FQXi Community

Forum Home
Introduction
Terms of Use

Posts by the blogger are highlighted in orange; posts by FQXi Members are highlighted in blue.

By using the FQXi Forum, you acknowledge reading and agree to abide by the Terms of Use

RECENT FORUM POSTS

Lawrence B. Crowell: "I have just scanned this. A couple of points. Inflation does not mean a..." in Faster than Light

doug: "Sir Lawrence Crowell, You appear to be a physicist. I am not. But I have..." in Faster than Light

Fred Diether: "Hi Bill, The CHSH inequality applies perfectly with the Weihs et al, data..." in Disproofs of disproofs of...

Joy Christian: "Hi Fred, You should of course stand by your explanation. But you know what..." in Disproofs of disproofs of...

Zeeya: "from Charles H. Bennett: This is to remind you of the twelfth Asian..." in Upcoming Conferences and...

J. C. N. Smith: "Paul, "What is the point in recanting what everybody else has said?" ..." in Elegance and Enigma: The...

Pentcho Valev: "Einstein said more in 1905: ..." in Essay Contest 2012:...

J. C. N. Smith: "Hi Georgina, : ) Indeed! "I do like the reassurance that I'm not..." in Elegance and Enigma: The...

RECENT ARTICLES
click titles to read articles

Faster Than Light
A controversial theory in which light broke its own speed limit in the early universe joins forces with string theory and loop quantum gravity to solve cosmic mysteries.

Melting Spacetime
To understand how spacetime might emerge from string theory, in the early cosmos, we need to heat up the equations, and thaw the space and time dimensions.

Video Article: The Quantum Linguist
Bob Coecke has developed a new visual language that could spell out a theory of quantum gravity—and help us understand human speech.

Black Holes: Paradox Regained
In 2004, Stephen Hawking famously conceded that black holes do not devour all information when they swallow matter—seemingly resolving the "black hole information paradox" that had perplexed physicists for decades. But some argue that the paradox remains open, and we must abandon our simple picture of spacetime to unravel it.

Thermal Timekeeping
Constructing a clock that measures temperature could unite the conflicting conceptions of time in the quantum and cosmic realms.

read & discuss all articles

FQXi BLOGS

May 25, 2012

CATEGORY: Blog [back]
TOPIC: On the Origins of Quantum Correlations [refresh]

Blogger Joy Christian wrote on Nov. 1, 2011 @ 15:59 GMT

John Stewart Bell is undoubtedly one of the icons of contemporary physics. His name has become inseparable from the notion of quantum non-locality, however, Bell himself always stressed that it was Einstein--together with Podolsky and Rosen--who first recognized the non-local implications of quantum mechanics. Neither did Bell like the operational overtone wielded by quantum information theory on foundations of quantum mechanics. In his last paper (1991) he calls for a deeper, less anthropocentric understanding of quantum non-locality. This is of course much in line with what Einstein would have liked. So Bell was actually far more Einsteinian in his outlook than some of us give him credit for.

What impresses me more about Bell, however, is what he stumbled upon unintentionally. (As many of you know, in my view--which I have discussed, for instance, here--his theorem is a non-starter.) What impresses me is that Bell discovered that quantum correlations are far more disciplined than classical correlations (although he himself did not put his discovery in these terms), in a mathematically very precise sense. This raises a very important physical question:

*What is it that makes quantum correlations so much more disciplined?*

As von Neumann taught us long time ago, no matter which model of physics we are concerned with--the quantum mechanical model, the hidden variable model, or any other--for theoretical purposes all we need to understand are the expectation values (or correlations) of the observables measured in various states of the physical system. Thus, if we understand the origins of quantum correlations, then we have effectively understood quantum mechanics.

A summary of my answer to this question can be found elsewhere on this website (for example on this page ), and a more detailed description of it can be found in my recent papers. Some criticisms have recently been put forward by Florin Moldoveanu and I would like to report my response to his criticism, which I have recently posted on the physics archives: arxiv.org/abs/1110.5876.

Happy reading!

report post as inappropriate

James Putnam wrote on Nov. 1, 2011 @ 18:26 GMT

Dear Joy,

Very impressive. I see why you answered in that manner. You are communicating with professionals. I am stumbling through it. Perhaps Tom will begin to post some helpful messages here.

James

report post as inappropriate

Joy Christian replied on Nov. 1, 2011 @ 18:37 GMT

Dear James,

Many thanks for your comments. You have been a voice of reason and moderation throughout this debate. I appreciate that very much.

Joy

report post as inappropriate

reply to this thread

T H Ray wrote on Nov. 1, 2011 @ 18:28 GMT

Joy,

Let me be the first to publicly congratulate you on the extraordinarily clear introduction to your program in this latest reply to critics. I am looking forward to engaging in further dialogue.

Tom

report post as inappropriate

reply to this thread

T H Ray wrote on Nov. 1, 2011 @ 18:29 GMT

Okay, then. The second. :-)

report post as inappropriate

Joy Christian replied on Nov. 1, 2011 @ 18:39 GMT

Tom,

You are never second in my books!

Many thanks,

Joy

report post as inappropriate

reply to this thread

Ray Munroe wrote on Nov. 1, 2011 @ 21:18 GMT

Hi Joy,

I'm still not sure of the second half of Section V, but I also think that you might not necessarily need that argument to make your point. Lately, I have been working on 'superluminal neutrinos', and I do not have time to dedicate to that idea and this one of yours. My argument involves 10-D, part of which is a broken 7-sphere. I have reasons to think that the 7-sphere is unstable, and this is why we do not directly experience Octonion Physics.

The question is - Do octonion-like 7-spheres decompose into a complex pair of quaternion-like 3-spheres? Or do octonion-like 7-spheres decompose into a quaternion-like 3-sphere within a super-Euclidean 4-ball? The outcomes make a difference as to whether 'measurements' should be considered strictly real: +1, -1; or whether imaginary 'measurements' of +i, -i are permitted somewhere within that 8-D 7-sphere space.

Of course, imaginary mass leads to superluminal tachyons - a possible violation of 'local reality', and a possible agreement with OPERA.

Have Fun!

report post as inappropriate

Joy Christian replied on Nov. 1, 2011 @ 22:00 GMT

Hi Ray,

Thank you for your comments. We have gone through this argument before, haven't we?

Let me break up the idea of local causality into two parts to make my point clear: (1) no-signalling non-locality (or quantum non-locality), and (2) signalling non-locality (or relativistic non-locality).

Now if you are right and OPERA has revealed violation of relativistic locality, then all bets are off. We then enter a major paradigm shift---a major revolution in physics. Let us wait and see what the second run of OPERA reveals, but I am not losing my sleep over it.

This brings us to the no-signalling non-locality, or quantum non-locality. Here, I am afraid, both you and I are talking past each other. I don't understand your worries, and you don't seem to understand the language and framework I have been using. Within my framework measurement results are always real, +1 and -1, and they can always be constructed as limiting cases of classical, real, octonionic spinors. In statistical terms these numbers are then raw scores observed in the experiments. So, I am afraid, we have failed to communicate on this point.

Joy

report post as inappropriate

Ray Munroe replied on Nov. 2, 2011 @ 11:49 GMT

Hi Joy,

Yes - We have been down this road before, and I'm not here to argue ad infinitum.

IF you have a broken 7-sphere, then:

1) it doesn't have the non-associative property of octonions, and

2) it is not particularly symmetrical - a quaternion 3-sphere and a super-Euclidean 4-ball is NOT a bi-quaternion (although Nature does not need to conform to our expectations of symmetry).

I expect the broken octonion-like 7-sphere to more-closely resemble a complex pair of quaternion-like 3-spheres. This introduces complex numbers into our 'measurements', such that a collection of 'measurements' should yield

exp(i*theta), which is a unit-radius 1-sphere within the complex Argand plane. Statistical analysis of this complex 1-sphere should lead to Anyonic Statistics, which are a generalization of Bosons and Fermions that permit superluminal tachyons. We might expect a TOE to require a generalization of Bosons and Fermions. We might also expect the inclusion of superluminal tachyons to help explain the OPERA results. Perhaps tachyons are part of the octonion non-associativity, but that gets beyond my skills.

What does it all mean? It simply means that you and I disagree on how the 7-sphere should decompose. The 7-sphere is not 'unified' or else we would experience an 8-D reality that included non-associative properties. Different 7-sphere fragments can lead to different physics.

Have Fun!

report post as inappropriate

T H Ray replied on Nov. 2, 2011 @ 12:14 GMT

Ray,

I've not been able to understand this claim you continue to make, regarding "imaginary measurements." There is no such thing.

Yes, all division algebras originate in the complex plane, and have to -- because complex numbers are the only algebraically closed set, i.e., tractable to solutions under all the rational, i.e., arithmetic, operations (division, addition, multiplication and extraction of roots). When one moves up to the "hyper" classification of numbers -- quaternions and octonions -- the loss of commutativity (octonions) and loss of both commutativity and associativity (octonions) guarantees solutions restricted to the real line, R.

Further, though, Joy's framework is topological. That is why he can say that Bell's "flat plane" dependence on R independent of complex analysis is a false representation of classical measures, which are continuous, as opposed to independent discrete outcomes on R. (It is also one source of disagreement between Florin and me -- he insists that algebraic closure plays no role in geometric algebra; in fact, it plays the key role, because the algebra depends on 2-dimensional analysis at its foundation.) Let's introduce topology, in which R, which is well ordered in arithmetic (by Zorn's lemma) becomes dependent for partial order on its orientation on the sphere -- either (0, + 1] or (0, - 1]. As I noted in a previous post, these intervals can be translated to the language of improper integrals in order to restore analysis to the algebraic results.

So -- let's take the topology of S^2 (the 3-ball) and make it into a 3-sphere (S^3, the complex, or Riemann, sphere) by the operation S^2 X S^2. This is a 1-point compactification of the 2-dimension complex plane, with a point at infinity. This means that the equator of S^3 accommodates only 3 results: + 1, - 1 and the imaginary number i. And here is where I think you get tripped up, in supposing that the i is a measurement -- not so. Complex analysis (i^2 = - 1) is geomtrically interpreted as rotations in the complex plane. Joy has shown that to the limit of S^7, spherical rotations using spacetime algebra (geometric algebra) guarantee only real measurements on S^3. In other words, though we "live" in S^7, measured events are restricted to S^3 -- classical 4-dimension spacetime.

I find the case to be tightly reasoned and mathematically correct.

Tom

report post as inappropriate

show all replies (15 not shown)

Paul Reed wrote on Nov. 2, 2011 @ 15:20 GMT

Joy

There is no way I can understand the maths, but to me the logic seems to work, which might not be as contradictory a statement as first appears.

I can follow the notions: needing to account for every possibility, standard scores/observed raw scores, correlations, measurements detections of one of two possible orientations (local rotations), hidden variable is the initial orientation of the physical space itself which predetermines all possible outcomes at all possible measurement directions, measurement results are not contextual in any sense, etc, etc. In other words, to me it appears, given X, to be an appropriate mathematical model for quantifying Y.

My one problem is when you say: “we live in a parallelized 3-sphere, which differs from our usual conception of the physical space as IR³ only by a single point at infinity”.

I suppose the first question is, if possible, can you explain this state in simple terms. And then comment on my immediate reaction to this (ie you may not literally mean live in, and I do not understand the state), which is that that appears to me to be a ‘leap of faith’, ie from a valid model for a purpose, to an equivalence to the logical form of the reality we inhabit. In the first place, we do not inhabit an open-ended, infinite, metaphysical reality; it is limited by our awareness. Second, our awareness is of a representation of reality which we receive, it is different from reality. For example, observation is based on a light based representation of reality, not reality.

Paul

report post as inappropriate

Joy Christian replied on Nov. 2, 2011 @ 16:47 GMT

Paul,

By the sentence you quote I simply mean this: In non-relativistic physics one usually models the space we inhabit as a three-dimensional Euclidean continuum, R3. This space is non-compact in a very precise mathematical sense. What I am saying is that the space we actually inhabit is better modelled by a parallelized 3-sphere, S3, which is a one-point compactification of R3 achieved by mapping all of the points of R3 at infinity to a single point, while maintaining the curvature of the resulting topological sphere to be zero. The torsion of S3 will then be non-zero giving rise to the quantum (or EPR) correlations.

What you call "leap of faith" is called "inductive inference" in science. Also, my concerns at the moment are focused on one very specific problem in physics: that of understanding the origins of quantum correlations. The philosophical concerns you raise are a different can of worms.

Joy

report post as inappropriate

Paul Reed replied on Nov. 3, 2011 @ 09:51 GMT

Joy

Thanks for that. Now, of course Uncle Albert came to the same conclusion, in terms of how we mathematically depict reality. It is upsetting people in this forum, but the simple fact is that his basic conception was that we live in a reality which is somewhat amorphous, due to the force of gravitation. Dimensions alter. So one has to be careful to ensure a comparison involves like with like, and be very careful when calculating what will be where, when. Indeed, mathematics which assumed 'fixedness' was not appropriate to carry out such measurements. So he proposed using the Gaussian co-ordinate system. And as far as I can tell, this is what he did in The Foundation of GR 1916, to derive a whole set of equations, which include length contraction in terms of gravitation force. His conclusions being that the effects as manifested in time and space were too small in relation to the earth. Which is, of course, not the same as saying they are non-existent.

I will quote three paras here, for the benefit of other readers, and then continue):

Einstein SR & GR 1916 Section 28: In gravitational fields there are no such things as rigid bodies with Euclidean properties; thus the fictitious rigid body of reference is of no avail in the general theory of relativity. The motion of clocks is also influenced by gravitational fields, and in such a way that a physical definition of time which is made directly with the aid of clocks has by no means the same degree of plausibility as in the special theory of relativity.

Einstein SR & GR 1916 Section 28: For this reason non-rigid reference bodies are used, which are as a whole not only moving in any way whatsoever, but which also suffer alterations in form ad lib. during their motion. Clocks, for which the law of motion is of any kind, however irregular, serve for the definition of time. We have to imagine each of these clocks fixed at a point on the non-rigid reference body. These clocks satisfy only the one condition, that the readings which are observed simultaneously on adjacent clocks (in space) differ from each other by an indefinitely small amount. This non-rigid reference body, which might appropriately be termed a reference-mollusc, is in the main equivalent to a Gaussian four-dimensional co-ordinate system chosen arbitrarily.

Einstein Foundation of GR Section 3: That in general, Laws of Nature are expressed by means of equations which are valid for all co-ordinate systems, that is, which are covariant for all possible transformations. It is clear that a physics which satisfies this postulate will be unobjectionable from the standpoint of the general relativity postulate. Because among all substitutions there are, in every case, contained those, which correspond to all relative motions of the co-ordinate system (in three dimensions). This condition of general covariance which takes away the last remnants of physical objectivity from space and time, is a natural requirement, as seen from the following considerations. All our well-substantiated space-time propositions amount to the determination of space-time coincidences. If, for example, the event consisted in the motion of material points, then, for this last case, nothing else are really observable except the encounters between two or more of these material points. The results of our measurements are nothing else than well-proved theorems about such coincidences of material points, of our measuring rods with other material points, coincidences between the hands of a clock, dial-marks and point-events occurring at the same position and at the same time. The introduction of a system of co-ordinates serves no other purpose than an easy description of totality of such coincidences.

Now my question becomes (and this may well be a function of my lack of mathematical understanding, but as Eckard hints 'if you can explain it to the uninitiated....): Was this a valid mathematical view, for his purposes and, assuming it isn't being used, why is it not applicable in the reality of elementary particles?

In respect of "inductive inference", why not just drop it? You indeed do open a "can of worms" and this is not necessary. The model, is a model, is a model. Is it 'fit for purpose'. It can be so, potentially, without being depicted as a model of reality, ie we therefore live in....

Paul

view post as summary

report post as inappropriate

reply to this thread

Florin Moldoveanu wrote on Nov. 3, 2011 @ 00:40 GMT

Dear Joy,

I have to admit that I did not believe you would actually reply on the archive to my paper. Hats off to that. However, I do not agree with your reply as you would naturally guess. I will reply to you on the archive, but I am extremely extremely busy at the moment and this debate is on my back burner for now. I hope to revisit the issue in about a month.

Best,

Florin

report post as inappropriate

Joy Christian replied on Nov. 3, 2011 @ 06:59 GMT

I have lost interest in your criticisms. After having spent time on your preprints I have only confirmed my suspicion that you haven't understood the first thing about my framework. Once you tried to vilify Tom by telling him that he was not qualified to comment on my papers. Well, your own arguments contain high-school errors in logic, geometric algebra, basic statistics, phenomenology of the EPR-Bohm experiments, topology of the 3-sphere, the notion of contextuality, and worst of all Bell's theorem itself. I much rather spend time moving my program forward then keep responding to your criticisms. But if I am forced to, then I will.

report post as inappropriate

Florin Moldoveanu replied on Nov. 3, 2011 @ 12:44 GMT

Frankly, I am tired too. Humpty Dumpty is broken and all the king's horses and all the king's men cannot but it together again. No cover up and empty rhetoric can rebuild the castle of cards.

report post as inappropriate

Joy Christian replied on Nov. 3, 2011 @ 13:25 GMT

Indeed, the Humpty Dumpty of Bell-ideology is broken, and all the queen's horses and all the queen's men cannot put it back together again. No cover up, empty rhetoric, twisting of facts, or desperate denials can rebuild the castle over again.

report post as inappropriate

show all replies (3 not shown)

Peter Jackson wrote on Nov. 3, 2011 @ 18:46 GMT

Joy

I suspect perhaps a plant, but I'm sure you're quite well prepared for the usual troglodyte backlash that goes with all advancement and will ebb quite slowly. This is humankind. Those of less open minds who cannot understand and fear their beliefs being corrected will always decry.

I commend you for just about the most rigorous, comprehensive and logical analysis of a construct well beyond the capabilities of most to unravel. It also seems to clarify murky physics and expose incorrect assumptions well into ontological areas beyond your present scope. I believe you may rest assured that these will flow.

Peter

Peter

report post as inappropriate

Joy Christian replied on Nov. 3, 2011 @ 19:29 GMT

Thanks, Peter.

Joy

report post as inappropriate

reply to this thread

amrit wrote on Nov. 3, 2011 @ 22:53 GMT

Regarding the recent report of CERN on Higgs boson,

there is an alternative view:

change of density of quantum vacuum might generate mass

see file attached.

yours sincerely amrit

attachments: Change_of_density_of_quantum_vacuum_might_generate_mass.pdf

report post as inappropriate

reply to this thread

Armin Nikkhah Shirazi wrote on Nov. 4, 2011 @ 08:36 GMT

Hi Joy,

I have a simple conceptual question about your model for which I hope you can give me simple conceptual answer.

You state on the first page that:

"Here mu=lambda I is a hidden variable or the complete state of the system, with lambda=± 1 being a fair coin and I = e_xe_ye_z being the fundamental volume form of the physical space."

and further down that:

"All measurement results, such as A (a,lambda) = ± 1, B(b,lambda) = ± 1, etc., are simply detections of one of the two possible orientations-or one of the two possible senses of local rotations-of this 3-sphere, predetermined by the initial state lambda= ± 1. In other words, the hidden variable in this picture is the initial orientation of the physical space itself, which predetermines all possible outcomes at all possible measurement directions in the EPR-Bohm scenario. As a result, the measurement results are not contextual in any sense. "

What I would like to know is what is the boundary of the region of space to which a particular orientation in the sense you describe applies (e.g. does a particular orientation apply to all of space, or just a region of it? If it is just a region, what separates it from another region of space which has a different orientation etc.)

Thank you

Armin

report post as inappropriate

Joy Christian replied on Nov. 4, 2011 @ 12:43 GMT

Hi Armin,

Good question.

We are only concerned about the space confining the closed EPR-Bell system. As a closed physical system, the two particles in it start out in an initial state defined by the sign of the volume form characterizing this space. There is no definite boundary to this space of course, because in the course of time the two particles can get as far apart from each other as they like (as long as no measurement takes place). We are not concerned about other regions of space or their possible orientations.

Does this answer your question?

Joy

report post as inappropriate

Peter Jackson replied on Nov. 4, 2011 @ 13:31 GMT

Joy, Armin

May I get a view on the following possible alternative conception;

Any space confining a closed system must be bounded, so we propose it is bounded, and so defined, by particles of the certain orientation, and at rest in the inertial frame they bound. Perhaps free electrons at around 1m/cm^3, (as found at planetary and 'system' bow shocks).

Particles travelling within the system retain their initial state and precise qualities. Any moving between inertial systems will change state and orientation due to interaction and the system co-motion motion. (We may here consider that shocks are where two inertial systems meet, which causes the high Navier-Stokes magnetohydrodynamic 'mixing' turbulence).

This seems to derive local reality and observed effects. The changes would be lambda, frequency and orientation (optical axis rotation), which makes c co-variant, (for an observer also changing frame with the particle). [Faraday rotation, inc. IFR, and any Huygens refraction due to relative speed change are separate effects]. Subject to relative system vector the changes may be left or right handed (Chirality) and explain elliptical polarisation. This preserves the SR postulates and principles. May this also ontologically derive the correct results?

Peter

report post as inappropriate

Joy Christian replied on Nov. 4, 2011 @ 13:48 GMT

Peter,

It is important to distinguish no-signalling non-locality (or quantum non-locality) from signalling non-locality (or relativistic non-locality). Bell's theorem is primarily about the former, whereas what you are talking about is the latter. Your suggestion cannot address the issue of quantum non-locality.

Joy

report post as inappropriate

show all replies (7 not shown)

T H Ray wrote on Nov. 4, 2011 @ 11:45 GMT

Ever since Paul brought up the question "why inductive inference?" (and I also see others asking for more intuitive examples of continuous measurement criteria vs. discrete experimental outcomes), I have been mulling over ways to explain it.

Let's examine a modified version of Bell's famous "Bertlmann's socks" analogy.

(Briefly, for those unfamiliar with the analogy, Professor Bertlmann always wears one pink sock and one green sock; if one of his calves is hidden from our view, we can be sure that if we see a green sock, there is a pink sock on the other foot, and vice versa. The point is, assuming an infinite pair of pink-green socks, we can always only see one or the other, so the probability of one is 50%, even though the reality -- assuming nonlocality -- is unitary.)

My modified version of this analogy involves my personal habits. I always wash my body once a day, and only once a day. If I shower at home, it is always in the morning before work. If I shower at the gym, it is always in the afternoon after work. The simple inference is that I shower at home if and only if I didn't shower at the gym the day before, and conversely, I shower at the gym if and only if I won't shower at home in the morning. By Bell's criteria, there is only a 50% chance that you will see me shower at one place or the other, and the only "speakable" inferences are the places where I shower. That is, local observation implies nonlocal reality -- I shower at the gym if and only if I don't shower at home. We can see Bertlmann's pink sock if and only if we don't see his green one.

Joy Christian's framework assigns no value to nonlocality. Because of this, the continuous, or analytical, inferences are dependent not only on where I shower, but WHEN. The QM formulation takes no account of the time parameter, which in classical physics is a simple parameter of reversible trajectory. So if you see me shower at home, you can be sure that I did not shower at the gym the day before; if you see me shower at the gym, you can be sure that I won't shower at home the following morning. These inferences are predictions (actually, retrodiction in the case of predicting a past event) of events not observed, but NOT NONLOCAL. We can be sure of this fact, because we can visit any intermediate point between my home and the gym on alternate days, and though we may not find "me" among any of those infinite points, when we are actually looking for me at say 5 a.m., knowing that is the time I always shower at home, or at 5 p.m., knowing that is the time I always shower at the gym, we find me showering or not showering -- and we are able to infer something about past events or future events from those observations.

Now extrapolate this analogy to cosmic events, and it is easy to see that the symmetry between "5 p.m. and 5 a.m." obviates consideration of absolute time irreversibility -- because even though the continuously repeated event moves forward from the perspective of the particle ("me"), we have no objective warrant to suppose the trajectory is irreversible. Putting it a little whimsically, if you saw me showering at home at the beginning of creation, you can be sure I'm showering at the gym in the end.

Point is, it doesn't matter WHERE the initial condition is chosen (home or gym) NOR WHEN within the two choices (5 a.m. or 5 p.m.), the same local topology applies to both. That is essentially what Joy has proven: the initial condition (the eight-dimension topology of S^7) guarantees predictability in the four-dimension event space as a result of smooth continuous functions inherent in that topology.

Tom

view post as summary

report post as inappropriate

John Merryman replied on Nov. 4, 2011 @ 12:42 GMT

Tom,

Isn't that a closed system and are not closed systems inherently entropic? Which would re-introduce unpredictability.

report post as inappropriate

T H Ray replied on Nov. 4, 2011 @ 13:07 GMT

Entropy can be defined on either open or closed systems. No issue there.

report post as inappropriate

Pentcho Valev replied on Nov. 4, 2011 @ 13:14 GMT

T H Ray wrote: "Entropy can be defined on either open or closed systems."

Paul Feyerabend would comment: "Anything goes".

Pentcho Valev pvalev@yahoo.com

report post as inappropriate

show all replies (23 not shown)

Paul Reed wrote on Nov. 4, 2011 @ 16:43 GMT

Tom

Thanks for picking up my point on “inductive inference”. I think I need to stress first of all that my point was: this is a mathematical model, for a purpose, why the assumption that it therefore represents the reality we actually inhabit, ie picking up on Joy’s phrase in the paper (section 1, para 4) that “we live in”.

Perhaps we can have models, to solve a problem, that do not necessarily reflect reality. As I said in my response to Joy: (3/11 09.51) “In respect of "inductive inference", why not just drop it? You indeed do open a "can of worms" and this is not necessary. The model, is a model, is a model. Is it 'fit for purpose'. It can be so, potentially, without being depicted as a model of reality, ie we therefore live in....”

On your analogy. Surely, “The simple inference is that I shower at home if and only if I didn't shower at the gym the day before”, is incorrect. All you have stated is that each day there is a wash, and either it occurs at home in the morning, or it occurs at the gym in the afternoon/evening. Therefore, to be able to take a decision on whether to wash in the morning, you have to have decided whether you are going to the gym later, on any given day. Or put another way, if you do not wash at home in the morning, you must then go to the gym and shower, in order to fulfil your condition that every day there is one, but only one, wash. The conditions also involve timing. The converse inference: “I shower at the gym if and only if I won't shower at home in the morning”, must be so. It is an inevitable consequence. Overall, there is no probability stemming from these conditions, as to what will happen on any given day. You could wash at home, everyday and never at the gym, or vica-versa. Or the incidence of place for the daily wash could be any permutation of place over time.

Now, as far as I could understand, Joy’s model is an attempt to create a dependence free mathematical model which can calculate probabilities in respect of a certain form of circumstance. Indeed, it should not be taking account of the time parameter, as such, because time does not exist. Reality is changing, different entities/attributes thereof, at different rates. There is no overall ‘clock’. We use a duration measuring system, based on the best devices available. But what we are doing is comparing frequency to frequency, and establishing differences. We can compare them directly: elephant walks from A to B, whilst ocean level rises 1mm. Or using the measuring system, we can express both those events in time units and compare them that way. It is all about timing, and the incidence of different events at the same point in time, or the duration of any given event, or the incidence of an event in relation to another in terms of elapsed duration, if such circumstances have been stipulated.

Going back to my start-point, ie model as model, &/or model of reality, and picking up on a point made. We are within a closed system, in so far as our ability to be aware must be assumed to be limited (ie there is a potential state of not-awareness, which be definition we can never prove/disprove because we cannot transcend ourselves). So does it matter if we have a mathematical model which assumes infinity/no bounds-possibly not. Does it make the model a model of reality-probably not, but why bother to make that connection. Just use the model for its purpose, and conjecture that this model therefore demonstrates that we live in an n dimensional reality, or whatever.

Paul

PS: do you wash your socks every day, and if so, when & where? I think we should be told!!

view post as summary

report post as inappropriate

Paul Reed replied on Nov. 4, 2011 @ 16:50 GMT

I must go to specsavers. This is the second time today I've misposted something. Though it is obvious where it should be. More importantly, there should be the word 'not' before conjecture in the last sentence.

Paul

report post as inappropriate

T H Ray replied on Nov. 4, 2011 @ 17:08 GMT

Paul,

You wrote, " ... my point was: this is a mathematical model, for a purpose, why the assumption that it therefore represents the reality we actually inhabit, ie picking up on Joy’s phrase in the paper (section 1, para 4) that “we live in”."

Joy's deduction of the space we live in (the manifold of S^7) is independent of the space in which we measure (the manifold of S^4); because the unique properties of S^7 allow (and perhaps, compel) continuous measurement functions (correlations)on S^4, however, the judgment is sound, and closed, both topologically and algebraically. The important thing to understand from a scientific perspective is that we ONLY understand "reality" through our models and their correspondence to measurement. Science isn't philosophy -- we don't assume reality and then set out to prove what we assume.

"Perhaps we can have models, to solve a problem, that do not necessarily reflect reality."

Perhaps. That does not imply, however, that we have scientific understanding of physical phenomena, beyond the models that DO correspond to reality, i.e., predicted measurement.

"On your analogy. Surely, 'The simple inference is that I shower at home if and only if I didn't shower at the gym the day before', is incorrect."

No it isn't.

"All you have stated is that each day there is a wash, and either it occurs at home in the morning, or it occurs at the gym in the afternoon/evening. Therefore, to be able to take a decision on whether to wash in the morning, you have to have decided whether you are going to the gym later, on any given day."

The analogy doesn't have anything to do with what I "really" choose to do. Does a photon "really" choose to be spin up or spin down because it was observed? -- standard QM says yes, because the theory assigns value to nonlocality and therefore reality is observer-created. Classical reality isn't.

"Now, as far as I could understand, Joy’s model is an attempt to create a dependence free mathematical model which can calculate probabilities in respect of a certain form of circumstance."

No. Coordinate-free. Meaning that the model is non-contextual, and -- being mathematically complete -- can in principle calculate all outcomes with knowledge of topology and initial condition.

"Indeed, it should not be taking account of the time parameter, as such, because time does not exist."

Says who?

"Reality is changing, different entities/attributes thereof, at different rates."

Science does not assume reality.

"There is no overall ‘clock’. We use a duration measuring system, based on the best devices available."

I thought you said time doesn't exist. How do you measure something that doesn't exist?

"PS: do you wash your socks every day, and if so, when & where? I think we should be told!!"

I wash my socks every week in an undisclosed, but not unknown, location.

Tom

report post as inappropriate

Eckard Blumschein replied on Nov. 4, 2011 @ 19:44 GMT

Tom,

You wrote: "Science does not assume reality." Can you please explain your notion of reality? I already asked you to do so, but I did not get aware of an answer.

Eckard

report post as inappropriate

show all replies (3 not shown)

Paul Reed replied on Nov. 5, 2011 @ 08:23 GMT

Tom

I am fully aware that science is not philosophy, etc, etc. I am not interested in philosophy. And I am also fully aware that science can, and indeed should, only proceed on the basis of models and measurement. But that is not the same as saying that a model which works to solve a problem is, of itself, a model of the fundamental nature of the world we live in.

Indeed, if I play...

view entire post

report post as inappropriate

Author Frank Martin DiMeglio replied on Nov. 5, 2011 @ 20:37 GMT

Thought is not vision (for example); thought ultimately relies upon its being both different and similar to sensory experience. Thought and sensory experience are fundamentally related and integrated and interactive (to a limited extent). Thoughts and emotions are differentiated feelings.

Modern physics never even considered that the body is invisible and visible. You do not even know, in fact, what I mean by this, do you? THINK!

report post as inappropriate

Paul Reed replied on Nov. 6, 2011 @ 07:19 GMT

Frank

What is happening inside the individual organism, is indeed of great interest. There have been some fascinating insights with people who have suffered brain damage, then there is that blind man who has developed echolocation, etc. However, phyicists are concerned with 'what is out there'. The problem is they can only find that 'fosillised' in articulated perceptions. But in general, when someone is 'doing science' I do not think we have too much of a problem overcoming (ie discounting the interference effect)that internal processing.

Obviously it depends what you meant by your last sentence. But I could say, we do not directly sense what is 'out there', we receive a representation thereof. So we see something, but not it. The other point is that some things could be invisible to us (in respect of any given sensory capacity) because we only receive information via a medium, ie that medium is in some way inadequte, or we (or indeed any organism) do not even possess the sensory capability required to sense a particular phenomenon.

Paul

report post as inappropriate

reply to this thread

hide replies

Author Frank Martin DiMeglio wrote on Nov. 5, 2011 @ 20:21 GMT

Bodily experience (including visual) and thoughful experience -- and also instantaneity -- present the biggest and ultimate challenge for physics and unification theory.

report post as inappropriate

reply to this thread

Fred Diether wrote on Nov. 6, 2011 @ 01:20 GMT

Hi Everyone,

Joy, congrats on your new arXiv paper linked above. It should hopefully commpletely dispell any doubts that your math and model are correct and is in fact a valid counter-example to Bell. IMHO, it is a substantial breakthough in physics. Not just because of being a counter-example to Bell but more because of your title of this blog.

I was doing some more studying of Hopf Fibration and stumbled across a very good 1 hour video lecture by Niles Johnson of the University of Georgia on "Visuualizations of the Hopf Fibration". Now I know that Tom, Ray, Joy and probably some others already know this material but for those that don't and want to know more I highly recommend watching the lecture as it is a good explanation of some the topology involved in Joy's model. Also, if you search Youtube for Hopf Fibration you will find some incredible animations.

After seeing these animations, I would think that sophisticated software such as this producing these animations could in fact successfully simulate Joy's model on a computer.

Fred

report post as inappropriate

Joy Christian replied on Nov. 6, 2011 @ 10:38 GMT

Hi Fred,

Many thanks for your kind words about my work. Yes, it is indeed the origins (or raison d'être) of quantum correlations that interests me more than Bell's theorem itself. I am quite intrigued by the fact that I am driven to 7-sphere in this regard which people like Ray Munroe, Garrett Lisi, Michael Atiyah, and others have also arrived at from very different direction.

Thanks also for the link to Niles Johnson's lecture on Hopf fibration. I enjoyed the lecture very much.

I also agree that some sophisticated software such as those you mention may lead to a computer simulation of my model. That would be a nice.

Thanks again for your comments.

Best,

Joy

report post as inappropriate

T H Ray replied on Nov. 6, 2011 @ 11:57 GMT

Thanks, Fred! I think Johnson's computer animation at the end should give one a more or less intuitive idea of why Joy's functions are complete, continuous, integrable and orientable.

Unlike Joy, I am skeptical about the possibilities of computer simulation, because the mathematical parameters do not map one for one to the physical space in a time-symmetric way. For example, while we can simulate Kepler's elliptic orbits, real time observation in physical space gives us an infinite number of curve fits to the trajectory.

Sure, we can probably create a simulation in the form of computer animation. That won't satisfy Bell loyalists on the nature of physical spacetime, however.

Tom

report post as inappropriate

Joy Christian replied on Nov. 6, 2011 @ 12:24 GMT

Tom,

I completely agree with your comments. I have expressed somewhat similar skepticism myself in section VII of my paper. However, I think Fred is talking about simulation simply to have a better intuitive understanding of the model. As for Bell loyalists, nothing will satisfy them, so it is best to concentrate our efforts on moving the program forward rather than worrying about their support.

Joy

report post as inappropriate

show all replies (79 not shown)

Edwin Eugene Klingman wrote on Nov. 7, 2011 @ 04:47 GMT

Dear Joy Christian,

The problem that you address focuses on Bell's challenge that a 'hidden variable' -- representing any equations or properties or parameters not normally included in the standard quantum formulation -- cannot produce the correlations predicted by quantum mechanics. You have met this challenge by choosing not a set of equations or properties but by altering the topology...

view entire post

report post as inappropriate

Joy Christian replied on Nov. 7, 2011 @ 09:51 GMT

Dear Edwin,

Thank you for your comments. You write: "Bell assumes a unit vector ^a or ^b to represent the inhomogeneous field required by the experiment..."

Bell's theorem does not depend on any such assumption. He allows arbitrary experimental contexts that can be represented by any old symbols: say s or t, or whatever. It does not matter. Neither does his theorem depend on physical assumptions like homogenous magnetic field, or spin systems.

Bell has made no mistake in logic of the kind you claim he has. I am afraid you have not understood Bell's theorem. I highly recommend understanding the theorem first before criticising it. A good place for understanding the theorem is the Report on it by Clauser and Shimony (Ref. [22] of my paper). See especially section 3.5 of the Report to recognize that Bell's theorem does not depend on the kind of assumptions you claim it does.

Moreover, the real problem is not the EPR correlations, but ALL quantum correlations, whatever the underlying quantum state. I claim that this real problem can be solved ONLY by recognizing that we live in a parallelized 7-sphere. It can be solved ONLY by my analysis and no other. This is my claim.

Best regards,

Joy

report post as inappropriate

Paul Reed replied on Nov. 7, 2011 @ 10:01 GMT

Edwin

Fundamentally, I think it would help if everybody could agree on what the actual underlying probem is that this model is trying to resolve. That is, what is its purpose, potentially disproving Bell just being a consequence.

Paul

report post as inappropriate

Edwin Eugene Klingman replied on Nov. 7, 2011 @ 20:44 GMT

Joy,

Thanks for your reply.

You may be correct that Bell's theorem does not depend upon physical assumptions like the homogeneous field or spin systems. But the EPR experiment certainly does, and he has, in my opinion, formulated an incorrect model of this. Therefore the model is incorrect. We will just have to disagree on this.

Your other point is that EPR correlations can ONLY be solved by your analysis and no other. That is a very strong claim and I wish you well with it. My post in the thread above implies that an 'extra field' can perhaps achieve the same effect as an 'extra dimension' and this may or may not apply to EPR. I think it does. But a field can provide a chiral aspect (that corresponds to experiments) that an extra dimension apparently fails to do.

Do you believe that the chirality seen in physics is of no consequence or does it somehow fall out of the 7-sphere?

Best regards,

Edwin Eugene Klingman

report post as inappropriate

show all replies (5 not shown)

Eckard Blumschein wrote on Nov. 11, 2011 @ 07:57 GMT

"... disciplined ... in a mathematically very precise sense." My suspicion is so incredibly simple that it must be wrong - in the eyes of well educated physicists: What about the possibility that precise symmetry just indicates redundancy? Well, this questions some very foundations. Isn't the wave function complex?

Here I am claiming to be careful: As I tried to explain in my essays, use of negative time implies complex calculus and loss of commutativity. It is often clever to use linearized models with coordinates like x or t assumed to extend to both sides of zero. Extension from minus infinity to plus infinity seems to provide unlimited applicability. Students are told: The solution is in general complex.

I appreciate in particular a Fig. 2 in a paper by Joy Christian that illustrates the difference between the written for good past and the undecided future. This distinction clearly contradicts to the celebrated spacetime, whose assumed a priori existence is inextricably linked with Einstein's hypothesis of relativity.

I do not support those like Pentcho Valev who are denies the postulate of constant speed of light or like Peter Jackson who is suggesting something that can experimentally be proved wrong for any wave. The mistakes I am after seem to be older. Why not taking into account the possibility that the postulate of relativity is just an albeit clever illusion?

Eckard

report post as inappropriate

Paul Reed replied on Nov. 11, 2011 @ 10:56 GMT

Eckard

Think on this. If a precise symmetry is not real, but a function of the maths, then yes there is redundancy, because actually, there is nothing there. I am not saying this is happening, just a, somewhat obvious, comment.

"negative time", what is this?

I am not sure what your point re a fig 2 and inextricable links to Einstein refers to. His principle of relativity was that laws must be operable in all circumstances. His theory of relativity was that reality is somewhat amorphous (a function of the gravitation force), so standard measurement techniques will not suffice. And that one, obviously, had to factor in the timing delay when considering the individual observations of any given existent event.

A judgement as to whether the "postulate of relativity is just an albeit clever illusion" must be based on a proper understanding as to what that postulate was, according to Einstein.

Paul

report post as inappropriate

Eckard Blumschein replied on Nov. 11, 2011 @ 19:48 GMT

Paul,

Your comment is correct and appreciated.

Physics operates so far with an event-bound time scale with arbitrarily chosen zero. Isn't a moving relative to it scale more of just elapsed time more natural? The zero of this alternative scale is permanently located at the border between past and future. If we count (backward in usual time) elapsed time positive, then the not yet decided future is negative (elapsed) time.

Mentioned Fig. 2 illustrates an unchangeable single world line showing the past that splits at t=0, where the cones of past and future have a point in common, into a not yet calculable so far amorphous bundle of possibilities inside the cone of future.

The intentions of Einstein as well as the ideas he incorporated are clearly understandable to me. I just consider Lorentz contraction at least questionable and Einstein's first postulate (unrestricted applicability of time shift) not even an original but a illusory idea, although the illogical reference of c to the observer seemed to provide an elegant solution.

While I do not expect that the laws do not hold in future, prediction of the future will always remain somewhat uncertain since the required for exact prediction amount of initial conditions is in reality infinite.

Eckard

report post as inappropriate

Paul Reed replied on Nov. 13, 2011 @ 07:33 GMT

Eckard

Yes I do not think (ie some hesitation on my part)that arbitrarily chosen zero matters. Because with many attributes, one is comparing and identifying difference. It is the difference that is real, within our reality. So the scale deployed in measurement systems is irrelevant. They are just units, a common denominator in which to consider various examples of the attribute. For example, instead of having to always directly compare manifestations of the attribute, we can just compare the numbers of units.

Timing, which is what we are doing, is concerned with elapsed time units or duration, a measure of the frequency of any given change.

Can you please specify which paper this fig 2 is in, I had a scan through the first few and found one with a fig 2 in it. Based on what you are saying, this sounds correct. Whenever any given existent state occurs in a sequence of change, or whenever information about an existent state is received, then t = 0. It is timing, not time. And it is the timing of the frequency of change. But remember, these are different time-lines (continua)and should not be confused. Indeed, there is another one which is in respect of the sensory representations emanating from that existent state, these can continue to exist for millions of years before being received (at which point they cease to exist). At any given point in time, one could establish what is happening in the other two continua in respect of any given existent state, ie t = 0 for that state (the time of existence is the reference point), or one could take any point in time as the reference point and cross-reference the time-lines for different existent states. T just automatically equals nought depending on what one is trying to time. I cannot comment further without actually looking at the fig.

If you told me to 'get off the fence', as we say in this country, then I too worry about the notion of length alteration. I certainly worry about a concept that it is the same for all types of matter. That is, even if it is logically correct, then the value of the effect is probably wrong. But this was their presumption and I am not capable of passing a judgement on its correctness.

Not sure what you mean by "unrestricted applicability of time shift". His first postulate, referred to as the principle of relativity, boils down to the statement that a law must work in all circumstances. Since he is concerned with electrodynamic motion, it tends to get expressed in relevant terms. But as a piece of logic, it is correct, indeed a statement of the obvious. In fact, he keeps re-expressing it as he makes various points, but the logical form is always the same. His last definition is:

"By application of arbitrary substitutions of the Gauss variables x1, x2, x3, x4, the equations must pass over into equations of the same form; for every transformation (not only the Lorentz transformation) corresponds to the transition of one Gauss co-ordinate system into another".(Einstein 1916 SR & GR section 28).

His second postulate, ie about light, depends upon whether the circumstances include gravitation. It boils down to: a)the start velocity of light is always the same (ie speed of source is irrelevant) b) like any other matter, light will continue to travel at that speed if unimpeded in any way c) gravitation is a force which affects the travel of light.

Prediction of the future will only remain uncertain if knowledge is in someway deficient. Basically, either we know all that is involved but we do not know sufficient detail, &/or we do not know everything involved or introduce spurious factors.

Paul

view post as summary

report post as inappropriate

show all replies (4 not shown)

Cristi Stoica wrote on Nov. 11, 2011 @ 09:42 GMT

Dear Joy,

In Can Bell's Prescription for Physical Reality Be Considered Complete?, page 4, you wrote the following equation:

${\cal E}({\bf a},\,{\bf b})\,=\,\frac{1}{N}\sum_{j\,=\,1}^{N}\,\{{sign}\,({\bf\lambda}_j\cdot{\bf a})\}\,\{{sign}\,(-{\bf\lambda}_j\cdot{\bf b})\},\,\, (16)$

There, you claim that the experiment you proposed to be performed in the macroscopic domain will provide a collection of angular momenta lambda_j which, when inserted into equation (16) for large number of trials N, will give

${\cal E}({\bf a},\,{\bf b})=-\,{\bf a}\cdot{\bf b}\,\, (15)$

and will refute

${\cal E}({\bf a},\,{\bf b})\,=\,\frac{2}{\pi}\,\cos^{-1}\left({\bf a}\cdot{\bf b}\right)-1\,\, (3)$

Q1: Do you claim that it is mathematically possible to exist a collection of lambda_j which, when plugged into eqn. (16), vindicate (15) and refute (3)?

(in the cited paper you wrote "we believe the experiment will vindicate prediction (15) and refute prediction (3)")

Q2: Do you agree that dot products in the above equations can be written using real numbers and the usual operations with real numbers, in the form

$-{\bf\lambda}_j\cdot{\bf b} = -{\lambda}_{jx}{ b}_x -{\lambda}_{jy}{ b}_y -{\lambda}_{jz}{ b}_z,$

respectively

$-\,{\bf a}\cdot{\bf b} = -\,{ a}_x{ b}_x-\,{ a}_y{ b}_y-\,{ a}_z{ b}_y?$

Q3: In this case (Q2=TRUE), isn't already proven mathematically that there is no such collection of lambda_j which refute the linear (in the angle) (3) in favor of the cos-shaped (15)?

Thank you,

Cristi Stoica

P.S. I formulated the questions so that you can give simple yes/no answers to them, but of course you are welcome to explain your answers.

report post as inappropriate

Cristi Stoica replied on Nov. 11, 2011 @ 10:18 GMT

Erratum: Please replace the second equation in Q2 by:

$-\,{\bf a}\cdot{\bf b} = -\,{ a}_x{ b}_x-\,{ a}_y{ b}_y-\,{ a}_z{ b}_z$

P.S. wrote equation (3) (and the Q2 equations) in a way which avoids the plus sign, which is not rendered, probably because of some url encoding reason.

report post as inappropriate

Joy Christian replied on Nov. 11, 2011 @ 12:42 GMT

Cristi,

We have gone through your questions at great length before (for example on this page). Equation (16) is a phenomenological equation, not a theoretical computation of the observed correlation.

Joy

report post as inappropriate

Cristi Stoica replied on Nov. 11, 2011 @ 17:03 GMT

Dear Joy,

Such a collection of lambda_j as you claimed cannot exist, because mathematics forbids it to exist. Calling eqn. (16) phenomenological doesn't make it immune to the math rules governing the operations which you used in it.

I don't say that IF you calculate the lambdas from some assumptions, they will not contradict eqn. (3). I say more than this: that no matter how you obtain them, they can't contradict eqn. (3) in favor of equation (15). Never. No matter how you obtain them. That's math.

The answer to my 3 questions above is "yes".

Cristi

report post as inappropriate

show all replies (10 not shown)

Joy Christian wrote on Nov. 11, 2011 @ 21:57 GMT

Not *the* math; your math.

report post as inappropriate

Cristi Stoica replied on Nov. 12, 2011 @ 06:22 GMT

Joy,

It is easy to give replies like this, to avoid answering my three questions above. Answering them will reveal where is the problem: if your claim is true, this would lead directly to the existence of some numbers which would contradict a well-established mathematical result. Established before I was even born, so it's not *my math*.

You claim that your experiment can provide numbers which, introduced in

${\cal E}({\bf a},\,{\bf b})\,=\,\frac{1}{N}\sum_{j\,=\,1}^{N}\,\{{sign}\,({\bf\lambda}_j\cdot{\bf a})\}\,\{{sign}\,(-{\bf\lambda}_j\cdot{\bf b})\},\,\, (16)$

would vindicate your equation

${\cal E}({\bf a},\,{\bf b})=-\,{\bf a}\cdot{\bf b}\,\, (15)$

and will refute

${\cal E}({\bf a},\,{\bf b})\,=\,\frac{2}{\pi}\,\cos^{-1}\left({\bf a}\cdot{\bf b}\right)-1\,\, (3)$

It is equation (3) which is mathematically proven to hold, in contrast to equation (15). So your claim contradicts math, not "my math".

QED

Cristi

report post as inappropriate

Fred Diether replied on Nov. 12, 2011 @ 07:10 GMT

Cristi,

If eq. (15) is the result of quantum theory, then how can what you are saying be true?

Fred

report post as inappropriate

Cristi Stoica replied on Nov. 12, 2011 @ 07:56 GMT

Fred,

I never said that eq. (15) is not true in quantum mechanics.

The question is whether it can be true in the macroscopic domain, as Joy claims in his paper Can Bell's Prescription for Physical Reality Be Considered Complete? cited above. In fact, the question is whether it can be obtained as Joy claims. In that paper, it is claimed that the equation (15) is obtained in the macroscopic domain, not as a result of quantum mechanics.

In quantum mechanics, eqn. (15) is true and (3) false, because they are not obtained by plugging angular momenta into Joy's eqn. (16), but rather from the formalism of quantum mechanics. Joy's claim is that (15) can be obtained by putting some numbers in (16), which can't be true, because mathematics forbids the existence of such numbers.

So I am not saying that (15) is not true for quantum mechanics, only that the right hand side of eqn (16) cannot be equal to the right hand side of the eqn. (15) (instead of (3)).

Cristi

report post as inappropriate

show all replies (18 not shown)

Saibal Mitra wrote on Nov. 11, 2011 @ 22:36 GMT

This being a determinstic theory, is there any way to demonstrate a deviation from randomness? In Bohm theory, this would require devations of quantum equilibrium:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_equilibrium
_hypothesis

report post as inappropriate

Joy Christian replied on Nov. 11, 2011 @ 23:00 GMT

Thank you for your question. What I have proposed so far is a framework that can reproduce any quantum mechanical correlation classically. It is not yet developed sufficiently to address the question you have raised.

report post as inappropriate

reply to this thread

Cristi wrote on Nov. 12, 2011 @ 08:29 GMT

I'd like to resume:

In this paper Joy claims that his proposed experiment to be performed in the macroscopic domain will deliver a set of angular momenta

$(\bf\lambda_j)_{j=1}^N$

which, for large N, gives

$\frac{1}{N}\sum_{j\,=\,1}^{N}\,\{{sign}\,({\bf\lambda}_j\cdot{\bf a})\}\,\{{sign}\,(-{\bf\lambda}_j\cdot{\bf b})\},\,\approx\, -\,{\bf a}\cdot{\bf b}.$

This contradicts the mathematically proven result that

$\frac{1}{N}\sum_{j\,=\,1}^{N}\,\{{sign}\,({\bf\lambda}_j\cdot{\bf a})\}\,\{{sign}\,(-{\bf\lambda}_j\cdot{\bf b})\},\,\approx\, \frac{2}{\pi}\,\cos^{-1}\left({\bf a}\cdot{\bf b}\right)-1.$

Cristi

report post as inappropriate

Joy Christian replied on Nov. 12, 2011 @ 10:51 GMT

Cristi,

Equation (16) is a phenomenological equation, not a theoretical computation of the observed correlation. Lambdas are not calculated mathematically---they are observed and recorded directions of the angular momenta. For a full understanding of the experiment read my papers.

Joy

report post as inappropriate

Cristi Stoica replied on Nov. 12, 2011 @ 21:36 GMT

Joy,

Just calling an impossible thing "phenomenological" doesn't make it possible.

"they are observed and recorded directions of the angular momenta"

Where? Could you please show these records? Then show that they satisfy the identity you claimed.

Cristi

report post as inappropriate

Joy Christian replied on Nov. 12, 2011 @ 21:44 GMT

Cristi,

Would you please read my papers and try not to misrepresent my work for a change?

Joy

report post as inappropriate

show all replies (76 not shown)

John Merryman wrote on Nov. 13, 2011 @ 03:54 GMT

Uh oh. We have Lawrence and Tom on opposite sides of this. One's mirror image is another's negative....

report post as inappropriate

reply to this thread

Armin Nikkhah Shirazi wrote on Nov. 13, 2011 @ 03:56 GMT

Hi Joy,

Is your hidden variable, "the orientation of space", identifiable with parity for a local region of space? If it is, does the fact that parity is violated in weak interactions not provide indirect evidence against your theory, for if the orientation of space was really variable, then should we not expect that at least sometimes the weak interactions would fail to violate parity? If it is not, then how can it be locally distinguished, e.g. how does the the parity violation of weak interactions fail to be a test of the orientation of space?

report post as inappropriate

Fred Diether replied on Nov. 13, 2011 @ 06:15 GMT

Hi Armin,

I don't think "orientation of space" is the same as parity for quantum objects such as those involved in the weak interations. IOW, I think you are talking about properties of certain quantum objects vs. properties of space. But overall it is an interesting question. How much do the propreties of space affect interations of elementary particles in Joy's model?

Fred

report post as inappropriate

Joy Christian replied on Nov. 13, 2011 @ 11:35 GMT

Hi Armin,

The orientation of the 3-sphere (which is taken as a model of the physical space in my framework), has nothing to do with parity. The orientation of space is not a variable in general (it does not vary from one point of space to another). It defines the initial or complete state of the EPR system (as conceptualized by Bell in his local model).

Joy

report post as inappropriate

Edwin Eugene Klingman replied on Nov. 13, 2011 @ 18:50 GMT

Dear Fred and Joy and Armin,

In response to Armin's query whether "the fact that parity is violated in weak interactions [does] not provide indirect evidence against your theory" Fred remarks "...overall it is an interesting question."

That was the intent behind my query of Nov. 7, 2011 @ 20:44 where I pointed out that a field can provide a chiral aspect (that corresponds to experiments) that an extra dimension apparently fails to do. I asked "Do you believe that the chirality seen in physics is of no consequence or does it somehow fall out of the 7-sphere?"

Joy responded that "The chiral aspect is built-in in the formalism of geometric algebra I have used in my models. The bivectors, for example, are naturally chiral."

Of course I knew that geometric algebraic objects support both left and right handedness. The problem is that the universe or nature exhibits an asymmetry. There are only left-handed neutrinos. Longo has shown an asymmetry favoring left-handed spiral galaxies with respect to the "axis of evil". It is well known that amino acids (and possibly other bio-molecules) favor left-handed symmetry. And, as Armin asked, "does the fact that parity is violated in weak interactions not provide indirect evidence against your theory?"

These are non-trivial facts, and we might legitimately question, when one asks us to re-conceptualize the very nature of space-time in favor of seven dimensions, how does this relate to these known asymmetries. There may be no relation, but this would seem to imply something serious is missing.

Of course, as Joy replied to Mitra below, his theory is a work-in-progress, nevertheless, asking such questions about chirality may stimulate Joy to either look for an explanation in his theory of space-time for the factual asymmetries, or consider why his theory does not address the problem.

As I stated, my preferred solution, a 'new' field, does explain the left-handedness found in nature.

Best Regards,

Edwin Eugene Klingman

report post as inappropriate

show all replies (2 not shown)

Joy Christian replied on Nov. 13, 2011 @ 19:43 GMT

Dear Edwin,

I do not find much to disagree about in what you have written. Note, however, that what I am proposing is not a theory as such but a framework, the primary goal of which is to address conceptual questions of quantum theory. In particular, the goal is to address conceptual questions such as whether or not we live in a locally causal world; or why are the quantum correlations what they are. Other important physical questions such as those of parity and chirality must be addressed within my framework at some stage, but those are not my primary concern at the moment. On the other hand, I do not see any reason why such questions cannot be addressed within my framework. I am not a particle physicist, but my impression is that many particle physics motivated theories involving extra dimensions are motivated precisely to address such questions. Perhaps Ray may have something to add here.

On the other hand, I am pleased to note that your preferred solution explains the left-handedness found in nature.

Best regards,

Joy

report post as inappropriate

Paul Reed replied on Nov. 14, 2011 @ 10:25 GMT

Edwin

You said: "Of course I knew that geometric algebraic objects support both left and right handedness. The problem is that the universe or nature exhibits an asymmetry". Oh, so you mean the model might not be in accord with the logic of our reality??

Joy

You said:" what I am proposing is not a theory as such but a framework, the primary goal of which is to address conceptual questions of quantum theory". This strikes me as a very important caveat. From my perspective, it further substantiates my point that the model/framework cannot be said, on the basis of the evidence, to reveal definitely the number of spatial dimensions in our reality. It might do, but we need more evidence to confirm that extrinsic assertion. Whether this statement means anything to those who are arguing against the intrinsic validity of your model, ie the validity of the maths and its appropriateness for the problem for which it is proposed as a solution (fitness for purpose)is another matter.

Paul

report post as inappropriate

reply to this thread

hide replies

Cristi Stoica wrote on Nov. 13, 2011 @ 07:42 GMT

I just asked simple math question concerning the validity of one of Joy's paper. Joy decided again to attack the person instead of the argument, by suggesting that I am not qualified to discuss his work, using lines like these:

"Would you please read my papers and try not to misrepresent my work for a change?"

"Lawrence, [...] You are better than this (at least compared to the other two).

I said repeatedly that I read more than once his articles. This doesn't mean that I should accept without questioning his work.

I would like to submit myself to an exam on Joy's papers. I also would like to ask the presence of at least one specialist in Quantum Mechanics (in addition to Joy). This can be Prof. Shimony (who is acknowledged in Joy's articles) or another FQXi member, or a PI member. I will give to Joy the possibility to propose the qualified person(s).

1. The specialist(s) can then prepare a test from Joy's work, which I will gladly try to pass. I would invite Florin and Tom to participate too. I know that this is not necessary to allow comments, but in this case may be helpful, because critics like me and Florin are ignored, when such a reputed physicist like Joy simply disqualifies us.

2. In the presence of this specialist, I would like to ask questions like those I already asked to Joy on the FQXi's forums regarding his articles. I hope Florin to join me, with his own interesting and justified questions. And Lawrence, if he wishes.

3. Then I would kindly ask the invited expert(s) to evaluate our arguments.

I hope that modern day physics will allow equal opportunity to a reputed Oxford Professor and more modest commentators like us.

Cristi

report post as inappropriate

Paul Reed replied on Nov. 13, 2011 @ 08:51 GMT

I have some sympathy with the underlying point here.

I raised a question as to the extrinsic validity of this model. That is, can a model which addresses the observational issues of quantum correlation be deemed to be a represenation of the reality we live in. Whether or not it is intrinsically valid.

My point has been depicted as philosophy, which it is not. And even if it was, I did not make the assertion. I am just questioning whether there is substantive evidence to support it. And I note that the various threads above have all gone quiet, with my post being the last one.

Paul

report post as inappropriate

Cristi Stoica replied on Nov. 13, 2011 @ 09:46 GMT

I want to clarify that I do not suggest that one should be allowed to comment only if has passed an exam. This would be a wrong precedent, which would make the physics of our times even more closed. It would also contradict the benefit of the doubt principle: one should start by accepting that the comments of a scientific paper are made by people who understand the subject and have good intentions. One should accuse of lack of qualification or of misconduct only if there are reasons for this (others than that we don't like their point). I don't think I gave such reasons. I would prefer simply that the expert(s) just review the comments I already made, and those of Florin and others. But I am willing to give a short list of those arguments, to ease the work of the expert(s). The point 1 I proposed above is only intended to remove the accusations made by Joy. It is like a voluntary submission to the lie detector test.

Cristi

report post as inappropriate

Cristi Stoica replied on Nov. 13, 2011 @ 09:50 GMT

I sincerely regret that the things went this far. I read Joy's articles with interest and curiosity. I never pick a reading to attack the authors, I simply want to learn more physics. Joy's papers seemed to question widely accepted views, and I have great admiration for this kind of enterprises. Unfortunately, I had the lack of inspiration to question some statements from Joy's articles. I am aware that no new theory is born mature, it has to grow up. In software industry, everybody admits that bugs will exist, and that's why there are bug reports and new versions. Software engineers, although may not be happy when receiving bug reports, at least are grateful, because they want that the failure to happen as fast as possible, to minimize the damages. Of course, some adopt the motto "it's not a bug, it's a feature". I did not expect Joy to be grateful for my "bug reports". What I did not expect was such an escalation of commitment, which led to personal attacks against me and others. Normally, we all expect that there are personal attacks on the Internet. But when they come from an authority in the domain, his words may be very harmful for my reputation. So I have to defend myself.

Cristi

report post as inappropriate

show all replies (3 not shown)

Ray Munroe wrote on Nov. 13, 2011 @ 14:17 GMT

Dear Friends,

My latest paper with Jonathan Dickau uses a minimum 10-D TOE to explain superluminal neutrinos, and has been published in Prespacetime Journal.

I would like to draw your attention to the last two sections: "Geometric Attributes of Higher Dimensions" and "Thermo-Geometric Instabilities of the Octonion 7-Sphere" on pages 1806-9.

We present a case for why the 7-sphere should not be stable. In my opinion, this complicates, and may even negate, any conclusions that Joy and Tom may have made regarding 7-sphere geometry.

Have Fun!

attachments: 2968331PB.pdf

report post as inappropriate

Joy Christian replied on Nov. 13, 2011 @ 14:28 GMT

Congratulations, Ray.

I will have a look at your paper to see if it has any relevance for my model.

Joy

report post as inappropriate

Fred Diether replied on Nov. 13, 2011 @ 22:36 GMT

Hi Ray,

Why do you think the 7-sphere topology needs to be stable in application to Joy's model? Would it be sufficient for the 7-sphere topology to exist momentarily and then decay to the 3-sphere topology? Or does not being stable forbid it to exist at all?

I also had a look at your "Symplectic tiling, hypercolour and hyperflavor E12" paper. For your "2-D hexagonal Graphene-like G2 lattice", you might want to investigate an Apollonian gasket type of geometry without the outer circle boundary. If you haven't already.

Best,

Fred

report post as inappropriate

Ray Munroe replied on Nov. 14, 2011 @ 00:58 GMT

Hi Fred,

Yes - You raise some interesting questions. I think it is clear that we live in a quaternion Spacetime, and that we don't directly experience octonion physics. But perhaps Joy's procedure is an indication that the fundamental geometry should be (or was) octonion 7-spheres - close-packing of which leads to the E8 Gosset lattice. I also worry if Joy has over-simplified his octonion algebra by excluding complex numbers. As my latest paper shows, imaginary mass (tachyons) could eliminate everything that we think we understand about 'locality' and 'causality'.

The Apollonian gasket is an interesting combination of a G2-like geometry with fractals that may be the interface between the quantum (G2-like) scale and the classical (fractal-like) scale. My FQXi friend, Steve Dufourny and I blogged about this a lot a couple of years ago. I would also be interested in a 4-D application based on the 24-cell, and an 8-D application based on the Gosset lattice, but these applications are not as obvious as the Apollonian gasket.

Have Fun!

report post as inappropriate

show all replies (137 not shown)

Don Limuti (digitalwavetheory.com) wrote on Nov. 14, 2011 @ 01:45 GMT

Hi Joy Christian,

It is a pleasure to see the moderator participate in the posts.

A simple viewpoint:

An electron is always an electron at any instance. From instant to instant a golf ball is constantly changing. Why does the electron have such a high quality "quantum correlation"?

I believe the reason is that the electron and any quantum particle do not have a continuous existence in space-time.... Quantum particles are always non-local phenomena.

When this concept of non locality is applied to EPR we have:

http://www.digitalwavetheory.com/DWT/3g_EPR.html

When this concept of non locality applied to the arrow of time we have:

http://www.digitalwavetheory.com/DWT/42_The_Arrow_of_Ti
me.html

This viewpoint looks at non locality as a high level concept. If it is broken down and modeled it may well translate as stuff happening in multi-dimensions, perhaps a 7-sphere.

Don L.

report post as inappropriate

Paul Reed replied on Nov. 14, 2011 @ 10:54 GMT

Don

How about the possibility that the conception of the quantum particle and quantum correlation has a fundamental flaw in it, as an alternative approach to the point you raise? One must start with the assumption, until definitely proven otherwise, that all particles, elemetary or otherwise, exist in accord with the same rules.

Another way of putting this is, re your first sentence, the electron is changing "from instant to instant" (eg it moves), just as is the golf ball. Just as will any other 'particle', assuming it is real, and not just a hypothetical outcome of maths. It's all the same stuff, doing the same things, just in different formations. An elemetary particle may have a random movement, for example, but so what? it is still a movement, it's just erratic or random. It's duration of existence may be very short (and it changes, eg moves, in that time), but again so what? It exists, or at least certainly should do.

Paul

report post as inappropriate

Don Limuti (www.digitalwavetheory.com) replied on Nov. 14, 2011 @ 21:04 GMT

Paul,

You understand my viewpoint..Thanks. And you do not agree with it...Understandable.

I believe that there is a fundamental maximum for particle mass. This maximum value is the Planck mass. I show how this comes about on my web site, it is a theory and by no means "reality". However the theory can explain a lot (see www.digitalwavetheory.com).

I believe an experiment can be made to see if the theory has any merit. The experiment involves the observation of an individual Buckyball C60 that is made to move slow. The theory predicts that at a slow enough velocity the Buckyball will be seen to appear and disappear as it moves. The experiment is outlined at www.digitalwavetheory.com/DWT/20_Experiments-_QM.html

Don L.

report post as inappropriate

Paul Reed replied on Nov. 16, 2011 @ 08:56 GMT

Don

Not sure whether I agree or not, but I will take a look at your ref, that's more homework, must read Ray's first, then Eckard!

My concerns in this area are around any assumption that how stuff fundamentally exists is constituted differently as a function of atomic size. That is, in reality all stuff functions to the same basic rules, the problem is in the process of observation. Following on from that, the failure to differentiate light as an existent entity, from light in its evolutionary function as that which enables observation.

Paul

report post as inappropriate

show all replies (2 not shown)

Don Limuti replied on Nov. 16, 2011 @ 17:38 GMT

Paul,

Your concern is real. Why should quantum stuff be different than classical stuff? I do not know why outside of the model I made using deBroglie's matter wave. I believe we need to make this distinction because there is no way to distinguish individual electrons, while we can distinguish individual golf balls. Thus I believe there must be a dividing line between the quantum and classical.

1. The basic building block of all stuff consists of quantum mechanical particles (I consider light and all energy as quantum mechanical particles). This building block material is a little strange in that 1. particles are indistinguishable 2. particles move by appearing and disappearing 3. particles cannot exceed a max mass value of about 22 micrograms (the Planck mass).

2. Every distinguishable object that we find in nature is composed of collections of quantum mechanical particles.

Don L.

report post as inappropriate

Paul Reed replied on Nov. 17, 2011 @ 12:03 GMT

Don

Exactly. Why should stuff be different in the form of its existence. Fullstop-forget classical/quantum. Or to be more precise, one must start from certain more validated concepts, and move forward with those until they are definitively repudiated. This is what underpins my dialogue with Tom on science and reality. So it moves in a discrete manner, it is random, it's this, it's that. So what? Assuming the validity of these statements, it still 'moves' and has position,for example, otherwise it cannot have existence. It is still independent of us, just that the very act of detecting it causes chsange in what otherwise would have happened.

Reality cannot be some sort of 'pick and mix' entity. I think there is confusion between reality and the process of detection, which means that some characteristcs are being reified and deemed to be attributes of reality itself, rather than just the manifestations of problems in the process of observation.

Incidentally, I think I used to think that Planck was really related to the properties of light, as opposed to something else. Which may or may not have the same basic attributes. I'll 'throw that in' pending revisiting it and your paper. Remember, reality is independent of the representation that we receive of it via light.

Paul

report post as inappropriate

reply to this thread

hide replies

Armin Nikkhah Shirazi wrote on Nov. 14, 2011 @ 07:57 GMT

Hello Joy,

Thank you for your response to my question. I must admit that I am still a bit unclear about your model and have a few additional questions.

1) You posit as global model of space a parallelized 3-sphere, which however, locally should appear to us exactly like ordinary space (but see my question 3 below). I infer the local indistinguishability between the two from your...

view entire post

report post as inappropriate

Joy Christian replied on Nov. 14, 2011 @ 12:09 GMT

Hi Armin,

Your first question seems to me to be a question of interpretation or language. Suppose we cannot distinguish the local orientation of the physical space from parity transformation. So what? One can then interpret the hidden variable of my model as a parity variable (not an operator, mind you, because we are doing classical, hidden variable physics). One can then say that the quantum state of the EPR system is completed by a hidden variable that specifies the initial parity state of the system. I don't find this interpretation particularly appealing, but it seems to me a perfectly viable interpretation of my hidden variable.

The answer to your second question depends on what one considers to be a closed system. For any closed system, such as the EPR-Bohm system, the orientation of the physical space, or the volume form "I", is part of what Bell called the complete or initial state of the system. In other words, the state of the system that is more complete than what can be specified by its quantum state. For a closed system there are no "other" quantum systems. All systems are part of the closed system.

Your third question goes well beyond the intended scope of the model. But let us extrapolate it to the level of the universe as a whole and speculate. The first point is that the parallelized 3-sphere is a model for very special quantum systems, like the EPR or two-level systems. When it comes to more general quantum systems, like the universe as a whole, the model in fact is a parallelized 7-sphere, which is a 4-sphere worth of 3-spheres, all linked to each other in a highly intricate twisted bundle. From this perspective the flatness of the universe would clearly have to be reassessed. Could it be that the universe is not really flat but only appears to be flat (a bit like in Flatland where the creatures of 2-dimensions could only see the sphere as a flat circle)? As you can see, we are now sliding well and truly into the realm of speculation.

Joy

report post as inappropriate

T H Ray replied on Nov. 14, 2011 @ 13:34 GMT

Armin,

What a breath of fresh air to explore consequences of the model instead of countering false claims.

With your and Joy's permission, my two cents:

1. I think that parity conservation in this context is identical to time-reverse symmetry. This is always apparent in classical and quasi-classical models. Even observed CP violations on the particle scale seem to be restored with CPT conservation on the classical.

2. How does spacetime vary point to point? A discrete quantum mechanical model cannot describe continuous state variations in a dynamic system -- i.e., general relativity, which describes the interaction between mass and spacetime. Since Joy's model is fully relativistic, and locally realistic, the orientation of spacetime would seem to depend on the time scale of observed correlated events -- the smaller the time interval, the greater the angular momentum -- so that quantum events correlated to infinity should exhibit a flat (elliptic) trajectory with zero angular momentum, which answers your question no. 3.

A "which way" question of trajectory orientation at any arbitrary moment -- + 1 (parabolic) or - 1 (hyperbolic) -- gives us observer entanglement with correlated particle pairs (equivalent to correlation of classical events), so that (as in a quantum mechanical system) knowledge of one trajectory implies the other (picture intersecting curves). That's the hidden variable -- i.e., the initial condition coupled to the topology at the time of observation. We are essentially dealing with the evolution of spacetime. The evolution of spacetime determines the trajectory of particle paths, so we use quantum correlations to predict the continuous trajectory with no assumption of nonlocality.

As I read back over this, I appreciate how hard it is to translate the mathematics into natural language. I read Joy's math, and it is very clear to me -- yet I am aware when I try to explain it that more questions will be raised to necessitate explaining the explanation. That's the way science progresses, though, and I know no better way.

Tom

report post as inappropriate

reply to this thread

Author Frank Martin DiMeglio wrote on Nov. 14, 2011 @ 20:22 GMT

Inertial and gravitational equivalency and balancing are required of any realistic and fundamental understanding/description of quantum gravity. To fundamentally and truly unite gravity, inertia, and electromagnetism, gravity and inertia must both be at half force/strength.

Dreams fundamentally demonstrate instantaneity and all of the above.

report post as inappropriate

reply to this thread

Eckard Blumschein wrote on Nov. 15, 2011 @ 11:03 GMT

Joy,

Let me try and begin to translate the mathematical notions you are using into relevant for physics easily understandable ones.

A 3-sphere corresponds to the the surface of a ball, which is called a 2-sphere, if one adds one more dimension: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/3-sphere .

I guess that we may further reduce the dimensions to just one dimension x of space and one dimension t of time in order to ease understanding of the essence. What remains is a 1-sphere alias a circle that includes an xt-area.

Now let's consider

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/3-sphere#One-point_compactifica
tion .

Instead of resting the south pole on the xy plane and then cutting out the north pole, we may map our circle on the line IR.

Is this correct so far?

Eckard

report post as inappropriate

Paul Reed replied on Nov. 16, 2011 @ 08:16 GMT

Eckard

I am not saying you are, but careful about reifying time into a dimension on a par with spatial. We have a multi spatial dimension reality, which is changing. It is timing, not time. We have, at any given point in time, the values of the spatial position of any given entity which will be x y z (up to however many spatial dimensions there are), or the spatial postion of any given entity,in terms of the dimensions, changed from X to Y in n units of time on the duration measuring system (known colloquially as time.

Paul

report post as inappropriate

Eckard Blumschein replied on Nov. 16, 2011 @ 18:12 GMT

Paul,

Admittedly I am still hoping for a mathematically qualified expert taking issue, in particular Joy to whom I addressed my request. I am aware of some issues that I do not consider worth quarreling about in that context, including the question t or ict. My point will be that we have NOT at any given point in time the values of the spatial position because future does not yet exist. Future data cannot be measured in advance. I already dislike the expression "in time" because it suggests an assumed a priori existing future. "In the past" is correct.

Eckard

report post as inappropriate

T H Ray replied on Nov. 16, 2011 @ 18:48 GMT

"Admittedly I am still hoping for a mathematically qualified expert taking issue ..."

Yes, Eckard, it would be interesting to find even a single mathematician talking about what mathematics has to do with "past" and "future." Unless the subject is the history of mathematics.

Tom

report post as inappropriate

show all replies (8 not shown)

T H Ray wrote on Nov. 15, 2011 @ 19:22 GMT

While trying to trace the exact origin of the "missing dollar" puzzle, which I never did find, I ran across another children's riddle which I found very illuminating in helping explain Joy's program in experimental terms. I think most of us have heard it before in one form or another:

A ferryman has to get a rabbit, a bag of carrots and a fox across the river. He can only take one at a time. Assume that the fox will not eat the rabbit, and the rabbit will not eat the carrots, when the ferryman is present. Neither will the fox or the rabbit run away.

Before you open the attachment, you might want to solve it for yourself. My interest is in showing the relation between random and fluctuating variables and how statistical inference can be determinisitic rather than probabilisitic, in a continuous function model.

Tom

attachments: Ferryman_Puzzle.pdf

report post as inappropriate

T H Ray replied on Nov. 15, 2011 @ 19:25 GMT

I meant fixed and fluctuating variables; i.e., a dependence on initial condition.

report post as inappropriate

Paul Reed replied on Nov. 16, 2011 @ 08:38 GMT

Tom

I do not understand the 'narrative solution'. According to the stated conditions, why not just 3 trips carrots, fox, rabbit. Rabbit and fox, and fox and carrots, can be left alone together. Rabbit and carrots cannot. Those conditions determine the permutation.

Paul

report post as inappropriate

Ferryman Diagram replied on Nov. 16, 2011 @ 08:52 GMT

After reading this illuminating explanation, everything became finally clear to me! All questions and objections raised on this forum and the others are now answered! So, the fox ate the minus sign, the rabbit mediates the correlations, the carrots are the promised angular momenta, and to cross the river is the cross product with ambiguous orientation! Wait, if the sign is a carrot, it means that the rabbit ate it. Or maybe... whatever...

report post as inappropriate

show all replies (17 not shown)

Joy Christian wrote on Nov. 16, 2011 @ 17:31 GMT

Dear Anonymous,

You asked: "Do you have a list containing the open problems and the challenges which remain to be resolved?"

I do not have a list as such but a few ideas about what to do next (after finishing my book). I am however not willing to discuss these ideas in an open forum like this. If you write to me privately, then I may be willing to discuss things more openly (my email address can be found in my papers).

There is one problem that I can discuss here. As you may know, I have proposed an experiment to test my ideas. This is a very difficult experiment to perform. A few months back I wrote to David Wineland about it. He said that the experiment is "doable." That is very encouraging. If performed, the experiment will test not only my central claim, but also the fact that the space we live in is a 3-sphere---i.e., it respects 4pi rotations as null operations not 2pi. Further details of the experiment can be found in this paper. So, the most important open problem is to actually perform this experiment.

One can also try to think about more ambitious experiments. The above experiment concerns only the 3-sphere, which is relevant for the two-level systems in my scheme. More generally, my claim is that we live in a parallelized 7-sphere. How can we test this hypothesis in a manner that would test my point of view? I have no idea how to go about this. But this is something one can explore, at least theoretically.

All the Best,

Joy

report post as inappropriate

Fred Diether replied on Nov. 17, 2011 @ 00:30 GMT

Hi Joy,

Until recently, I don't think anyone ever even considered doing a classical test because it was thought impossible to match the QM predictions. I am glad that you and others have recently raised doubts. But if you think about it, it is silly that a classical test wasn't considered. This is most likely the true way that the question of EPRB vs. Bell can be decided.

I suspect that if a classical test confirms the 3-sphere model, your 7-sphere concept will gain acceptance because it matches what QM predicts. There may be no way to test the 7-sphere model other than by QM results. That does give it some validity.

Fred

report post as inappropriate

Joy Christian replied on Nov. 17, 2011 @ 08:49 GMT

Thanks, Fred. I agree with your thoughts. A small correction however: Classical test of Bell inequality were indeed considered by some people in the early days of Bell's theorem. These were not as clear cut or physically well motivated as my experiment, and they were ignored by the Bell followers. I don't have any references, but I am told Piron did consider a classical test in the early days. And in the 80's Aerts (who, I think, was Piron's former student) also considered a classical test. But, as I said, neither of these proposals were experimentally, physically, and statistically as well formulated as mine.

Joy

report post as inappropriate

Fred Diether replied on Nov. 20, 2011 @ 07:56 GMT

Hi Joy,

Is it the same Aerts that wrote this? Check out Sect. 4 if you get a chance. Yes, I will be studying some more of what Aerts had to say about Bell and EPR.

Fred

report post as inappropriate

show all replies (4 not shown)

Cristi Stoica wrote on Nov. 17, 2011 @ 05:59 GMT

And obtain a set of angular momenta

$(\bf\lambda_j)_{j=1}^N$

which, for large N and large number of random choices of the directions a and b, vindicate

$\frac{1}{N}\sum_{j\,=\,1}^{N}\,\{{sign}\,({\bf\lambda}_j\cdot{\bf a})\}\,\{{sign}\,(-{\bf\lambda}_j\cdot{\bf b})\}\,\approx\, -\,{\bf a}\cdot{\bf b}.$

and refute the mathematically proven result that

$\frac{1}{N}\sum_{j\,=\,1}^{N}\,\{{sign}\,({\bf\lambda}_j\cdot{\bf a})\}\,\{{sign}\,(-{\bf\lambda}_j\cdot{\bf b})\}\,\approx\, \frac{2}{\pi}\,\cos^{-1}\left({\bf a}\cdot{\bf b}\right)-1?$

Cristi

P.S. I was just passing by to see if my proposal was accepted.

report post as inappropriate

Fred Diether replied on Nov. 17, 2011 @ 07:53 GMT

Hi Cristi,

I suspect Joy and others are done spending time trying to explain this to you. You might want to study Sect. XI of Joy's latest paper and the mentioned references.

You also might want to consider that De Raedt et al, have also have produced a local realistic math model that gives the QM result of -a.b. Hope this helps.

Fred

report post as inappropriate

Cristi replied on Nov. 17, 2011 @ 08:32 GMT

Hi Fred,

These formulas are from this paper of Joy. I just referred to claims from there.

"De Raedt et al, have also have produced a local realistic math model that gives the QM result of -a.b"

Local realistic models giving -a.b exist for long time, and I do not deny their existence. But they can't provide the angular momenta making work the first of the above formulas. And they don't try to do this. So I don't see how this helps.

Cristi

report post as inappropriate

reply to this thread

Steve Dufourny wrote on Nov. 17, 2011 @ 23:12 GMT

Hi Joy,

I see several interesting things. In fact, it is the topology and the computing which interest me here. But I do not understand why you take a paradoxal S7...

You say, the space is quaternionic, not the space time. Could you develop because it is not rational for me? You say also " and 7-sphere is perfectly stable under all small perturbations."

Ok what is a small perturbation? and what is a big perturbation ? because there it is a little bizare at my opinion. Are you sure that the computing is not confound with our pure reality in 3D. If you spoke about the volumes and the evolution with a superimposings of 3D evolutive spheres, there I can agree, but what are these dimensions ???

Furthermore the origins of correlations are not clear, where are the proportions, the symmetries, the associations, the determinsitic serie and recurrences, what are the universal and axiomatic operators? The proportions are these rotating spheres or balls if you prefer and their finite serie, so they are proportional these rotations.

You say"

In non-relativistic physics one usually models the space we inhabit as a three-dimensional Euclidean continuum, R3. This space is non-compact in a very precise mathematical sense. What I am saying is that the space we actually inhabit is better modelled by a parallelized 3-sphere, S3, which is a one-point compactification of R3 achieved by mapping all of the points of R3 at infinity to a single point, while maintaining the curvature of the resulting topological sphere to be zero. The torsion of S3 will then be non-zero giving rise to the quantum (or EPR) correlations."

We are in a pure paradoxal superimposing where we loose our foundamentals, it is not the relativity that Joy ! What are the torsios for example which destabilizes this S3 ? I am curious !

ps the points to infinity ??? WHY ?? the finite groups are better ! with a closed evolutive spherical volume of course where the S3 evolves respecting the evolution.

Regards

report post as inappropriate

Ray Munroe replied on Nov. 18, 2011 @ 00:59 GMT

Hi Steve,

I hope that Joy responds to your questions.

I will answer parts of your questions as I think I understand them.

We have talked about the Hairy Ball Theorem/ Brouwer's Theorem before. If you start with an n-sphere, grow 'hair' on its surface, and then try to 'comb the hair', then you will get a 'cow lick' on most n-spheres. This is definitely true of the 3-D spherical shell that is the 2-sphere (the infinitesimally thin surface of the S^3 Euclidean 3-balls that you usually use) - we get 'cow licks' at the North and South poles. In contrast, certain n-spheres (n=0,1,3 and 7) are parallelizable, so you can comb the hair on those n-spheres without creating a 'cow lick'. Why do we care about 'cow licks' on our hairy spheres? Because a 'cow lick' is a place where a rotational/ cyclonic instability can start. In the case of the rotating 2-sphere, this rotational instability usually deforms the 2-sphere into a 2-torus (the infinitesimally thin surface of a 'donut').

Thus, the 3-sphere is much more stable than the 2-sphere.

I like the octonion 7-sphere and the quaternion 3-sphere. Both structures contain powerful mathematical tools, and both structures are parallelizable and apparently stable against rotational instabilities.

However, the 7-sphere has a different kind of instability. Hypervolume is maximized for the 5-D 5-ball, so adding an extra 3 dimensions to build an 8-D 7-sphere requires making some dimensions spacious (the first 5-D) and other dimensions compact (the last 3-D). Quite frankly, this could be a reason to expect Nature to prefer to arrange herself into Scales. As the spacious dimensions grow, and the compact dimensions shrink, the octonion 7-sphere destabilizes (due to the Thermo-geometric instabilities that Jonathan and I discussed in the last two sections of our latest paper on superluminal neutrinos), and collapses into a quaternion 3-sphere plus decay products.

I suspect that a TOE probably would contain octonion 7-spheres, but our observable Universe looks more like a parallelizable quaternion 3-sphere to me (and more like a non-parallelizable Euclidean 3-ball to you).

Have Fun!

report post as inappropriate

Steve Dufourny replied on Nov. 18, 2011 @ 19:06 GMT

Hi Ray,

I am sorry for my parano,but I am prefering to tell you it! Sorry for my parano but I can not change in my mind lol

About Joy, since the begining he does not answer , probably a strategy also,but it is not serious, I will speak and write !I have nothing against him me , I like people, I know Tom,Lawrence, Eckard, John, Jason, Georgina since the begining here on Fqxi and I beleive they are very skillings. But understand that I have several neurlogical probelms increasing my paranoia.I try to be more quiet but it is not easy Ray, furthermore I must find a job also.I am too much isolated at home. You know, me I am ready for the nobel prize with Fqxi, we make a beautiful team and go.With You, Lawrence, Tom ,Jason and Georgina and Eckard more some others, we can make many things. Ray I must move , I am frank,I must find a job and a team.

I beleive that if he does not answer so that is why I beleive he has no answer. I understand the beautiful strategy but it is not a probelm. After all,if the cake can profit to others, it is cool.I am not for the monney, you know it.

Ray, my mind is more quiet. I am here on FQXI you know it since several years now. Even before Joy. He is appeared from Perimeter institute like that, one day, with a work about the spheres. I have understood at this moment why the english language uses the strategy of words. I have explaied you my theory Ray, ad anybody spoke about the spheres before. What I find sad is this strategy of words. My theory is general Ray, you know it, and it is revolutionary,I like FQXi and I thought they shall help me, I do not understand why several persons have made that, FQXi was for me important. I had a vision of USA so beautiful, I dreamed all my young ages to live there. I have worked hard Ray and I thought that USA was a country of integrity and respect. And on the otehr side I see just a sad strategy. It is not that the USA Ray, it is not that the aim of this USA...Why usa becomes like this ?? People confounds really the sciences and the business Ray. I thought that Usa was more that this.

We can make many revolutionary things.you know it Ray !

Me in all case I am ready to accept to evolve....

Sincerely

report post as inappropriate

Ray Munroe replied on Nov. 18, 2011 @ 19:44 GMT

Hi Steve,

Some people go through great trials and tribulations. Others seem to get to be 'king of the hill' with minimal effort. I do not know why your life must be as difficult as it is and has been, but it should shape you into a stronger person as long as you do not lose track of who you are. There is great power in 'love' and 'humility'. Stay the course.

Joy might be a busy man who only responds to the most serious questions about his work.

I like the seeming 'fundamentality' of spheres, but maybe you should also be using 3-spheres. I would like to see a well-written thesis in English on your ideas, and see if your ideas contain something radically new that physics might require. Have you looked up HAL (Hyper-Articles on Line)?

Have Fun and Take Care of Yourself!

report post as inappropriate

show all replies (3 not shown)

Steve Dufourny replied on Nov. 19, 2011 @ 00:39 GMT

It is an interesting answer. You know that I do not really attach importance for the publications and the recognizings in fact. I prefer continue my works and continue to share them in a total transparence. It is the real meaning of a searcher of truth. The universal love is my torch Ray,the humility is of course important but only if the two parts are universal and with a real understanding of the entropy. The ego so becomes a simple tool of communication.

About Joy, it is laughing in fact, if him Ray he is a generalist, frankly let's me laugh. Of course he has a kind of job but frankly ??? What is this circus of pseuso hiden variables, I think he wants simply create a kind of EPR agianst Copenaghen. I am ok with this anti thesis of my works but I have difficulties to accept these kinds of irrational things. The determinism is not a reality in his works Ray.

But he seems to have several skillings in maths. I am oing to show him the road of finite groups and the road of the proportions, indeed the domains, general seems forgotten.

He seems answer to what or who?? Ray let's be serious, even the entropy he does not understand it??? He confound the phsyics and the maths computing simply. The origin of the gravity , yiou know it, it is my rotating spheres and their proportions ! The finite groups are essential for all real quantization.

Ray, if he was a serious person without strategy, he will try to understand my equations ! But apparently at this momment, anybody has understood these equations about the entropy, the uniquenss and the proportions of 3D rotating balls or spheres. The serie of uniqueness is essential, I do not see it in his works, the finite groups also, the thermodynamics and the pression and volumes with the finite groups???

About the toe Ray, it is simple the spherization in 3D by rotating balls spheres and their proportions mcosV=constant ....inside a beautiful 3D sphere and its center, and all its cosmological spheres. The volumes of the expansion contraction ray ....You are intelligent Ray, so why ?

I have so many explained my theory of spherization here on FQXi .You know that I have found ! so why ?

Regards

report post as inappropriate

Steve Dufourny replied on Nov. 19, 2011 @ 23:55 GMT

Ray,

You know ?you ,Bruce Watkins and Shane Steinman and Patrick Murphy. I have knew people on the net, and you know what, I have so many problems with my pc Ray. It is bizare all that.

I have been contacted by them and Bruce said he would to help me. In finding a job at siemens and this and that, after they have said that they shall present to me several persons like me with this kind of syndrom. And you know what Ray, I have been parano with them and I have refused help even. It is tiring my parano. I am totally parano. I am going to be more rational about my situatuion, I must do it. I must find a job or a team. If not I will be always isolated at home with my probelms. I must find a team, a mentor,partners....I will share my cake Ray !

sincerely

report post as inappropriate

Steve Dufourny replied on Nov. 20, 2011 @ 03:09 GMT

linkedin is bizare Ray no ? You think it is possible that people checks linkedin like they want, with a strategic IT. You know Ray, It is bizare all that. Tell me if it is possible with algorytms and a good data center more a team ? Do you think it is possible that a team implies several technics of discriminations and others with the IT ? I am going to open my eyes a little there and move from my home.It is time, I am going to take an airplane and hop hello california lol. You have an appartment for me Ray near caltech and the silicon valley. Because me I go soon even without monney, I go.lol

I will present my theory and my inventions also in energy, ecology, technology,...lol I am obliged to sell my inventions me,first I sell my sphere of composting with membrans(the first natural motor), second I sell an equation of the 3...already there Ray, the capitals increase quickly lol, you imagine, it rests 46 others inventions more 2 equations more my future crazzy inventions in technology.We change the world Ray, we change the world .... we create many many employments, integrity, trust,honesty and determinism.

REVOLUTION SPHERIZATION IN THE SILICON VALLEY IN 3D FURTHERMORE .....

report post as inappropriate

reply to this thread

hide replies

Author Frank Martin DiMeglio wrote on Nov. 18, 2011 @ 01:36 GMT

Instantaneity in physics has never been addressed. In fact, it is avoided like the plague.

report post as inappropriate

Ray Munroe replied on Nov. 18, 2011 @ 02:24 GMT

Hi Frank,

I said this to Joy, Tom and Paul on this blog post about 10 hours ago:

The 3-sphere is the 3-D real spatial hypersurface of a 4-D ball, but excludes the inner hypervolume of said ball.

The spacetime quaternion consists of 3 real spatial dimensions and 1 imaginary time dimension with that relative phase of 'ict'.

Applying these concepts to a quaternion 3-sphere, the 4-D quaternion 3-sphere represents 3 real spatial dimensions with an infinitesimally thin radial shell that corresponds with the present time. Time exists as the 4th dimension of that 3-sphere only for the 'present'. We can model ever-changing time as an ever-expanding (the radial component is equal to 'ict' and is always increasing) 3-sphere. For those people who doubt the reality of time as a 4th dimension, this model allows time to exist as a 4th dimension for 'now', but then yesterday disappears into a fog of memories and tomorrow hasn't yet been written. Our 'time-vision' is extremely 'near-sighted' (Can LASIK surgery correct that type of 'myopia'?).

Have Fun!

report post as inappropriate

Paul Reed replied on Nov. 19, 2011 @ 08:36 GMT

Frank

This is correct, if the point is about the conceptualisation of time, and that it is really about timing.

Then the next question is, instantaniety of what? For physics there are three seperate existent continua, with their own time-lines, to consider. Confusing these leads to the muddling of future, present past, or timing. There is 1) actuality, 2) representation of that, 3) receipt of latter by observer(s). So timing can either be effected a) within the time-line of any of these, or b) across them.

For example. A sequence comprises 10 existent states.

In a) the existence of each state is timed. So state 1 at zero, state 2 at 3n (n being time units), 3 at 5n, 4 at 7n, etc, etc.

In b) at a point in time, in (1) it could be (say) state 7 which exists, 8-10 are still to come into being, states 4-6 are still in existence as representations (2) at certain spatial positions (ie light, or noise, or heat, etc), whilst in respect of (3) states 1-3 have been received (eg hit eyeball, ears, etc) and ceased to exist). For a different, say nearer, observer, then only 6 is still in existence as light/noise/etc, 1-5 having by received by that observer.

Paul

report post as inappropriate

Eckard Blumschein replied on Nov. 19, 2011 @ 15:16 GMT

If I understood Joy Christian correctly he considered compactification a key requisite as to overcome non-locality. Isnt't this remarkable? Some years ago, there was a discussion at sci.phys.research, and if I recall correctly virtually all physicists did not see any necessity to distinguish between rational and real numbers. I would like to be lectured in that respect concerning Hilbert space.

Eckard

report post as inappropriate

show all replies (3 not shown)

Paul Reed replied on Nov. 20, 2011 @ 10:23 GMT

Eckard

Put simply, and it is only a surmise on my part, I would suggest all this complex maths has no connectivity whatsover with the reality we inhabit. Extra dimensions are just a function of the maths, and the true nature of our reality is 3 spatial dimensional entities which change at each point in time.

Paul

report post as inappropriate

Eckard Blumschein replied on Nov. 20, 2011 @ 20:57 GMT

Frank and Paul,

"Instantaneity in physics" is perhaps indeed something that is not yet correctly represented within the currently mandatory mathematical framework. Zeh's textbook on the arrow of time did not hide some most weak points when he quoted utterances by the late Einstein who admitted that the now worried him seriously and he suspected something outside science.

When I decided to choose the current now instead of any arbitrarily chosen event as the zero of time, I tried to mimic the natural signal processing. Ear and brain operate independent of GMT. The only natural measure of time is the actually elapsed time. When Einstein argued time is what the clock reads this can be interpreted as follows: Primarily there is no future time.

What about local time, time dilution, proper time etc.? I suspect them naively fabricated by Fitzgerald, Lorentz, Poincaré, and others as to interpret the M&M measurement. As long as I obey equal rights to emitter and receiver, I cannot approve Lorentz-(de)synchronization which seem to be the source of many stunning implications.

Paul, laymen tend to reject all sophisticated mathematics as they also do not believe that there is an upper limit to the speed of light re its carrier.

It took me some effort to search for and reveal possible mistakes that are affecting already the basic notion of number.

Eckard

report post as inappropriate

Paul Reed replied on Nov. 21, 2011 @ 10:51 GMT

Eckard

Re Einstein and clocks and local time, see my post below (20/11 08.57) which belongs in Ray's thread 13/11 14.17, but I did not want to overload it with yet another theme, especially an argument about what Einstein did or did not say! You may have already accessed that post, as alway I am just working my way through the Topic in the order posted.

The essential point here is that we only have n spatial dimensions. There is no time. Timing, which is a measuring activity anyway, is only possible when an existent state is replaced by its successor. Only one existent state, in respect of any given entity, can exist at a time. The alternative way of timing is to consider the existent state of more than one entity , at any given point in time.

Paul

report post as inappropriate

reply to this thread

hide replies

Paul Reed wrote on Nov. 20, 2011 @ 08:57 GMT

Ray (all)

This post refers to your post 19/11 16.01 in the thread started by you 13/11 14.17.

It is posted here, although it relates to the conceptualisation of time, so that that thread continues to focus on time, and does not become ‘derailed’ by arguments about Einstein. It must be stressed that this is about what Einstein (and other contributors) said. Not whether they were...

view entire post

report post as inappropriate

reply to this thread

Ray Munroe wrote on Nov. 22, 2011 @ 15:05 GMT

Hi Joy,

1) First of all, x^2 + y^2 + z^2 - (ct)^2 = d^2 is a proper quaternion with 3 spatial and one scalar components. It is explicitly relativistic AND quaternion. It is 4 dimensional, we can vary x independently of y independently of z independently of t, but this curve specifies legitimate points within a 4-D world line.

In contrast, w^2 + x^2 + y^2 + z^2 = d^2 is a super-Euclidean 4-ball (4 space dimensions and no time dimension). There is nothing relativistic about it - either explicitly or implicitly. Furthermore, 4 spatial dimensions are not observed, nor does it honor any of the Normed Divisor Algebra symmetries.

2) Secondly, a bi-vector is the skew-symmetric matrix generalization of a vector cross-product. Its rank and *MINIMUM* dimensionality is 2 (i.e. it is a rank-2 tensor capable - in theory - of representing the spin-2 graviton), BUT its order and *MAXIMUM* dimensionality is the same as a Special Orthogonal algebra, SO(D): 3 for D=3, 6 for D=4, 10 for D=5, 15 for D=6, 21 for D=7, 28 for D=8, etc.

A simple example is the G2 algebra in my latest paper. G2 has a rank and minimum dimension of 2 (it is another rank-2 tensor), but an order and maximum dimension of 14. Another example is the E8 algebra with a rank and minimum dimension of 8, but an order and maximum dimension of 248. I don't know if it is the mathematicians or the physicists who are confusing terminology, but a bi-vector is not as simple as you make it sound.

A bi-vector is MORE GENERAL than a vector cross-product. So if the vector cross-product of two 3-vectors is a 3-dimensional pseudo-vector (with the quaternion non-commutative property), why would we expect the bi-vector of two 3-vectors to be 2-dimensional?

Now combine the quaternion scalar component with this 3x3 skew symmetric matrix, and we may define an effectively (3+1)x(3+1) matrix that resembles the Electromagnetic Stress-Energy Tensor in general form. This is not ad-hoc - we have about 100 years worth of examples of spacetime being treated in this manner.

Have Fun!

report post as inappropriate

T H Ray replied on Nov. 22, 2011 @ 16:20 GMT

Hi Ray,

I defer to Joy's reply. However, my own answers follow.

Re:

1. part un: Has nothing to do with Joy's model. A 3 dimension object in 4 space is not the same as a coordinate system of 3 spatial coordinates and a scalar component. Part deux: As has been noted, geometric algebra can be translated to Minkowski space, which no one would mistake for a 4-ball of any kind.

2. Not relevant. The 2-dimension analysis to which Joy refers is straight complex analysis in the plane.

Tom

report post as inappropriate

T H Ray replied on Nov. 22, 2011 @ 17:03 GMT

I think I've linked Davis Hestenes's AJP papers on geometric algebra before. This page links those works, as well as papers by others.

If one wishes a brief introduction, I think Hestenes's PowerPoint for the Oersted award speech is simplicity itself, and so straightforward that one can readily see it taught in high school after one course in plane geometry and an introduction to complex analysis.

Tom

report post as inappropriate

Joy Christian replied on Nov. 22, 2011 @ 18:01 GMT

Hi Ray,

We live in two very different worlds, don't we (you in the world of oranges and embedding coordinates and I in the world of apples and intrinsic geometric algebra)?

You wrote: "First of all, x^2 + y^2 + z^2 - (ct)^2 = d^2 is a proper quaternion with 3 spatial and one scalar components. It is explicitly relativistic AND quaternion."

But of course it is. But it is written in terms of the coordinates of an embedding space, R^4 (with Lorentzian signature), not in terms of the intrinsic coordinates of the 3-sphere. That is the point. I am working with the intrinsic structure of the 3-sphere, but you are not. A point of a 3-dimensional space can be completely specified by three numbers and three numbers only. But you are using four numbers to specify such a point. Why? Because you are working with external coordinates of the embedding space. As Tom said: "A 3 dimension object in 4 space is not the same as a coordinate system of 3 spatial coordinates and a scalar component."

As I have stressed many time, I am not doing relativity. I am concerned about no-signalling quantum non-locality, not about signalling relativistic non-locality. But you attribute the relativity-type equation to me: w^2 + x^2 + y^2 + z^2 = d^2. Why? If relativity is what I wanted to do then there exist a perfectly consistent relativistic extension of geometric algebra, known as space-time algebra. But that is beyond the scope of my papers, as I have been stressing for many months.

You wrote: "A bi-vector is MORE GENERAL than a vector cross-product." But of course it is. What I am unable to understand is why you are stressing this trivial fact. And then you ask: "why would we expect the bi-vector of two 3-vectors to be 2-dimensional?" Are you denying the elementary fact that a wedge or outer product of two 3-vectors is a 2-dimensional plane segment? Perhaps then it is appropriate for me to attach below a pedagogical description of various products in geometric algebra. I wrote this up for my students some time ago. If you don't like it, perhaps Tom and Fred may like it.

In any case, we are still taking apples and oranges. Perhaps it is now time to agree to disagree.

Joy

attachments: magic.pdf

report post as inappropriate

show all replies (81 not shown)

Author Frank Martin DiMeglio wrote on Nov. 23, 2011 @ 17:18 GMT

FUNDAMENTALLY understanding AND demonstrating instantaneity is essential to fundamentally, completely, and truly understanding physics. I proved this definitively.

report post as inappropriate

reply to this thread

Author Frank Martin DiMeglio wrote on Nov. 23, 2011 @ 17:33 GMT

Is ultimate truth in physics found in the inanimate? No. This is , however, how money is made.

report post as inappropriate

reply to this thread

Eckard Blumschein wrote on Nov. 24, 2011 @ 15:52 GMT

Let me give thanks today. Wiki quoted Hamilton:"The algebraically real part may receive, according to the question in which it occurs, all values contained on the one scale of progression of numbers from negative to positive infinity; we shall call it therefore the scalar part."

On the other hand, in reality all ladders behave differently: Distance, mass, temperature, elapsed time, energy, area, volume, probability, etc. do not extend from nowhere to nowhere. They are standing firm on the causal ground of physics. Having a natural zero, they cannot even be flipped around it. An arrow of mass, temperature, or the like sounds silly. We just need an arrow for non-primary quantities like force, velocity, and - yes time -.

On a first glimpse all this seems to be off topic, and when Edwin Klingman tried to draw attention to it, he was largely ignored. I do not expect progress from using the perhaps rather split terminologies and asking e.g. for a distinction between scalar, pseudoscalar, pseudovector, vector. In any case, Minkowski's spacetime is at least problematic from a mathematical point of view when one excludes absurd ideas like that the future is the mirror picture of the past or that it is possible to know anything one needs to predict all future. One does not need mathematical training as to reject such nonsense.

Aren't Hamiltonian quaternions and also a tacit change to the Hamiltonian approach in connection with differently introduced use of complex calculus to blame for serious discrepancies between theory and physical reality? Let's be cautious. The effort of Joy is excellent, and I share his attitude, However ...

Eckard

report post as inappropriate

Paul Reed replied on Nov. 24, 2011 @ 19:27 GMT

Eckard

I did not ignore him (Edwin), my post 23/11 07.20. Apart from the fact that I have been saying for ages, 'reality is something, to investigate it objectively we must recognise the fundamental form of that something, and not approach it as if it is some form of metaphysical purity, which it is not'. Amongst other things!

Paul

report post as inappropriate

Eckard Blumschein replied on Nov. 25, 2011 @ 10:22 GMT

Paul,

Edwin wrote: "the best 'test' of any new physics theory is found in the anomalies that current theories cannot explain." You discussed the notion reality with him, and I agree to some extent with you both. What I referred to was his ignored hint to the question whether time as a scalar qualifies as a physical dimension.

Let me try and explain how I see the notion reality aptly used: First and foremost even an animal has to react on the basis of assumed causality. Is consciousness required for that? I prefer to omit such futile guess. If a hawk perceives features that it attributes to a prey, then it does not matter whether it is really a pray or just an imitation. I agree that reality cannot be seen. Is this attitude of mine nihilistic? I don't think so. Considering something reality means trusting in the correctness of an attribution.

Let me return to the "best" test. Was Einstein's "theory" of relativity better than Newton's? Yes, because it led to the insight that there is no absolutely rigid body, no body of infinite length, and no infinite speed. Was it therefore correct? No, because it is based on some paradoxical assumptions, in particular that a velocity can be the same with respect to anything and that there is no common time.

I am suggesting to take seriously some decisive arguments that were uttered here by Pentcho. A key question is whether or not e.g. Shtyrkov is correct in that the experiment by Michelson & Morley was misinterpreted. Peter Jackson was here repeatedly wrong. Nonetheless, his hint to a possible mistake concerning aberration by Lodge might deserve a scrutiny.

Eckard

report post as inappropriate

Eckard Blumschein replied on Nov. 25, 2011 @ 23:26 GMT

Ray, Why not simplifying x^2 + y^2 + z^2 - (ct)^2 = d^2 to R^2 - (ct)^2 = d^2?

I do not intend questioning very sophisticated work by Hamilton, Perelman, and Christian. By the way, I should add that my last post referred to the old Hamilton. Wouldn't the simplified equation still preserve the essence of the somewhat strange to me metric +++- of Minkowski space, i.e. "relativity"? Maybe this could ease the understanding of the claimed role of compactification.

Isn't the distinction between Riemann sphere, complex plane and unit disk in complex plane a good example for a pretty plausible illustrative? Admittedly, even if the suggested above simplification will more easily explain the essence, I do not expect it removing all of my doubts.

Eckard

report post as inappropriate

show all replies (17 not shown)

Pentcho Valev wrote on Nov. 27, 2011 @ 22:02 GMT

Joy,

http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/gr-qc/pdf/0610/0610049v2.pdf

Ab
solute Being vs Relative Becoming, Joy Christian

Your "receiver receding from a photon source" is equivalent to the moving observer in the following quotation:

http://a-levelphysicstutor.com/wav-doppler.php

"vO is the velocity of an observer moving towards the source. This velocity is independent of the motion of the source. Hence, the velocity of waves relative to the observer is c + vO. (...) The motion of an observer does not alter the wavelength. The increase in frequency is a result of the observer encountering more wavelengths in a given time."

Is it true that the motion of your "receiver receding from a photon source" does not alter the wavelength? That is, the Doppler effect consists in the receiver encountering a different number of UNCHANGED wavelengths in a given time?

Pentcho Valev pvalev@yahoo.com

report post as inappropriate

Pentcho Valev replied on Nov. 28, 2011 @ 14:23 GMT

Joy,

Is your "receiver receding from a photon source" able to stretch the wavelength of light waves so that the speed of the waves relative to him could remain constant? It is universally admitted that, as an observer starts moving towards the wave source, waves start hitting him more frequently, that is, the frequency he measures increases. However, while the observer is obviously unable to scrunch sound waves and water waves and their wavelength remains constant (which means the speed of the waves relative to him increases), Einsteinians believe that the observer somehow manages to scrunch light waves so that their wavelength decreases and the speed of the waves relative to him remains constant (otherwise Divine Albert's Divine Special Relativity would be in trouble):

http://www.austincc.edu/jheath/Stellar/Hand/Deff/deff.htm

James E. Heath, Professor of Astronomy and Physics, Chair, Physical Sciences: "If we are headed towards the source of sound waves (...), the soundwaves hit our eardrums more frequently that they would if we were both standing still. (...) Imagine that you are standing on a beach, feet barely in the water. Waves come lapping into the shore at a rate of, say, one every five seconds, over your toes. If you dive in, and start swiing out to sea, you are travelling into the waves. Therefore, as you swim out to sea, waves will hit you more frequently, say one every 3 seconds. If you are in a speedboat, that could even increase to one per second! The rate of waves has not changed to someone standing still on the beach, but the rate at which you encounter them has changed. If you then turn around and swim or motor back to shore, waves strike you less frequently as you head away from the waves. (...) In the second situation, the distance between the source and observer is decreasing; the two are getting closer. This can be because the source is in motion, the observer is in motion, or both. What matters is that the two objects are getting closer together. Notice how the light waves get "scrunched up" by this motion. If the observer is a human eye, then the light waves strike the eye more frequently, causing the eye to see a slighly different color. The wavelength of the obseved light (...) appears shorter than the wavelength the light would have if the objects were "at rest"."

Pentcho Valev pvalev@yahoo.com

report post as inappropriate

Eckard Blumschein replied on Nov. 29, 2011 @ 17:10 GMT

Dear Joy Christian,

Some of us like me who do not have a PhD in physics but maybe in engineering or medicine might be not in position to discuss with Pentcho Valev without revealing their own lacking knowledge. However if addressed personally, everybody should at least be well educated enough as to politely reply. I recall that you did so when I had a question to you. Pentcho might be wrong, at least in part. I do not share his preference for Newtonian relativity. Nonetheless, his arguments in this approved post might be worthwhile careful consideration.

Regards,

Eckard

report post as inappropriate

Pentcho Valev replied on Nov. 30, 2011 @ 21:46 GMT

Eckard,

The fact that the speed of light waves (relative to the observer) varies with the speed of the observer:

http://a-levelphysicstutor.com/wav-doppler.php

"vO is the velocity of an observer moving towards the source. This velocity is independent of the motion of the source. Hence, the velocity of waves relative to the observer is c + vO. (...) The motion of an observer does not alter the wavelength. The increase in frequency is a result of the observer encountering more wavelengths in a given time."

is so obvious that my question to Joy Christian can be regarded as rhetorical. Still let us imagine that his answer had been:

"Yes the speed of light waves (relative to the observer) varies with the speed of the observer"

What would be the effect? There would be no effect, I can assure you. Any priest in Einsteiniana finds it profitable to shock the public from time to time, e.g.

http://www.prospect-magazine.co.uk/article_details.php?i
d=5538

Paul Davies 2003: "Was Einstein wrong? Einstein's famous equation E=mc2 is the only scientific formula known to just about everyone. The "c" here stands for the speed of light. It is one of the most fundamental of the basic constants of physics. Or is it? In recent years a few maverick scientists have claimed that the speed of light might not be constant at all. Shock, horror! Does this mean the next Great Revolution in Science is just around the corner?"

http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20026831.500-w
hat-makes-the-universe-tick.html

"It is still not clear who is right, says John Norton, a philosopher based at the University of Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. Norton is hesitant to express it, but his instinct - and the consensus in physics - seems to be that space and time exist on their own. The trouble with this idea, though, is that it doesn't sit well with relativity, which describes space-time as a malleable fabric whose geometry can be changed by the gravity of stars, planets and matter."

No danger for Einsteiniana - it remains the same money-spinner. Theoretical physics has been dead for quite a long time.

Pentcho Valev pvalev@yahoo.com

report post as inappropriate

show all replies (2 not shown)

Paul Reed replied on Dec. 1, 2011 @ 09:04 GMT

Pentcho

The speed of light, of itself, is not constant, Einstein said so. There is gravity, and then there are conditions which, whilst not destroying light (as in realisable image) do affect speed/direction of travel. However, without such interferences, in all circumstances, light will travel at the same speed. And it will continue to travel at that speed (which is a statement of the obvious, because all matter will continue at its current speed unless acted upon by a force). Put another way round, light always starts at the same speed.

In terms of extrinsic measurement, the speed of light, when compared to something else, depends on the speed of that something else. Obviously (and leaving aside any possible dimension alteration effect). Comparing it with something else does not alter its ‘actual’ speed (which we can never know), but it will always be the same difference (other factors being equal), which demonstrates it has a constant speed, of itself, whatever the condition of the ‘emitter’.

Assuming any given observer is not in water, a strange gas cloud, or whatever, then the speed of light, as at the point of interception, when measured wrt that individual observer, will be the difference in speeds. The elapsed time may be different from that of another observer in the same spatial relationship vis a vis the reality being seen, because of a difference in travelling conditions for the light in the individual circumstances. Obviously, the speed of any given observer does not affect the speed of light, of itself, because those existent states exist prior to interception, indeed the light (as in realisable image) ceases to exist upon interception by eyeball.

In respect of that “famous equation”, the real question is, what has the travelling speed of photons got to do with the innate energy of matter? Due to evolution, organisms just happen to use a characteristic of photons to see reality. Sight could have evolved along a different path. So why are photons so important in the very fabric of reality? Or is it that there is a conflation between reality, and that which is presented to us as being reality, which for the sense of sight, depends on photons?

Paul

report post as inappropriate

Eckard Blumschein replied on Dec. 1, 2011 @ 10:07 GMT

Pentcho,

"The "c" here stands for the speed of light" and let me add in matter-free space without gravitation. OK? I agree, if Pound and Rebka were correct, then the measured on earth speed of light should be quite a bit larger than this theoretical limit.

Incidentally, I wonder if it is easy to correctly measure c. How accurate is the value used in case of the OPERA argumentation?

Given, neutrinos were observed after they crossed the earth at its middle point, wouldn't the decrease of gravitation to zero and its subsequent increase again to the value belonging to the surface of earth make a rather big difference?

I am still dealing with Peter's vixra paper concerning aberration and would like you and others to comment on his details.

Eckard

report post as inappropriate

reply to this thread

hide replies

Sandra Garcia wrote on Nov. 27, 2011 @ 23:05 GMT

The view on design of morphic fields are seen as relative fields with cosmological constants as equal pariants of Newtonian physics. The new relation is given high density appropriation in physics through the quanta wave. A view on predeterministic factors is collated with the essence of design when viewed as a protagonist theory on EM fields.

report post as inappropriate

James Putnam replied on Nov. 27, 2011 @ 23:17 GMT

Hi Sandra,

Welcome to Fqxi.org.

James

report post as inappropriate

reply to this thread

Author Frank Martin DiMeglio wrote on Nov. 29, 2011 @ 15:55 GMT

The body is fundamental and central to generally and fundamentally understanding physics. It is much more difficult, however, so this is basically avoided. Truth and credibility matter.

report post as inappropriate

reply to this thread

Author Frank Martin DiMeglio wrote on Nov. 29, 2011 @ 16:04 GMT

Instantaneity fundamentally requires inertial and gravitational equivalency and balancing in conjunction with space that is equally (and both) invisible and visible. Gravity enjoins and balances invisible and visible space. Accordingly, gravity cannot be shielded.

Avoided, and yet fundamental, areas of physics:

1) the body

2) the nature of thought

3) inertial and gravitational equivalency and balancing

4) balanced/equivalent attraction and repulsion

5) instantaneity

6) the related nature of touch, gravity, and vision......................................................
..............................................I could go on and on. It is pathetic.

report post as inappropriate

reply to this thread

Author Frank Martin DiMeglio wrote on Nov. 29, 2011 @ 16:30 GMT

The goal and focus of modern physics is the inanimate. This is not where truth and reality are found, however. Also, you cannot outsmart nature. Money, however, is made by changing experience from what is natural. The truth is not realized like this. One grows with and into the truth. Ultimate truth is interactive and integrated with, to a limited extent of course, our natural growth and our natural experience. We grow with experience and with truth.

How many of you are willing to make this effort? How many of you are capable of making this effort? THINK!

report post as inappropriate

reply to this thread

Joy Christian wrote on Nov. 30, 2011 @ 12:20 GMT

Hi Ray,

Let me propose a picture of my model that I think you would be happy with. You wrote: "The 4-ball may be comprised of an infinite number of infinitesimally thin spatial 3-spheres. The layering of these 3-spheres -- one just outside of the next like thin onion layers -- designates a 'scalar' scale of change from the beginning of time ... to the end of time ..."

So, a parallelized (or quaternionic) 3-sphere, although not a round sphere, can be thought of (at least topologically) as an infinitesimally thin boundary of a 4-ball. Each point of this boundary, S^3, together with the radius r of the 4-ball, then represents an event (a "click" of a detector in the EPR-Bohm experiment), designated by the coordinates x, y, z, and r. Here it is very important for me to stress that (x, y, z) specifies an *intrinsic* point of the 3-sphere, and r specifies the extrinsic radius of the 4-ball---which is equated to the proper time, or duration, or spacetime arclength, defined by

d(r^2) = - c^2 d(t^2) + d(x^2) + d(y^2) + d(z^2).

This is still a confused notation. I prefer the intrinsic language of geometric algebra to specify a 3D point of the 3-sphere, but it should be clear from our previous discussion what I am trying to say here.

In any case, the EPR-Bell state now starts out in an initial state at a given time r = 0 ("the beginning of time"), and the measurements are made on the two remote components of the system (i.e., on the two remote non-interacting spins) at a later time r ("the end of time"). This later time specifies a spacelike hypersurface of simultaneity, which, for me, is simply the boundary S^3. The detections of the two spins---i.e., the measurement events---are then nothing but two points on the boundary of this 4-ball of radius r. The normalized correlations between the measurement results will then be equal to -a.b (as derived in my papers), with the normalization factor now being 1/r. But this normalization process is equivalent to setting the radius of the 4-ball equal to 1, and that is what I have been doing in my papers.

With this more careful picture the EPR correlations are now clearly seen to be consistent, not only with local realism, but also with special relativity. The scenario in the 7-sphere is similar.

Joy

report post as inappropriate

Joy Christian replied on Nov. 30, 2011 @ 13:07 GMT

Correction: The normalization factor should be 1/r^2.

Joy

report post as inappropriate

Paul Reed replied on Nov. 30, 2011 @ 15:44 GMT

Joy

But any form of change, and particularly 'time'(which is just the timing of the frequency of change), must be extrinsic to the represenation of any given existent state. Otherwise one must be representing a sequence of states as being one state. Now, whether your 'infinitesimally thin onion layers', or whatever, does this, is not something I can evaluate.

Paul

report post as inappropriate

Fred Diether replied on Dec. 1, 2011 @ 16:07 GMT

Hi Joy,

I like the new description above. So I think it means that the two measurement events happen absolutely simultaneously for quantum correlations? If so, perhaps I am finally seeing a connection to De Raedt et al's, work. I will have to study it some more though.

Fred

report post as inappropriate

show all replies (20 not shown)

amrit wrote on Nov. 30, 2011 @ 14:27 GMT

Hidden cosmic variable of the universe is observer itself.

Observer is an absolute frame of reference in SR and GR,

see article on my home page:

Observer as a bridge between outer and inner world

home page is www.spaceliofe.si

report post as inappropriate

Ray Munroe replied on Nov. 30, 2011 @ 14:58 GMT

Dear Joy, Amrit & Peter,

@ Joy - I think I understand your reasoning regarding a unit 3-sphere. This is equivalent to performing rotations in S^3 with a unit quaternion. My present concern is whether we are dealing with a 'simple' octonion 7-sphere, or whether it is a more complicated bi-quaternion or torus.

@ Amrit & Peter - Typo on Amrit's web site. Amrit's statement "Observer as a bridge between outer and inner world." sounds like Peter's statement "I agree, but the Onion skins have a thickness. The space between the ball (matter) and the 3-spheres (spatial limit) is at rest wrt the ball."

Have Fun!

report post as inappropriate

Paul Reed replied on Nov. 30, 2011 @ 15:33 GMT

All

The observer is not hidden, a variable, or any other mystical phenomenon.

The observer is part of reality. However, as a function of evolution, that part of reality (which includes all organisms capable of effecting a detection-even some plants could be argued to demonstrate very basic levels of such)is able to sense another part of reality courtesy of yet another part of reality (that's called light, heat, noise, etc). Everything is physically existent, this is not philosophy. So, as a result of evolution, some physically existent phenomena have acquired a functional role as sensory information media.

ANY frame is valid, that is the whole point. Because everything is relative, we cannot transcend ourselves and then 'look back in' from a completely different reference point. All we can work with are differences, but these become absolutes, in themselves, if they are being considered within a valid closed system. So the observer, or the snail progressing across my garden could be the reference point. It is irrelevant. What IS relevant is that there must then be consistency, ie all comparisons must be made wrt THAT chosen frame.

report post as inappropriate

Author Frank Martin DiMeglio replied on Nov. 30, 2011 @ 17:28 GMT

Gravitational and inertial equivalency and balancing includes the observer/body (fundamentally) and makes space equally (and both) invisible and visible in conjunction with space being stretched/expanded and contracted/flattened ON BALANCE. Gravity and inertia must both be at half force/energy (strength) in order to fundamentally unify physics.

report post as inappropriate

show all replies (116 not shown)

Author Frank Martin DiMeglio wrote on Nov. 30, 2011 @ 17:08 GMT

The fundamental unification of physics requires the fundamental demonstration of instantaneity. "Our growth and becoming other than we are" will be shown to generally unify physics.

Indeed, to what extent can physics demonstrate "Our growth and becoming other than we are"? This is THE question?

report post as inappropriate

reply to this thread

Oscar Dahlsten wrote on Dec. 2, 2011 @ 15:36 GMT

Dear Joy,

I just had a look at the 'Disproof of Bell's theorem' paper http://arxiv.org/abs/1103.1879 .

Would be grateful if you could help me with two confusions:

Firstly I did not understand what the brackets {...} {...} in eqn.1 mean?

Secondly, in the end you show the correlations are upper bounded by 2\sqrt{2}, but don't you want to show they are lower bounded by 2?

Best

Oscar

report post as inappropriate

Joy Christian replied on Dec. 2, 2011 @ 17:37 GMT

Dear Oscar,

Thank you for looking at my minimalist paper. What is inside the brackets are bivectors in the language of geometric algebra. I have used the bracket notation for two reasons: (1) for the benefit of people who are not familiar with the meaning and notation of bivectors as used in geometric algebra, and (2) to emphasize that these bivectors are entities of their own. They are in fact simply numbers, albeit with 2-dimensional directions, and represent equatorial points of a unit parallelized 3-sphere (i.e., SU(2)).

The correlations are bounded from both above and below by 2\sqrt{2}. Note the absolute values signs on both sides of the CHSH string of expectation values. In other words, the string is bounded by 2\sqrt{2} from above and -2\sqrt{2} from below.

Best,

Joy

report post as inappropriate

reply to this thread

T H Ray wrote on Dec. 4, 2011 @ 16:20 GMT

Now that the antibiotics are doing their job, I'd like to try and get back into the dialogue.

First -- Ray, I agree with Joy that you are applying methods of particle physics that don't fit a classical (continuous function) model. Particles don't have fundamental existence in such a framework.

Second -- I was a little surprised that no one seemed to understand the statistics of the "Ferryman" puzzle that I posted earlier. I extended the explanation (attached) to make the statistical inferences explicit. The connection to Joy's model ends at slide 18.

From 18 - 25, I set up the relation of Joy's framework to the Ricci flow for 3 manifolds, which I intend to make more rigorous, as promised to the anonymous correspondent.

Best regards, all.

Tom

attachments: Ferryman_Puzzle_rev.pdf

report post as inappropriate

Joy Christian replied on Dec. 4, 2011 @ 16:46 GMT

Hi Tom,

Welcome back! Good to have you back.

For what it's worth, let me tell you that back in 2007 I thought my first paper on Bell was just a passing thought---a distraction from my main business in quantum gravity at the time. I thought that everyone would instantly understand what I was saying and then I would be back happily doing my quantum gravity and neutrino phenomenology. I never intended writing another paper on Bell. But here I am, nearly five years later, after having written 10 papers on the subject and endless discussions with all sorts of people (and non-people), it seems my work is still not understood by more than a handful.

As they say, it is very difficult to make man understand something if his salary depends on not understanding it.

Joy

report post as inappropriate

Pentcho Valev replied on Dec. 4, 2011 @ 17:11 GMT

Joy,

A few days ago I asked you a question but perhaps your salary depends on not answering it... Still let me try again:

http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/gr-qc/pdf/0610/0610049v2.pdf

Absolute Being vs Relative Becoming, Joy Christian

Your "receiver receding from a photon source" is equivalent to the moving observer in the following quotation:

http://a-levelphysicstutor.com/wav-doppler.php

"vO is the velocity of an observer moving towards the source. This velocity is independent of the motion of the source. Hence, the velocity of waves relative to the observer is c + vO. (...) The motion of an observer does not alter the wavelength. The increase in frequency is a result of the observer encountering more wavelengths in a given time."

Is it true that the motion of your "receiver receding from a photon source" does not alter the wavelength? That is, the Doppler effect consists in the receiver encountering a different number of UNCHANGED wavelengths in a given time?

Needless to say, if the motion of your "receiver receding from a photon source" does not alter the wavelength, the salaries of all the Einsteinians will be threatened.

Pentcho Valev pvalev@yahoo.com

report post as inappropriate

Ray Munroe replied on Dec. 4, 2011 @ 17:28 GMT

Dear Tom,

We are glad to have you back. I was on antibiotics a week before you. I still don't know why a Southerner would want to suffer through Michigan winters.

I never analyzed the Ferryman puzzle because I didn't see an obvious application to Joy's model. If you insist that I have overlooked something relevant, then I will go back and look at your 20-something slides.

No - The torus is a relevant application of topology to Joy's model. The more I look at this problem, the more I think that there is a deep topological connection between octonions consisting of a scalar and 7-vectors vs. 7-color toroidal mapping. These natural 7-fold symmetries also admit the application of G2 manifolds.

The idea that tori provide at least two scales based on major and minor radii would simply be an advantageous application to particle physics - it is not an absolute requirement for this part of the model.

I think that we mostly agree on 3-D bivectors vs. unit quaternions vs. parallelized 3-spheres vs. S^3 vs. pieces of 4-balls, but we might disagree on some interpretations of the model that would not directly affect Joy's results. The real disagreements are with the octonion vs. biquaternion vs. 7-sphere vs. torus part of the puzzle.

Dear Joy,

No one is paying me to control how I think. I haven't made money off of my physics since 2003 - mostly because I made more money as a CEO. It's just hard to get people who are set in their thought processes to change. Don't worry about my critiques though - I'm sure that my 'crackpot index' has to be considerably higher than yours. Just keep doing what you're doing and you may eventually convince enough people. That's what I hope of my own work, anyway...

Have Fun!

report post as inappropriate

show all replies (35 not shown)

Pentcho Valev wrote on Dec. 4, 2011 @ 20:32 GMT

Doppler shifts and the principle of relativity:

http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/gr-qc/pdf/0308/0308028v
4.pdf

Joy Christian: "In Einstein's special relativity, Doppler shifts provide one of the most transparent demonstrations of how the principle of relativity holds in nature."

Do they? Einsteinians claim that the motion of the emitter squashes or stretches the wavelength so that the speed of light (relative to the receiver) can gloriously remain unchanged. Can the motion of the receiver, which gives the same frequency shift as the motion of the emitter, squash or stretch the wavelength? If not, is there a problem with the principle of relativity?

Pentcho Valev pvalev@yahoo.com

report post as inappropriate

Anonymous replied on Dec. 5, 2011 @ 00:02 GMT

FAQ

report post as inappropriate

Pentcho Valev replied on Dec. 5, 2011 @ 21:48 GMT

Joy Christian,

Obviously you are not going to answer my simple question:

"Is it true that the motion of your "receiver receding from a photon source" does not alter the wavelength? That is, the Doppler effect consists in the receiver encountering a different number of UNCHANGED wavelengths in a given time?"

I suspect that you simply CANNOT interpret the Doppler effect in terms of frequency, wavelength, speed of light. This is typical of the Perimeter Institute - people there pretend to be able to deal with highly complex matters while in basic science they are virtually illiterate. For instance, Lee Smolin teaches that, according to Newton's theory, light is not bent by gravity:

http://streamer.perimeterinstitute.ca/mediasite/viewer/?peid
=5f32739a-624d-4ec8-9ecc-4d44d3d16fe9

Lee Smolin: "Newton's theory predicts that light goes in straight lines and therefore if the star passes behind the sun, we can't see it. Einstein's theory predicts that light is bent...."

I am sure that at least half of the students know that Newton's theory does predict bending but they do not react (and do not care). Theoretical physics has been dead for a very long time.

Pentcho Valev pvalev@yahoo.com

report post as inappropriate

Pentcho Valev replied on Dec. 5, 2011 @ 23:36 GMT

Perimeter Institute's wisdom: Divine Albert can bend light, Newton cannot:

http://www.perimeterinstitute.ca/en/Perimeter_Explora
tions/The_Mystery_of_Dark_Matter/Chapter_5_-_Evidence_from_E
instein/

"This chapter of the video explains that large masses in outer space bend nearby rays of light (gravitational lensing). (...) The idea that mass bends light that travels near it comes from Einstein's theory of general relativity. In fact, Einstein first achieved worldwide fame in 1919 because another physicist, Arthur Eddington, observed light being bent by the Sun, confirming the existence of this phenomenon. (...) Furthermore, as gravitational lensing is a feature of Einstein's theory of general relativity and not Newton's theory of universal gravitation..."

Pentcho Valev pvalev@yahoo.com

report post as inappropriate

reply to this thread

Sreenath B N. wrote on Dec. 6, 2011 @ 06:42 GMT

Dear Dr. Joy, Ray Munroe, TH Ray, Paul Reed, and others;

In this forum, I have gone through vibrant discussion on the article written by Dr. Joy on 'Quantum Entanglement' ( QE ). But his approach, to solve the problem of ' Locality ' in QE by disproving Bell's claim that measurement involving QE implies ' Non-Locality ', is not impressive for the following reason.

Inorder to establish the concept on 'Locality ' in QE, Dr. Joy makes use of ' seven sphere ' geometry which implies atleast seven dimensions. It is this which is unacceptable according to me. Because we humans are accoustomed to four dimensions which involve three spatial and one temporal dimensions.We can visiualise what these dimensions are, eg., what the dimension of length is when applied to a body we are seeing; then we can add another dimension breadth to it and can see the same body to appear differently; next we can add another dimension height or thickness to it and see the same body appear still differently; then we can add the dimension of ' time ' to it and study its dynamics or history. All sucessful theories in physics are based on these four dimensions only viz., special theory of relativity, general theory of relativity, Quantum-Mechanics, etc. That is why these theories are within our grasp to visiualise them and can also be tested emperically to be true or false.Any thing that wouldn't fall within our perception cannot be comprehended.

Now, if we go to higher dimensional theories ie., theories involving more than four dimensions, like SUSYs, String-Theories etc. then we must be able to visiualise what those extra dimensions are like the way we can visiualise the three spatial and one temporal dimensions. In them the bodies we see appear entirely different from what they appear in four dimensions. So if those extra dimensions cannot be visiualised by us then we will not be able to know how a theory based on those extra dimensions is mathematically connected to the physics we are trying to explore; much less to say whether it, the theory, is a mathematical artifact and hence just an abstraction having no physical relevence to the facts of the universe. Such a theory however mathematically beautiful and elegant it may be would be just a mathematical abstraction but cannot be considered as a physical theory; it may be logically as well as mathematically consistent and complete initself need not mean that it infact represents physical reality. This is what was realised by Paul Dirac in his later days. That is why SUSYs and String-Theories are physically void theories; the extra dimensions they are making use of never fall within our perception. For example string-theory is based on ten ( or even more ) dimensions that is six dimensions more and it never clarifies what those extra dimensions are, because it doesn't know how to. Acceptance of these theories takes us back to Aristotlenian times.

As far as Dr. Joy's above approach to QE is concerned, the same treatment applies, for he employs seven spheres which imply seven dimensions without clarifying how the extra three dimensions appear.One may say that seven sphere geometry gives rational results on three spheres, but then the question arises, why hypothetical seven spheres instead of rational three spheres?

So it needs different interpretation of QE to save 'Locality '.

Good luck to all.

Sreenath B N.

view post as summary

report post as inappropriate

Joy Christian replied on Dec. 6, 2011 @ 10:23 GMT

Dear Sreenath B. N.,

Thank you for your comments and for your interest in our discussions.

For a long time we humans---despite our extraordinary intelligence compared to other animals---were convinced beyond doubt that the earth was flat, static, and cold. It is hard to imagine how a Homo-erectus would have reacted had someone told him that earth is, in fact, an almost round ball...

view entire post

report post as inappropriate

Paul Reed replied on Dec. 6, 2011 @ 11:37 GMT

Sreenath

Whilst I started out asking about '7 dimensions in reality' (amongst other things!), I have not, and would never propose to, question the validity of Joy's framework solely on the basis that we cannot 'see' the other dmensions. This certainly raises an 'alarm bell', ie before we are convinced there is such a momentous change to the nature of reality, we need independent verification, and a re-examination of the methodology which might, of itself, be creating the 'extra' dimensions.

But, that possibility exists. Because:

-until proven otherwise, one cannot assume that our sensory capabilities (including all organisms)are able to detect all existent phenomena

-in terms of sight, we are reliant on light to act in the role of an information medium. It is a role it has acquired due to the evolution of sensory capabilities in organisms. Its ability to fulfil this role is limited by its existent capabilities. For example, its frequency may be less than that of 'something else', so it cannot diffferentiate that. To create any form of (what is ultimately for us) a realisable image, certain conditions are necessary, some 'entities' mat not exhibit these attributes, ie in simple terms, light cannot 'see' them.

Paul

report post as inappropriate

Ray Munroe replied on Dec. 6, 2011 @ 13:33 GMT

Dear Sreenath, Joy and Paul,

I think that Joy's point is that we DO experience 8-D octonion physics in the form of quantum correlations. I agree with Sreenath that we humans only sense three spatial and one temporal dimensions, so we need to explain why the other 4 dimensions are 'invisible' to our senses. Paul's idea that our primary source of data - photons - may only reveal part of the picture is one possible answer.

But I think that Scales are more-likely the answer to the problem. We could have 8-D if 4 are Spacetime and 4 are Hyperspace. The 7-D S^7 octonion 7-sphere implies an 8-D 8-ball. Likewise, an equally 'flat' 6-D S^3 x S^3 bi-quaternion 6-torus implies 8-D. Cayley-Dickson construction allows us to build the same math-physics out of octonions OR bi-quaternions, but the topologies are different. Can Joy prove that the 7-sphere is more stable than the 6-torus, or vice versa?

Toroidal geometry naturally admits Scales because we have two radii: major and minor, and they may represent different scales (such as Electromagnetism with a coupling strength of 1/137 vs. Gravitation with a coupling strength of 10^(-40)), and may thus represent two different 'views of reality' (similar to Paul's ideas). In fact, I think that Scales make the 8-ball and 7-sphere unstable because the first 5 dimensions are large (unit volume is maximized for the 5-ball), and the last 3 dimensions are small, thus driving the S^7 octonion 7-sphere to naturally evolve into the S^3 x S^3 bi-quaternion 6-torus with two scales.

Have Fun!

report post as inappropriate

show all replies (27 not shown)

John Merryman wrote on Dec. 6, 2011 @ 12:40 GMT

Sreenath, Joy,

The mind is an extremely plastic process, that is both adding new knowledge and shedding old, yet because we are focused on our acquisition of the new and lose the old by simply ignoring it, we think knowledge is somehow permanent, yet it's doubtful few of us could survive with a few stone tools.

Yes, we can create enormously elaborate models of an extremely complex reality, but it has happened with distressing frequency that those models have veering off into fantasy because those most focused on the details tend to ignore what they cannot readily explain, in favor of that which fits their predispositions.

Civilization and rational thought are built up from telling and collecting narrative histories and expositions, such as cause and effect logic, so we think of this linear process as foundational to reality, but are all these events and actions more foundational to this seemingly inchoate and metaphysical present in which they occur? We model time as a dimension, with any such concept of the present as subject to its particular contents. Maybe, much as the ancients viewed the sun as in motion, without realizing it is far more substantial than the ground on which they stood, possibly we make the same mistake with the present and its constant reconfiguration? If the present is the entire frame in which everything exists and not some dimensionless point in our relentless geometry, it would change our perspective in a way similar to the realization the earth is not the center of the universe had a revolutionary effect on ways of thinking five hundred years ago.

report post as inappropriate

reply to this thread

Pentcho Valev wrote on Dec. 6, 2011 @ 13:33 GMT

In Joy Christian's "Heraclitean Generalization of Special Relativity" the speed of light "remains an invariant as much as in special relativity":

http://www.spacetimesociety.org/conferences/2006
/docs/Christian.txt

Heraclitean Generalization of Special Relativity, Joy Christian: "A generalization of special relativity is constructed in which the inverse of the Planck time takes over the role of observer-independent conversion factor usually played by the speed of light. The latter remains an invariant as much as in special relativity..."

So, Joy Christian, my question remains quite relevant:

http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/gr-qc/pdf/0610/0610049v2.
pdf

Absolute Being vs Relative Becoming, Joy Christian

Your "receiver receding from a photon source" is equivalent to the moving observer in the following quotation:

http://a-levelphysicstutor.com/wav-doppler.php

"vO is the velocity of an observer moving towards the source. This velocity is independent of the motion of the source. Hence, the velocity of waves relative to the observer is c + vO. (...) The motion of an observer does not alter the wavelength. The increase in frequency is a result of the observer encountering more wavelengths in a given time."

Is it true that the motion of your "receiver receding from a photon source" does not alter the wavelength? That is, the Doppler effect consists in the receiver encountering a different number of UNCHANGED wavelengths in a given time?

Needless to say, if the answer is "yes", then your "Heraclitean Generalization of Special Relativity" and everything that depends on it cannot be valid.

Pentcho Valev pvalev@yahoo.com

report post as inappropriate

Pentcho Valev replied on Dec. 6, 2011 @ 18:35 GMT

Joy Christian,

The speed of the light wave (relative to the receiver) varies with the speed of the receiver, just like the speed of any other wave. So you will have to denounce the following "élucubrations" (no better word in English):

http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/2968/1/final.pdf

Joy
Christian: "Thus, if the state of the clock is evolving, then we will have the phenomenon of "time dilation" even in the rest frame. Similarly, we will have a phenomenon of "state contraction" in analogy with the phenomenon of "length contraction"...(...) It is worth emphasizing here, however, that, as in ordinary special relativity, nothing is actually "dilating" or "contracting"."

Besides, in "ordinary special relativity", time dilation and length contraction are quite real (and idiotic):

http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR
/barn_pole.html

"These are the props. You own a barn, 40m long, with automatic doors at either end, that can be opened and closed simultaneously by a switch. You also have a pole, 80m long, which of course won't fit in the barn. (...) If it does not explode under the strain and it is sufficiently elastic it will come to rest and start to spring back to its natural shape but since it is too big for the barn the other end is now going to crash into the back door and the rod will be trapped IN A COMPRESSED STATE inside the barn."

http://www.parabola.unsw.edu.au/vol35_no1/vol35_no1_2.pdf

Parabola Volume 35, Issue 1 (1999), LENGTH AND RELATIVITY by John Steele: "Suppose you want to fit a 20m pole into a 10m barn. (...) Hence in both frames of reference, the pole fits inside the barn (and will presumably shatter when the doors are closed)."

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/Hbase/Relativ/bugrivet.
html

"The bug-rivet paradox is a variation on the twin paradox and is similar to the pole-barn paradox.....The end of the rivet hits the bottom of the hole before the head of the rivet hits the wall. So it looks like the bug is squashed.....All this is nonsense from the bug's point of view. The rivet head hits the wall when the rivet end is just 0.35 cm down in the hole! The rivet doesn't get close to the bug....The paradox is not resolved."

Pentcho Valev pvalev@yahoo.com

report post as inappropriate

Pentcho Valev replied on Dec. 6, 2011 @ 20:45 GMT

Joy Christian,

Another moving observer, very dangerous:

http://www.flashcardmachine.com/waves6.html

"Moving
Observer - frequency increase if the moving towards, decreases if moving away. Wavelength does not change. The actual speed of the wave does not change but to the observer the speed appears to change."

"Wavelength does not change" is the key phrase. If this is true, everything you have written so far is both wrong and detrimental. Sad isn't it.

Pentcho Valev pvalev@yahoo.com

report post as inappropriate

James Putnam replied on Dec. 6, 2011 @ 21:23 GMT

Pentcho,

Joy Christian certainly does not need me to clarify his level of understanding. So, I will leave it at my level to let you know that frequency increases and wavelength correspondingly decreases as photons approach the Earth. Also, the speed of light does not increase for those photons as they approach the Earth.

James

report post as inappropriate

show all replies (14 not shown)

Pentcho Valev wrote on Dec. 6, 2011 @ 14:11 GMT

T H Ray quotes Einstein: "One can give good reasons why reality cannot at all be be represented by a continuous field."

More quotes:

http://www.perimeterinstitute.ca/pdf/files/975547d7-2
d00-433a-b7e3-4a09145525ca.pdf

Albert Einstein (1954): "I consider it entirely possible that physics cannot be based upon the field concept, that is on continuous structures. Then nothing will remain of my whole castle in the air, including the theory of gravitation, but also nothing of the rest of contemporary physics."

http://arxiv.org/ftp/physics/papers/0101/0101109.pdf

"The two first articles (January and March) establish clearly a discontinuous structure of matter and light. The standard look of Einstein's SR is, on the contrary, essentially based on the continuous conception of the field."

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/einstein/genius/

"And then, in June, Einstein completes special relativity, which adds a twist to the story: Einstein's March paper treated light as particles, but special relativity sees light as a continuous field of waves."

http://www.amazon.com/Relativity-Its-Roots-Banesh-Hoffmann/d
p/0486406768

"Relativity and Its Roots" By Banesh Hoffmann: "Moreover, if light consists of particles, as Einstein had suggested in his paper submitted just thirteen weeks before this one, the second principle seems absurd: A stone thrown from a speeding train can do far more damage than one thrown from a train at rest; the speed of the particle is not independent of the motion of the object emitting it. And if we take light to consist of particles and assume that these particles obey Newton's laws, they will conform to Newtonian relativity and thus automatically account for the null result of the Michelson-Morley experiment without recourse to contracting lengths, local time, or Lorentz transformations. Yet, as we have seen, Einstein resisted the temptation to account for the null result in terms of particles of light and simple, familiar Newtonian ideas, and introduced as his second postulate something that was more or less obvious when thought of in terms of waves in an ether."

Pentcho Valev pvalev@yahoo.com

report post as inappropriate

T H Ray replied on Dec. 6, 2011 @ 16:02 GMT

Valev,

I'm willing to bet if you spend only half as much time reading and thinking as you do cutting and pasting, you will be rewarded with more real knowledge of physics in a month than you have acquired in a lifetime.

Tom

report post as inappropriate

Pentcho Valev replied on Dec. 7, 2011 @ 12:43 GMT

Curiously, in 1952 Einstein still believed that modelling light as a continuous field was advantageous but in 1954 he considered it "entirely possible" that the field concept had in fact killed physics:

http://www.relativitybook.com/resources/Einstein_space.html

Relativity and the Problem of Space, Albert Einstein (1952): "During the second half of the nineteenth century, in connection with the researches of Faraday and Maxwell it became more and more clear that the description of electromagnetic processes in terms of field was vastly superior to a treatment on the basis of the mechanical concepts of material points. By the introduction of the field concept in electrodynamics, Maxwell succeeded in predicting the existence of electromagnetic waves, the essential identity of which with light waves could not be doubted because of the equality of their velocity of propagation. As a result of this, optics was, in principle, absorbed by electrodynamics. One psychological effect of this immense success was that the field concept, as opposed to the mechanistic framework of classical physics, gradually won greater independence. (...) Since the special theory of relativity revealed the physical equivalence of all inertial systems, it proved the untenability of the hypothesis of an aether at rest. It was therefore necessary to renounce the idea that the electromagnetic field is to be regarded as a state of a material carrier. The field thus becomes an irreducible element of physical description..."

http://www.perimeterinstitute.ca/pdf/files/975547d7-2d00-433
a-b7e3-4a09145525ca.pdf

Albert Einstein (1954): "I consider it entirely possible that physics cannot be based upon the field concept, that is on continuous structures. Then nothing will remain of my whole castle in the air, including the theory of gravitation, but also nothing of the rest of contemporary physics."

Pentcho Valev pvalev@yahoo.com

report post as inappropriate

Pentcho Valev replied on Dec. 7, 2011 @ 18:03 GMT

Walther Ritz (an unperson in Einsteiniana's schizophrenic world) against the field concept:

http://www.datasync.com/~rsf1/crit/1908a.htm

Walther Ritz 1908: "The only conclusion which, from then on, seems possible to me, is that ether doesn't exist, or more exactly, that we should renounce use of this representation, that the motion of light is a relative motion like all the others, that only relative velocities play a role in the laws of nature; and finally that we should renounce use of partial differential equations and the notion of field, in the measure that this notion introduces absolute motion."

https://webspace.utexas.edu/aam829/1/m/Relativity.ht
ml

Alberto Martinez: "Does the speed of light depend on the speed of its source? Before formulating his theory of special relativity, Albert Einstein spent a few years trying to formulate a theory in which the speed of light depends on its source, just like all material projectiles. Likewise, Walter Ritz outlined such a theory, where none of the peculiar effects of Einstein's relativity would hold. By 1913 most physicists abandoned such efforts, accepting the postulate of the constancy of the speed of light. Yet five decades later all the evidence that had been said to prove that the speed of light is independent of its source had been found to be defective."

http://www.liferesearchuniversal.com/1984-4

George Orwell: "Withers, however, was already an unperson. He did not exist : he had never existed."

Pentcho Valev pvalev@yahoo.com

report post as inappropriate

show all replies (2 not shown)

Author Frank Martin DiMeglio wrote on Dec. 7, 2011 @ 17:20 GMT

Fundamentally demonstrating our growth and becoming other than we are -- by the FUNDAMENTALLY integrated and interactive extensiveness (and integration and spreading) of being, thought, vision, PHYSICS, time, space, THE BODY, and experience -- would unify physics fundamenatlly. This is exactly what dreams are and represent. And dreams fundamentally demonstrate and include instantaneity.

Indeed, we all originate (and grow) at/from the center of the human body. And we continue to grow after we are born.

report post as inappropriate

reply to this thread

Author Frank Martin DiMeglio wrote on Dec. 7, 2011 @ 17:47 GMT

FQXi.org, still ignoring the fact that dreams fundamentally unify physics?

report post as inappropriate

reply to this thread

Author Frank Martin DiMeglio wrote on Dec. 8, 2011 @ 01:15 GMT

Balancing and unifying inertia and gravity (both at half strength/force) is the key to generally/fundamentally unifying and balancing attraction and repulsion in conjunction with the fundamental/generalized demonstration of instantaneity.

report post as inappropriate

Author Frank Martin DiMeglio replied on Dec. 8, 2011 @ 01:27 GMT

All of the above is demonstrated/manifest in dreams. I have fundamentally unified physics.

FQXi.org -- I demand your reply. Your credibility is seriously on the line here.

report post as inappropriate

reply to this thread

Peter Jackson wrote on Dec. 8, 2011 @ 14:50 GMT

Joy

I saw no comment on the link Ray posted. Did you read it? I would greatly like to hear your views on it.

It identified and explained some important links to me, including on the subjects of spheres, twin tori and spinors. Thank you for that Ray.

http://fqxi.org/data/forum-attachments/quaternions_spino
rs_twistors_paper.pdf

Best wishes

Peter

report post as inappropriate

Joy Christian replied on Dec. 8, 2011 @ 15:09 GMT

Peter,

Yes, I looked at it. It is irrelevant. No dual torus topology can preserve local causality in the sense of Bell. There are holes in any torus, and it does not remain closed under multiplication.

Joy

report post as inappropriate

Peter Jackson replied on Dec. 8, 2011 @ 19:37 GMT

Joy

Thanks. Tori apart, may I lastly offer a sphere with not only a smaller 4-ball inside but with a variable... lets say 'G-density'. This would have a Lagrangian point at the centre (a 'point of origin', but not a 'hole') and Yukawa profile cut off at the sphere surface. (what I referred to somewhere above as perhaps a 'Joyrus')

Take a slice through this sphere on any plane and it produces apparent flat tori, of finite area and, although 'unbounded', the sphere surface still provides an interactive boundary.

Looking at the physical interpretation (with my astrophysics hat on) the re-ionizing counterflow AGN jets which create all the pair production are powered by the 'accreted' angular momentum of a whole load of mass, giving continuous helical counter rotating em fields around the 'torus', but all within the sphere (slightly oblate with a major axis on the jet vectors, themselves precessing to give helicity).

We may now also consider that the local universe has an 'axis', reported single flow direction, and a quadrupolar CMBR asymmetry which resolves to a helix.

Do tell me if you think I'm talking complete nonsense, and I'll leave the maths entirely to you, but I felt the apparent connections are worth considering. There are now a sea of papers like the recent one below.

Peter

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1745
-3933.2011.01110.x/abstract

report post as inappropriate

Ray Munroe replied on Dec. 8, 2011 @ 22:30 GMT

Hi Peter,

Please don't call it a 'Joyrus' - considering the fact that Joy is steadfastly denying the possible importance of tori.

Cayley-Dickson construction allows us to equate bi-quaternion algebra with octonion algebra, and I thus do not understand Joy's objection against the S^3 x S^3 6-torus.

The history of these conversations is such that Joy and Tom start saying the we don't understand, or that we are comparing different fruit.

Clifford algebra is Clifford algebra. Geometry is Geometry. Topology is Topology. I see different perspectives, not necessarily different fruit...

Have Fun!

report post as inappropriate

show all replies (41 not shown)

Peter Jackson wrote on Dec. 9, 2011 @ 13:37 GMT

Guys,

Thanks. Very helpful.

Ray, if you like the apparent 'flat torus' slice based on a spherical variation of gravitational potential with a Lagrangian point at the centre, do please let me know if you find a mathematical relevance for it's physical form. Perhaps 'petrus' is better if it has no name yet (I'm not sure about a 'Rayrus'!) It may be more of a 'flying saucer' disk shape with a central depression.

Perhaps gravity is one dimension above an electromagnetic a 3D torus, but graded, and only formally apparent on studying a cross section.

Peter

report post as inappropriate

reply to this thread

Joy Christian wrote on Dec. 10, 2011 @ 19:38 GMT

Hi Rick,

I have been comparing your approach to octonions with mine and I see a lot of similarities. In particular, I see infinity of 7-spheres in my picture that resemble what you have described.

Following Lounesto I start by fixing a trivector,

J = e1 e2 e4 + e2 e3 e5 + e3 e4 e6 + e4 e5 e7 + e5 e6 e1 + e6 e7e2 + e7 e1 e3 ,

which is one of the 16 possible ones that can generate the product rules closed within the triplets:

[ J.e_i ] [ J.e_j ] = - delta_ ij - f_ijk [J.e_k ].

Here the structure constants f_ijk are G2-invarient tensors. I am able to reproduce all of the quantum correlations with any choice of J out of the 16. This is not surprising because the J's generate equivalent product rules. Neither do I require staying within any one of the sub-spaces of J.

The infinity enters the picture when I trade-off the G2-invarient structure constants f_ijk with the structure *functions* f_ijk (x) extended to all of SO(7). This trade-off (which is not my idea) is very convenient because the resulting algebra is then associative. The structure functions, however, are then different for every point x of S^7, and consequently the product rules too are different for every x of S^7:

[ J.e_i ] [ J.e_j ] = - delta_ ij - f_ijk (x) [J.e_k ].

This makes it transparent, in particular, that the torsion within S^7 is continuously different at every point of S^7 (which of course is not the case in S^3).

This picture is clearly richer than that of a lone 7-sphere with a fixed product rule. Perhaps I have been using too casual a language to describe my findings. Perhaps a better way to say what I have been trying to say is that quantum correlations are the evidence that the physical space we live in respects the symmetries and topologies of a parallelized 7-sphere. But words alone are never enough in physics.

Joy

report post as inappropriate

Edwin Eugene Klingman replied on Dec. 10, 2011 @ 20:57 GMT

Hi Joy,

I admire your work immensely, and have already thanked you for challenging 'non-local, non-real' dogma. But I doubt that going from one 7-D sphere to an infinity of 7-D spheres is going to be an easier sell.

You say: "This picture is clearly richer than that of a lone 7-sphere with a fixed product rule."

The fact that you are seeing a new extension to your ideas indicates to me that the idea is incomplete, or at least incompletely thought through. I still believe that you are essentially dealing with boundary conditions, when the 'real physics' is at the particle level. And I do not clearly see that requiring 7-D topology over all spacetime is different from 'non-local'.

Regards,

Edwin Eugene Klingman

report post as inappropriate

Joy Christian replied on Dec. 10, 2011 @ 21:50 GMT

Hi Edwin,

You are wrong on several counts. Nothing has changed. I am not going "from one 7-D sphere to an infinity of 7-D spheres." All Rick has brought to my attention is that 7-sphere is far richer than the casual language I have been using to describe it on this blog. My work itself is complete and foolproof. I am not "seeing a new extension to [my] ideas." I am simply bringing out the full richness of my ideas which is already there in my technical work. Have a look at this paper for example. The details summarized above are there in full on the pages 15 to 17.

Your comment "...the idea is incomplete, or at least incompletely thought through" is profoundly misguided. It shows that you have not understood my work. My framework is entirely complete, because it is based on a superior mathematical structure of division algebras explored and established by many.

Your comment "...the 'real physics' is at the particle level (together with your similar comments before)" is a clear indication that you have no understanding of Bell's theorem. Bell's theorem has nothing to do with particles, or fields, or detector mechanisms. Bell's theorem is about measurement results.

You note that you "do not clearly see that requiring 7-D topology over all spacetime is different from 'non-local'." This is another indication that you have not understood either Bell's theorem or my work. I recommend Bell's last paper I have linked in my introduction to this blog. As for spacetime, there is no such thing as "all spacetime." One does not postulate "all spacetime" to analyze the closed system studied in the EPR-Bell experiment.

Best regards,

Joy

report post as inappropriate

Edwin Eugene Klingman replied on Dec. 10, 2011 @ 22:29 GMT

Joy,

Thanks for your response. I know you get tired of comments from people who don't understand your work, and I put myself in that category. I've read Bell's 'Speakable...' through several times, and plan to again, so I do have some idea about Bell's ideas. And I am working my way through "Quantum Theory at the Crossroads", about the 1927 Solvay conference where much more complete information about de Broglie's approach appears.

As I've said, I've read all your papers, many of them more than once, and also most of Hestenes's papers. I would like to understand your concept, but until you can relate it to probability amplitudes, spin, mass and the wavefunction, I continue to believe that you have a partial solution, at best. If the arguments of qualified people on this blog (Ray, Tom, Florin, Rick, and yourself) are any indication, then you have a long way to go to claim a complete solution. I know you will not be satisfied if you are the only one who can fully appreciate it.

So I comment in hopes that my words may trigger a thought in your mind about how to better explain something. I know that FQXi comments have caused me to think through aspects of my own work that were beneficial from my perspective.

Regards,

Edwin Eugene Klingman

report post as inappropriate

show all replies (9 not shown)

Joy Christian wrote on Dec. 14, 2011 @ 13:01 GMT

What is so special about 3 and 7 dimensions? Why is the vector cross product definable only in 3 and 7 dimensions and no other? Why R, C, H, and O are the only possible normed division algebras? Why are only the 3 and 7-spheres nontrivially parallelizable (or nontrivially flat-able) out of infinitely many possible spheres? Why is it possible to derive all quantum mechanical correlations as local-realistic correlations amongst the points of only the 7-sphere?

It turns out that the answers to all of these questions are connected to the notion of factorizability introduced by Bell within the context of his theorem. Mathematicians have long been asking when is a product of two squares itself a square: (x)^2 (y)^2 = (z)^2. If the number z is factorizable, then it can be written as a product of two other numbers, z = x y, and then the above equality holds for the numbers x and y. For ordinary numbers this is easy to check. The number 8 can be factorized into a product of 2 and 4, and we then have 64 = (2)^2 x (4)^2 = (2 x 4)^2 = (8)^2 = 64. But what about the sums of squares of n different numbers? Can such a sum be factorized into a product of two sums of squares of n different numbers? In other words, does the following equality hold?

[(x_1)^2 + (x_2)^2 + ... + (x_n)^2] [(y_1)^2 + (y_2)^2 + ... + (y_n)^2] = (z_1)^2 + (z_2)^2 + ... + (z_n)^2

It turns out that this equality holds only for n = 1, 2, 4, and 8. This was proved by Hurwitz back in 1898. This reveals a deep and surprising fact about the world we live in. Much of what we see around us, from elementary particles to distant galaxies, is an inevitable consequence of this simple mathematical fact. The world is the way it is, because the above equality holds only for n = 1, 2, 4, and 8. For example the division algebras R (real), C (complex), H (quaternion), and O (octonion) we use for much of our science are related to the dimensions n = 1, 2, 4, and 8. Moreover, from the equation of sphere it is easy to see that the spheres S^0, S^1, S^3, and S^7 correspond to n = 1, 2, 4, and 8, which are the dimensions of the respective embedding spaces of these four spheres. What is not so easy to see, however, is the fact that there is a deep connection between Hurwitz's theorem and quantum correlations. As I have argued in my papers (especially this one), quantum correlations are the inevitable consequences of the parallelizability of the 7-sphere, which in turn is a consequence of Hurwitz's theorem. So the innocent looking algebraic equality above has far reaching consequences not only for the entire edifice of mathematics, but also for that of quantum physics. I just wanted to draw your attention to this humbling fact.

Joy

report post as inappropriate

Rick Lockyer replied on Dec. 14, 2011 @ 16:15 GMT

Joy,

I love most of your observations, and feel a breaking of my frustration of bringing things up that to me are like touching the obelisk in the movie “2001, a Space Odyssey” but getting little or no response from others.

We must understand that Octonion Algebra is the Mother of all of this, and not “the crazy old Uncle in the attic”. We learn the math bottom – up, starting with R, then for some of us C, then H and for a few finally O. We should understand that O is the fundamental algebra, and H, C and R are subordinate in their positions as sub-algebras of O.

Too many out there are hung up on the loss of associativity for O, yet are hard pressed to come up with tangible reasons it should stand. Without this, O would not be a division algebra.

The key to understanding nature is the rule of multiplication in its 16 O forms. Other approaches dance around what Octonion Algebra does intrinsically, be it tensorization to mimic missing structure provided by a proper dimension count, or multi-vectors to mimic a remembrance of product histories. Their success is only due to their tangential proximity to Octonion Algebra.

Rick

report post as inappropriate

Joy Christian replied on Dec. 14, 2011 @ 18:30 GMT

Rick,

Thanks. I know how you feel. New ideas in science usually take a long time to catch on. And -- like the crazy old Uncle in the attic -- octonions do not make life easy for anyone. The lack of enthusiasm for them is therefore understandable.

You wrote: "...O is the fundamental algebra, and H, C and R are subordinate in their positions as sub-algebras of O."

I totally agree. But I am not too familiar with your Octonion Algebra as yet. So I see things more from a topological perspective. I see O as being the most fundamental from the perspective of Hopf fibrations. It is then easy to see that 7-sphere is a twisted bundle of 4-sphere worth of 3-spheres, which in turn is a twisted bundle of 2-sphere worth of circles. And it is the non-associativity of the octonions that parallelizes the 7-sphere in this manner. Without non-associativity such a fibration would be impossible. This is a slightly different perspective, but it may not be incompatible with yours. In fact it may be a complementary perspective. O is still at the heart of it all, with H, C, and R its subordinates.

There is another reason why I think non-associativity of O is a strength rather than a weakness. Without it (which I see as variability of the torsion on the 7-sphere), I am unable to explain the diversity of quantum correlations observed in Nature. To be sure, it introduces complications in practice, but that is our problem not Nature's. She herself follows octonions to the dot.

Joy

report post as inappropriate

Rick Lockyer replied on Dec. 14, 2011 @ 19:30 GMT

Joy,

To be clear, it is not "my Octonion Algebra". I am but an observer of what is, and was there before I noticed it. It belongs to reality. It does not even belong to John Graves, the first observer. He discovered it, he did not invent it.

Rick

report post as inappropriate

show all replies (72 not shown)

Author Frank Martin DiMeglio wrote on Dec. 14, 2011 @ 14:50 GMT

Joy and Ray, FQXi.org -- some clarification for this discussion. The fundamental and generalized demonstration of instantaneity generally and fundamentally unifies physics in conjunction with inertial and gravitational equivalency and balancing and balanced and equivalent attraction and repulsion. All of this happens in dreams, but I guess that you all will just continue this absurd and unrealistic fanciful math game as if truth and reality not longer matter and exist.

Mathematics cannot combine and include opposites fundamentally. This strictly limits mathematics. Dreams combine and include opposites fundamentally. The ultimate understanding of physics combines and includes opposites fundamentally.

Back to reality and truth folks -- they matter, alot.

The body is fundamental to physics and thought. Our growth and development, and our becoming other than we are, are fundamental to physics.

report post as inappropriate

Ray Munroe replied on Dec. 14, 2011 @ 15:36 GMT

Hi Frank,

I am 'just a physicist', and I do not claim to understand the origin of dreams, consciousness, soul, etc. I have ideas, but honestly consider these to be 'speculation beyond speculation' - more philosophy than any kind of verifiable/testable science.

You said "Mathematics cannot combine and include opposites fundamentally. This strictly limits mathematics. Dreams combine and include opposites fundamentally. The ultimate understanding of physics combines and includes opposites fundamentally."

A couple of my Prespacetime papers from the last year - here and

here - are serious mathematical methods to unite certain kinds of 'opposites'.

Joy and I disagree *SOME* on the relevance of the 7-sphere. Is the 7-sphere more or less stable than the double 6-torus? Joy doesn't like the double 6-torus because it has 'holes' in it, but all of the 'holes' are through the 8-D bulk - most of which is being discarded to define simultaneity and eliminate the R^8 singularity. The hypersurface of the double 6-torus is still connected - perhaps not as simply as Joy would prefer, but it is definable in terms of Weierstrass Elliptic functions. But Joy's general mathematics is a good starting point.

Having read your posts for a couple of years, I realize that math is not your strength, but you should still try to build models that can be well-defined, and - hopefully - can also be tested experimentally.

Have Fun!

report post as inappropriate

Author Frank Martin DiMeglio replied on Dec. 14, 2011 @ 16:16 GMT

Ray, instantaneity is fundamental to physics. What can you do with this? Gravitational and inertial equivalency and balancing are fundamental to physics. What can you do with this? Gravity and inertia are fundamental to distance on/of space. What can you do with this? Indeed, for all of these facts, it is shown that Einstein's understanding/conception of gravity is fundamentally unsound, incomplete, and unbalanced.

report post as inappropriate

Author Frank Martin DiMeglio replied on Dec. 14, 2011 @ 16:41 GMT

Dreams are physics Ray. Speak honestly when you speak to me.

report post as inappropriate

show all replies (4 not shown)

Author Frank Martin DiMeglio wrote on Dec. 14, 2011 @ 16:27 GMT

Ray, physics happens in and with time. A simple, and yet important, fact. Time and no time Ray. Accordingly, instantaneity needs to be demonstrated in conjunction with gravitational and inertial equivalency and balancing and the fact that gravity and inertia are fundamental to distance in/of space. Combine, balance and include opposites.

report post as inappropriate

Paul Reed replied on Dec. 15, 2011 @ 09:24 GMT

Frank

But it is not time, as such. It is change (anything and everything)in physically existent states. This has substance (what) and frequencies (when). We have a timing system to measure the latter.

Paul

report post as inappropriate

Author Frank Martin DiMeglio replied on Dec. 18, 2011 @ 19:51 GMT

Paul, time requires observer, observed, gravity, inertia, electromagnetism, and fundamental distance in/of space in conjunction therewith.

report post as inappropriate

Paul Reed replied on Dec. 19, 2011 @ 11:40 GMT

Frank

Time requires no observer, it is the frequency of what is happening, ie change, which happens whether observed or otherwise. Timing requires observation

Paul

report post as inappropriate

reply to this thread

Author Frank Martin DiMeglio wrote on Dec. 15, 2011 @ 16:20 GMT

Here is the clear, definitive, complete, and best proof that the Higgs search is a total and failed waste of money and time:

Here is the true, general, and fundamental unification of physics, AND this is what Einstein's gravity lacks and what dreams FUNDAMENTALLY demonstrate, include, and unify:

1) Instantaneity (and fundamentally).

2) Truly and fundamentally equivalent and balanced inertia and gravity (both at half energy/force strength.) Gravity is reduced to the extent that inertia is increased.

3) Fundamentally balanced and equivalent attraction and repulsion.

4) Gravity and inertia are both FUNDAMENTAL to distance in/of space.

None of you can refute this. THIS IS GIGANTIC NEWS IN PHYSICS!

report post as inappropriate

reply to this thread

Sreenath B N wrote on Dec. 17, 2011 @ 10:46 GMT

Dr. Joy,

Thanks for your kind response to my letter dated Dec. 6 . I appreciate your ingenuity in Topology and making use of it to derive correlated values of QE on seven sphere. This is really a novel attempt to do so and in which you have succeeded remarkably. But I have certain remarks to make regarding your response to my letter and also on certain points in some of your articles on QE. I will be glad if you answer them with all your patience and at your loss of precious time.

In one of your articles on Bell's Theorem ,"Disproof of Bell's Theorem", you have shown flaws in Bell's Theorem and rectified them. It is, ofcourse, a genuine way to look at the fundamentals of a theory. The fundamental aim of Bell's Theorem is to show mathematically how QM and hence QE imply ' Non-Locality '. Although Bell's work is flawed his conclusion, that QE implies 'Non-Locality', is right. By correcting his faulty approach, as a classical physicist, you have seconded his conclusion!

In your article,"Disproofs of Bell,GHZ,and Hardy Type Theorems and the Illusion of Entanglement", you have said that Entanglement is an illusion.But Entanglement is a 'fact' since it is implied by QM; exposed by the EPR paradox; mathematically demonstrated by John Bell; and confirmed ( experimentally ) by Aspect and others. So an experimentally proved 'fact' cannot be an illusion as it is accepted world-wide. If Entanglement is 'really' an illusion, then describe how the illusion of Entanglement appears as if it were 'real' in the above experiments.

In the same article, inorder to explain Hardy and GHZ entanglement you have, innovatively, made use of parallilazable seven sphere Topology to show how expectation ( or correlated ) values of measurements can be classically derived which match with those predicted by QM. This is really a fundamental and enthralling way of looking at QM and interpreting its predictions on classical grounds as you have made it clear when you said "----the correlations expressed in this expectation value are purely topological effects. They are simply the classical, deterministic, local, and realistic correlations among three points of a unit 7-sphere " (on page 22). The credit for this discovery must go to you. But according to me the problem for classical physics in QE is not only in predicting the correlated ( expectation ) values, but it is more so in tackling the problem of 'Time'; for,if the measurement of correlated values is carried out on one particle, it instantly (or simultaneously ) determines the corresponding values of the other particle even if they ( the particles ) are seperated by 'huge distances'. In other words, the information travels from one particle to the other one ' instantly in no time '. It is this infinite speed with which information travels between the two entangled particles is the problem for the classical physics as it leads to 'Non-Locality' in physics.It is this problem (pertaining to Time),exposed by the EPR paradox, which is not tackled by you on the Topology of seven sphere. Because, even if the points on seven-sphere correspond to the expectation values of QE, they ( the points ) are seperated by certain distances and if two points on it correspond to two entangled particles, and if measurements are carried out on one particle ( point ) it affects the measurements on the other particle (point) instantly and thus re-estblishing 'Non-Locality'. So the problem of 'Non-Locality' cannot be solved topologically as long as it is based on the classical physical concepts unless ' Teleological ' connections, regarding Time, are assumed between the points on seven sphere.That is why I have said in the last sentense of my above dated letter to you "So it needs different interpretation of QE to save Locality ". I will post that letter to you in this forum soon.

Regarding the ' Reality ' viewed by ' Line landers ', ' Flat landers ' and ' Space landers ' ,I don't want to say much as Tom has already said in response to my previous letter regarding the necessity of assuming more and more dimensions unless their physical meanings are clarified. For otherwise, one may go to 8 dimensions like SUSY, 10-D like String-Theory and then even one may go to 20-D to have a still much better view of 'Reality'. Thus there will be no end to this fantasy. In Hopf fibration video, I just saw 'the dance of curves' but not how higher and higher dimensions are formed. Nor did I understand how the curves formed represented dimensions. In your article, you have used 7-D but haven't clarified what those extra 3 dimensions mean, ie., are they spatial or temporal or a combination of both and how to 'visiualize' them on the 7 sphere.

Sreenath.

Rick,

Thanks for your suggestion.There may be no problem for the mathematicians to use more and more dimensions in mathematics but in physics, which tries to describe 'Nature', physicists cannot do it unless they describe how the extra dimensions are to be 'visiualized'. Otherwise it leads to such unverifiable theories like String-Theory, SUSY, etc. I appreciate your in-depth knowledge in mathematics and hope you will make use of it to apply it to various fields of human activity.

Sreenath.

view post as summary

report post as inappropriate

Joy Christian replied on Dec. 17, 2011 @ 14:10 GMT

Hi Sreenath,

I am afraid I do not agree with much of what you have written. It is clear that you do not have the background in foundations of quantum mechanics and hence are unaware of what the real issues in the EPR versus Bell debate are. For instance, you wrote:

"The fundamental aim of Bell's Theorem is to show mathematically how QM and hence QE imply ' Non-Locality '. Although Bell's work is flawed his conclusion, that QE implies 'Non-Locality', is right. By correcting his faulty approach, as a classical physicist, you have seconded his conclusion!"

The observation that QM or QE implies non-locality was not made by Bell, but by EPR. The fact that QE implies non-locality is beyond dispute. Neither I nor anyone else working in the foundations of physics disputes this fact. Bell's aim was *not* to show how QM and hence QE imply non-locality, but to show that any conceivable physical theory, quantum or classical, must be non-local, or non-real, if it reproduces quantum correlations. So you have got the whole thing wrong to begin with.

Second, you have misunderstood what is meant by the statement "entanglement is an illusion." Worse still, you wrote "...Entanglement is a 'fact' since it is implied by QM; exposed by the EPR paradox; mathematically demonstrated by John Bell; and confirmed ( experimentally ) by Aspect and others." This is the standard folklore and it is as wrong as 2 + 2 = 5, regardless of the significance of my work. Quantum entanglement cannot be a fact. No one has ever "seen" quantum entanglement. All one ever "sees", and could ever "see" in any experiment, are correlations between measurement events. Entanglement was not "exposed" by the EPR argument (and the latter is *not* a "paradox"). EPR only showed that entanglement leads to unpalatable consequences, like non-locality or non-reality. Bell did not mathematically demonstrate quantum entanglement. In fact Bell's theorem has nothing whatsoever to do with quantum mechanics per se. It is a (discredited) theorem about all conceivable physical theories. It is not a theorem about quantum entanglement. The experiments by Aspect and others *did not* and *cannot* confirm quantum entanglement. All such experiments can confirm is the correlations predicted by quantum mechanics. It is an entirely different thing to assert that the observed correlations can only be produced by quantum entanglement. In fact it is simply false to assert that, as my work has explicitly shown. My calculations show that quantum entanglement is not the most fundamental and only reason for the existence of the observed correlations. They show that observed correlations are better understood as evidence that the physical space in which the measurement events are taking place respects the symmetries and topologies of a parallelized 7-sphere. This demonstrates that a complete description of the physical reality as espoused by Einstein is not only possible, but is much more enlightening. My work demonstrates that quantum entanglement does not provide a complete description of the physical reality. It only provides a statistical description, and hence, in Einstein's sense, entanglement is an illusion. It is cover for our ignorance, just as classical probabilities are covers for our ignorance. Quantum entanglement is most certainly not a "fact."

(I continue below)

view post as summary

report post as inappropriate

Joy Christian replied on Dec. 17, 2011 @ 14:18 GMT

You wrote: "So an experimentally proved 'fact' cannot be an illusion as it is accepted world-wide. If Entanglement is 'really' an illusion, then describe how the illusion of Entanglement appears as if it were 'real' in the above experiments."

Once upon a time "earth is flat" was also accepted world-wide. If you understood the EPR argument as summarised in the introduction of his famous paper by Bell, then you would understand that what I have demonstrated in my papers amounts to describing how the illusion of entanglement appears real in the experiments. It is no different from how the flatness of earth appears real to us when we look at it with uninformed eyes.

You wrote: "...for,if the measurement of correlated values is carried out on one particle, it instantly (or simultaneously ) determines the corresponding values of the other particle even if they ( the particles ) are seperated by 'huge distances'. In other words, the information travels from one particle to the other one ' instantly in no time '. It is this infinite speed with which information travels between the two entangled particles is the problem for the classical physics as it leads to 'Non-Locality' in physics. It is this problem (pertaining to Time),exposed by the EPR paradox, which is not tackled by you on the Topology of seven sphere."

Once again you are completely wrong. The instantaneity you have described has been demystified by my classical derivations of quantum correlations. The mystery of instantaneity has been reduced to the mystery of Dr. Bertlmann's socks discussed by Bell in his article entitled "Bertlmann's socks and the nature of reality." On a cold winter night in the middle of nowhere I reach out into my pockets to find my winter gloves but find only one of them, and that one happens to be for the left hand, then instantly, without lapse of any time, I know with absolute certainly that the other glove I accidentally left at home is for the right hand. The speed of information in this case is infinite, but I bet you are not mystified by that. Similarly, what I have demonstrated with my classical derivations of quantum correlations is that instantaneity of these correlations is not mysterious. What I have demonstrated is that observed instantaneous correlations are no more mysterious than the non-locality exhibited by my hand-gloves, or that exhibited by Dr. Bertlmann's socks.

You wrote: "In your article, you have used 7-D but haven't clarified what those extra 3 dimensions mean, i.e., are they spatial or temporal or a combination of both and how to 'visualize' them on the 7 sphere."

Once again I disagree. My calculations are very explicit about the relationship between the 7D vectors and the 3D vectors, both characterizing the 7-sphere. These relationships are often nontrivial, as the discussions between Rick and I have brought out, but they are anything but not explicit. Time does not enter into either EPR's or Bell's argument, and hence it does not enter into mine.

I hope my comments inspire you to recognize your errors, because you are mistaken on several counts. I very much recommend that instead of falling for the standard folklores about quantum entanglement and non-locality you study the actual arguments presented by EPR and Bell in their original papers. Then, once you have understood these arguments, I urge you to go through my calculations once again. I also hope that you overcome your prejudices against the "extra" dimensions of the 7-sphere, because there is nothing extra about the 7-sphere.

Joy

view post as summary

report post as inappropriate

Rick Lockyer replied on Dec. 17, 2011 @ 17:38 GMT

Sreenath,

The generalized coordinate usage I mentioned was introduced to me in the Physics class commonly called mechanics, not in a mathematics class.

You and others put too fine a point on the concept of dimension, be it spatial or temporal. The need to “see” or perceive them through our limited primary sensory abilities is a non-starter for me. I can imagine a 3D force vector leading to motion in a body that I witness through “seeing” it move, but I do not “see” the vector. Yet it is possible to match stimulus to a predictable response mathematically through analysis of the force vector of the stimulus. Likewise I can imagine there needs to be two types of vectors if you will, for each 3D direction we “see”, and I can back up the necessity with mathematics and Physics. If I can’t “see” the simplistic first example, why should I expect to “see” the more complex but necessary second?

When Physics stops having a strict foundation in mathematics, it stops being Physics. This foundation is a sub-set of the totality of mathematics, that is we can dream up mathematical constructs that have no bearing on physical reality, the domain of Physics. The rub is there is insufficient consensus on just what “physical reality” means and how this restricts the mathematics applied. The Physics/mathematics applied transcends our limited primary abilities. We make this transcendence over our limitations every day of our lives in one way or another. The prudent path is to not restrict the path to understanding a priori, but reel in things once experimental verification demonstrates a problem. Failure to intrinsically sense something is not experimental verification of a problem. No need for 7D TVs.

Rick

report post as inappropriate

show all replies (1 not shown)

Paul Reed replied on Dec. 19, 2011 @ 12:33 GMT

Sreenath

“not only in predicting the correlated ( expectation ) values, but it is more so in tackling the problem of 'Time'; for, if the measurement of correlated values is carried out on one particle, it instantly (or simultaneously ) determines the corresponding values of the other particle even if they ( the particles ) are seperated by 'huge distances'”.

Assuming the validity of the underlying concepts that underpin this circumstance, then the issue is not time, because that is actually frequency of change (movement being just one example of change). The issue is timing.

All these particles have to have been in some specific spatial position, as up to the previous point in time before observation was effected. And have been travelling with some specific velocity and occupied other specific spatial positions, previously. This might have been erratic, completely random, or perfectly predictable, but there were definitive values, because they were deemed to exist. Post a specific entanglement, these change from what would otherwise have obtained, but they still have values, as at any point in time, because something is still deemed to exist. It is all about, as at any point in time (ie timing), what was happening, what did happen, and what is the consequent happening.

Rick

“The rub is there is insufficient consensus on just what “physical reality” means and how this restricts the mathematics applied”. Absolutely. The start point must be to understand the fundamental nature of the substance (which in this case is reality), before applying a process to underpin investigation, because it may not be appropriate. A dimension can only be spatial, not temporal, because the latter is the manifestation of more than one (whether it be spatial position or any other attribute). But we need a definition of dimension, so as not to confuse it with other effects, and certainly perception is a “non-starter” as a basis for proof.

Paul

report post as inappropriate

reply to this thread

hide replies

Pentcho Valev wrote on Dec. 17, 2011 @ 17:42 GMT

False assumption at Perimeter and Oxford:

http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0308028

Passage of Time in a Planck Scale Rooted Local Inertial Structure, Joy Christian (Perimeter and Oxford): "...although the vacuum speed of light remains an observer-independent absolute upper bound on speeds as before..."

The speed of light is observer-DEPENDENT, Joy Christian (I have already tried to call your attention to this):

http://a-levelphysicstutor.com/wav-doppler.php

"vO is the velocity of an observer moving towards the source. This velocity is independent of the motion of the source. Hence, the velocity of waves relative to the observer is c + vO. (...) The motion of an observer does not alter the wavelength. The increase in frequency is a result of the observer encountering more wavelengths in a given time."

http://www.phys.uconn.edu/~gibson/Notes/Section6_3/Sec6_3.ht
m

Professor George N. Gibson, University of Connecticut: "However, if either the source or the observer is moving, things change. This is called the Doppler effect. (...) To understand the moving observer, imagine you are in a motorboat on the ocean. If you are not moving, the boat will bob up and down with a certain frequency determined by the ocean waves coming in. However, imagine that you are moving into the waves fairly quickly. You will find that you bob up and down more rapidly, because you hit the crests of the waves sooner than if you were not moving. So, the frequency of the waves appears to be higher to you than if you were not moving. Notice, THE WAVES THEMSELVES HAVE NOT CHANGED, only your experience of them. Nevertheless, you would say that the frequency has increased. Now imagine that you are returning to shore, and so you are traveling in the same direction as the waves. In this case, the waves may still overtake you, but AT A MUCH SLOWER RATE - you will bob up and down more slowly. In fact, if you travel with exactly the same speed as the waves, you will not bob up and down at all. The same thing is true for sound waves, or ANY OTHER WAVES."

Pentcho Valev pvalev@yahoo.com

report post as inappropriate

Pentcho Valev replied on Dec. 17, 2011 @ 19:43 GMT

Your "receiver receding from a photon source" measures a decreased speed of light, Joy Christian:

http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/gr-qc/pdf/0610/0610049v2
.pdf

Absolute Being vs Relative Becoming, Joy Christian

If you can read French, this may help:

http://www.expo-db.be/ExposPrecedentes/Expo/Ondes/fichi
ers%20son/Effet%20Doppler.pdf

"La variation de la fréquence observée lorsqu'il y a mouvement relatif entre la source et l'observateur est appelée effet Doppler. (...) 6. Source immobile - Observateur en mouvement: La distance entre les crêtes, la longueur d'onde lambda ne change pas. Mais la vitesse des crêtes par rapport à l'observateur change !"

http://www.radartutorial.eu/11.coherent/co06.fr.html

"L'effet Doppler est le décalage de fréquence d'une onde acoustique ou électromagnétique entre la mesure à l'émission et la mesure à la réception lorsque la distance entre l'émetteur et le récepteur varie au cours du temps. (...) Pour comprendre ce phénomène, il s'agit de penser à une onde à une fréquence donnée qui est émise vers un observateur en mouvement, ou vis-versa. LA LONGUEUR D'ONDE DU SIGNAL EST CONSTANTE mais si l'observateur se rapproche de la source, il se déplace vers les fronts d'ondes successifs et perçoit donc plus d'ondes par seconde que s'il était resté stationnaire, donc une augmentation de la fréquence. De la même manière, s'il s'éloigne de la source, les fronts d'onde l'atteindront avec un retard qui dépend de sa vitesse d'éloignement, donc une diminution de la fréquence."

Pentcho Valev pvalev@yahoo.com

report post as inappropriate

Peter Jackson replied on Dec. 19, 2011 @ 10:33 GMT

Petcho

Please direct us to evidence of observation of received light at c plus v. I have investigated and found none, but much to the contrary. All evidence is however of indirect observation (light passing by in a dielectric) at apparent c plus v. This is different. The understanding of the difference leads the way to identifying the error of assumption in SR.

We cannot 'SEE' light passing by in a vacuum except by interaction (coupling) with massive particles, and secondary light scattering. We are not seeing the original light, therefore apparent c plus v is not real local c plus v.

Light directly received is different. it scatters at a lens and passes through at c/n plus v, but then observed from the co-moving frame of the lens it is c/n. Think very carefully about that and the implications.

It shows Einstein's assumption wrong, and also your assumption about precisely 'what' i