Sci.Physics.Foundations

by **Joy Christian** » Mon Aug 15, 2022 11:04 pm

Richard D. Gill wrote:
I have read carefully what you have written and I have discovered inconsistencies. I believe that what you write is impossible to understand.

You had over ten years of opportunities to understand my work but you have failed. What you have "discovered" are nothing but gaps in your education.

Richard D. Gill wrote:
But this is already obvious: there is a known mathematical theorem whose proof is completely correct.

There is no such theorem. In physics, there are no theorems. Theorems are for mathematicians. And to the extent that there is an argument by John S. Bell, I have extensively demonstrated what is wrong with it in this paper: https://arxiv.org/pdf/1704.02876.pdf (reading the abstract would be sufficient).

Richard D. Gill wrote:
You claim to have a counterexample. Hence your example must be wrong.

You claim to have a theorem. Hence your theorem must be wrong. More precisely, what you claim to be a "theorem" is not applicable to physics.

Richard D. Gill wrote:
Notice that my presentation of Gull’s proof of Bell’s theorem using Fourier analysis has now been published. It forms my response to a challenge made by you and Fred Diether. You are thanked in the acknowledgments. https://arxiv.org/abs/2012.00719

This paper of yours --- published in one of the MDPI journals whose reputation has been questioned in a paper published by Oxford Academics and of which you yourself are one of the editors --- is worthless gobbledygook. It is devoid of any physical content. As I said above, in physics there are no theorems.
.

by **gill1109** » Thu Jul 21, 2022 11:06 pm

Joy Christian wrote: ↑Sun May 08, 2022 3:20 am
gill1109 wrote: ↑Sun May 08, 2022 2:43 am
Joy Christian wrote: ↑Sun May 01, 2022 11:35 pm That is not correct. In eq. (11) mu_1 and mu_2 are defined to be fixed for each run. They are defined in terms of the initial spin direction s^i at the source.
It is important to read what I have defined carefully.
OK, but in that case the notation and/or explanation needs some improvement. You are using s^1 twice in the same expression (once explicitly, once implicitly), and similar for s^2, but the two occurrences are not supposed to be the same.
You must also define the initial two spin directions.
Either you are getting too old for this stuff or your eyesight needs checking. Or maybe you just don't read stuff anymore. Please read my paper or my above comment again. What I have used to define mu_1 and mu_2 is the initial spin direction s^i, not s_1 or s_2. Here the superscript "i" refers to the initial spin direction at the source, and the subscripts 1 and 2 refer to the observation stations at the two ends of the experiment. This is not difficult to understand.

I have read carefully what you have written and I have discovered inconsistencies. I believe that what you write is impossible to understand. But this is already obvious: there is a known mathematical theorem whose proof is completely correct. You claim to have a counterexample. Hence your example must be wrong.

Notice that my presentation of Gull’s proof of Bell’s theorem using Fourier analysis has now been published. It forms my response to a challenge made by you and Fred Diether. You are thanked in the acknowledgments. https://arxiv.org/abs/2012.00719

by **Joy Christian** » Sun May 08, 2022 3:20 am

gill1109 wrote: ↑Sun May 08, 2022 2:43 am
Joy Christian wrote: ↑Sun May 01, 2022 11:35 pm
gill1109 wrote: ↑Sun May 01, 2022 10:56 pm
Joy, you define your measurement outcomes in (13) and (19). This involves limits: limits as s_1 converges to mu_1 a, and as s_2 converges to mu_2 b. But mu_1 and mu_2 are not fixed, in fact they are defined in terms of s_1 and s_2, see (11): mu_1 = sign(a . s_1) and mu_2 = sign(s_2 . b)
That is not correct. In eq. (11) mu_1 and mu_2 are defined to be fixed for each run. They are defined in terms of the initial spin direction s^i at the source.

It is important to read what I have defined carefully.
.
OK, but in that case the notation and/or explanation needs some improvement. You are using s^1 twice in the same expression (once explicitly, once implicitly), and similar for s^2, but the two occurrences are not supposed to be the same.

You must also define the initial two spin directions.

Either you are getting too old for this stuff or your eyesight needs checking. Or maybe you just don't read stuff anymore. Please read my paper or my above comment again. What I have used to define mu_1 and mu_2 is the initial spin direction s^i, not s_1 or s_2. Here the superscript "i" refers to the initial spin direction at the source, and the subscripts 1 and 2 refer to the observation stations at the two ends of the experiment. This is not difficult to understand.
.

by **gill1109** » Sun May 08, 2022 2:43 am

Joy Christian wrote: ↑Sun May 01, 2022 11:35 pm
gill1109 wrote: ↑Sun May 01, 2022 10:56 pm
Joy, you define your measurement outcomes in (13) and (19). This involves limits: limits as s_1 converges to mu_1 a, and as s_2 converges to mu_2 b. But mu_1 and mu_2 are not fixed, in fact they are defined in terms of s_1 and s_2, see (11): mu_1 = sign(a . s_1) and mu_2 = sign(s_2 . b)
That is not correct. In eq. (11) mu_1 and mu_2 are defined to be fixed for each run. They are defined in terms of the initial spin direction s^i at the source.

It is important to read what I have defined carefully.
.

OK, but in that case the notation and/or explanation needs some improvement. You are using s^1 twice in the same expression (once explicitly, once implicitly), and similar for s^2, but the two occurrences are not supposed to be the same.

You must also define the initial two spin directions.

by **FrediFizzx** » Tue May 03, 2022 5:45 am

Here is an alternative simple GA simulation. I realized last night that we don't really know if particle 1 goes to A or B. Likewise for particle 2 so, I have switched the spin representation in the reverse order to show that it doesn't matter. And this simulation is using the direction of the "z" component of the singlet spin vector for the reverse order of the product.

Now, we have the QM prediction in a classical local way with no hidden variable and we also have shown that QM is local for the -a.b prediction with no hidden variable. So, where does that leave Bell and his hidden variable program? Out in the very cold with the realization that what he did was complete BS. You're welcome.

.

by **FrediFizzx** » Mon May 02, 2022 6:03 am

Joy Christian wrote: ↑Sun May 01, 2022 11:35 pm
gill1109 wrote: ↑Sun May 01, 2022 10:56 pm
Joy, you define your measurement outcomes in (13) and (19). This involves limits: limits as s_1 converges to mu_1 a, and as s_2 converges to mu_2 b. But mu_1 and mu_2 are not fixed, in fact they are defined in terms of s_1 and s_2, see (11): mu_1 = sign(a . s_1) and mu_2 = sign(s_2 . b)
That is not correct. In eq. (11) mu_1 and mu_2 are defined to be fixed for each run. They are defined in terms of the initial spin direction s^i at the source.

It is important to read what I have defined carefully.

LOL! I doubt that is ever going to happen in Gill's case. It is quite mind boggling that someone has such trouble with something that is soooo... simple.
.

by **Joy Christian** » Sun May 01, 2022 11:35 pm

gill1109 wrote: ↑Sun May 01, 2022 10:56 pm
Joy, you define your measurement outcomes in (13) and (19). This involves limits: limits as s_1 converges to mu_1 a, and as s_2 converges to mu_2 b. But mu_1 and mu_2 are not fixed, in fact they are defined in terms of s_1 and s_2, see (11): mu_1 = sign(a . s_1) and mu_2 = sign(s_2 . b)

That is not correct. In eq. (11) mu_1 and mu_2 are defined to be fixed for each run. They are defined in terms of the initial spin direction s^i at the source.

It is important to read what I have defined carefully.
.

by **gill1109** » Sun May 01, 2022 10:56 pm

Joy, you define your measurement outcomes in (13) and (19). This involves limits: limits as s_1 converges to mu_1 a, and as s_2 converges to mu_2 b. But mu_1 and mu_2 are not fixed, in fact they are defined in terms of s_1 and s_2, see (11): mu_1 = sign(a . s_1) and mu_2 = sign(s_2 . b)

by **FrediFizzx** » Sun May 01, 2022 4:02 am

This also works with Ls1_k_4 > 0 which is the "z" component of the singlet spin vector. I think I will be using that. IOW, the left or right handedness of the product is randomly determined by the orientation of the singlet vector instead of independently by lambda = +/-1. Let's say that the axis of propagation for the two particles is "z" with A being the plus direction from the origin and B the minus direction, then if the "z" component is pointing toward A the order is AB. If pointing toward B the order is BA.
.

by **FrediFizzx** » Sat Apr 30, 2022 12:51 pm

Joy Christian wrote: ↑Sat Apr 30, 2022 6:48 am
FrediFizzx wrote: ↑Sat Apr 30, 2022 5:54 am However, it seems a bit strange to have AB and BA happening at the same time. Are we mixing the right handed view with the left handed view? I have to say that the r_0 method of cross product cancelation is superior though more complicated.
AB = 1/2 { AB + BA } is a mathematical identity for scalars such as A = +/-1 and B = +/-1. So 1/2 { AB + BA } allows us to produce a scalar -cos(a, b) in the calculation without having to consider the right-handed and left-handed views. The r_0 method is also fine. I just wanted to make the calculation simpler.

Well, for it to be more physically realistic, you need to do something like this.

Where ss_k is a 2D angle derived from the 3D singlet spin vector, s. Of course the cross product cancelation is not exact but it still vanishes.
.

by **Joy Christian** » Sat Apr 30, 2022 6:48 am

FrediFizzx wrote: ↑Sat Apr 30, 2022 5:54 am However, it seems a bit strange to have AB and BA happening at the same time. Are we mixing the right handed view with the left handed view? I have to say that the r_0 method of cross product cancelation is superior though more complicated.

AB = 1/2 { AB + BA } is a mathematical identity for scalars such as A = +/-1 and B = +/-1. So 1/2 { AB + BA } allows us to produce a scalar -cos(a, b) in the calculation without having to consider the right-handed and left-handed views. The r_0 method is also fine. I just wanted to make the calculation simpler.
.

by **FrediFizzx** » Sat Apr 30, 2022 5:54 am

Using quaternions and 2D vectors, Mathematica does the cross product cancelation exact.

However, it seems a bit strange to have AB and BA happening at the same time. Are we mixing the right handed view with the left handed view? I have to say that the r_0 method of cross product cancelation is superior though more complicated.
.

by **FrediFizzx** » Sun Apr 24, 2022 5:34 am

I will just post the correction and result.

But it looks like we have some rounding error in the calculation so if we post one event we can see the exact cancelation of the cross products.

Another Mathematica mystery is why it puts a decimal point after e_1., e_2., etc.
.

by **FrediFizzx** » Sat Apr 23, 2022 7:24 pm

FrediFizzx wrote: ↑Tue Apr 19, 2022 6:35 pm The simulation is short enough so we can just post it as a picture.

Oops! I made a mistake. The cross product cancelation is exact. I'll post a correction tomorrow. GeometricProduct[ag, bg] should be GeometricProduct[bg, ag].
.

by **gill1109** » Fri Apr 22, 2022 1:33 am

Well done!

["Never give up, never surrender" - Galaxy Quest]

by **Joy Christian** » Thu Apr 21, 2022 7:10 pm

.
The paper is now also available from the physics arXiv with a DOI: https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2204.10288.
.

by **FrediFizzx** » Tue Apr 19, 2022 6:35 pm

The simulation is short enough so we can just post it as a picture.

.

by **FrediFizzx** » Tue Apr 19, 2022 11:20 am

Joy Christian wrote: ↑Tue Apr 19, 2022 11:11 am
FrediFizzx wrote: ↑Tue Apr 19, 2022 10:44 am Here is a simple version of the simulation for verification of eqs. (49) to (57).

sims/S3_GA_forum.pdf
sims/S3_GA_forum.nb
Brilliant! Thanks!

You're welcome. I forgot to mention that the simulation is using the particle physics version of the conservation of angular momentum. It gets rid of the ad hoc minus signs.

.

by **Joy Christian** » Tue Apr 19, 2022 11:11 am

FrediFizzx wrote: ↑Tue Apr 19, 2022 10:44 am Here is a simple version of the simulation for verification of eqs. (49) to (57).

sims/S3_GA_forum.pdf
sims/S3_GA_forum.nb

Brilliant! Thanks!
.

by **FrediFizzx** » Tue Apr 19, 2022 10:44 am

Here is a simple version of the simulation for verification of eqs. (49) to (57).

sims/S3_GA_forum.pdf
sims/S3_GA_forum.nb
.

Sci.Physics.Foundations

Exposing the Falsehood of Bell's Theorem by Explicit Counterexample

Post a reply

Expand view Topic review: Exposing the Falsehood of Bell's Theorem by Explicit Counterexample

Re: Exposing the Falsehood of Bell's Theorem by Explicit Counterexample

Re: Exposing the Falsehood of Bell's Theorem by Explicit Counterexample

Re: Exposing the Falsehood of Bell's Theorem by Explicit Counterexample

Re: Exposing the Falsehood of Bell's Theorem by Explicit Counterexample

Re: Exposing the Falsehood of Bell's Theorem by Explicit Counterexample

Re: Exposing the Falsehood of Bell's Theorem by Explicit Counterexample

Re: Exposing the Falsehood of Bell's Theorem by Explicit Counterexample

Re: Exposing the Falsehood of Bell's Theorem by Explicit Counterexample

Re: Exposing the Falsehood of Bell's Theorem by Explicit Counterexample

Re: Exposing the Falsehood of Bell's Theorem by Explicit Counterexample

Re: Exposing the Falsehood of Bell's Theorem by Explicit Counterexample

Re: Exposing the Falsehood of Bell's Theorem by Explicit Counterexample

Re: Exposing the Falsehood of Bell's Theorem by Explicit Counterexample

Re: Exposing the Falsehood of Bell's Theorem by Explicit Counterexample

Re: Exposing the Falsehood of Bell's Theorem by Explicit Counterexample

Re: Exposing the Falsehood of Bell's Theorem by Explicit Counterexample

Re: Exposing the Falsehood of Bell's Theorem by Explicit Counterexample

Re: Exposing the Falsehood of Bell's Theorem by Explicit Counterexample

Re: Exposing the Falsehood of Bell's Theorem by Explicit Counterexample

Re: Exposing the Falsehood of Bell's Theorem by Explicit Counterexample