I should have said “negative polar vector” in referring to the presentation in your paper. Still, this aspect of an implied conjugation is what I had posted in a comment on Jan 10, 2016 @21:11GMT on a FQXi topic#2591 thread of Ian’s 2015 in Review about the Delft experiment. I had been pleased at that time by Tom Ray’s response to that post, and it goes to the Bell enthusiasts claim that a Classical model cannot generate the same n^2 probabilities count as does QM. That claim assumes distribution on an infinite 2D complex plane evolved from the numberline segment of S0; but that could only be true if one ignores that a conjugation across sets in R3 and S3 would necessarily result in eqipartition where half of the sets in R3 would impose a counter-rotating torgue on the common axis, and evolving from S0 into S3 would square the possible probability domain just like QM. There is no boundary between the Quantum and Classical. jrc ]]>

Though I am still in an early learning stage in Topology, the one thing that helped me most in grasping the inherent mathematical form of your argument came from digesting what you present about the psuedovector in your paper on Macroscopic Observability of Spinoral Sign Changes. And it is in that sign change where Gill and other practitioners of Quantum Spin Mechanics commonly miss the mistake you found in Bell’s opening equation, but which really only displays itself in the end analysis. And that final proof can be found when one reaches the actual transport of R3 into S3 and it becomes apparent that Bell asks us to accept a conjugation of Dot and Cross Product terms to confirm orthogonality between a right hand vector in S3 and a left hand vector in R3 which would place conter-rotating torsion on the axis taken as common to both in the intersection of sets. And that only becomes obvious when one sees that you are correct in pointing out the criterion for completeness must have the form where the transport of terms evolves into R4 which does itself have a time parameter represented as a direction of torsion in S3. I am indebted to Fred for his clarification on chirality, and it may be useful in your presentation to develop that argument of end analysis as an illustration to the newly initiated.

Thanks again for your patience, jrc ]]>

We will be continuing our work, of course.

Happy New Year to you too!

Joy

]]>I changed my address after getting unsolicited sales pitches from the Trump org after the election, and decided not to reinitiate an account at FQXi. There is just too much of those whom come there with a personal delusion that they have made a ‘discovery’ that science must accept to save science from itself, when what they have done is to read over their level and come to some psychological construct that puts the contrary and conflicting paradigms of Quantum and Relativistic measurement systems into a bundle that they can believe makes it all make sense. You are quite correct in stating that it is the physical properties which Topological measurement of spacetime properly describes, that accounts for the strong correlations observed in nature. And there-in lies the foundational mathematic treatment to evolve the much sought after Unified Field Theory, and in that unified field globally must emerge the local realistic volumetric determinant of any Unitary Field particle or wave-like projection of raw energy.

Good Luck to you and Fred and Tom, and those other skeptics of the ad hoc Std Model. jrc ]]>

I did overview the second link you give before I wrote those replies above. Not going to claim to fully understand what was being said. I believe a key issue was how to model a measurement, that gives +/-1 only. I would need to study it a lot more before I have any meaningful questions which weren’t a waste of your time.

My thinking was simply this: A rubber ball, squishy or otherwise is very well defined and understood classically. I could do a finite element simulation from first principles which I am sure would be accurate, no need to invoke your work at all. The key point is that the balls must have structure – spin and alignment have to be taken into account.

My (limited) understanding of Bell’s error is that in the first equation, he attempts to reduce everything down to a scalar, which does not apply in this case.

A detailed first-principles simulation of the double slit experiment should be pretty straightforward. Just energy, momentum, elasticity, losses. A classic finite-elements simulation. Given the nature of the double-slit experiment, it shouldn’t even be that expensive computationally. If spin and alignment are properly taken into account, then an interference pattern must emerge.

That is Bell’s error isn’t it? The classical side statistics he predicts are wrong.

A simulation of the double-slit experiment would be a pretty inarguable demonstration wouldn’t it? That’s possible, surely?

I’m going to go out on a limb and say a desktop PC would be enough for a simulation like that, if it’s theoretically possible.

]]>Your questions are understandable. There are several different issues to consider here.

First, some explicit simulations of my model are already done. Here are two examples:

http://challengingbell.blogspot.co.uk/2015/05/further-numerical-validation-of-joy.html

You may want to check out the blog where the second simulation is discussed. The blogger — Albert Jan Wonnink — has spent much time trying (and succeeding) to simulate my model.

But there is another issue in your questions, which I think is based on a widespread misunderstanding of what the simulations of my model represent. They, or my proposed experiment, have nothing to do with quantum computers. The key idea behind my approach — and this has been misunderstood by nearly everyone — is that the observed strong correlations in Nature are a consequence of the geometrical and topological properties of the physical space itself. This makes the simulations of my proposed experiment rather tricky. For how do you simulate the geometrical and topological properties of the physical space before attempting to simulate the squishy balls experiment within it? This is not an easy question to answer. We may have to do the actual experiment after all to understand the answer chosen by Nature. In this regard I again refer you to Albert Jan Wonnink, who has spent much time thinking about this issue from the perspective of possible simulation on a classical computer.

Best,

Joy

]]>As a software engineer, I’d love to have a go at a first principles simulation of that. Might be possible to factorise 21 after a few months simulation of rubber balls in an appropriately designed blender.

There are QC simulation codes available out there. I wonder if it would be possible to re-engineer one of those to use qubits built arround a clifford algebra.

]]>My maths is far behind me now, and never that strong to boot. Sorry to harp on about the QC bit, bit the next thought is hilarious. I was just reading about the physical experiment to prove your thesis. To my thinking (not to be taken too seriously) (and it looks like there is consensus) there is no need to actually do the physical experiment. An idealised computer simulation, as has been done, should be more than good enough if not better. After all, the whole simulation would be classical mechanics only.

What is implied here is that a quantum computer could be build using a large enough ensemble of squishy rubber balls, appropriately constrained and energised.

Polystyrene beads in a blender?

Excuse my irreverence.

]]>Thank you for your kind comments.

You are quite right to note that “Bell would be one of [my] foremost proponents if he was alive today.” He certainly would have been. I know this because I have been privileged enough to have met Bell and discuss physics with him on several occasions, here in Europe and in the United States where I was a PhD student of Abner Shimony (the “S” in the Bell-CHSH inequality). Unlike some of his lesser followers, Bell was quite open minded about his own theorem. At least he would have listened to what I have to say rather than attack me dogmatically.

As for your questions about quantum computers, not being an expert on the subject I can only make some very general remarks. Scalable quantum computers will almost certainly require quantum entanglement. But my work shows that quantum entanglement is not a fundamental feature of the world. So I am quite certain that scalable quantum computers, exhibiting exponential speed up, are a fantasy. This does not rule out some quasi-quantum like computers. But they will not produce anything like exponential speed up.

My own concern is less about computers and more about the fundamental laws of physics. So my own interest in Bell’s theorem comes from that direction.

Thanks again for your comments.

Best regards,

Joy

]]>