Login Register

Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Bell's theorem - for or against Hidden Variables?
BTW there's no need to quote all of the posts all of the time.

The Script-E correlation function defined in Section IV "Proposed Experiment" doesn't depend on a measure space, it's just an algebraic function, derived from measurements in the lab of the spins of the two halves of the exploding balls. But Gill assumes (as I do) that those measurements take place in an SO(3) world, while Christian assumes SU(2), quaternionic or spin space. The actual numbers which result would tell which is correct.

Christian's preferred space is indeed "larger" (a double cover). Maybe you can say, loosely, quaternions "accommodate nonlinear time reversibility". The internal half-angle can "remember the history of rotation": from which direction an angle was approached. But again this has nothing to do with the correlation function calculations, only with the results expected.

My comment to Gill, "you're right", referred specifically to the "mistake" I thought he'd made. I think he's right in general also, but haven't studied his paper enough to say that. 

IMHO Christian should present the paper as simply a tutorial on SO(3) vs. SU(2). His fig. 4, the discussion around it, and the appendices, are worthwhile, AFAIK.

Einstein said that quantizing gravity was like attempting to breath in empty space. Gravity has nothing to do with this problem, although Christian does bring it in via FLRW, to motivate use of quaternions.

Messages In This Thread
RE: Bell's theorem - for or against Hidden Variables? - by secur - 08-24-2016, 03:52 PM

Forum Jump:

Users browsing this thread: 2 Guest(s)