Log in

No account? Create an account

that is to say

I don’t have my bell disproof quite right, yet. It’s too bad the physicists tend not to spell out the details, but more or less rely on a presumed prior knowledge of electromagnetic wave theory. It ends up with me having to work out details, and probably with a lot of readers, even physicists, going ‘Huh?’


I did the equivalent of turning in my test without the last minute check that catches the major oversight that can be corrected before time is up if you just hold onto the test for longer.

My disproof is done

My disproof of the basis for ‘quantum non-locality’ is complete, though not fully discussed, as it were: <link>
The joint probability result is the one that is supposed to be impossible without spooky superluminal action at a distance, but here it operates in an ordinary manner (if ‘moving tangent vectors’ can be considered ordinary objects). To make the counterproof even more devastating, the ‘correlations’ are between two experimental runs on the same apparatus.

To reproduce the error made by the orthodoxy, instead of doing an integration over theta, you would do a double integration over two different variables, one for each cosine-square in the integrand. This error is what is ‘justified’ by claiming it ‘encodes’ ‘locality’.

It’s absolutely astonishing what theoretical physics has become, but then it seems less so when I consider how overblown the reputation of physicists is in our society. We would actually expect such incompetence and orthodoxy in many other academic fields.

While barking up a wrong tree

While barking up a wrong tree
I noticed something different
Between ‘modern probability theory’
And ‘calculus of plausible inference’.

Suppose you want to make a robot.
Suppose you want it free of prejudice.
Then you must make that robot
So it never adds a new assumption.

It happens often that some quantity
Shows up in your expressions
But what you know about that quantity
Amounts to less than a hill of beans.

A robot, faced with this situation,
And programmed according to the ‘moderns’,
Must come to you for more instructions,
To be given a density for the quantity.

The human must make a declaration,
‘Assume that X is uniformly distributed’,
Which the robot on its own cannot do,
Because it never makes assumptions.

In calculus of plausible inference, though,
The robots are commanded as follows:
‘You must never neglect what you know,
And you must never disagree with your fellow.’

Thus the robot must choose a density
That every other robot would have chosen,
Which always gives the same conclusion,
No matter how you integrate, etc.

Of course it ends up the same function,
Just forced by logic instead of assumed,
A little weightier in human judgment,
And keeping robots off our lazy backs.

This would help explain A LOT


A number of physicists began to advocate vitalism. Niels Bohr was one of the first to suggest that special laws not found in inanimate matter might operate in organisms. He thought of these laws as analogous to the laws of physics except for their being restricted to organisms. Erwin Schrödinger supported similar ideas, as well as the physicists Walter M. Elsasser and Eugene Wigner.[25]

Physicists by day, superstitious kooks by night.
 I have a constant obsession that I will drop dead while working on a problem and not finish it. This leads to a compulsion to post whatever half-baked level of thought I have at the moment, so at least that won’t be lost. It used to be much worse.

That this is due to my fear of leaving an unfinished problem, due to death, is a clarifying insight after many years of self-observation. By that I mean this explanation for the compulsion may actually be correct.


Unfortunately, if I get this right, I still won’t write a paper, due to my disability. I’ll just make a summary available to people who can write papers. We could use more laypeople writing scientific papers, though.

The difficult part, which I have not seen done by anyone, is how to make correlation due to phase more intuitive without forcing the reader to revert to the mind-picture of a classical field. Little known may be that it is insufficient to produce the right numbers; you must convince with geometry. This goes against the romantic picture of ‘self-correcting’ science; the force of your argument depends on how you speak.

My brain pain, and my back pain

Hofer’s argument in geometric algebra can be more intuitively given in the conformal model of space and by using coordinate systems less. Also his presentation uses questionable (though probably not uncommon) GA terminology and has at least two ‘shortcuts’ given without explanation. I plan to reformulate, as soon as I figure out one or two things. Well, really, it’s how best to fill in one of those shortcuts.

Meanwhile I have back spasm. Not fun.

On the other hand, the burn on my arm seems to be healing.

Latest Month

June 2016