Bohmian Locality as an answer to Bell's inequalities

[Phi for All]

2 hours ago, JosephStang said:

Right. Toroid, not circle. Thanks for the correction. The rest of it is just you admitting you can't visualize the geometry.

!

Moderator Note

Listen, our #1 rule is civility. You need to stop making this personal, because it isn't. If you can't attack an argument, don't start attacking people.

 

[MigL]

7 hours ago, JosephStang said:

It shows how information can be carried at faster than light speed

This is an example of non-locality, or 'action at a distance'.
( IOW, an effect that cannot be realized with local variables, hidden or otherwise )

Edited March 20 by MigL

[JosephStang]

It's an example of Bohmian locality. Please understand the difference in the definitions.

[Mordred]

On 3/19/2024 at 1:46 AM, JosephStang said:

 Bohm thought of this possibility but didn't imagine a geometry that can accomplish it. This geometry can. Here's a technical description.

A geometry requires a metric. I have yet to see any relevant metric. Please describe your theory under the mathematical holonomic restraints. 

this is a holonomic test equation see link

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holonomic_constraints

as the link shows the term holonomic has precise mathematical implications, including the time dimension.

 

On 3/21/2024 at 12:21 AM, JosephStang said:

It's an example of Bohmian locality. Please understand the difference in the definitions.

perhaps you can demonstrate your understanding of Bohmian nonlocality including holonomy under your metric.

keep in mind Bohm was an excellent mathematician, he would also describe nonlocality under mathematical definition. Good example of how he goes about this is his pilot wave theory. So at least you will have a source of the relevant equations.

[JosephStang]

Bohm might have been an excellent mathematician, but I am not. I'm excellent at logic and programming. I was asked by a NASA engineer to help him program his theory, but it didn't explain quantum physics. I added a travelling wave to his theory and it now explains quantum physics. 

 

I described a geometry no one has described or conceived before. I can't do the math. Occam's razor says this is the theory. It can obviously be used to explain logically with words alone every aspect of quantum strangeness. 

 

Why should I also have to do the math? Einstein got help with the math. Why can't I?

 

As far as Bohmian non-locality, I suppose that would be action on the other side of the time manifold in the Holonomic field, but no one has ever measured that so I don't feel the need to explain it. Bohmian locality with my theory as the base explains all apparently spooky action as deriving from 3D hidden variables.

Edit: A geometry does not require a metric. The platonic triangle has no metric and yet no serious person would argue it isn't a triangle.

In fact, the essence of the platonic triangle is that it has no metric. If it had a metric, it would not be the platonic triangle.

Dear Moderator: let's agree this isn't personal. I've said quite a few times I can't do the math while describing this totally new geometry. How should I characterize responses that demand I do the math after I've said repeatedly I can't do the math? Thanks in advance for the rhetorical advice.

Edited March 23 by JosephStang
Misspelled

[Mordred]

28 minutes ago, JosephStang said:

Bohm might have been an excellent mathematician, but I am not. I'm excellent at logic and programming. I was asked by a NASA engineer to help him program his theory, but it didn't explain quantum physics. I added a travelling wave to his theory and it now explains quantum physics. 

 

I described a geometry no one has described or conceived before. I can't do the math. Occam's razor says this is the theory. It can obviously be used to explain logically with words alone every aspect of quantum strangeness. 

 

Why should I also have to do the math? Einstein got help with the math. Why can't I?

 

As far as Bohmian non-locality, I suppose that would be action on the other side of the time manifold in the Holonomic field, but no one has ever measured that so I don't feel the need to explain it. Bohmian locality with my theory as the base explains all apparently spooky action as deriving from 3D hidden variables.

Edit: A geometry does not require a metric. The platonic triangle has no metric and yet no serious person would argue it isn't a triangle.

In fact, the essence of the platonic triangle is that it has no metric. If it had a metric, it would not be the platonic triangle.

pray tell how do you program a traveling wave without applying some form of mathematics ? I've done enough programming to know unlikelyhood of programming a travelling wave without some mathematics. Considering I've written programs in well over 30 different languages over the years. 

32 minutes ago, JosephStang said:

 

 

 

Edit: A geometry does not require a metric. The platonic triangle has no metric and yet no serious person would argue it isn't a triangle.

In fact, the essence of the platonic triangle is that it has no metric. If it had a metric, it would not be the platonic triangle.

Yet another claim, here is the think Unless you can make testable predictions which requires mathematics. Any claim is worthless. That's the simple reality in Physics the very fundamental purpose is to be able to make testable predictions of cause and effect. That's precisely why The Pilot wave, Including its guiding wave has relevant formulas where the interpretations can potentially be testable. Aka EPR, vs Copenhagen vs Pilot wave etc tests constantly being conducted with each of the aforementioned having its own variations of mathematical treatments. The mathematics are readily available for each of the mentioned theories. Any interpretation of any given theory should always involve the mathematics of that theory otherwise what's the point.

Edited March 23 by Mordred

[JosephStang]

Someone asked me to describe the Aharonov Bohm effect with the theory, so I did. I'm not even saying anyone's math is wrong. All I'm saying is that the geometry I'm describing is the logical explanation. It's true that mathematical testing is one purpose of experimentation but logical understanding is just as important. This is the most logical understanding. As far as the program, the NASA engineer did the math and gave me the equations and I tried programming it into a simulation. It was a team effort. That isn't a complicated thing to understand.

[Mordred]

So mathematic were supplied by him yet even knowing that the mathematics were required in that scenario. You still can't see that you may require the mathematics for your theory ? In order to be a theory mathematics are required its a simple fact. 

[JosephStang]

30 minutes ago, Mordred said:

So mathematic were supplied by him yet even knowing that the mathematics were required in that scenario. You still can't see that you may require the mathematics for your theory ? In order to be a theory mathematics are required its a simple fact. 

It seems you are incapable of logic. The description of the geometry satisfies any sane criteria for the word "theory". To program it we need math. To understand that it logically describes everything requires no math. In fact, adding math is opposite from logical understanding. Math provides a quantized understanding, not a logical one.

[Bufofrog]

3 hours ago, JosephStang said:

In fact, adding math is opposite from logical understanding. Math provides a quantized understanding, not a logical one

Really??  I don't think so.

[TheVat]

5 hours ago, JosephStang said:

Why should I also have to do the math? Einstein got help with the math.

Yeah, to formulate his famous field equations of 1915 he spent a couple years learning tensor theory from his friend Marcel Grossman, instead of bellyaching that he couldn't do math and insisting others do it for him.  

[Phi for All]

5 hours ago, JosephStang said:

It seems you are incapable of logic.

Please learn what logic is, and not from Mr Spock. Formal logic is an a priori study for maths and philosophy, not an empirical study for science. The word you're looking for is "reason".

[Mordred]

6 hours ago, JosephStang said:

It seems you are incapable of logic. The description of the geometry satisfies any sane criteria for the word "theory". To program it we need math. To understand that it logically describes everything requires no math. In fact, adding math is opposite from logical understanding. Math provides a quantized understanding, not a logical one.

considering I hold degrees in Physics and actually understand and regularly use the mathematics of the theories you mentioned. I would suggest I understand those theories far better that you do. Hence why I have provided you the opportunity to prove me wrong. For example you cannot have a holonomic state that had any dependency on coordinates. Any state in curved spacetime would inherently have this dependency unless you can ensure translational and rotational invariance.

 Another related key detail is that one entangled particle does not cause a change of state in another entangled particle. Entanglement requires a correlation function, this is part of statistical mechanics. Positive, negative and no correlation has no need for any causation. 

a simple example is place an orange on one bag and an apple in another. Give a bag to two other people. You have a 50 % chance the bag held by Alice has an apple as well as a 50% chance its held by an orange. So the apple/orange probability state is in superposition. Once you open Alice bag that superposition state collapses as you have now determined the state and also automatically know the state in Bobs bag. If Alice had an orange then Bob can only have the apple. Particle entanglement is much the same way. In order for two particles to become entangled they must have first interacted in some fashion. An example of interaction is parametric down conversion used in entanglement experiments. Parametric down conversion further results in numerous conservation laws being applied. Conservation of energy/momentum, isospin, color, flavor, charge, lepton number etc.

 From these details and the experimental setup ie number and position of detectors. One then sets up a correlation function. 

 

So from this you can easily see that there is literally zero logic in trying to interpret Bohmian non locality, EPR, Copenhagen interpretations with regards to any experimental evidence and ignore the mathematics of those theories. 

 

Edited March 23 by Mordred

[JosephStang]

This 3D geometry explains gravity without the need of curved spacetime. Your appeal to authority is unreasonable in the face of your clear inability to understand the simple geometry I am describing.

[Mordred]

3 minutes ago, JosephStang said:

This 3D geometry explains gravity without the need of curved spacetime. Your appeal to authority is unreasonable in the face of your clear inability to understand the simple geometry I am describing.

Look simple geometry and how you mathematically describe a triangle has little to do with your claims. You claim a Holonomic guiding wave which you call your travelling wave has an interaction that violates the maximum rate of information exchange. Referring to its hidden variable characteristic yet have not even told us what that variable is or how it would even apply to the state of a quantum system. You have event described any quantum system state.

You cant even validate your travelling wave is holonomic as you claim. There is a very good reason Why Bohm himself couldn't do what you claim to do. That very reason is that the mathematics do not support your theory. 

[JosephStang]

You clearly don't understand the thing I have clearly described that you are attempting to discuss and failing. I never said anything about a Holonomic guiding wave. That's obviously impossible.

[Mordred]

On 3/19/2024 at 1:46 AM, JosephStang said:

I. Travelling waves of smaller and smaller wavelength can be added on top of the first travelling wave, and there is no limit to the amount of smaller waves that can be added. I call this the Holonomic Toroid. It doesn't disprove Bell's inequalities, but it is a geometry that can be engineered to accomplish the superposition space. Bohm thought of this possibility but didn't imagine a geometry that can accomplish it. This geometry can. Here's a technical description.

 

The Holonomic Toroid.

 

 

 

Description: Each electron/proton is a ring. The ring is pure velocity. The velocity is the substance and the motion. The only law is like attracts and unlike repels. The ring spins at light speed. The energy spins in the circumference as it twists in the cross-section. These two velocities create the electric and magnetic force effects. The ring is at equilibrium when the attractive force generated by the twist in the cross section counteracts the repulsive force generated by the spin in the circumference.

 

 then explain how your holonomic toroid applies and show that it is truly holonomic. While your at it you can further apply Bells inequality via the following.

set a correlation function between Alice and Bobs measurement apparatus and how a measurement on Bobs apparatus does not depend on a measurement on Alice apparatus. You can use spin of electron so you should have a statement such as used in Bells inequality as

\[P(A,B|a,b\lambda)=P(A,|a,\lambda|)P(B|b,\lambda)\]

where\[\lambda\] is any possible hidden variable if hidden variables are involved the outcome would give

\[E^(HV)(ab)=\int d\lambda f(\lambda)\bar{A}(a,\lambda)\bar{B}(b,\lambda)\]

Edited March 23 by Mordred

[Mordred]

Here is an example of how to examine Bohm Non locality with regards to Bells inequality. This is the sort of math one can apply inclusive to experimental results using said math.

https://arxiv.org/pdf/1807.01568.pdf

[Phi for All]

!

Moderator Note

We need more focus on the science, and less on disrespect. 

 

[KJW]

6 hours ago, JosephStang said:

This 3D geometry explains gravity without the need of curved spacetime.

3D geometry doesn't explain gravity. And if there is no need for curved spacetime, why do we have it?

 

 

[JosephStang]

This quantizes the Toroid without the travelling wave. David Bergman was a NASA engineer. I learned Quantum Physics from him, so I could program his math in a simulation. We stopped working together when I realized his Toroid needed the travelling wave to explain Quantum Strangeness and he refused. 

 

Now you can't say there isn't any math.

 

https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/Spinning-Charged-Ring-Model-of-Electron-Yielding-Bergman-Wesley/0f73035756eb139e4b3afa2aaa6c75ce814b2cfb

[swansont]

Material needs to be posted here.

What’s the electric dipole moment of a charged ring?

[Mordred]

3 hours ago, JosephStang said:

This quantizes the Toroid without the travelling wave. David Bergman was a NASA engineer. I learned Quantum Physics from him, so I could program his math in a simulation. We stopped working together when I realized his Toroid needed the travelling wave to explain Quantum Strangeness and he refused. 

 

Now you can't say there isn't any math.

 

https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/Spinning-Charged-Ring-Model-of-Electron-Yielding-Bergman-Wesley/0f73035756eb139e4b3afa2aaa6c75ce814b2cfb

Without looking at that link as the material needs to be posted here. The math done in that paper was done by your colleague correct ?

By your statement above he refused to describe the mathematics in regards to quantum Strangeness so that paper wouldn't contain that detail with the needed math.

Using toroids is nothing new in physics a cyclotron can be described using a toriod geometry. Yes you can mathematically describe any geometry in regards to an earlier comment of yours.

Regardless if the person who did the math refused your conjecture then that wouldn't have the math beyond what the two of you were working on.

Edited April 27 by Mordred

[JosephStang]

Here's why the math is irrelevant. I do not know how to quantize the toroid's precessional movement but the variables it will require are in the definition of the shape. To accomplish the quantization, the mathematician will have a near infinity of options when assigning delta in XYZ to the different hidden variables represented by the measurements of the Toroid. 

 

The proof that it is the theory of everything is logical, not mathematical, because there will be many different ways to setup those variables so as to purposely represent a specific experiment's superposition space.

 

This is the logical proof:

 

1. 3d is logical and the entirety of evidence points to 3d.

 

2. The Holonomic Toroid can represent the quantum in 3d. It's the only shape that can. 

 

That's it. I don't need to provide a mathematical solution because the problem was logical and tautological, not quantizeable. It has been fully quantized. What was missing was a unifying logic.

 

Moreover, even when someone does the math, it will not prove that the shape is what is there. It will only prove that the specific configuration can be molded to the superposition space. To PROVE it, as a scientist, one would have to design a 3d falsification experiment, in 3D. 

Edited April 29 by JosephStang
Added para

[Mordred]

57 minutes ago, JosephStang said:

Here's why the math is irrelevant. I do not know how to quantize the toroid's precessional movement but the variables it will require are in the definition of the shape. To accomplish the quantization

Sorry to break to you the math is always relevant on physics. You will never convince any professional physicist without that math.  As it's your model and conjecture I certainly will not do the work for you. 

 In essence all we have is your claim. With nothing more substantial than a claim. Quite frankly I have already provided clues on what would be needed to prove a hidden variable with regards to the math. The geometry itself is extremely easy.

 Quite frankly there simply isn't anything of substance beyond your claims. So I have no further interest GL.

Edited April 29 by Mordred