Is Christian’s Parallelized 7-Sphere Model Essential for the Physical Interpretation of M-Theory?

David Brown

Published May 1, 2012• 0 citations

Abstract

In 1991 with Abner Shimony as thesis advisor, J. Christian obtained his PhD in the foundations of quantum theory. As of 2012, he is affiliated with both Wolfson College of the University of Oxford and the Perimeter Institute in Waterloo, Ontario. From 2007 to 2012 Christian published some highly controversial work related to Bell’s theorem. Christian has proposed a parallelized 7-sphere model for a local, realistic theory that replaces quantum theory. This communication considers how his model might be relevant to a physical interpretation of M-theory. There is overwhelming empirical evidence in favor of the Ranada-Milgrom effect, at least as an approximation. Christian’s theory of local realism might be empirically valid if and only if the Ranada-Milgrom effect is empirically valid.

Related papers

Comment on “Bell’s Theorem Versus Local Realism in a Quaternionic Model of Physical Space”

Richard David Gill

I point out critical errors in the paper “Bell’s Theorem Versus Local Realism in a Quaternionic Model of Physical Space” by J. Christian, published in IEEE Access. Christian’s paper in fact contains several conflicting models. None of them form counterexamples to Bell’s theorem. Most of Christian’s paper is devoted to a model based on the detection loophole due to Pearle (1970).

arXiv:2103.00225IEEE AccessJan 1, 20210 citations

Comment on “Bell’s Theorem Versus Local Realism in a Quaternionic Model of Physical Space”

Richard David Gill

In this paper, critical errors found in the paper “Bell’s theorem versus local realism in a quaternionic model of physical space,” by J. Christian, published in IEEE Access, are pointed out. The above paper, in fact, contains several conflicting models. None of them form counterexamples to Bell’s theorem. Most of Christian’s paper is devoted to a model based on the detection loophole due to Pearle (1970).

Jan 1, 20215 citations

Does Geometric Algebra provide a loophole to Bell's Theorem? (with corrections)

Richard David Gill

In 2007, and in a series of later papers, Joy Christian claimed to refute Bell's theorem, presenting an alleged local realistic model of the singlet correlations using techniques from Geometric Algebra (GA). Several authors published papers refuting his claims, and Christian's ideas did not gain acceptance. However, he recently succeeded in publishing yet more ambitious and complex versions of his theory in fairly mainstream journals. How could this be? The mathematics and logic of Bell's theorem is simple and transparent and has been intensely studied and debated for over 50 years. Christian claims to have a mathematical counterexample to a purely mathematical theorem. Each new version of Christian's model used new devices to circumvent Bell's theorem or depended on a new way to misunderstand Bell's work. These devices and misinterpretations are in common use by other Bell critics, so it useful to identify and name them. I hope that this paper can serve as a useful resource to those who need to evaluate new "disproofs of Bell's theorem". Christian's fundamental idea is simple and quite original: he gives a probabilistic interpretation of the fundamental GA equation a.b = (ab + ba)/2. After that, ambiguous notation and technical complexity allow sign errors to be hidden from sight, and new mathematical errors can be introduced.

arXiv:1203.1504Mar 7, 201210 citations

Comments on "Disproof of Bell's theorem"

Florin Moldoveanu

In a series of very interesting papers [1-7], Joy Christian constructed a counterexample to Bell's theorem. This counterexample does not have the same assumptions as the original Bell's theorem, and therefore it does not represent a genuine disproof in a strict mathematical sense. However, assuming the physical relevance of the new assumptions, the counterexample is shown to be a contextual hidden variable theory. If Bell's theorem's importance is to rule out contextual hidden variable theories obeying relativistic locality, then Joy Christian's counterexample achieves its aim. If however contextual hidden variables theories are not considered genuine physically theories and Bell's theorem's importance stems from its ability to be experimentally confirmed, then Joy Christian's counterexample does not diminish the importance of Bell's theorem. The implications of Joy Christian's counterexample are discussed in the context of information theory. Version 2 note: Subsequent analysis disproved the mathematical consistency of Joy Christian's model. This paper was based on the assumption of the mathematical validity of the model. Except for the addition of this note, the content of this paper was not modified in any other way.

arXiv:1107.1007Jul 6, 20111 citation

The 1960s

Andrew Charles Whitaker

During the 1960s, Bell produced his seminal work on the foundations of quantum theory, first showing that, contrary to von Neumann’s argument, hidden variable theories were allowed but then that they had to be non-local. Thus, he showed that quantum theory did not respect local causality, and he outlined experiments that could be used to test whether the assumption of local realism was true in quantum theory: Bell’s theorem, or Bell’s inequality, or Bell’s inequalities. His work was followed up by John Clauser, Abner Shimony, Michael Horne, and Richard Holt, who produced the CHSH inequality. Bell had moved to CERN, where he worked on the theory of neutrino experiments, and on nuclear and elementary particle physics, making crucial suggestions concerning the use of gauge theory for each type of physical force and also producing the Adler–Bell–Jackiw anomaly, or the ABJ anomaly.

Oxford University Press eBooksJun 16, 20160 citations

Reply to “Comment on ‘Bell’s Theorem Versus Local Realism in a Quaternionic Model of Physical Space”’

Joy Christian

In this paper, I respond to a critique of one of my papers previously published in this journal, entitled “Bell’s Theorem Versus Local Realism in a Quaternionic Model of Physical Space.” That paper presents a local-realistic model of quantum correlations based on a quaternionic 3-sphere, taken as a physical space in which we are confined to perform all our experiments. The critique, on the other hand, considers two entirely different models within a flat Euclidean space, neither related to my quaternionic 3-sphere model. It then criticizes its own flat space models and claims that it has thereby criticized the model presented in my paper. Along the way, without providing evidence or proof, it claims that the results in my paper are based on mistakes. I demonstrate that there are no mistakes of any kind in my paper. On the contrary, I bring out a number of elementary mathematical and conceptual mistakes from the critique and the critiques it relies on.

arXiv:2202.05615IEEE AccessJan 1, 202223 citations