501 views

Skip to first unread message

Dec 22, 2011, 8:32:00 PM12/22/11

to

Is there some kind of consensus about the correctness of

Joy Christian's work disproving Bell's Theorem?

(The most succinct paper by Christian on the topic

is here: http://arxiv.org/abs/1103.1879)

Christian's argument does not make a lot of sense to me.

It would be nice to have someone either explain what I'm

missing, or confirm my skepticism of his argument.

--

Daryl McCullough

Ithaca, NY

Joy Christian's work disproving Bell's Theorem?

(The most succinct paper by Christian on the topic

is here: http://arxiv.org/abs/1103.1879)

Christian's argument does not make a lot of sense to me.

It would be nice to have someone either explain what I'm

missing, or confirm my skepticism of his argument.

--

Daryl McCullough

Ithaca, NY

Dec 24, 2011, 12:11:53 PM12/24/11

to

On Dec 23, 12:32 pm, Daryl McCullough <stevendaryl3...@yahoo.com>

wrote:

while Christian has put a number of papers on the arXiv

regarding his "disproof", he has only been able to publish

this work in "a forthcoming book sponsored by fqxi". No

peer reviewed journal has accepted it, AFAIK.

> Christian's argument does not make a lot of sense to me.

> It would be nice to have someone either explain what I'm

> missing, or confirm my skepticism of his argument.

Bell's theorem is about necessary conditions for the

measured outcomes, in a set of joint experiments, to have

predetermined values - under the assumption that the

outcome for one part of the joint experiment cannot affect

the outcome for another part (eg, because they are

carried out in spacelike separated regions).

Christian's model of the singlet state does not assign

predetermined values to the measured outcomes for

spin in various directions (i.e, values of +1 or -1 for each

direction of interest). Hence his model is simply

not relevant to Bell's theorem. Is his model of interest?

No refereed journal seems to think so. In fact, his

model is, algebraically, very similar to the standard

quantum model.

For an excellent and amusing discussion, containing

correspondence with Joy Christian himself, see

http://www.science20.com/alpha_meme/quantum_crackpot_randi_challenge_help_perimeter_physicist_joy_christian_collect_nobel_prize-79614

You can also search this newsgroup for earlier

discussions.

wrote:

> Is there some kind of consensus about the correctness of

> Joy Christian's work disproving Bell's Theorem?

> (The most succinct paper by Christian on the topic

> is here:http://arxiv.org/abs/1103.1879)

There is certainly a consensus of some sort, in the fact that
> Joy Christian's work disproving Bell's Theorem?

> (The most succinct paper by Christian on the topic

> is here:http://arxiv.org/abs/1103.1879)

while Christian has put a number of papers on the arXiv

regarding his "disproof", he has only been able to publish

this work in "a forthcoming book sponsored by fqxi". No

peer reviewed journal has accepted it, AFAIK.

> Christian's argument does not make a lot of sense to me.

> It would be nice to have someone either explain what I'm

> missing, or confirm my skepticism of his argument.

measured outcomes, in a set of joint experiments, to have

predetermined values - under the assumption that the

outcome for one part of the joint experiment cannot affect

the outcome for another part (eg, because they are

carried out in spacelike separated regions).

Christian's model of the singlet state does not assign

predetermined values to the measured outcomes for

spin in various directions (i.e, values of +1 or -1 for each

direction of interest). Hence his model is simply

not relevant to Bell's theorem. Is his model of interest?

No refereed journal seems to think so. In fact, his

model is, algebraically, very similar to the standard

quantum model.

For an excellent and amusing discussion, containing

correspondence with Joy Christian himself, see

http://www.science20.com/alpha_meme/quantum_crackpot_randi_challenge_help_perimeter_physicist_joy_christian_collect_nobel_prize-79614

You can also search this newsgroup for earlier

discussions.

Dec 24, 2011, 12:12:52 PM12/24/11

to

is a remarkable clarity, simplicity and precision in which new ideas

were put forward. The paper linked above exhibits none of these

qualities.

I probably have just as much trouble interpreting the development

as yourself so I can't be counted as one who follows or understands

the paper. However, Equation 4 introduces an algebra with a stochastic

defining relation. This may not be what Bell had in mind as a realistic

local model.

Regards

Paul C.

Dec 24, 2011, 3:37:23 PM12/24/11

to

On Dec 23, 1:32 am, Daryl McCullough <stevendaryl3...@yahoo.com>

wrote:

May I just add a point before I feel I cannot intrude as it has become

too complicated for me as a non-physicist. I understand that the

criteria you will be discussing need to be treated rigorously but I will

soon get lost trying to follow Bell's criteria wrt hidden variables.

Say Edward in a lab prepares an electron in a random direction (he knows

that direction and makes a note of it for his private records) and

passes the electron to Fred, nearby, who does not know the direction of

preparation.

Fred's task is to try to find out if he really believes Edward does know

the direction of the electron or if Edward has been pretending to know

and has just passed Fred any old electron off the bench.

To provide statistical information, Edward passes Fred many such

electrons all in random directions, all directions logged in Edward's

private notes.

When Fred makes tests of direction of spin, I assume he will find that

there is a 50/50 change of spin 1 being found in any direction he

chooses. If Edward had passed Fred any old electrons off the bench,

they may have been near a magnetic field which had caused them all to

line up in the same direction. This would become evident to Fred who

would eventually find a preferred direction in his tests.

Returning to the electrons with random directions, would not Fred be

bemused that he found on aggregate that the electrons had random spin

directions, yet Edward claimed to know those directions? Wouldn't Fred

disbelieve Edward and say that what he was doing is impossible? There

can be no hidden variables indicating the spin directions. His 50/50

results proved that to be the case?

So, to act as a proof, every other test is now performed by Edward who

consults his log book, picks the correct test setting and makes a

measurment which always gets the spin measurement correct.

If this experiment can be conducted, and I don't see why not, doesn't it

prove that Edward can have a log book equivalent to the hidden variable?

The electron itself needs no log book as it knows its own spin.

I haven't mentioned entangled pairs yet as they seem to me to be almost

an irrelevancy to the question of hidden variables. Edward could

prepare alternate electrons with exactly opposite spin directions and

pass one to Fred and one to Geoff. Fred would still find 50/50 and

Goeff would likewise find 50/50. Not only would Edward's private log

book enable him to know the outcome for any particlular electron (as

long as Edward could set up the apparatus himself in the appropriate

direction), Edward would know and could prove, if required, that pairs

were oppositely aligned.

Leonard Susskind in his online entanglement course says that if you

prepare an electron in spin state 1 and then immediately re-test it in

the same alignment then it will still be in spin state 1 with 100%

probability. So I do not see why Edward cannot do the tests above.

wrote:

too complicated for me as a non-physicist. I understand that the

criteria you will be discussing need to be treated rigorously but I will

soon get lost trying to follow Bell's criteria wrt hidden variables.

Say Edward in a lab prepares an electron in a random direction (he knows

that direction and makes a note of it for his private records) and

passes the electron to Fred, nearby, who does not know the direction of

preparation.

Fred's task is to try to find out if he really believes Edward does know

the direction of the electron or if Edward has been pretending to know

and has just passed Fred any old electron off the bench.

To provide statistical information, Edward passes Fred many such

electrons all in random directions, all directions logged in Edward's

private notes.

When Fred makes tests of direction of spin, I assume he will find that

there is a 50/50 change of spin 1 being found in any direction he

chooses. If Edward had passed Fred any old electrons off the bench,

they may have been near a magnetic field which had caused them all to

line up in the same direction. This would become evident to Fred who

would eventually find a preferred direction in his tests.

Returning to the electrons with random directions, would not Fred be

bemused that he found on aggregate that the electrons had random spin

directions, yet Edward claimed to know those directions? Wouldn't Fred

disbelieve Edward and say that what he was doing is impossible? There

can be no hidden variables indicating the spin directions. His 50/50

results proved that to be the case?

So, to act as a proof, every other test is now performed by Edward who

consults his log book, picks the correct test setting and makes a

measurment which always gets the spin measurement correct.

If this experiment can be conducted, and I don't see why not, doesn't it

prove that Edward can have a log book equivalent to the hidden variable?

The electron itself needs no log book as it knows its own spin.

I haven't mentioned entangled pairs yet as they seem to me to be almost

an irrelevancy to the question of hidden variables. Edward could

prepare alternate electrons with exactly opposite spin directions and

pass one to Fred and one to Geoff. Fred would still find 50/50 and

Goeff would likewise find 50/50. Not only would Edward's private log

book enable him to know the outcome for any particlular electron (as

long as Edward could set up the apparatus himself in the appropriate

direction), Edward would know and could prove, if required, that pairs

were oppositely aligned.

Leonard Susskind in his online entanglement course says that if you

prepare an electron in spin state 1 and then immediately re-test it in

the same alignment then it will still be in spin state 1 with 100%

probability. So I do not see why Edward cannot do the tests above.

Dec 25, 2011, 4:18:08 AM12/25/11

to

On Dec 24, 5:11=A0pm, a student <of_1001_nig...@hotmail.com> wrote:

>

> There is certainly a consensus of some sort, in the fact that

> while Christian has put a number of papers on the arXiv

> regarding his "disproof", he has only been able to publish

> this work in "a forthcoming book sponsored by fqxi". =A0No
>

> There is certainly a consensus of some sort, in the fact that

> while Christian has put a number of papers on the arXiv

> regarding his "disproof", he has only been able to publish

> peer reviewed journal has accepted it, AFAIK.

>

You seem to have inside information about this.
>

I sure would like to know how you came to know

what I have or have not been able to do. I would

also like to know what the word =93only=94 signifies in

your assertion. I suppose it means that Perelman=92s

proof of Poincare conjecture is no good because it

is not even published in =93a forthcoming book

sponsored by fqxi.=94 It is =93only=94 published on the arXiv.

>

> Christian's model of the singlet state does not assign

> spin in various directions (i.e, values of +1 or -1 for each

> direction of interest).

False. One only has to glance at equations (1) and (2)
> direction of interest).

of the paper linked above to see that this is a blatantly

false assertion.

>

> Is his model of interest?

> No refereed journal seems to think so.

>

Could it be the scholarly blog you have linked? I, for one, do

not know what the refereed journals think about my model.

>

> For an excellent and amusing discussion, containing

>

And you are of course absolutely certain that what is

reported on that scholarly blog is an accurate and

honest claim =96 that the alleged correspondence did

indeed take place. Again, you seem to have some

inside information about the alleged correspondence.

Joy Christian

Dec 25, 2011, 11:22:47 AM12/25/11

to

On Dec 25, 7:37 am, ben6993 <ben6...@hotmail.com> wrote:

[snip]

> I haven't mentioned entangled pairs yet as they seem to me to be almost

> an irrelevancy to the question of hidden variables. Edward could

> prepare alternate electrons with exactly opposite spin directions and

> pass one to Fred and one to Geoff. Fred would still find 50/50 and

> Goeff would likewise find 50/50. Not only would Edward's private log

> book enable him to know the outcome for any particlular electron (as

> long as Edward could set up the apparatus himself in the appropriate

> direction), Edward would know and could prove, if required, that pairs

> were oppositely aligned.

It is indeed trivial to model anti-aligned statistics. It is also

trivial to

model the spin properties of a single electron. However, there is no

deterministic local model of the singlet state, of the type you

suggest.

This is what is so amazing about Bell's theorem, and it is worth

actually reading a proof so that you can appreciate it - there are

plenty of these on the web, including Wikipedia.

Here's a very simple one, making stronger assumptions than are

necessary, to give you the flavour.. Note that it does not actually

use the anti-alignment property anywhere, and hence the example

you give is not actually relevant.

Suppose that Fred can measure the spin of his electron in

either direction f or f', and Geoff can measure in direction g or

g'. Suppose that the outcomes beforehand can be predicted,

and are denoted by F, F', G, G' respectively, where these

take the value +1 if spin is up in that direction, and -1 if spin

is down in that direction.

For each pair of electrons, consider the quantity formed by

the pre-existing values, defined by

B = FG + FG' + F'G - F'G'.

You can easily check yourself that this quantity is equal

to +2 or -2 for each pair. This checking is the only

"difficult" part of the proof. One way to check is to write

B = F(G+G') + F'(G-G').

Note that one of the expressions in brackets must

vanish, and the other equal +/-2, depending on whether

G=G' or G=-G'. But the nonvanishing expression is

multiplied by either F or F', i.e., by +1 or -1. QED.

So, we know that

-2 <= B <= 2.

Now take the average over many pairs. The average

of something less than 2 cannot be greater than 2.

Therefore

-2 <= <B> <= 2.

But from the definition of B, this is the same as

-2 <= <FG> + <FG'> + <F'G> - <F'G'> <= 2.

This is a "Bell inequality" (known as the Clauser-

Horne-Shimony-Holt Bell inequality, after the guys

who found it). Note that each of the individual

expectation values, <FG> etc, can be measured.

Study the above carefully, as it is not that

difficult to follow the logic.

Now, the trick is not to consider the directions f and

g, and f' and g', to be aligned or anti-aligned, as in

your example. The above inequality won't be violated

if you do.

The trick is instead to consider directions in a plane,

with f, g, f' and g' at angles 0, 22.5, 45, and 67.5

degrees, with respect to some fixed direction in the

plane. If you work out the middle part of the

above inequality, for the singlet state and these

directions, using the formula

<FG> = - f.g,

you will easily find that

<B> = 2 sqrt{2} ~ 2.828.

Note that this is much larger than the right hand

side of the inequality, by a whopping 40% !

[snip]

> I haven't mentioned entangled pairs yet as they seem to me to be almost

> an irrelevancy to the question of hidden variables. Edward could

> prepare alternate electrons with exactly opposite spin directions and

> pass one to Fred and one to Geoff. Fred would still find 50/50 and

> Goeff would likewise find 50/50. Not only would Edward's private log

> book enable him to know the outcome for any particlular electron (as

> long as Edward could set up the apparatus himself in the appropriate

> direction), Edward would know and could prove, if required, that pairs

> were oppositely aligned.

trivial to

model the spin properties of a single electron. However, there is no

deterministic local model of the singlet state, of the type you

suggest.

This is what is so amazing about Bell's theorem, and it is worth

actually reading a proof so that you can appreciate it - there are

plenty of these on the web, including Wikipedia.

Here's a very simple one, making stronger assumptions than are

necessary, to give you the flavour.. Note that it does not actually

use the anti-alignment property anywhere, and hence the example

you give is not actually relevant.

Suppose that Fred can measure the spin of his electron in

either direction f or f', and Geoff can measure in direction g or

g'. Suppose that the outcomes beforehand can be predicted,

and are denoted by F, F', G, G' respectively, where these

take the value +1 if spin is up in that direction, and -1 if spin

is down in that direction.

For each pair of electrons, consider the quantity formed by

the pre-existing values, defined by

B = FG + FG' + F'G - F'G'.

You can easily check yourself that this quantity is equal

to +2 or -2 for each pair. This checking is the only

"difficult" part of the proof. One way to check is to write

B = F(G+G') + F'(G-G').

Note that one of the expressions in brackets must

vanish, and the other equal +/-2, depending on whether

G=G' or G=-G'. But the nonvanishing expression is

multiplied by either F or F', i.e., by +1 or -1. QED.

So, we know that

-2 <= B <= 2.

Now take the average over many pairs. The average

of something less than 2 cannot be greater than 2.

Therefore

-2 <= <B> <= 2.

But from the definition of B, this is the same as

-2 <= <FG> + <FG'> + <F'G> - <F'G'> <= 2.

This is a "Bell inequality" (known as the Clauser-

Horne-Shimony-Holt Bell inequality, after the guys

who found it). Note that each of the individual

expectation values, <FG> etc, can be measured.

Study the above carefully, as it is not that

difficult to follow the logic.

Now, the trick is not to consider the directions f and

g, and f' and g', to be aligned or anti-aligned, as in

your example. The above inequality won't be violated

if you do.

The trick is instead to consider directions in a plane,

with f, g, f' and g' at angles 0, 22.5, 45, and 67.5

degrees, with respect to some fixed direction in the

plane. If you work out the middle part of the

above inequality, for the singlet state and these

directions, using the formula

<FG> = - f.g,

you will easily find that

<B> = 2 sqrt{2} ~ 2.828.

Note that this is much larger than the right hand

side of the inequality, by a whopping 40% !

Dec 25, 2011, 12:22:54 PM12/25/11

to

Oops - a correction to my previous response to Ben:

I gave inappropriate angles (relevant to polarisation

rather than spin) in the example of a violation.

Noting <FG> = - f.g for the singlet state, the Bell

quantity is

<B> = -f.g - f.g' - f'.g + f'.g'.

Now choose the directions to lie in a plane with, eg,

f', g, f and g' at angles 0, 45, 90 and 135 degrees

from some fixed direction. Then one obtains

<B> = - 2 sqrt{2} ~ - 2.828,

which is about 40% less than the lower bound

of 2 that any local deterministic model must

satisfy.

I gave inappropriate angles (relevant to polarisation

rather than spin) in the example of a violation.

Noting <FG> = - f.g for the singlet state, the Bell

quantity is

<B> = -f.g - f.g' - f'.g + f'.g'.

Now choose the directions to lie in a plane with, eg,

f', g, f and g' at angles 0, 45, 90 and 135 degrees

from some fixed direction. Then one obtains

<B> = - 2 sqrt{2} ~ - 2.828,

which is about 40% less than the lower bound

of 2 that any local deterministic model must

satisfy.

Dec 26, 2011, 3:55:06 AM12/26/11

to

"Daryl McCullough" <stevend...@yahoo.com> wrote in message

news:20050468.72.1324306789748.JavaMail.geo-discussion-forums@vbbhx10...

http://arxiv.org/abs/1106.0748

> Christian's argument does not make a lot of sense to me.

> It would be nice to have someone either explain what I'm

> missing, or confirm my skepticism of his argument.

From our private email discussion, you are missing how the 3-sphere

topology works. For those that are interested in learning more about

Joy Christian's model that produces quantum correlations the same as QM

does from classical spherical topology, there have been very

comprehensive discussions on the FQXi blogs which are open to all that

might want to ask a particular question. Or you can ask it here on SPR

if you wish. But I would recommend reading through some of the blog

discussions first.

http://www.fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/995

"On the Origins of Quantum Correlations"

http://www.fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/975

"Quantum Music from a Classical Sphere"

The last discussion culminated in Joy Christian's latest arXiv paper

clearly refuting the arguments against his model in those discussions.

http://arxiv.org/abs/1110.5876

For those that would like to know more about the 3-sphere topology that

Joy Christian uses in his model please watch this video lecture about

Hopf Fibration by Niles Johnson of the University of Georgia.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QXDQsmL-8Us&feature=player_detailpage

Also highly recommended is Joy Christian's paper,

"What Really Sets the Upper Bound on Quantum Correlations?"

http://arxiv.org/abs/1101.1958

Best,

Fred Diether

news:20050468.72.1324306789748.JavaMail.geo-discussion-forums@vbbhx10...

> Is there some kind of consensus about the correctness of

> Joy Christian's work disproving Bell's Theorem?

> (The most succinct paper by Christian on the topic

> is here: http://arxiv.org/abs/1103.1879)

A comprehensive explanation of that paper is here,
> Joy Christian's work disproving Bell's Theorem?

> (The most succinct paper by Christian on the topic

> is here: http://arxiv.org/abs/1103.1879)

http://arxiv.org/abs/1106.0748

> Christian's argument does not make a lot of sense to me.

> It would be nice to have someone either explain what I'm

> missing, or confirm my skepticism of his argument.

topology works. For those that are interested in learning more about

Joy Christian's model that produces quantum correlations the same as QM

does from classical spherical topology, there have been very

comprehensive discussions on the FQXi blogs which are open to all that

might want to ask a particular question. Or you can ask it here on SPR

if you wish. But I would recommend reading through some of the blog

discussions first.

http://www.fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/995

"On the Origins of Quantum Correlations"

http://www.fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/975

"Quantum Music from a Classical Sphere"

The last discussion culminated in Joy Christian's latest arXiv paper

clearly refuting the arguments against his model in those discussions.

http://arxiv.org/abs/1110.5876

For those that would like to know more about the 3-sphere topology that

Joy Christian uses in his model please watch this video lecture about

Hopf Fibration by Niles Johnson of the University of Georgia.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QXDQsmL-8Us&feature=player_detailpage

Also highly recommended is Joy Christian's paper,

"What Really Sets the Upper Bound on Quantum Correlations?"

http://arxiv.org/abs/1101.1958

Best,

Fred Diether

Dec 26, 2011, 4:01:31 PM12/26/11

to

before getting lost. So thank you very much. I will work at it.

First I need to think about the overall framework. I need to concede I

was wrong about the difference between electrons prepared by Edward and

singlet electrons. Edward can only prepare a poor man's electron

direction. Take a match (ie electron) using its head as the pointer.

Let it have a random direction in 3D. Take its projection onto the up/

down direction and that gives the laboratory reading of 'up' or 'down'.

But the match itself is not pointing exactly in that up/down direction.

This means that two electrons prepared by Edward as an up and down pair

will not necessarily always give opposite results. They will only

certainly give opposite results when tested up/down. A singlet pair

will produce opposite results in whatever direction they are tested. Ie

their directions are rich in that they are exactly opposite to one

another in a rich sense not a poor one. As if their rich directions were

not quantised, yet we know the electron direction is quantised.

I think that last sentence lets me accept that a particlar electron's

rich direction cannot be described in the laboratory 3D. The laboratory

3D is the world of real measurement and that only allows poor mens'

direction measurements. There is no single observation possible on a

single electron to determine a rich direction. To determine rich

directions requires many measurements on many electrons. And the outcome

is a correlation showing the exact oppositeness of the singlet

directions over all directions tested.

Next is where it gets confusing for me to follow Bell's criteria. In my

first post I said that Edward kept a secret log of data for

individually-produced electrons. However, noone can make a similar log

of data for electron singlets. I also said that Edward's electron

needed no log as it always knew which way its own direction. I think

that the natural starting point should be an assumption that the singlet

electrons also know their own directions. Is there as assumption being

made that because a log book of data cannot be made, then the electron

itself cannot know its own direction? Hence the use of superpositional

states? I can see that our observer knowledge of the singlet

electrons's states are superposed, but I do not see why the electron's

physical states are required to be superposed. It seems more simple to

assume that they are created with opposite rich directions (that we

cannot measure) and keep those directions until they next experience a

measurement event eg interaction with a photon.

Just mentioning two further points: Joy Christian appears to be saying

that Euclidean space is richer than normally thought. I am not expert

enough to agree or disagree, but I can accept that he may be correct. (A

poor man's non-disagreement rather than a rich man's agreement in the

above terminology.) I note that the definition of space that he uses

requires more than 3D plus time. 7D plus time, I think. As an aside,

my own view is that the electron has 12D (4D in the lab; 4D in spin

space 1; and, 4D in spin space 2) and that it has enough structure for

it to maintain its rich direction that we can test, for correlation

only, in the laboratory. The electron does not need to restrict itself

to a 4D laboratory definition of its direction when it has a 12D

structure.

A further complication is that I should not too easily concede that no

log book is possible for singlet electrons. Dr Raedt et al provided

software online to run simulated Bell's or Aspect's experiments. I did

this and have a file of output data which is of the cosine form for

correlated data rather than the sawtooth form that uncorrelated data. I

have these data in a file and yet somehow still don't believe it was

possible. Or it just hasn't sunk in yet. Or I just don't understand it

enough yet.

Dec 26, 2011, 4:01:53 PM12/26/11

to

On Monday, December 26, 2011 3:55:06 AM UTC-5, FrediFizzx wrote:

> "Daryl McCullough" <stevend...@yahoo.com> wrote

> > Christian's argument does not make a lot of sense to me.

> > It would be nice to have someone either explain what I'm

> > missing, or confirm my skepticism of his argument.

>

> From our private email discussion, you are missing how the 3-sphere

> topology works.

I don't see how it is even relevant to my complaints about Christian's

work. I haven't made any claims one way or the other about the topology

of the 3-sphere.

The scenario that seems to me to contradict Christian's model is the

following: Alice and Bob engage in 4 rounds of an EPR-type experiment

for spin-1/2 particles. They produce 4 twin-pairs, and each measures

the spin of one of the two particles along two fixed axes a for Alice,

and b for Bob. Each records his or her result as +1 if he or she

measured spin-up, and -1 if he or she measured spin-down. In four

rounds, the sequence of pairs (Alice's result, Bob's result)

is the following: (+1,+1), (+1,-1), (-1,+1), (-1,-1).

For the purposes of exploring local hidden variables theories,

we assume that Alice's result in each round is determined by

the value of some hidden variable mu during that round, together with

the choice a of her axis. We assume that Bob's result in each round

is determined by mu and his choice b of axis. Since a and b are

held fixed during all four rounds, then the only relevant thing

that changes from one round to the next is the value of mu.

In Christian's model, mu can take on two different values,

which he calls +I and -I, where I is the unit tri-vector

e_x ^ e_y ^ e_z.

My argument against Christian's model is pretty simple,

and to me seems airtight:

(1) Since a and b are fixed for the four rounds, and mu can only

take on two possible values, then there are only two possible

values for the triple (a,b,mu) during the four rounds.

(2) But the results for the four rounds are all different.

(3) Therefore, the results were not determined by a, b, and mu.

That seems a trivially correct argument. I don't see how the

complexities of the topology of the 3-sphere is at all relevant

to the correctness or incorrectness of my 3-step argument against

Christian's model.

Possibly Christian means something different by the phrase

"Alice's result is determined by a and mu" than what I mean by it.

Or maybe he means something different by the phrase "Alice's

result" than what I mean by it. But with the ordinary meanings

of those phrases, Christian's model seems to be falsified by

the hypothetical 4-rounds of EPR experiments.

> "Daryl McCullough" <stevend...@yahoo.com> wrote

> > Christian's argument does not make a lot of sense to me.

> > It would be nice to have someone either explain what I'm

> > missing, or confirm my skepticism of his argument.

>

> From our private email discussion, you are missing how the 3-sphere

> topology works.

work. I haven't made any claims one way or the other about the topology

of the 3-sphere.

The scenario that seems to me to contradict Christian's model is the

following: Alice and Bob engage in 4 rounds of an EPR-type experiment

for spin-1/2 particles. They produce 4 twin-pairs, and each measures

the spin of one of the two particles along two fixed axes a for Alice,

and b for Bob. Each records his or her result as +1 if he or she

measured spin-up, and -1 if he or she measured spin-down. In four

rounds, the sequence of pairs (Alice's result, Bob's result)

is the following: (+1,+1), (+1,-1), (-1,+1), (-1,-1).

For the purposes of exploring local hidden variables theories,

we assume that Alice's result in each round is determined by

the value of some hidden variable mu during that round, together with

the choice a of her axis. We assume that Bob's result in each round

is determined by mu and his choice b of axis. Since a and b are

held fixed during all four rounds, then the only relevant thing

that changes from one round to the next is the value of mu.

In Christian's model, mu can take on two different values,

which he calls +I and -I, where I is the unit tri-vector

e_x ^ e_y ^ e_z.

My argument against Christian's model is pretty simple,

and to me seems airtight:

(1) Since a and b are fixed for the four rounds, and mu can only

take on two possible values, then there are only two possible

values for the triple (a,b,mu) during the four rounds.

(2) But the results for the four rounds are all different.

(3) Therefore, the results were not determined by a, b, and mu.

That seems a trivially correct argument. I don't see how the

complexities of the topology of the 3-sphere is at all relevant

to the correctness or incorrectness of my 3-step argument against

Christian's model.

Possibly Christian means something different by the phrase

"Alice's result is determined by a and mu" than what I mean by it.

Or maybe he means something different by the phrase "Alice's

result" than what I mean by it. But with the ordinary meanings

of those phrases, Christian's model seems to be falsified by

the hypothetical 4-rounds of EPR experiments.

Dec 28, 2011, 2:55:33 PM12/28/11

to

On Dec 26, 9:01 pm, Daryl McCullough <stevendaryl3...@yahoo.com>

wrote:

>

As I have tried to explain to you over and over and over and over

again, my model is NOT a contextual hidden variable model. It is a

non-contextual model in which correlations result entirely because

of the non-trivial topology of the physical space. The physical

space in my model is taken to be a parallelized 3-sphere, S^3, not

a non-compact space R^3. You, on the other hand, have implicitly

assumed the physical space to be R^3 without even realizing it.

Therefore your argument has nothing whatsoever to do with my

model. Your implicit assumption of R^3 is betrayed in you casual

reference to my hidden variable mu as "some hidden variable mu."

mu is not some garden variety hidden variable of a contextual kind.

It specifies the orientation of the physical space S^3 within which

the measurement events are taking place. As such these events are

subject to the non-trivial twist in the Hopf fibration of the 3-

sphere.

Consequently, as I have explained in great detail in this paper:

http://arxiv.org/abs/1106.0748 , the four different outcomes, (+1,+1),

(+1,-1), (-1,+1), and (-1,-1), necessarily and deterministically occur

within my model even for the fixed detector directions a and b (but of

course with different probabilites depending on the angle between

a and b). The role played by the topology of the 3-sphere in this

process is further elucidated in detail in Section III of this paper:

http://arxiv.org/abs/1101.1958 .

If, however, one chooses to ignore the premises of my model (as you

have been doing) by replacing it with an old fashioned contextual

hidden variable model set up within a non-compact flat space with a

trivial topology (and that is indeed what you are doing whether you

realize it or not), then there is no topological reason to expect all

four

variations in the measurement outcomes to deterministically come

about for fixed detector directions and a garden variety mu.

Joy Christian

wrote:

>

> I don't see how it is even relevant to my complaints about Christian's

> work. I haven't made any claims one way or the other about the topology

> of the 3-sphere.

>

Oh, but you most certain have made claims about topology!
> work. I haven't made any claims one way or the other about the topology

> of the 3-sphere.

>

As I have tried to explain to you over and over and over and over

again, my model is NOT a contextual hidden variable model. It is a

non-contextual model in which correlations result entirely because

of the non-trivial topology of the physical space. The physical

space in my model is taken to be a parallelized 3-sphere, S^3, not

a non-compact space R^3. You, on the other hand, have implicitly

assumed the physical space to be R^3 without even realizing it.

Therefore your argument has nothing whatsoever to do with my

model. Your implicit assumption of R^3 is betrayed in you casual

reference to my hidden variable mu as "some hidden variable mu."

mu is not some garden variety hidden variable of a contextual kind.

It specifies the orientation of the physical space S^3 within which

the measurement events are taking place. As such these events are

subject to the non-trivial twist in the Hopf fibration of the 3-

sphere.

Consequently, as I have explained in great detail in this paper:

http://arxiv.org/abs/1106.0748 , the four different outcomes, (+1,+1),

(+1,-1), (-1,+1), and (-1,-1), necessarily and deterministically occur

within my model even for the fixed detector directions a and b (but of

course with different probabilites depending on the angle between

a and b). The role played by the topology of the 3-sphere in this

process is further elucidated in detail in Section III of this paper:

http://arxiv.org/abs/1101.1958 .

If, however, one chooses to ignore the premises of my model (as you

have been doing) by replacing it with an old fashioned contextual

hidden variable model set up within a non-compact flat space with a

trivial topology (and that is indeed what you are doing whether you

realize it or not), then there is no topological reason to expect all

four

variations in the measurement outcomes to deterministically come

about for fixed detector directions and a garden variety mu.

Joy Christian

Dec 30, 2011, 3:57:00 AM12/30/11

to

but not quite as the trivector is related to tensors and that will

slow down my understanding.

I watched the lecture last night on Hopf Fibration by Niles Johnson:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QXDQsmL-8Us&feature=player_detailpage

and note that the sort of effect in Euclidean space that is being

referred to by the mu variable is, by analogy with reduced dimensions,

like turning a thick elastic band inside out. You can hold the band

with one face in or that face out. Unlike a Moibus strip, which only

has one orientation. This also may explain why this algebra requires

more than 3D to to describe Euclidean space.

The +I value must inhabit spin 1 and the -I value inhabit spin 0, cf

opposite sides of the elastic band. Presumably, this is a suficient

specification always to ensure that opposites spins arise from any

measurement of a +I and -I pairing.

But this means that the +I value is not a pointer in one direction in

space. Not even in a 'rich' direction using my previous terminology

of a non-quantum exact direction. It seems to be somewhat of a fiddle

in the sense that it is a 'pointer indicating spin 1'. So between

then +I and -I quarantee that the two particles have opposite spins.

I am lost wrt tensors but do they (and the trivector) not contain an

element of curl or twist? ie is not the +I and -I indicative of two

opposite twists? Does that not give the required element of

permanently opposite spin no matter what the laboratory test

direction?

If the mu had been a rich or exact non-quantum direction then one

would need to use a different rich direction for mu in every round of

testing by Alice and Bob, as each new particle pairing will be

opposite partners in a random direction. But mu does not seem to be a

pointer in a particlular direction, but a pointer direct to a spin

state. As I said, that seems somewhat of a fiddle by pointing

straight to the answer. But it is not a fiddle if it is supported by

the maths and I cannot comment on that except that I do not disbelieve

it, an will work at improving my geometric algebra.

Dec 30, 2011, 3:57:02 AM12/30/11

to

> My argument against Christian's model is pretty simple,

> and to me seems airtight:

>

fractions of all possible data captures, or a filtered subset thereof,

not 100% captures of integer spins.

Similarly you limit the value of mu, a hypothetical measure of

entanglement, being a unit tri-vector which could take on any complex

value between 1 and -1, in a restricted 2d representation of the

actual 3 space to just two values, represented by the extreme limits.

The data scenario you project is indeed impossible, as far as I can

tell. However, I don't see this as valid criticism of Christian or

Bell.

I am struggling with understanding Christian's work however, would it

be fair, correct to say that the unit tri-vector mu being a 3d

spherical representation of a hypothetical entanglement, when

projected onto a 2d space can yield either form of Bells inequality

due to the insufficiency of 2d projection of 3d forms? If so, I've got

it. If not, I fail.

Best wishes to all this season,

AAG

Dec 30, 2011, 3:57:03 AM12/30/11

to

On Wednesday, December 28, 2011 2:55:33 PM UTC-5, Joy Christian wrote:

> Oh, but you most certain have made claims about topology!

No, what I've said has nothing to do with topology.
> Oh, but you most certain have made claims about topology!

Locally, all 3D manifolds look like neighborhoods of R^3; the

distinction between R^3 and S^3 has to do with the connectivity

of neighborhoods. In the particular case of S^3, it is the topology

that results from taking two 3D balls and identifying the two

boundaries (which are 2-spheres). Having the topology of S^3

changes *global* properties of space--for example, it is compact,

whereas R^3 is not--but in a small enough region, it doesn't

change any properties that are locally measurable.

Assuming that an EPR type experiment takes place in a region

that is small compared with the size of the universe, the topology

would not make a difference to results.

> The physical space in my model is taken to be a parallelized 3-sphere,

> S^3, not a non-compact space R^3. You, on the other hand, have

> implicitly assumed the physical space to be R^3 without even realizing

> it.

is relevant.

In Bell's derivation of his inequality, the assumptions are

made that there is a pair of detectors a certain distance apart,

that each detector has a setting--an orientation that can be

described by a direction in 3-space--and that the results of a

detection event can have two possible values: spin-up or spin-down

(in the case of spin-1/2 twin-pair EPR experiments). The topology

of space is not relevant, except for the assumption that the two

detection events have a spacelike separation.

> Therefore your argument has nothing whatsoever to do with my

> model. Your implicit assumption of R^3 is betrayed in you casual

> reference to my hidden variable mu as "some hidden variable mu."

> mu is not some garden variety hidden variable of a contextual kind.

> It specifies the orientation of the physical space S^3 within which

> the measurement events are taking place. As such these events are

> subject to the non-trivial twist in the Hopf fibration of the 3-

> sphere.

topology. The second part seems irrelevant. As I said, in a small

enough region, topology by itself would not play a role in an

EPR-type experiment. What would play a role is curvature, or

more generally, non-trivial parallel transport. Spin-up in the

+z direction can be changed to spin-up in some other direction

by parallel transport over a significant distance. But neither

topological nor curvature effects would be a source of variability

in an EPR-type experiment; they would effect every round of

the experiment in the same way. Such an effect could not

produce probabilistic behavior.

> Consequently, as I have explained in great detail in this paper:

> http://arxiv.org/abs/1106.0748 , the four different outcomes, (+1,+1),

> (+1,-1), (-1,+1), and (-1,-1), necessarily and deterministically occur

> within my model even for the fixed detector directions a and b (but of

> course with different probabilites depending on the angle between

> a and b).

unanswered. In particular, the interpretation of equation (46) as

a *probabilistic* prediction is not supported by anything leading

up to it.

> If, however, one chooses to ignore the premises of my model (as you

> have been doing) by replacing it with an old fashioned contextual

> hidden variable model set up within a non-compact flat space with a

> trivial topology (and that is indeed what you are doing whether you

> realize it or not),

As I said, topology comes into play when the scale of the experiment

becomes significant, compared to the size of the universe. But that's

not the case in EPR experiments on Earth.

Dec 30, 2011, 7:59:20 AM12/30/11

to

On Dec 30, 8:57=A0am, Daryl McCullough <stevendaryl3...@yahoo.com>

wrote:

>

> No, what I've said has nothing to do with topology.

>

But it most certainly does, whether you realize it or

not. You are implicitly assuming a wrong topology of

the physical space in your argument. Worse still, you

are confusing the topology of the space S^3 with the

global topology of the universe. Let me try to explain

I have explained in my papers. Your argument

relies on comparing two measurement events, one

observed by Alice and the other observed by Bob,

in two remote, space-like separated regions. You,

or Bell, are therefore not justified in ignoring the

global properties of the physical space. It is evident

from my variables A(a, mu) and B(b, mu), which

are defined in small enough local regions, that they

are not affected by the global topology of S^3. Both

of them produce completely random binary numbers,

+1 or -1. But when these numbers are compared at

the end of a large number of runs, one finds that

they are strongly correlated. These correlations are

the result of the global properties of S^3, which

have nothing to do with the global topology of the

universe as a whole. And Just as Dr. Bertlmann's

socks have nothing to do with non-locality, they

have nothing to do with non-locality either.

> Assuming that an EPR type experiment takes place in a region

> that is small compared with the size of the universe, the topology

> would not make a difference to results.

>

Wrong. As I just explained, my argument has nothing

to do with the topology of the universe as a whole.

Have you ever tried to do the Dirac's belt trick? That

is a topological effect, exhibited in a small region of

space. Does that involve the size of the Universe?

Your assertions here are another indication that

you have not understood my argument at all.

My argument has nothing to do with the global

topology of the universe. It has to do with the

topology of S^3, for joint measurement events.

>

> No, I haven't said anything about topology, and

> I don't think it is relevant.

>

But you indeed have, and it is absolutely relevant.

You are assuming wrong topology of space -- R^3

instead of S^3. For example, in your argument you

are assuming two vectors, a and b. How are these

vectors defined? In my model all vectors are defined

as Clifford-algebraic elements. They are defined by

the trivector mu itself, since that is how vectors are

defined in Clifford algebra -- by equations mu /\ a =3D 0

and mu /\ b =3D 0. There is no analogue of these

equations in vector algebra (which is not even an

algebra). This is very important in my model, because

it is based on the even sub-algebra of Cl(3, 0), which

represents the 3-sphere. This is just one example of

how you are making implicit assumptions without

even realizing. You are assuming vectors a and b

which have nothing to do with the vectors of my

model. As a result, your argument has nothing to do

with my model, let alone the actual EPR statistics.

> I did not assume anything about topology.

You most certainly did, but without realizing it.

> ... in a small enough region, topology by itself would

topology of the universe. I am not concerned about

the topology of the universe. I am concerned about

the topology of S^3, as exhibited in Dirac=92s belt trick.

>

> What would play a role is curvature, or more generally,

> non-trivial parallel transport.

>

Curvature is completely irrelevant. It is zero. S^3 is as

flat as a sheet of paper. What is relevant is the torsion

within S^3. Once again, you have not understood my

argument at all, or even the basic physics of the EPR

correlations. And you have not read my papers. As I

have urged you many times before, read my papers

first and try to understand my argument. Read this paper,

for example, to understand how torsion is relevant, but

not curvature: http://arxiv.org/abs/1101.1958

>

> > Consequently, as I have explained in great detail in this paper:

> >http://arxiv.org/abs/1106.0748, the four different outcomes, (+1,+1),

you must read the *whole* paper before making such false

claims. The argument leading up to equation (46) is developed

in equations (1) to (45) that come before equation (46). But you

have not paid any attention to these earlier equations.

> > If, however, one chooses to ignore the premises of my model (as you

> > have been doing) by replacing it with an old fashioned contextual

> > hidden variable model set up within a non-compact flat space with a

> > trivial topology (and that is indeed what you are doing whether you

> > realize it or not),

>

> You haven't shown how topology is even relevant to Bell's theorem.

> As I said, topology comes into play when the scale of the experiment

> becomes significant, compared to the size of the universe. But that's

> not the case in EPR experiments on Earth.

>

Yes I have. As I have explained to you before, the topology

of S^3, and more generally that of S^7, are crucially important

for the existence and strength of quantum correlations. The

global topology of the universe has nothing to do with this.

This is explained in great detail in my papers, which can be

found here:

http://arxiv.org/find/all/1/au:+Christian_Joy/0/1/0/all/0/1

Joy Christian

wrote:

>

> No, what I've said has nothing to do with topology.

>

not. You are implicitly assuming a wrong topology of

the physical space in your argument. Worse still, you

are confusing the topology of the space S^3 with the

global topology of the universe. Let me try to explain

this to you one more time. You wrote:

>

> Having the topology of S^3

> changes *global* properties of space--for example, it is compact,

> whereas R^3 is not--but in a small enough region, it doesn't

> change any properties that are locally measurable.

>

This is correct, but this is simply reiterating what
>

> Having the topology of S^3

> changes *global* properties of space--for example, it is compact,

> whereas R^3 is not--but in a small enough region, it doesn't

> change any properties that are locally measurable.

>

I have explained in my papers. Your argument

relies on comparing two measurement events, one

observed by Alice and the other observed by Bob,

in two remote, space-like separated regions. You,

or Bell, are therefore not justified in ignoring the

global properties of the physical space. It is evident

from my variables A(a, mu) and B(b, mu), which

are defined in small enough local regions, that they

are not affected by the global topology of S^3. Both

of them produce completely random binary numbers,

+1 or -1. But when these numbers are compared at

the end of a large number of runs, one finds that

they are strongly correlated. These correlations are

the result of the global properties of S^3, which

have nothing to do with the global topology of the

universe as a whole. And Just as Dr. Bertlmann's

socks have nothing to do with non-locality, they

have nothing to do with non-locality either.

> Assuming that an EPR type experiment takes place in a region

> that is small compared with the size of the universe, the topology

> would not make a difference to results.

>

to do with the topology of the universe as a whole.

Have you ever tried to do the Dirac's belt trick? That

is a topological effect, exhibited in a small region of

space. Does that involve the size of the Universe?

Your assertions here are another indication that

you have not understood my argument at all.

My argument has nothing to do with the global

topology of the universe. It has to do with the

topology of S^3, for joint measurement events.

>

> No, I haven't said anything about topology, and

> I don't think it is relevant.

>

You are assuming wrong topology of space -- R^3

instead of S^3. For example, in your argument you

are assuming two vectors, a and b. How are these

vectors defined? In my model all vectors are defined

as Clifford-algebraic elements. They are defined by

the trivector mu itself, since that is how vectors are

defined in Clifford algebra -- by equations mu /\ a =3D 0

and mu /\ b =3D 0. There is no analogue of these

equations in vector algebra (which is not even an

algebra). This is very important in my model, because

it is based on the even sub-algebra of Cl(3, 0), which

represents the 3-sphere. This is just one example of

how you are making implicit assumptions without

even realizing. You are assuming vectors a and b

which have nothing to do with the vectors of my

model. As a result, your argument has nothing to do

with my model, let alone the actual EPR statistics.

> I did not assume anything about topology.

> ... in a small enough region, topology by itself would

> not play a role in an EPR-type experiment.

You are confusing the topology of space with the
topology of the universe. I am not concerned about

the topology of the universe. I am concerned about

the topology of S^3, as exhibited in Dirac=92s belt trick.

>

> What would play a role is curvature, or more generally,

> non-trivial parallel transport.

>

flat as a sheet of paper. What is relevant is the torsion

within S^3. Once again, you have not understood my

argument at all, or even the basic physics of the EPR

correlations. And you have not read my papers. As I

have urged you many times before, read my papers

first and try to understand my argument. Read this paper,

for example, to understand how torsion is relevant, but

not curvature: http://arxiv.org/abs/1101.1958

>

> > Consequently, as I have explained in great detail in this paper:

> > (+1,-1), (-1,+1), and (-1,-1), necessarily and deterministically occur

> > within my model even for the fixed detector directions a and b (but of

> > course with different probabilites depending on the angle between

> > a and b).

>

> That paper leaves the most important questions about your model

> unanswered. In particular, the interpretation of equation (46) as a

> *probabilistic* prediction is not supported by anything leading up to it.

>

No it does not. As I have explained to you many times before,
> > within my model even for the fixed detector directions a and b (but of

> > course with different probabilites depending on the angle between

> > a and b).

>

> That paper leaves the most important questions about your model

> unanswered. In particular, the interpretation of equation (46) as a

> *probabilistic* prediction is not supported by anything leading up to it.

>

you must read the *whole* paper before making such false

claims. The argument leading up to equation (46) is developed

in equations (1) to (45) that come before equation (46). But you

have not paid any attention to these earlier equations.

> > If, however, one chooses to ignore the premises of my model (as you

> > have been doing) by replacing it with an old fashioned contextual

> > hidden variable model set up within a non-compact flat space with a

> > trivial topology (and that is indeed what you are doing whether you

> > realize it or not),

>

> You haven't shown how topology is even relevant to Bell's theorem.

> As I said, topology comes into play when the scale of the experiment

> becomes significant, compared to the size of the universe. But that's

> not the case in EPR experiments on Earth.

>

of S^3, and more generally that of S^7, are crucially important

for the existence and strength of quantum correlations. The

global topology of the universe has nothing to do with this.

This is explained in great detail in my papers, which can be

found here:

http://arxiv.org/find/all/1/au:+Christian_Joy/0/1/0/all/0/1

Joy Christian

Dec 30, 2011, 5:29:11 PM12/30/11

to

On Dec 28, 2:55 pm, Joy Christian <hojoin...@gmail.com> wrote:

> of the non-trivial topology of the physical space. The physical

> space in my model is taken to be a parallelized 3-sphere, S^3, not

> a non-compact space R^3.

------------------------------------------------------------
> of the non-trivial topology of the physical space. The physical

> space in my model is taken to be a parallelized 3-sphere, S^3, not

> a non-compact space R^3.

Could you provide some physical/conceptual description of what

properties an S^3 space would have?

Why "parallelized"?

Thanks,

RLO

Dec 30, 2011, 5:29:32 PM12/30/11

to

"Joy Christian" wrote:

> On Dec 26, 9:01 pm, Daryl McCullough <stevendaryl3...@yahoo.com>

> wrote:

>>

>> I don't see how it is even relevant to my complaints about Christian's

>> work. I haven't made any claims one way or the other about the topology

>> of the 3-sphere.

>

> Oh, but you most certain have made claims about topology!

>

> As I have tried to explain to you over and over and over and over

> again, my model is NOT a contextual hidden variable model. It is a

> non-contextual model in which correlations result entirely because

> of the non-trivial topology of the physical space. The physical

> space in my model is taken to be a parallelized 3-sphere, S^3, not

> a non-compact space R^3. You, on the other hand, have implicitly

> assumed the physical space to be R^3 without even realizing it.

> Therefore your argument has nothing whatsoever to do with my

> model. Your implicit assumption of R^3 is betrayed in you casual

> reference to my hidden variable mu as "some hidden variable mu."

> mu is not some garden variety hidden variable of a contextual kind.

> It specifies the orientation of the physical space S^3 within which

> the measurement events are taking place. As such these events are

> subject to the non-trivial twist in the Hopf fibration of the 3-

> sphere.

You seem yourself not to have understood what is a topological sphere.
> On Dec 26, 9:01 pm, Daryl McCullough <stevendaryl3...@yahoo.com>

> wrote:

>>

>> I don't see how it is even relevant to my complaints about Christian's

>> work. I haven't made any claims one way or the other about the topology

>> of the 3-sphere.

>

> Oh, but you most certain have made claims about topology!

>

> As I have tried to explain to you over and over and over and over

> again, my model is NOT a contextual hidden variable model. It is a

> non-contextual model in which correlations result entirely because

> of the non-trivial topology of the physical space. The physical

> space in my model is taken to be a parallelized 3-sphere, S^3, not

> a non-compact space R^3. You, on the other hand, have implicitly

> assumed the physical space to be R^3 without even realizing it.

> Therefore your argument has nothing whatsoever to do with my

> model. Your implicit assumption of R^3 is betrayed in you casual

> reference to my hidden variable mu as "some hidden variable mu."

> mu is not some garden variety hidden variable of a contextual kind.

> It specifies the orientation of the physical space S^3 within which

> the measurement events are taking place. As such these events are

> subject to the non-trivial twist in the Hopf fibration of the 3-

> sphere.

Every experiment being local, the global topology of space doesn't even

enter the formula. Similarly, every experiment being made of a

countable number of events (even if infinite,) it is impossible for

those to form a continuous space, however they may be parameterized.

Topology is a well developed mathematical area that doesn't allow

improvisation. In contrast to geometry, it deals with objects as a

whole. They can't be broken down in pieces while keeping working.

Pictorially for the Hopf fibration, you can't link two loops if at least

one of them isn't closed. No link, no (topological) twist.

Dec 30, 2011, 5:29:53 PM12/30/11

to

On Friday, December 30, 2011 7:59:20 AM UTC-5, Joy Christian wrote:

> Your assertions here are another indication that

> you have not understood my argument at all.

I agree. I don't understand your argument at all.
> Your assertions here are another indication that

> you have not understood my argument at all.

I'm trying to get to the bottom of what your

argument is about.

> My argument has nothing to do with the global

> topology of the universe. It has to do with the

> topology of S^3, for joint measurement events.

> You are assuming wrong topology of space -- R^3

> instead of S^3.

and the topology of the "universe"? What do you mean

by that distinction?

> For example, in your argument you

> are assuming two vectors, a and b.

> How are these vectors defined?

two distant direction vectors. But it's ultimately

an operational definition, not a mathematical

definition. For example, take two identical

circular panels. On each, draw three radii at angles

of 0 degrees, 120 degrees and 240 degrees. Line up

the 0 degrees on the two panels. Then move on of

the panels a distance away from the first, along

the direction perpendicular to their surfaces, being

careful not to rotate it as you move.

Then you can perform an EPR-type experiment, in which

one experimenter lines up his Stern-Gerlach experiment

with one of the three radii on on panel, and the other

experimenter lines up his stern-Gerlach experiment with

one of the radii on the other panel. Then you have a

source of twin pairs somewhere between the two.

Empirically, each detection event results either in

deflecting a particle one way in the Stern-Gerlach

device, or the opposite way. The experimenter records

the pair (theta, spin), where theta is one of the three

possibilities: 0, 120 or 240, and where spin is either

+1 for deflection in one direction, or -1 for deflection

in the other direction.

Certainly in this setup, parallel transport is involved,

because in order to get perfect correlation, one must

make sure that the panels are not rotated as they are

moved from one spot to another. But that actually is

not a problem; one can fine-tune the orientations after

the fact by rotating the panels to maximize joint detections

of spin-up when both detectors are oriented at 0 degrees.

I don't see how topology has any relevance to this

setup.

> In my model all vectors are defined

> as Clifford-algebraic elements.

> They are defined by

> the trivector mu itself, since that is how vectors are

> and mu /\ b = 0. There is no analogue of these

> equations in vector algebra (which is not even an

> algebra). This is very important in my model, because

> it is based on the even sub-algebra of Cl(3, 0), which

> represents the 3-sphere. This is just one example of

> how you are making implicit assumptions without

> even realizing. You are assuming vectors a and b

> which have nothing to do with the vectors of my

> model. As a result, your argument has nothing to do

> with my model, let alone the actual EPR statistics.

I would say, rather that, it's not clear what your
> algebra). This is very important in my model, because

> it is based on the even sub-algebra of Cl(3, 0), which

> represents the 3-sphere. This is just one example of

> how you are making implicit assumptions without

> even realizing. You are assuming vectors a and b

> which have nothing to do with the vectors of my

> model. As a result, your argument has nothing to do

> with my model, let alone the actual EPR statistics.

model has to do with EPR or Bell's argument.

The way I described things above, there is no assumption

being made about the true nature of vectors. We have three

lines drawn on circular panels.

> You are confusing the topology of space with the

> topology of the universe. I am not concerned about

> the topology of the universe. I am concerned about

Please, in terms of my description of an EPR-type experiment

above, where does the topology of S^3 come into play?

Dec 31, 2011, 12:06:22 PM12/31/11

to

On Dec 30, 10:29 pm, "Robert L. Oldershaw" <rlolders...@amherst.edu>

such, S^3 is a compact space, but R^3 is not.

The reason for parallelization has to do with

the original EPR argument. In that argument

there is a criterion of completeness. Unless

this criterion is satisfied, Bell’s argument does

not get off the ground. But as I have argued in

several of my papers, completeness criterion

can only be satisfied if the co-domain of the

functions A(a, L) assumed by Bell is a parallelized

3-sphere. The argument is rather subtle and it is not

possible to reproduce here. Now parallelization

renders the 3-sphere flat, in the sense that its

Riemann curvature vanishes. But the torsion

in a parallelized 3-sphere is not zero, and it is

this non-zero torsion that is responsible for

producing the EPR correlation. In other words,

it is the *discipline of parallelization* within the

manifold of all possible measurement results,

*both actual as well as counterfactual*, that is

responsible for producing the EPR correlation.

Now a parallelized 3-sphere is homeomorphic

to a set of unit quaternions, and hence to the

covering group SU(2) of the rotation group SO(3).

So it is not really surprising why my model works.

I am just doing what Hamilton and Clifford would

have done in 1870 to explain the EPR correlation.

We, on the other hand, have the disadvantage of

knowing quantum mechanics.

Joy Christian

wrote:

>

> > of the non-trivial topology of the physical space. The physical

> > space in my model is taken to be a parallelized 3-sphere, S^3, not

> > a non-compact space R^3.

>

> ------------------------------------------------------------

>

> Could you provide some physical/conceptual description of what

> properties an S^3 space would have?

>

> Why "parallelized"?

>

> Thanks,

> RLO

S^3 is a one-point compactification of R^3. As
>

> > of the non-trivial topology of the physical space. The physical

> > space in my model is taken to be a parallelized 3-sphere, S^3, not

> > a non-compact space R^3.

>

> ------------------------------------------------------------

>

> Could you provide some physical/conceptual description of what

> properties an S^3 space would have?

>

> Why "parallelized"?

>

> Thanks,

> RLO

such, S^3 is a compact space, but R^3 is not.

The reason for parallelization has to do with

the original EPR argument. In that argument

there is a criterion of completeness. Unless

this criterion is satisfied, Bell’s argument does

not get off the ground. But as I have argued in

several of my papers, completeness criterion

can only be satisfied if the co-domain of the

functions A(a, L) assumed by Bell is a parallelized

3-sphere. The argument is rather subtle and it is not

possible to reproduce here. Now parallelization

renders the 3-sphere flat, in the sense that its

Riemann curvature vanishes. But the torsion

in a parallelized 3-sphere is not zero, and it is

this non-zero torsion that is responsible for

producing the EPR correlation. In other words,

it is the *discipline of parallelization* within the

manifold of all possible measurement results,

*both actual as well as counterfactual*, that is

responsible for producing the EPR correlation.

Now a parallelized 3-sphere is homeomorphic

to a set of unit quaternions, and hence to the

covering group SU(2) of the rotation group SO(3).

So it is not really surprising why my model works.

I am just doing what Hamilton and Clifford would

have done in 1870 to explain the EPR correlation.

We, on the other hand, have the disadvantage of

knowing quantum mechanics.

Joy Christian

Dec 31, 2011, 4:34:21 PM12/31/11

to

On Dec 30, 10:29 pm, "Cl.Mass�" <akia...@fastwebnet.it> wrote:

>

> You seem yourself not to have understood what is a topological sphere.

> Every experiment being local, the global topology of space doesn't even

> enter the formula.

>

What formula? Whose formula? I don't care about Bell's formula,
>

> You seem yourself not to have understood what is a topological sphere.

> Every experiment being local, the global topology of space doesn't even

> enter the formula.

>

if that is what you have in mind. Topology enters my formula (i.e.,

my model) and that is all that matters. All one has to do to refute

Bell is to construct a model that reproduces the EPR correlation,

and that is what I have done: http://arxiv.org/abs/1103.1879

>

> Similarly, every experiment being made of a

> countable number of events (even if infinite,) it is impossible for

> those to form a continuous space, however they may be parameterized.

> Topology is a well developed mathematical area that doesn't allow

> improvisation. In contrast to geometry, it deals with objects as a

> whole. They can't be broken down in pieces while keeping working.

> Pictorially for the Hopf fibration, you can't link two loops if at least

> one of them isn't closed. No link, no (topological) twist.

you haven't actually read my papers. If you do, and if you know

some geometric algebra, then you will see how topological

considerations enter my model.

Joy Christian

Dec 31, 2011, 4:34:42 PM12/31/11

to

On Dec 30, 10:29 pm, Daryl McCullough <stevendaryl3...@yahoo.com>

wrote:

>

understand my arguement until you try to

understand at least the introductory parts of

this paper: http://arxiv.org/abs/1106.0748

>

> Are you distinguishing between the topology of "space"

> and the topology of the "universe"? What do you mean

> by that distinction?

>

There is no need to postulate anything about

the whole universe when analyzing the EPR

experiment. We have a closed system, which

starts out in some initial state and ends up in

two clicks of two detectors in two remote regions

of space, which could be only a meter apart.

There is no need to know anything about the

global or local topology of the universe. What

is important is how one models this local region

of the universe. Usually one models it as R^3.

That is simply wrong, as explained in the intro

of this paper: http://arxiv.org/abs/1106.0748

>

> I would say, rather that, it's not clear what your

> model has to do with EPR or Bell's argument.

>

It is more than evident that my model has

everything to do with the EPR-Bell argument.

>

> The way I described things above, there is no assumption

> being made about the true nature of vectors. We have three

> lines drawn on circular panels.

>

This is your mistake. You are not recognizing

the fact that your innocent looking description is not

so innocent. Without realizing you are modelling

the physical space (incorrectly) as R^3. Our physical

space respects the symmetries of S^3, not R^3, as

can be easily demonstrated by the Dirac belt trick.

>

> Please, in terms of my description of an EPR-type experiment

> above, where does the topology of S^3 come into play?

>

The topology of S^3 comes into play as the correct

model of the physical space. This is what you have

not understood.

Joy Christian

wrote:

>

> I agree. I don't understand your argument at all.

> I'm trying to get to the bottom of what your

> argument is about.

>

I appreciate that. But you will not be able to
> I'm trying to get to the bottom of what your

> argument is about.

>

understand my arguement until you try to

understand at least the introductory parts of

this paper: http://arxiv.org/abs/1106.0748

>

> Are you distinguishing between the topology of "space"

> and the topology of the "universe"? What do you mean

> by that distinction?

>

the whole universe when analyzing the EPR

experiment. We have a closed system, which

starts out in some initial state and ends up in

two clicks of two detectors in two remote regions

of space, which could be only a meter apart.

There is no need to know anything about the

global or local topology of the universe. What

is important is how one models this local region

of the universe. Usually one models it as R^3.

That is simply wrong, as explained in the intro

of this paper: http://arxiv.org/abs/1106.0748

>

> I would say, rather that, it's not clear what your

> model has to do with EPR or Bell's argument.

>

everything to do with the EPR-Bell argument.

>

> The way I described things above, there is no assumption

> being made about the true nature of vectors. We have three

> lines drawn on circular panels.

>

the fact that your innocent looking description is not

so innocent. Without realizing you are modelling

the physical space (incorrectly) as R^3. Our physical

space respects the symmetries of S^3, not R^3, as

can be easily demonstrated by the Dirac belt trick.

>

> Please, in terms of my description of an EPR-type experiment

> above, where does the topology of S^3 come into play?

>

model of the physical space. This is what you have

not understood.

Joy Christian

Jan 2, 2012, 7:13:25 AM1/2/12

to

As someone who uses relativistic quantum field theory (not only the

vacuum theory of high-energy particle physics but also the many-body

theory in and out of thermal equilibrium to describe relativistic

heavy-ion collisions and the quark-gluon plasma) as a basis for my

everyday work, I already stumble over the first sentence in the abstract

of your paper since locality and (micro-)causality is at the very

foundation of relativistic quantum field theory.

From these features follows also macroscopic causality. The most simple

example is linear-response theory, where in a view lines you get the

retarded, i.e. causal, propagator as the response of the medium to a

(local) perturbation, and from this in going from the microscopic

description to a macroscopic one to classical causality. Of course, in

general you have memory and non-local effects, but this is no

contradiction to locality and micro-causality of quantum field theory.

To the contrary it follows from these features.

Of course, quantum theory is fundamentally different from classical

deterministic theories with respect to non-local correlations, described

by what we usually call "entangled states". The existence of such

non-classical correlations, however, does not contradict locality and/or

causality either. Such correlations exist because of the preparation of

the system in its initial state and their persistence in the quantum

theoretical time evolution of this system for a (sufficiently well)

isolated (i.e., closed) system. Such correlations are exactly described

by the non-Markovian and non-local master equations of non-equilibrium

theory, which is based on locality and micro-causality.

That there cannot be any contradiction between locality and

micro-causality on the one hand and long-ranged correlations described

by entangled states in EPR-like situations is clear from the fact that a

local micro-causal QFT fulfills the linked-cluster theorem, which

ensures that local measurements on a single subsystem cannot reveal its

"entanglement" with another far-away subsystem with which it is

"entangled". You always need to also make well-constructed and thus

correlated measurements on both subsystems to reveal their

"entanglement". E.g., in Aspect/Zeilinger like experiments with

entangled photon pairs ("teleportation experiment"), you have to measure

the polarization state of both photons using a polarizer in the same (or

perpendicular) direction at both places (with observers Alice and Bob,

respectively) to find the 100% EPR-correlation of the polarization

state. Also you have to make sure that you always measure the

correlations of each pair by using a precise enough coincidence

measurement (i.e., precise timing of the registration of the photons at

A's and B's detector). While A's and B's measurements taken for

themselves only reveals totally unpolarized photons, only the analysis

of the coincidence measurement by putting both data sets (including the

precise timing to ensure that only the two measurements on the same

entangled photon pair are considered and taken into account in the

statistical analysis of the correlations) together. There's no

contradiction whatsoever with Einstein causality and locality of quantum

field theory.

In my opinion the whole apparant EPR paradox is not inherent of

relativistic quantum field theory but only in the Copenhagen

interpretation (and all their relatives, assuming some "collapse of the

quantum state" to be a "real physical process") of the foundations of

quantum theory. This is simply cured by taking the Born probablility

interpretation of quantum states really seriously and thus using a

"Minimal Statistical Interpretation". For me that's the only convincing

conclusion from the empirical "proof" of the validity of Bell's

inequality. At the same time it's important to keep in mind what's meant

by "locality", which simple means that local observables (i.e.,

observable quantum-field operators like the energy-momentum tensor,

charge densities, etc.) commute when their arguments denote space-like

separated events and the still possible long-range correlations of

entangled subsystems of (sufficiently isolated and thus closed) larger

systems.

Particularly, I don't see any need to modify the mathematical space-time

structure, at least not in the realm of special relativity; it's of

course still an open question, in how far one has to find a modification

of the space-time model in the connection with a fully consistent

quantum theory of gravity.

On 31/12/11 22:34, Joy Christian wrote:

> I appreciate that. But you will not be able to

> understand my arguement until you try to

> understand at least the introductory parts of

> this paper: http://arxiv.org/abs/1106.0748

--

Hendrik van Hees

Frankfurt Institute of Advanced Studies

D-60438 Frankfurt am Main

http://fias.uni-frankfurt.de/~hees/

vacuum theory of high-energy particle physics but also the many-body

theory in and out of thermal equilibrium to describe relativistic

heavy-ion collisions and the quark-gluon plasma) as a basis for my

everyday work, I already stumble over the first sentence in the abstract

of your paper since locality and (micro-)causality is at the very

foundation of relativistic quantum field theory.

From these features follows also macroscopic causality. The most simple

example is linear-response theory, where in a view lines you get the

retarded, i.e. causal, propagator as the response of the medium to a

(local) perturbation, and from this in going from the microscopic

description to a macroscopic one to classical causality. Of course, in

general you have memory and non-local effects, but this is no

contradiction to locality and micro-causality of quantum field theory.

To the contrary it follows from these features.

Of course, quantum theory is fundamentally different from classical

deterministic theories with respect to non-local correlations, described

by what we usually call "entangled states". The existence of such

non-classical correlations, however, does not contradict locality and/or

causality either. Such correlations exist because of the preparation of

the system in its initial state and their persistence in the quantum

theoretical time evolution of this system for a (sufficiently well)

isolated (i.e., closed) system. Such correlations are exactly described

by the non-Markovian and non-local master equations of non-equilibrium

theory, which is based on locality and micro-causality.

That there cannot be any contradiction between locality and

micro-causality on the one hand and long-ranged correlations described

by entangled states in EPR-like situations is clear from the fact that a

local micro-causal QFT fulfills the linked-cluster theorem, which

ensures that local measurements on a single subsystem cannot reveal its

"entanglement" with another far-away subsystem with which it is

"entangled". You always need to also make well-constructed and thus

correlated measurements on both subsystems to reveal their

"entanglement". E.g., in Aspect/Zeilinger like experiments with

entangled photon pairs ("teleportation experiment"), you have to measure

the polarization state of both photons using a polarizer in the same (or

perpendicular) direction at both places (with observers Alice and Bob,

respectively) to find the 100% EPR-correlation of the polarization

state. Also you have to make sure that you always measure the

correlations of each pair by using a precise enough coincidence

measurement (i.e., precise timing of the registration of the photons at

A's and B's detector). While A's and B's measurements taken for

themselves only reveals totally unpolarized photons, only the analysis

of the coincidence measurement by putting both data sets (including the

precise timing to ensure that only the two measurements on the same

entangled photon pair are considered and taken into account in the

statistical analysis of the correlations) together. There's no

contradiction whatsoever with Einstein causality and locality of quantum

field theory.

In my opinion the whole apparant EPR paradox is not inherent of

relativistic quantum field theory but only in the Copenhagen

interpretation (and all their relatives, assuming some "collapse of the

quantum state" to be a "real physical process") of the foundations of

quantum theory. This is simply cured by taking the Born probablility

interpretation of quantum states really seriously and thus using a

"Minimal Statistical Interpretation". For me that's the only convincing

conclusion from the empirical "proof" of the validity of Bell's

inequality. At the same time it's important to keep in mind what's meant

by "locality", which simple means that local observables (i.e.,

observable quantum-field operators like the energy-momentum tensor,

charge densities, etc.) commute when their arguments denote space-like

separated events and the still possible long-range correlations of

entangled subsystems of (sufficiently isolated and thus closed) larger

systems.

Particularly, I don't see any need to modify the mathematical space-time

structure, at least not in the realm of special relativity; it's of

course still an open question, in how far one has to find a modification

of the space-time model in the connection with a fully consistent

quantum theory of gravity.

On 31/12/11 22:34, Joy Christian wrote:

> I appreciate that. But you will not be able to

> understand my arguement until you try to

> understand at least the introductory parts of

> this paper: http://arxiv.org/abs/1106.0748

Hendrik van Hees

Frankfurt Institute of Advanced Studies

D-60438 Frankfurt am Main

http://fias.uni-frankfurt.de/~hees/

Jan 2, 2012, 1:05:51 PM1/2/12

to

On Jan 1, 7:34 am, Joy Christian <hojoin...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Dec 30, 10:29 pm, "Cl.Mass " <akia...@fastwebnet.it> wrote:

>

>

>

> > You seem yourself not to have understood what is a topological sphere.

> > Every experiment being local, the global topology of space doesn't even

> > enter the formula.

>

> What formula? Whose formula? I don't care about Bell's formula,

> if that is what you have in mind. Topology enters my formula (i.e.,

> my model) and that is all that matters. All one has to do to refute

> Bell is to construct a model that reproduces the EPR correlation,

> and that is what I have done:http://arxiv.org/abs/1103.1879

>

Polite cough. The Hilbert space model of standard quantum
> On Dec 30, 10:29 pm, "Cl.Mass " <akia...@fastwebnet.it> wrote:

>

>

>

> > You seem yourself not to have understood what is a topological sphere.

> > Every experiment being local, the global topology of space doesn't even

> > enter the formula.

>

> What formula? Whose formula? I don't care about Bell's formula,

> if that is what you have in mind. Topology enters my formula (i.e.,

> my model) and that is all that matters. All one has to do to refute

> Bell is to construct a model that reproduces the EPR correlation,

> and that is what I have done:http://arxiv.org/abs/1103.1879

>

mechanics reproduces the singlet state correlations, yet does

not refute Bell's theorem. Bell inequalities show that there is

no model of these correlations which is local and deterministic

(some derivations weaken determinism, but not Bell's original

derivation). They are mathematically rigorous. Hence no

model of the correlations, including yours, refutes them.

Second polite cough. You refer to EPR correlations. These

are for the position and momentum coprrelations of two

particles. The EPR state (and Gaussian approximations

thereto) has a positive Wigner function, and hence there is a

classical model for these correlations. This is why the

Bell inequalities are such an important advance over mere

"EPR" correlations.

I've made my opinion of your model(s) clear earlier, in this

thread and others. In short, your papers have no relevance

to the Bell inequalties and their import.

Here, by the way, is an amusing model of the singlet

state which is even simpler than yours, although it uses

a similar algebraic trick.

Alice receives a random unit

vector, V, and Bob receives the vector -V. If Alice

measures in direction A, she writes down the result

+sqrt{3} if A.V is positive, and -sqrt{3} otherwise. Bob

does the same (but relative to -V). What is the

correlation between their measurement results? It is

easily calculated as

E(A,B) = -A.B,

i.e, the same as the singlet state prediction. And

look how local and realistic the model is! (and

no topology required - clever me!).

But I'm not waiting for my Nobel prize Joy, and

neither should you. Did you spot the flaw? - Bell

inequalities are about products of outcomes

labelled as +/-1, not about products of outcomes

labelled as +/-sqrt{3}. Similarly, they are not

about products of outcomes labelled as bivectors

etc as per your models, nor even about products

of outcomes labelled as spin operators as in the

standard QM model.

Jan 2, 2012, 1:04:51 PM1/2/12

to

On Friday, December 30, 2011 3:57:02 AM UTC-5, Anon E. Mouse wrote:

> > My argument against Christian's model is pretty simple,

> > and to me seems airtight:

> >

>

> Your model is very simple. Impossibly so, real spin measures are

> fractions of all possible data captures, or a filtered subset thereof,

> not 100% captures of integer spins.

I certainly understand the difficulties of experimental analysis
> > My argument against Christian's model is pretty simple,

> > and to me seems airtight:

> >

>

> Your model is very simple. Impossibly so, real spin measures are

> fractions of all possible data captures, or a filtered subset thereof,

> not 100% captures of integer spins.

in determining which events are part of a twin pair, and which

events are noise. But those complexities don't seem relevant to

Christian's arguments about Bell's theorem.

> Similarly you limit the value of mu, a hypothetical measure of

> entanglement, being a unit tri-vector which could take on any complex

> value between 1 and -1, in a restricted 2d representation of the

> actual 3 space to just two values, represented by the extreme limits.

tri-vectors. Yes, if it were allowed to be complex, that would

allow more possibilities, but his model does not involve complex

tri-vectors.

> The data scenario you project is indeed impossible, as far as I can

> tell. However, I don't see this as valid criticism of Christian or

> Bell.

a way of asking a question about it. I don't understand how,

if the hidden variable mu can only take on two values (which

he assumes it does), how one can get 4 different outcomes,

if everything is deterministic (which I thought he was claiming).

If things are not deterministic, then I don't understand where

the additional nondeterminism is coming from in his model.

Jan 2, 2012, 1:06:09 PM1/2/12

to

On Saturday, December 31, 2011 4:34:42 PM UTC-5, Joy Christian wrote:

> > The way I described things above, there is no assumption

> > being made about the true nature of vectors. We have three

> > lines drawn on circular panels.

> This is your mistake. You are not recognizing

> the fact that your innocent looking description is not

> so innocent. Without realizing you are modelling

> the physical space (incorrectly) as R^3.

Nothing I've said makes any such assumption. All I described
> > The way I described things above, there is no assumption

> > being made about the true nature of vectors. We have three

> > lines drawn on circular panels.

> This is your mistake. You are not recognizing

> the fact that your innocent looking description is not

> so innocent. Without realizing you are modelling

> the physical space (incorrectly) as R^3.

was an operational procedure for relating detector orientations

at distant locations. As I said, there is an assumption that

it is possible to do parallel transport, to move an object

along a path without rotating it, but that is not a matter

of topology.

> Our physical space respects the symmetries of S^3, not R^3, as

> can be easily demonstrated by the Dirac belt trick.

I'm asking the following question:

> > Please, in terms of my description of an EPR-type experiment

> > above, where does the topology of S^3 come into play?

>

> The topology of S^3 comes into play as the correct

> model of the physical space. This is what you have

> not understood.

come into play? It's not that helpful to just repeat the

claim that it does.

Jan 2, 2012, 5:41:57 PM1/2/12

to

On Jan 2, 12:13 pm, Hendrik van Hees <h...@fias.uni-frankfurt.de>

wrote:

"Unlike our basic theories of space and time,

quantum mechanics is not a locally causal theory."

If you are disputing this sentence then your disagreement

is not with me but with EPR, Bell, and the majority of the

physics community. I agree with the conclusion of EPR,

Bell, and the majority of the physics community that quantum

mechanics is not a locally causal theory.

What you are implicitly assuming in your discussion is the

signalling locality of the relativistic theories. It is well known

that quantum mechanics is perfectly compatible with the

signalling locality of relativistic theories. Quantum mechanics,

however, harbors a peculiar form of *no-signalling non-locality*,

as discovered by EPR and clarified by Bell. It is in the latter

sense of no-signalling non-locality that quantum mechanics

is not a locally causal theory. This conclusion is not in dispute.

Evidently you are unaware of these subtle nuances in local

causality brought out by the EPR-Bell debate. What you

have discussed is entirely irrelevant to that debate.

Joy Christian

wrote:

>

> As someone who uses relativistic quantum field theory (not only the

> vacuum theory of high-energy particle physics but also the many-body

> theory in and out of thermal equilibrium to describe relativistic

> heavy-ion collisions and the quark-gluon plasma) as a basis for my

> everyday work, I already stumble over the first sentence in the abstract

> of your paper since locality and (micro-)causality is at the very

> foundation of relativistic quantum field theory.

>

I presume you mean this sentence of mine:
> As someone who uses relativistic quantum field theory (not only the

> vacuum theory of high-energy particle physics but also the many-body

> theory in and out of thermal equilibrium to describe relativistic

> heavy-ion collisions and the quark-gluon plasma) as a basis for my

> everyday work, I already stumble over the first sentence in the abstract

> of your paper since locality and (micro-)causality is at the very

> foundation of relativistic quantum field theory.

>

"Unlike our basic theories of space and time,

quantum mechanics is not a locally causal theory."

If you are disputing this sentence then your disagreement

is not with me but with EPR, Bell, and the majority of the

physics community. I agree with the conclusion of EPR,

Bell, and the majority of the physics community that quantum

mechanics is not a locally causal theory.

What you are implicitly assuming in your discussion is the

signalling locality of the relativistic theories. It is well known

that quantum mechanics is perfectly compatible with the

signalling locality of relativistic theories. Quantum mechanics,

however, harbors a peculiar form of *no-signalling non-locality*,

as discovered by EPR and clarified by Bell. It is in the latter

sense of no-signalling non-locality that quantum mechanics

is not a locally causal theory. This conclusion is not in dispute.

Evidently you are unaware of these subtle nuances in local

causality brought out by the EPR-Bell debate. What you

have discussed is entirely irrelevant to that debate.

Joy Christian

Jan 2, 2012, 5:52:14 PM1/2/12

to

> As someone who uses relativistic quantum field theory (not only the

> vacuum theory of high-energy particle physics but also the many-body

> theory in and out of thermal equilibrium to describe relativistic

> heavy-ion collisions and the quark-gluon plasma) as a basis for my

> everyday work, I already stumble over the first sentence in the abstract

> of your paper since locality and (micro-)causality is at the very

> foundation of relativistic quantum field theory.

>

> vacuum theory of high-energy particle physics but also the many-body

> theory in and out of thermal equilibrium to describe relativistic

> heavy-ion collisions and the quark-gluon plasma) as a basis for my

> everyday work, I already stumble over the first sentence in the abstract

> of your paper since locality and (micro-)causality is at the very

> foundation of relativistic quantum field theory.

>

Jan 3, 2012, 10:15:52 AM1/3/12

to

On 02/01/12 23:52, Joy Christian wrote:

> I presume you mean this sentence of mine:

> "Unlike our basic theories of space and time,

> quantum mechanics is not a locally causal theory."

Yes, I do not understand this claim, but obviously we have a different
> I presume you mean this sentence of mine:

> "Unlike our basic theories of space and time,

> quantum mechanics is not a locally causal theory."

understanding of what we call "local" and "causal".

>

> If you are disputing this sentence then your disagreement

> is not with me but with EPR, Bell, and the majority of the

> physics community. I agree with the conclusion of EPR,

> Bell, and the majority of the physics community that quantum

> mechanics is not a locally causal theory.

I know the original EPR paper and some of the tests of the violation of
> If you are disputing this sentence then your disagreement

> is not with me but with EPR, Bell, and the majority of the

> physics community. I agree with the conclusion of EPR,

> Bell, and the majority of the physics community that quantum

> mechanics is not a locally causal theory.

Bell's inequality, but I'm not an expert in this field.

>

> What you are implicitly assuming in your discussion is the

> signalling locality of the relativistic theories.

Of course, and that's the only "locality" and "causality" that's
> What you are implicitly assuming in your discussion is the

> signalling locality of the relativistic theories.

relevant for consistency of QT with the relativistic space-time

structure. As soon as you give up Copenhagen-like collapse assumptions,

which are not necessary to successfully apply quantum theory to the

description of nature, there is no contradiction between (atl least

special) relativistic space-time structure and quantum theory. For me,

the criticism of EPR agains QT is in fact a criticism against its

Copenhagen interpretation.

Of course, whether you consider a probabilistic description, as implied

by Born's Rule and the Minimal Statistical Interpretation as "complete"

is another question. As long as there is no better non-probabilistic

theory, I think, we have no choice to accept quantum theory as it is.

> It is well known

> that quantum mechanics is perfectly compatible with the

> signalling locality of relativistic theories. Quantum mechanics,

> however, harbors a peculiar form of *no-signalling non-locality*,

> as discovered by EPR and clarified by Bell.

but that's indeed not related with signal propagation. These are

long-ranged correlations, but the experimentally well-established

conclusions from these non-classical correlations do not contradict

Einstein causality and locality of interactions in relativistic local QFTs.

> It is in the latter

> sense of no-signalling non-locality that quantum mechanics

> is not a locally causal theory. This conclusion is not in dispute.

should clearly distinguish causality and locality in the sense of

relativistic local QFTs (what you call "signalling causality and

locality") from the possibility to prepare states where distant

subsystems are entangled. These I would call "long-range quantum

correlations", and their existence does not contradict the causal

structure of special relativistic space-time.

> Evidently you are unaware of these subtle nuances in local

> causality brought out by the EPR-Bell debate. What you

> have discussed is entirely irrelevant to that debate.

discussion: What is still under debate concerning the EPR paper?

Relativistic quantum field theory is of course not a closed subject in

the sense that there are many open mathematical questions, but as far as

I can see these have nothing to do with the EPR debate. The prediction

of entanglement, i.e., of "long-ranged quantum correlations" has been

experimentally verified with high statistical significance and the

predictions of (minimally interpreted) quantum theory have been

quantitatively verified too. So what's still an open question concerning

the EPR (or more generally the old Einstein-Bohr debate)? In my opinion,

there's no necessity for a new theory beyond quantum theory if there are

no experimental facts disproving quantum theory.

Jan 3, 2012, 1:20:19 PM1/3/12

to

On Jan 2, 6:05�pm, a student <of_1001_nig...@hotmail.com> wrote:

>

> Polite cough ....... Bell inequalities show that there is

Bell's theorem, as any other no-go theorem in physics, is based

on many hidden assumptions. For example, it can be of relevance

to physics at all if and only if the measurement functions presupposed

by Bell, namely A(a, L) and B(b, L), satisfy the completeness

criterion

of EPR. If they do not satisfy the completeness criterion, then Bell's

theorem is not worth a penny. In Bell's own words: "Let this more

complete specification be affected by means of parameters L."

The first thing I have shown in my work is that the functions of L

presupposed by Bell cannot possibly satisfy the completeness

criterion of EPR. Thus Bell's theorem does not even get off the

ground. IT IS A NON-STARTER: http://arxiv.org/abs/0904.4259.

Next, I have produced an explicit local and deterministic model

that exactly reproduces the EPR-Bohm correlation. This model,

which can be found in this paper: http://arxiv.org/abs/1103.1879,

clearly shows that, given A(a, L) = +1 or -1 and B(b, L) = +1 or -1

as defined by equations (1) and (2) of the paper, the correlation

between the numbers +1 and -1, as understood by Galton and

Pearson over a century ago, is exactly equal to -a.b.

So much for Bell's imposibility theorem and your cough.

Next, I go on to show that, not only the EPR-Bohm correlation,

but ALL quantum mechanical correlations can be reproduced

in a purely local, deterministic, non-contextual, and realistic

manner. I demonstrate this fact by first explicitly reproducing the

correlations predicted by Bell, GHZ, and Hardy states, and then

by providing a clear-cut framework to reproduce correlaions

predicted by any conceivable arbitrary quantum mechanical

state. These results can be found in these two papers:

http://arxiv.org/abs/0904.4259 and

http://arxiv.org/abs/1101.1958.

I the last paper I also bring out the true topological reasons for

the existence and strength of all quantum correlations, and the

existence of the upper bound on all quantum correlations. Note

that, contrary to your misleading toy example, by correlation

I mean exactly what Bell, GHZ, Hardy, Galton, and Pearson

meant by correlaion. Namely, expectaion value between the

numbers +1 and -1. The evidence is all there in my work if you

are willing to see it. You are of course under no obligation to

see the evidence. You are completely free to remain in denial.

I am in no position to stop you from misrepresenting my work.

Joy Christian

>

> Polite cough ....... Bell inequalities show that there is

> no model of these correlations which is local and deterministic

> (some derivations weaken determinism, but not Bell's original

> derivation). �They are mathematically rigorous. �Hence no

> model of the correlations, including yours, refutes them.

>

I beg to differ.
> (some derivations weaken determinism, but not Bell's original

> derivation). �They are mathematically rigorous. �Hence no

> model of the correlations, including yours, refutes them.

>

Bell's theorem, as any other no-go theorem in physics, is based

on many hidden assumptions. For example, it can be of relevance

to physics at all if and only if the measurement functions presupposed

by Bell, namely A(a, L) and B(b, L), satisfy the completeness

criterion

of EPR. If they do not satisfy the completeness criterion, then Bell's

theorem is not worth a penny. In Bell's own words: "Let this more

complete specification be affected by means of parameters L."

The first thing I have shown in my work is that the functions of L

presupposed by Bell cannot possibly satisfy the completeness

criterion of EPR. Thus Bell's theorem does not even get off the

ground. IT IS A NON-STARTER: http://arxiv.org/abs/0904.4259.

Next, I have produced an explicit local and deterministic model

that exactly reproduces the EPR-Bohm correlation. This model,

which can be found in this paper: http://arxiv.org/abs/1103.1879,

clearly shows that, given A(a, L) = +1 or -1 and B(b, L) = +1 or -1

as defined by equations (1) and (2) of the paper, the correlation

between the numbers +1 and -1, as understood by Galton and

Pearson over a century ago, is exactly equal to -a.b.

So much for Bell's imposibility theorem and your cough.

Next, I go on to show that, not only the EPR-Bohm correlation,

but ALL quantum mechanical correlations can be reproduced

in a purely local, deterministic, non-contextual, and realistic

manner. I demonstrate this fact by first explicitly reproducing the

correlations predicted by Bell, GHZ, and Hardy states, and then

by providing a clear-cut framework to reproduce correlaions

predicted by any conceivable arbitrary quantum mechanical

state. These results can be found in these two papers:

http://arxiv.org/abs/0904.4259 and

http://arxiv.org/abs/1101.1958.

I the last paper I also bring out the true topological reasons for

the existence and strength of all quantum correlations, and the

existence of the upper bound on all quantum correlations. Note

that, contrary to your misleading toy example, by correlation

I mean exactly what Bell, GHZ, Hardy, Galton, and Pearson

meant by correlaion. Namely, expectaion value between the

numbers +1 and -1. The evidence is all there in my work if you

are willing to see it. You are of course under no obligation to

see the evidence. You are completely free to remain in denial.

I am in no position to stop you from misrepresenting my work.

Joy Christian

Jan 3, 2012, 1:20:21 PM1/3/12

to

That is not the question one has to answer

to rebut Bellï¿½s claim. His claim was that no

THEORETICAL model can be constructed to

reproduce the EPR correlation. I construct

such a model (an explicit and clear cut one)

by recognizing two related facts about our

physical space. The first is the fact that the

algebra of the orthogonal directions in the

physical space is the Clifford algebra Cl(3, 0).

Second, that the bivector (or even) subalgebra

of the algebra Cl(3, 0) represents a 3-sphere,

albeit a parallelized one. It is a well recognized

fact, since Hamilton and Clifford, that vector

algebra, which you are implicitly assuming in

all of your considerations, is not capable of

representing the physical space correctly. It

is good enough for most applications in physics

but not all. Based on these considerations, as

explained in several of my papers, it is clear, at

least to me, that the correct model of the EPR

correlation must be based on the parallelized

3-sphere and its algebraic representation, the

even sub-algebra of Cl(3, 0). What you have

described, however, is a naive operational

procedure that does not respect the true

symmetries of our physical space. It is then not

surprising that any model of the EPR experiment

you construct based on your procedure would not

be able to reproduce the EPR correlation. We

already know that much from Bell.The idea is to

go beyond Bell, and that is what I have done.

Joy Christian

Jan 3, 2012, 1:20:22 PM1/3/12

to

statistical.

In fact, any real measurement in a bounded length of time begs

statistical inference. An example I posted on FQXi explicitly

shows that Bell-Aspect results are subsumed by Joy Christian's

framework. http://fqxi.org/data/forum-attachments/2_Ferryman_Puzzle_rev.pdf

Tom

Jan 3, 2012, 10:45:04 PM1/3/12

to

"Joy Christian" <hojo...@gmail.com> a ?crit dans le message de

news:458a9f6f-1324-4bc2...@z12g2000yqm.googlegroups.com...

> You can do whatever you like operationally.

> That is not the question one has to answer

> to rebut Bell?s claim. His claim was that no

You not yet have explained how local algebraic considerations turn into global

topological ones. However you parameterize space, it remains topologically

equivalent to R^3, whatever basic, metric, connection, parallelization you

choose. To prove the contrary, you have to exhibit a homeomorphism between R^3

and S^3. That's the paper you still have to write and which, I concede it to

you, we haven't read.

news:458a9f6f-1324-4bc2...@z12g2000yqm.googlegroups.com...

> You can do whatever you like operationally.

> That is not the question one has to answer

topological ones. However you parameterize space, it remains topologically

equivalent to R^3, whatever basic, metric, connection, parallelization you

choose. To prove the contrary, you have to exhibit a homeomorphism between R^3

and S^3. That's the paper you still have to write and which, I concede it to

you, we haven't read.

Jan 3, 2012, 10:44:31 PM1/3/12

to

On Tuesday, January 3, 2012 1:20:19 PM UTC-5, Joy Christian wrote:

> Bell's theorem, as any other no-go theorem in physics, is based

> on many hidden assumptions. For example, it can be of relevance

> to physics at all if and only if the measurement functions presupposed

> by Bell, namely A(a, L) and B(b, L), satisfy the completeness

> criterion of EPR. If they do not satisfy the completeness criterion,

> then Bell's theorem is not worth a penny. In Bell's own words:

> "Let this more complete specification be affected by means of

> parameters L."

I think that's a misunderstanding of Bell's argument. He wasn't in
> Bell's theorem, as any other no-go theorem in physics, is based

> on many hidden assumptions. For example, it can be of relevance

> to physics at all if and only if the measurement functions presupposed

> by Bell, namely A(a, L) and B(b, L), satisfy the completeness

> criterion of EPR. If they do not satisfy the completeness criterion,

> then Bell's theorem is not worth a penny. In Bell's own words:

> "Let this more complete specification be affected by means of

> parameters L."

any way claiming that the functions A(a,L) and B(b,L) are in any

sense "complete" descriptions of physical reality. He was assuming

that they are "more complete" (that is, they contain more information)

than the pure probabilistic predictions of quantum mechanics.

Jan 3, 2012, 10:46:20 PM1/3/12

to

"Joy Christian" <hojo...@gmail.com> a ?crit dans le message de

news:59b6e7a2-b7b4-4f4d...@q8g2000yqa.googlegroups.com...
> This is your mistake. You are not recognizing

> the fact that your innocent looking description is not

> so innocent. Without realizing you are modelling

> the physical space (incorrectly) as R^3. Our physical

> space respects the symmetries of S^3, not R^3, as

> can be easily demonstrated by the Dirac belt trick.

Actually, all the points of a 2-sphere surrounding the belt are identified,

which is equivalent to a point at infinity. But that is possible only because

there is a rigid material frame around it. There is not such thing in a

Bell-type experiment, at least in your model. In that instance, the Dirac belt

trick demonstrates nothing.

Jan 4, 2012, 3:00:16 AM1/4/12

to

On Jan 4, 3:46=A0am, "Cl.Mass??" <akia...@fastwebnet.it> wrote:

> "Joy Christian" <hojoin...@gmail.com> a ?crit dans le message denews:59b6=

e7a2-b7b4-4f4d-8...@q8g2000yqa.googlegroups.com...

tified.

> Actually, all the points of a 2-sphere surrounding the belt are identifie=

d,

> which is equivalent to a point at infinity. =A0But that is possible only =

because

> there is a rigid material frame around it. =A0There is not such thing in =

a

> Bell-type experiment, at least in your model. =A0In that instance, the Di=

rac belt

> trick demonstrates nothing.

Incorrect.

In any EPR experiment there are two particles rotating

with respect to each other. They are rotating (or spinning)

in tandem, with each particle providing a material frame for

the other. This is explained in greater detail in this paper:

http://arxiv.org/abs/0806.3078 .

Joy Christian

> "Joy Christian" <hojoin...@gmail.com> a ?crit dans le message denews:59b6=

e7a2-b7b4-4f4d-8...@q8g2000yqa.googlegroups.com...

>

> > This is your mistake. You are not recognizing

> > the fact that your innocent looking description is not

> > so innocent. Without realizing you are modelling

> > the physical space (incorrectly) as R^3. Our physical

> > space respects the symmetries of S^3, not R^3, as

> > can be easily demonstrated by the Dirac belt trick.

>

> In the belt trick, there are two fixed points that are topologically iden=
> > This is your mistake. You are not recognizing

> > the fact that your innocent looking description is not

> > so innocent. Without realizing you are modelling

> > the physical space (incorrectly) as R^3. Our physical

> > space respects the symmetries of S^3, not R^3, as

> > can be easily demonstrated by the Dirac belt trick.

>

tified.

> Actually, all the points of a 2-sphere surrounding the belt are identifie=

d,

> which is equivalent to a point at infinity. =A0But that is possible only =

because

> there is a rigid material frame around it. =A0There is not such thing in =

a

> Bell-type experiment, at least in your model. =A0In that instance, the Di=

rac belt

> trick demonstrates nothing.

Incorrect.

In any EPR experiment there are two particles rotating

with respect to each other. They are rotating (or spinning)

in tandem, with each particle providing a material frame for

the other. This is explained in greater detail in this paper:

http://arxiv.org/abs/0806.3078 .

Joy Christian

Jan 4, 2012, 3:00:18 AM1/4/12

to

On Jan 4, 3:45=A0am, "Cl.Mass??" <akia...@fastwebnet.it> wrote:

> "Joy Christian" <hojoin...@gmail.com> a ?crit dans le message denews:458a=

9f6f-1324-4bc2-8...@z12g2000yqm.googlegroups.com...

> You not yet have explained how local algebraic considerations turn into g=

lobal

> topological ones. =A0However you parameterize space, it remains topologic=

ally

> equivalent to R^3, whatever basic, metric, connection, parallelization yo=

u

> choose. =A0To prove the contrary, you have to exhibit a homeomorphism bet=

ween R^3

> and S^3. =A0That's the paper you still have to write and which, I concede=

point at infinity.

The explanation of how local algebraic considerations

turn into global topological ones is already built into the

framework of geometric algebra I have been using.

Joy Christian

> "Joy Christian" <hojoin...@gmail.com> a ?crit dans le message denews:458a=

9f6f-1324-4bc2-8...@z12g2000yqm.googlegroups.com...

lobal

> topological ones. =A0However you parameterize space, it remains topologic=

ally

> equivalent to R^3, whatever basic, metric, connection, parallelization yo=

u

> choose. =A0To prove the contrary, you have to exhibit a homeomorphism bet=

ween R^3

> and S^3. =A0That's the paper you still have to write and which, I concede=

it to

> you, we haven't read.

S^3 is *not* homeomorphic to R^3. They differ by one
> you, we haven't read.

point at infinity.

The explanation of how local algebraic considerations

turn into global topological ones is already built into the

framework of geometric algebra I have been using.

Joy Christian

Jan 4, 2012, 3:00:19 AM1/4/12

to

On Jan 3, 3:15=A0pm, Hendrik van Hees <h...@fias.uni-frankfurt.de>

wrote:

> Einstein causality and locality of interactions in relativistic local QFT=

I highly recommend Bell's last paper: La nouvelle cuisine (1991) (it

is in Einglish),

http://ebooks.cambridge.org/chapter.jsf?bid=3DCBO9780511815676&cid=3DCBO978=

0511815676A033

His last paper will explain the problem I have solved in my papers.

Joy Christian

,

http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=3DFGnnHxh2YtQC&pg=3DPA232&dq=3Dbell++la+=

nouvelle+cuisine&hl=3Den&ei=3DmhSwTpLfIMiW8gOeuc3IAQ&sa=3DX&oi=3Dbook_resul=

t&ct=3Dresult&resnum=3D1&ved=3D0CC8Q6AEwAA#v=3Donepage&q=3Dbell%20%20la%20n=

ouvelle%20cuisine&f=3Dfalse

wrote:

is in Einglish),

http://ebooks.cambridge.org/chapter.jsf?bid=3DCBO9780511815676&cid=3DCBO978=

0511815676A033

His last paper will explain the problem I have solved in my papers.

Joy Christian

,

http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=3DFGnnHxh2YtQC&pg=3DPA232&dq=3Dbell++la+=

nouvelle+cuisine&hl=3Den&ei=3DmhSwTpLfIMiW8gOeuc3IAQ&sa=3DX&oi=3Dbook_resul=

t&ct=3Dresult&resnum=3D1&ved=3D0CC8Q6AEwAA#v=3Donepage&q=3Dbell%20%20la%20n=

ouvelle%20cuisine&f=3Dfalse

Jan 4, 2012, 10:17:07 AM1/4/12

to

On Tuesday, January 3, 2012 1:20:22 PM UTC-5, Tom wrote:

> Deterministic means non-probabilistic, it doesn't imply non-

> statistical.

> In fact, any real measurement in a bounded length of time begs

> statistical inference. An example I posted on FQXi explicitly

> shows that Bell-Aspect results are subsumed by Joy Christian's

> framework. http://fqxi.org/data/forum-attachments/2_Ferryman_Puzzle_rev.pdf

Thanks for that reference, although I don't understand the
> Deterministic means non-probabilistic, it doesn't imply non-

> statistical.

> In fact, any real measurement in a bounded length of time begs

> statistical inference. An example I posted on FQXi explicitly

> shows that Bell-Aspect results are subsumed by Joy Christian's

> framework. http://fqxi.org/data/forum-attachments/2_Ferryman_Puzzle_rev.pdf

discussion at all. I do understand Lamport's point about

Buridan's Ass. It's discussed very clearly in the paper:

http://research.microsoft.com/en-us/um/people/lamport/pubs/buridan.pdf

I'm looking for level of clarity in a discussion about Christian's

model, and I haven't found it yet.

I can see the relevance of Lamport's Buridan's principle to EPR type

experiments: When trying to decide whether an electron is spin-up or

spin-down, there will be (if Lamport is correct) a number of cases

for which it cannot be decided in a bounded amount of time. Roughly

speaking, the spin direction is determined by the deflection of

the electron in a magnetic field, but for sufficiently high-velocity

electrons, the deflection will be negligible. To me, this seems to

mean that the theoretical correlations predicted by quantum mechanics

will not be precisely mirrored by any actual experiment. I don't see

why that observation is relevant to Christian's model, however.

In the paper you cite, it is said that "Joy Christian's time-dependent

model is deterministic with definite probabilities on the interval

[0,1]." First of all, I didn't see time-dependence

in Christian's model. Second, I don't understand how the statistical

prediction comes out of Christian's model:

Probability that Bob's detector measures spin-up

given that Alice's detector measures spin-up

= sin^2(theta/2), where theta is the angle between

the two detector orientations.

You make the distinction between a model that is probabilistic

and a model that is statistical. I'm not sure that I understand

the distinction between the two, unless by statistical you mean

the apparent nondeterminism that results from ignoring fine-grained

details.

Jan 4, 2012, 12:40:35 PM1/4/12

to

of Bell's famous paper. He starts by summarizing the

EPR argument and builds on it to develop his own

argument. EPR's is a logically impeccable argument

which shows, once and for all, that the description

of physical reality provided by quantum mechanics

is necessarily incomplete. The EPR argument itself is

of course based on four premises, one of them being

the completeness criterion. Bell's goal was to show

that these premises are inconsistent. In particular,

the reality and completeness criteria of EPR are

incompatible with their locality criterion. Bell thought

he had succeeded in showing this in his theorem. He

was wrong, as at least I have shown in my papers.

I do not like to flaunt my credentials in this matter.

But since there are people out there who seem to

think that I am just some fruitcake who has not really

understood Bell's argument, let me point out that

I have been in this business since 1983 and have

learned about the EPR-Bell debate at the feet of

the greatest authority on the subject, namely Abner

Shimony, and have been privileged enough to have

had discussions with Bell himself on the matter on

several occasions. So I think I know a thing or two

about Bell's motivation and his theorem.

Joy Christian

Jan 5, 2012, 2:57:01 AM1/5/12

to

"Daryl McCullough" <stevend...@yahoo.com> wrote in message

news:23014116.2246.1325257872446.JavaMail.geo-discussion-forums@vbak19...

something else that you are missing in your own argument.

>> Similarly you limit the value of mu, a hypothetical measure of

>> entanglement, being a unit tri-vector which could take on any complex

>> value between 1 and -1, in a restricted 2d representation of the

>> actual 3 space to just two values, represented by the extreme limits.

>

> Christian specifically limited the possible values of mu to real

> tri-vectors. Yes, if it were allowed to be complex, that would

> allow more possibilities, but his model does not involve complex

> tri-vectors.

I suspect you don't understand what the tri-vectors are structure-wise in

the model.

>> The data scenario you project is indeed impossible, as far as I can

>> tell. However, I don't see this as valid criticism of Christian or

>> Bell.

>

> I didn't mean it as a criticism of Christian, I meant it as

> a way of asking a question about it. I don't understand how,

> if the hidden variable mu can only take on two values (which

> he assumes it does), how one can get 4 different outcomes,

> if everything is deterministic (which I thought he was claiming).

> If things are not deterministic, then I don't understand where

> the additional nondeterminism is coming from in his model.

Joy has responded to the above several times now. I wish you would answer

my question that I have asked you several times in the private email

discussion. In the "Restoring..." paper, do you understand everything up to

the top of page 4? If not, what don't you understand? We were willing to

go thru all the math with you so that you might obtain an understanding of

the question you are asking but it is impossible to proceed unless we know

what you understand and what you don't understand. Also.... did you watch

the Niles Johnson video about Hopf Fibration? It seems that since you have

not answered these questions asked of you several times now, that you really

don't have an interest in gaining a better understanding of what Joy has

done. You are horribly stuck in R^3 "flatland".

You might ask yourself, How does a singlet state pair of quantum objects

produce 4 outcomes with no hidden variables? The answer is easy if you

bother to actually try to understand that Joy has shown how via 3-sphere

topology. In fact, Joy has shown in the following linked paper how *all*

quantum correlations might be produced via 7-sphere topology. Which is

actually much more profound than any "disproof" of Bell. Space may have

properties that control or "guide" the behavior of quantum objects and those

properties are probably not revealed on a macroscopic level.

http://arxiv.org/abs/1101.1958

Best,

Fred Diether

news:23014116.2246.1325257872446.JavaMail.geo-discussion-forums@vbak19...

> On Friday, December 30, 2011 3:57:02 AM UTC-5, Anon E. Mouse wrote:

>> > My argument against Christian's model is pretty simple,

>> > and to me seems airtight:

>> >

>>

>> Your model is very simple. Impossibly so, real spin measures are

>> fractions of all possible data captures, or a filtered subset thereof,

>> not 100% captures of integer spins.

>

> I certainly understand the difficulties of experimental analysis

> in determining which events are part of a twin pair, and which

> events are noise. But those complexities don't seem relevant to

> Christian's arguments about Bell's theorem.

Well, the statistics involved sure is a part of his argument. Which is
>> > My argument against Christian's model is pretty simple,

>> > and to me seems airtight:

>> >

>>

>> Your model is very simple. Impossibly so, real spin measures are

>> fractions of all possible data captures, or a filtered subset thereof,

>> not 100% captures of integer spins.

>

> I certainly understand the difficulties of experimental analysis

> in determining which events are part of a twin pair, and which

> events are noise. But those complexities don't seem relevant to

> Christian's arguments about Bell's theorem.

something else that you are missing in your own argument.

>> Similarly you limit the value of mu, a hypothetical measure of

>> entanglement, being a unit tri-vector which could take on any complex

>> value between 1 and -1, in a restricted 2d representation of the

>> actual 3 space to just two values, represented by the extreme limits.

>

> Christian specifically limited the possible values of mu to real

> tri-vectors. Yes, if it were allowed to be complex, that would

> allow more possibilities, but his model does not involve complex

> tri-vectors.

the model.

>> The data scenario you project is indeed impossible, as far as I can

>> tell. However, I don't see this as valid criticism of Christian or

>> Bell.

>

> I didn't mean it as a criticism of Christian, I meant it as

> a way of asking a question about it. I don't understand how,

> if the hidden variable mu can only take on two values (which

> he assumes it does), how one can get 4 different outcomes,

> if everything is deterministic (which I thought he was claiming).

> If things are not deterministic, then I don't understand where

> the additional nondeterminism is coming from in his model.

my question that I have asked you several times in the private email

discussion. In the "Restoring..." paper, do you understand everything up to

the top of page 4? If not, what don't you understand? We were willing to

go thru all the math with you so that you might obtain an understanding of

the question you are asking but it is impossible to proceed unless we know

what you understand and what you don't understand. Also.... did you watch

the Niles Johnson video about Hopf Fibration? It seems that since you have

not answered these questions asked of you several times now, that you really

don't have an interest in gaining a better understanding of what Joy has

done. You are horribly stuck in R^3 "flatland".

You might ask yourself, How does a singlet state pair of quantum objects

produce 4 outcomes with no hidden variables? The answer is easy if you

bother to actually try to understand that Joy has shown how via 3-sphere

topology. In fact, Joy has shown in the following linked paper how *all*

quantum correlations might be produced via 7-sphere topology. Which is

actually much more profound than any "disproof" of Bell. Space may have

properties that control or "guide" the behavior of quantum objects and those

properties are probably not revealed on a macroscopic level.

http://arxiv.org/abs/1101.1958

Best,

Fred Diether

Jan 5, 2012, 2:57:02 AM1/5/12

to

On Jan 4, 10:17=A0am, Daryl McCullough <stevendaryl3...@yahoo.com>

wrote:

"A real Stern-Gerlach apparatus does not produce the discrete

statistical distribution of electron trajectories usually ascribed to it

in simplified descriptions. Instead, it produces a continuous

distribution having two maxima, but with a nonzero probability of

finding an electron in any finite region between them. Trying to decide

if the electron is deflected up or down then becomes just another

instance of the problem of making a discrete decision based upon a

continuous input value, so nothing has been gained by measuring the

discrete spin value."

It is critical to understand that when we are dealing with a continuous

function framework, as Lamport cites and which Joy treats, there is no

counterpart quantum mechanical measurement theory to: "Buridan=92s Law

of Measurement. If x < y < z, then any measurement performed in a

bounded length of time that has a nonzero probability of yielding a

value in a neighborhood of x and a nonzero probability of yielding a

value in a neighborhood of z must also have a nonzero probability of

yielding a value in a neighborhood of y."

The discrete decision ("Is the value greater or less than y"?) produces

a set of yes-no answers -- what Joy identifies as a fair coin in his

explanations -- that correlate 100% of each classical position of the

detector settings to at least one quantum state. That's all that is

required for mathematical completeness -- EPR and Bell's theorem are

based on classical assumptions, not quantum. As Lamport points out:

"Buridan=92s Principle rests upon mathematical concepts of continuity

and boundedness that are not physically observable. No real experiment,

having finite precision, can demonstrate the presence or absence of

continuity, which is defined in terms of limits. No experiment can

demonstrate that an arbiter requires an unbounded length of time to

reach a decision. An experiment in which the arbiter failed to decide

within a week does not prove that it would not always decide within a

year."

>Roughly

> speaking, the spin direction is determined by the deflection of

> the electron in a magnetic field, but for sufficiently high-velocity

> electrons, the deflection will be negligible. To me, this seems to

> mean that the theoretical correlations predicted by quantum mechanics

> will not be precisely mirrored by any actual experiment. I don't see

> why that observation is relevant to Christian's model, however.

My example shows that unitarity of Bell-Aspect results (0.5 + 0.5)

is subsumed in a full cycle of 4 pi rotations of fixed and oscillating

variables, consistent with Joy's framework..

>

> In the paper you cite, it is said that "Joy Christian's time-dependent

> model is deterministic with definite probabilities on the interval

> [0,1]." First of all, I didn't see time-dependence

> in Christian's model.

A continuous function has time-reverse symmetry. When that symmetry is

broken by the initial condition, the topology is orientable and the

system is time dependent.

> Second, I don't understand how the statistical

> prediction comes out of Christian's model:

>

> Probability that Bob's detector measures spin-up

> given that Alice's detector measures spin-up

> =3D sin^2(theta/2), where theta is the angle between

> the two detector orientations.

Remember -- the framework is not probabilistic, and thus obviates

assumptions that support probability theory. You are only assuming what

is to be proved, on the principle of equally likely outcomes. That

principle does not apply here.

> You make the distinction between a model that is probabilistic

> and a model that is statistical. I'm not sure that I understand

> the distinction between the two, unless by statistical you mean

> the apparent nondeterminism that results from ignoring fine-grained

> details.

I only make a distinction between statistical analysis and probabilistic

measure. The measure is classical and therefore non-probabilistic, but

the set of results that I think should be clear in what Lamport said,

will give us continuous correlation between every possible detector

setting and at least one quantum state. We're dealing with a continuous

range of values, not discrete and equally likely probabilities.

I think Lamport's example using Kepler's orbits is excellent:

"Kepler's first law states that the orbit of a planet is an ellipse.

This is not experimentally verifiable because any finite-precision

measurement of the orbit is consistent with an infinite number of

mathematical curves. In practice, what we can deduce from Kepler's law

is that measurement of the orbit will, to a good approximation, be

consistent with the predicted ellipse."

Joy's mathematical framework -- like Kepler's law -- makes the right

prediction. But only real measurement can show that it is physically

true. Which in fact, is the case in all mathematically complete

physical theories -- because otherwise we cannot in principle avoid

either singularities or the assumption of nonlocality.

Tom

wrote:

> On Tuesday, January 3, 2012 1:20:22 PM UTC-5, Tom wrote:

> > Deterministic means non-probabilistic, it doesn't imply non-

> > statistical.

> > In fact, any real measurement in a bounded length of time begs

> > statistical inference. An example I posted on FQXi explicitly

> > shows that Bell-Aspect results are subsumed by Joy Christian's

> > framework. =A0http://fqxi.org/data/forum-attachments/2_Ferryman_Puzzle_=
> > Deterministic means non-probabilistic, it doesn't imply non-

> > statistical.

> > In fact, any real measurement in a bounded length of time begs

> > statistical inference. An example I posted on FQXi explicitly

> > shows that Bell-Aspect results are subsumed by Joy Christian's

rev.pdf

>

> Thanks for that reference, although I don't understand the

> discussion at all. I do understand Lamport's point about

> Buridan's Ass. It's discussed very clearly in the paper:

>http://research.microsoft.com/en-us/um/people/lamport/pubs/buridan.pdf

> I'm looking for level of clarity in a discussion about Christian's

> model, and I haven't found it yet.

>

> I can see the relevance of Lamport's Buridan's principle to EPR type

> experiments: When trying to decide whether an electron is spin-up or

> spin-down, there will be (if Lamport is correct) a number of cases

> for which it cannot be decided in a bounded amount of time.

Not a number of cases. 100% of the cases. As Lamport writes,
>

> Thanks for that reference, although I don't understand the

> discussion at all. I do understand Lamport's point about

> Buridan's Ass. It's discussed very clearly in the paper:

>http://research.microsoft.com/en-us/um/people/lamport/pubs/buridan.pdf

> I'm looking for level of clarity in a discussion about Christian's

> model, and I haven't found it yet.

>

> I can see the relevance of Lamport's Buridan's principle to EPR type

> experiments: When trying to decide whether an electron is spin-up or

> spin-down, there will be (if Lamport is correct) a number of cases

> for which it cannot be decided in a bounded amount of time.

"A real Stern-Gerlach apparatus does not produce the discrete

statistical distribution of electron trajectories usually ascribed to it

in simplified descriptions. Instead, it produces a continuous

distribution having two maxima, but with a nonzero probability of

finding an electron in any finite region between them. Trying to decide

if the electron is deflected up or down then becomes just another

instance of the problem of making a discrete decision based upon a

continuous input value, so nothing has been gained by measuring the

discrete spin value."

It is critical to understand that when we are dealing with a continuous

function framework, as Lamport cites and which Joy treats, there is no

counterpart quantum mechanical measurement theory to: "Buridan=92s Law

of Measurement. If x < y < z, then any measurement performed in a

bounded length of time that has a nonzero probability of yielding a

value in a neighborhood of x and a nonzero probability of yielding a

value in a neighborhood of z must also have a nonzero probability of

yielding a value in a neighborhood of y."

The discrete decision ("Is the value greater or less than y"?) produces

a set of yes-no answers -- what Joy identifies as a fair coin in his

explanations -- that correlate 100% of each classical position of the

detector settings to at least one quantum state. That's all that is

required for mathematical completeness -- EPR and Bell's theorem are

based on classical assumptions, not quantum. As Lamport points out:

"Buridan=92s Principle rests upon mathematical concepts of continuity

and boundedness that are not physically observable. No real experiment,

having finite precision, can demonstrate the presence or absence of

continuity, which is defined in terms of limits. No experiment can

demonstrate that an arbiter requires an unbounded length of time to

reach a decision. An experiment in which the arbiter failed to decide

within a week does not prove that it would not always decide within a

year."

>Roughly

> speaking, the spin direction is determined by the deflection of

> the electron in a magnetic field, but for sufficiently high-velocity

> electrons, the deflection will be negligible. To me, this seems to

> mean that the theoretical correlations predicted by quantum mechanics

> will not be precisely mirrored by any actual experiment. I don't see

> why that observation is relevant to Christian's model, however.

is subsumed in a full cycle of 4 pi rotations of fixed and oscillating

variables, consistent with Joy's framework..

>

> In the paper you cite, it is said that "Joy Christian's time-dependent

> model is deterministic with definite probabilities on the interval

> [0,1]." First of all, I didn't see time-dependence

> in Christian's model.

broken by the initial condition, the topology is orientable and the

system is time dependent.

> Second, I don't understand how the statistical

> prediction comes out of Christian's model:

>

> Probability that Bob's detector measures spin-up

> given that Alice's detector measures spin-up

> the two detector orientations.

Remember -- the framework is not probabilistic, and thus obviates

assumptions that support probability theory. You are only assuming what

is to be proved, on the principle of equally likely outcomes. That

principle does not apply here.

> You make the distinction between a model that is probabilistic

> and a model that is statistical. I'm not sure that I understand

> the distinction between the two, unless by statistical you mean

> the apparent nondeterminism that results from ignoring fine-grained

> details.

measure. The measure is classical and therefore non-probabilistic, but

the set of results that I think should be clear in what Lamport said,

will give us continuous correlation between every possible detector

setting and at least one quantum state. We're dealing with a continuous

range of values, not discrete and equally likely probabilities.

I think Lamport's example using Kepler's orbits is excellent:

"Kepler's first law states that the orbit of a planet is an ellipse.

This is not experimentally verifiable because any finite-precision

measurement of the orbit is consistent with an infinite number of

mathematical curves. In practice, what we can deduce from Kepler's law

is that measurement of the orbit will, to a good approximation, be

consistent with the predicted ellipse."

Joy's mathematical framework -- like Kepler's law -- makes the right

prediction. But only real measurement can show that it is physically

true. Which in fact, is the case in all mathematically complete

physical theories -- because otherwise we cannot in principle avoid

either singularities or the assumption of nonlocality.

Tom

Jan 5, 2012, 8:27:22 AM1/5/12

to

Jan 5, 2012, 11:02:18 AM1/5/12

to

On Jan 5, 8:57=A0am, Tom <thray...@aol.com> wrote:

...

> true.

Has it been coded in a computer program already? Since it

is a local and realistic model then this is by definition possible.

Just some operations on a few bi-vectors or quaternions would

suffice! And then "simulated measurements" will either show

you correlations with the quantum-mechanics value (if Christian

is right) or just the classical value (if Bell is right).

Simply converting the equations to Matlab or Fortran gives you

the answer! I'm convinced Christian would agree with this.

--

Jos

...

> Joy's mathematical framework -- like Kepler's law -- makes the right

> prediction. =A0But only real measurement can show that it is physically
> true.

Has it been coded in a computer program already? Since it

is a local and realistic model then this is by definition possible.

Just some operations on a few bi-vectors or quaternions would

suffice! And then "simulated measurements" will either show

you correlations with the quantum-mechanics value (if Christian

is right) or just the classical value (if Bell is right).

Simply converting the equations to Matlab or Fortran gives you

the answer! I'm convinced Christian would agree with this.

--

Jos

Jan 5, 2012, 1:50:53 PM1/5/12

to

On Thursday, January 5, 2012 2:57:01 AM UTC-5, FrediFizzx wrote:

> "Daryl McCullough" <stevend...@yahoo.com> wrote

> > I certainly understand the difficulties of experimental analysis

> > in determining which events are part of a twin pair, and which

> > events are noise. But those complexities don't seem relevant to

> > Christian's arguments about Bell's theorem.

>

> Well, the statistics involved sure is a part of his argument.

So you are saying that the statistics of errors (missed detections

and false detections) are analyzed in his model? Where?

> > Christian specifically limited the possible values of mu to real

> > tri-vectors. Yes, if it were allowed to be complex, that would

> > allow more possibilities, but his model does not involve complex

> > tri-vectors.

>

> I suspect you don't understand what the tri-vectors are structure-wise in

> the model.

I understand Clifford algebras. But you're certainly

right, I don't understand how tri-vectors are used in predicting

the probability that Alice will measure spin-up given that Bob

measured spin-up. That's why I started this thread, to see if

anyone can explain how these probabilities are derived in

Christian's model. To respond that I don't understand is just

to repeat the premise of this thread.

> > I didn't mean it as a criticism of Christian, I meant it as

> > a way of asking a question about it. I don't understand how,

> > if the hidden variable mu can only take on two values (which

> > he assumes it does), how one can get 4 different outcomes,

> > if everything is deterministic (which I thought he was claiming).

> > If things are not deterministic, then I don't understand where

> > the additional nondeterminism is coming from in his model.

>

> Joy has responded to the above several times now.

Not in any clear way. Empirically, we find that if

Bob measures spin up along his choice of axis b,

then Alice will measure spin-up along her axis a

a fraction of the time

sin^2(theta/2)

where theta is the angle between the two axes. I've

asked repeatedly how that probabilistic result is

derived within Christian's model. I don't care so

much about the details of computing with Clifford

algebras--what's missing is a clear statement of

what it is that Christian is claiming:

Is he claiming that Alice's result is a deterministic

function of mu and her axis choice a, or not? If

he is, then where is the probabilistic aspect

coming from? What does the sin^2(theta/2) represent?

> I wish you would answer my question that I have asked

> you several times in the private email discussion.

Asking which line I had trouble with is completely

pointless. The problems I have with Christian's model are much

more basic than not understanding a specific mathematical

derivation. I don't understand what he is even claiming.

Is he claiming, in the spin-1/2 EPR experiment, that

Alice's result is a deterministic function of her

axis choice a and the value of the "hidden variable"

mu? That is, is he claiming (in the case where Alice's

axis a is held fixed) that in two different rounds of

an EPR experiment in which Alice recorded "spin-up"

during one round and "spin-down" during a second round,

that that means that mu took on different values for

those two rounds?

That's a very basic question, and I can't seem

to get an answer from anyone who claims to understand

Christian's model.

> "Daryl McCullough" <stevend...@yahoo.com> wrote

> > I certainly understand the difficulties of experimental analysis

> > in determining which events are part of a twin pair, and which

> > events are noise. But those complexities don't seem relevant to

> > Christian's arguments about Bell's theorem.

>

> Well, the statistics involved sure is a part of his argument.

and false detections) are analyzed in his model? Where?

> > Christian specifically limited the possible values of mu to real

> > tri-vectors. Yes, if it were allowed to be complex, that would

> > allow more possibilities, but his model does not involve complex

> > tri-vectors.

>

> I suspect you don't understand what the tri-vectors are structure-wise in

> the model.

right, I don't understand how tri-vectors are used in predicting

the probability that Alice will measure spin-up given that Bob

measured spin-up. That's why I started this thread, to see if

anyone can explain how these probabilities are derived in

Christian's model. To respond that I don't understand is just

to repeat the premise of this thread.

> > I didn't mean it as a criticism of Christian, I meant it as

> > a way of asking a question about it. I don't understand how,

> > if the hidden variable mu can only take on two values (which

> > he assumes it does), how one can get 4 different outcomes,

> > if everything is deterministic (which I thought he was claiming).

> > If things are not deterministic, then I don't understand where

> > the additional nondeterminism is coming from in his model.

>

> Joy has responded to the above several times now.

Bob measures spin up along his choice of axis b,

then Alice will measure spin-up along her axis a

a fraction of the time

sin^2(theta/2)

where theta is the angle between the two axes. I've

asked repeatedly how that probabilistic result is

derived within Christian's model. I don't care so

much about the details of computing with Clifford

algebras--what's missing is a clear statement of

what it is that Christian is claiming:

Is he claiming that Alice's result is a deterministic

function of mu and her axis choice a, or not? If

he is, then where is the probabilistic aspect

coming from? What does the sin^2(theta/2) represent?

> I wish you would answer my question that I have asked

> you several times in the private email discussion.

pointless. The problems I have with Christian's model are much

more basic than not understanding a specific mathematical

derivation. I don't understand what he is even claiming.

Is he claiming, in the spin-1/2 EPR experiment, that

Alice's result is a deterministic function of her

axis choice a and the value of the "hidden variable"

mu? That is, is he claiming (in the case where Alice's

axis a is held fixed) that in two different rounds of

an EPR experiment in which Alice recorded "spin-up"

during one round and "spin-down" during a second round,

that that means that mu took on different values for

those two rounds?

That's a very basic question, and I can't seem

to get an answer from anyone who claims to understand

Christian's model.

Jan 6, 2012, 1:34:21 AM1/6/12

to

"Daryl McCullough" <stevend...@yahoo.com> wrote in message

news:15720230.219.1325768845268.JavaMail.geo-discussion-forums@vbbeg7...
> On Thursday, January 5, 2012 2:57:01 AM UTC-5, FrediFizzx wrote:

>> I wish you would answer my question that I have asked

>> you several times in the private email discussion.

>

> Asking which line I had trouble with is completely

> pointless. The problems I have with Christian's model are much

> more basic than not understanding a specific mathematical

> derivation.

I didn't ask which line you had trouble with. I asked if you understood
>> I wish you would answer my question that I have asked

>> you several times in the private email discussion.

>

> Asking which line I had trouble with is completely

> pointless. The problems I have with Christian's model are much

> more basic than not understanding a specific mathematical

> derivation.

everything up to the top of page 4. And if you don't, what specifically

don't you understand? We can't answer your question(s) unless you are

willing to get thru all the math with an understanding that is necessary to

properly explain it.

> I don't understand what he is even claiming.

now. What does "On the Origins of Quantum Correlations" tell you?

http://arxiv.org/abs/1201.0775

New paper

Best,

Fred Diether

Jan 6, 2012, 3:14:34 AM1/6/12

to

On Jan 5, 11:02=A0am, Jos Bergervoet <jos.r.bergerv...@gmail.com> wrote:

No, I don't think so, though Joy can speak for himself. The problem is

that infinities will show up in this calculation, just as with the

infinite set of curves in the Kepler example, because the motion is

infinitely orientable. Yes, we can make assumptions of boundary

conditions based on topology and initial condition, to get a reasonable

simulation. However, also referring back to Lamport's example, how

convincing could that be to a Bell loyalist assuming nonlocality? Not

at all, I would think -- infinite parameters simply implies GIGO.

Physically, the measurements have to be empirical to get a physical

result (which is how we know of Kepler's elliptical orbits, and not by

assuming an ellipsis).

Tom

> On Jan 5, 8:57=3DA0am, Tom <thray...@aol.com> wrote:

> ...

>

> > Joy's mathematical framework -- like Kepler's law -- makes the right

> > prediction. =3DA0But only real measurement can show that it is physically
> ...

>

> > Joy's mathematical framework -- like Kepler's law -- makes the right

> > true.

>

> Has it been coded in a computer program already? Since it

> is a local and realistic model then this is by definition possible.

> Just some operations on a few bi-vectors or quaternions would

> suffice! And then "simulated measurements" will either show

> you correlations with the quantum-mechanics value (if Christian

> is right) or just the classical value (if Bell is right).

>

> Simply converting the equations to Matlab or Fortran gives you

> the answer! I'm convinced Christian would agree with this.

>

> --

> Jos

Hi Jos,
>

> Has it been coded in a computer program already? Since it

> is a local and realistic model then this is by definition possible.

> Just some operations on a few bi-vectors or quaternions would

> suffice! And then "simulated measurements" will either show

> you correlations with the quantum-mechanics value (if Christian

> is right) or just the classical value (if Bell is right).

>

> Simply converting the equations to Matlab or Fortran gives you

> the answer! I'm convinced Christian would agree with this.

>

> --

> Jos

No, I don't think so, though Joy can speak for himself. The problem is

that infinities will show up in this calculation, just as with the

infinite set of curves in the Kepler example, because the motion is

infinitely orientable. Yes, we can make assumptions of boundary

conditions based on topology and initial condition, to get a reasonable

simulation. However, also referring back to Lamport's example, how

convincing could that be to a Bell loyalist assuming nonlocality? Not

at all, I would think -- infinite parameters simply implies GIGO.

Physically, the measurements have to be empirical to get a physical

result (which is how we know of Kepler's elliptical orbits, and not by

assuming an ellipsis).

Tom

Jan 6, 2012, 3:34:43 AM1/6/12

to

"FrediFizzx" <fredi...@hotmail.com> wrote in message

news:9mmci8...@mid.individual.net...

the earlier ones - he first explains what Bell claimed* (indeed, already

that is often misunderstood!) and next he replaces Bell's first equation

(1.1) which he deems to be wrong, by his equation (1.3).

Harald

* I spotted a little omission in one sentence: "Bell attempted to prove that

no theory satisfying this criterion" should be "Bell attempted to prove that

no theory satisfying this criterion and perfectly reproducing quantum

mechanics"

news:9mmci8...@mid.individual.net...

> "Daryl McCullough" <stevend...@yahoo.com> wrote in message

> news:15720230.219.1325768845268.JavaMail.geo-discussion-forums@vbbeg7...

>> On Thursday, January 5, 2012 2:57:01 AM UTC-5, FrediFizzx wrote:

[..]
> news:15720230.219.1325768845268.JavaMail.geo-discussion-forums@vbbeg7...

>> On Thursday, January 5, 2012 2:57:01 AM UTC-5, FrediFizzx wrote:

>> I don't understand what he is even claiming.

>

> Not sure how that could be when he has explained it to you several times

> now. What does "On the Origins of Quantum Correlations" tell you?

>

> http://arxiv.org/abs/1201.0775

> New paper

Thanks, at least the introduction of that paper ("book"?) looks clearer than
>

> Not sure how that could be when he has explained it to you several times

> now. What does "On the Origins of Quantum Correlations" tell you?

>

> http://arxiv.org/abs/1201.0775

> New paper

the earlier ones - he first explains what Bell claimed* (indeed, already

that is often misunderstood!) and next he replaces Bell's first equation

(1.1) which he deems to be wrong, by his equation (1.3).

Harald

* I spotted a little omission in one sentence: "Bell attempted to prove that

no theory satisfying this criterion" should be "Bell attempted to prove that

no theory satisfying this criterion and perfectly reproducing quantum

mechanics"

Jan 6, 2012, 4:42:45 AM1/6/12

to

On Thursday, January 5, 2012 2:57:01 AM UTC-5, FrediFizzx wrote:

> Joy has responded to the above several times now. I wish you would answer

> my question that I have asked you several times in the private email

> discussion. In the "Restoring..." paper, do you understand everything up to

> the top of page 4? If not, what don't you understand?

Let's start way back, on page 4, equations (16) and (17) of the paper
> my question that I have asked you several times in the private email

> discussion. In the "Restoring..." paper, do you understand everything up to

> the top of page 4? If not, what don't you understand?

http://arxiv.org/abs/1106.0748

Those two equations say: (the A and B below are

script-A and script-B in Christian's paper)

A(alpha,mu) = {-I . a-tilda}{ +mu . a-tilda }

= +1 if mu = +I

= -1 if mu = -I

B(beta,mu) = {+I . b-tilda}{ +mu . b-tilda }

= -1 if mu = +I

= +1 if mu = -I

Now, ordinary mathematics would say that these two equations

imply that, for all alpha, beta and mu,

A(alpha,mu) = - B(beta,mu)

In other words, this model seems to predict perfect

anti-correlation between Alice's result and Bob's

result. That is, assuming that A(alpha,mu) = +1

means that Alice will measure spin-up, and

B(beta,mu) = +1 means that Bob will measure spin-up.

That would seem to mean that if Alice measures

spin-up, then Bob will measure spin-down with

100% probability. In contrast, the quantum

prediction is that if Alice measures spin-up,

then Bob will measure spin-up with probability

sin^2(theta/2), where theta is the angle

between Alice's detector orientation and

Bob's detector orientation.

So, either (1) A and B do not represent predictions

about what Alice and Bob will measure, or (2) Christian's

model does not agree with the predictions of quantum

mechanics, or (3) Alice and Bob share different values

of mu, or ...

Jan 6, 2012, 4:43:07 AM1/6/12

to

>> In the belt trick, there are two fixed points that are topologically

>> identified. Actually, all the points of a 2-sphere surrounding the belt are

>> identified, which is equivalent to a point at infinity. But that is possible

>> only because there is a rigid material frame around it. There is not such

>> thing in a Bell-type experiment, at least in your model. In that instance,

>> the Dirac belt trick demonstrates nothing.

"Joy Christian" <hojo...@gmail.com> a �crit dans le message de
>> identified, which is equivalent to a point at infinity. But that is possible

>> only because there is a rigid material frame around it. There is not such

>> thing in a Bell-type experiment, at least in your model. In that instance,

>> the Dirac belt trick demonstrates nothing.

news:d1503675-1f55-4f82...@p42g2000vbt.googlegroups.com...

>

> Incorrect.

>

> In any EPR experiment there are two particles rotating

> with respect to each other. They are rotating (or spinning)

> in tandem, with each particle providing a material frame for

> the other. This is explained in greater detail in this paper:

> http://arxiv.org/abs/0806.3078 .

To be so, there must be a constraint such that the wave function has the
> Incorrect.

>

> In any EPR experiment there are two particles rotating

> with respect to each other. They are rotating (or spinning)

> in tandem, with each particle providing a material frame for

> the other. This is explained in greater detail in this paper:

> http://arxiv.org/abs/0806.3078 .

same value everywhere on a 2-sphere surrounding the whole setup. That

is not the case. Note that it is a strongly non-local constraint.

A similar idea is already used in a speculative (but consistent that

time) theory, the strand model: http://motionmountain.net/research.html

But that is possible because it isn't in the framework of quantum

theory.

Jan 6, 2012, 5:27:40 AM1/6/12

to

On Jan 6, 9:43am, "Cl.Mass " <akia...@fastwebnet.it> wrote:

> >> In the belt trick, there are two fixed points that are topologically

> >> identified. Actually, all the points of a 2-sphere surrounding the bel=
> >> In the belt trick, there are two fixed points that are topologically

t are

> >> identified, which is equivalent to a point at infinity. But that is=

possible

> >> only because there is a rigid material frame around it. There is no=

t such

> >> thing in a Bell-type experiment, at least in your model. In that in=

stance,

> >> the Dirac belt trick demonstrates nothing.

>

> "Joy Christian" <hojoin...@gmail.com> a crit dans le message denews:d1503=
> >> the Dirac belt trick demonstrates nothing.

>

675-1f55-4f82-8...@p42g2000vbt.googlegroups.com...

>

>

>

> > Incorrect.

>

> > In any EPR experiment there are two particles rotating

> > with respect to each other. They are rotating (or spinning)

> > in tandem, with each particle providing a material frame for

> > the other. This is explained in greater detail in this paper:

> >http://arxiv.org/abs/0806.3078.

>

> To be so, there must be a constraint such that the wave function has the

> same value everywhere on a 2-sphere surrounding the whole setup. That

> is not the case. Note that it is a strongly non-local constraint.

>

What wave function? There are no wave functions
>

>

> > Incorrect.

>

> > In any EPR experiment there are two particles rotating

> > with respect to each other. They are rotating (or spinning)

> > in tandem, with each particle providing a material frame for

> > the other. This is explained in greater detail in this paper:

> >http://arxiv.org/abs/0806.3078.

>

> To be so, there must be a constraint such that the wave function has the

> same value everywhere on a 2-sphere surrounding the whole setup. That

> is not the case. Note that it is a strongly non-local constraint.

>

in my model. It is a classical, local-realistic model.

>

> A similar idea is already used in a speculative (but consistent that

> time) theory, the strand model:http://motionmountain.net/research.html

> But that is possible because it isn't in the framework of quantum

> theory.

>

Bell's theorem is not about wave functions or quantum

mechanics; it is about classical, local-realistic theories.

Joy Christian

Jan 6, 2012, 11:10:25 AM1/6/12

to

On Wednesday, January 4, 2012 12:40:35 PM UTC-5, Joy Christian wrote:

I don't think it supports your claim. You said, specifically:

"For example, it can be of relevance

to physics at all if and only if the

measurement functions presupposed

by Bell, namely A(a, L) and B(b, L),

satisfy the completeness criterion of EPR."

Bell does not say anything about the functions A(a,L) and

B(b,L) satisfying any completeness criterion. He is talking

about completeness in terms of the parameter L. L is supposed

to be a parameter (or set of parameters) specifying the state

of the spin-1/2 particle prior to the measurement of its spin.

Bell says:

"...Since we can predict in advance the result of measuring

any chosen component of sigma-2...it follows that the result

of any such measurement must actually be predetermined...this

predetermination implies the possibility of a more complete

specification of the state.

"Let this more complete specification be effected by means

of parameters lambda."

It seems clear to me that he's talking about the completeness

of the parameters lambda, not the functions A(a,lambda) and

B(b,lambda). The point of the latter two functions is that

*if* the outcome of an experiment is predetermined by some

hidden variable lambda, (as well as the settings a and b)

then there exists functions A and B that specify the outcomes

as a function of a,b and lambda. There is no claim being

made that A and B in any sense are complete characterizations

of the state of the particle.

> EPR's is a logically impeccable argument

> which shows, once and for all, that the description

> of physical reality provided by quantum mechanics

> is necessarily incomplete.

I don't agree that it is logically impeccable, but

that's another topic.

> The EPR argument itself is

> of course based on four premises, one of them being

> the completeness criterion. Bell's goal was to show

> that these premises are inconsistent. In particular,

> the reality and completeness criteria of EPR are

> incompatible with their locality criterion. Bell thought

> he had succeeded in showing this in his theorem. He

> was wrong, as at least I have shown in my papers.

Well, the whole point of this thread is that I

don't see how your model shows what Bell was wrong.

Bell was arguing about the nonexistence of deterministic

functions A(a,lambda) and B(b,lambda) such that

A and B always return either +1 or -1 and such that

A(a,lambda) = +1 iff Alice measuring the spin of

a particle with parameter lambda along direction a

will measure spin-up, and -1 iff she will measure

spin-down, and B(b,lambda) similarly predicts the

outcomes of Bob's measurement of spin along an axis

b. I don't see that you have shown the existence of

such functions A and B.

> I do not like to flaunt my credentials in this matter.

> But since there are people out there who seem to

> think that I am just some fruitcake who has not really

> understood Bell's argument, let me point out that

> I have been in this business since 1983 and have

> learned about the EPR-Bell debate at the feet of

> the greatest authority on the subject, namely Abner

> Shimony, and have been privileged enough to have

> had discussions with Bell himself on the matter on

> several occasions. So I think I know a thing or two

> about Bell's motivation and his theorem.

But your claims seem to contradict claims made by

both Bell and Shimony (Shimony summarizes the various

arguments here: http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/bell-theorem/

> On Jan 4, 3:44 am, Daryl McCullough <stevend...@yahoo.com> wrote:

> > I think that's a misunderstanding of Bell's argument. He wasn't in

> > any way claiming that the functions A(a,L) and B(b,L) are in any

> > sense "complete" descriptions of physical reality. He was assuming

> > that they are "more complete" (that is, they contain more information)

> > than the pure probabilistic predictions of quantum mechanics.

>

> This is misleading. Please read the first paragraph

> of Bell's famous paper. He starts by summarizing the

> EPR argument and builds on it to develop his own

> argument.

The paper is available here: http://philoscience.unibe.ch/documents/TexteHS10/bell1964epr.pdf
> > I think that's a misunderstanding of Bell's argument. He wasn't in

> > any way claiming that the functions A(a,L) and B(b,L) are in any

> > sense "complete" descriptions of physical reality. He was assuming

> > that they are "more complete" (that is, they contain more information)

> > than the pure probabilistic predictions of quantum mechanics.

>

> This is misleading. Please read the first paragraph

> of Bell's famous paper. He starts by summarizing the

> EPR argument and builds on it to develop his own

> argument.

I don't think it supports your claim. You said, specifically:

"For example, it can be of relevance

to physics at all if and only if the

measurement functions presupposed

by Bell, namely A(a, L) and B(b, L),

satisfy the completeness criterion of EPR."

B(b,L) satisfying any completeness criterion. He is talking

about completeness in terms of the parameter L. L is supposed

to be a parameter (or set of parameters) specifying the state

of the spin-1/2 particle prior to the measurement of its spin.

Bell says:

"...Since we can predict in advance the result of measuring

any chosen component of sigma-2...it follows that the result

of any such measurement must actually be predetermined...this

predetermination implies the possibility of a more complete

specification of the state.

"Let this more complete specification be effected by means

of parameters lambda."

It seems clear to me that he's talking about the completeness

of the parameters lambda, not the functions A(a,lambda) and

B(b,lambda). The point of the latter two functions is that

*if* the outcome of an experiment is predetermined by some

hidden variable lambda, (as well as the settings a and b)

then there exists functions A and B that specify the outcomes

as a function of a,b and lambda. There is no claim being

made that A and B in any sense are complete characterizations

of the state of the particle.

> EPR's is a logically impeccable argument

> which shows, once and for all, that the description

> of physical reality provided by quantum mechanics

> is necessarily incomplete.

that's another topic.

> The EPR argument itself is

> of course based on four premises, one of them being

> the completeness criterion. Bell's goal was to show

> that these premises are inconsistent. In particular,

> the reality and completeness criteria of EPR are

> incompatible with their locality criterion. Bell thought

> he had succeeded in showing this in his theorem. He

> was wrong, as at least I have shown in my papers.

don't see how your model shows what Bell was wrong.

Bell was arguing about the nonexistence of deterministic

functions A(a,lambda) and B(b,lambda) such that

A and B always return either +1 or -1 and such that

A(a,lambda) = +1 iff Alice measuring the spin of

a particle with parameter lambda along direction a

will measure spin-up, and -1 iff she will measure

spin-down, and B(b,lambda) similarly predicts the

outcomes of Bob's measurement of spin along an axis

b. I don't see that you have shown the existence of

such functions A and B.

> I do not like to flaunt my credentials in this matter.

> But since there are people out there who seem to

> think that I am just some fruitcake who has not really

> understood Bell's argument, let me point out that

> I have been in this business since 1983 and have

> learned about the EPR-Bell debate at the feet of

> the greatest authority on the subject, namely Abner

> Shimony, and have been privileged enough to have

> had discussions with Bell himself on the matter on

> several occasions. So I think I know a thing or two

> about Bell's motivation and his theorem.

both Bell and Shimony (Shimony summarizes the various

arguments here: http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/bell-theorem/

Jan 6, 2012, 11:11:05 AM1/6/12

to

"Joy Christian" <hojo...@gmail.com> wrote in message

news:a414ec28-d874-4c5c...@m20g2000vbf.googlegroups.com...

I reiterate; you have successfully shown that Bell's theorem does not make

proper contact with physical reality as concerns EPRB type scenarios. Easy

to see if one actually studies what you have done.

> I do not like to flaunt my credentials in this matter.

> But since there are people out there who seem to

> think that I am just some fruitcake who has not really

> understood Bell's argument, let me point out that

> I have been in this business since 1983 and have

> learned about the EPR-Bell debate at the feet of

> the greatest authority on the subject, namely Abner

> Shimony, and have been privileged enough to have

> had discussions with Bell himself on the matter on

> several occasions. So I think I know a thing or two

> about Bell's motivation and his theorem.

Hear! Hear! It might actually be helpful if you did flaunt your

credentials more. I think this is the second time in hundreds of

discussions that I have read or been involved in that you mention the above.

But one only has to read / study your papers with *serious intent* to

realize that you are in fact an expert in this field. I am a bit

disappointed that many of the criticisms here in this current discussion are

"generic" and not based on more specific details of your work. People...

please study the content in the papers and if you don't understand parts of

them, I am sure Joy would be happy to try to explain those parts to you.

You might be surprised if you can get past your prejudices. See my post at

the beginning of this thread for important links. Or for all,

http://arxiv.org/find/grp_physics/1/au:+christian_joy/0/1/0/all/0/1

Best,

Fred Diether

news:a414ec28-d874-4c5c...@m20g2000vbf.googlegroups.com...

proper contact with physical reality as concerns EPRB type scenarios. Easy

to see if one actually studies what you have done.

> I do not like to flaunt my credentials in this matter.

> But since there are people out there who seem to

> think that I am just some fruitcake who has not really

> understood Bell's argument, let me point out that

> I have been in this business since 1983 and have

> learned about the EPR-Bell debate at the feet of

> the greatest authority on the subject, namely Abner

> Shimony, and have been privileged enough to have

> had discussions with Bell himself on the matter on

> several occasions. So I think I know a thing or two

> about Bell's motivation and his theorem.

credentials more. I think this is the second time in hundreds of

discussions that I have read or been involved in that you mention the above.

But one only has to read / study your papers with *serious intent* to

realize that you are in fact an expert in this field. I am a bit

disappointed that many of the criticisms here in this current discussion are

"generic" and not based on more specific details of your work. People...

please study the content in the papers and if you don't understand parts of

them, I am sure Joy would be happy to try to explain those parts to you.

You might be surprised if you can get past your prejudices. See my post at

the beginning of this thread for important links. Or for all,

http://arxiv.org/find/grp_physics/1/au:+christian_joy/0/1/0/all/0/1

Best,

Fred Diether

Jan 6, 2012, 11:11:58 AM1/6/12

to

On Jan 2, 7:05 pm, a student <of_1001_nig...@hotmail.com> wrote:

...

> ... she writes down the result

> +sqrt{3} if A.V is positive, and -sqrt{3} otherwise. Bob

> does the same (but relative to -V). What is the

> correlation between their measurement results? It is

> easily calculated as

> E(A,B) = -A.B,

> i.e, the same as the singlet state prediction. And

> look how local and realistic the model is! (and

> no topology required - clever me!).

Do you mean that Christian did not normalize the

correlation properly: E(A,B) / sqrt(E(A,A) E(B,B)) ?

Is there an equation in his paper where you could

simply insert the correct normalization and settle

this whole dispute?

And do you think that using S^3 instead of R^3 is

therefore not the essential distinction at all?

--

Jos

...

> ... she writes down the result

> +sqrt{3} if A.V is positive, and -sqrt{3} otherwise. Bob

> does the same (but relative to -V). What is the

> correlation between their measurement results? It is

> easily calculated as

> E(A,B) = -A.B,

> i.e, the same as the singlet state prediction. And

> look how local and realistic the model is! (and

> no topology required - clever me!).

Do you mean that Christian did not normalize the

correlation properly: E(A,B) / sqrt(E(A,A) E(B,B)) ?

Is there an equation in his paper where you could

simply insert the correct normalization and settle

this whole dispute?

And do you think that using S^3 instead of R^3 is

therefore not the essential distinction at all?

--

Jos

Jan 6, 2012, 11:12:32 AM1/6/12

to

On Thursday, January 5, 2012 2:57:02 AM UTC-5, Tom wrote:

he is ambiguous about whether he is saying it applies in *every*

case, or in certain cases. He states (Section 2, page 4):

"A survey article on reaction times mentions two models that

describe the time needed to make a binary decision. Both models

predict that the decision time increases to infinity as the

stimulus approaches the point at which the correct decision

changes from zero to one."

That would seem to say that only ambiguous cases would

require infinite time. The claim that *every* binary

decision requires infinite time is completely contra

>Daryl McCullough wrote:

> > I can see the relevance of Lamport's Buridan's principle to EPR type

> > experiments: When trying to decide whether an electron is spin-up or

> > spin-down, there will be (if Lamport is correct) a number of cases

> > for which it cannot be decided in a bounded amount of time.

>

> Not a number of cases. 100% of the cases.

I read through Lamport's paper again, and it seems to me that
> > I can see the relevance of Lamport's Buridan's principle to EPR type

> > experiments: When trying to decide whether an electron is spin-up or

> > spin-down, there will be (if Lamport is correct) a number of cases

> > for which it cannot be decided in a bounded amount of time.

>

> Not a number of cases. 100% of the cases.

he is ambiguous about whether he is saying it applies in *every*

case, or in certain cases. He states (Section 2, page 4):

"A survey article on reaction times mentions two models that

describe the time needed to make a binary decision. Both models

predict that the decision time increases to infinity as the

stimulus approaches the point at which the correct decision

changes from zero to one."

That would seem to say that only ambiguous cases would

require infinite time. The claim that *every* binary

decision requires infinite time is completely contra