Login Register

Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Bell's theorem - for or against Hidden Variables?
(08-18-2016, 03:06 AM)secur Wrote: Joy Christian's "Macroscopic Observability of Spinorial Sign Changes under 2pi Rotations" gives a clear exposition of his idea. It's better than the previous paper we discussed, with similar concepts, which directly addressed Bell. I'm not surprised it passed peer review.

But the classical experiment he proposes is, I'm rather sure, going to have a classical result. The linear correlation of SO(3) will be demonstrated, not the cos correlation of spin space. Nothing in the paper gives any reason to think otherwise.

The "exploding ball" is, of course, basically a macro replica of a typical Bell experiment. This sort of thing has been thoroughly studied for more than 100 years. They would have noticed long ago if SO(3) were not the correct space.

Richard Gill, http://arxiv.org/pdf/1412.2677v3.pdf, says there are mistakes in the paper, but I can't see it. Probably I'm looking at a different version (v4) than the one his comment addresses. Even if there are mistakes I'm sure they're fixable. Christian has done a good job describing the situation, but it's a mystery to me why he thinks the correlation calculations would give a non-classical result (like QM spin).

Richard Gill is probably right that most experimenters believe the result would be classical, that's why they're not interested in doing it. A suggestion: Christian could probably come up with a very simple, cheap, table-top experiment that accomplishes the same thing, if he thought about it. That would stand a better chance of being performed.

Presumably this relates to your idea of non-linear time, and entropy as a "hidden variable"? Christian's paper doesn't put it in those terms, but I can believe there's a connection - although I don't, at the moment, get it.

Sorry I took so long to respond. The following thought occurred to me. Suppose the experiment were done, and it proved Christian was absolutely right. The establishment would still ignore it! Those people's minds are utterly closed. So if we're doing this for our own edification and enjoyment, that's great, it's a fine hobby. But if we actually think it will make a difference we're wasting our time. The same applies to any "alternative" physics, such as Schmelzer's papers. We're making a key mistake here. We're thinking it's about "truth" - no, it's about funding and money. This discouraging realization has led me to do other things - like, enjoy the beautiful weather - for the last week.

I wish I could be more positive. Let me reiterate, I think it's a good paper overall, with a clear discussion of the difference between SO(3) and SU(2) correlations. Talk to you later!

Hi secur,

Truth has no place in science.  Whatever facts support a theory consistently, are true subject to falsification (Popper).  So when Popper appropriated Tarski's correspondence theory of truth for scientific method, he left this condition open.  A theory is only as true as it can be.  It needs to be understood that Joy has presented a measurement framework--not a theory--that supports spacetime as a real phenomenon.

Anyway, Gill's and Weatherall's "not even wrong" criticism is a straw man.  My draft attempt to correct it is attached.

Let's continue this delightful conversation.   Smile

All best,
Tom


Attached Files
.pdf   Suppose one had visited a restaurant years ago.pdf (Size: 336.51 KB / Downloads: 468)
Reply


Messages In This Thread
RE: Bell's theorem - for or against Hidden Variables? - by Thomas Ray - 08-18-2016, 04:18 PM

Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)