Saturday, 6 December 2014

Joy Christians macroscopic experiment published

One important paper of Joy Christian, in which he proposes a macroscopic experiment which supports his theory, is published in the International Journal of Theoretical Physics (1). This means the article is formally peer-reviewed and this might boost its acceptance among the physics community and the realisation of the experiment itself.
Of course his opponents are also activated by this event (2).



  1. Macroscopic Observability of Spinorial Sign Changes under 2π Rotation, Joy Christian, http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10773-014-2412-2 The arxiv text: http://arxiv.org/pdf/1211.0784.pdf
  2.  https://pubpeer.com/publications/85C712D040528F6263E91EC7EB23F5

162 comments:

  1. Unfortunately Joy's experiment would instantly kill his theory if it were ever performed. Possibly that's why no one has bothered to do it yet (it wouldn't be so difficult).

    One indeed wonders what peer review means when the editorial board of the journal consists almost entirely of elderly Nobel prize winners. I somehow doubt that any of these eminent gentlemen has worked through the paper in detail.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I would like to make three observations about the naysayer’s comments.

      1) His comments show how little he has understood my proposed experiment, let alone the physics behind it. He is better off keeping his day job of writing malicious letters to my academic superiors to debilitate me academically and financially.

      2) To calm his fear of being exposed as an incompetent dimwit, he speculates why the experiment is not yet done even after 6 days since the proposal has been published. He parenthetically remarks that it would be an easy experiment to do, which again shows how little, if at all, has he understood the physics and mathematics behind the experiment.

      3) He then goes on to insult the distinguished editorial board members of the International Journal of Theoretical Physics (which includes at least four Nobel Laureates and a renowned mathematical physicist like Sir Roger Penrose) by implying that they are all senile, lazy, and irresponsible scientists. He goes on to speculate that the chief editor, the editor emeritus, the referees, and the distinguished editorial board members of the journal must have approved my paper for publication without working through its details. Perhaps I gave them little lollypops and put them to sleep to get the paper published.

      How sad and desperate can one get?

      Delete
    2. "One indeed wonders what peer review means when the editorial board of the journal consists almost entirely of elderly Nobel prize winners. I somehow doubt that any of these eminent gentlemen has worked through the paper in detail."

      This is a "damned if you do damned if you don't" comment if I ever saw one. If the paper had been published in a journal with an editorial board without distinction, it would have been criticized for being fringe and not mainstream. But because the Journal board does contain top scientists, it is criticized on the ground that none of them would ever have stooped to review the paper. You cannot have it both ways.

      Delete
    3. Gill said, "Unfortunately Joy's experiment would instantly kill his theory if it were ever performed." I'am afraid that Gill still doesn't have the slightest clue as to how Joy's math and physics of his framework works. The quantum experiments already support Joy's framework microscopically. So no "kill" there. The experiment is merely to test if the framework holds macroscopically which a proper test has never been done. If it does show a violation of Bell, then Bell is a dead issue for sure.

      Delete
    4. I am not criticising the journal or the journal board. Christian is the one claiming that the appearance of his paper in *this* journal means that he has the support of four Nobel prize winners and of Roger Penrose.

      Most journals I know of have editorial boards whose members are active in the process of evaluating papers. Papers are sent to editors, editors choose referees, and so on. However this journal has an editorial board who, one may well guess, does nothing at all. The managing editor is the one who does the work. Since a priori I know that the paper contains three obvious fatal errors it is clear that the referees did not do their work. I deduce that the managing editor had no clue what kind of a paper he was dealing with and I wonder what kind of referees actually reviewed the paper. Nowadays most referees do almost no work at all. We are all much too busy writing grant applications and writing our own papers (publish or perish) in order to actually spend time actually working through the details of the papers we are asked to referee.

      Delete
    5. I am pretty sure the referees know much more physics and completely understand the math of geometric algebra than you do. You have only made very lame attempts to understand Joy's framework. You still have no clue whatsoever. You probably never will.

      Delete
  2. The sins of the Bell mafia will not go unpunished. I already hear weeping, wailing, and gnashing of teeth: http://www.sciphysicsforums.com/spfbb1/viewtopic.php?f=6&t=115#p3763

    ReplyDelete
  3. Both Richard Gill and Scott Aaronson have used all sorts of dirty political tactics to hurt me academically and financially. I therefore call upon the scientific community to have their professorships revoked when my proposed experiment finally vindicates my refutation of Bell’s theorem.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Christian describes an experiment which is supposed to determine correlations E(a, b) between the spin of particle 1 measured in direction "a" and the spin of particle 2 measured in direction "b". There are "N" pairs of particles and their spin (+/- 1) is measured in many pairs of directions "a" and "b" (represented as unit vectors in R^3). Christian believes that his experiment will result in the so-called singlet correlations E(a, b) = - a . b = minus the the inner product between the two vectors "a" and "b". Suppose we look at four correlations, based on the four combinations between two particular choices for a and two particular choices for b. I choose them all in the same plane and refer to them by giving the angles they make with some fixed reference direction in the plane. Take a_1 = 90 degrees, a_2 = 0 degrees, b_1 = 45 degrees, b_2 = 135 degrees. Define E_ij = E(a_i, b_j). You will notice that each E_{ij} = +/- 1/sqrt 2. Three of the correlations are negative, one is positive. E11 - E12 - E21 - E22 = 2 sqrt 2 > 2. However as I show in my note http://arxiv.org/abs/1412.2677, submitted to IJTP on the advice of emeritus editor David Finkelstein, Christian's experiment will deliver |E11 - E12 - E21 - E22| less than or equal to 2.

    Christian's first "disproof of Bell's theorem" appeared on arXiv in 2007. It initially caused some interest and some controversy, but has since been more or less forgotten. Since then he posted about 15 papers elaborating this original result on arXiv. Many of them are chapters in his book "Disproof of Bell's Theorem: Illuminating the Illusion of Entanglement" http://www.amazon.com/Disproof-Bells-Theorem-Illuminating-Entanglement/dp/1599425645 ; for an eBook, second edition, go to http://www.brownwalker.com/book/1612337244 . This is the first time, as far as I know, that he succeeded in getting one of these papers published in a peer reviewed journal, which is why it is interesting.

    I first heard about Christian's disproof of Bell's theorem at a conference in Berlin in about 2008, at which Christian gave a talk on his work. Since he obtained his theoretical results by redefining "correlation" in a non-standard way, using geometric algebra, it was clear to me that it was quite simply *irrelevant* to the ongoing discussions on Bell's theorem, but his use of "geometric algebra" seemed amusing. I decided to learn about this, it might be useful. I met Christian in Oxford and he explained to me a little bit. Then I discovered that not only was his approach irrelevant, it also depended on an elementary sign error, carefully hidden (through notational ambiguity) in a routine calculation.

    Later still the arXiv preprint of the paper presently under discussion appeared. I got involved in discussions at several internet fora on this paper. It seemed to me that at last it should be possible to explain to the most fervent supporter of Christian that his work depends on one elementary error after another, since the new paper contains an error which anyone can see for themselves by doing one line of elementary algebra.

    All of this is interesting from a psychological and sociological point of view: why is Bell's theorem so poorly understand? Why does it constantly attract well-meaning and intelligent people who come up with flawed "disproofs" again and again? Often, these disproofs catch the attention of the popular science media. For instance, I became aware of Hess and Philipp's work, published in PNAS in about 2004, through my local newspaper. Hess and Philipp are (were) two highly regarded US scientists, stepping a little bit outside of their usual fields. Karl Hess is still not giving up ... http://www.amazon.com/Einstein-Was-Right-Karl-Hess/dp/9814463698/

    I presented some thoughts about the psychology of Bell denial at the last Vaxjo conference: http://www.slideshare.net/gill1109/vaxjo-2014

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Anyone with basic algebra skills can easily see that the bound on the CHSH inequality is 4 not 2.

      +1 -(-1) -(-1) -(-1) = 4

      Both CHSH and Bell made a mistake in their derivations as is obvious by the simple equation above. Furthermore, CHSH is not even required by Joy's experiment. All it has to show is,

      E(a, b) = -a.b

      or close to it.

      Delete
    2. Dear Fred, your arithentical skills are great, but you are not so strong in logic. IF Joy's experiment would show E(a, b) = - a.b, THEN it would violate CHSH for certain choices of a and b. Get that? Now please use your skills in arithmetic to check the calculation in my preprint showing that Joy's experiment can't violate CHSH. Happy New Year!

      Delete
    3. The experiment proposed in the IJTP paper will inevitably exhibit the singlet correlation, E(a, b) = - a.b, and hence violate CHSH for certain choices of a and b, as explained clearly in the last appendix of this paper: http://arxiv.org/pdf/1211.0784.pdf .

      Delete
  5. I indeed met Richard Gill the first time in 2008 in Berlin at a conference. He was rude and obnoxious. He kept interrupting me in my talk without listening to me or understanding the first thing I was saying. He behaved like a religious fanatic who already knew what the "truth" was. I had to shut him up in the middle of my talk to be able to finish it. I also discovered quickly that he had extremely poor grasp of basic mathematics, in particular that of algebra, despite calling himself a mathematician. And of course, not being a physicist, he has no understanding of basic physics. In the Bell saga his role is like that of a barroom hustler. He does the dirty work of a bulldog for the real Bell mafia behind the scenes. He is very good at it. He has destroyed the academic careers of several Bell challengers in the past by employing dirty political tactics behind the scenes. He has been trying to do the same to me for the past several years. You can find more details on this page of my blog: http://libertesphilosophica.info/blog/lpmain/ .

    ReplyDelete
  6. Joy has very rich imagination: "He was rude and obnoxious. He kept interrupting me in my talk without listening to me or understanding the first thing I was saying. He behaved like a religious fanatic who already knew what the "truth" was. I had to shut him up in the middle of my talk to be able to finish it."

    Pure imagination! And Joy was so happy to meet me in Oxford a year or two later! We had such a pleasant talk together!

    Unfortunately our relationship soured a few days later, when I discovered the sign error in the classic "one page paper". Thanks to Joy's beautiful little lecture on geometric algebra I was able to check the math in his paper myself.

    Over at PubPeer the admin's have now removed many of Joy's more over-the-top remarks. A pity that the public record is damaged in this way. But he certainly knows how to destroy his own credibility by foul-mouthing his opponents and never ever entering into the substance of any criticism.

    I hope that this by observing this behaviour, less mathematically qualified onlookers are better able to come to their own judgement.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. What is PubPeer? How can someone remove remarks I have never posted in the first place? Is this one of Gill’s usual dirty tricks of posting foul remarks in my name (i.e., as if I have posted them) and then use those remarks to smear my name? Has he stooped to that level of criminality again?

      In any case, Gill does not know how to add 2 plus 2. He thinks 2 + 2 = 5. So when I write the equation 2 + 2 = 4 in my paper, he thinks he has discovered an error in it. No wonder IJTP threw out his silly preprints.

      Delete
    2. So you deny ever accusing me of being a compulsive liar or a third-rate statistician? So any such posting on internet is only apparently made by J J Christian? In fact it was actually made by myself (or otherwise Scott Aaronson) as part of our despicable plot to discredit the new Copernicus of our times, so as to vainly extend our place in the sun, before we are totally eclipsed by the brilliant new Christian physics?

      Delete
    3. Both Richard Gill and Scott Aaronson have used all sorts of dirty political tactics to hurt me academically and financially. I therefore call upon the scientific community to have their professorships revoked when my proposed experiment finally vindicates my refutation of Bell’s theorem.

      Delete
  7. It is very sad to see, but Joy Christian has dug his own academic grave. Very sad. He is original, quick-witted, charming. Well read, intelligent. But he over-estimates his mathematical skills. As his PhD supervisor already noticed. He lacks mathematical discipline. Of course this can be said of many theoretical physicists, but in combination with an iron conviction that he is always right it can be fatal.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Smearing one's opponent is a standard strategy employed by Richard Gill every time his dogmatic adherence to Bell ideology is challenged. He has done this many times in the past, to many of his opponents. He immediately targets their academic credibility and academic affiliations, bombards emails to everyone connected to it, and smears his opponents as much as possible, in every which way possible. He attempts to derail their academic careers to advance his own selfish interests. For example he writes: "But he over-estimates his mathematical skills. As his PhD supervisor already noticed. He lacks mathematical discipline." This is a manufactured lie, planted by him and Scott Aaronson on the Internet for a singular purpose to defame. Having known my PhD supervisor (Abner Shimony) for over 30 years, I knew that he would never say a negative word about any of his students, let alone his best student, either in public or in private. Still, I verified with him that he has not said what Gill has been claiming he has said. As noted, it is Gill and Aaronson who have been planting this type of lies about me all over the internet, in order to defame and debilitate me. Gill has gotten away with this sort of criminality in the past, but not anymore. I intend to expose his crimes with documentary evidence.

      Delete
    2. Ahh yes, Gill shows his true colors here. Since he will never learn (and probably doesn't have the aptitude for) the math and physics necessary to understand Joy's model he should probably take this advice,

      http://www.sciphysicsforums.com/spfbb1/EPRsims/willrogers.jpg

      Delete
  8. FrediFizzx is a grown man with a beard? And I always thought he was a precocious eleven-year-old.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Here are some Christmas thoughts. Thoughts which might lead us all to rethink our behaviour in the New Year.

    I think that Joy Christian's long time supporters ought to look deep into their hearts and reconsider their unstinching support for him. There is vanity there, not just friendship. If someone makes a fool of themselves but doesn't realise it, it is their friends' duty to point this out to them. "It is sometimes cruel to be kind". I find it all very disturbing. Christian is driving himself further and further into insanity, and his best friends and supporters are urging him on.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The naysayer is just jealous that I have supporters. But Truth always has supporters. In the end the Axis of Evil (i.e., the Bell mafia) and their stinky bulldog (i.e., Osama-Gill-Laden) will be rooted out from science for good.

      Delete
    2. That's a new name for me! The stinky bulldog of the Bell mafia, aka the axis of evil, Osama-Gill-Laden.

      Yes the truth has supporters. Mathematical truth in particular is rather difficult to evade.

      Delete
  10. Well, looks like Gill is not going to take Will Rogers' advice so not much Xmas hope for him. Doesn't want to bother learning the necessary math and physics either so not much point in further discussion about this and no hope for him in the New Year.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Joy says on PubPeer that the experiment is on track and scheduled to be conducted in secret. Will it be in the tower of a mountaintop castle deep in the Carpathian alps? Will the experimenters need to travel there by horse-drawn coach? Will it be conducted at night during a lightning storm? Will someone resembling the late Marty Feldman be present to cry, "Master, it worked!" or, alternatively, "Ach, Scheiß!"?

    ReplyDelete
  12. Can you please all stop being sarcastically or calling each other names. The scientific argument from both parties has been spelled out and new arguments are still very welcome here. But stop the personal attacks.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Sorry, Albert Jan. I apologize.

      Delete
    2. Have you noticed, Albert Jan, that no single supporter of Joy Christian has refuted my critique in http://arxiv.org/abs/1412.2677, submitted to International Journal of Theoretical Physics? And what do you think about it, yourself? Have you noticed that none of the famous editors of that journal (Roger Penrose, Chris Isham, ...) have stood up and uttered support for Christian? Indeed, the scientific argument has been spelled out and it is rather clear. It is an objective fact that Christian has destroyed his own scientific career and his own scientific reputation. His supporters have urged him on. They should be deeply embarrassed. That's my Christmas message to you all.

      Delete
    3. There is no need to refute any supposed arguments by Gill because they have already been refuted many times over, by many people. See, for example, this paper http://arxiv.org/abs/1203.2529 and the last appendix of this paper http://arxiv.org/abs/1211.0784.

      Gill’s latest preprint is so manifestly wrong that it is not worth responding to. No one is interested in refuting his distortions. He is free to indulge in them as much as he likes. They have nothing to do with my work.

      The distinguished editors and the august editorial board members of the International Journal of Theoretical Physics have already stood up and endorsed my paper by publishing it in their highly respected journal where Feynman has published his most creative ideas: http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2FBF02650179 .

      Delete
    4. Hi Albert,

      What are we to do if you continue to allow Gill to post blantant lies and other innuendos on your blog? He is not going to take Will Rogers' advice and for sure is not willing to learn the physics and math enough for proper discussion.

      Delete
  13. Basically, every person (that I know of) who has looked at Joy's work in detail has come to essentially the same conclusions as Richard Gill. To name a few:

    Me
    Scott Aaronson
    Florin Modoveanu
    Lubos Motl
    Sascha Vorigehr
    TJ Radcliffe
    Tung Ten Yong
    Basically, all the participants on Physics Forums.

    Joy and FrediFizzx explain all the opposition to Joy's work either by:
    (1) His detractors are incompetent,mathematically (or at least incompetent in the specific area of Clifford algebras, quaternions and the topology of 3-spheres), or (2) His detractors are so committed to mainstream, establishment physics that they are psychologically incapable of hearing challenges to it, or maybe (3) They're just jealous (my daughter's favorite explanation for everything).

    But Joy's detractors are not known for picking fights. They are not known for slavishly defending mainstream orthodoxy against all challengers. They are not known for being mathematically incompetent. Joy's (and FrediFizzx') explanations for why people are attacking him make no sense, whatsoever, in context. Yes, the mathematics of the three-sphere is complicated. But it's no more complicated than the sort of group theory that is routinely used in quantum mechanics. It's no more complicated than General Relativity. The idea that people are rejecting it because of the complicated mathematics is just ridiculous.

    So maybe it's the challenge to mainstream quantum orthodoxy that people are balking at? They are too wedded to the mainstream view of quantum mechanics? That's complete and utter nonsense. There are as many interpretations of quantum mechanics or Bell’s theorem as there are physicists. People have lots of ideas for how to think about what quantum mechanics is telling us about the world, and they are a LOT wilder than Joy's model. Bohm-DeBroglie nonlocal pilot waves. Time-symmetric quantum mechanics. Block world interpretation. Solipsistic interpretations. Interpretations involving non-measurable sets (PItowsky). Superdeterministic interpretations. Many-worlds interpretation. Stochastic wave function collapse interpretations. There are lots of wild possibilities, and competent physicists can discuss them civilly, without getting into shouting matches. So what is different about Joy Christian's interpretation?

    Perhaps people are closed-minded about mathematical proofs. They are not open to the possibility that Bell's proof is incorrect. I don't think that that holds any water, either. Physicists are always looking for loopholes or hidden assumptions in proofs. Half the theoretical papers you see in physics journals are challenging previous proofs or are trying to find loopholes in "no-go" theorems. Proofs are found to be wrong (or to have hidden assumptions) all the time. It's not an earth-shattering event. Nobody's going to reject Joy's work just because he claims to have found a mistake in a previously accepted proof.

    Maybe Bell, specifically, is held in such high regard that people have trouble accepting the possibility that he was wrong? The only thing that most people know about Bell is his proof of Bell's Inequality and the fact that QM violates it. It's not at all the case that people believe Bell's theorem out of reverence toward Bell as an authority figure. It's the other way around---people respect Bell because they can understand and appreciate his theorem. People believe Bell's theorem for the same reasons that they believe the Pythagorean Theorem or believe Einstein's derivation of the Lorentz transformations--because they've gone through the steps, and they see that the conclusions follow.

    I believe that the reason that Joy's work generates so much heat is because it's nonsense, and people get mad when nonsense is promoted so relentlessly. (I think it's INTERESTING nonsense, by the way. I learned a lot from studying enough about 3-spheres and Clifford algebras to convince myself that it is is nonsense.)

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "... people get mad when nonsense is promoted so relentlessly ..."

      Substitute "unpleasantly" for "relentlessly" and you've nailed it.

      Delete
    2. I get *amused* when nonsense is promoted so relentlessly and unpleasantly! It's an opportunity to let the outside world see the true colours of the promotors of the nonsense. They just dig their own graves ever deeper. And it's an opportunity for outreach, for explaining to the outside world what Bell's theorem is about. Nothing like a big academic fight to catch people's interest.

      Delete
  14. Double LOL! The real reason why Joy's model is getting so much push back, is that the quantum EPRB type experiments actually support the model. The model shows that the only objection to quantum theory is exactly what Einstein objected about it. Quantum theory is not a complete theory of Nature. Now, the only question that remains does the model hold macroscopically. Only a proper experiment will tell us that.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Preparations for a proper macroscopic experiment are already underway. The experiment is described on this page: http://libertesphilosophica.info/blog/experimental-metaphysics/ .

      Delete
    2. Excellent! Any idea when results might be available? Just to add, if the experiment is successful in showing that E(a, b) = -a.b or close to it, then it provides extreme validation of the model and for sure Bell falls by the wayside of other dead no go theorems.

      BTW, for those lurkers that would like an explanation of the model, just ask. It is really not so complicated in words. However, if you are a Bell diehard, we are not going to waste our time (or yours) trying to convince you that the model is correct and works as we have already learned from many tries that it is an excercise in futility.

      Delete
    3. I don't know how long before the results will be known, but I am assured that the experiment is doable with sufficient precession despite the involvement of macroscopic degrees of freedom.

      Delete
    4. The experiment is certainly do-able. The point is that its results will be a disappointment to Joy Christian and his supporters.

      A lot of people, myself included, are enthusiastic to have the experiment performed. There will not be much in it for the experimenters ... except perhaps an igNobel prize.

      Delete
  15. I don't understand what the controversy is, or at least why there needs to be one. Bell's theorem is simply a model. The reasonable conclusion to draw is that Bell violations merely mean that no model of physical reality which incorporates local realism can reproduce the predictions of quantum mechanics. Nothing is necessarily said about "underlying reality" and the experiments themselves are 100% local and realistic.

    "Entanglement" is a possibly unfortunate coinage by Schrödinger which has become widely reified in people's minds, but that reification isn't mandatory. We're free to call it something like Effect Q and make whatever practical use of it we can without indulging in metaphysical speculation concerning what it says or doesn't say about Ultimate Reality. Why assume we'll ever know what that is anyway?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The claim by the followers of Bell that "no model of physical reality which incorporates local realism can reproduce the predictions of quantum mechanics" is simply false. See section 1.3 of the following paper where ALL quantum correlations are reproduced purely local-realistically. It rigorously proves that --- contrary to what the followers of Bell claim --- there is no voodoo in the world: http://arxiv.org/pdf/1201.0775.pdf .

      Delete
    2. Entanglement or whatever you wish to call it is simply an illusion as Dr. Christian has successfully shown. There is no special connection of any kind between particles that are spatially separated from a past singlet state. So that is in fact one of the controversies; Bell followers believe in some kind of spooky connection at a distance. Einstein and Christian followers don't.

      Delete
    3. I'm anti-mysterian and prefer classical explanations but I'm also aware that this is a bias and may cloud judgment. Dr. Christian claims that Bell is false based on his own mathematical modeling of a hypothesized topological space, but that model hasn't yet been demonstrated to congrue with physical reality. Mathematical plausibility is necessary but it isn't sufficient. Mathematics, like language, is a modeling tool and its product shouldn't be confused with that which it proposes to model.

      Dr. Christian hasn't proved Bell or himself either right or wrong; that determination is up to the experiment. He may well have demonstrated a strong possibility, indeed a likelihood; he may even have established parity with what most still consider settled science. But he hasn't disproved anything. Not yet.

      Part of the resistance against your proposal may lie in your use of the word "disproof." It's unfortunately hyperbolic.

      Delete
    4. Why don't you think that the quantum EPRB experiments validate Joy's mathematical model? For me that seems to indicate physical congruity with reality. So we do already have experiments that validate the model. Of couse it is subject to some interpretation. What the "disproof" is all about is the false interpretation that has been taken from Bell's theorem. Everyone knows that you can't disprove a mathematical theorem.

      Delete
    5. Indeed, "it is subject to some interpretation" which is why Dr. Christian has felt obliged to cut the Gordian Knot by proposing a purely macroscopic experiment. My problem with that stems from a belief that Classical Logic is as much a representation of the physical macroscopic world as is Classical Mathematics.

      In violating Bell while employing purely classical objects, Dr. Christian's experiment would also violate the rules of macroscopic physical reality as represented by classical logic, of which Bell's derivation is a solid example. And, in addition, if you can entertain that possibility you should also be able to entertain a role for quantum behavior in photosynthesis, avian navigation, chemical bonding and so on. One assumes the reason you don't is because that role would involve the agency of Verschränkung and what appears to macroworld observers as spukhafte Fernwirkung. This truncation of possibility seems arbitrary as well as suggesting that the larger issue hasn't been thought through.

      True-believing supporters of Dr. Christian can hardly appeal to any supposed separation between logic on the one hand and mathematics (as represented by Dr. Christian's topology) on the other hand without finding themselves on a slippery slope. Both are macroscopic artifacts. So now argue that one is a less valid tool in a classical environment than the other.


      Delete
    6. Yep, your own prejudices about science and math will most likely prevent you from gaining a better understanding of Nature.

      Delete
    7. The previous poster but one, as well as everybody else, needs to understand that Fred Diether views Joy Christian as his hope of escape from the anonymous mediocrity in which he now exists into the Big Time. Like maybe he'll be Joy's TH Huxley or something. Although he'll have to fight Tom Ray to the death for the job and I'd bet on Tom.

      Delete
    8. Good Heavens. The PubPeer moderators are allowing unregistered submitters to describe Peer 1's offerings as "lunatic ramblings." Well, at least Peer 1 isn't Joy, thank goodness.

      Delete
    9. I should know better than to go against the basic Internet discussion rule of "DON'T FEED THE TROLLS!" but here it goes. It is pretty obvious that the current moderator on PubPeer has a bias against the paper and other people that support the paper. The real moderators are probably on holiday vacation and they left some moron in charge that has difficulty doing some basic algebra and physics.

      Delete
    10. Well, yes, that could be ... but it's equally plausible that Peer 1 is presenting herself or himself in a rather unusual manner. Like batpoop crazy unusual. Nutty as a fruitcake unusual. Even ready to go postal unusual. Highly unusual.

      Delete
    11. Etrefakis, you said "I don't understand what the controversy is". There is no controversy. Christian's work is based on a simple sign error. He got the basic math wrong. The ideas are also wrong, that's a second issue. Then there is a third issue: the result of his experiment will *certainly* disappoint him. Now this third issue is one which even you can verify for yourself.

      Accountants have known for a long time that if you have a finite rectangular array of numbers (a spreadsheet ...) and you add them row-wise, and then add up the row totals, you should get the same answer as when you add them column-wise, and then add the column totals, you get the same answer. Now if you are able to understand that, you should be able to understand the reasoning in my little arXiv.org note where I explain why the results of Christian's experiment will certainly disappoint him.

      Please do carry out this little exercise! It might help clarify your thinking as to whether or not Christian is another Einstein or Newton, or whether he has merely deluded himself into thinking so, by a quite extraordinary lack of mathematical discipline.

      Delete
    12. Well, the truth was very clearly spelt out long time ago on this page: http://www.sciphysicsforums.com/spfbb1/viewtopic.php?f=6&t=49&p=2545&hilit=third+rate#p2545 .

      Delete
    13. As Albert Jan has noted, my paper has been published in IJTP. Gill claims to have submitted a critique of my paper to the same journal. I have read the preprint of his critique. It contains several elementary errors. Therefore I expect it to be rejected by IJTP.

      Delete
    14. Yes, this is exciting. What will IJTP do? I will let you know here, as soon as there is a response from them. Happy New Year, everybody,

      Delete
    15. Well, for all we know Gill's erroneous preprint has already been rejected by IJTP. He will never reveal that it has been rejected.

      Delete
    16. I will let everyone here know IJTP's response immediately, when I get a response from IJTP, whatever it is.

      Delete
    17. The present status of my submitted note at IJTP is "editor assigned". That has been the situation since 9 December, one day after I submitted the note. I have just sent an email to the editor managing the submission, pointing out the improved version on the arXiv, which I would like the referes to be aware of.

      Delete
  16. By the way I just noticed that Albert-Jan had posted some nice items about the Vaxjo challenge. In particular he studies Joy's R code

    http://rpubs.com/jjc/16415

    which is one of Joy's many attempts to win that challenge.

    I used Joy's code to print out the four correlations which are of interest to CHSH (and hence needed for the challenge). Do please take a look at

    http://rpubs.com/gill1109/joy

    Two of the four correlations are great, but two of them are not good at all.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The above attempt by Gill is disingenuous. As usual he is misrepresenting my code and the related facts. The simulation relevant for the four correlations in question is the following one, which correctly takes the 3-sphere topology into account, and therefore correctly reproduces the four correlations: http://rpubs.com/jjc/19298 .

      Gill owes me 10,000 Euros + interest and inflation. Instead of paying up what he owes me, he has resorted to writing malicious letters about me to my academic superiors in Oxford and elsewhere, which is admittedly quite a clever diversionary tactic.

      Delete
    2. Yes, http://rpubs.com/jjc/19298 that is the code with the line "good <- abs(ua) > p & abs(ub) > p" where a subset of all the pairs of particles is chosen, dependent on the measurement angles a and b and dependent on the local hidden variables carried in the particles. The detection loophole. Each separate correlation is calculated on the data from a different, and biased, selection of the particle pairs. It has been well known how to do this since Pearle (1970). Karl Hess relates in his book how he didn't realise this till he met Pearle at a conference quite some years after he published his model. He now admits in his book that what he was really on about, all the time, was explanations of the "quantum correlations" through the detection loophole / coincidence loophole. Only he didn't know about these things when he first came up, together with Walter Philipp, with his model.

      Delete
    3. I reported to Christian's academic superiors in Oxford the precise words he had written about me and the words he had written about Scott Aaronson on various blogs, repeatedly, and I also pointed out that he repeatedly used bogus Oxford affiliations in order to promote his work. I was not the only person who complained, I think there were about half a dozen people who felt strongly that Christian had gone too far by resorting to personal abuse (since mathematical and physical arguments had failed him). The result was that he got told off by the authorities at Wolfson college, Oxford, and it seems he has lost his Wolfson college email address. He also now writes on his various websites that he was affiliated with various Oxford institutions "till 2014". That's when he lost his last bit of credibility in Oxford. Through his own behaviour. Now he has absolutely nothing to lose, so no holds are barred any more. Quite amusing, really.

      Delete
  17. This simulation http://rpubs.com/jjc/19298 has nothing whatsoever to do with the detection loop hole, or any other loop hole.

    Unfortunately diploma in statistics is not good enough to understand the physical theory behind the simulation: http://arxiv.org/pdf/1405.2355.pdf .

    What is amusing is the web of lies being weaved by Gill, which must be corrected. Until recently Gill was the only individual who had been bombarding my academic superiors in Oxford with malicious letters about me, pointing them to some posts he and Aaronson had been planting on the internet on my name. He was then piggybacked by another individual, who goes by various names like Nick Mann, or Rick Padua, or Erik Trier, or "menoma." These are the only two individuals who had been writing malicious letters to the President of my college in Oxford. No one else has stooped this low despite their opposition to my work. I have already noted the full details elsewhere: http://www.sciphysicsforums.com/spfbb1/viewtopic.php?f=6&t=115&sid=64621c0982ceb252c1c82fd3f16c5486#p3763 .

    ReplyDelete
  18. So I posted the remarks about "morally corrupt, algebraically challenged, third rate statistician" myself, deliberately in order to discredit Christian??? And those remarks to the effect that a certain computer programmer at MIT should take off his trousers and look below his belly ... those remarks were planted by the programmer in question, himself? JJC really has gone totally bonkers now. He has been living a lie for so long now that he no longer can tell whether he is lying or telling the truth. Really, his friends ought to advise him (privately, perhaps) that he is not doing his cause any good ...

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. There is nothing further to add to what I have already written above so clearly. I will continue to update my blog as more evidence comes to light: http://libertesphilosophica.info/blog/ .

      Delete
    2. Excellent. By the way, Karl Hess states that all his public utterances about me are in his publications and in his book, pages 76-81. Regarding Walter Philipp and Joe Doob see page 73. You are blackening Karl Hess' name, and Walter Philipp's name (and he can't defend himself any more) by spreading insults like that. Absolutely revolting behaviour.

      Delete
    3. If I am blackening Karl Hess's name, then he will tell me. Instead, he just sent me his best wishes for the New Year. But I (and many others) agree: Your behaviour, Mr. Gill, has been absolutely revolting: http://libertesphilosophica.info/blog/ .

      Delete
    4. As he also sent them to me, too. Quite a gentleman. Happy New Year!

      Delete
    5. No he didn't. Karl Hess is absolutely determined to have no contact with you whatsoever. He has been blocking your emails for years, and I should have done the same a long time ago.

      Delete
    6. I was pleasantly surprised to find out I was no longer on his "blocked" list, when I emailed him a couple of days ago! I am right now (the last two days) engaged in a dignified and (I believe) scientifically fruitful email conversation with Hans de Raedt, Andrei Khrennikov, Theo Nieuwenhuizen and Karl Hess. I know the first three gentlemen quite well. We agree to disagree on many aspects of quantum foundations, and that does not stand in the way of rewarding interactions (in fact, on the contrary, discussing with someone who disagrees with you is a win-win situation either. Either or both of you will learn from it). You may ask any of those gentlemen if that is true or not.

      Delete
    7. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

      Delete
    8. Interestingly, de Raedt and Hess think that Bell was wrong because Einstein was right, Khrennikov and Nieuwenhuizen think that Bell was wrong because Bohr was right. None of them are referring to the Christian model.

      There is no reference to it in Hess' book. There is no reference to it in Khrennikov's recent http://arxiv.org/pdf/1412.6987.pdf "Bell as the Copernicus of Probability".

      Andrei suggested we hold a small workshop. If that comes about, I'll announce it here, so everyone interested can participate.

      Delete
    9. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
    10. No mortal needs to refer to my model. Nature prescribes to it, and that is what counts. Put differently, what I have shown is how Nature exhibits the strong or "quantum" correlations naturally. Bell simply did not know how to calculate them correctly. Not only Hamilton, Grassmann, Clifford, and Einstein, but even Pauli --- who had no sympathy for Einstein's position --- would have laughed at Bell (as for the statistician Gill, he only needs to be laughed at by Joseph Doob). On my blog I have explained in detail the naïve errors Bell made in his so-called "theorem."

      Delete
  19. As a lawyer I’m baffled at the way this discourse is held. It not only is bad form but also bad science. All the more so because a fundamental issue is met in an inherent fundamentally incorrect way. You are inherently dealing an issue with evident incomplete evidence. Mathematics thus dictates the use of intuitive Bayesian probabilistic inference because that is the mathematics that deals with that. That inherently requires to deal with the incomplete evidence in an inherently creatively intelligent way. To do so as a dictate of science one needs to take into account all relevant data and fill in the missing data by educated guesswork in a testable way. As neurology already shows us you also need to take into account the most important of instruments an experiment has namely the instrument between the ears. All physicists and astronomers have thus got degrees for final exams even though they forgot to take into account of that most important instrument. That instrument works as a Bayesian logic chip in the brain. In short: of the fastest brains taking current psychological data as a fact you have 20% creative and 80% non-creatively highly intelligent people. The first are the creative composers scenario writers being intuitively illiterate when it comes to arithmetic. They think in terms of pictures (or put mathematically in intuitive terms of cubes spheres rheology). And the latter the intuitive excellent checking though authority or paradigm minded conscientious checkers of Mother of human Nature.

    To provide an example: Hubble was a lawyer who peered through his telescope at the big haystack in the sky. His creative brain came up with the notion “Christ it’s expanding” and subsequently in what was it? 1929 drew a few dots being his data and drew the red line accompanied with his mathematics. The peers who checked this immediately spotted his error earth then being older than the universe. Yet Hubble being wrong was found to be right. He intuitively found the needle in the haystack. Ergo: you need to cooperate after getting the team in order. Hubble worked the case like a lawyer works a crime scene. So did Einstein and Newton, all creative minded picture thinkers.

    Occam and especially the Lex parsimony dictate in science: as complicated as necessary yet as simple as possible. Well: Bayesian inference is bloody complicated and given that we are measuring on far less than nanometers yet with a deviation of trillions of light years (is space infinite or not, is there pressure or not?) this dictates the use of verbal and picture logic instead of mathematics in order to find the needle in the haystack. Or put in another way to sort out where to start looking and testing.

    Now back to entanglement: what are we looking at? What is all the relevant data? Is it a confined problem given the inherent assumptions Bell and Gill are making or should we take other assumptions? If it is fundamental – and it is that – then we are talking a Theory of Everything topic issue and that – per definition – doesn’t have boundaries.

    ReplyDelete
  20. So I guess the statistics of Gill given the assumptions he in lieu of Bell has taken are correct. Yet it IMO also proves quite the opposite of what he states namely that the assumptions of Bell are clearly wrong. Entanglement – extremely probably (Bayes) thus - isn’t any sort of interaction at a distance but a loss of correlation when not working accurately enough. It’s like splitting a gearbox. A pre-determined begin state is split and provides when you get a result either Alice and Bob “up” or one “up” and the other “down”. In theory you could thus get 100% correlation, yet that probably isn’t technically feasible.

    It all boils down to what you think you are looking at when observing a photon (or electron or Bucky ball). The photon – I guess – being the more fundamental is thus the most interesting. Science has never observed this according to QM & GR absolutely straight flying gravity exerting thus galloping unicorn that magically curves in curved nothing. As any creative thus intuitive composer/ scenario playwright will immediately agree this is extremely probably (Bayes!) the odd one out of all the other spinning and curving stuff we observe in nature. Keeping thus QM and GR divided. Being the latter not just theories but correctly defined the best laws of physics we ever had. They remain that just like the law of the flat earth still stands when drawing a paper city map. Yet falls when we go out of those bounds. The straight flying photon is an awkward resemblance of the flat earth discussion. Physicists holding to their paradigm are in an evident Bayesian inversion or confirmation bias as the psychologist Kuhn predicts given a paradigm. It in effect is religious science. You forgot the instrument between the ears.

    If you as correct scientific approach requires take out this odd one out and supplant it with a curving photon of which the energy packet contains two counter rotating interlocked strings of spinning Higgs particles as Gluons in a double dynamic crystal of (unspun) Higgs particles forming an non Euclidean space with in an Euclidean space of smaller yet faster gravitons both gravitons and Higgs particles being deformable yet un-split-able then we get on average perfect billiard balls that can deform into toothed wheels. Providing the Higgs mechanism and field in which the photon can bounce along holding c in the curve by paying the price of getting red-shifted. Because there is pressure in the system and under-pressure all matter acting like little black holes that acquire mass and thus accelerate and the entire standard model can be built up of strings any Gluon can then be built up out of many spinning Higgs particles even though a photon is only built up of two strings with six Gluons each. The dynamic crystal makes for a digital world at that level hence the quantum effects.

    ReplyDelete
  21. We already observe the workings of the dynamic crystal that works like a hologram because at zero degrees Kelvin it all stays moving. Carbon under extreme pressure becomes a crystal diamond and water taking away the pressure also becomes crystal ice. The latter showing that it is not energy and gravity yet most probably order and disorder. This you can simulate in a computer for we observe to much otherwise inexplicable order in the system given current laws of physics. It then is also consistent with the brain having the need for disorderly dreaming. Usually we are unaware of this because Mother Nature puts us to sleep. It is a low energy solution in order to keep the required balance between order and disorder without boiling the brain. I.e. a thinking self-learning computer is possible. (Yet extremely dangerous as Stephen Hawking also states.) A computer gets away with this by burning disorderly energy to create order at temperatures that would boil our brains.

    Seeing it this way thus shows why with entanglement we observe what we indeed observe: a split-able photon taking half the spinning Higgs particles. Take out a pen and turn it one way and turn it up-side down whilst turning. It then sins the other way round. All nicely explainable in a nice New Newton way. No magic.

    And the law of Hubble a Champagne bubble scenario with angular momentum at the sides and thus not the half backed space cake that is like Harry Potters tent larger on the in, than outside. CMB being arcing photons being tired massive light that has become polarized in the double crystal of the Higgs field that moves inward like a glacier in the same rate as the bubbles accelerate upwards. Interlock both index fingers and thumbs: behold the energy packet of a photon. You can un -polarize it by one hand in the vertical plane and the other in the horizontal. Or both polarized one way or the other. Simple. Like we observe more energy on the one side being thus “up” than on the down side. As the entanglement experiment shows when a split photon has half the energy. The pressure on the up side is mounting in order to keep the pressure on the strings that otherwise would spiral out like magnetism. A surface tension affair with many more testable implications.

    Demanding mathematics before testing is illogical and thus pseudo-scientific. You should demand a correct integral elegant testable scenario. Also as I do integrating the instrument between the ears in a testable way. Where’s yours? I hold thus proof of prime suspect for the answer to the Bell problem. If you’re claim isn’t integral you can’t play in science proper.

    ReplyDelete
  22. Gill's 85% correlation drops to 75% correlation when changing the angle in the experiment. It will drop to zero if you do a measurement at Alice or Bob or when you don't work accurately enough. All up or down or up-up down-down measurements of correlate when we see it as a split gearbox of which you either have or haven't turned one halfe of the gearbox upside down..

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Coincidence rate, not correlation. Correlation equals two times probability of equal outcomes, minus one. Gerhard Ris (a lawyer) refers to slides of a talk by me. He should have given the link, so that the reader might have some clue what he's on about.

      Delete
  23. Agree, you believe it to be a mere coincidence, yet I take it to be a correlation even with causal effect.I indeed came to the more specific insight due to your as I understand it not yet published work in progress brilliant slides that indeed simplify and thus clarify entanglement for layman like lawyers. I thought it was a simplification of your position you've taken in the discussion with Joy. I only take your position in evidence against your own conclusion. When you get a strange result - like believing it to be inherently unsolvable - you should a priori question your assumptions. You in effect believe in magic which is less probable than believing in God (the one with the beard that is.) The latter is not in conflict with any known observation. Yet extremely improbable and I have the strong feeling that he doesn't exist, i.e. I'm convinced he doesn't. All I've done is change the assumption concerning what a photon is in GR & QM. In a testable concept thus marrying the two. Solving it like you should as a crime scene.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Gerhard, you have still not got the point. Correlation (raw product moment between +/-1 valued variables) *equals* two times probability of coincidence (same outcomes) minus one. And you still do not give any link to the talk slides you are talking about, so no one has a clue what you are talking about. And you have no clue what you are talking about, either. And I am not proposing magic, or God. I report what quantum mechanics predicts is possible, in nature. If you want to call "magic" anything which you don't understand, then you'll see a lot of magic around you, sure.

      Delete
  24. BTW Richard you should as a statistician know that when dealing with problems concerning incomplete evidence as this clearly is for science doesn't exactly know what a photon is, that you then must apply Bayesian probabilistic reasoning instead of only empirical statistics. Coupled to the Lex parsimony and Occam you get in the art as much as science of composing above par probable scenarios. We humans can do that for otherwise we would have gone extinct. Yet of the intelligent people only 20% can perform that trick, as the data acquired by psychologists taken as fact show. Solving crime scenes is what lawyers do. I claim thus to have provena prime suspect: the curving massive photon. I don't claim like you and others to have proof of a culprit. A prime suspect is something to be investigated. Yet not by lawyers. For I'm primarily a fallible and inherently in several aspects retarded human being and then an academic and only after that a lawyer. As an academic I simply point out the flaws in reasoning of most scientists involved concerning entanglement. Like a judge should when asked. My judgement is asked as topic of the blog n entanglement concerning critique on Bell.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Please do read Bertlmann's socks. This is not even about photons.

      Delete
    2. I know that and have read that. You and Bertlmann's socks pose a problem concerning QM based on the entanglement experiment that shows in empirical statistics that there is no causal effect but a mere coincidence. As long as you indeed stay within the domain of QM I agree. Yet, what does that then mean other than that any attempt to solve this enigma is impossible? Seen then as a pure mathematical problem as well then. Yet taken in a broader context - which is where it gets meaning - at the most fundamental level it is about photons. For that is Bells assumptions are based on. The photon of GR & QM.

      Delete
    3. Well either it's a physics problem about photons discussed in mathematical terms or it's a pure mathematical problem. Only in the latter case can you be correct, for else you make the same mistake as Elfers in the Lucia case in forgetting the context. This context for lack of data is Bayesian and not frequentist.

      Delete
    4. Gerhard you are making the mistake the judges made in the Lucia case, thinking that you know anything about medicine c.q. physics. You recognise a word here and there e.g. "coincidence" and completely misinterpret it since you don't have the training to study the math which is simply the language in which the physics community *defines* what they are talking about.

      Delete
    5. Gill,if the physics community uses mathematics to define what they are talking about (yes, of course I agree that's the case), then you should find it elementary to define the measure space of Bell-Aspect.

      Please do.

      Delete
  25. This BTW is right up my ally:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photon_structure_function

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. This has nothing whatever to do with photons, Gerhard. You have successfully stopped all serious and on-topic discussion on this thread by massive spamming of garbage.

      Delete
    2. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photon_entanglement

      Then this must also be garbage in your opinion? The photon structure function shows you how a photon is electromagnetically linked to electrons. I.e. what it is. Well and saying that entanglement has nothing to do with photons means that this wikipedia page is completely beside the point as well. So any position on entanglement has everything to do with what a photon is. It is not a pure mathematical problem as you clearly think it is. It's primarily a physics problem what I think Joy has been pointing out to you as well.

      Delete
    3. Photons can get entangled. Electrons can get entangled. Any quantum mechanical system can get entangled with any other. Bell's experiment is an experiment to test local realism. Local realism is about physics. The description of the experiment does not use words like "photon", "particle", "wave", "quantum". Please do RTFM carefully, especially the three paragraphs around Figure 7 of Bertlmann's socks. Christian's experiment is about real exploding balls, not about photons.

      Delete
    4. I know that Richard, yet what you don't get is that our prior assumptions are different. Change those and you change the outcome. You can't exclude the possibility that a photon can be seen as one gearbox an electron as two interlinked gearboxes and larger particles more interlinked gearboxes. Science should be about simplifying the issue. A photon is then most simple and thus the primary subject for study. I just also thought about why the sharper angle helps the split "gearbox"remain intact more often. The two interlocking strings of a polarized photon already have that angle towards each other. It's not only science but also the art of creative intuitive testable guesswork that above par renders testable results in situations of inherent lack of data as this clearly deals with. And that has to do with which instrument between the ears has been used. I guess the exploding balls of Joy are actually to been seen as a gearbox that splits. Whereby sometimes one part is also flipped upside down. Hence the illusion of entanglement. As such already the title "entanglement"shows the confirmation bias at work. It's the question whether something is entangled in the first place. It clearly isn't. The only non magical and thus most probable way to see this is a simple correlation with deterministic causal effect that has no link (= entanglement) whatsoever any more.

      Delete
  26. Another beautiful simulation model: Justin Lee's random precession model.

    Do take a look at:

    http://vixra.org/abs/1408.0063
    http://rpubs.com/gill1109/JustinLee
    https://pubpeer.com/publications/2C868EDB0FB35A23005FF34F50ED90

    ReplyDelete
  27. Hi everyone,

    I have finally got around to refuting Richard Gill's latest misguided arguments against my proposed macroscopic experiment: http://arxiv.org/abs/1501.03393.

    While reading this it is worth remembering that this man calls himself a "mathematician." He often complains that I call him "algebraically challenged." But even after I have repeatedly made him aware, for over 40 days, that his latest preprint contains schoolboy howlers, he has not been able to spot them himself and correct them.

    Happy reading!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I thought it was Joy Christian who repeatedly called Richard Gill "algebraically challenged, third rate, morally corrupt statistician (not even a mathematician)".

      Actually I studied mathematics, physics and Dutch at Cambridge.

      Meanwhile, according to the IJTP tracking system, the referee reports on my submission have been received by the editor-in-chief, so I should be receiving a decision pretty soon.

      Delete
    2. It is quite amazingly that --- even after I have brought them out so vividly for his benefit --- Gill has not been able to recognize his schoolboy algebraic howlers: http://arxiv.org/abs/1501.03393 . Shame on Cambridge, if that is where he indeed learned his "mathematics."

      Delete
    3. Hey, Gill:

      Joy clearly defined the measure space of his framework in eqns 18, 19 & the paragraph following. What is the measure space of Bell-Aspect?

      Delete
    4. The measure space in the Bell theorem is arbitrary. In fact, one does not even need to assume measurability: the assumptions are counterfactual definiteness, relativistic causality, and no-conspiracy. The triple together is what is usually called "local realism".

      Christian makes sign errors through his misunderstanding of the relationship between a basis of an algebra (a given multiplication table) and the algebra it generates. The basis determines an algebra, but different bases determine the same algebra. So his framework is not defined at all. It doesn't exist. It only exists if -1 = +1.

      Apart from this, his work is irrelevant to Bell's theorem since he redefines correlation, hence he is quite simply talking about something quite different to what the rest of the world (e.g. Aspect, Weihs, Christensen et al, Giustina et al...) are talking about.

      Delete
    5. Double LOL! Gill still has absolutely no understanding of what a physics postulate is after all this time.

      Delete
    6. Gill has made schoolboy howlers in his preprint that anyone can see for themselves: http://arxiv.org/abs/1501.03393 . But he, the so-called "mathematician", is still unable to see them. He continues to make completely bogus claims about my work because of his own algebraic limitations and his own vested interests.

      Delete
    7. "The measure space in the Bell theorem is arbitrary."

      Thank you. The measure space, however, is never arbitrary in a physical model, or else mathematics would be useless for physics. Which makes Bell's theorem mathematically correct, and physically useless. (As Joy has always claimed.)

      "In fact, one does not even need to assume measurability: "

      In which case, one is not doing physics.

      " ... the assumptions are counterfactual definiteness, relativistic causality, and no-conspiracy. The triple together is what is usually called 'local realism'."

      That may be what you call local realism. It is not what EPR called local realism. The assumptions are besides, inconsistent: there are no counter-facts without facts -- relativistic causality is always local -- and the no-signalling condition simply supports locality.

      "Christian makes sign errors through his misunderstanding of the relationship between a basis of an algebra (a given multiplication table) and the algebra it generates. The basis determines an algebra, but different bases determine the same algebra. So his framework is not defined at all. It doesn't exist. It only exists if -1 = +1."

      Since Christian's framework is analytical, not algebraic, you aren't even criticizing Christian's model.

      "Apart from this, his work is irrelevant to Bell's theorem since he redefines correlation,"

      No, he positively DEFINES "quantum" before talking about correlations. Your idea of correlated events is speciously built on microscopic behavior where quanta are assumed, not defined. By specifically constructing the measure space, Joy's framework is capable of demonstrating correlation of events independent of scale, i.e., with no boundary between microscopic and macroscopic domains.

      " ... hence he is quite simply talking about something quite different to what the rest of the world (e.g. Aspect, Weihs, Christensen et al, Giustina et al...) are talking about."

      So what? That's what the framework intends to do -- overturn conventional theory. Your chosen group, BTW, does not constitute "the rest of the world."

      Tom

      Delete
  28. According to the IJTP submission tracking system, reviews were completed on my submission one week ago (January 11). The editor-in-chief is taking his time, coming to his own conclusion. I suspect that at long last, some competent persons are actually reading Christian's original IJTP paper.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Or some competent persons are actually reading your criticism. It's full of holes, Richard. Mainly, it avoids the issues of physics we discussed above.

      Delete
    2. PubPeer moderators are fast-tracking ad hominem attacks, and dragging their feet on serious argument. I submitted yesterday a reply to Richard:

      (Gill wrote) "... there is a serious mismatch between Christian's theory and Christian's experiment ..."

      What you're having trouble with, Gill, is the independence of Christian's measurement framework (that you tendentiously continue to refer to as 'theory') from the physical experiment he proposes. This is something that quantum theory has never been able to accomplish -- and this failure is the primary reason that fervent Bell-believers want to do away with the whole idea of measure space; it's why you and they want to replace objective physics with mystical symbolism.

      "Two other (by now, ancient) issues are the internal inconsistency of Christian's theory (hidden sign error), and its irrelevance to Bell-EPR and all that (normalised bivector covariance instead of raw product-moment of binary outcomes)."

      Repeating this canard does not lend truth to it. Just for fun though, let's critically examine your tortured logic:

      1. If Christian's measurement framework (not 'theory') IS internally consistent, it can't be true because it is independent of the detector settings that determine Bell-Aspect results.

      2. If Christian's measurement framework IS NOT internally consistent, it is dependent on the detector settings that determine Bell-Aspect results, and thus reproduces the results in a way contrary to what Christian claims.

      This "heads I win, tails you lose" strategy is only effective with your followers, who know neither the model nor the meaning of Bell-Aspect, much less the EPR framework.

      3. If Bell-EPR is based on binary outcomes rather than analytical functions, Christian's framework can't be true, because Bell based his inequality on binary outcomes.

      Here you are just plain wrong, naively so. Bell's inequality (as are all inequalities) is an analytical structure. That's what the idea of hidden variables is all about. If Bell had known a better, more objective, way to rule out hidden variables than the dependence on detector settings that Aspect introduced, he would have no doubt deployed it. The fact that Bell introduced an inequality to make his point, answers EPR's demand for analysis by continuous functions -- yet Bell's theorem fails to implement the function experimentally. That's the mistake that Joy Christian has identified and proposed to remedy, in a dramatically objective way. (PubPeer, 19 Jan 2015)

      Tom

      Delete
    3. Also, a post by "Peer 9" was deleted by the moderators. This was a thinly-veiled ad hominem which claimed Christian's argument is akin to claiming that a square is a triangle. Then the Peer cynically suggested deleting all ad hominem (apparently the moderators agreed, in his/her case). I submitted the reply:

      Peer 9, I agree with you that the ad hominem attacks on both sides should be moderated out of the forum. However, the argumentum example you use is not accurate. Joy Christian does NOT redefine anything -- not geometric algebra, not quantum correlations, not statistics nor arithmetic nor geometry nor topology. What he does do, is specify the physical MEASURE SPACE in which his result holds. The criticisms leveled at his framework are largely of the forms, argumentum ad ignorantiam, and straw man constructions.

      The measurement framework is itself consistent, and independent of the experiment proposed to support it. Ad ignorantiam arguments can only be remedied by doing the experiment. Straw man arguments have been soundly and conclusively refuted.

      IJTP editors did not make a mistake in accepting the paper. Claims to the contrary are surely ad hominem, and not just toward Christian. (PubPeer 19 Jan 2015)

      Tom

      Delete
    4. Yes there were some fantastic ad hominems deleted yesterday. One supporter of Christian said that Christian was a genius and I was unqualified because Christian has one paper in PRL and I have none. In fact I have four, as well as four in PRA, ... so in fact I have published more in top peer-reviewed physics journals in a shorter time span than Christian.

      Another idiot said that statistics was just means and standard deviations hence totally irrelevant to physics (or something like that), which in my opinion was the absolute dumbest thing anyone had said so far on the PubPeer thread, and that is saying a lot!

      There was a lot of LOL and ROTFL.

      Dear old Tom goes on repeating the same old tired words, totally devoid of any content (no maths, no physics, totally ignoring the points: mathematical errors, logical errors).

      Meanwhile it has been 10 days since IJTP received the reviews of my paper, but still no conclusion has been made.

      Delete
    5. Richard, I don't like the exchange of insults. I try to stay apart from them.

      You are just plain blustering and bluffing, though, to say there are logical errors in my challenge to you,, let alone the absence of math and physics.

      A measure space is both physical and mathematical. And you cannot refute my example of your misapplied logic above.

      Tom

      Delete
    6. Thank you Tom, I also am disgusted by the continual and repetitive production of insults and boasts. I think we should wait now and see what IJTP has to say about my submission. We could even usefully spend the time doing some further research so that maybe one day one of us would have something new to say. Have you tried writing up your ideas and getting them published?

      Delete
    7. PS I did not say there were logical or mathematical errors in what you say. I said there were logical and mathematical errors in Christian's work and that you ignore them. I can not make head or tail of your metaphysical remarks about measure spaces and continuous functions. I doubt that anyone can make any sense of them.

      Delete
    8. Richard, thanks. I agree that the right thing to do is for all of us to "stand down" from the personal attacks, write our own results, and wait for criticism and/or publication. Isn't that what Joy did, though, and what you are presently doing? All one needs do now, is to hold one's tongue. I'll make my personal pledge to do so.

      I don't make any claims for my own research, which is in the area of complex systems and their applications. My conference proceedings papers are peer reviewed as is my current contribution to a Springer book (Jan 2015) on counter-terrorism, http://www.springer.com/physics/complexity/book/978-1-4939-1704-4

      My publications have nothing to do with Bell's theorem and the foundations of quantum mechanics, yet why should that be used against me? Why should Joy's credentials be held against him, and yours against you? I think that one has to be reminded, in the area of foundations, that credentials aren't enough -- the very fundamental question is whether nature is foundationally random and discrete, yielding to no complete mathematical framework, or whether nature is completely described in the continuous functions of geometry generalized as topology.

      No one is an authority on this question. There are mathematical theorems and proofs on both sides of the issue, that are equally credible and internally consistent.

      My first introduction to Joy's research was about 5 years ago, through casual contact in the FQXi blog. I didn't like the claim that one had "disproved" a theorem, and I said so -- it's a logical contradiction. In this case, I became convinced over the course of a year or so, that Joy's framework is mathematically complete, fully relativistic and consistent with the simply connected topology of the 3-sphere. I knew the subject through studying, since about 2006, the result of Perelman on Ricci flow (with a lot of help from MT Anderson and Terry Tao). It had not occurred to me (I don't know if it had occurred to anyone) that the properties of 3-sphere continuity (primarily, simple connectedness) could correspond to physical events. I was convinced by Joy's argument, in the same way I was convinced that Shannon's information entropy corresponds to energy entropy. And these are all connected to the same physical phenomenon: heat dissipation.

      That should sound familiar to you, as the basis for Joy's experiment. It is not trivial: the initial condition of that dissipative mechanism over a 3-sphere manifold can be chaotic (i.e., obeying the random bifurcations of classical probability) without sacrificing the deterministic correlations of global continuity. That's where the local-global distinction breaks down; because every physical point is a "4-sphere worth of 3-spheres" in Joy's words, correlated points of the Hopf fibration show up at every scale as strong quantum correlations. The mathematics is sound -- what remains is an experimental demonstration that the mathematical framework corresponds to physical observation. That is, the physical laws of continuous motion hold at every scale.

      I know you think there are logical and mathematical errors in Joy's work -- that question, however, should be moot now that the paper describing the experiment is published. You made your counterpoint -- I personally think it's wrong, though that doesn't matter. Let the referees decide, just as they made a decision for Joy.

      Sure, referees can be wrong. What can't be wrong, is a 1 for 1 correspondence of mathematical measurement, with physical measurement. So let that final arbiter -- Naure -- take its course. It would be a travesty to let this program flounder any longer on the trivial disputes we have among ourselves.

      That's enough out of me.

      Tom

      Delete
    9. It is pretty easy to see why Gill doesn't understand Joy's classical local realistic model in the least bit since Gill's own work is riddled with errors.

      Delete
    10. Thanks Tom, I will also pledge to do the same. I look forward to seeing the experiment performed.

      Delete
  29. Considering the fundamental nature of the disagreement and wording like "sleight of hand" and "hiding a sign error" on the part of Dr. Gill could IJTP publish Dr. Gill's letter without withdrawing Dr. Christian's paper?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The nature of "disagreement" is anything but fundamental, or even interesting. Gill is not talking about my work at all, which he has neither studied nor understood. His is a straw-man argument, whereby he refutes his own counterfeit model Y and tries to mislead the scientific community in believing that he has refuted my actual model X. It is unlikely that the editors of IJTP will be deceived by such a cheap trick. Just have a look at how childish his arguments actually are: http://arxiv.org/pdf/1501.03393.pdf .

      Delete
    2. etrefakis: good question. According to the editorial submissions website, all referee reports were obtained 17 days ago (January 11). My guess would be that the editors are now commissioning further reviews, and perhaps also new reviews of Christian's paper. But perhaps they are just slow.

      Delete
    3. Not surprisingly, the distinguished referees and editors of IJTP did not agree with Gill's ridiculous allegation of a "sleight of hand" and his slanderous accusation of "hiding a sign error."

      Delete
    4. You mean his letter, in which the allegations were made, has been officially rejected for publication? That is news indeed.

      Delete
    5. Today I got the response from the editor of IJTP. My paper is accepted subject to a minor revision. The referees want me to harden my conclusions. Actually, they looked at version 1. I later uploaded a revision, version 2, to arXiv, and it takes care precisely of these points.

      From the reports: "The statement: 'Christian moreover argues in Section 5 that correlations should be computed by taking account of bivectorial standard errors - a proposal which has not found any sympathy with experimenters working on state of the art Bell type experiments, who do have a pretty good understanding of the relationship between theory and experiment' might leave the reader with the impression that experimentalists have the freedom to accept or reject bivectorial standard errors. In fact no such freedom exists because experiments generate discrete outcomes thus forcing the correlations to be computed in the standard way."

      It's suggested I refer to Weatherall's (2013) FOOP paper

      Delete
    6. The reviewer is obviously a Bell believer. They tend to be quite ignorant of the *physics* of rotations involved in the experiment.

      It is not surprising that, as a Bell believer, the reviewer has chosen to ignore the childish mistakes in Gill's embarrassing preprint, as exposed here:

      http://arxiv.org/pdf/1501.03393.pdf

      and

      http://www.sciphysicsforums.com/spfbb1/viewtopic.php?f=6&t=115&start=20#p3894 .

      Weatherall's straw-man argument has also been thoroughly refuted in this paper:

      http://libertesphilosophica.info/blog/wp-content/uploads/2014/01/Book-Chapter.pdf .

      Delete
    7. Upon further reflection, I find the comments by the reviewer extraordinarily stupid. It is evident that the reviewer has completely misunderstood --- or deliberately misinterpreted --- Gill's sentence: "Christian moreover argues in Section 5 that correlations should be computed by taking account of bivectorial standard errors..." Based on this, the reviewer remarks that "In fact no such freedom exists because experiments generate discrete outcomes thus forcing the correlations to be computed in the standard way."

      How extraordinarily stupid and disingenuous? I have never suggested that correlations should be computed in any other way than the standard way. The reviewer has obviously not bothered to read the published paper, because equations (91) and (92) of the published paper cannot be more clear.

      There is a difference between a *theoretical prediction* and a *practical computation*. But neither the reviewer nor Gill seem to understand this elementary difference.

      I think such stupidity stems from excessive devotion to Bell. But we should be devoted to physics, not to our "heroes." And the physics is clearly and incontrovertibly discussed in this reply: http://arxiv.org/pdf/1501.03393.pdf .

      Delete
    8. This reaction is very amusing, since the whole point of my paper is that Christian is using the conventional experimental notion of correlation in the experimental section of his paper. Which is the summit of stupidity, since it kills the experiment stone dead. In the experiment, according to Christian's (Peres') own instructions, A, A', B, B' are all measured on all of the N pairs of particles. The four experimental correlations are based on the spins of the same N pairs of spinning hemispheres, measured in various different directions at the same time. As his instructions (copy-pasted from Peres' paper) make clear. I'm tempted to say ROTFL but instead I'll refer to Shakespeare's Hamlet and say "hoist by his own petard".

      Delete
    9. What is amusing is that Gill still does not get it, and continues to misrepresent the published paper.

      I do not believe he is capable of understanding even the mathematics of rotations discussed in the published paper, let alone the physics. He has used a "sleight of hand" in his silly preprint, and the reviewer is fooled by it. I think only a true Bell believer would be fooled by Gill's clumsy "sleight of hand." His second unnumbered equation simply does not follow from his first unnumbered equation without this "sleight of hand", as clearly explained here:

      http://www.sciphysicsforums.com/spfbb1/viewtopic.php?f=6&t=115&start=20#p3894 .

      What is more, his preprint contains even more serious howlers, as exposed here:

      http://arxiv.org/pdf/1501.03393.pdf .

      Just to be clear: Gill's "sleight of hand" is in replacing the string of four averages

      << AB >> + << AB' >> + << A'B >> - << A'B' >>

      with the single average

      << AB + AB' + A'B - A'B' >> .

      But this is not justified for the experiment proposed in the IJTP paper, as explained in the arXiv reply linked above.

      The Bell believing reviewer, however, is fooled by Gill's trickery.

      Delete
    10. Richard, I think the only way to be sure that the petard you smell isn't your own, is to go forward with the experiment. It is not true, as you claim, that "The four experimental correlations are based on the spins of the same N pairs of spinning hemispheres, measured in various different directions at the same time."

      The spins are pairwise correlated at the same time, though not measured at the same time. That is your blind spot -- not understanding the difference between measurement results averaged at a time, and physical properties correlated at a time.

      As Einstein said long ago ("Geometry and Experience" 1921): " ... If two ideal clocks are going at the same rate at any time and at any place (being then in immediate proximity to each other), they will always go at the same rate, no matter where and when they are again compared with each other at one place ..."

      The case of clock rates applies to every physical property of a system. Once correlated, always correlated. Bell-Aspect attributes it to quantum entanglement; Joy's experimental proposal -- allowing that the result is successful -- will show that as superfluous, to borrow from your phrasing: "killing your assumptions stone dead."

      Delete
  30. Christian writes:

    Just to be clear: Gill's "sleight of hand" is in replacing the string of four averages

    << AB >> + << AB' >> + << A'B >> - << A'B' >>

    with the single average

    << AB + AB' + A'B - A'B' >> .

    Now read the *experimental section* of Christian's paper. Study Peres' definition of E(a, b) in the context of that experiment, which Christian tells the experimenter to use.

    Now perform my "sleight of hand". QED.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. No. First read the original paper published in IJTP. Then read about the childish mathematical and conceptual mistakes made by Gill from my reply to him:

      http://arxiv.org/pdf/1501.03393.pdf .

      It should then become clear to anyone with brain that either Gill is too stupid and incompetent to understand elementary logic, mathematics, and physics, or he is deliberately using trickery, deception, and misrepresentation of facts to hide the embarrassing fact that he has been wrong about almost everything for a very long time.

      Delete
    2. Read the original paper published in IJTP. If you can't get past the paywall, or don't want to pay, read Christian's arXiv preprint: http://arxiv.org/abs/1211.0784. Go to section 4 "Proposed experiment". Read it carefully down to formula (94), just a bit more than a single column of text. Notice that it is completely independent of the rest of the paper. In fact it is an elaboration of text from Peres' famous 2002 book and earlier famous 1978 paper. The formulas are copy-pasted from the paper. Now use your brains: in this context, is

      << AB >> + << AB' >> + << A'B >> - << A'B' >>

      equal to

      << AB + AB' + A'B - A'B' >> ?

      Delete
    3. No, it is not.

      Only an extraordinarily stupid and incompetent individual would say that the series of four separate averages

      << AB >> + << AB' >> + << A'B >> - << A'B' >>

      is equal to the single average

      << AB + AB' + A'B - A'B' >>

      after reading the IJTP paper, or even jumping straight to section 4 of the arXiv preprint http://arxiv.org/abs/1211.0784 .

      Delete
  31. I have just been invited to become a member of FQXi! What a wonderful Friday 13!

    (I said yes). Now Joy and I are colleagues.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Gill will NEVER be my colleague. I have just resigned from FQXi.

      To me Gill will always be what I have described him to be on my blog, not a jot more: http://libertesphilosophica.info/blog/ .

      Delete
    2. I have posted my resignation letter here: http://www.sciphysicsforums.com/spfbb1/viewtopic.php?f=6&t=115&p=3939#p3939 .

      Delete
    3. So we were only colleagues for about 24 hours

      Delete
    4. I don't hardly ever even go check out FQXi any more. Not much of anything interesting there. They definitely dropped the ball on one of the biggest foundational questions for physics that there is. No sense being a member of an organization that suppresses the debate on really important foundational questions.

      Delete
    5. Perhaps you need to rethink that evaluation. Dr. Christian continues to call the organization "prestigious" on his website although without claiming current membership: "I have also been an invited member of the prestigious Foundational Questions Institute ..."

      http://libertesphilosophica.info/blog/lpmain/

      Delete
    6. Well, FQXi used to be that way but not anymore since they basically went against their "charter" and are suppressing foundational questions. It's ridiculous. Also, Joy was one of the few members to ever participate in their online discussion forums.

      Delete
    7. Fred,

      in case you didn't know,

      "etrefakis" = "nikman" = Nick Mann = Rick Padua = Erik Trier = "menoma", with perhaps several other "identities" and IP addresses, normally operates from Concord, California. By now University of Oxford and Wolfson College, Oxford, have gathered a lot more information about this individual.

      Delete
    8. Yeah, I thought I smelled a troll. :-) Thanks.

      Delete
    9. You are welcome. On FQXi blogs the same individual also used to sign in as "nmann", at least for a while.

      Delete
  32. Oh dear, we've been exposed. Although why would anyone care so much? And why would anyone in a position of responsibility at Oxford share sensitive information with a person who apparently resigned from Wolfson College under a cloud?

    But at least in the past month and a half you've cemented what I now know is your reputation for counterproductive online behavior and helped gain a new honor for the person you allegedly hate most in the world. The law of unintended consequences appears to be at work. Unless of course you and Richard Gill planned it from the beginning. His reputation has certainly been enhanced and he does seem as though he might be Machiavellian enough and possibly even have had money to offer you. International consulting in esoteric fields is often remunerative and tranches of the income not difficult to conceal. However, unintended consequences is more likely.

    ReplyDelete
  33. I suspect that Nick Mann and Joy Christian and Richard Gill and Scott Aaronson are all one and the same person. It is a cosmic drama. Christian needs to have evil enemies, over whom he will eventually triumph and ultimately reign in glory.

    On another point, Karl Hess told me his displeasure at Christian's posting of private correspondence on public internet fora. He has no contact with Christian at present, and plans to have none in future. I think Leiden university lawyers will have some good arguments to have them removed. (1) private correspondence publicly posted without permission of author (2) factual untruths (3) malicious intent to defame

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. In case anyone is curious, Gill is talking about this "private correspondence":

      http://www.sciphysicsforums.com/spfbb1/viewtopic.php?f=6&t=49&p=2545&hilit=third+rate#p2545

      Delete
  34. PS in other words, Christian's famous "third-rate" posting is actually defamatory of Karl Hess and defamatory of Joe Doob. It does have one value: it is a boomerang which goes back to hit Joy Christian. Fred Diether should also be worried about the stuff which he allows to be posted on his forum.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Ah yes, Gill is right... we probably should have deleted some of the junk Gill posted on the forum. But you know... free speech and all of that. Websites are not responsible for what others write; the posters are responsible for what they post.

      Anyways, getting back on topic here... So Joy has a classical local realistic model that gives the same prediction as quantum mechanics. And it doesn't matter if quantum experiments close all the "loopholes". Joy's model is still valid though it is somewhat speculative in that it requires space to have unique spinor properties. However, that space has spinor properties (at least microscopically) is something physics has been considering for quite some time so not such a "stretch". I believe the parallelized 3 and 7-sphere geometries can complete General Relativity to give it spin and torsion that it should have. Some really amazing things happen to be announced later!

      Delete
    2. PS. So this experiment in the paper is to find out if the spinor properties of space also hold macroscopically in the case of macroscopic singlets. Which, if the experiment is successful, will validate the model. The quantum experiments when loophole free will validate the model microscopically.

      Delete
    3. That's not true, Fred. You also have some legal responsibility for what Christian writes on your forum. After all, you are the one who has the power to remove it and you have a responsibility to enforce your own rules of civility. But I am quite happy that Joy makes a total fool of himself on your forum! Karl Hess is pretty pissed off about him.

      Delete
    4. Gill does not sound "quite happy" to me. Oh, well. I tried my best: http://libertesphilosophica.info/blog/ .

      Delete
    5. Yeah, now Gill is going to fill up this blog with a bunch of off-topic junk like he did on the forum when he was losing the debate. Oh well... I tried also to get the conversation back on topic here.

      Delete
  35. Now the name-calling spreads to Amazon again http://www.amazon.com/Einstein-Was-Right-Karl-Hess/product-reviews/9814463698/

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. What Joy doesn't seem to realise is that every time he writes "morally corrupt algebraically challenged third-rate statistician" he actually bangs yet another nail into his own coffin. It's not smart! And he is supposed to be so clever!

      Delete
    2. I told you so... More off-topic junk. The truth hurts apparently.

      Delete
    3. I couldn't care less about the number of nails banged into my coffin, or what is written on my tombstone for that matter.

      Delete
  36. Fred, I like your attempt to try to get back on topic. I haven’t seen much discussion on the implications for current QM (and classical physics) if Joy turns out to be right. Or have I missed something on the internet?

    ReplyDelete
  37. It would have a tremendous effect on quantum computing, Albert. No entanglement, no superposition. More weight to quantum discord, and other methods of quantum computing by classical standards.

    ReplyDelete
  38. Another big implication is that now QM can be made into a more complete theory of nature. Joy has shown a possible path forward. If the experiment in the paper (or something similar) is successful, there won't be much doubt left that it is the path to take. And we will know that Einstein was right. Crazy that the debate is still going on after 80 years of EPR. :-)

    ReplyDelete
  39. Does this also effect quantum encryption? I mean the supposed protection against eavesdropping etc?
    On the macroscopic scale: can we expect other observations in nature where we should correct for these spinor properties, for instance in cosmology?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The implications of my ideas are far reaching, as pointed out by Tom and Fred. They may also affect quantum encryption, and quantum information theory in general. But most significantly, they have profound implications for the theory of quantum gravity, or "theory of everything." That was Einstein's main motivation for questioning the completeness of quantum mechanics, and that was my main motivation as well, since prior to 2007 I was working on quantum gravity. My intention was to write just one short paper on Bell's theorem (the first one I wrote in 2007), and with that job done move back to my main business of quantum gravity. But the Bell devotees had a very different plan for me. In any case, spinor properties being central to "theory of everything", we should certainly expect other observations in nature where we must correct for these properties --- especially in the early universe, or near the Planck scale.

      Delete
    2. And also in cosmology, perhaps for dark energy.

      Delete
    3. Nice summary, Joy & Fred. I think that has to be what "Everything" means in an analytical context -- elimination of boundary between quantum and classical domains, by rational correspondence.

      The finite boundary of the physical space that Joy has identified is scalable to the cosmological initial condition, and completely compatible with an expanding 4-dimension universe, with the point of creation at every arbitrary point of our ordinary space.

      Just riffing here. I really long to exchange dialog on the measurement framework itself, without the controversy it has stirred up.

      Tom

      Delete