Login Register

Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Joy Christian's LHV Model that disproves Bell
#71
"An error in ref. [1] "Local Causality in a Friedmann-Robertson-Walker Spacetime"? How about equation (23) of http://arxiv.org/pdf/1405.2355v3.pdf . The set Lambda is empty."

Richard, are you deliberately trying to mislead?  The follow-up is " ... this set is invariant under the rotations of n."

Invariance under rotation defines continuation into the co-domain.  Huh

Don't you understand after all this time that Joy's framework is analytical and nonlinear -- not dependent on detector choice of settings?  You are still arguing with a strawman.
Reply
#72
I hadn't forgotten, but was ignoring, the part at the end, trying to give maximum benefit of the doubt. As I said I'm supposing that nonsense one-pager is the result of insanity or something, and was tacked on to this paper while in that state. It occurrred to me to mention that, but didn't realize how nit-picky you'd be.

As for eqn 23, let's see. nu sub z-e0, ... Don't remember what z was and don't feel like hunting for it, but this is some angle, conceivably pi or greater AFAIK.  kappa is +1 (could be -1, ignore that), the 2 / sqrt term could therefore actually equal precisely 1 , so -1 plus it could be = 0, in which case abs val of cos would always be >= it, and the set non-empty. Perhaps if I cared what z was I'd see that sometimes the condition becomes non-trivial, and for some n (it does say "for all n") it fails. So I can believe that it's always empty as you say. But it's not immediately obvious, and I still don't know - or care. Since I was overall-reviewing this thing, looking for gross errors, I let that slide and never came back to it.

I spent a couple hours (2 1/2), had to remember Clifford algebra, review FLRW, go through this and his two other papers (dozen pages of completely unfamiliar stuff). Found gross errors, and was done. To make it an unbiased trial ignored your and Schmelzer's criticisms for the exercise.

It's interesting to note the "s goes to a and b simultaneously" error can be analyzed two different ways; your way and the one I came up with. I supposed he meant to have two s's with subscripts going to a and b separately, (giving max benefit of doubt) but still get -1 correlation (obviously). Whereas you suppose it forces a to equal b, giving same result. You're not giving benefit of doubt; your supposition would be very dumb. Still, it's pretty dumb my way also.

Anyway I felt rather proud of myself. Now you come back to tell me (after I agree with you!) that I should have seen an error in (23). Note, you've studied this thing for 2 1/2 years, not hours. Instead of thanking me for the effort, you point this out and also mention about the end of the paper reproducing the one-pager, as though I didn't notice it. Gratuitously mentioning, after I said I couldn't see anything wrong, after studying Clifford algebra and other background material for two hours and then spending 20 minutes on it, that it's "incoherent from beginning to end". Thanks for the vote of confidence.

I'm beginning to understand how it is that this circus has lasted so long. [...]
Reply
#73
Secur wrote:  "It's interesting to note the 's goes to a and b simultaneously' error can be analyzed two different ways; your way and the one I came up with. I supposed he meant to have two s's with subscripts going to a and b separately, (giving max benefit of doubt) but still get -1 correlation (obviously). Whereas you suppose it forces a to equal b, giving same result."

Then there's the third (and correct) way:  by analytic continuation through a point at infinity to the co-domain S^3.  Due to special relativity, the speed of light limit makes the measure finite and local.
Reply
#74
(06-20-2016, 09:28 AM)secur Wrote: The paper linked to above by gill1109, "Disproof of Bell’s Theorem" contains elementary errors, as he says. You can blame it on taking the limit of s as it goes to both a and b; Schmelzer gave another way to look at it a while ago, I believe. The correlation is -1, not -(a.b).

Joy Christian should not have published those one-pagers, they're too easy to figure out; even I can do it. ref. [1], is much harder and I still don't know where the error is. Unfortunately I started with that one; should have started with the one-pagers.
Sorry but you still don't understand the one page paper.  If you get the result of -1 then you are rejecting the \(S^3\) postulate.

There are two particles which both have "s" from their common creation.  One particle's "s" goes to "a" the other goes to "b".  It is quite simple really. Don't let Gill confuse you about that.
Reply
#75
(06-20-2016, 03:43 PM)secur Wrote: As for eqn 23, let's see. nu sub z-e0, ... Don't remember what z was and don't feel like hunting for it, but this is some angle, conceivably pi or greater AFAIK.  kappa is +1 (could be -1, ignore that), the 2 / sqrt term could therefore actually equal precisely 1 , so -1 plus it could be = 0, in which case abs val of cos would always be >= it, and the set non-empty. Perhaps if I cared what z was I'd see that sometimes the condition becomes non-trivial, and for some n (it does say "for all n") it fails. So I can believe that it's always empty as you say.
-
You had it mostly right at first.  It is definitely non-empty.  Gill is again trying his best to mislead.  It is just a condition for determining what the complete states are.  Very important because you can't detect what isn't there in the first place.

Trust me, I am not going to mislead you.
Reply
#76
(06-20-2016, 05:37 PM)FrediFizzx Wrote: There are two particles which both have "s" from their common creation.  One particle's "s" goes to "a" the other goes to "b".  It is quite simple really.
Is this the way one has to interpret the formula containing some meaningless limit operation of the type \[\lim_{s\to a\,\,s\to b} F(s)?\]

In this case, the reasonable way would be to distinguish the two versions of s and write a formula distinguishing them, like
\[\lim_{s_1\to a\,\,s_2\to b}  F(s_1, s_2).\]
Reply
#77
(06-21-2016, 04:18 AM)FrediFizzx Wrote:
(06-20-2016, 03:43 PM)secur Wrote: As for eqn 23, let's see. nu sub z-e0, ... Don't remember what z was and don't feel like hunting for it, but this is some angle, conceivably pi or greater AFAIK.  kappa is +1 (could be -1, ignore that), the 2 / sqrt term could therefore actually equal precisely 1 , so -1 plus it could be = 0, in which case abs val of cos would always be >= it, and the set non-empty. Perhaps if I cared what z was I'd see that sometimes the condition becomes non-trivial, and for some n (it does say "for all n") it fails. So I can believe that it's always empty as you say.
-
You had it mostly right at first.  It is definitely non-empty.  Gill is again trying his best to mislead.  It is just a condition for determining what the complete states are.  Very important because you can't detect what isn't there in the first place.

Trust me, I am not going to mislead you.
_
Well, you are probably going to ask why you should trust me.  First of all I am not going to tell you lies.  I have been studying Joy Christian's work for a very long time and know it pretty well and I would rather spend my time teaching you the truth about it if you really want to know it better.  It seems like you do.  Perhaps it intrigues you a bit.

It really just boils down to this.  If you accept the postulates of the model, then Bell was wrong.  If you don't accept the postulates of the model, then I probably can't teach you anything about it.  Here are the very simple physically sensible postulates again.

1.  In the EPR-Bohm scenario, the particle pairs as a system can be either left or right hand oriented (hidden variable).

2. And they behave via parallelized 3-sphere topology.

That is all there is to it for the postulates.

(06-21-2016, 06:36 AM)Schmelzer Wrote:
(06-20-2016, 05:37 PM)FrediFizzx Wrote: There are two particles which both have "s" from their common creation.  One particle's "s" goes to "a" the other goes to "b".  It is quite simple really.
Is this the way one has to interpret the meanigless formula containing \[\lim_{s\to a\,\,s\to b}?\]
_
How else would someone interpret it?  This is about the EPR-Bohm scenario after all.  If helps you to keep track of it, you could label them as \(s_A\) and \(s_B\) with \(s = s_A = s_B\).
Reply
#78
[Sorry for having edited my post during the time you were answering. So, what FrediFizzx has quoted was, at that moment, my complete answer.]
(06-21-2016, 06:42 AM)FrediFizzx Wrote: How else would someone interpret it?  This is about the EPR-Bohm scenario after all.  If helps you to keep track of it, you could label them as \(s_A\) and \(s_B\) with \(s = s_A = s_B\).
Sorry, formulas should not have any freedom for interpretation. Anyway, a formula of type
\[ \lim_{s_A\to a\,\, s_B\to b} F(s_A, s_B)\]
does not make sense if, on the one hand, \(s = s_A = s_B\), and, on the other hand, \(a\neq b\).
Reply
#79
(06-20-2016, 03:43 PM)secur Wrote: I hadn't forgotten, but was ignoring, the part at the end, trying to give maximum benefit of the doubt. As I said I'm supposing that nonsense one-pager is the result of insanity or something, and was tacked on to this paper while in that state. It occurred to me to mention that, but didn't realize how nit-picky you'd be.

I'm sorry to hurt your feelings! It was not deliberate. In fact I was very happy to find someone else who could see through the one-page paper.

Regarding the set Lambda in equation (23) of http://arxiv.org/pdf/1405.2355v3.pdf which is empty: I certainly did not mean to imply that this was obvious. You have to go back and check the definitions of everything. You made the very perspicacious remark that it does say "for all n". That's where it goes wrong. The condition is not trivial and it is not invariant to choice of n, in contradiction to what is stated between equations (20) and (23). As you vary n arbitrarily you eventually exclude everything.

I'm afraid that it does require some nit-picking in order to expose the incoherence.
Reply
#80
(06-21-2016, 07:04 AM)Schmelzer Wrote: [Sorry for having edited my post during the time you were answering.  So, what FrediFizzx has quoted was, at that moment, my complete answer.]
(06-21-2016, 06:42 AM)FrediFizzx Wrote: How else would someone interpret it?  This is about the EPR-Bohm scenario after all.  If helps you to keep track of it, you could label them as \(s_A\) and \(s_B\) with \(s = s_A = s_B\).
Sorry, formulas should not have any freedom for interpretation.  Anyway, a formula of type
\[ \lim_{s_A\to a\,\, s_B\to b}  F(s_A, s_B)\]
does not make sense if, on the one hand, \(s = s_A = s_B\), and, on the other hand, \(a\neq b\).

I certainly hope you realize that is not true in the case of the EPR-Bohm scenario.  Remember; two different particles with the same "s".  At the A detection station the A particle's "s" goes to a.  At the B station the B particle's "s" goes to b.  I am not sure at all why you are having trouble with that.  ???
Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 2 Guest(s)