Joy Christian's macroscopic 'exploding balls' experiment

[Q-reeus]

From viewtopic.php?f=6&p=7000#p7000

Besides, my proposed experiment may never be actually performed. The politically powerful Bell Mafia will make sure that it is never actually performed.

I could never figure the rationale for even trying. And doubt anyone would seriously consider trying to prevent it being performed. Joy has many times claimed that QM is all of:
1: Local
2: Deterministic
3: Realistic
Given just those three, what is the point to design, construct, and perform a somewhat fiddly exploding balls style macroscopic EPR experiment? As proposed here:
https://arxiv.org/abs/1211.0784
A whole lot of maths to wade through there. But, given 1, 2, 3 above, supplemented with the obvious fact of flatness and isotropy of space, at least on terrestrial scales. one can say that the proposed experiment will of course obey Newtonian dynamics to arbitrarily high precision. Leaving aside annoying and hard to estimate effects from aerodynamic turbulence or elastic oscillation modes or stiction etc. Which issues and more I addressed in an earlier thread and suggested practical remedies.

Anyway, assuming those annoyances were all effectively dealt with, why introduce 'controlled' pseudo randomness via weighted half shells? What would really be tested doing so? Anything apart from the limits of detector precision? Classical, macroscopic, specific-to-device dependent precision? Having nothing whatsoever to do with e.g. Heisenberg uncertainty limits that truly are intrinsically QM in nature. Nothing to do with entanglement since no-one suggests 'entanglement' would apply unless one claims conservation of linear and angular momentum is a form of 'entanglement'. Nothing to do with superposition since no-one suggests macroscopic superposition would be at play. Nothing to do with 'wave/particle duality' since no-one suggests de Broglie's relation is relevant.

A classical mechanics experiment will give classical mechanics results. Surely. And could be logically reduced to a trivially easy case of firing a single, suitably marked projectile at a single detector setup, the projectile/detector relative orientations being precisely determined (sans the usual experimental uncertainties in precision) for each run. Yawn.
There is any room for a mysterious global geometry induced departure from Newtonian certainty? Please, someone point to exactly where any such can enter.

[Joy Christian]

There is any room for a mysterious global geometry induced departure from Newtonian certainty? Please, someone point to exactly where any such can enter.

Absolutely there is! The global geometry and topology of the quaternionic 3-sphere --- which is the spatial part of one of the solutions of Einstein's field equations of general relativity --- is responsible for the locally explicable realistic and deterministic existence of the strong or non-linear correlations, -a.b, usually attributed to quantum-entanglement-induce non-locality or non-reality. Another way to say the same thing, as Fred Diether often stresses, is that the physical space (or spacetime) has built-in spinorial properties. To understand all of this one can read the paper linked above by Q-reeus: https://arxiv.org/abs/1211.0784. But I admit that there is a lot of math and physics to wade through to understand the argument presented in the paper. Here is a simplified version of it: http://libertesphilosophica.info/blog/w ... opExp1.pdf. Further simplified summary of it, with lots of links, can be found also on this page of my blog: http://libertesphilosophica.info/blog/e ... taphysics/.

***

[Q-reeus]

A coherent explanation should be easy to give here and now surely. The proposed experiment is a fully deterministic macroscopic system, agreed? Straight out mechanical. Newton's laws apply at every instant, and every point. Why then introduce the unnecessary complexity of carefully engineered exploding split-shells with pseudo-random weighting? What would be gained? Is it not clear that any binary spin-up/spin-down detector result, for either 'particle', for any run, is purely down to detector design? The only uncertainty being when 'spin' is essentially exactly orthogonal to an arbitrary up or down orientation, as determined by the detector. Only at such 'dicey' orientations will some detector internal algorithm, or inevitable device imprecision, 'decide' between up or down. Otherwise, cut and dry certainty. To then draw any connection to QM seems very strained.

If you really intend to do such a macroscopic experiment, at least explain why a single projectile + single detector setup, easy to make and test, would not be far preferable to a complex exploding pseudo-randomly weighted half-shells arrangement. With all the added uncertainties I have listed elsewhere. What 'essential ingredient(s)' exists in the latter and not the former, that could justify the hugely greater complexity etc.? Especially given the agreed intrinsic determinism.

[Joy Christian]

...why a single projectile + single detector setup ... would not be far preferable to a complex exploding pseudo-randomly weighted half-shells arrangement.

Because "a single projectile + single detector setup" has nothing whatsoever to do with an EPR-Bohm type experiment.

***

[Q-reeus]

...why a single projectile + single detector setup ... would not be far preferable to a complex exploding pseudo-randomly weighted half-shells arrangement.

Because "a single projectile + single detector setup" has nothing whatsoever to do with an EPR-Bohm type experiment.

***

In terms of actual physics, sure. And by direct extension neither could adding any extra complexity to a purely Newtonian governed classical physics setup do so. How could it?
Hence, imo one therefore looks to the hidden assumptions in the lies, damm lies, and *statistics* side of things to find a resolution.

[Joy Christian]

...why a single projectile + single detector setup ... would not be far preferable to a complex exploding pseudo-randomly weighted half-shells arrangement.

Because "a single projectile + single detector setup" has nothing whatsoever to do with an EPR-Bohm type experiment.

***

In terms of actual physics, sure. And by direct extension neither could adding any extra complexity to a purely Newtonian governed classical physics setup do so. How could it?
Hence, imo one therefore looks to the hidden assumptions in the lies, damm lies, and *statistics* side of things to find a resolution.

A purely Newtonian governed classical physics applied to the EPR-Bohm type experiment with toy balls predicts the correlations E(a, b) = -a.b, as shown in my paper.

***

[FrediFizzx]

From viewtopic.php?f=6&p=7000#p7000

Besides, my proposed experiment may never be actually performed. The politically powerful Bell Mafia will make sure that it is never actually performed.

I could never figure the rationale for even trying. And doubt anyone would seriously consider trying to prevent it being performed. Joy has many times claimed that QM is all of:
1: Local
2: Deterministic
3: Realistic

Joy is not claiming that QM is that way. He is claiming that Nature is that way. IOW, because of Bell's theory people are claiming that QM predicts Nature is non-local and non-realistic. A bunch of nonsense. Recent experiments with classical EM waves indicate that Joy might be correct. The experiment should be done to find out for sure. The main reason we don't see the effects in everyday life is because macroscopic singlet scenarios are very unusual.

The Bell fanatics don't want it done because if successful, then Bell's theory is wrong for sure.
.

[Q-reeus]

A purely Newtonian governed classical physics applied to the EPR-Bohm type experiment with toy balls predicts the correlations E(a, b) = -a.b, as shown in my paper.

The main stumbling block for me to take that seriously is your insistence a physically real torsion is needed and is SOMEHOW present in that purely classical Newtonian setup.
In another recent thread, when asked to explain what the source of this torsion was (in general, not tied to this experiment), you said spin. And that the source of spin was torsion. Not at all enlightening since there was never an attempt to tie down WHERE this spin/torsion existed. Was it just code for the obviously localized spin of a quantum particle? Was it some property inherent in space itself? I got the impression from all your previous talk it was the latter. But NEVER was there a clear, simple explanation as to exactly the what and where and how of this 'torsion' that was so necessary to explain the correlations. No-one else in the anti-Bell camp invokes it.

In the proposed experiment, the only source of spin is obviously that pseudo-randomly generated in each half-shell, owing to 'spot' weights. You wish to call that 'torsion', or at least the source of torsion? That would be a unique nomenclature. If there is some mysterious torsion permeating space that somehow couples to the 'ordinary' equal and opposite spins (more accurately, angular momenta, since there is nothing integer/quantized in this case) of those half-shells, PLEASE EXPLAIN WHERE AND HOW.

Run me through with it Joy. Provide a clear explanation of what your torsion IS exactly, WHERE it resides exactly, and HOW it works it's magic to provide correlations beyond purely classical limits, as claimed. In the proposed classical mechanics experiment. No, not by pointing to a mass of equations in one of your papers, but with clear wording. The essence of Einstein's equations can and have been so reduced: http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/einstein/node3.html
No 'baffling with BS' there. Concept in a nutshell - no advanced undergraduate level specialist maths needed.

[FrediFizzx]

Run me through with it Joy. Provide a clear explanation of what your torsion IS exactly, WHERE it resides exactly, and HOW it works it's magic to provide correlations beyond purely classical limits, as claimed. In the proposed classical mechanics experiment. No, not by pointing to a mass of equations in one of your papers, but with clear wording. The essence of Einstein's equations can and have been so reduced: http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/einstein/node3.html
No 'baffling with BS' there. Concept in a nutshell - no advanced undergraduate level specialist maths needed.

Perhaps you can tell us where the mass of the Higgs boson comes from. If the experiment is successful, Joy doesn't have explain why space has unique spinor properties. Well... he doesn't have to explain it anyways; S^3 topology is a postulate. But we will then know that something is up with space that wasn't realized before. And you can bet there will be a whole bunch of new papers on arXiv trying to explain it.

[Joy Christian]

A purely Newtonian governed classical physics applied to the EPR-Bohm type experiment with toy balls predicts the correlations E(a, b) = -a.b, as shown in my paper.

The main stumbling block for me to take that seriously is your insistence a physically real torsion is needed and is SOMEHOW present in that purely classical Newtonian setup.
In another recent thread, when asked to explain what the source of this torsion was (in general, not tied to this experiment), you said spin. And that the source of spin was torsion. Not at all enlightening since there was never an attempt to tie down WHERE this spin/torsion existed. Was it just code for the obviously localized spin of a quantum particle? Was it some property inherent in space itself? I got the impression from all your previous talk it was the latter. But NEVER was there a clear, simple explanation as to exactly the what and where and how of this 'torsion' that was so necessary to explain the correlations. No-one else in the anti-Bell camp invokes it.

In the proposed experiment, the only source of spin is obviously that pseudo-randomly generated in each half-shell, owing to 'spot' weights. You wish to call that 'torsion', or at least the source of torsion? That would be a unique nomenclature. If there is some mysterious torsion permeating space that somehow couples to the 'ordinary' equal and opposite spins (more accurately, angular momenta, since there is nothing integer/quantized in this case) of those half-shells, PLEASE EXPLAIN WHERE AND HOW.

Run me through with it Joy. Provide a clear explanation of what your torsion IS exactly, WHERE it resides exactly, and HOW it works it's magic to provide correlations beyond purely classical limits, as claimed. In the proposed classical mechanics experiment. No, not by pointing to a mass of equations in one of your papers, but with clear wording. The essence of Einstein's equations can and have been so reduced: http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/einstein/node3.html
No 'baffling with BS' there. Concept in a nutshell - no advanced undergraduate level specialist maths needed.

Why not just Google "torsion." You will find all the answers you are looking for. Or just ask John Baez. He is a good pedagogue and always willing to help.

***

[Q-reeus]

Perhaps you can tell us where the mass of the Higgs boson comes from.

No can do, Fred.

If the experiment is successful, Joy doesn't have explain why space has unique spinor properties. Well... he doesn't have to explain it anyways; S^3 topology is a postulate. But we will then know that something is up with space that wasn't realized before. And you can bet there will be a whole bunch of new papers on arXiv trying to explain it.

Indeed. And afaik gyros, pendulums etc. always behave according to Newtonian dynamics based on space being flat, homogeneous, isotropic, and achiral. Any appreciable departure from that standard paradigm would have shown up in many situations, a long time ago, you might think.

[Q-reeus]

Why not just Google "torsion." You will find all the answers you are looking for. Or just ask John Baez. He is a good pedagogue and always willing to help.

Best I know, nonzero torsion as it relates to 'empty' space, only exists as an alternate formulation to the standard semi-Riemann curvature formulation of GR. Hence needs presence of appreciable gravitating mass. The only other manifestation of torsion as an uniform intensive property afaik is that of chiral media - e.g. certain sugar solutions. All that having been brought up before but got nowhere. How any of that could relate to EPR-Bell type experiments is beyond me.

[FrediFizzx]

Perhaps you can tell us where the mass of the Higgs boson comes from.

No can do, Fred.

If the experiment is successful, Joy doesn't have explain why space has unique spinor properties. Well... he doesn't have to explain it anyways; S^3 topology is a postulate. But we will then know that something is up with space that wasn't realized before. And you can bet there will be a whole bunch of new papers on arXiv trying to explain it.

Indeed. And afaik gyros, pendulums etc. always behave according to Newtonian dynamics based on space being flat, homogeneous, isotropic, and achiral. Any appreciable departure from that standard paradigm would have shown up in many situations, a long time ago, you might think.

No. It can probably only show up in a singlet configuration scenario which are not very common in macroscopic-land.
.

[Joy Christian]

Why not just Google "torsion." You will find all the answers you are looking for. Or just ask John Baez. He is a good pedagogue and always willing to help.

Best I know, nonzero torsion as it relates to 'empty' space, only exists as an alternate formulation to the standard semi-Riemann curvature formulation of GR. Hence needs presence of appreciable gravitating mass. The only other manifestation of torsion as an uniform intensive property afaik is that of chiral media - e.g. certain sugar solutions. All that having been brought up before but got nowhere. How any of that could relate to EPR-Bell type experiments is beyond me.

None of the alternative or extended formulations of GR are necessary to understand the torsion within the context of a classical EPR-Bohm experiment. Any manifold, and especially S^3, can be understood in terms of pure Riemannian curvature, or pure torsion, or some combination of both. This is an elementary fact of the standard Riemannian geometry (see the book by Nakahara, for example: "Geometry, Topology and Physics"). It so happens that the EPR-Bohm type correlations are more readily understandable in terms of a torsion formulation of S^3 rather than a curvature formulation. That is all there is to it. Nothing exotic is necessary to understand this.

***

[Q-reeus]

No. It can probably only show up in a singlet configuration scenario which are not very common in macroscopic-land..

All right, so what is the best way to clear it up? If a physical implementation of 'exploding balls' is evidently too problematic (and I have listed elsewhere a number of practical issues to be addressed), try a different approach. There are now many proficient game developers quite familiar with and adept at programming 'real physics' based on GA. Right up Joy's alley. Surely at least one such can be enticed to do an 'exploding balls' simulation, if only for the cudos of being first to 'prove' a New Paragigm.
Once a peer-verified sim cracks it, the impetus will be there to go the final step and fund a physical version.
Surely that's a better way to 'get even' with the Bell Mafia than continually forum sparring with them.

[Q-reeus]

None of the alternative or extended formulations of GR are necessary to understand the torsion within the context of a classical EPR-Bohm experiment. Any manifold, and especially S^3, can be understood in terms of pure Riemannian curvature, or pure torsion, or some combination of both. This is an elementary fact of the standard Riemannian geometry (see the book by Nakahara, for example: "Geometry, Topology and Physics"). It so happens that the EPR-Bohm type correlations are more readily understandable in terms of a torsion formulation of S^3 rather than a curvature formulation. That is all there is to it. Nothing exotic is necessary to understand this.

The standard position though is there is simply no appreciable torsion present to effect an EPR-Bell type experiment, correct?

[Joy Christian]

No. It can probably only show up in a singlet configuration scenario which are not very common in macroscopic-land..

All right, so what is the best way to clear it up? If a physical implementation of 'exploding balls' is evidently too problematic (and I have listed elsewhere a number of practical issues to be addressed), try a different approach. There are now many proficient game developers quite familiar with and adept at programming 'real physics' based on GA. Right up Joy's alley. Surely at least one such can be enticed to do an 'exploding balls' simulation, if only for the cudos of being first to 'prove' a New Paragigm.
Once a peer-verified sim cracks it, the impetus will be there to go the final step and fund a physical version.
Surely that's a better way to 'get even' with the Bell Mafia than continually forum sparring with them.

What is wrong with this simulation? viewtopic.php?f=6&t=200&p=5550#p5514



***

[Joy Christian]

None of the alternative or extended formulations of GR are necessary to understand the torsion within the context of a classical EPR-Bohm experiment. Any manifold, and especially S^3, can be understood in terms of pure Riemannian curvature, or pure torsion, or some combination of both. This is an elementary fact of the standard Riemannian geometry (see the book by Nakahara, for example: "Geometry, Topology and Physics"). It so happens that the EPR-Bohm type correlations are more readily understandable in terms of a torsion formulation of S^3 rather than a curvature formulation. That is all there is to it. Nothing exotic is necessary to understand this.

The standard position though is there is simply no appreciable torsion present to effect an EPR-Bell type experiment, correct?

The standard position is that EPR-Bohm type correlations are due to quantum entanglement in the quantum mechanical singlet state.

Most followers of Bell are not physicists, and they have no understanding and/or interest in general relativity or spacetime geometry.

***

[Q-reeus]

What is wrong with this simulation? viewtopic.php?f=6&t=200&p=5550#p5514

It's not a simulation of your proposed macroscopic 'exploding balls' experiment. An actual physical model (3+1)D, pixel-by-pixel, frame-by-frame evolution from moment of 'explosion' through to final point(s) of detector record(s). Assuming the fidelity of GA programming passes peer-review, that series of 'see-it-in-action' simulation runs, if confirming your theories predictions, is I suggest what will impress sceptics. Just 'one further step' after that. And you would surely then get the funding for that step quite easily.

[Q-reeus]

The standard position is that EPR-Bohm type correlations are due to quantum entanglement in the quantum mechanical singlet state.

Most followers of Bell are not physicists, and they have no understanding and/or interest in general relativity or spacetime geometry.

Correlations owing to EPR-Bohm experiments are assumed to be and in practice found to be independent of spatial separation of components.
On the other hand, the effect from particles or whatever coupling to a postulated intrinsic, uniform spatial torsion must obviously accumulate with distance in an essentially linear manner! You can't see that presenting an immediate issue?