> the time to read his papers and tried to understand them.
Each of his papers begin with a bitter charge against Bell's theorem,
that's part of my impression. Some people even wonder what is the
connection with that theorem. As S^3 isn't local, it is totally
irrelevant since a hypothesis isn't satisfied.
> > The chapter of quantum theory was opened by Plank in the early
> > twentieth century, and brillantly and definitively closed at the end
> > of the same century with the experimental confirmation in a very
> > subtle way devised by Bell of the mysterious nature of quantum
> > physics. Now we know that quantum theory is not about lacking
> > information, and that if we want to keep conceptual consistency in our
> > theories, we need to revisit basic principles taken for granted like
> > locality and causality.
>
> Sorry, but the experiments also confirm Joy Christian's framework / model.
> So what do we accept? Non-locality in an EPRB type scenario or extra
> dimensions for space with fermionic properties? I would prefer extra
> dimensions since quite a few other models have shown that they are probably
> required for a more complete understanding of nature.
But Christian's model is inconsistent. Extra dimensions add nothing
to the issue of compactness of ordinary space. Theories like the
strand model make use of points at infinity, but in a radically
different context.
I have enough of this paper barrage. Is there something new? Would
you bother to mention it briefly? We are on a group with discussion
purpose, not advertizing. Christian should first make an effort to
become understandable. But it is already clear that all that rests on
a basic error, which makes it an impossible task.
> Do you really think someone would write a book about this if it were a hoax?
Yes, it already happened.
--
X-Phy
> "X-Phy" <xphysic...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:e457e1d1-c815-44e7...@m10g2000vbc.googlegroups.com...
>
> > A current discussion on sci.physics.research has revealed the flaw of
> > his allegation. He uses the topology of S^3 while it must be R^3
> > since the experiment is local.
>
> The experiment is *not* local; the quantum objects being measured travel
> thru space. Only the measurements at A and B are local. Do you really
> understand the EPR argument and experiments?
S^3 is global, which is more than non-local. It requires a point at
> news:e457e1d1-c815-44e7...@m10g2000vbc.googlegroups.com...
>
> > A current discussion on sci.physics.research has revealed the flaw of
> > his allegation. He uses the topology of S^3 while it must be R^3
> > since the experiment is local.
>
> The experiment is *not* local; the quantum objects being measured travel
> thru space. Only the measurements at A and B are local. Do you really
> understand the EPR argument and experiments?
infinity, which obviously isn't part of the experiment. See the
thread on s.p.r.
> > Actually, my impression is that the whole story is a hoax with a
> > revenge purpose toward Bell with whom he worked. It would be the
> > reason why this work is so obscure, and the answers to the
> > contradictors so derogatory. Too much lost time for such a pettyness.
>
> Joy Christian's work is no hoax and no joke. And... you must have some
> inside information regarding this "revenge" hoax you are trying to concoct.
> Joy has the best regards for Bell as you would notice if you actually took
> the time to read his papers and tried to understand them.
that's part of my impression. Some people even wonder what is the
connection with that theorem. As S^3 isn't local, it is totally
irrelevant since a hypothesis isn't satisfied.
> > The chapter of quantum theory was opened by Plank in the early
> > twentieth century, and brillantly and definitively closed at the end
> > of the same century with the experimental confirmation in a very
> > subtle way devised by Bell of the mysterious nature of quantum
> > physics. Now we know that quantum theory is not about lacking
> > information, and that if we want to keep conceptual consistency in our
> > theories, we need to revisit basic principles taken for granted like
> > locality and causality.
>
> Sorry, but the experiments also confirm Joy Christian's framework / model.
> So what do we accept? Non-locality in an EPRB type scenario or extra
> dimensions for space with fermionic properties? I would prefer extra
> dimensions since quite a few other models have shown that they are probably
> required for a more complete understanding of nature.
to the issue of compactness of ordinary space. Theories like the
strand model make use of points at infinity, but in a radically
different context.
I have enough of this paper barrage. Is there something new? Would
you bother to mention it briefly? We are on a group with discussion
purpose, not advertizing. Christian should first make an effort to
become understandable. But it is already clear that all that rests on
a basic error, which makes it an impossible task.
> Do you really think someone would write a book about this if it were a hoax?
--
X-Phy
ben6993
Jan 7, 2012, 5:58:32 PM1/7/12
to
On Jan 6, 11:55 pm, "FrediFizzx" <fredifi...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> Joy Christian's work is no hoax and no joke. .....
There is also the work by Dr Raedt et al which seem to show that QM
results can be achieved using non-complex data on a computer in a
simulation of an Aspect experiment. I have output, from running Dr
Raedt's online fortran code, purporting to show QM like correlations.
Unfortunately the ouput data appear to be of the form -sin(theta)
rather than -cos(2 theta) so there may be something wrong with the
code or my translation of it. My raw data shows the expected failure
to get QM results, ie a sawtooth curve, while the filtered output
gives a sine curve, which is nearly in the QM form, but not exactly
correct. I will continue to work on it.
> Joy Christian's work is no hoax and no joke. .....
There is also the work by Dr Raedt et al which seem to show that QM
results can be achieved using non-complex data on a computer in a
simulation of an Aspect experiment. I have output, from running Dr
Raedt's online fortran code, purporting to show QM like correlations.
Unfortunately the ouput data appear to be of the form -sin(theta)
rather than -cos(2 theta) so there may be something wrong with the
code or my translation of it. My raw data shows the expected failure
to get QM results, ie a sawtooth curve, while the filtered output
gives a sine curve, which is nearly in the QM form, but not exactly
correct. I will continue to work on it.
FrediFizzx
Jan 7, 2012, 6:32:22 PM1/7/12
to
"X-Phy" <xphys...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:5bd98c4e-615d-460e...@h13g2000vbn.googlegroups.com...
> I have enough of this paper barrage. Is there something new? Would
> you bother to mention it briefly? We are on a group with discussion
> purpose, not advertizing. Christian should first make an effort to
> become understandable. But it is already clear that all that rests on
> a basic error, which makes it an impossible task.
perfectly understandable to me. And it is plain to see that you are a Bell
loyalist so I doubt very much there is anything I or anyone else could say
to change your mind about this issue. And likewise, there is probably
nothing you or anyone else can say that will change mine. But that is OK.
You can keep your non-local QM and I will stand with Einstein-Christian
concerning quantum correlations as it fits my personal physics theory better
anywise.
Best,
Fred Diether
FrediFizzx
Jan 7, 2012, 7:26:01 PM1/7/12
to
"ben6993" <ben...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:82869fdf-3baa-4a7f...@z19g2000vbe.googlegroups.com...
I don't know if you followed the discussions on the FQXi blogs at all, but
there I finally made a possible connection from the De Readt et al, model to
Joy's framework. If you look at Figure 1.2 of the new paper,
http://arxiv.org/abs/1201.0775
you will notice that time is equal to the radius of a 4D-ball that S^3 is
the surface of. And that the detection events A and B happen exactly at the
same time (radius). IOW, you get perfect correlations if the detection
events happen at the same exact time. Now... what would happen if
detection event B happened at a slightly bigger radius compared to A? De
Raedt et al, showed on a real set of data from the Weihs et al, experiment
that as you make the time window (difference in radius) bigger, that quantum
correlations get weaker and eventually went to not violating Bell. We did
have extensive discussions about that and there are other factors such as
count errors and noise but I am wondering if someone were to generalize
Joy's model to have this variable radius in S^3 for the detection events if
it shows that quantum correlations get weaker.
Best,
Fred Diether
news:82869fdf-3baa-4a7f...@z19g2000vbe.googlegroups.com...
there I finally made a possible connection from the De Readt et al, model to
Joy's framework. If you look at Figure 1.2 of the new paper,
http://arxiv.org/abs/1201.0775
you will notice that time is equal to the radius of a 4D-ball that S^3 is
the surface of. And that the detection events A and B happen exactly at the
same time (radius). IOW, you get perfect correlations if the detection
events happen at the same exact time. Now... what would happen if
detection event B happened at a slightly bigger radius compared to A? De
Raedt et al, showed on a real set of data from the Weihs et al, experiment
that as you make the time window (difference in radius) bigger, that quantum
correlations get weaker and eventually went to not violating Bell. We did
have extensive discussions about that and there are other factors such as
count errors and noise but I am wondering if someone were to generalize
Joy's model to have this variable radius in S^3 for the detection events if
it shows that quantum correlations get weaker.
Best,
Fred Diether
ben6993
Jan 8, 2012, 11:47:41 AM1/8/12
to
On Jan 8, 12:26 am, "FrediFizzx" <fredifi...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> "ben6993" <ben6...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
link, a week ago, and had already looked at Figure 1.2. I have been
reading the FQXi blog and I might have picked up the link to the new
paper there. I assume that a single helix goes from A to B in Figure
1.2, ie if one particle travelled from A to B (yes, I know, that means
back and to in time) then it could travel continuously through the
origin at t=0. So, if you forget the time element, the two particles
are travelling the opposite ways along the same helix. I am just
making sure I understand that piece of the geometry.
I think I understand your point. I watched Feynmann's New Zealand
online videos and will use his layman analogy of clock hands.
Reinforcement interference effects are because the clock hands of two
different particles are in synch. Ie having travelled exactly the
same distance as one another, assuming they were in synch at t=0.
Move along the detection screen a little and you get destructive
interference as the two waves have phases out of synch. That is
because the time of flights are different for the two particles.
With singlet particles, they are out of synch at t=0 and are always
out of synch if you measure each at exactly the same time. So if you
control the time window to ensure tA=tB you can ensure that they the
two phases are always out of synch to be included in the acceptable,
or filtered, sub-set of particles. The raw data of Dr Raedt has no
mention of time and it did seem rather an odd thing when I first met
it to introduce time for simulated data. Just so it could then be
used as a filter. If I remember correctly, that seemed to annoy
Charles Francis. 'Odd' because with simulated data you always know
which are the true pairs of photons so why bother to add time to
detect the true pairs. But if time is not used, the data include the
possibility of measurement at any phase. So time is not being used to
detect true pairs but to ensure that phases are still exactly out of
synch. The elapse of time is directly related to change of phase for
each particle independently of the other. The independent steady
march of the particles' clock hands is what enables the coordinated
phase of the two particles to stay out of synch without resorting to
spooky action at a distance. The implication is there that you don't
get out-of-synch results merely from having a singlet pair of
electrons. They are only definitely out of synch if tA=tB or tA=tB +
an increment of time corresponding to a complete cycle of phase.
Also, the count summation formula in eqn 1.26, just below the figure,
matches the equation in the Dr Raedt's code. I am sorry not to have
reproduced exactly the -cos(2*theta) result as that would have given
me a real-numbers data file on my computer giving QM results which is
supposed to be impossible.
I have been trying to distinguish between the two aspects of a
rotation. First the rotation once started will continue unless energy
is inputted to change that spin direction. Second, a spin implies a
continual change of phase which would require energy to be inputted to
stop that aspect of spin. The two electrons in Figure 1.2 have
different rotations of the first kind. And that will not change
unless energy is inputted. That is what I have been calling, in my
separate 'implication ..' thread, spin state spaces 1 and 2. That
state requires an interaction to change it. That seems to me to
correspond to the different geometries of the two electrons in
Clifford algebra. The changes in phase are of the second kind and if
these can lead to different spin 'up' and then later in the phase spin
'down' measurements in the lab then I will need to re-think what
changes to those phase mean for my model as those spin states are not
the same as the different geometries in my view.
> "ben6993" <ben6...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:82869fdf-3baa-4a7f...@z19g2000vbe.googlegroups.com...
>
> > On Jan 6, 11:55 pm, "FrediFizzx" <fredifi...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> >> Joy Christian's work is no hoax and no joke. .....
>
> > There is also the work by Dr Raedt et al which seem to show that QM
> > results can be achieved using non-complex data on a computer in a
> > simulation of an Aspect experiment. I have output, from running Dr
> > Raedt's online fortran code, purporting to show QM like correlations.
> > Unfortunately the ouput data appear to be of the form -sin(theta)
> > rather than -cos(2 theta) so there may be something wrong with the
> > code or my translation of it. My raw data shows the expected failure
> > to get QM results, ie a sawtooth curve, while the filtered output
> > gives a sine curve, which is nearly in the QM form, but not exactly
> > correct. I will continue to work on it.
>
> I don't know if you followed the discussions on the FQXi blogs at all, but
> there I finally made a possible connection from the De Readt et al, model to
> Joy's framework. If you look at Figure 1.2 of the new paper,http://arxiv.org/abs/1201.0775
> news:82869fdf-3baa-4a7f...@z19g2000vbe.googlegroups.com...
>
> > On Jan 6, 11:55 pm, "FrediFizzx" <fredifi...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> >> Joy Christian's work is no hoax and no joke. .....
>
> > There is also the work by Dr Raedt et al which seem to show that QM
> > results can be achieved using non-complex data on a computer in a
> > simulation of an Aspect experiment. I have output, from running Dr
> > Raedt's online fortran code, purporting to show QM like correlations.
> > Unfortunately the ouput data appear to be of the form -sin(theta)
> > rather than -cos(2 theta) so there may be something wrong with the
> > code or my translation of it. My raw data shows the expected failure
> > to get QM results, ie a sawtooth curve, while the filtered output
> > gives a sine curve, which is nearly in the QM form, but not exactly
> > correct. I will continue to work on it.
>
> I don't know if you followed the discussions on the FQXi blogs at all, but
> there I finally made a possible connection from the De Readt et al, model to
> you will notice that time is equal to the radius of a 4D-ball that S^3 is
> the surface of. And that the detection events A and B happen exactly at the
> same time (radius). IOW, you get perfect correlations if the detection
> events happen at the same exact time. Now... what would happen if
> detection event B happened at a slightly bigger radius compared to A? De
> Raedt et al, showed on a real set of data from the Weihs et al, experiment
> that as you make the time window (difference in radius) bigger, that quantum
> correlations get weaker and eventually went to not violating Bell. We did
> have extensive discussions about that and there are other factors such as
> count errors and noise but I am wondering if someone were to generalize
> Joy's model to have this variable radius in S^3 for the detection events if
> it shows that quantum correlations get weaker.
>
> Best,
>
> Fred Diether
Thanks Fred. I read the 28 Dec 2011 paper as soon as you provided the
> the surface of. And that the detection events A and B happen exactly at the
> same time (radius). IOW, you get perfect correlations if the detection
> events happen at the same exact time. Now... what would happen if
> detection event B happened at a slightly bigger radius compared to A? De
> Raedt et al, showed on a real set of data from the Weihs et al, experiment
> that as you make the time window (difference in radius) bigger, that quantum
> correlations get weaker and eventually went to not violating Bell. We did
> have extensive discussions about that and there are other factors such as
> count errors and noise but I am wondering if someone were to generalize
> Joy's model to have this variable radius in S^3 for the detection events if
> it shows that quantum correlations get weaker.
>
> Best,
>
> Fred Diether
link, a week ago, and had already looked at Figure 1.2. I have been
reading the FQXi blog and I might have picked up the link to the new
paper there. I assume that a single helix goes from A to B in Figure
1.2, ie if one particle travelled from A to B (yes, I know, that means
back and to in time) then it could travel continuously through the
origin at t=0. So, if you forget the time element, the two particles
are travelling the opposite ways along the same helix. I am just
making sure I understand that piece of the geometry.
I think I understand your point. I watched Feynmann's New Zealand
online videos and will use his layman analogy of clock hands.
Reinforcement interference effects are because the clock hands of two
different particles are in synch. Ie having travelled exactly the
same distance as one another, assuming they were in synch at t=0.
Move along the detection screen a little and you get destructive
interference as the two waves have phases out of synch. That is
because the time of flights are different for the two particles.
With singlet particles, they are out of synch at t=0 and are always
out of synch if you measure each at exactly the same time. So if you
control the time window to ensure tA=tB you can ensure that they the
two phases are always out of synch to be included in the acceptable,
or filtered, sub-set of particles. The raw data of Dr Raedt has no
mention of time and it did seem rather an odd thing when I first met
it to introduce time for simulated data. Just so it could then be
used as a filter. If I remember correctly, that seemed to annoy
Charles Francis. 'Odd' because with simulated data you always know
which are the true pairs of photons so why bother to add time to
detect the true pairs. But if time is not used, the data include the
possibility of measurement at any phase. So time is not being used to
detect true pairs but to ensure that phases are still exactly out of
synch. The elapse of time is directly related to change of phase for
each particle independently of the other. The independent steady
march of the particles' clock hands is what enables the coordinated
phase of the two particles to stay out of synch without resorting to
spooky action at a distance. The implication is there that you don't
get out-of-synch results merely from having a singlet pair of
electrons. They are only definitely out of synch if tA=tB or tA=tB +
an increment of time corresponding to a complete cycle of phase.
Also, the count summation formula in eqn 1.26, just below the figure,
matches the equation in the Dr Raedt's code. I am sorry not to have
reproduced exactly the -cos(2*theta) result as that would have given
me a real-numbers data file on my computer giving QM results which is
supposed to be impossible.
I have been trying to distinguish between the two aspects of a
rotation. First the rotation once started will continue unless energy
is inputted to change that spin direction. Second, a spin implies a
continual change of phase which would require energy to be inputted to
stop that aspect of spin. The two electrons in Figure 1.2 have
different rotations of the first kind. And that will not change
unless energy is inputted. That is what I have been calling, in my
separate 'implication ..' thread, spin state spaces 1 and 2. That
state requires an interaction to change it. That seems to me to
correspond to the different geometries of the two electrons in
Clifford algebra. The changes in phase are of the second kind and if
these can lead to different spin 'up' and then later in the phase spin
'down' measurements in the lab then I will need to re-think what
changes to those phase mean for my model as those spin states are not
the same as the different geometries in my view.
FrediFizzx
Jan 9, 2012, 1:30:39 AM1/9/12
to
"ben6993" <ben...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:3bf9f6d8-a7eb-4b6a...@t16g2000vba.googlegroups.com...
> Thanks Fred. I read the 28 Dec 2011 paper as soon as you provided the
> link, a week ago, and had already looked at Figure 1.2. I have been
> reading the FQXi blog and I might have picked up the link to the new
> paper there. I assume that a single helix goes from A to B in Figure
> 1.2, ie if one particle travelled from A to B (yes, I know, that means
> back and to in time) then it could travel continuously through the
> origin at t=0. So, if you forget the time element, the two particles
> are travelling the opposite ways along the same helix. I am just
> making sure I understand that piece of the geometry.
No. The "entangled" particles travel from the origin (at the center where
> link, a week ago, and had already looked at Figure 1.2. I have been
> reading the FQXi blog and I might have picked up the link to the new
> paper there. I assume that a single helix goes from A to B in Figure
> 1.2, ie if one particle travelled from A to B (yes, I know, that means
> back and to in time) then it could travel continuously through the
> origin at t=0. So, if you forget the time element, the two particles
> are travelling the opposite ways along the same helix. I am just
> making sure I understand that piece of the geometry.
lambda is shown) to A and B detectors. S^3 is a "snapshot" in time at the
time when the particles are detected at A and B.
> I think I understand your point. I watched Feynmann's New Zealand
> online videos and will use his layman analogy of clock hands.
> Reinforcement interference effects are because the clock hands of two
> different particles are in synch. Ie having travelled exactly the
> same distance as one another, assuming they were in synch at t=0.
> Move along the detection screen a little and you get destructive
> interference as the two waves have phases out of synch. That is
> because the time of flights are different for the two particles.
> With singlet particles, they are out of synch at t=0 and are always
> out of synch if you measure each at exactly the same time.
detectors involved.
> So if you
> control the time window to ensure tA=tB you can ensure that they the
> two phases are always out of synch to be included in the acceptable,
> or filtered, sub-set of particles. The raw data of Dr Raedt has no
> mention of time and it did seem rather an odd thing when I first met
> it to introduce time for simulated data. Just so it could then be
> used as a filter. If I remember correctly, that seemed to annoy
> Charles Francis. 'Odd' because with simulated data you always know
> which are the true pairs of photons so why bother to add time to
> detect the true pairs. But if time is not used, the data include the
> possibility of measurement at any phase. So time is not being used to
> detect true pairs but to ensure that phases are still exactly out of
> synch. The elapse of time is directly related to change of phase for
> each particle independently of the other. The independent steady
> march of the particles' clock hands is what enables the coordinated
> phase of the two particles to stay out of synch without resorting to
> spooky action at a distance. The implication is there that you don't
> get out-of-synch results merely from having a singlet pair of
> electrons. They are only definitely out of synch if tA=tB or tA=tB +
> an increment of time corresponding to a complete cycle of phase.
from De Raedt et al. I don't think they were actually thinking about having
the radius of the 4D-ball be different for the measurements. And I am not
sure if that is really a requirement for EPR's argument now that I think
about it. Joy seems to think it is as he said on the FQXi discussion that
there would be no correlation if the time were different for the detections.
Still, I would like to investigate this possible connection some more some
day.
Best,
Fred Diether
Ken S. Tucker
Jan 9, 2012, 10:08:16 AM1/9/12
to
Hi Fred.
On Jan 8, 10:30 pm, "FrediFizzx" <fredifi...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> Well, I am actually describing something that is perhaps a bit different
> from De Raedt et al. I don't think they were actually thinking about having
> the radius of the 4D-ball be different for the measurements. And I am not
> sure if that is really a requirement for EPR's argument now that I think
> about it. Joy seems to think it is as he said on the FQXi discussion that
> there would be no correlation if the time were different for the detections.
> Still, I would like to investigate this possible connection some more some
> day.
Yes, I've been looking at that as well, attempting to generalize
without the "4D-ball" , for different speeds and gravitational
potentials.
(the Spin tensor I use is in Weinbergs G&C Eq.(5.1.2)).
Two Transmitters T and T' locally linked, such that they emit so the
Angular (S as in Spin) and Linear Momentum (P) are cancelled when
a transmission occurs,
(cancelled so no reaction occurs to the linked Transmitters).
2nd, is the inclusion of two CS's K and K' for our consideration,
such as,
K<~~T.T'~~>K'
local
T and T' are linked 'locally' via Newtons momentum conservation laws.
We'll search for the 'invariants' derived from the measure of tensors*
at
K and K' such as
S^u P_u = SP = S'^u P'_u , (1)
( S/S' )( P/P' ) = 1 (2)
Since K and K' can arrive at the same invariant it appears as a
'hidden
variable' in (1), however K can't know S' or P' just as K' can't know
S or P,
but each can know SP and S'P', that's the foundation of the 'paradox'.
Then, apparently in QM, one can measure,
(S or P or SP) AND (S' or P' or S'P'),
then following the EPR conclusion,
(in view of Eq(1) and (2) above),
S = (SP)/(S'P') P'
when K measures Spin, and K' measures momentum,
S = P' .
So far so good, but SP and S'P' and S' and P
remain unknown.
Consider another approach, where
c = frequency x wavelength,
with observers K and K' viewing the same light,
but at differing speeds causing differing Doppler
Effects.
Write that as,
c = f w = f' w' .
Even with K knowing f and w, there is no way K
can determine f' and w', assuming relative velocity
is a 'hidden variable'.
*tensors being covariant and contravariant 4 vectors and inner
multiplication, producing invariants.
Regards
Ken S. Tucker
On Jan 8, 10:30 pm, "FrediFizzx" <fredifi...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> Well, I am actually describing something that is perhaps a bit different
> from De Raedt et al. I don't think they were actually thinking about having
> the radius of the 4D-ball be different for the measurements. And I am not
> sure if that is really a requirement for EPR's argument now that I think
> about it. Joy seems to think it is as he said on the FQXi discussion that
> there would be no correlation if the time were different for the detections.
> Still, I would like to investigate this possible connection some more some
> day.
without the "4D-ball" , for different speeds and gravitational
potentials.
(the Spin tensor I use is in Weinbergs G&C Eq.(5.1.2)).
Two Transmitters T and T' locally linked, such that they emit so the
Angular (S as in Spin) and Linear Momentum (P) are cancelled when
a transmission occurs,
(cancelled so no reaction occurs to the linked Transmitters).
2nd, is the inclusion of two CS's K and K' for our consideration,
such as,
K<~~T.T'~~>K'
local
T and T' are linked 'locally' via Newtons momentum conservation laws.
We'll search for the 'invariants' derived from the measure of tensors*
at
K and K' such as
S^u P_u = SP = S'^u P'_u , (1)
( S/S' )( P/P' ) = 1 (2)
Since K and K' can arrive at the same invariant it appears as a
'hidden
variable' in (1), however K can't know S' or P' just as K' can't know
S or P,
but each can know SP and S'P', that's the foundation of the 'paradox'.
Then, apparently in QM, one can measure,
(S or P or SP) AND (S' or P' or S'P'),
then following the EPR conclusion,
(in view of Eq(1) and (2) above),
S = (SP)/(S'P') P'
when K measures Spin, and K' measures momentum,
S = P' .
So far so good, but SP and S'P' and S' and P
remain unknown.
Consider another approach, where
c = frequency x wavelength,
with observers K and K' viewing the same light,
but at differing speeds causing differing Doppler
Effects.
Write that as,
c = f w = f' w' .
Even with K knowing f and w, there is no way K
can determine f' and w', assuming relative velocity
is a 'hidden variable'.
*tensors being covariant and contravariant 4 vectors and inner
multiplication, producing invariants.
Regards
Ken S. Tucker
ben6993
Jan 11, 2012, 9:38:04 AM1/11/12
to
On Jan 9, 6:30 am, "FrediFizzx" <fredifi...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> No. The "entangled" particles travel from the origin (at the center where
> lambda is shown) to A and B detectors. S^3 is a "snapshot" in time at the
> time when the particles are detected at A and B.
Yes, that is what I thought. My point was really on a different
> No. The "entangled" particles travel from the origin (at the center where
> lambda is shown) to A and B detectors. S^3 is a "snapshot" in time at the
> time when the particles are detected at A and B.
matter concerning the continuity of paths at t=0 so forget that. I
put it very badly if you thought that I did not realise that the
particles were travelling from 0 to A and from 0 to B.
>
> > With singlet particles, they are out of synch at t=0 and are always
> > out of synch if you measure each at exactly the same time.
>
> There is more to it than that because you also have the angle of the
> detectors involved.
measure at A always in one direction. Call it up/down. With the
model (but not in a real experiment as one cannot clone) we can
imagine cloned particles and doing many iterations between t=t and t=t
+dt. If we let dt be exactly enough to cover a double wavelength for
the A particle, ie a 4pi cycle (?), then over the the course of dt we
could get a sequence of meaurements up up up up up up.... up down down
down ... down up up up ...
If we place B as near as possible to A for the experiment, this will
make it easier to synchonise time and the direction of measurement.
So if we measure B in the exact same period t to t+dt the results
would be the opposite of A.
A u u u u u u.... u d d d ... d u u u ...
B d d d d d d.... d u u u ... u d d d ...
If we had measured B in the period t-dt/2 to t+dt/2 then we would have
obtained the results:
A u u u u u u.... u d d d ... d u u u ...
B u u u u u u.... u d d d ... d u u u ...
If this is indeed the case then it indicates that there is a link
between A and B results. There was a causal link at the outset at t=0
as a process caused the two particles to set off exactly out of phase.
The results at B depend on the time at which the B measurements are
made. The results at A depend on the time at which the A measurements
are made. The causal aspect of the correlation only arose at t=0 when
the two particles were local. At time t, the states of the particles
are not directly influencing one another.
What I am not clear about is why a particular point on the time axis
gives a particular outcome of up. Why not down at that time? .... But
maybe that is just my own problem as I see an electron as having a
compactified set of 8D in addition to the 4D of laboratory space.
Compactified as there is an element of speed c connected with a rapid
gyroscopic motion in the compactified dimensions. How can a rotation
in extra compactified dimensions cause a specific measurement result
in our real lab space. Likewise, a photon in my opinion has a
gyroscopic rotation in an extra set of 8D compactified dimensions and
that translates into a linear movement at c in the lab space, but what
determines the direction of travel in the lab.
>
> Well, I am actually describing something that is perhaps a bit different
> from De Raedt et al. I don't think they were actually thinking about having
> the radius of the 4D-ball be different for the measurements.
hint of a dependence on a 4pi cycle in Dr Raedt's formulae.
> And I am not
> sure if that is really a requirement for EPR's argument now that I think
> about it. Joy seems to think it is as he said on the FQXi discussion that
> there would be no correlation if the time were different for the detections.
> Still, I would like to investigate this possible connection some more some
> day.
just finished the online Stanford QM course. Four courses done to
date. So next I will do Part 3 entanglement, then attempt GR then try
Clifford algebra.
X-Phy
Jan 14, 2012, 5:41:17 PM1/14/12
to
On 8 jan, 01:26, "FrediFizzx" <fredifi...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> I don't know if you followed the discussions on the FQXi blogs at all, but
> there I finally made a possible connection from the De Readt et al, model to
> Joy's framework. If you look at Figure 1.2 of the new paper,http://arxiv.org/abs/1201.0775
> I don't know if you followed the discussions on the FQXi blogs at all, but
> there I finally made a possible connection from the De Readt et al, model to
> you will notice that time is equal to the radius of a 4D-ball that S^3 is
> the surface of. And that the detection events A and B happen exactly at the
> same time (radius). IOW, you get perfect correlations if the detection
> events happen at the same exact time. Now... what would happen if
> detection event B happened at a slightly bigger radius compared to A? De
> Raedt et al, showed on a real set of data from the Weihs et al, experiment
> that as you make the time window (difference in radius) bigger, that quantum
> correlations get weaker and eventually went to not violating Bell. We did
> have extensive discussions about that and there are other factors such as
> count errors and noise but I am wondering if someone were to generalize
> Joy's model to have this variable radius in S^3 for the detection events if
> it shows that quantum correlations get weaker.
It has been shown what is the error in De Readt work. Burying it
> the surface of. And that the detection events A and B happen exactly at the
> same time (radius). IOW, you get perfect correlations if the detection
> events happen at the same exact time. Now... what would happen if
> detection event B happened at a slightly bigger radius compared to A? De
> Raedt et al, showed on a real set of data from the Weihs et al, experiment
> that as you make the time window (difference in radius) bigger, that quantum
> correlations get weaker and eventually went to not violating Bell. We did
> have extensive discussions about that and there are other factors such as
> count errors and noise but I am wondering if someone were to generalize
> Joy's model to have this variable radius in S^3 for the detection events if
> it shows that quantum correlations get weaker.
under topological pseudo-language won't change anything. A code must
be clear otherwise it doesn't work, and the hoax is bare.
--
X-Phy
FrediFizzx
Jan 15, 2012, 5:00:25 PM1/15/12
to
"X-Phy" <xphys...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:0ba74752-2908-4db3...@k29g2000vbl.googlegroups.com...
Cleary it does work but I guess you think the online computer simulation is
fake. There was no error shown in the De Raedt et al work. I believe you
only complained that the coincidence count was low. If you have 10
different random angles at each station, you will get a low coincidence
count.
But all of this has not much to do with what I was proposing above. Is it a
requirement of EPR that the two detection events must happen at the same
time? Effectively, the same exact distance?
Best,
Fred Diether
harald
Jan 16, 2012, 9:46:31 AM1/16/12
to
news:0ba74752-2908-4db3...@k29g2000vbl.googlegroups.com...
Although I also noticed some similarities, I think that both De Raedt and
Christian don't believe in any possible common ground between their efforts.
Anyway, the biggest difference is that De Raedt's et all's code is quite*
clear and without any error; and that is certainly the reason that it got
published.
Harald
* some people seem to misunderstand its purpose
Christian don't believe in any possible common ground between their efforts.
Anyway, the biggest difference is that De Raedt's et all's code is quite*
clear and without any error; and that is certainly the reason that it got
published.
Harald
* some people seem to misunderstand its purpose
harald
Jan 16, 2012, 9:54:43 AM1/16/12
to
"FrediFizzx" <fredi...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:9nh0jk...@mid.individual.net...
> all of this has not much to do with what I was proposing above. Is it a
> requirement of EPR that the two detection events must happen at the same
> time? Effectively, the same exact distance?
also EPR) does not require the detection events to happen at the same time
or distance; surely the only thing that matters is that the pair members are
identified with each other.
Harald
X-Phy
Jan 17, 2012, 10:53:13 AM1/17/12
to
On 15 jan, 23:00, "FrediFizzx" <fredifi...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > It has been shown what is the error in De Readt work. Burying it
> > under topological pseudo-language won't change anything. A code must
> > be clear otherwise it doesn't work, and the hoax is bare.
>
> http://rugth30.phys.rug.nl/eprbdemo/
>
> Cleary it does work but I guess you think the online computer simulation is
> fake. There was no error shown in the De Raedt et al work. I believe you
> only complained that the coincidence count was low. If you have 10
> different random angles at each station, you will get a low coincidence
> count.
No, the coincidence count isn't low, there is a *non local* rejection
> > It has been shown what is the error in De Readt work. Burying it
> > under topological pseudo-language won't change anything. A code must
> > be clear otherwise it doesn't work, and the hoax is bare.
>
> http://rugth30.phys.rug.nl/eprbdemo/
>
> Cleary it does work but I guess you think the online computer simulation is
> fake. There was no error shown in the De Raedt et al work. I believe you
> only complained that the coincidence count was low. If you have 10
> different random angles at each station, you will get a low coincidence
> count.
procedure that has nothing physical.
> But all of this has not much to do with what I was proposing above. Is it a
> requirement of EPR that the two detection events must happen at the same
> time? Effectively, the same exact distance?
a totally different thing. It is not even necessary if there is no
possibility to mispair the photons, which is the case in a thought
experiment like the EPR one.
Clearly, De Readt screwed all up, unless it be another hoax.
--
X-Phy
Tom
Jan 25, 2012, 1:21:46 PM1/25/12
to
absolutely nothing to say about quantum mechanics. The
arguments are completely classical.
Tom
ben6993
Jan 25, 2012, 4:08:29 PM1/25/12
to
relativistically invariant. Did Aspect need to use relativistic
formulae to control the coincidence counter? I can't find that in
here: http://arxiv.org/ftp/quant-ph/papers/0402/0402001.pdf, but maybe
it is there and I haven't understood it.
The coincidence window should not be necessary for simulated pairs
only if you accept that pairs are always perfectly anti-correlated at
all times, as in QM. If one is suggesting, however, that the
correlation is not always anti-correlated, but that it is only anti-
correlated at the outset, t=0, then you do need to use a time filter.
Your point would then be that a time filter alone may not be good
enough as it does not take into account relativistic effects.
I have not followed a topology/geometry course and am puzzled about
the topology of the (say) electron as against the topology of the
laboratory. At 10.41 pm on Jan 13th Christian (http://
groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.research/browse_thread/thread/
25d3e1985574862c/0ef319f68fb6d37f)
describes a RH-L shape travelling round a moibus strip and becoming a
LH-L shape. That is understandable, and fine for illustration and it
was useful, but nothing like that is happening in the experiment is
it? I.e. the two electrons in a pair stay in their exactly opposite
spaces or orientations. Ie if electron A is an RH-L it should stay
like that for the experiment. It cannot have travelled around the
universe and come back reversed to a LH-L during the experiment
because of the curvature of the universe. Likewise a RH-L electron
cannot suddenly flip to become a LH-L in the locality of the
experiment within a short time period without it being a measurement
event. [I should add that I believe a measurement always causes a
change in state and not merely measures the state.]
Ben Smith
not a physicist
X-Phy
Jan 30, 2012, 6:38:31 PM1/30/12
to
On 25 jan, 19:21, Tom <thray...@aol.com> wrote:
> You seem not to understand that EPR and Bell had
> absolutely nothing to say about quantum mechanics. The
> arguments are completely classical.
EPR and Bell are neither quantal nor classical, they are about realism
> You seem not to understand that EPR and Bell had
> absolutely nothing to say about quantum mechanics. The
> arguments are completely classical.
and hidden variables. But Bell like experiments have verified quantum
mechanics and shown that there is no hidden variable, that is, quantum
mechanics is complete. Christian contends that Bell experiments say
anything about quantum mechanics.
--
X-Phy
FrediFizzx
Feb 4, 2012, 9:58:28 PM2/4/12
to
"X-Phy" <xphys...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:4c18d954-31a3-481c...@h3g2000yqe.googlegroups.com...
> On 25 jan, 19:21, Tom <thray...@aol.com> wrote:
>
>> You seem not to understand that EPR and Bell had
>> absolutely nothing to say about quantum mechanics. The
>> arguments are completely classical.
>
> EPR and Bell are neither quantal nor classical, they are about realism
> and hidden variables. But Bell like experiments have verified quantum
> mechanics and shown that there is no hidden variable, that is, quantum
> mechanics is complete.
Sorry, but Bell type experiments do not show there is no hidden variable(s)
>
>> You seem not to understand that EPR and Bell had
>> absolutely nothing to say about quantum mechanics. The
>> arguments are completely classical.
>
> EPR and Bell are neither quantal nor classical, they are about realism
> and hidden variables. But Bell like experiments have verified quantum
> mechanics and shown that there is no hidden variable, that is, quantum
> mechanics is complete.
and they do not show that QM is necessarily complete. All the experiments
show is that there is good reason to believe that QM violates Bell type
inequalities. The interpretation of what that means exactly is still open
to much debate and discussion.
> Christian contends that Bell experiments say
> anything about quantum mechanics.
"...don't say anything about quantum mechanics."?
Best,
Fred Diether
X-Phy
Feb 6, 2012, 4:27:01 PM2/6/12
to
On 25 jan, 22:08, ben6993 <ben6...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> On Jan 17, 3:53 pm, X-Phy <xphysic...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On 15 jan, 23:00, "FrediFizzx" <fredifi...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > > But all of this has not much to do with what I was proposing above. Is it a
> > > requirement of EPR that the two detection events must happen at the same
> > > time? Effectively, the same exact distance?
>
> > No, that isn't relativistically invariant. The coincidence window is
> > a totally different thing. It is not even necessary if there is no
> > possibility to mispair the photons, which is the case in a thought
> > experiment like the EPR one.
>
> > Clearly, De Readt screwed all up, unless it be another hoax.
>
> On Jan 17, 3:53 pm, X-Phy <xphysic...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On 15 jan, 23:00, "FrediFizzx" <fredifi...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > > But all of this has not much to do with what I was proposing above. Is it a
> > > requirement of EPR that the two detection events must happen at the same
> > > time? Effectively, the same exact distance?
>
> > No, that isn't relativistically invariant. The coincidence window is
> > a totally different thing. It is not even necessary if there is no
> > possibility to mispair the photons, which is the case in a thought
> > experiment like the EPR one.
>
> > Clearly, De Readt screwed all up, unless it be another hoax.
>
> Yes, I think that I can see that a time or distance interval isn't
> relativistically invariant. Did Aspect need to use relativistic
> formulae to control the coincidence counter? I can't find that in
> here:http://arxiv.org/ftp/quant-ph/papers/0402/0402001.pdf, but maybe
> it is there and I haven't understood it.
The calculation is made in the frame of the laboratory. The speed is
> relativistically invariant. Did Aspect need to use relativistic
> formulae to control the coincidence counter? I can't find that in
> here:http://arxiv.org/ftp/quant-ph/papers/0402/0402001.pdf, but maybe
> it is there and I haven't understood it.
c, and knowing the distances, the times of flight (TOF) are
calculated. The difference in the time of reception must be equal to
the difference in the TOF for the two
events to be from a pair of photons emitted at the same time.
> The coincidence window should not be necessary for simulated pairs
> only if you accept that pairs are always perfectly anti-correlated at
> all times, as in QM. If one is suggesting, however, that the
> correlation is not always anti-correlated, but that it is only anti-
> correlated at the outset, t=0, then you do need to use a time filter.
it is not necessary. There is no possibility to mispair the photons.
In De Readt simulation, the TOF depends on the polarizer orientations,
which is
unphysical.
> Your point would then be that a time filter alone may not be good
> enough as it does not take into account relativistic effects.
reference. That doesn't prevent them from being in coincidence. If
the distances are equal in the laboratory frame for example, in a
moving frame the detector is moving
toward the source on one side, and away from the source on the other
side. So the TOF are different for a correlated pair, even though the
distances are equal.
> I have not followed a topology/geometry course and am puzzled about
> the topology of the (say) electron as against the topology of the
> laboratory. At 10.41 pm on Jan 13th Christian (http://
> groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.research/browse_thread/thread/
> 25d3e1985574862c/0ef319f68fb6d37f)
> describes a RH-L shape travelling round a moibus strip and becoming a
> LH-L shape. That is understandable, and fine for illustration and it
> was useful, but nothing like that is happening in the experiment is
> it? I.e. the two electrons in a pair stay in their exactly opposite
> spaces or orientations. Ie if electron A is an RH-L it should stay
> like that for the experiment. It cannot have travelled around the
> universe and come back reversed to a LH-L during the experiment
> because of the curvature of the universe. Likewise a RH-L electron
> cannot suddenly flip to become a LH-L in the locality of the
> experiment within a short time period without it being a measurement
> event. [I should add that I believe a measurement always causes a
> change in state and not merely measures the state.]
correlation for parallel polarizers like is experimentally observed,
in agreement with both classical and quantum mechanics.
--
X-Phy
harald
Feb 7, 2012, 5:39:56 AM2/7/12
to
[..]
> In a simulation, a time filter won't reject anything, in any case, so
> it is not necessary. There is no possibility to mispair the photons.
> In De Readt simulation, the TOF depends on the polarizer orientations,
> which is unphysical.
On what experimental evidence or theory do you base your claim that this is
"unphysical"?
I vaguely recall having read somewhere, in a paper or textbook, that the TOF
does depend on the direction of polarization; I can try to find it back.
> In a simulation, a time filter won't reject anything, in any case, so
> it is not necessary. There is no possibility to mispair the photons.
> In De Readt simulation, the TOF depends on the polarizer orientations,
> which is unphysical.
"unphysical"?
I vaguely recall having read somewhere, in a paper or textbook, that the TOF
does depend on the direction of polarization; I can try to find it back.
ben6993
Feb 8, 2012, 3:37:49 PM2/8/12
to
On Feb 6, 9:27 pm, X-Phy <xphysic...@gmail.com> wrote:
<snip>
Again, I think I can see what you mean. I am not a physicist so am
not quite sure if I get it. If you were to eschew the variety of
angles used in the Aspect experiment and just have (as a special
simple case) equal, ie parallel, angles for Alice and Bob say in the
same lab where it is easier to get the angles aligned. Then you would
always get anticorrelated results, ie one +1 and the other -1. And
therefore you could not get (say) +1 and +1 pairs which is what you
would expect now and again if there was time dependency and the pairs
were out of time synchronisation.
I don't really see how the Moibius strip analogy works for this
context without travelling a universal-scale distance to get the
mirror image. Presumably that mirror image result would also allow +1
and +1 pairs now and again. But would that be so even with parallel
angles in the special simple case and wouldn't that lose the perfect
anti-correlation of the special simple case. Surely one is not
getting mirror images every few microseconds.
I understand that a chaotic tumbling model does not break Bell's
inequality either. Chaotic tumbling would appear to me also to be
time dependent if non-local communication were excluded. I have the
idea that changes in spin direction could only happen if energy were
imputted. But a tumbling motion would have continuously changing
alignment arising from the initial energy source at time of generating
the tumbling pair and so would not need extra energy to change that
already-tumbling alignment. (It would need energy inputted to stop the
tumbling.) I like the idea of tumbling in 6D as tumbling in 3D could
not be even handed across all 3D. Ie if a twisting arrow/vortex
tumbled from up to left to down to right in sequence then the 'in' and
'out' directions are not participating in that cycle. But in 6D
perhaps a sequence is permitted that includes all three of the 3D
directional bases. Maybe. I am happiest with accepting the mu values
as constant and think they could only change if energy were added.
Also, if mu could change sign without energy being added then that
would be another way to flip the results for that particle to the
mirror image result. That would be another way to get a +1 and +1
type of pairing. Which again should not happen in the special simple
experiment with only parallel angles used. The constancy of mu
coincides with my idea that energy is needed to make a measurement and
that energy collapses the wave function. That is why measuring a
electron spin at a slit always destroys the interference of wave
effects from prior to the slit.
I want Joy Christian to be correct but am still unable to follow it
myself, either in the starting point of Bell's theory or in the
Clifford Algebra. But I am not informed enough on either aspect.
<snip>
> Actually, even if that were happening, then there wouldn't be the 100%
> correlation for parallel polarizers like is experimentally observed,
> in agreement with both classical and quantum mechanics.
> X-Phy
> correlation for parallel polarizers like is experimentally observed,
> in agreement with both classical and quantum mechanics.
Again, I think I can see what you mean. I am not a physicist so am
not quite sure if I get it. If you were to eschew the variety of
angles used in the Aspect experiment and just have (as a special
simple case) equal, ie parallel, angles for Alice and Bob say in the
same lab where it is easier to get the angles aligned. Then you would
always get anticorrelated results, ie one +1 and the other -1. And
therefore you could not get (say) +1 and +1 pairs which is what you
would expect now and again if there was time dependency and the pairs
were out of time synchronisation.
I don't really see how the Moibius strip analogy works for this
context without travelling a universal-scale distance to get the
mirror image. Presumably that mirror image result would also allow +1
and +1 pairs now and again. But would that be so even with parallel
angles in the special simple case and wouldn't that lose the perfect
anti-correlation of the special simple case. Surely one is not
getting mirror images every few microseconds.
I understand that a chaotic tumbling model does not break Bell's
inequality either. Chaotic tumbling would appear to me also to be
time dependent if non-local communication were excluded. I have the
idea that changes in spin direction could only happen if energy were
imputted. But a tumbling motion would have continuously changing
alignment arising from the initial energy source at time of generating
the tumbling pair and so would not need extra energy to change that
already-tumbling alignment. (It would need energy inputted to stop the
tumbling.) I like the idea of tumbling in 6D as tumbling in 3D could
not be even handed across all 3D. Ie if a twisting arrow/vortex
tumbled from up to left to down to right in sequence then the 'in' and
'out' directions are not participating in that cycle. But in 6D
perhaps a sequence is permitted that includes all three of the 3D
directional bases. Maybe. I am happiest with accepting the mu values
as constant and think they could only change if energy were added.
Also, if mu could change sign without energy being added then that
would be another way to flip the results for that particle to the
mirror image result. That would be another way to get a +1 and +1
type of pairing. Which again should not happen in the special simple
experiment with only parallel angles used. The constancy of mu
coincides with my idea that energy is needed to make a measurement and
that energy collapses the wave function. That is why measuring a
electron spin at a slit always destroys the interference of wave
effects from prior to the slit.
I want Joy Christian to be correct but am still unable to follow it
myself, either in the starting point of Bell's theory or in the
Clifford Algebra. But I am not informed enough on either aspect.
gill...@gmail.com
Mar 26, 2012, 6:12:16 PM3/26/12
to
So Joy Christian's book has recently come out:
http://www.brownwalker.com/book.php?method=ISBN&book=159
9425645
The first 25 pages can be downloaded for free. You'll find the fatal error on the 24th of those 25 pages, the page which numbered as page 10.
Notice the transition from (1.23) to (1.24), which is justified by an appeal to (1.8). However appealing to (1.8) would give beta_l(lambda^i), not beta_l.
Again Joy is either making an error engendered by his sloppy notation around (1.8), or he is deliberately introducing (without any warning) a new postulate, unfortunately contradicting the postulates that he has not only made so far, but has also used.
This is certainly very innovative mathematics.
http://arxiv.org/abs/1203.1504
Simple refutation of Joy Christian's simple refutation of Bell's simple theorem
Richard D. Gill
http://www.brownwalker.com/book.php?method=ISBN&book=159
9425645
The first 25 pages can be downloaded for free. You'll find the fatal error on the 24th of those 25 pages, the page which numbered as page 10.
Notice the transition from (1.23) to (1.24), which is justified by an appeal to (1.8). However appealing to (1.8) would give beta_l(lambda^i), not beta_l.
Again Joy is either making an error engendered by his sloppy notation around (1.8), or he is deliberately introducing (without any warning) a new postulate, unfortunately contradicting the postulates that he has not only made so far, but has also used.
This is certainly very innovative mathematics.
http://arxiv.org/abs/1203.1504
Simple refutation of Joy Christian's simple refutation of Bell's simple theorem
Richard D. Gill
Joy Christian
Mar 26, 2012, 7:41:51 PM3/26/12
to
explained elsewhere, Bell made a simple mistake
in his theorem: http://arxiv.org/abs/1201.0775.
Richard Gill, however, has made a silly mistake in
his recent preprint. I have debunked his mistake
in this response: http://arxiv.org/abs/1203.2529.
The reason why Richard has not been able to see
his mistake even after I have pointed it out to him
is very simple. He learned about Clifford algebra
from me (yes, from me) only a few weeks ago.
He is not yet sufficiently knowledgeable or
proficient in the subject to recognize his error.
I do hope that eventually he is able to recognize
his error and withdraws his error-filled preprint.
Joy Christian
Daryl McCullough
Mar 28, 2012, 11:35:11 AM3/28/12
to
On Monday, March 26, 2012 7:41:51 PM UTC-4, Joy Christian wrote:
> Richard Gill, however, has made a silly mistake in
> his recent preprint. I have debunked his mistake
> in this response: http://arxiv.org/abs/1203.2529.
I would like a point of clarification about equation
> Richard Gill, however, has made a silly mistake in
> his recent preprint. I have debunked his mistake
> in this response: http://arxiv.org/abs/1203.2529.
43, page 6 of that paper.
The right-most expression is (pardon the clunky ASCII)
limit as n >> 1 of
1/n * sum from i=1 to n of
{ a_j beta_j } { b_k beta_k }
Now, the last term does not explicitly involve the index i.
Normally, if a summand does not depend on the index of the
summation, then it can be simplified as follows:
1/n * sum from i=1 to n of C
= C
So your expression should reduce to
limit as n >> 1 of
1/n * sum from i=1 to n of
{ a_j beta_j } { b_k beta_k }
= { a_j beta_j } { b_k beta_k }
What I *think* you are implying is that the multivector
product is *not* a binary operation in your model, but
has three arguments: prod(A,B,lambda), which is defined
by:
prod( beta_i, beta_j, lambda ) = - delta_ij - lambda epsilon_ijk beta_k
If that is the case, then I think that your paper would be much
clearer if you made the lambda-dependence explicit in your
multi-vector products.
A second, much more fundamental question:
In your derivation of equations 42 -- 44, you
use the fact that script-A * script-B = -1.
Since script-A represents Alice's result from
a twin-pair experiment, and script-B represents
Bob's result, why doesn't that imply that Alice
always gets the opposite result from Bob?
If it is possible for Alice and Bob to get the
same result (either both get +1, or both get
-1), then that means that the product of Alice's
result and Bob's result is *not* always -1. In
which case, the derivation of the correlation,
equation 44, seems incorrect.
FrediFizzx
Mar 28, 2012, 9:24:31 PM3/28/12
to
"Daryl McCullough" <stevend...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:33280178.707.1332934553683.JavaMail.geo-discussion-forums@vbtf26...
> What I *think* you are implying is that the multivector
> product is *not* a binary operation in your model, but
> has three arguments: prod(A,B,lambda), which is defined
> by:
>
> prod( beta_i, beta_j, lambda ) = - delta_ij - lambda epsilon_ijk beta_k
I believe it actually ends up being (I will use L for lambda),
beta_j (L^i) beta_k (L^i) = - delta_jk - L^i eps_jkl beta_l (L^i)
And since (L^i)^2 = +1,
beta_j beta_k = - delta_jk - L^i eps_jkl beta_l (L^i)
For use in the substitution going from eq. (42) to eq. (43).
That is Gill's argument and gives the same result anyways.
> If that is the case, then I think that your paper would be much
> clearer if you made the lambda-dependence explicit in your
> multi-vector products.
Perhaps, but it is not hard to work out.
> A second, much more fundamental question:
>
> In your derivation of equations 42 -- 44, you
> use the fact that script-A * script-B = -1.
> Since script-A represents Alice's result from
> a twin-pair experiment, and script-B represents
> Bob's result, why doesn't that imply that Alice
> always gets the opposite result from Bob?
I think you meant eq. 41--43. This is Gill's argument that Joy is
demonstrating with. It really doesn't match completely Joy's model or an
EPR-Bohm scenario.
> If it is possible for Alice and Bob to get the
> same result (either both get +1, or both get
> -1), then that means that the product of Alice's
> result and Bob's result is *not* always -1. In
> which case, the derivation of the correlation,
> equation 44, seems incorrect.
Eq. 43. Of course... their product is not always -1. Only Joy's model is
really the correct one that works right.
Best,
Fred Diether
news:33280178.707.1332934553683.JavaMail.geo-discussion-forums@vbtf26...
> On Monday, March 26, 2012 7:41:51 PM UTC-4, Joy Christian wrote:
>
>> Richard Gill, however, has made a silly mistake in
>> his recent preprint. I have debunked his mistake
>> in this response: http://arxiv.org/abs/1203.2529.
>
> I would like a point of clarification about equation
> 43, page 6 of that paper.
>
> The right-most expression is (pardon the clunky ASCII)
> limit as n >> 1 of
> 1/n * sum from i=1 to n of
> { a_j beta_j } { b_k beta_k }
>
> Now, the last term does not explicitly involve the index i.
> Normally, if a summand does not depend on the index of the
> summation, then it can be simplified as follows:
>
> 1/n * sum from i=1 to n of C
> = C
>
> So your expression should reduce to
>
> limit as n >> 1 of
> 1/n * sum from i=1 to n of
> { a_j beta_j } { b_k beta_k }
>
> = { a_j beta_j } { b_k beta_k }
No. I think you missed what Joy said after eq. (43).
>
>> Richard Gill, however, has made a silly mistake in
>> his recent preprint. I have debunked his mistake
>> in this response: http://arxiv.org/abs/1203.2529.
>
> I would like a point of clarification about equation
> 43, page 6 of that paper.
>
> The right-most expression is (pardon the clunky ASCII)
> limit as n >> 1 of
> 1/n * sum from i=1 to n of
> { a_j beta_j } { b_k beta_k }
>
> Now, the last term does not explicitly involve the index i.
> Normally, if a summand does not depend on the index of the
> summation, then it can be simplified as follows:
>
> 1/n * sum from i=1 to n of C
> = C
>
> So your expression should reduce to
>
> limit as n >> 1 of
> 1/n * sum from i=1 to n of
> { a_j beta_j } { b_k beta_k }
>
> = { a_j beta_j } { b_k beta_k }
> What I *think* you are implying is that the multivector
> product is *not* a binary operation in your model, but
> has three arguments: prod(A,B,lambda), which is defined
> by:
>
> prod( beta_i, beta_j, lambda ) = - delta_ij - lambda epsilon_ijk beta_k
beta_j (L^i) beta_k (L^i) = - delta_jk - L^i eps_jkl beta_l (L^i)
And since (L^i)^2 = +1,
beta_j beta_k = - delta_jk - L^i eps_jkl beta_l (L^i)
For use in the substitution going from eq. (42) to eq. (43).
That is Gill's argument and gives the same result anyways.
> If that is the case, then I think that your paper would be much
> clearer if you made the lambda-dependence explicit in your
> multi-vector products.
> A second, much more fundamental question:
>
> In your derivation of equations 42 -- 44, you
> use the fact that script-A * script-B = -1.
> Since script-A represents Alice's result from
> a twin-pair experiment, and script-B represents
> Bob's result, why doesn't that imply that Alice
> always gets the opposite result from Bob?
demonstrating with. It really doesn't match completely Joy's model or an
EPR-Bohm scenario.
> If it is possible for Alice and Bob to get the
> same result (either both get +1, or both get
> -1), then that means that the product of Alice's
> result and Bob's result is *not* always -1. In
> which case, the derivation of the correlation,
> equation 44, seems incorrect.
really the correct one that works right.
Best,
Fred Diether
FrediFizzx
Mar 28, 2012, 9:40:22 PM3/28/12
to
Daryl,
Sorry, you had the equation numbers right; I was working from a draft copy
and not the arXiv copy.
Best,
Fred Diether
Sorry, you had the equation numbers right; I was working from a draft copy
and not the arXiv copy.
Best,
Fred Diether
Daryl McCullough
Mar 29, 2012, 12:38:38 AM3/29/12
to
On Wednesday, March 28, 2012 9:24:31 PM UTC-4, FrediFizzx wrote:
> > In your derivation of equations 42 -- 44, you
> > use the fact that script-A * script-B = -1.
> > Since script-A represents Alice's result from
> > a twin-pair experiment, and script-B represents
> > Bob's result, why doesn't that imply that Alice
> > always gets the opposite result from Bob?
>
> I think you meant eq. 41--43. This is Gill's argument that Joy is
> demonstrating with. It really doesn't match completely Joy's model
> or an EPR-Bohm scenario.
>
> > If it is possible for Alice and Bob to get the
> > same result (either both get +1, or both get
> > -1), then that means that the product of Alice's
> > result and Bob's result is *not* always -1. In
> > which case, the derivation of the correlation,
> > equation 44, seems incorrect.
>
> Eq. 43. Of course... their product is not always -1.
Then what needs further explanation is equations (27) and
> > In your derivation of equations 42 -- 44, you
> > use the fact that script-A * script-B = -1.
> > Since script-A represents Alice's result from
> > a twin-pair experiment, and script-B represents
> > Bob's result, why doesn't that imply that Alice
> > always gets the opposite result from Bob?
>
> I think you meant eq. 41--43. This is Gill's argument that Joy is
> demonstrating with. It really doesn't match completely Joy's model
> or an EPR-Bohm scenario.
>
> > If it is possible for Alice and Bob to get the
> > same result (either both get +1, or both get
> > -1), then that means that the product of Alice's
> > result and Bob's result is *not* always -1. In
> > which case, the derivation of the correlation,
> > equation 44, seems incorrect.
>
> Eq. 43. Of course... their product is not always -1.
(28). Equations (27) and (28) states:
Script-A = { - a_j beta_j } { a_k beta_k(lambda) }
= (-I.a) (mu . a)
= +1 if lambda = +I,
= -1 if lambda = -I
Script-B = { - b_j beta_j(lambda) } { b_k beta_k }
= (-I.a) (mu . a)
= +1 if lambda = +I,
= -1 if lambda = -I
If equations (27) and (28) are taken to be the *definition*
of Script-A and Script-B, then why doesn't the conclusion
Script-A(a,lamba) Script-B(b,lambda) = -1 follow?
In any case, equations (27) and (28) are used as the
definitions of Script-A and Script-B in computing
the "corrected" variables A(a,lambda) and B(b,lambda)
A(a,lambda) = Script-A(a,lambda)/(-I . a) = +mu . a
(equation 30)
How does one derive that without using (27) as the definition
for Script-A?
If equation (27) *is* the definition of Script-A(a,lambda),
and equation (28) *is* the definition of Script-B(b,lambda),
then why does it not follow that
Script-A(a,lambda) Script-B(b,lambda) = -1
FrediFizzx
Mar 29, 2012, 1:27:37 AM3/29/12
to
I am fixing my wrong equation numbers below; sorry about that.
news:25572673.970.1332988686828.JavaMail.geo-discussion-forums@vbxy18...
discussion here, also via email and SPR. Remember what Joy said about b =
a?
> In any case, equations (27) and (28) are used as the
> definitions of Script-A and Script-B in computing
> the "corrected" variables A(a,lambda) and B(b,lambda)
>
> A(a,lambda) = Script-A(a,lambda)/(-I . a) = +mu . a
> (equation 30)
>
> How does one derive that without using (27) as the definition
> for Script-A?
??? He did use eq. (27) in deriving eq. (30).
(-I.a)(mu.a)/(-I.a) = (+mu.a)
> If equation (27) *is* the definition of Script-A(a,lambda),
> and equation (28) *is* the definition of Script-B(b,lambda),
> then why does it not follow that
>
> Script-A(a,lambda) Script-B(b,lambda) = -1
It does follow that AB = - 1 when b = a. For other b not equal to a, A will
be +/- 1 and B will be +/- 1 and AB will be +/- 1. To get the correct
correlation for the expectation E(a, b), then you have to do eq. (29) in
that same paper. It is really quite simple. Perhaps you are over-thinking
the problem? At any rate, I just don't think we will ever be successful in
getting you to understand it so there is really not much point in discussing
this exact issue further as I have said before.
Best,
Fred Diether
news:25572673.970.1332988686828.JavaMail.geo-discussion-forums@vbxy18...
> On Wednesday, March 28, 2012 9:24:31 PM UTC-4, FrediFizzx wrote:
>
>> > In your derivation of equations 42 -- 44, you
>> > use the fact that script-A * script-B = -1.
>> > Since script-A represents Alice's result from
>> > a twin-pair experiment, and script-B represents
>> > Bob's result, why doesn't that imply that Alice
>> > always gets the opposite result from Bob?
>>
>
>> > In your derivation of equations 42 -- 44, you
>> > use the fact that script-A * script-B = -1.
>> > Since script-A represents Alice's result from
>> > a twin-pair experiment, and script-B represents
>> > Bob's result, why doesn't that imply that Alice
>> > always gets the opposite result from Bob?
>>
>> This is Gill's argument that Joy is
>> demonstrating with. It really doesn't match completely Joy's model
>> or an EPR-Bohm scenario.
>>
>> > If it is possible for Alice and Bob to get the
>> > same result (either both get +1, or both get
>> > -1), then that means that the product of Alice's
>> > result and Bob's result is *not* always -1. In
>> > which case, the derivation of the correlation,
>> > equation 44, seems incorrect.
>>
>> demonstrating with. It really doesn't match completely Joy's model
>> or an EPR-Bohm scenario.
>>
>> > If it is possible for Alice and Bob to get the
>> > same result (either both get +1, or both get
>> > -1), then that means that the product of Alice's
>> > result and Bob's result is *not* always -1. In
>> > which case, the derivation of the correlation,
>> > equation 44, seems incorrect.
>>
>> Of course... their product is not always -1.
>
> Then what needs further explanation is equations (27) and
> (28). Equations (27) and (28) states:
>
> Script-A = { - a_j beta_j } { a_k beta_k(lambda) }
> = (-I.a) (mu . a)
> = +1 if lambda = +I,
> = -1 if lambda = -I
>
>
> Script-B = { - b_j beta_j(lambda) } { b_k beta_k }
> = (-I.a) (mu . a)
> = +1 if lambda = +I,
> = -1 if lambda = -I
>
> If equations (27) and (28) are taken to be the *definition*
> of Script-A and Script-B, then why doesn't the conclusion
> Script-A(a,lamba) Script-B(b,lambda) = -1 follow?
Sigh. I was really hoping you could get past this by now after all the
>
> Then what needs further explanation is equations (27) and
> (28). Equations (27) and (28) states:
>
> Script-A = { - a_j beta_j } { a_k beta_k(lambda) }
> = (-I.a) (mu . a)
> = +1 if lambda = +I,
> = -1 if lambda = -I
>
>
> Script-B = { - b_j beta_j(lambda) } { b_k beta_k }
> = (-I.a) (mu . a)
> = +1 if lambda = +I,
> = -1 if lambda = -I
>
> If equations (27) and (28) are taken to be the *definition*
> of Script-A and Script-B, then why doesn't the conclusion
> Script-A(a,lamba) Script-B(b,lambda) = -1 follow?
discussion here, also via email and SPR. Remember what Joy said about b =
a?
> In any case, equations (27) and (28) are used as the
> definitions of Script-A and Script-B in computing
> the "corrected" variables A(a,lambda) and B(b,lambda)
>
> A(a,lambda) = Script-A(a,lambda)/(-I . a) = +mu . a
> (equation 30)
>
> How does one derive that without using (27) as the definition
> for Script-A?
(-I.a)(mu.a)/(-I.a) = (+mu.a)
> If equation (27) *is* the definition of Script-A(a,lambda),
> and equation (28) *is* the definition of Script-B(b,lambda),
> then why does it not follow that
>
> Script-A(a,lambda) Script-B(b,lambda) = -1
be +/- 1 and B will be +/- 1 and AB will be +/- 1. To get the correct
correlation for the expectation E(a, b), then you have to do eq. (29) in
that same paper. It is really quite simple. Perhaps you are over-thinking
the problem? At any rate, I just don't think we will ever be successful in
getting you to understand it so there is really not much point in discussing
this exact issue further as I have said before.
Best,
Fred Diether
Daryl McCullough
Mar 29, 2012, 4:57:52 PM3/29/12
to
On Thursday, March 29, 2012 1:27:37 AM UTC-4, FrediFizzx wrote:
> > Script-A(a,lambda) Script-B(b,lambda) = -1
>
> It does follow that AB = - 1 when b = a. For other b not equal to a, A will
> be +/- 1 and B will be +/- 1 and AB will be +/- 1. To get the correct
> correlation for the expectation E(a, b), then you have to do eq. (29) in
> that same paper.
The way that equation 29 is derived is by substituting the
> > Script-A(a,lambda) Script-B(b,lambda) = -1
>
> It does follow that AB = - 1 when b = a. For other b not equal to a, A will
> be +/- 1 and B will be +/- 1 and AB will be +/- 1. To get the correct
> correlation for the expectation E(a, b), then you have to do eq. (29) in
> that same paper.
definitions of Script-A and Script-B into the definition of
E(a,b) and using the rules of multivector multiplication.
If you take the definitions of Script-A and Script-B and
the rules for multivector multiplication, then you can
*also* prove that Script-A(a,b) Script-B(a,b) = -1. I
don't understand under what circumstances one can and
cannot use the definitions of Script-A and Script-B and
the rules for multivector multiplication.
We have the following equations:
(1) Script-A(a,lambda) = { - a_j beta_j } { a_k beta_k(lambda) }
(2) sigma(Script-A) = {-I . a} = {-a_j beta_j}
(3) Script-B(b,lambda) = { - b_j beta_j(lambda) } { b_k beta_k }
(4) sigma(Script-B) = {+I . b} = { b_k beta_k }
(5) A = Script-A/(-I . a) = Script-A/{-a_j beta_j} = { a_k beta_k(lambda) }
(6) B = Script-B/(+I . b) = Script-B/{b_k beta_k} = { b_j beta_j(lambda) }
(7) A B = { a_k beta_k(lambda) } { b_j beta_j(lambda) }
This is how Christian derives the correlation E(a,b). E(a,b) is just
the average, over many trials, of A(a,lambda) B(b,lambda), with lambda
varying from trial to trial.
There is no constraint in this derivation to the case a=b. So
why are you saying that the derivation of
Script-A(a,lambda) Script-B(b,lambda) = -1
is only valid when a=b? That's what doesn't make sense to me.
In the derivation of E(a,b), Christian uses the definitions of Script-A
and Script-B without considering the constraint a=b. But you say that
the derivation of Script-A(a,lambda) Script-B(b,lambda) = -1
is only valid in that case. Why is the constraint a=b sometimes
enforced, and sometimes not enforced?
Daryl McCullough
Mar 29, 2012, 8:05:11 PM3/29/12
to
On Thursday, March 29, 2012 1:27:37 AM UTC-4, FrediFizzx wrote:
> > Script-A = { - a_j beta_j } { a_k beta_k(lambda) }
> > = (-I.a) (mu . a)
> > = +1 if lambda = +I,
> > = -1 if lambda = -I
> >
> >
> > Script-B = { - b_j beta_j(lambda) } { b_k beta_k }
> > = (-I.a) (mu . a)
> > = +1 if lambda = +I,
> > = -1 if lambda = -I
> >
> > If equations (27) and (28) are taken to be the *definition*
> > of Script-A and Script-B, then why doesn't the conclusion
> > Script-A(a,lamba) Script-B(b,lambda) = -1 follow?
>
> Sigh. I was really hoping you could get past this by now after all the
> discussion here, also via email and SPR. Remember what Joy said about b =
> a?
I don't see how it answers the question:
> > = (-I.a) (mu . a)
> > = +1 if lambda = +I,
> > = -1 if lambda = -I
> >
> >
> > Script-B = { - b_j beta_j(lambda) } { b_k beta_k }
> > = (-I.a) (mu . a)
> > = +1 if lambda = +I,
> > = -1 if lambda = -I
> >
> > If equations (27) and (28) are taken to be the *definition*
> > of Script-A and Script-B, then why doesn't the conclusion
> > Script-A(a,lamba) Script-B(b,lambda) = -1 follow?
>
> Sigh. I was really hoping you could get past this by now after all the
> discussion here, also via email and SPR. Remember what Joy said about b =
> a?
Are equations 27 and 28 the *definitions*
of Script-A and Script-B? If Script-A is always equal to
{ - a_j beta_j } { a_k beta_k(lambda) }
and if Script-B is always equal to
{ - b_j beta_j(lambda) } { b_k beta_k },
then how can it not be that
Script-A(a,lambda) Script-B(b,lambda) = -1?
So the question is: Are 27 and 28 the definitions
of Script-A and Script-B?
> > In any case, equations (27) and (28) are used as the
> > definitions of Script-A and Script-B in computing
> > the "corrected" variables A(a,lambda) and B(b,lambda)
> >
> > A(a,lambda) = Script-A(a,lambda)/(-I . a) = +mu . a
> > (equation 30)
> >
> > How does one derive that without using (27) as the definition
> > for Script-A?
>
> ??? He did use eq. (27) in deriving eq. (30).
equations 27 and 28 as definitions of Script-A
and Script-B in order to derive one result, but
then acts as if they are *not* definitions when
it comes to computing
Script-A(a,lambda) Script-B(b,lambda).
Using the rules of multiplication of multivectors
that Christian gives, and using equations 27 and 28
as definitions of Script-A and Script-B, the conclusion
Script-A(a,lambda) Script-B(b,lambda) = -1 *follows*.
In deriving his correlation, he uses the same definitions
of Script-A and Script-B, and the same definition of
multivector multiplication, as is used in the proof
that Script-A Script-B = -1. Under what circumstances
are those definitions allowed to be used?
FrediFizzx
Mar 29, 2012, 9:38:50 PM3/29/12
to
"Daryl McCullough" <stevend...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:23799104.1540.1333025527949.JavaMail.geo-discussion-forums@vbxy18...
to a is what I said and probably what you keep missing. If A is +1 and B +1
you the product will be +1; if A is +1 and B is -1 the product will be -1,
etc.
> In the derivation of E(a,b), Christian uses the definitions of Script-A
> and Script-B without considering the constraint a=b. But you say that
> the derivation of Script-A(a,lambda) Script-B(b,lambda) = -1
> is only valid in that case. Why is the constraint a=b sometimes
> enforced, and sometimes not enforced?
not being enforced in the result of -a.b? Surely it is.
-a.b --> -a.a = -1
Best,
Fred Diether
Daryl McCullough
Mar 30, 2012, 2:06:03 AM3/30/12
to
On Thursday, March 29, 2012 9:38:50 PM UTC-4, FrediFizzx wrote:
> "Daryl McCullough" <stevend...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:23799104.1540.1333025527949.JavaMail.geo-discussion-forums@vbxy18...
> > On Thursday, March 29, 2012 1:27:37 AM UTC-4, FrediFizzx wrote:
> >
> >> > Script-A(a,lambda) Script-B(b,lambda) = -1
> >>
> >> It does follow that AB = - 1 when b = a. For other b not equal to a,
> >> A will be +/- 1 and B will be +/- 1 and AB will be +/- 1.
[stuff deleted]
> "Daryl McCullough" <stevend...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:23799104.1540.1333025527949.JavaMail.geo-discussion-forums@vbxy18...
> > On Thursday, March 29, 2012 1:27:37 AM UTC-4, FrediFizzx wrote:
> >
> >> > Script-A(a,lambda) Script-B(b,lambda) = -1
> >>
> >> It does follow that AB = - 1 when b = a. For other b not equal to a,
> >> A will be +/- 1 and B will be +/- 1 and AB will be +/- 1.
> > There is no constraint in this derivation to the case a=b. So
> > why are you saying that the derivation of
> > Script-A(a,lambda) Script-B(b,lambda) = -1
> > is only valid when a=b? That's what doesn't make sense to me.
> I didn't say "only valid".
Are the equations for Script-A(a,lambda) and Script-B(b,lambda)
true by *definition*? That is, are those to be taken as the
definition of Script-A and Script-B? Or are they only true
for certain values of a, b, and lambda?
Are the rules for multiplying multivectors always true,
or are they only true for certain values of a, b, and
lambda?
If the equations for Script-A, Script-B and multivector
multiplication are true for all values of a, b, and lambda,
then the conclusion Script-A(a,lambda) Script-B(b,lambda) = -1
follows, and must be true for all values of a, b, and lambda.
FrediFizzx
Mar 30, 2012, 2:51:58 AM3/30/12
to
"Daryl McCullough" <stevend...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:6734427.3641.1333079628000.JavaMail.geo-discussion-forums@vbgu10...
> On Thursday, March 29, 2012 9:38:50 PM UTC-4, FrediFizzx wrote:
>> "Daryl McCullough" <stevend...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>> news:23799104.1540.1333025527949.JavaMail.geo-discussion-forums@vbxy18...
>> > On Thursday, March 29, 2012 1:27:37 AM UTC-4, FrediFizzx wrote:
>> >
>> >> > Script-A(a,lambda) Script-B(b,lambda) = -1
>> >>
>> >> It does follow that AB = - 1 when b = a. For other b not equal to a,
>> >> A will be +/- 1 and B will be +/- 1 and AB will be +/- 1.
>
> [stuff deleted]
>
>> > There is no constraint in this derivation to the case a=b. So
>> > why are you saying that the derivation of
>> > Script-A(a,lambda) Script-B(b,lambda) = -1
>> > is only valid when a=b? That's what doesn't make sense to me.
>
>> I didn't say "only valid".
>
> By "valid" I mean "true by definition", or "necessarily true".
> Are the equations for Script-A(a,lambda) and Script-B(b,lambda)
> true by *definition*? That is, are those to be taken as the
> definition of Script-A and Script-B? Or are they only true
> for certain values of a, b, and lambda?
I wasn't talking about "valid" here specifically. I was talking about your
>> "Daryl McCullough" <stevend...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>> news:23799104.1540.1333025527949.JavaMail.geo-discussion-forums@vbxy18...
>> > On Thursday, March 29, 2012 1:27:37 AM UTC-4, FrediFizzx wrote:
>> >
>> >> > Script-A(a,lambda) Script-B(b,lambda) = -1
>> >>
>> >> It does follow that AB = - 1 when b = a. For other b not equal to a,
>> >> A will be +/- 1 and B will be +/- 1 and AB will be +/- 1.
>
> [stuff deleted]
>
>> > There is no constraint in this derivation to the case a=b. So
>> > why are you saying that the derivation of
>> > Script-A(a,lambda) Script-B(b,lambda) = -1
>> > is only valid when a=b? That's what doesn't make sense to me.
>
>> I didn't say "only valid".
>
> By "valid" I mean "true by definition", or "necessarily true".
> Are the equations for Script-A(a,lambda) and Script-B(b,lambda)
> true by *definition*? That is, are those to be taken as the
> definition of Script-A and Script-B? Or are they only true
> for certain values of a, b, and lambda?
use of the word "only". Your question was "not even wrong" basically. It
is valid that their product for when b = a will be -1. But their product
can also be -1 for values of a and b when b is not equal to a so "only" does
apply in how you used it above. Or the product can be +1 for values of a
and b when b is not equal to a. Rest assured that their product will never
be +1 when b = a. But I suspect you already know all of this. And... it is
not a "derivation"; it is a statement.
> Are the rules for multiplying multivectors always true,
> or are they only true for certain values of a, b, and
> lambda?
of question.
> If the equations for Script-A, Script-B and multivector
> multiplication are true for all values of a, b, and lambda,
> then the conclusion Script-A(a,lambda) Script-B(b,lambda) = -1
> follows, and must be true for all values of a, b, and lambda.
since we have been over this a million times already. If you study all of
this hard enough, then maybe some day it will hit you like a freight train
and you will see how simple it really is. I hope you "get it" some day
because you seem to be interested in it. Remember what Joy is talking about
here; points of a parallelized 3-sphere topology. Get your head around that
and maybe the freight train will come and visit you.
Best,
Fred Diether
harald
Mar 30, 2012, 5:48:34 AM3/30/12
to
news:9401527.2346.1333023069211.JavaMail.geo-discussion-forums@vbiz13...
I think that your persisent questions are justified.
We indeed discussed this in sci.physics.research and I suggested for example
that perhaps Joy Christian did not define the same lambda for A and B;
however this has not been confirmed by him.
And now in this new document it is again not clear (at least not to me!) if
the lambdas in the equation about measurements at A and B are the same
"initial lambda", or if they are local lambda's that may differ from each
other.
We indeed discussed this in sci.physics.research and I suggested for example
that perhaps Joy Christian did not define the same lambda for A and B;
however this has not been confirmed by him.
And now in this new document it is again not clear (at least not to me!) if
the lambdas in the equation about measurements at A and B are the same
"initial lambda", or if they are local lambda's that may differ from each
other.
Daryl McCullough
Mar 30, 2012, 9:47:18 AM3/30/12
to
Script-B true for *all* a, b, and lambda, or only for
some a, b and lambda? When Christian wrote
Script-A(a,lambda) = { -a_j beta_j } { a_k beta_k(lambda) }
Script-B(b,lambda) = { b_k beta_k(lambda) } { b_j beta_j }
were those to be taken as the *definition* of Script-A
and Script-B, or are those equations sometimes true, and
sometimes false?
In Christian's derivation of E(a,b), his derivation seems
to use the equations for Script-A and Script-B as if they
are valid for all a, b, and lambda. His conclusion
E(a,b) = -a.b
is claimed to be true for all a and b.
> > Are the rules for multiplying multivectors always true,
> > or are they only true for certain values of a, b, and
> > lambda?
>
> ??? What kind of question is that?
involving a, b, and lambda:
(1) Script-A(a,lambda) = {- a_j beta_j } { a_k beta_k(lambda) }
(3) {a_i beta_i(lambda) } { b_j beta_j(lambda) }
= - (a.b) - lambda { (axb)_k beta_k(lambda) }
(or whatever the product rule is)
The question is: is equation (1) true for all values of a, b and lambda,
or only for some values of a, b and lambda? Is equation (2) true for
all values of a,b and lambda, or only for some values? Is equation
(3) true for all values of a, b, and lambda, or only for some values?
Maybe an analogy would help: If I write
square-root(x * y) = square-root(x) * square-root(y)
That equation is true for x, y > 0, but is false for negative
values of x and y.
> > If the equations for Script-A, Script-B and multivector
> > multiplication are true for all values of a, b, and lambda,
> > then the conclusion Script-A(a,lambda) Script-B(b,lambda) = -1
> > follows, and must be true for all values of a, b, and lambda.
>
> Sorry, you are wrong
Script-A, Script-B, and multivector multiplication. So
are those equations always true, or not? If they are
always true, then the conclusion follows.
It's as if you wrote:
A = 5
B = 4
5*4 = 20
and then I concluded
A*B = 20
If that conclusion is not justified, then the equations
were incorrect to start with.
FrediFizzx
Mar 30, 2012, 8:05:34 PM3/30/12
to
"harald" <hv...@swissonline.ch> wrote in message
news:jl3s0s$iqd$1...@dont-email.me...
papers, emails, FQXi, etc.
> We indeed discussed this in sci.physics.research and I suggested for
> example that perhaps Joy Christian did not define the same lambda for A
> and B; however this has not been confirmed by him.
> And now in this new document it is again not clear (at least not to me!)
> if the lambdas in the equation about measurements at A and B are the same
> "initial lambda", or if they are local lambda's that may differ from each
> other.
Exactly which new document are your referring to? Joy's arXiv response to
Gill?
http://arxiv.org/abs/1203.2529
The hidden variable lambda is common to both A and B and has never been
anything else. Where lambda*I is the 50-50 random chance of handedness for
the parallelized 3-sphere topology involving the particle pairs. It is so
simple that I remain completely baffled that people get stuck on the -1
thing for the product of AB. It is easy to work out (and Joy says it in his
papers now) that the basic outcomes he gives for lambda = +/- 1 for his
definitions of A and B are for when b = a. When b is equal to a, the
product will always be -1. That is a basic constraint of Bell / EPRB. And
the result of -a.b also gives that. For other b not equal to a the outcomes
will fluctuate randomly between +/-1 and thus the product will fluctuate
between +/- 1. The only way to determine what the actual expectation value
will be for E(a, b), is to do the full product math with proper statistic
and averaging, etc. for the parallelized 3-sphere topologies.
Best,
Fred Diether
news:jl3s0s$iqd$1...@dont-email.me...
>
> "Daryl McCullough" <stevend...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:9401527.2346.1333023069211.JavaMail.geo-discussion-forums@vbiz13...
> "Daryl McCullough" <stevend...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:9401527.2346.1333023069211.JavaMail.geo-discussion-forums@vbiz13...
>> In deriving his correlation, he uses the same definitions
>> of Script-A and Script-B, and the same definition of
>> multivector multiplication, as is used in the proof
>> that Script-A Script-B = -1. Under what circumstances
>> are those definitions allowed to be used?
>
> I think that your persisent questions are justified.
No they are not. This has been explained to death by Joy already via
>> of Script-A and Script-B, and the same definition of
>> multivector multiplication, as is used in the proof
>> that Script-A Script-B = -1. Under what circumstances
>> are those definitions allowed to be used?
>
> I think that your persisent questions are justified.
papers, emails, FQXi, etc.
> We indeed discussed this in sci.physics.research and I suggested for
> example that perhaps Joy Christian did not define the same lambda for A
> and B; however this has not been confirmed by him.
> And now in this new document it is again not clear (at least not to me!)
> if the lambdas in the equation about measurements at A and B are the same
> "initial lambda", or if they are local lambda's that may differ from each
> other.
Gill?
http://arxiv.org/abs/1203.2529
The hidden variable lambda is common to both A and B and has never been
anything else. Where lambda*I is the 50-50 random chance of handedness for
the parallelized 3-sphere topology involving the particle pairs. It is so
simple that I remain completely baffled that people get stuck on the -1
thing for the product of AB. It is easy to work out (and Joy says it in his
papers now) that the basic outcomes he gives for lambda = +/- 1 for his
definitions of A and B are for when b = a. When b is equal to a, the
product will always be -1. That is a basic constraint of Bell / EPRB. And
the result of -a.b also gives that. For other b not equal to a the outcomes
will fluctuate randomly between +/-1 and thus the product will fluctuate
between +/- 1. The only way to determine what the actual expectation value
will be for E(a, b), is to do the full product math with proper statistic
and averaging, etc. for the parallelized 3-sphere topologies.
Best,
Fred Diether
harald
Apr 2, 2012, 5:06:01 AM4/2/12
to
news:9tmshp...@mid.individual.net...
> The hidden variable lambda is common to both A and B and has never been
> anything else.
Thus you think: lambda at measurement A = lambda at measurement B = initial
lambda...
> Where lambda*I is the 50-50 random chance of handedness for the
> parallelized 3-sphere topology involving the particle pairs. It is so
> simple that I remain completely baffled that people get stuck on the -1
> thing for the product of AB. It is easy to work out (and Joy says it in
> his papers now) that the basic outcomes he gives for lambda = +/- 1 for
> his definitions of A and B are for when b = a. [..]
Well that is of cours the whole point of the discussion (at least of most
discussions), that seems to be totally incompatible with how he writes it
down, if he uses normal notation. For example I get, *by the definition* of
eq. 27, 28 (and not-withstanding his following sentence which seems to
contradict it!):
For lambda = +1:
- observed result at A = (a, +1) = +1
- observed result at B = (b, +1) = +1
Thus I get that if lambda (according to you the same initial lambda) is +1
then the result is +1, for all a and for all b - and I can't see how it can
mean anything else. If you disagree, please correct this math as you think
that it should be done. Perhaps then I can at least understand how you
understand it!
Best,
Harald
> "harald" <hv...@swissonline.ch> wrote in message
> news:jl3s0s$iqd$1...@dont-email.me...
>>
>> "Daryl McCullough" <stevend...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>> news:9401527.2346.1333023069211.JavaMail.geo-discussion-forums@vbiz13...
>
>>> In deriving his correlation, he uses the same definitions
>>> of Script-A and Script-B, and the same definition of
>>> multivector multiplication, as is used in the proof
>>> that Script-A Script-B = -1. Under what circumstances
>>> are those definitions allowed to be used?
>>
>> I think that your persisent questions are justified.
>
> No they are not. This has been explained to death by Joy already via
> papers, emails, FQXi, etc.
>
>> We indeed discussed this in sci.physics.research and I suggested for
>> example that perhaps Joy Christian did not define the same lambda for A
>> and B; however this has not been confirmed by him.
>> And now in this new document it is again not clear (at least not to me!)
>> if the lambdas in the equation about measurements at A and B are the same
>> "initial lambda", or if they are local lambda's that may differ from each
>> other.
>
> Exactly which new document are your referring to? Joy's arXiv response to
> Gill?
>
> http://arxiv.org/abs/1203.2529
Exactly.
> news:jl3s0s$iqd$1...@dont-email.me...
>>
>> "Daryl McCullough" <stevend...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>> news:9401527.2346.1333023069211.JavaMail.geo-discussion-forums@vbiz13...
>
>>> In deriving his correlation, he uses the same definitions
>>> of Script-A and Script-B, and the same definition of
>>> multivector multiplication, as is used in the proof
>>> that Script-A Script-B = -1. Under what circumstances
>>> are those definitions allowed to be used?
>>
>> I think that your persisent questions are justified.
>
> No they are not. This has been explained to death by Joy already via
> papers, emails, FQXi, etc.
>
>> We indeed discussed this in sci.physics.research and I suggested for
>> example that perhaps Joy Christian did not define the same lambda for A
>> and B; however this has not been confirmed by him.
>> And now in this new document it is again not clear (at least not to me!)
>> if the lambdas in the equation about measurements at A and B are the same
>> "initial lambda", or if they are local lambda's that may differ from each
>> other.
>
> Exactly which new document are your referring to? Joy's arXiv response to
> Gill?
>
> http://arxiv.org/abs/1203.2529
> The hidden variable lambda is common to both A and B and has never been
> anything else.
lambda...
> Where lambda*I is the 50-50 random chance of handedness for the
> parallelized 3-sphere topology involving the particle pairs. It is so
> simple that I remain completely baffled that people get stuck on the -1
> thing for the product of AB. It is easy to work out (and Joy says it in
> his papers now) that the basic outcomes he gives for lambda = +/- 1 for
Well that is of cours the whole point of the discussion (at least of most
discussions), that seems to be totally incompatible with how he writes it
down, if he uses normal notation. For example I get, *by the definition* of
eq. 27, 28 (and not-withstanding his following sentence which seems to
contradict it!):
For lambda = +1:
- observed result at A = (a, +1) = +1
- observed result at B = (b, +1) = +1
Thus I get that if lambda (according to you the same initial lambda) is +1
then the result is +1, for all a and for all b - and I can't see how it can
mean anything else. If you disagree, please correct this math as you think
that it should be done. Perhaps then I can at least understand how you
understand it!
Best,
Harald
FrediFizzx
Apr 2, 2012, 11:09:23 PM4/2/12
to
"harald" <hv...@swissonline.ch> wrote in message
news:jlbml4$hi6$1...@dont-email.me...
am not sure if you are confusing yourself somehow. Both measurements at A
and B *depend* on the initial lambda. It has never been any other way.
>> Where lambda*I is the 50-50 random chance of handedness for the
>> parallelized 3-sphere topology involving the particle pairs. It is so
>> simple that I remain completely baffled that people get stuck on the -1
>> thing for the product of AB. It is easy to work out (and Joy says it in
>> his papers now) that the basic outcomes he gives for lambda = +/- 1 for
>> his definitions of A and B are for when b = a. [..]
>
> Well that is of cours the whole point of the discussion (at least of most
> discussions), that seems to be totally incompatible with how he writes it
> down, if he uses normal notation. For example I get, *by the definition*
> of eq. 27, 28 (and not-withstanding his following sentence which seems to
> contradict it!):
> For lambda = +1:
> - observed result at A = (a, +1) = +1
> - observed result at B = (b, +1) = +1
>
> Thus I get that if lambda (according to you the same initial lambda) is +1
> then the result is +1, for all a and for all b - and I can't see how it
> can mean anything else. If you disagree, please correct this math as you
> think that it should be done. Perhaps then I can at least understand how
> you understand it!
what *has* to happen when b = -a? Answer that and we will continue.
Best,
Fred Diether
harald
Apr 3, 2012, 4:16:31 AM4/3/12
to
news:9tv4ed...@mid.individual.net...
[..]
is for example an intial lambda at the point of emission that is unchangable
for each entangled pair. Thus you confirmed that is how you interpret
Chrisitan's lambda.
[..]
> Please fix your mistake. When lambda = +1, then B = -1 when b = a. Now
> what *has* to happen when b = -a? Answer that and we will continue.
Sorry for the glitch. Ok then:
For example I get, *by the definition* of eq. 27, 28
(and not-withstanding his following sentence which seems to
contradict it!):
For lambda = +1:
- observed result at A = (a, +1) = +1
- observed result at B = (b, +1) = -1
Thus I get that if lambda (according to you the same initial lambda)
is +1 then the result is +1, for all a and for all b.
Thus necessarily by Joy's definition, for b = -a:
and I can't see how it can mean anything else; it *has* to happen according
to his defined functions.
So, please correct this math as you think that it should be done.
[..]
>>>> We indeed discussed this in sci.physics.research and I suggested for
>>>> example that perhaps Joy Christian did not define the same lambda for A
>>>> and B; however this has not been confirmed by him.
>>>> And now in this new document it is again not clear (at least not to
>>>> me!) if the lambdas in the equation about measurements at A and B are
>>>> the same "initial lambda", or if they are local lambda's that may
>>>> differ from each other.
>>>
>>> Exactly which new document are your referring to? Joy's arXiv response
>>> to Gill?
>>>
>>> http://arxiv.org/abs/1203.2529
>>
>> Exactly.
>>
>>> The hidden variable lambda is common to both A and B and has never been
>>> anything else.
>>
>> Thus you think: lambda at measurement A = lambda at measurement B =
>> initial lambda...
>
> Basically yes. But there is really no "lambda at measurement A or B". So
> I am not sure if you are confusing yourself somehow. Both measurements at
> A and B *depend* on the initial lambda. It has never been any other way.
There is no confusion: lambda can mean many things. One of the possibilities
>>>> example that perhaps Joy Christian did not define the same lambda for A
>>>> and B; however this has not been confirmed by him.
>>>> And now in this new document it is again not clear (at least not to
>>>> me!) if the lambdas in the equation about measurements at A and B are
>>>> the same "initial lambda", or if they are local lambda's that may
>>>> differ from each other.
>>>
>>> Exactly which new document are your referring to? Joy's arXiv response
>>> to Gill?
>>>
>>> http://arxiv.org/abs/1203.2529
>>
>> Exactly.
>>
>>> The hidden variable lambda is common to both A and B and has never been
>>> anything else.
>>
>> Thus you think: lambda at measurement A = lambda at measurement B =
>> initial lambda...
>
> Basically yes. But there is really no "lambda at measurement A or B". So
> I am not sure if you are confusing yourself somehow. Both measurements at
> A and B *depend* on the initial lambda. It has never been any other way.
is for example an intial lambda at the point of emission that is unchangable
for each entangled pair. Thus you confirmed that is how you interpret
Chrisitan's lambda.
[..]
> Please fix your mistake. When lambda = +1, then B = -1 when b = a. Now
> what *has* to happen when b = -a? Answer that and we will continue.
For example I get, *by the definition* of eq. 27, 28
(and not-withstanding his following sentence which seems to
contradict it!):
For lambda = +1:
- observed result at A = (a, +1) = +1
Thus I get that if lambda (according to you the same initial lambda)
Thus necessarily by Joy's definition, for b = -a:
- observed result at A = (a, +1) = +1
- observed result at B = (b, +1) = -1
and I can't see how it can mean anything else; it *has* to happen according
to his defined functions.
So, please correct this math as you think that it should be done.
Perhaps then I can at least understand how you understand it!
Harald
FrediFizzx
Apr 3, 2012, 2:37:57 PM4/3/12
to
"harald" <hv...@swissonline.ch> wrote in message
news:jle84b$bts$1...@dont-email.me...
Bell / EPR. Also remember that Joy has said elsewhere that eq. 27, 28 are
for when b = a. And it is easy to see that when applied to Bell / EPR.
> So, please correct this math as you think that it should be done.
> Perhaps then I can at least understand how you understand it!
B in the *experiment* when b = -a?
Best,
Fred Diether
harald
Apr 4, 2012, 8:26:52 AM4/4/12
to
news:9u0qrf...@mid.individual.net...
[..]
show my error here.
> Remember, this is about Bell / EPR. Also remember that Joy has said
> elsewhere that eq. 27, 28 are for when b = a. And it is easy to see that
> when applied to Bell / EPR.
Fred, what you say is just what we all are saying; and as you see, his
equations are not compatible with that - that is the whole point!
>> So, please correct this math as you think that it should be done.
>> Perhaps then I can at least understand how you understand it!
>
> Sorry, I guess I wasn't clear enough. What has to be the results for A
> and B in the *experiment* when b = -a?
I suppose that with that you mean, what will be measured at a 90 degrees
rotation difference in case of optical experiments, or up/down inversion for
electron measurements? That depends a bit on the setup and data analysis, so
I'll take it that you mean ideally, or according to QM.
If I'm not mistaken (and that easily happens to me with this topic), in that
case one expects to find good correlation, so that when the observed result
at A is +1, then at B it also will be +1; and when at A it is -1, then also
at B it will be -1.
Of course, the problem is that Christian's definitions appear to be
incompatible with such observations, and his following suggestions that they
are compatible cannot change that.
Best,
Harald
> "harald" <hv...@swissonline.ch> wrote in message
> news:jle84b$bts$1...@dont-email.me...
>>
>> "FrediFizzx" <fredi...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:9tv4ed...@mid.individual.net...
>>> "harald" <hv...@swissonline.ch> wrote in message
[..]
>>For lambda = +1:
> news:jle84b$bts$1...@dont-email.me...
>>
>> "FrediFizzx" <fredi...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:9tv4ed...@mid.individual.net...
>>> "harald" <hv...@swissonline.ch> wrote in message
[..]
[..]
>> Thus necessarily by Joy's definition, for b = -a:
>> - observed result at A = (a, +1) = +1
>> - observed result at B = (b, +1) = -1
>> and I can't see how it can mean anything else; it *has* to happen
>> according to his defined functions.
> It is impossible to get those results when b = -a.
The problem is, how can his equations possibly give something else? Please
>> - observed result at A = (a, +1) = +1
>> - observed result at B = (b, +1) = -1
>> and I can't see how it can mean anything else; it *has* to happen
>> according to his defined functions.
> It is impossible to get those results when b = -a.
show my error here.
> Remember, this is about Bell / EPR. Also remember that Joy has said
> elsewhere that eq. 27, 28 are for when b = a. And it is easy to see that
> when applied to Bell / EPR.
equations are not compatible with that - that is the whole point!
>> So, please correct this math as you think that it should be done.
>> Perhaps then I can at least understand how you understand it!
>
> Sorry, I guess I wasn't clear enough. What has to be the results for A
> and B in the *experiment* when b = -a?
rotation difference in case of optical experiments, or up/down inversion for
electron measurements? That depends a bit on the setup and data analysis, so
I'll take it that you mean ideally, or according to QM.
If I'm not mistaken (and that easily happens to me with this topic), in that
case one expects to find good correlation, so that when the observed result
at A is +1, then at B it also will be +1; and when at A it is -1, then also
at B it will be -1.
Of course, the problem is that Christian's definitions appear to be
incompatible with such observations, and his following suggestions that they
are compatible cannot change that.
Best,
Harald
FrediFizzx
Apr 4, 2012, 9:45:58 PM4/4/12
to
"harald" <hv...@swissonline.ch> wrote in message
news:jlhb5m$2bv$1...@dont-email.me...
>
> "FrediFizzx" <fredi...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:9u0qrf...@mid.individual.net...
>> "harald" <hv...@swissonline.ch> wrote in message
>> news:jle84b$bts$1...@dont-email.me...
>>>
>>> "FrediFizzx" <fredi...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>>> news:9tv4ed...@mid.individual.net...
>>>> "harald" <hv...@swissonline.ch> wrote in message
> [..]
>>>For lambda = +1:
> [..]
>>> Thus necessarily by Joy's definition, for b = -a:
>>> - observed result at A = (a, +1) = +1
>>> - observed result at B = (b, +1) = -1
>>> and I can't see how it can mean anything else; it *has* to happen
>>> according to his defined functions.
>
>> It is impossible to get those results when b = -a.
>
> The problem is, how can his equations possibly give something else? Please
> show my error here.
>
>> Remember, this is about Bell / EPR. Also remember that Joy has said
>> elsewhere that eq. 27, 28 are for when b = a. And it is easy to see that
>> when applied to Bell / EPR.
>
> Fred, what you say is just what we all are saying; and as you see, his
> equations are not compatible with that - that is the whole point!
Don't get ahead of the logic of the explanation; you will just continue to
> "FrediFizzx" <fredi...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:9u0qrf...@mid.individual.net...
>> "harald" <hv...@swissonline.ch> wrote in message
>> news:jle84b$bts$1...@dont-email.me...
>>>
>>> "FrediFizzx" <fredi...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>>> news:9tv4ed...@mid.individual.net...
>>>> "harald" <hv...@swissonline.ch> wrote in message
> [..]
>>>For lambda = +1:
> [..]
>>> Thus necessarily by Joy's definition, for b = -a:
>>> - observed result at A = (a, +1) = +1
>>> - observed result at B = (b, +1) = -1
>>> and I can't see how it can mean anything else; it *has* to happen
>>> according to his defined functions.
>
>> It is impossible to get those results when b = -a.
>
> The problem is, how can his equations possibly give something else? Please
> show my error here.
>
>> Remember, this is about Bell / EPR. Also remember that Joy has said
>> elsewhere that eq. 27, 28 are for when b = a. And it is easy to see that
>> when applied to Bell / EPR.
>
> Fred, what you say is just what we all are saying; and as you see, his
> equations are not compatible with that - that is the whole point!
trick yourself into believing something that isn't right. At this point we
have eq. 27, 28 and applying what Joy said elsewhere about them being for
when b = a only they are 100 percent correct.
>>> So, please correct this math as you think that it should be done.
>>> Perhaps then I can at least understand how you understand it!
>>
>> Sorry, I guess I wasn't clear enough. What has to be the results for A
>> and B in the *experiment* when b = -a?
>
> I suppose that with that you mean, what will be measured at a 90 degrees
> rotation difference in case of optical experiments, or up/down inversion
> for electron measurements? That depends a bit on the setup and data
> analysis, so I'll take it that you mean ideally, or according to QM.
> If I'm not mistaken (and that easily happens to me with this topic), in
> that case one expects to find good correlation, so that when the observed
> result at A is +1, then at B it also will be +1; and when at A it is -1,
> then also at B it will be -1.
is correct and the product will *always* be AB = +1 when b = -a. Now, what
does that tell us what Joy's functions A and B have to be when b = -a?
Remember, Joy only specified them for when b = a.
Best,
Fred Diether
harald
Apr 5, 2012, 6:00:38 AM4/5/12
to
news:9u48a0...@mid.individual.net...
>> http://arxiv.org/abs/1203.2529
>>>>For lambda = +1
>> [..]
>>>> Thus necessarily by Joy's definition, for b = -a:
>>>> - observed result at A = (a, +1) = +1
>>>> - observed result at B = (b, +1) = -1
>>>> and I can't see how it can mean anything else; it *has* to happen
>>>> according to his defined functions.
>>
>>> It is impossible to get those results when b = -a.
>>
>> The problem is, how can his equations possibly give something else?
>> Please show my error here.
[..]
> At this point we have eq. 27, 28 and applying what Joy said elsewhere
> about them being for when b = a only they are 100 percent correct.
Good - we're finally getting somewhere. :-)
Where is this "elsewhere"? Please specify if you can! Without such a
corrective specification of those definitions elsewhere, my equations here
above are the consequence of his definitions. Which is why I speculated that
he allows for different local lambda's (but I think that he never specified
that in his papers), and why you claim that those definitions are only for
a=b (but I think that he never specified that in his papers).
>>>> So, please correct this math as you think that it should be done.
>>>> Perhaps then I can at least understand how you understand it!
>>>
>>> Sorry, I guess I wasn't clear enough. What has to be the results for A
>>> and B in the *experiment* when b = -a?
>>
>> I suppose that with that you mean, what will be measured at a 90 degrees
>> rotation difference in case of optical experiments, or up/down inversion
>> for electron measurements? That depends a bit on the setup and data
>> analysis, so I'll take it that you mean ideally, or according to QM.
>> If I'm not mistaken (and that easily happens to me with this topic), in
>> that case one expects to find good correlation, so that when the observed
>> result at A is +1, then at B it also will be +1; and when at A it is -1,
>> then also at B it will be -1.
>
> We are talking about EPR-Bohm here so 180 degrees is b = -a. What you
> said is correct and the product will *always* be AB = +1 when b = -a.
> Now, what does that tell us what Joy's functions A and B have to be when b
> = -a? Remember, Joy only specified them for when b = a.
And that's the sticking point (again)!
I think that Daryl has been trying to clarify for his last 50 messages or so
(and I certainly agree and spent also a number of messages on that in
sci.physics.research) that Joy's definitions of equations 27, 28 are for all
possible a and b, and not only for a=b. It's very basic.
Evidently you disagree, so like Daryl I would like to know where in his
definition (or in his introduction to his definition, but not in other
explanations or claims!) he specifies that eq.27,28are for a=b only and not
some other writings), that it's just a persistent slip-up and that he
specified this elsewhere, as you state here above. So, it's already a great
progress (and the end of 100 or so messages!) if you can show where he
clarified that essential point, for apparently I and others overlooked that
clarification.
Best,
Harald
> "harald" <hv...@swissonline.ch> wrote in message
> news:jlhb5m$2bv$1...@dont-email.me...
>>
>> "FrediFizzx" <fredi...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:9u0qrf...@mid.individual.net...
>>> "harald" <hv...@swissonline.ch> wrote in message
>>> news:jle84b$bts$1...@dont-email.me...
[..]
> news:jlhb5m$2bv$1...@dont-email.me...
>>
>> "FrediFizzx" <fredi...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:9u0qrf...@mid.individual.net...
>>> "harald" <hv...@swissonline.ch> wrote in message
>>> news:jle84b$bts$1...@dont-email.me...
>> http://arxiv.org/abs/1203.2529
>>>>For lambda = +1
>> [..]
>>>> Thus necessarily by Joy's definition, for b = -a:
>>>> - observed result at A = (a, +1) = +1
>>>> - observed result at B = (b, +1) = -1
>>>> and I can't see how it can mean anything else; it *has* to happen
>>>> according to his defined functions.
>>
>>> It is impossible to get those results when b = -a.
>>
>> The problem is, how can his equations possibly give something else?
>> Please show my error here.
> At this point we have eq. 27, 28 and applying what Joy said elsewhere
> about them being for when b = a only they are 100 percent correct.
Where is this "elsewhere"? Please specify if you can! Without such a
corrective specification of those definitions elsewhere, my equations here
above are the consequence of his definitions. Which is why I speculated that
he allows for different local lambda's (but I think that he never specified
that in his papers), and why you claim that those definitions are only for
a=b (but I think that he never specified that in his papers).
>>>> So, please correct this math as you think that it should be done.
>>>> Perhaps then I can at least understand how you understand it!
>>>
>>> Sorry, I guess I wasn't clear enough. What has to be the results for A
>>> and B in the *experiment* when b = -a?
>>
>> I suppose that with that you mean, what will be measured at a 90 degrees
>> rotation difference in case of optical experiments, or up/down inversion
>> for electron measurements? That depends a bit on the setup and data
>> analysis, so I'll take it that you mean ideally, or according to QM.
>> If I'm not mistaken (and that easily happens to me with this topic), in
>> that case one expects to find good correlation, so that when the observed
>> result at A is +1, then at B it also will be +1; and when at A it is -1,
>> then also at B it will be -1.
>
> We are talking about EPR-Bohm here so 180 degrees is b = -a. What you
> said is correct and the product will *always* be AB = +1 when b = -a.
> Now, what does that tell us what Joy's functions A and B have to be when b
> = -a? Remember, Joy only specified them for when b = a.
I think that Daryl has been trying to clarify for his last 50 messages or so
(and I certainly agree and spent also a number of messages on that in
sci.physics.research) that Joy's definitions of equations 27, 28 are for all
possible a and b, and not only for a=b. It's very basic.
Evidently you disagree, so like Daryl I would like to know where in his
definition (or in his introduction to his definition, but not in other
explanations or claims!) he specifies that eq.27,28are for a=b only and not
for all a and b.
Of course, it may be that he simply forgot to mention it there (but also in
some other writings), that it's just a persistent slip-up and that he
specified this elsewhere, as you state here above. So, it's already a great
progress (and the end of 100 or so messages!) if you can show where he
clarified that essential point, for apparently I and others overlooked that
clarification.
Best,
Harald
FrediFizzx
Apr 5, 2012, 8:26:34 PM4/5/12
to
"harald" <hv...@swissonline.ch> wrote in message
news:jljmvh$sl$1...@dont-email.me...
But as you can see so far, the fact that eq. 27, 28 are only for when b = a
is *implicit* knowing what EPR-Bohm / Bell are all about. They *can't* be
for when b is not equal to b. Anyone should easily be able to see that. If
they don't, then they don't know about Bell's theorem and EPR-Bohm.
>>>>> So, please correct this math as you think that it should be done.
>>>>> Perhaps then I can at least understand how you understand it!
>>>>
>>>> Sorry, I guess I wasn't clear enough. What has to be the results for A
>>>> and B in the *experiment* when b = -a?
>>>
>>> I suppose that with that you mean, what will be measured at a 90 degrees
>>> rotation difference in case of optical experiments, or up/down inversion
>>> for electron measurements? That depends a bit on the setup and data
>>> analysis, so I'll take it that you mean ideally, or according to QM.
>>> If I'm not mistaken (and that easily happens to me with this topic), in
>>> that case one expects to find good correlation, so that when the
>>> observed result at A is +1, then at B it also will be +1; and when at A
>>> it is -1, then also at B it will be -1.
>>
>> We are talking about EPR-Bohm here so 180 degrees is b = -a. What you
>> said is correct and the product will *always* be AB = +1 when b = -a.
>> Now, what does that tell us what Joy's functions A and B have to be when
>> b = -a? Remember, Joy only specified them for when b = a.
A and B *have to be* when b = -a?
[stuff snipped that is taking you off course]
Best,
Fred Diether
FrediFizzx
Apr 5, 2012, 9:04:46 PM4/5/12
to
"FrediFizzx" <fredi...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:9u6o14...@mid.individual.net...
FrediFizzx
Apr 5, 2012, 10:48:36 PM4/5/12
to
"FrediFizzx" <fredi...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:9u6o14...@mid.individual.net...
> that. If they don't, then they don't know about Bell's theorem and
> EPR-Bohm.
>
>>>>>> So, please correct this math as you think that it should be done.
>>>>>> Perhaps then I can at least understand how you understand it!
>>>>>
>>>>> Sorry, I guess I wasn't clear enough. What has to be the results for
>>>>> A and B in the *experiment* when b = -a?
>>>>
>>>> I suppose that with that you mean, what will be measured at a 90
>>>> degrees rotation difference in case of optical experiments, or up/down
>>>> inversion for electron measurements? That depends a bit on the setup
>>>> and data analysis, so I'll take it that you mean ideally, or according
>>>> to QM.
>>>> If I'm not mistaken (and that easily happens to me with this topic), in
>>>> that case one expects to find good correlation, so that when the
>>>> observed result at A is +1, then at B it also will be +1; and when at A
>>>> it is -1, then also at B it will be -1.
>>>
>>> We are talking about EPR-Bohm here so 180 degrees is b = -a. What you
>>> said is correct and the product will *always* be AB = +1 when b = -a.
>>> Now, what does that tell us what Joy's functions A and B have to be when
>>> b = -a? Remember, Joy only specified them for when b = a.
>
> Please answer my question. Now, what does that tell us what Joy's
> functions A and B *have to be* when b = -a?
Well... let me just continue with the answer since you seem to be getting
> EPR-Bohm.
>
>>>>>> So, please correct this math as you think that it should be done.
>>>>>> Perhaps then I can at least understand how you understand it!
>>>>>
>>>>> Sorry, I guess I wasn't clear enough. What has to be the results for
>>>>> A and B in the *experiment* when b = -a?
>>>>
>>>> I suppose that with that you mean, what will be measured at a 90
>>>> degrees rotation difference in case of optical experiments, or up/down
>>>> inversion for electron measurements? That depends a bit on the setup
>>>> and data analysis, so I'll take it that you mean ideally, or according
>>>> to QM.
>>>> If I'm not mistaken (and that easily happens to me with this topic), in
>>>> that case one expects to find good correlation, so that when the
>>>> observed result at A is +1, then at B it also will be +1; and when at A
>>>> it is -1, then also at B it will be -1.
>>>
>>> We are talking about EPR-Bohm here so 180 degrees is b = -a. What you
>>> said is correct and the product will *always* be AB = +1 when b = -a.
>>> Now, what does that tell us what Joy's functions A and B have to be when
>>> b = -a? Remember, Joy only specified them for when b = a.
>
> Please answer my question. Now, what does that tell us what Joy's
> functions A and B *have to be* when b = -a?
anxious. Either eq. 27 or 28 will have to have a minus sign in front of it
when b = -a. So we will have either (I'm taking a notation short cut with
27 and 28),
A = - (-I.a)(mu.a)
B = (I.b)(mu.b)
or we will have,
A = (-I.a)(mu.a)
B = - (I.b)(mu.b)
And you can work those out with mu = lambda*I where lambda is +/- 1 to see
that you will always get an AB product of + 1 when b = -a as one should for
an EPR-Bohm scenario (remembering that I^2 = -1). So the functions are
basically the same; we just have some minus signs on them compared to when b
= a. Of course you are wondering... why? ENTER the torsion or "twist" due
to the Hopf fibration of the parallelized 3-sphere topology. And the sign
changes *are not* a variable in the model. They are simply a *consequence*
of the topology.
Now, we can already see that we will have no way of knowing if the sign
change will be on the A function or the B function. And the same thing
happens when b is not equal to a. That is why Joy has been insisting all
along that "A(a, L) and B(b, L) are not *algebraic* variables, but they are
clearly *statistical* or *random* variables." So... when b is not equal to
a, you will have A = +/-1 and you will have B = +/-1 randomly.
Now............................. The bottom line is that when you go thru
all the math operations for proper statistical analysis, etc., ( and I hope
you take the time to check it) those sign changes all cancel out and we are
left with,
(mu.a)(mu.b)
Take the average of the many runs of the experiment as the limit of n >>1,
then you get the result of -a.b. Bazinga!
You asked how I see it and that is how I see it. It is perfectly explained
if you take the time to think about it properly and not get distracted by
people that will NEVER be able to understand Joy's model because they are
hung up on trying to keep the mystical aspect of QM. There is nothing I
explained above that is not already in Joy's papers in some kind of form.
Again... Joy's functions for A and B when b = a work because he does the
proper *statistical* procedure. Take the time to study it properly, and you
will see for yourself.
Best,
Fred Diether
harald
Apr 10, 2012, 5:19:14 AM4/10/12
to
news:9u6o14...@mid.individual.net...
Thanks! I cite:
"they [the observations] are statistically independent events [..].
Therefore their product AB is
guaranteed to be equal to -1 only for the special case alpha=beta".
There he does *not* state that his definitions are only for alpha=beta, but
that the product AB= -1 only for alpha=beta. I already referred to such
statements in my earlier post when I wrote: "not-withstanding his following
sentence which seems to contradict it". What you are doing here is
*assuming* that there is no blunder in Joy's writings, as I also did, and
then inventing a possible explanation for him.
However, Joy does remark here what he also did in a comment on a post of
mine in sci.physics.research of which I'll paste part here (Monday, February
06, 2012 10:54 AM, Joy Christian's Work on Bell's Inequality):
[me:]
"
>> the unknown variable belonging to a single entangled pair is still not a
>> fixed constant
>> [..]Thus [..] the same unknown variable can have a different sign when
>> measured by Alice than when measured by Bob.
"
[Joy's reply:]
"
This is essentially correct. [..] A and B are *statistically independent
events*.
"
I did not see mention that A and B are statistically independent events
included in either your or my explanation.
[with correction of your typo:]
> But as you can see so far, the fact that eq. 27, 28 are only for when when
> b is not equal to a is *implicit* knowing what EPR-Bohm / Bell are all
as everyone as well as I again explained. ;-)
Thus we have so far the following explanations:
1. (most people:) Joy Christian made a colossal blunder (Joy: "not at all"!)
2. (your suggestion:) his definitions of eq.27,28 are only for alpha=beta
(Fred did Joy agree with that?!)
2. (my earlier suggestion:) lambda at A differs from lambda at B (Joy:
"essentially correct"!)
3. (Joy's own precision:) A and B are statistically independent events.
>From this overview here I get, *not* that his definitions are only for
alpha=beta, but that as I thought and he apparently confirmed, a single
measurement pair A and B are not necessarily functions of the same lambda in
his model (except for alpha=beta). However, his model is still unclear to
me, as it is for most people.
[..]
>>> We are talking about EPR-Bohm here so 180 degrees is b = -a. What you
>>> said is correct and the product will *always* be AB = +1 when b = -a.
>>> Now, what does that tell us what Joy's functions A and B have to be when
>>> b = -a? Remember, Joy only specified them for when b = a.
>
> Please answer my question. Now, what does that tell us what Joy's
> functions A and B *have to be* when b = -a?
I already told you: assuming that he is not God, his functions *should* be
in agreement with that - see also my summary here above. ;-)
As he kind of agreed with my interpretation, I'm now curious to know if he
also kind of agreed with yours. Can you confirm that?
Cheers,
Harald
"they [the observations] are statistically independent events [..].
Therefore their product AB is
guaranteed to be equal to -1 only for the special case alpha=beta".
There he does *not* state that his definitions are only for alpha=beta, but
that the product AB= -1 only for alpha=beta. I already referred to such
statements in my earlier post when I wrote: "not-withstanding his following
sentence which seems to contradict it". What you are doing here is
*assuming* that there is no blunder in Joy's writings, as I also did, and
then inventing a possible explanation for him.
However, Joy does remark here what he also did in a comment on a post of
mine in sci.physics.research of which I'll paste part here (Monday, February
06, 2012 10:54 AM, Joy Christian's Work on Bell's Inequality):
[me:]
"
>> the unknown variable belonging to a single entangled pair is still not a
>> fixed constant
>> [..]Thus [..] the same unknown variable can have a different sign when
>> measured by Alice than when measured by Bob.
"
[Joy's reply:]
"
This is essentially correct. [..] A and B are *statistically independent
events*.
"
I did not see mention that A and B are statistically independent events
included in either your or my explanation.
[with correction of your typo:]
> But as you can see so far, the fact that eq. 27, 28 are only for when when
> b is not equal to a is *implicit* knowing what EPR-Bohm / Bell are all
> about. They *can't* be for when b is not equal to b. Anyone should
> easily be able to see that. If they don't, then they don't know about
> Bell's theorem and EPR-Bohm.
Everyone sees that as everyone knows that; and that's the point of everyone
> easily be able to see that. If they don't, then they don't know about
> Bell's theorem and EPR-Bohm.
as everyone as well as I again explained. ;-)
Thus we have so far the following explanations:
1. (most people:) Joy Christian made a colossal blunder (Joy: "not at all"!)
2. (your suggestion:) his definitions of eq.27,28 are only for alpha=beta
(Fred did Joy agree with that?!)
2. (my earlier suggestion:) lambda at A differs from lambda at B (Joy:
"essentially correct"!)
3. (Joy's own precision:) A and B are statistically independent events.
>From this overview here I get, *not* that his definitions are only for
alpha=beta, but that as I thought and he apparently confirmed, a single
measurement pair A and B are not necessarily functions of the same lambda in
his model (except for alpha=beta). However, his model is still unclear to
me, as it is for most people.
[..]
>>> We are talking about EPR-Bohm here so 180 degrees is b = -a. What you
>>> said is correct and the product will *always* be AB = +1 when b = -a.
>>> Now, what does that tell us what Joy's functions A and B have to be when
>>> b = -a? Remember, Joy only specified them for when b = a.
>
> Please answer my question. Now, what does that tell us what Joy's
> functions A and B *have to be* when b = -a?
in agreement with that - see also my summary here above. ;-)
As he kind of agreed with my interpretation, I'm now curious to know if he
also kind of agreed with yours. Can you confirm that?
Cheers,
Harald
FrediFizzx
Apr 11, 2012, 12:05:31 AM4/11/12
to
"harald" <hv...@swissonline.ch> wrote in message
news:jm0qdt$h6l$1...@dont-email.me...
for eq. 27, 28. There is nothing "invented" by what I said. It is all
implicit from the knowledge of Bell and EPRB.
> However, Joy does remark here what he also did in a comment on a post of
> mine in sci.physics.research of which I'll paste part here (Monday,
> February 06, 2012 10:54 AM, Joy Christian's Work on Bell's Inequality):
>
> [me:]
> "
>>> the unknown variable belonging to a single entangled pair is still not a
>>> fixed constant
>>> [..]Thus [..] the same unknown variable can have a different sign when
>>> measured by Alice than when measured by Bob.
> "
below don't sound right together.
> [Joy's reply:]
> "
> This is essentially correct. [..] A and B are *statistically independent
> events*.
> "
>
> I did not see mention that A and B are statistically independent events
> included in either your or my explanation.
>
> [with correction of your typo:]
>> But as you can see so far, the fact that eq. 27, 28 are only for when
>> when b is not equal to a is *implicit* knowing what EPR-Bohm / Bell are
>> all about. They *can't* be for when b is not equal to b. Anyone should
>> easily be able to see that. If they don't, then they don't know about
>> Bell's theorem and EPR-Bohm.
"But as you can see so far, the fact that eq. 27, 28 are only for when b = a
is *implicit* knowing what EPR-Bohm / Bell are all about. They *can't* be
for when b is not equal to a. Anyone should easily be able to see that. If
they don't, then they don't know about Bell's theorem and EPR-Bohm."
> Everyone sees that as everyone knows that; and that's the point of
> everyone as everyone as well as I again explained. ;-)
>
> Thus we have so far the following explanations:
>
> 1. (most people:) Joy Christian made a colossal blunder (Joy: "not at
> all"!)
Joy's model is 100 percent correct both mathematically and physically. The
> Everyone sees that as everyone knows that; and that's the point of
> everyone as everyone as well as I again explained. ;-)
>
> Thus we have so far the following explanations:
>
> 1. (most people:) Joy Christian made a colossal blunder (Joy: "not at
> all"!)
ONLY thing anyone should possibly be complaining about is the 3-sphere
topology but that is part of Joy's postulates and it makes everything
*physically* work. And since Joy has gone on to show that 7-sphere topology
can explain all quantum correlations, we have to take his topology
postulates serious.
> 2. (your suggestion:) his definitions of eq.27,28 are only for alpha=beta
> (Fred did Joy agree with that?!)
for when b = a (there is no alpha and beta in those equations). And it is
easy for anyone to work out if they know Bell and EPR-Bohm.
> 2. (my earlier suggestion:) lambda at A differs from lambda at B (Joy:
> "essentially correct"!)
B! There is only lambda at the instant of creation of the "entangled" pair
and it is common to both measurements at A and B.
> 3. (Joy's own precision:) A and B are statistically independent events.
>>From this overview here I get, *not* that his definitions are only for
> alpha=beta, but that as I thought and he apparently confirmed, a single
> measurement pair A and B are not necessarily functions of the same lambda
> in his model (except for alpha=beta). However, his model is still unclear
> to me, as it is for most people.
true given that mu = lambda*I with I being the standard trivector and lambda
being the 50-50 random chance of +1 or -1 when the pair is created.
There are only a few conditions that have to be met for Bell and EPR-Bohm.
They are,
AB = -1 when b = a
A = +/-1
B = +/-1
E(a) = E(b) = 0
E(a, b) = -a.b
Joy's model meets all those conditions. Bell is disproved as applying to
EPR-Bohm.
Best,
Fred Diether
harald
Apr 11, 2012, 4:53:27 AM4/11/12
to
news:9ukank...@mid.individual.net...
[..]
<1c7aef7f-2933-4752...@l1g2000vbc.googlegroups.com>
>> I did not see mention that A and B are statistically independent events
>> included in either your or my explanation.
[with correct correction of your typo:]
That's interesting - please provide a link or message ID as I did.
>> 2. (my earlier suggestion:) lambda at A differs from lambda at B (Joy:
>> "essentially correct"!)
>
> I don't believe Joy would agree to that. There is no lambda at either A
> or B! There is only lambda at the instant of creation of the "entangled"
> pair and it is common to both measurements at A and B.
I won't argue about your beliefs. :-)
>> 3. (Joy's own precision:) A and B are statistically independent events.
>
> That is true.
>
>>>From this overview here I get, *not* that his definitions are only for
>> alpha=beta, but that as I thought and he apparently confirmed, a single
>> measurement pair A and B are not necessarily functions of the same lambda
>> in his model (except for alpha=beta). However, his model is still unclear
>> to me, as it is for most people.
>
> As I mention above, I know that Joy doesn't think what you are saying is
> true given that mu = lambda*I with I being the standard trivector and
> lambda being the 50-50 random chance of +1 or -1 when the pair is created.
Mu didn't play a role in this discussion about lambda and a and b. Your
reply boils down to the opinion that, contrary to what he explained to me,
Joy forgot (and consistently forgets!) to specify when he presents his
definitions that these only apply for a=b. Of all presented possibilities, I
find that explanation the most implausible.
[..]
Best regards,
Harald
[..]
>>>>>> "FrediFizzx" <fredi...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>>>>>> news:9u0qrf...@mid.individual.net...
>>>>>>> "harald" <hv...@swissonline.ch> wrote in message
>>>>>>> news:jle84b$bts$1...@dont-email.me...
>>>> [..]
>>>>>> http://arxiv.org/abs/1203.2529
>>>>
>>>>>>>>For lambda = +1
>>>>>> [..]
>>>>>>>> Thus necessarily by Joy's definition, for b = -a:
>>>>>>>> - observed result at A = (a, +1) = +1
>>>>>>>> - observed result at B = (b, +1) = -1
>>>>>>>> and I can't see how it can mean anything else; it *has* to happen
>>>>>>>> according to his defined functions.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> It is impossible to get those results when b = -a.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The problem is, how can his equations possibly give something else?
>>>>>> Please show my error here.
>>>> [..]
[..]
>>>>>> news:9u0qrf...@mid.individual.net...
>>>>>>> "harald" <hv...@swissonline.ch> wrote in message
>>>>>>> news:jle84b$bts$1...@dont-email.me...
>>>> [..]
>>>>>> http://arxiv.org/abs/1203.2529
>>>>
>>>>>>>>For lambda = +1
>>>>>> [..]
>>>>>>>> Thus necessarily by Joy's definition, for b = -a:
>>>>>>>> - observed result at A = (a, +1) = +1
>>>>>>>> - observed result at B = (b, +1) = -1
>>>>>>>> and I can't see how it can mean anything else; it *has* to happen
>>>>>>>> according to his defined functions.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> It is impossible to get those results when b = -a.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The problem is, how can his equations possibly give something else?
>>>>>> Please show my error here.
>>>> [..]
>> However, Joy does remark here what he also did in a comment on a post of
>> mine in sci.physics.research of which I'll paste part here (Monday,
>> February 06, 2012 10:54 AM, Joy Christian's Work on Bell's Inequality):
>>
>> [me:]
>> "
>>>> the unknown variable belonging to a single entangled pair is still not
>>>> a fixed constant
>>>> [..]Thus [..] the same unknown variable can have a different sign when
>>>> measured by Alice than when measured by Bob.
>> "
>
> Please provide a link to the above. It and Joy's response you provided
> below don't sound right together.
>
>> [Joy's reply:]
>> "
>> This is essentially correct. [..] A and B are *statistically independent
>> events*.
>> "
Better, I can give the Message-ID:
>> mine in sci.physics.research of which I'll paste part here (Monday,
>> February 06, 2012 10:54 AM, Joy Christian's Work on Bell's Inequality):
>>
>> [me:]
>> "
>>>> the unknown variable belonging to a single entangled pair is still not
>>>> a fixed constant
>>>> [..]Thus [..] the same unknown variable can have a different sign when
>>>> measured by Alice than when measured by Bob.
>> "
>
> Please provide a link to the above. It and Joy's response you provided
> below don't sound right together.
>
>> [Joy's reply:]
>> "
>> This is essentially correct. [..] A and B are *statistically independent
>> events*.
>> "
<1c7aef7f-2933-4752...@l1g2000vbc.googlegroups.com>
>> I did not see mention that A and B are statistically independent events
>> included in either your or my explanation.
>
>>> "But as you can see so far, the fact that eq. 27, 28 are only for when b
>>> = a
>>> is *implicit* knowing what EPR-Bohm / Bell are all about. They *can't*
>>> be
>>> for when b is not equal to a. Anyone should easily be able to see that.
>>> If
>>> they don't, then they don't know about Bell's theorem and EPR-Bohm."
>
>> Everyone sees that as everyone knows that; and that's the point of
>> everyone as everyone as well as I again explained. ;-)
>>
>> Thus we have so far the following explanations:
>>
>> 1. (most people:) Joy Christian made a colossal blunder (Joy: "not at
>> all"!)
[..]
>>> "But as you can see so far, the fact that eq. 27, 28 are only for when b
>>> = a
>>> is *implicit* knowing what EPR-Bohm / Bell are all about. They *can't*
>>> be
>>> for when b is not equal to a. Anyone should easily be able to see that.
>>> If
>>> they don't, then they don't know about Bell's theorem and EPR-Bohm."
>
>> Everyone sees that as everyone knows that; and that's the point of
>> everyone as everyone as well as I again explained. ;-)
>>
>> Thus we have so far the following explanations:
>>
>> 1. (most people:) Joy Christian made a colossal blunder (Joy: "not at
>> all"!)
>> 2. (your suggestion:) his definitions of eq.27,28 are only for alpha=beta
>> (Fred did Joy agree with that?!)
>
> Yes, Joy agrees that the specification and outcomes for eq. 27, 28 are
> only for when b = a (there is no alpha and beta in those equations). [..]
>> (Fred did Joy agree with that?!)
>
> Yes, Joy agrees that the specification and outcomes for eq. 27, 28 are
That's interesting - please provide a link or message ID as I did.
>> 2. (my earlier suggestion:) lambda at A differs from lambda at B (Joy:
>> "essentially correct"!)
>
> I don't believe Joy would agree to that. There is no lambda at either A
> or B! There is only lambda at the instant of creation of the "entangled"
> pair and it is common to both measurements at A and B.
>> 3. (Joy's own precision:) A and B are statistically independent events.
>
> That is true.
>
>>>From this overview here I get, *not* that his definitions are only for
>> alpha=beta, but that as I thought and he apparently confirmed, a single
>> measurement pair A and B are not necessarily functions of the same lambda
>> in his model (except for alpha=beta). However, his model is still unclear
>> to me, as it is for most people.
>
> As I mention above, I know that Joy doesn't think what you are saying is
> true given that mu = lambda*I with I being the standard trivector and
> lambda being the 50-50 random chance of +1 or -1 when the pair is created.
reply boils down to the opinion that, contrary to what he explained to me,
Joy forgot (and consistently forgets!) to specify when he presents his
definitions that these only apply for a=b. Of all presented possibilities, I
find that explanation the most implausible.
[..]
Best regards,
Harald
FrediFizzx
Apr 11, 2012, 9:21:03 PM4/11/12
to
"harald" <hv...@swissonline.ch> wrote in message
news:jm3d9h$k51$1...@dont-email.me...
Joy must have misinterpreted what you were asking when he said "This is
essentially correct." if you meant what you are saying above. Oh, you
snipped out what you were saying above in this thread about there being
different lambdas at A and B but it is still below. If you ask that
question to Joy, he would tell you that there is only one lambda for each
particle pair and it will be either +1 or -1. The other sign changes for
the A and B functions are entirely due to the parallelized 3-sphere
topology. That is the point he was making about the Mobius strip example.
>>> I did not see mention that A and B are statistically independent events
>>> included in either your or my explanation.
>
> [with correct correction of your typo:]
>>
>>>> "But as you can see so far, the fact that eq. 27, 28 are only for when
>>>> b = a
>>>> is *implicit* knowing what EPR-Bohm / Bell are all about. They *can't*
>>>> be
>>>> for when b is not equal to a. Anyone should easily be able to see
>>>> that. If
>>>> they don't, then they don't know about Bell's theorem and EPR-Bohm."
>>
>>> Everyone sees that as everyone knows that; and that's the point of
>>> everyone as everyone as well as I again explained. ;-)
>>>
>>> Thus we have so far the following explanations:
>>>
>>> 1. (most people:) Joy Christian made a colossal blunder (Joy: "not at
>>> all"!)
> [..]
>>> 2. (your suggestion:) his definitions of eq.27,28 are only for
>>> alpha=beta (Fred did Joy agree with that?!)
>>
>> Yes, Joy agrees that the specification and outcomes for eq. 27, 28 are
>> only for when b = a (there is no alpha and beta in those equations).
>> [..]
>
> That's interesting - please provide a link or message ID as I did.
something is wrong.
>>> 2. (my earlier suggestion:) lambda at A differs from lambda at B (Joy:
>>> "essentially correct"!)
>>
>> I don't believe Joy would agree to that. There is no lambda at either A
>> or B! There is only lambda at the instant of creation of the "entangled"
>> pair and it is common to both measurements at A and B.
>
> I won't argue about your beliefs. :-)
>>> 3. (Joy's own precision:) A and B are statistically independent events.
>>
>> That is true.
>>
>>>>From this overview here I get, *not* that his definitions are only for
>>> alpha=beta, but that as I thought and he apparently confirmed, a single
>>> measurement pair A and B are not necessarily functions of the same
>>> lambda in his model (except for alpha=beta). However, his model is still
>>> unclear to me, as it is for most people.
>>
>> As I mention above, I know that Joy doesn't think what you are saying is
>> true given that mu = lambda*I with I being the standard trivector and
>> lambda being the 50-50 random chance of +1 or -1 when the pair is
>> created.
>
> Mu didn't play a role in this discussion about lambda and a and b. Your
> reply boils down to the opinion that, contrary to what he explained to me,
> Joy forgot (and consistently forgets!) to specify when he presents his
> definitions that these only apply for a=b. Of all presented possibilities,
> I find that explanation the most implausible.
Where L = lambda and B is for beta. You can clearly see the mu there. Same
thing for eq. (28). Joy doesn't need to specify that eq. 27 and 28 are for
when b = a only every time he writes them. It is completely clear from the
definitions and the knowledge of Bell and EPR-Bohm that the outcomes are for
when b = a. Work it out for yourself. There is no other possibility.
Bottom line is that the functions work as intended when you go thru the
proper statistical process.
Best,
Fred Diether
=============================
On Feb 5, 3:02=A0am, "harald" <h...@swissonline.ch> wrote:
> Basically what I seem to have missed is that in your model, the unknown
> variable belonging to a single entangled pair is still not a fixed
> constant
> (indeed, that should not be expected but it's good to state it
> constant
> explicitly).
> Thus your Mobius strip example is probably meant to illustrate that the
> same
> unknown variable can have a different sign when measured by Alice than
> when
> measured by Bob. And in a certain way your example model can even
> unknown variable can have a different sign when measured by Alice than
> when
> reproduce
> the cosine correlation between measurement results - is that correct?
This is essentially correct. The hidden variable
mu -- above all -- is a *random variable*, and so
are A and B, because they are functions of a
random variable, mu. What is more, they are
*different* functions of mu, and therefore A = -B
holds only for a = b. Moreover, A and B are
*statistically independent events*, which means
that the joint probability of their occurrence,
P(A and B), is a product P(A) x P(B) of the two
individual probabilities P(A) and P(B) (this, in
fact, is simply the locality condition of Bell). The
next level of concepts needed to understand my
model are those of standard deviations and standard
scores. These concepts play a central role in the
calculation of *any* correlation, not just in my model.
Once these basic concepts are understood, it is not
difficult to see how my model works. The Mobius
strip example brings this all out without needing to
know the language of geometric algebra.
Joy Christian
Joy Christian
Apr 12, 2012, 12:01:15 AM4/12/12
to
On Apr 12, 2:21 am, "FrediFizzx" <fredifi...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> "harald" <h...@swissonline.ch> wrote in message
>
> news:jm3d9h$k51$1...@dont-email.me...
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > "FrediFizzx" <fredifi...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> >news:9ukank...@mid.individual.net...
> >> "harald" <h...@swissonline.ch> wrote in message
> >>news:jm0qdt$h6l$1...@dont-email.me...
>
> > [..]
> >>>>>>> "FrediFizzx" <fredifi...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> >>>>>>>news:9u0qrf...@mid.individual.net...
> >>>>>>>> "harald" <h...@swissonline.ch> wrote in message
> > <1c7aef7f-2933-4752-9672-500b06cef...@l1g2000vbc.googlegroups.com>
Hi Fred and Harald,
Both of you are misinterpreting things, but in different
ways. Fred is correct to insist that lambda
(or mu = lambda x I) is fixed for a given run. This is not
something new in my model. It is the condition Bell
imposed on any lambda, and for excellent reasons.
Fred is wrong, however, to think that the definitions
A(a, mu) = (-I . a)(mu . a) = + lambda (27)
and
B(b, mu) = (mu . b)(+I . b) = -lambda (28)
are valid *only* for b = a. These definitions are valid
for *all* a and b. This DOES NOT imply, however, that
the product AB = -1 holds for all a and b. That does
not follow at all from the above definitions of A and B,
not the least because A and B are *random* variables,
not algebraic variables. The product AB is therefore
also a *random* variable, not an algebraic variable.
What is more, there is also a very simple topological
reason why the product AB changes from -1 to +1
when b is rotated from a to -a. This is illustrated well
by the Mobius strip example, but there are also simpler
ways to see this. I think Harald should study the Mobius
example from my "Origins..." paper (or from my book).
Joy Christian
> "harald" <h...@swissonline.ch> wrote in message
>
> news:jm3d9h$k51$1...@dont-email.me...
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > "FrediFizzx" <fredifi...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> >news:9ukank...@mid.individual.net...
> >> "harald" <h...@swissonline.ch> wrote in message
> >>news:jm0qdt$h6l$1...@dont-email.me...
>
> > [..]
> >>>>>>> "FrediFizzx" <fredifi...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> >>>>>>>news:9u0qrf...@mid.individual.net...
> >>>>>>>> "harald" <h...@swissonline.ch> wrote in message
Both of you are misinterpreting things, but in different
ways. Fred is correct to insist that lambda
(or mu = lambda x I) is fixed for a given run. This is not
something new in my model. It is the condition Bell
imposed on any lambda, and for excellent reasons.
Fred is wrong, however, to think that the definitions
A(a, mu) = (-I . a)(mu . a) = + lambda (27)
and
B(b, mu) = (mu . b)(+I . b) = -lambda (28)
are valid *only* for b = a. These definitions are valid
for *all* a and b. This DOES NOT imply, however, that
the product AB = -1 holds for all a and b. That does
not follow at all from the above definitions of A and B,
not the least because A and B are *random* variables,
not algebraic variables. The product AB is therefore
also a *random* variable, not an algebraic variable.
What is more, there is also a very simple topological
reason why the product AB changes from -1 to +1
when b is rotated from a to -a. This is illustrated well
by the Mobius strip example, but there are also simpler
ways to see this. I think Harald should study the Mobius
example from my "Origins..." paper (or from my book).
Joy Christian
FrediFizzx
Apr 12, 2012, 3:18:01 AM4/12/12
to
"Joy Christian" <hojo...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:3ef894c4-6f7f-4f81...@i18g2000vbx.googlegroups.com...
> Hi Fred and Harald,
>
> Both of you are misinterpreting things, but in different
> ways. Fred is correct to insist that lambda
> (or mu = lambda x I) is fixed for a given run. This is not
> something new in my model. It is the condition Bell
> imposed on any lambda, and for excellent reasons.
>
> Fred is wrong, however, to think that the definitions
>
> A(a, mu) = (-I . a)(mu . a) = + lambda (27)
>
> and
>
> B(b, mu) = (mu . b)(+I . b) = -lambda (28)
>
> are valid *only* for b = a. These definitions are valid
> for *all* a and b. This DOES NOT imply, however, that
> the product AB = -1 holds for all a and b. That does
> not follow at all from the above definitions of A and B,
> not the least because A and B are *random* variables,
> not algebraic variables. The product AB is therefore
> also a *random* variable, not an algebraic variable.
> What is more, there is also a very simple topological
> reason why the product AB changes from -1 to +1
> when b is rotated from a to -a. This is illustrated well
> by the Mobius strip example, but there are also simpler
> ways to see this. I think Harald should study the Mobius
> example from my "Origins..." paper (or from my book).
Ok, yes I was trying to explain it to Harald in a more algebraic sense than
with A and B as random variables because everyone seems to have trouble with
that. But I do think my algebraic explanation works also taking the global
topological "action" into consideration. The sign flips will all cancel out
algebraically leaving the core definitions for the correlation.
Speaking of "random variables", you probably should update the one page
paper to make it more clear that A and B are random variables instead of
algebraic. The second line should read, "Let Alice and Bob be equipped with
the random variables...". The line after eq. (8), "Evidently, the random
variables A(a, L) and B(b, L) defined above..." IOW, make it more explicit
instead of implicit that A and B are not algebraic variables. That also
gives the reader a clue that there is statistics involved in all of this.
Best,
Fred Diether
news:3ef894c4-6f7f-4f81...@i18g2000vbx.googlegroups.com...
> Hi Fred and Harald,
>
> Both of you are misinterpreting things, but in different
> ways. Fred is correct to insist that lambda
> (or mu = lambda x I) is fixed for a given run. This is not
> something new in my model. It is the condition Bell
> imposed on any lambda, and for excellent reasons.
>
> Fred is wrong, however, to think that the definitions
>
> A(a, mu) = (-I . a)(mu . a) = + lambda (27)
>
> and
>
> B(b, mu) = (mu . b)(+I . b) = -lambda (28)
>
> are valid *only* for b = a. These definitions are valid
> for *all* a and b. This DOES NOT imply, however, that
> the product AB = -1 holds for all a and b. That does
> not follow at all from the above definitions of A and B,
> not the least because A and B are *random* variables,
> not algebraic variables. The product AB is therefore
> also a *random* variable, not an algebraic variable.
> What is more, there is also a very simple topological
> reason why the product AB changes from -1 to +1
> when b is rotated from a to -a. This is illustrated well
> by the Mobius strip example, but there are also simpler
> ways to see this. I think Harald should study the Mobius
> example from my "Origins..." paper (or from my book).
with A and B as random variables because everyone seems to have trouble with
that. But I do think my algebraic explanation works also taking the global
topological "action" into consideration. The sign flips will all cancel out
algebraically leaving the core definitions for the correlation.
Speaking of "random variables", you probably should update the one page
paper to make it more clear that A and B are random variables instead of
algebraic. The second line should read, "Let Alice and Bob be equipped with
the random variables...". The line after eq. (8), "Evidently, the random
variables A(a, L) and B(b, L) defined above..." IOW, make it more explicit
instead of implicit that A and B are not algebraic variables. That also
gives the reader a clue that there is statistics involved in all of this.
Best,
Fred Diether
harald
Apr 12, 2012, 5:24:37 AM4/12/12
to
"Joy Christian" <hojo...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:3ef894c4-6f7f-4f81...@i18g2000vbx.googlegroups.com...
> On Apr 12, 2:21 am, "FrediFizzx" <fredifi...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> "harald" <h...@swissonline.ch> wrote in message
[..]
>> "harald" <h...@swissonline.ch> wrote in message
>> >>> [me:]
>> >>>>> "the unknown variable belonging to a single entangled pair is still
>> >>>>> not
>> >>>>> a fixed constant
>> >>>>> [..]Thus [..] the same unknown variable can have a different sign
>> >>>>> when
>> >>>>> measured by Alice than when measured by Bob. "
>> >>> [..] [Joy's reply:]
>> >>>>> "the unknown variable belonging to a single entangled pair is still
>> >>>>> not
>> >>>>> a fixed constant
>> >>>>> [..]Thus [..] the same unknown variable can have a different sign
>> >>>>> when
>> >>>>> measured by Alice than when measured by Bob. "
>> >>> "This is essentially correct. [..] A and B are *statistically
>> >>> independent
>> >>> events*. "
[..] the Message-ID:
>> >>> independent
>> >>> events*. "
>> > <1c7aef7f-2933-4752-9672-500b06cef...@l1g2000vbc.googlegroups.com>
>> I have reproduced the message at the end of this post. I have to say that
>> Joy must have misinterpreted what you were asking when he said "This is
>> essentially correct." if you meant what you are saying above.
[..]
>> I have reproduced the message at the end of this post. I have to say that
>> Joy must have misinterpreted what you were asking when he said "This is
>> essentially correct." if you meant what you are saying above.
>> >>> I did not see mention that A and B are statistically independent
>> >>> events
>> >>> included in either your or my explanation.
[...]
>> >>> events
>> >>> included in either your or my explanation.
>> >>> Thus we have so far the following explanations:
>> >>> 1. (most people:) Joy Christian made a colossal blunder [..]
>> >>> 2. ([Fred's] suggestion:) his definitions of eq.27,28 are only for
>> >>> [a=b] [..]
>> >>> [3]. (my earlier suggestion:) lambda at A differs from lambda at B
>> >>> [..]
>> >>> [4]. (Joy's own precision:) A and B are statistically independent
>> >>> events.
[..]
>> >>>>From this overview here I get, *not* that his definitions are only
>> >>>>for
>> >>> alpha=beta, but that as I thought and he apparently confirmed, a
>> >>> single
>> >>> measurement pair A and B are not necessarily functions of the same
>> >>> lambda in his model (except for alpha=beta).
I now see that I misphrased that last sentence, sorry. More precisely, I
>> >>>>for
>> >>> alpha=beta, but that as I thought and he apparently confirmed, a
>> >>> single
>> >>> measurement pair A and B are not necessarily functions of the same
>> >>> lambda in his model (except for alpha=beta).
meant that the lambda of a single measurement pair A and B is not
necessarily the same for A as for B in Joy's model (except for a=b).
>>>>> However, his model is still
>> >>> unclear to me, as it is for most people.
I will reinsert the reference of this discussion here:
http://arxiv.org/abs/1203.2529
And possibly you correctly understood me the first time: of course lambda is
fixed for a given run, I think that everyone agrees on that.
The condition that Bell imposed was that lambda doesn't have to be a fixed
constant but can be a set of functions (such as of time and position) that
is fixed for each pair.
> Fred is wrong, however, to think that the definitions
>
> A(a, mu) = (-I . a)(mu . a) = + lambda (27)
>
> and
>
> B(b, mu) = (mu . b)(+I . b) = -lambda (28)
>
> are valid *only* for b = a. These definitions are valid
> for *all* a and b.
referring to your paper which I linked again here above, which has slightly
different definitions as follows, and stripping it to the essentials for me:
Definition of the measurement results as observed by Alice and Bob:
A(a, lambda) = [..] = + lambda (27)
B(b, lambda) = [..] = - lambda (28)
And as you confirmed, obviously this definition should be valid for all a
and b.
Now, Fred apparently thinks that your lambda must be a fixed *constant* for
the measurements of each pair, and your above comment regretfully doesn't
clarify if you understood me correctly the first time or the last time.
If lambda is a fixed *constant* for the measurements of each pair then, as I
wrote, for all a and b and thus also for a = -b we would get by your
definitions of eq.27, 28 for a lambda of for example +1 for a single
entangled pair:
- observed result at A = (a, +1) = +1
- observed result at B = (b, +1) = -1
> This DOES NOT imply, however, that
> the product AB = -1 holds for all a and b. That does
> not follow at all from the above definitions of A and B,
> not the least because A and B are *random* variables,
> not algebraic variables.
but measurement results!
As you wrote earlier, A and B are statistically independent *events*.
However, it is still not clear to me how in your model the measurement
results of a single photon or electron pair can be "statistically
independent". To be specific, please work out the example here above for a
lambda that is +1 at the source, or whatever you have in mind - for I'm
afraid that nobody really understands what you have in mind!
> The product AB is therefore
> also a *random* variable, not an algebraic variable.
> What is more, there is also a very simple topological
> reason why the product AB changes from -1 to +1
> when b is rotated from a to -a. This is illustrated well
> by the Mobius strip example, but there are also simpler
> ways to see this. I think Harald should study the Mobius
> example from my "Origins..." paper (or from my book).
*based* on your Mobius strip example. :-))
Best regards,
Harald
FrediFizzx
Apr 12, 2012, 9:47:42 PM4/12/12
to
"harald" <hv...@swissonline.ch> wrote in message
news:jm63fv$s80$1...@dont-email.me...
"entangled" particles.
Sorry, I was doing an algebraic method in my previous explanation. And you
were right earlier about what Joy says for b = a at the bottom of page 4 in
the "Restoring..." paper. What I have been saying for b = a and b = -a is
an algebraic process that helps me personally to better understand the
model.
> Now, Fred apparently thinks that your lambda must be a fixed *constant*
> for the measurements of each pair, and your above comment regretfully
> doesn't clarify if you understood me correctly the first time or the last
> time.
> If lambda is a fixed *constant* for the measurements of each pair then, as
> I wrote, for all a and b and thus also for a = -b we would get by your
> definitions of eq.27, 28 for a lambda of for example +1 for a single
> entangled pair:
>
> - observed result at A = (a, +1) = +1
> - observed result at B = (b, +1) = -1
>
> Which is in full contradiction with QM.
>> This DOES NOT imply, however, that
>> the product AB = -1 holds for all a and b. That does
>> not follow at all from the above definitions of A and B,
>> not the least because A and B are *random* variables,
>> not algebraic variables.
>
> Wait a moment: A and B are according to your above definition not
> variables but measurement results!
> As you wrote earlier, A and B are statistically independent *events*.
> However, it is still not clear to me how in your model the measurement
> results of a single photon or electron pair can be "statistically
> independent". To be specific, please work out the example here above for a
> lambda that is +1 at the source, or whatever you have in mind - for I'm
> afraid that nobody really understands what you have in mind!
explanation but it might run into some trouble with interpretation as
applied to Bell so Joy doesn't like to go that route.
>> The product AB is therefore
>> also a *random* variable, not an algebraic variable.
>> What is more, there is also a very simple topological
>> reason why the product AB changes from -1 to +1
>> when b is rotated from a to -a. This is illustrated well
>> by the Mobius strip example, but there are also simpler
>> ways to see this. I think Harald should study the Mobius
>> example from my "Origins..." paper (or from my book).
>
> The discussion that we had earlier and which is reproduced here above was
> *based* on your Mobius strip example. :-))
is that you are trying to do algebraic methods on random variables. I
personally like to think of it in the algebraic method but that is not
exactly what the model is. One problem with the algebraic method is that
then people want to think there is another variable in the model beside
lambda (more technically I think the variable is mu = lambda*I) that is from
the topological "action". The effects of the topology are definitely not a
variable in the model. But as Joy says above, they are the "reason why the
product AB changes from -1 to +1 when b is rotated from a to -a." Anyways,
you have my algebraic method in the other post in this thread. If it helps
you to understand the model better then use it but keep in mind what I just
said here.
Best,
Fred
harald
Apr 13, 2012, 4:18:49 AM4/13/12
to
news:9upbd7...@mid.individual.net...
According to him both our explanations (as well as those of others) were
wrong; it's therefore high time for *him* to clarify the meaning of these
equations.
>> Now, Fred apparently thinks that your lambda must be a fixed *constant*
>> for the measurements of each pair, and your above comment regretfully
>> doesn't clarify if you understood me correctly the first time or the last
>> time.
>> If lambda is a fixed *constant* for the measurements of each pair then,
>> as
>> I wrote, for all a and b and thus also for a = -b we would get by your
>> definitions of eq.27, 28 for a lambda of for example +1 for a single
>> entangled pair:
>>
>> - observed result at A = (a, +1) = +1
>> - observed result at B = (b, +1) = -1
>>
>> Which is in full contradiction with QM.
>
> No. You are doing an algebraic process on a random variable.
Equations *are* algebraic; let's hope that he can show with a similar
algebraic example (as opposed to words)how his equations *should* be applied
for a certain lambda so that they could give correct results.
[..]
> The effects of the topology are definitely not a variable in the model.
> But as Joy says above, they are the "reason why the product AB changes
> from -1 to +1 when b is rotated from a to -a." Anyways, you have my
> algebraic method in the other post in this thread. If it helps you to
> understand the model better then use it but keep in mind what I just said
> here.
The status quo is that Joy said that we both misunderstood him. Which leaves
only himself to explain how he can be right.
Best,
Harald
> "harald" <hv...@swissonline.ch> wrote in message
> news:jm63fv$s80$1...@dont-email.me...
>>
>> "Joy Christian" <hojo...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:3ef894c4-6f7f-4f81...@i18g2000vbx.googlegroups.com...
>>> On Apr 12, 2:21 am, "FrediFizzx" <fredifi...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>> "harald" <h...@swissonline.ch> wrote in message
[..]
> news:jm63fv$s80$1...@dont-email.me...
>>
>> "Joy Christian" <hojo...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:3ef894c4-6f7f-4f81...@i18g2000vbx.googlegroups.com...
>>> On Apr 12, 2:21 am, "FrediFizzx" <fredifi...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>> "harald" <h...@swissonline.ch> wrote in message
[..]
wrong; it's therefore high time for *him* to clarify the meaning of these
equations.
>> Now, Fred apparently thinks that your lambda must be a fixed *constant*
>> for the measurements of each pair, and your above comment regretfully
>> doesn't clarify if you understood me correctly the first time or the last
>> time.
>> If lambda is a fixed *constant* for the measurements of each pair then,
>> as
>> I wrote, for all a and b and thus also for a = -b we would get by your
>> definitions of eq.27, 28 for a lambda of for example +1 for a single
>> entangled pair:
>>
>> - observed result at A = (a, +1) = +1
>> - observed result at B = (b, +1) = -1
>>
>> Which is in full contradiction with QM.
>
> No. You are doing an algebraic process on a random variable.
algebraic example (as opposed to words)how his equations *should* be applied
for a certain lambda so that they could give correct results.
[..]
>> As you wrote earlier, A and B are statistically independent *events*.
>> However, it is still not clear to me how in your model the measurement
>> results of a single photon or electron pair can be "statistically
>> independent". To be specific, please work out the example here above for
>> a
>> lambda that is +1 at the source, or whatever you have in mind - for I'm
>> afraid that nobody really understands what you have in mind!
[..]
>> However, it is still not clear to me how in your model the measurement
>> results of a single photon or electron pair can be "statistically
>> independent". To be specific, please work out the example here above for
>> a
>> lambda that is +1 at the source, or whatever you have in mind - for I'm
>> afraid that nobody really understands what you have in mind!
> The effects of the topology are definitely not a variable in the model.
> But as Joy says above, they are the "reason why the product AB changes
> from -1 to +1 when b is rotated from a to -a." Anyways, you have my
> algebraic method in the other post in this thread. If it helps you to
> understand the model better then use it but keep in mind what I just said
> here.
only himself to explain how he can be right.
Best,
Harald
FrediFizzx
Apr 14, 2012, 2:22:34 AM4/14/12
to
"harald" <hv...@swissonline.ch> wrote in message
news:jm8k0l$605$1...@dont-email.me...
a better understanding since most people want to think in more algebraic
terms. Joy's math for his model is a statistical process mostly. But I
think I made a mistake in my algebraic explanation. I will check it out
tomorrow when I'm not so tired.
>>> Now, Fred apparently thinks that your lambda must be a fixed *constant*
>>> for the measurements of each pair, and your above comment regretfully
>>> doesn't clarify if you understood me correctly the first time or the
>>> last
>>> time.
>>> If lambda is a fixed *constant* for the measurements of each pair then,
>>> as
>>> I wrote, for all a and b and thus also for a = -b we would get by your
>>> definitions of eq.27, 28 for a lambda of for example +1 for a single
>>> entangled pair:
>>>
>>> - observed result at A = (a, +1) = +1
>>> - observed result at B = (b, +1) = -1
>>>
>>> Which is in full contradiction with QM.
>>
>> No. You are doing an algebraic process on a random variable.
>
> Equations *are* algebraic; let's hope that he can show with a similar
> algebraic example (as opposed to words)how his equations *should* be
> applied for a certain lambda so that they could give correct results.
in statistics and algebraic variables.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Random_variable
>>> As you wrote earlier, A and B are statistically independent *events*.
>>> However, it is still not clear to me how in your model the measurement
>>> results of a single photon or electron pair can be "statistically
>>> independent". To be specific, please work out the example here above for
>>> a
>>> lambda that is +1 at the source, or whatever you have in mind - for I'm
>>> afraid that nobody really understands what you have in mind!
> [..]
>
>> The effects of the topology are definitely not a variable in the model.
>> But as Joy says above, they are the "reason why the product AB changes
>> from -1 to +1 when b is rotated from a to -a." Anyways, you have my
>> algebraic method in the other post in this thread. If it helps you to
>> understand the model better then use it but keep in mind what I just said
>> here.
>
> The status quo is that Joy said that we both misunderstood him. Which
> leaves only himself to explain how he can be right.
just trying to explain it to you in a way which you might better understand
it. It works for me both ways. However, I think I made a mistake in my
algebraic explanation. I will check it tomorrow morning.
The bottom line is that mu = lambda*I with lambda = +/-1 is Joy's hidden
variable. That makes the whole process statistical.
Best,
Fred Diether
gill...@gmail.com
Apr 20, 2012, 10:15:23 AM4/20/12
to
Fred, you did not respond to my answer to your question yet on Joy's experiment, over at the FQXi blog.
The background to this posting is a paper by Joy Christian in which he proposes an experiment to investigate whether classical macroscopic physical systems can also be modeled by his theory, and hence also violate CHSH inequality. Joy's experiment generates 4N numbers, representing, in N runs, outcomes +/-1 of four variables A, A', B, B'. I said that this data would necessarily satisfy CHSH.
Fred said that I had rigged the experiment. Which is strange: Joy's specification s perfectly clear.
Joy said that his model was right and his predictions clear and no further discussion was possible till someone had done the experiment.
But Fred also said:" ... and how come Weihs' experiment violated CHSH then?"
That's a very very smart question.
I told Fred the answer. Weihs has N11 pairs A,B. N12 pairs A,B'. N21 pairs A'B. N22 pairs A'B'. Where the "A" measurements in the AB and the AB' pairs are not the same, etc. Different runs.
Joy not only has the same number N of each of the four pairs, but also, the "A" measurements in his AB pairs are identically the same as those in the AB' pairs, etc. Same runs.
Joy started using the word "separately" in some kind of instinctive reaction. That's right. He's close. That's the problem, indeed. Unfortunately, Joy doesn't measure A "separately" from A'. That's the difference. Whether the correlations are *computed* separately or not is irrelevant.
Weihs' four correlations can be anything (up to the discreetness implied by finite sample sizes). Joy's four correlations are constrained by the 16 CHSH inequalities (you can get new inequalities from old by the various symmetries in the problem: switch signs of each variable independently, rename (A vs B, A vs A', B vs B').
The background to this posting is a paper by Joy Christian in which he proposes an experiment to investigate whether classical macroscopic physical systems can also be modeled by his theory, and hence also violate CHSH inequality. Joy's experiment generates 4N numbers, representing, in N runs, outcomes +/-1 of four variables A, A', B, B'. I said that this data would necessarily satisfy CHSH.
Fred said that I had rigged the experiment. Which is strange: Joy's specification s perfectly clear.
Joy said that his model was right and his predictions clear and no further discussion was possible till someone had done the experiment.
But Fred also said:" ... and how come Weihs' experiment violated CHSH then?"
That's a very very smart question.
I told Fred the answer. Weihs has N11 pairs A,B. N12 pairs A,B'. N21 pairs A'B. N22 pairs A'B'. Where the "A" measurements in the AB and the AB' pairs are not the same, etc. Different runs.
Joy not only has the same number N of each of the four pairs, but also, the "A" measurements in his AB pairs are identically the same as those in the AB' pairs, etc. Same runs.
Joy started using the word "separately" in some kind of instinctive reaction. That's right. He's close. That's the problem, indeed. Unfortunately, Joy doesn't measure A "separately" from A'. That's the difference. Whether the correlations are *computed* separately or not is irrelevant.
Weihs' four correlations can be anything (up to the discreetness implied by finite sample sizes). Joy's four correlations are constrained by the 16 CHSH inequalities (you can get new inequalities from old by the various symmetries in the problem: switch signs of each variable independently, rename (A vs B, A vs A', B vs B').
Tom
Apr 20, 2012, 5:19:13 PM4/20/12
to
On Apr 20, 10:15 am, gill1...@gmail.com wrote:
> Fred, you did not respond to my answer to your question yet on Joy's experiment, over at the FQXi blog.
>
> The background to this posting is a paper by Joy Christian in which he proposes an experiment to investigate whether classical macroscopic physical systems can also be modeled by his theory, and hence also violate CHSH inequality. Joy's experiment generates 4N numbers, representing, in N runs, outcomes +/-1 of four variables A, A', B, B'. I said that this data would necessarily satisfy CHSH.
>
> Fred said that I had rigged the experiment. Which is strange: Joy's specification s perfectly clear.
YOUR specification is very clear. And so is Joy's -- a simple input
> Fred, you did not respond to my answer to your question yet on Joy's experiment, over at the FQXi blog.
>
> The background to this posting is a paper by Joy Christian in which he proposes an experiment to investigate whether classical macroscopic physical systems can also be modeled by his theory, and hence also violate CHSH inequality. Joy's experiment generates 4N numbers, representing, in N runs, outcomes +/-1 of four variables A, A', B, B'. I said that this data would necessarily satisfy CHSH.
>
> Fred said that I had rigged the experiment. Which is strange: Joy's specification s perfectly clear.
argument to a continuous function predicting the argument outcome.
Which is quite different from your specification, which isn't even in
the same ballpark, much less the same game.
Ilja
Aug 1, 2012, 4:49:09 PM8/1/12
to
Am Dienstag, 31. Januar 2012 00:38:31 UTC+1 schrieb X-Phy:
> On 25 jan, 19:21, Tom <thray...@aol.com> wrote:
> > You seem not to understand that EPR and Bell had
> > absolutely nothing to say about quantum mechanics. �The
> > arguments are completely classical.
> EPR and Bell are neither quantal nor classical, they are about realism
> and hidden variables.
Correct.
> But Bell like experiments have verified quantum
> mechanics and shown that there is no hidden variable, that is, quantum
> mechanics is complete.
Not at all. Bell was a proponent of Bohmian mechanics, that means, of a theory which assumes that quantum mechanics is not complete, and adds a new equation to it.
What is proven by violations of Bell's inequality is that there are no Einstein-local hidden variables, but that any realistic explanation needs FTL causal influences.
> On 25 jan, 19:21, Tom <thray...@aol.com> wrote:
> > You seem not to understand that EPR and Bell had
> > absolutely nothing to say about quantum mechanics. �The
> > arguments are completely classical.
> EPR and Bell are neither quantal nor classical, they are about realism
> and hidden variables.
Correct.
> But Bell like experiments have verified quantum
> mechanics and shown that there is no hidden variable, that is, quantum
> mechanics is complete.
Not at all. Bell was a proponent of Bohmian mechanics, that means, of a theory which assumes that quantum mechanics is not complete, and adds a new equation to it.
What is proven by violations of Bell's inequality is that there are no Einstein-local hidden variables, but that any realistic explanation needs FTL causal influences.
FrediFizzx
Aug 1, 2012, 11:08:28 PM8/1/12
to
"Ilja" <ilja.sc...@googlemail.com> wrote in message
news:325afb40-e242-4e17...@googlegroups.com...
Fortunately, Dr. Christian has successfully shown that there are indeed
Einstein-local hidden variables possible and that Bell made a mistake.
Einstein was right after all. :-)
Best,
Fred Diether
news:325afb40-e242-4e17...@googlegroups.com...
Einstein-local hidden variables possible and that Bell made a mistake.
Einstein was right after all. :-)
Best,
Fred Diether
0 new messages