User talk:Interintel

Hey Dude

You're a new user. Just wanted to explain the Bell thm. bit. Christian's article uses a definition of locality which is, to my mind, not satisfactory. There is a follow up article which made this point too, which I could dig up, but the main point is this:

Christian defines the average of two observables A and B to be

\int ABd\mu

Where the integral is over the unit quaternions and A and B are the product of quaternions representing the spin direction with the hidden variable $\mu$ .

Ok, This is easy to compute, it gives the dot product of the directions of A and B and it reproduces QM. But is this local?

Christian says: yes, local! Because the integral for the expecation value of each observable can be expressed as a quaternionic product on its own variables only. That's his definition of local.

Others say: No! The definition of local is that the distribution of the outcomes of experiment A should in no way depend on knowing the setting and outcome of experiment B. The nonlocality of the integration procedure is just a mathematical gimmick. What's important is that there are no changes in the probability distribution for the results of A coming from knowing the outcome of experiment B. That is violated by the outcome distribution themselves, as a consequence of Bell's inequality, independent of the mathematical procedure used to average variables.

What I didn't want to do is mislead people by having them think that Bell's theorem depends on some mathematical ridiculousness like whether a variable is commuting or not. Christian's analysis, however, is probably logically sound, it looked ok to me after the short time I gave it. It just doesn't cut the mustard on locality for me, and for others too.Likebox (talk) 12:03, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am indeed new here, and I still don't know how to reply to you, but perhaps you will see this edit. I disagree with your view on how locality is an issue in Christian's work. In particular, the averages *do not* depend on the order of A and B in his scheme as you say (this is easy to check). Now it may be that his proof of locality in his follow-up paper (arXiv:0707.1333) is clearer than what he has in his main paper, which you seem to be following. In the follow-up he shows that his model respects both parameter independence and outcome independence (and it is known that these two conditions together simply equal to the Bell locality condition). So, contrary to the impression you and others might have, in Christian's model the distribution of outcomes of an experiment A does not at all depend on the setting or outcomes of the experiment B. So, unless someone has found a flaw in his proof, what you are saying seems to be simply wrong.

I really think you should remove all references to the work of Christian in this article and the one on Bell's theorem (and any others). (I tried to do this, but you undid my edit.) Look at his recent article arXiv:0904.4259v2. He challenges equation (1) which basically says that the measurement outcomes are Real numbers (either +1 or -1). It is a mistake to challenge this: these outcomes could be written down on a piece of paper, what else could they be? Do we see numbers on pieces of paper failing to commute? I think it is a mistake to confuse innocent readers by inflating the importance of this trivial criticism. None of these papers have been accepted by the scientific community. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.75.169.169 (talk) 21:20, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I undid your undoing of my edit to Bell's theorem; I feel I have justified my original edit in the talk page. If you feel otherwise, please contribute to the talk page and we will try to reach a consensus before making further changes.

Off the record (with regards to the above discussion and irrelevent to the Bell's theorem article) my own opinion is similar to that of the above poster. The correlation function must correspond to an expected value of a set of real numbers, not an average over quaternion values as Christian suggests. Although Christian repeatedly defends himself by saying that you can extract a $\scriptstyle \pm 1$ value from the trivector by means of orientation, it is these $\scriptstyle \pm 1$ values that must be averaged over in any physical theory (LHV & quantum theory included), not the quaternion from which they originated. --Sabri Al-Safi (talk) 15:01, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Undid Undoing

Dear Interintel, it seems your activitity on Wikipedia is limited to promoting some minority views on Bell's theorem. Please explain on the Bell's Theorem talk page why you thought to see fit to undo an edit by me. I gave a clear argument for my edit. What are your counter-arguments? Wikipedia's purpose is not to provide a platform to promote personal points of view. Wikipeda can merely reflect current main-stream thinking as reflected by so-called Reliable Sources. An article in New Scientist, five years old, is not a reliable source on a scientific subject. Especially when no peer-reviewed publication has appeared by the person featured in that article. Richard Gill (talk) 18:32, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Interintel, please desist from vandalism (reverting edits by others without discussion). if we disagree on the notability of certain references or points of view on Bell's theorem, the appropriate place to discuss that is on the talk page of the article. The fact that internet is full of discussions of all kinds of fringe ideas does not mean that those ideas need exposure on wikipedia. Read Wikipedia editorial guidelines.

In particular, not one of Joy Christian's articles was published in peer reviewed journals, though several preprints were apparently submitted to mainstream journals. I am not aware of any publications by others developing his ideas further. Numerous authorities have gone on record saying this work is fatally flawed. Richard Gill (talk) 15:21, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

May 2012

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Please be particularly aware, Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made; that is to say, editors are not automatically "entitled" to three reverts.
Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. IRWolfie- (talk) 18:49, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Particularly, do not remove other users talk page contributions as you did here: [1]. IRWolfie- (talk) 18:51, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WP:SPA Notice

It seems that this is a WP:SPA account with a WP:COI issue. I will leave a message at WP:COIN. History2007 (talk) 14:22, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WP:COIN Notice

There is a discussion about this user account at Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard#Bell.27s_theorem. History2007 (talk) 14:29, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop attacking other editors, as you did on Bell's theorem. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Dougweller (talk) 15:16, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

June 2012

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for making legal threats or taking legal action. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.

You are not allowed to edit Wikipedia while the threats stand or the legal action is unresolved. AGK [•] 11:30, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators: The legal threats were made while logged-out, but are confirmed by checkuser as being made by the same individual who controls this account. AGK [•] 11:30, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]