Joy Christian's LHV Model that disproves Bell - Printable Version +- Hidden Variables (https://ilja-schmelzer.de/hidden-variables) +-- Forum: Foundations of Quantum Theory (https://ilja-schmelzer.de/hidden-variables/forumdisplay.php?fid=3) +--- Forum: The Violation of Bell's Inequalities (https://ilja-schmelzer.de/hidden-variables/forumdisplay.php?fid=7) +--- Thread: Joy Christian's LHV Model that disproves Bell (/showthread.php?tid=55) Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 RE: Joy Christian's LHV Model that disproves Bell - FrediFizzx - 07-05-2016 (07-05-2016, 08:12 AM)Schmelzer Wrote: (07-05-2016, 07:18 AM)FrediFizzx Wrote: Folks, Joy Christian's model is officially published here, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.aop.2016.06.021 arXiv version of the published paper http://arxiv.org/abs/1405.2355 There are no errors in the paper.  You guys need to face that fact now.  If you want to reject the postulates then that is fine we can debate that.  It is time to get some honesty here.  "You should be ashamed". LOL.  Thanks for the link.  Gill, are you interested in publishing the refutation in Annals of Physics?   If not I will do it. LOL back at you!  OMG, you will have to get the published paper and actually read it.  Wonders never cease to exist! Let's see how well your 1 = 2 illusion works on people that actually understand the math and physics. RE: Joy Christian's LHV Model that disproves Bell - HVS - 07-07-2016 (07-05-2016, 07:10 PM)FrediFizzx Wrote: (07-05-2016, 08:12 AM)Schmelzer Wrote: (07-05-2016, 07:18 AM)FrediFizzx Wrote: Folks, Joy Christian's model is officially published here, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.aop.2016.06.021 arXiv version of the published paper http://arxiv.org/abs/1405.2355 There are no errors in the paper.  You guys need to face that fact now.  If you want to reject the postulates then that is fine we can debate that.  It is time to get some honesty here.  "You should be ashamed". LOL.  Thanks for the link.  Gill, are you interested in publishing the refutation in Annals of Physics?   If not I will do it. LOL back at you!  OMG, you will have to get the published paper and actually read it.  Wonders never cease to exist! Let's see how well your 1 = 2 illusion works on people that actually understand the math and physics.Fredi, Is the right-most term of equation (50) in http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0003491616300975 NON-local? It contains the OUTER product of two detector orientations, the detectors being spacelike separated. (There is no problem with the INNER product and neither product has anything to do with space-time curvature.) RE: Joy Christian's LHV Model that disproves Bell - FrediFizzx - 07-07-2016 (07-07-2016, 06:45 AM)HVS Wrote: Fredi, Is the right-most term of equation (50) in http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0003491616300975 NON-local? It contains the OUTER product of two detector orientations, the detectors being spacelike separated. (There is no problem with the INNER product and neither product has anything to do with space-time curvature.) No, there Joy is talking about the spin of the two particles at creation.  So $$L(a \times b, \lambda)$$ is local. RE: Joy Christian's LHV Model that disproves Bell - HVS - 07-07-2016 (07-07-2016, 07:10 AM)FrediFizzx Wrote: (07-07-2016, 06:45 AM)HVS Wrote: Fredi, Is the right-most term of equation (50) in http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0003491616300975 NON-local? It contains the OUTER product of two detector orientations, the detectors being spacelike separated. (There is no problem with the INNER product and neither product has anything to do with space-time curvature.) No, there Joy is talking about the spin of the two particles at creation.  So $$L(a \times b, \lambda)$$ is local. But a and b need not exist when the two particles are created because the detectors can be set while the particles are in flight. If  a and b did exist when the two particles are created, then that would be, most certainly, a NON-local connection! RE: Joy Christian's LHV Model that disproves Bell - FrediFizzx - 07-07-2016 (07-07-2016, 07:19 AM)HVS Wrote: (07-07-2016, 07:10 AM)FrediFizzx Wrote: (07-07-2016, 06:45 AM)HVS Wrote: Fredi, Is the right-most term of equation (50) in http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0003491616300975 NON-local? It contains the OUTER product of two detector orientations, the detectors being spacelike separated. (There is no problem with the INNER product and neither product has anything to do with space-time curvature.) No, there Joy is talking about the spin of the two particles at creation.  So $$L(a \times b, \lambda)$$ is local. But a and b need not exist when the two particles are created because the detectors can be set while the particles are in flight. If  a and b did exist when the two particles are created, then that would be, most certainly, a NON-local connection! Please read the text before that.  a and b have nothing to do with detectors yet.  Joy is just showing a bivector identity.  Really it is just math at that point but if you put it to the physics of the particle pair, just consider it at creation. RE: Joy Christian's LHV Model that disproves Bell - HVS - 07-07-2016 (07-07-2016, 07:28 AM)FrediFizzx Wrote: (07-07-2016, 07:19 AM)HVS Wrote: (07-07-2016, 07:10 AM)FrediFizzx Wrote: (07-07-2016, 06:45 AM)HVS Wrote: Fredi, Is the right-most term of equation (50) in http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0003491616300975 NON-local? It contains the OUTER product of two detector orientations, the detectors being spacelike separated. (There is no problem with the INNER product and neither product has anything to do with space-time curvature.) No, there Joy is talking about the spin of the two particles at creation.  So $$L(a \times b, \lambda)$$ is local. But a and b need not exist when the two particles are created because the detectors can be set while the particles are in flight. If  a and b did exist when the two particles are created, then that would be, most certainly, a NON-local connection! Please read the text before that.  a and b have nothing to do with detectors yet.  Joy is just showing a bivector identity.  Really it is just math at that point but if you put it to the physics of the particle pair, just consider it at creation. Equation (50) is used in connecting equation (65) to (66), where a and b have everything to do with spacelike separated detectors. It seems that, at (65), Dr Christian puts (50) into the physics of the particle pair NON-locally. RE: Joy Christian's LHV Model that disproves Bell - FrediFizzx - 07-07-2016 (07-07-2016, 07:51 AM)HVS Wrote: Equation (50) is used in connecting equation (65) to (66), where a and b have everything to do with spacelike separated detectors. It seems that, at (65), Dr Christian puts (50) into the physics of the particle pair NON-locally. If it helps you, change the a and b in eq. (50) to s1 and s2 respectively. The detector bivectors are D(a) and D(b). But it is easy to see that they drop out of the calculation. I think it is all explained in the text very well. RE: Joy Christian's LHV Model that disproves Bell - gill1109 - 07-07-2016 (07-07-2016, 06:45 AM)HVS Wrote: Is the right-most term of equation (50) in http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0003491616300975 NON-local? It contains the OUTER product of two detector orientations, the detectors being spacelike separated. (There is no problem with the INNER product and neither product has anything to do with space-time curvature.) The right-most term of equation (50) is quite simply *wrong*: it contradicts (51) and (52) according to which $$L(a, \lambda) L(b, \lambda) = \lambda I a \lambda I b = - ab$$, independent of lambda. I use here the facts lambda^2 = 1, I^2 = -1, and the fact that the scalar lambda and pseudo-scalar I commute with everything. RE: Joy Christian's LHV Model that disproves Bell - HVS - 07-07-2016 (07-07-2016, 08:11 AM)FrediFizzx Wrote: (07-07-2016, 07:51 AM)HVS Wrote: Equation (50) is used in connecting equation (65) to (66), where a and b have everything to do with spacelike separated detectors. It seems that, at (65), Dr Christian puts (50) into the physics of the particle pair NON-locally. If it helps you, change the a and b in eq. (50) to s1 and s2 respectively.  The detector bivectors are D(a) and D(b).  But it is easy to see that they drop out of the calculation.  I think it is all explained in the text very well. What are s1 and s2 when Dr Christian has recently employed (with a and b on 23 May 2016) the troublesome NON-local equation (50) as equation (23) in https://arxiv.org/pdf/1501.03393.pdf ? (07-07-2016, 08:16 AM)gill1109 Wrote: (07-07-2016, 06:45 AM)HVS Wrote: Is the right-most term of equation (50) in http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0003491616300975 NON-local? It contains the OUTER product of two detector orientations, the detectors being spacelike separated. (There is no problem with the INNER product and neither product has anything to do with space-time curvature.) The right-most term of equation (50) is quite simply *wrong*: it contradicts (51) and (52) according to which $$L(a, \lambda) L(b, \lambda) = \lambda I a \lambda I b = - ab$$, independent of lambda. I use here the facts lambda^2 = 1, I^2 = -1, and the fact that the scalar lambda and pseudo-scalar I commute with everything.The sign is right BUT how does your calculation deliver the inner (scalar) product of a and b? RE: Joy Christian's LHV Model that disproves Bell - FrediFizzx - 07-07-2016 (07-07-2016, 12:32 PM)HVS Wrote: What are s1 and s2 when Dr Christian has recently employed (with a and b on 23 May 2016) the troublesome NON-local equation (50) as equation (23) in https://arxiv.org/pdf/1501.03393.pdf ?Call a and b in eq. (50) x and y if you wish so you don't mix them up with a and b from detectors. Eqs. (50) and (23) in the other paper are just mathematical identities of the bivector algebra. If you consider that it all happens instantaneously the cross product is local. As well as the dot product. You seem to be unnecessarily confusing yourself.