Last week Richard D.Gill has written an article (1) in an attempt to refute Joy Christian's work. Richard Gill is a mathematician and known for his discussions in the Hess-Philipp debate (7), and has written quite a few papers on quantum mechanics (5).
He focusses on the one page explanation from Joy Christian at Arxiv (2). The main argument seems to be whether a term in Joy's correlation formula is vanishing or not.
He focusses on the one page explanation from Joy Christian at Arxiv (2). The main argument seems to be whether a term in Joy's correlation formula is vanishing or not.
Only a week after Richard's article, Joy replied with an extensive response (3).
It cannot be a surprise to the frequent reader of this blog that I would like Joy Christian to be right on this. But knowing that I am a relative nitwit on geometrical algebra (GA) I am not in the position to judge the arguments. So I will try to remain objective.
So far the debate doesn't seem to have a winner. The pro-Christians have expressed their doubt about Richard understanding the mathematical GA rules used by Joy, and I must say he hasn't convinced me yet of the opposite in his replies.
Discussions can be followed on the FQXi archives (4, it's about time that FQXi chooses another interface for these: they are way too sluggish) and physicsforums (6).
ps. the arguments might be summarised by the formula's below, as extracted from some of the post at the FQXi blog (8). I think I do understand (this part of) Joy's math, but I don't know why one should want to 'multiply by lambda square=1' to get Richards formula.
It cannot be a surprise to the frequent reader of this blog that I would like Joy Christian to be right on this. But knowing that I am a relative nitwit on geometrical algebra (GA) I am not in the position to judge the arguments. So I will try to remain objective.
So far the debate doesn't seem to have a winner. The pro-Christians have expressed their doubt about Richard understanding the mathematical GA rules used by Joy, and I must say he hasn't convinced me yet of the opposite in his replies.
Discussions can be followed on the FQXi archives (4, it's about time that FQXi chooses another interface for these: they are way too sluggish) and physicsforums (6).
ps. the arguments might be summarised by the formula's below, as extracted from some of the post at the FQXi blog (8). I think I do understand (this part of) Joy's math, but I don't know why one should want to 'multiply by lambda square=1' to get Richards formula.
Joy argues that since lambda is a fair coin, the last term in his formula will vanish when having a large number of repetitions. Richard has Beta(lambda) in the last term. This being equal to lambda Beta (see (2)) will result in lambda square, so the last term will not vanish.
- Simple refutation of Joy Christian's simple refutation of Bell's simple theorem, Richard D. Gill, http://arxiv.org/abs/1203.1504
- Disproof of Bell's Theorem, Joy Christian, http://arxiv.org/abs/1103.1879
- Refutation of Richard Gill's Argument Against my Disproof of Bell's Theorem, Joy Christian, http://arxiv.org/abs/1203.2529
- FQXi community: discussions: http://www.fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/995, http://www.fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/983
- Richard Gill on Arxiv: http://arxiv.org/find/quant-ph/1/au:+Gill_R/0/1/0/all/0/1
- http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=584996
- Comment on "Exclusion of time in the theorem of Bell" by K. Hess and W. Philipp, Richard D. Gill, http://arxiv.org/pdf/quant-ph/0204169.pdf
- http://www.fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/995#post_50816
