SciPhysicsForums.com

From memory Joy Christian maintains his 7(spatial)-sphere model of reality is physically real not a mere mathematical device applicable only to QM 'entanglement' experiments. If so then being higher dimensional than the conventional 4D spacetime has strong ramifications beyond Bell's theorem and similar. For instance it's well known stable orbits (planets around suns etc.) or orbitals (atomic/molecular structures) are not supposed to exist in non-compact spatial dimensions higher than 3. So Joy your higher dimensional 7(8)-sphere space(spacetime) is physically real, but at the same time radically different to, the conventional notion of a spacetime with higher non-compact spatial dimensions? Can you suggest how 7-sphere reality should impact on e.g. BB/inflationary cosmology, DM and DE? Or any other relevant physical situations - classical in particular?

Q-reeus wrote:From memory Joy Christian maintains his 7(spatial)-sphere model of reality is physically real not a mere mathematical device applicable only to QM 'entanglement' experiments. If so then being higher dimensional than the conventional 4D spacetime has strong ramifications beyond Bell's theorem and similar. For instance it's well known stable orbits (planets around suns etc.) or orbitals (atomic/molecular structures) are not supposed to exist in non-compact spatial dimensions higher than 3. So Joy your higher dimensional 7(8)-sphere space(spacetime) is physically real, but at the same time radically different to, the conventional notion of a spacetime with higher non-compact spatial dimensions? Can you suggest how 7-sphere reality should impact on e.g. BB/inflationary cosmology, DM and DE? Or any other relevant physical situations - classical in particular?

Hi Q-reeus,

I am not making any claims beyond the explanation I have proposed for quantum correlations: http://libertesphilosophica.info/blog/o ... lations-2/ .

It would be foolish of me to make any claims beyond my framework for the quantum correlations, especially when there are so many higher-dimensional theories (such as string theory) that are far better developed than my framework, with armies of postdocs and physicists working on them, backed up by lucrative funding agencies. For now it is best for me to confine my efforts to understanding quantum correlations.

Joy Christian wrote:Hi Q-reeus,

I am not making any claims beyond the explanation I have proposed for quantum correlations: http://libertesphilosophica.info/blog/o ... lations-2/ .

It would be foolish of me to make any claims beyond my framework for the quantum correlations, especially when there are so many higher-dimensional theories (such as string theory) that are far better developed than my framework, with armies of postdocs and physicists working on them, backed up by lucrative funding agencies. For now it is best for me to confine my efforts to understanding quantum correlations.

Thanks for response Joy. Yes string theories and theorists abound, but afaik the extra dimensions are taken to be compact hence unobservable except as explanation for particle physics. There are evidently some exceptions to that rule e.g. Steinhardt-Turok Ekpyrotic scenario involving 5D branes. Somehow the dynamical instabilities I mentioned earlier are obviated in their theory. Anyway I mainly wished to confirm that your 7-sphere physics was a physical and not merely mathematical working model. Cheers.

Q-reeus wrote:Anyway I mainly wished to confirm that your 7-sphere physics was a physical and not merely mathematical working model.

The key result is the detailed proof of the theorem on page 12 of this paper: http://arxiv.org/pdf/1201.0775.pdf .

Joy Christian wrote:

Q-reeus wrote:Anyway I mainly wished to confirm that your 7-sphere physics was a physical and not merely mathematical working model.

The key result is the detailed proof of the theorem on page 12 of this paper: http://arxiv.org/pdf/1201.0775.pdf .

Thanks for link Joy. That article reminds of my need to get down and learn GA. Any recommendations for intro textbooks or online resources? And btw are you near to publishing a 3rd edition of your book on refutation of Bell's theorem?

Q-reeus wrote:

Joy Christian wrote:

Q-reeus wrote:Anyway I mainly wished to confirm that your 7-sphere physics was a physical and not merely mathematical working model.

The key result is the detailed proof of the theorem on page 12 of this paper: http://arxiv.org/pdf/1201.0775.pdf .

Thanks for link Joy. That article reminds of my need to get down and learn GA. Any recommendations for intro textbooks or online resources? And btw are you near to publishing a 3rd edition of your book on refutation of Bell's theorem?

The last book in Ref. [5] of my paper would be a good start on geometric algebra (which is a powerful tool regardless of its use in my work).

As for the third edition of my book, more interesting results are coming to light, so it seems best to delay the publication of the third edition.

Joy Christian wrote:The last book in Ref. [5] of my paper would be a good start on geometric algebra (which is a powerful tool regardless of its use in my work).

That I take it would be: C. Doran and A. Lasenby, Geometric Algebra for Physicists (Cambridge University Press, 2003).

As for the third edition of my book, more interesting results are coming to light, so it seems best to delay the publication of the third edition.

Interesting - watch this space!

And if you are into playing with some code this book along with the free GAViewer would be very good.

http://geometricalgebra.org/index.html

Using GAViewer, you can also see part of Joy's model in action here by running Albert Jan's code.

http://challengingbell.blogspot.com/201 ... of_30.html