Dr Bertlmann's socks and the 3-sphere model of EPR-Bohm

Post a reply


This question is a means of preventing automated form submissions by spambots.

BBCode is ON
[img] is ON
[flash] is OFF
[url] is ON
Smilies are OFF
Topic review
   

Expand view Topic review: Dr Bertlmann's socks and the 3-sphere model of EPR-Bohm

Re: Dr Bertlmann's socks and the 3-sphere model of EPR-Bohm

Post by gill1109 » Mon Nov 23, 2020 9:25 pm

Yesterday I got back from IEEE Access twelve referee reports plus editor Derek Abbott’s comments on my paper https://arxiv.org/abs/2001.11338 criticising Joy Christian’s Bertlmann’s socks paper https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/9226414 There were three reviewers who wholeheartedly supported Christian’s paper though they found no errors in mine, but since Christian’s paper is correct mine can’t be. Two other reviewers who thought that neither paper has any interest since neither makes any contribution to resolving the Bell paradox, but still, that mine should be published since it points out the errors in Christian’s paper. The others were in favour of publication. Some had requests for adding further details to make it more self-contained. The editor asks for a detailed response to the referees and a revision.

Re: Dr Bertlmann's socks and the 3-sphere model of EPR-Bohm

Post by FrediFizzx » Fri Nov 06, 2020 1:22 pm

Ok guys, let's get back to physics and math please.
.

Re: Dr Bertlmann's socks and the 3-sphere model of EPR-Bohm

Post by local » Fri Nov 06, 2020 10:17 am

gill1109 wrote:Ad hominem sneering, instead of responding to content. It might work in a school debating club, but it doesn’t work in science.

You are a hypocrite. All over the forum you are throwing insults around. In one of your recent ones you dismiss the people interested in Dr Christian's GA approach as a "tiny cargo cult". And that is one of your milder insults. Narcissism is a terrible condition. You should seek treatment.

Re: Dr Bertlmann's socks and the 3-sphere model of EPR-Bohm

Post by gill1109 » Fri Nov 06, 2020 9:52 am

Ad hominem sneering, instead of responding to content. It might work in a school debating club, but it doesn’t work in science.

Re: Dr Bertlmann's socks and the 3-sphere model of EPR-Bohm

Post by Joy Christian » Fri Nov 06, 2020 6:06 am

gill1109 wrote:
Joy Christian wrote:
gill1109 wrote:
Restriction (2.54) in the RSOS paper, as I see it today. It’s an equation stating that a certain quaternion is zero. So coordinatewise, four equations. Four quadratic equations.

A hallmark of good scientists is that they do not make fools of themselves when they do not have the knowledge, understanding, or qualification to comment on a subject.

Eq. (2.54) in my RSOS paper does not state that a certain quaternion is zero. It states that the quaternions q_r and q_d are orthogonal pairs. So your claim that "coordinatewise, four equations. Four quadratic equations" is nonsense. The algebraic space is still eight-dimensional, with eight variables or coefficients specifying each point of the space.

Here is a baby example that you may understand. If x and y are two coordinates that remain orthogonal to each other, then the space spanned by the pair (x, y) is a two-dimensional space. The orthogonality of the pair (x, y) does not reduce it to a one-dimensional space. Two numbers are needed in general to specify a given point of that space.

Indeed. Let’s apply that hallmark of good scientists to the good, controversial, original, creative, scientist Dr J Christian. I believe he’s a human being living in the city of Oxford (UK), hence he is, I think I may believe, fallible. Equation (2.54) of his paper states that a certain quadratic functional of four quaternions is the quaternion “zero”. The functional concerned is a quadratic mapping from pairs of quaternions to quaternions. In terms of the representation of quaternions as elements of R^4, we are talking about four “real” (indeed, quadratic) equations in eight real variables.

You should learn how to stop waffling ad nauseam.

***

Re: Dr Bertlmann's socks and the 3-sphere model of EPR-Bohm

Post by gill1109 » Fri Nov 06, 2020 5:41 am

Joy Christian wrote:
gill1109 wrote:
Restriction (2.54) in the RSOS paper, as I see it today. It’s an equation stating that a certain quaternion is zero. So coordinatewise, four equations. Four quadratic equations.

A hallmark of good scientists is that they do not make fools of themselves when they do not have the knowledge, understanding, or qualification to comment on a subject.

Eq. (2.54) in my RSOS paper does not state that a certain quaternion is zero. It states that the quaternions q_r and q_d are orthogonal pairs. So your claim that "coordinatewise, four equations. Four quadratic equations" is nonsense. The algebraic space is still eight-dimensional, with eight variables or coefficients specifying each point of the space.

Here is a baby example that you may understand. If x and y are two coordinates that remain orthogonal to each other, then the space spanned by the pair (x, y) is a two-dimensional space. The orthogonality of the pair (x, y) does not reduce it to a one-dimensional space. Two numbers are needed in general to specify a given point of that space.

Indeed. Let’s apply that hallmark of good scientists to the good, controversial, original, creative, scientist Dr J Christian. I believe he’s a human being living in the city of Oxford (UK), hence he is, I think I may believe, fallible. Equation (2.54) of his paper states that a certain quadratic functional of four quaternions is the quaternion “zero”. The functional concerned is a quadratic mapping from pairs of quaternions to quaternions. In terms of the representation of quaternions as elements of R^4, we are talking about four “real” (indeed, quadratic) equations in eight real variables.

Re: Dr Bertlmann's socks and the 3-sphere model of EPR-Bohm

Post by Joy Christian » Fri Nov 06, 2020 3:33 am

gill1109 wrote:
Restriction (2.54) in the RSOS paper, as I see it today. It’s an equation stating that a certain quaternion is zero. So coordinatewise, four equations. Four quadratic equations.

A hallmark of good scientists is that they do not make fools of themselves when they do not have the knowledge, understanding, or qualification to comment on a subject.

Eq. (2.54) in my RSOS paper does not state that a certain quaternion is zero. It states that the quaternions q_r and q_d are orthogonal pairs. So your claim that "coordinatewise, four equations. Four quadratic equations" is nonsense. The algebraic space is still eight-dimensional, with eight variables or coefficients specifying each point of the space.

Here is a baby example that you may understand. If x and y are two coordinates that remain orthogonal to each other, then the space spanned by the pair (x, y) is a two-dimensional space. The orthogonality of the pair (x, y) does not reduce it to a one-dimensional space. Two numbers are needed in general to specify a given point of that space.

***

Re: Dr Bertlmann's socks and the 3-sphere model of EPR-Bohm

Post by gill1109 » Thu Nov 05, 2020 11:55 pm

Joy Christian wrote:
gill1109 wrote:
Joy Christian wrote:
gill1109 wrote:I never said that Joy claims to disprove what is nowadays called the Hurwitz theorem. He writes down some assumptions and claims to prove something under his stated assumptions. It looks as though he was blissfully unaware of the Hurwitz theorem when he started this particular line of thought. He explicitly restricts attention to a four-dimensional subset of his originally 8-dimensional real vector space, he does not prove closure under addition and multiplication, he merely claims multiplicativity of his norm (first defined as the Euclidean norm on R^8) on the restricted set of elements.
So if he is incredibly lucky, he might have found a rather weird embedding of the quaternions in his Clifford space Cl(3, 0)(R). I am not sure if it would be of any interest. Anyway, it is not my field, and I do not think it has any relevance to the EPR-Bohm story.

There is no restriction in my proof of norm relations to a four-dimensional subset.

See the restriction imposed in formula (4.60).

There is no restriction in my proof of norm relations to a four-dimensional subset. And there is no "formula (4.60)" in my paper.

***

Restriction (2.54) in the RSOS paper, as I see it today. It’s an equation stating that a certain quaternion is zero. So coordinatewise, four equations. Four quadratic equations. I have no idea where (4.60) came from. I think there are AI goblins hidden in the forum software or in the RSOS site or in my computer.

Re: Dr Bertlmann's socks and the 3-sphere model of EPR-Bohm

Post by Joy Christian » Thu Nov 05, 2020 10:32 am

gill1109 wrote:
Joy Christian wrote:
gill1109 wrote:I never said that Joy claims to disprove what is nowadays called the Hurwitz theorem. He writes down some assumptions and claims to prove something under his stated assumptions. It looks as though he was blissfully unaware of the Hurwitz theorem when he started this particular line of thought. He explicitly restricts attention to a four-dimensional subset of his originally 8-dimensional real vector space, he does not prove closure under addition and multiplication, he merely claims multiplicativity of his norm (first defined as the Euclidean norm on R^8) on the restricted set of elements.
So if he is incredibly lucky, he might have found a rather weird embedding of the quaternions in his Clifford space Cl(3, 0)(R). I am not sure if it would be of any interest. Anyway, it is not my field, and I do not think it has any relevance to the EPR-Bohm story.

There is no restriction in my proof of norm relations to a four-dimensional subset.

See the restriction imposed in formula (4.60).

There is no restriction in my proof of norm relations to a four-dimensional subset. And there is no "formula (4.60)" in my paper.

***

Re: Dr Bertlmann's socks and the 3-sphere model of EPR-Bohm

Post by gill1109 » Thu Nov 05, 2020 10:14 am

Joy Christian wrote:
gill1109 wrote:I never said that Joy claims to disprove what is nowadays called the Hurwitz theorem. He writes down some assumptions and claims to prove something under his stated assumptions. It looks as though he was blissfully unaware of the Hurwitz theorem when he started this particular line of thought. He explicitly restricts attention to a four-dimensional subset of his originally 8-dimensional real vector space, he does not prove closure under addition and multiplication, he merely claims multiplicativity of his norm (first defined as the Euclidean norm on R^8) on the restricted set of elements.
So if he is incredibly lucky, he might have found a rather weird embedding of the quaternions in his Clifford space Cl(3, 0)(R). I am not sure if it would be of any interest. Anyway, it is not my field, and I do not think it has any relevance to the EPR-Bohm story.

There is no restriction in my proof of norm relations to a four-dimensional subset.

See the restriction imposed in formula (4.60).

Re: Dr Bertlmann's socks and the 3-sphere model of EPR-Bohm

Post by Joy Christian » Thu Nov 05, 2020 9:19 am

gill1109 wrote:
Joy Christian wrote:
FrediFizzx wrote:
gill1109 wrote:I understand your feelings, but did it ever occur to you that you could be mistaken?

Nope. Because then I would be mistaken also. Joy's math is flawless. I've validated it via computer.

That is exactly right, Fred. There is no mistake in my math.
The mistake lies in the claim made by Gill, Baez, and some of the other biased mathematicians who fear that I am claiming to have disproved Hurwitz's theorem. But that is not the claim you will find in either of my papers. It is a claim that was made up by Gill because he has no understanding of what I have proved, and then taken up by Baez (who is a good pedagogue but that is about it) and other online "mathematicians" without ever reading my paper. Hurwitz's theorem simply does not apply to my proof of the norm relation || XY || = || X || || Y ||.
For the proof, see https://arxiv.org/pdf/1908.06172.pdf.

I never said that Joy claims to disprove what is nowadays called the Hurwitz theorem. He writes down some assumptions and claims to prove something under his stated assumptions. It looks as though he was blissfully unaware of the Hurwitz theorem when he started this particular line of thought. He explicitly restricts attention to a four-dimensional subset of his originally 8-dimensional real vector space, he does not prove closure under addition and multiplication, he merely claims multiplicativity of his norm (first defined as the Euclidean norm on R^8) on the restricted set of elements.

So if he is incredibly lucky, he might have found a rather weird embedding of the quaternions in his Clifford space Cl(3, 0)(R). I am not sure if it would be of any interest. Anyway, it is not my field, and I do not think it has any relevance to the EPR-Bohm story.

There is no restriction in my proof of norm relations to a four-dimensional subset. You are making things up, as always. Because you have no clue what you are talking about, as always.

And was I blissfully unaware of Hurwitz's theorem? See reference [44] of my RSOS paper: https://doi.org/10.1098/rsos.180526 (this is the paper you desperately tried to have retracted).

There is also extensive discussion in my paper of 2011: https://arxiv.org/abs/1101.1958. See subsections IVA and V and Ref. [35]. You, on the other hand, learned about it from my work.

**

Re: Dr Bertlmann's socks and the 3-sphere model of EPR-Bohm

Post by FrediFizzx » Thu Nov 05, 2020 9:05 am

Blah, Blah, Blah. Just like a broken record with the same nonsense over and over. Stop posting nonsense!
.

Re: Dr Bertlmann's socks and the 3-sphere model of EPR-Bohm

Post by gill1109 » Thu Nov 05, 2020 8:43 am

Joy Christian wrote:
FrediFizzx wrote:
gill1109 wrote:I understand your feelings, but did it ever occur to you that you could be mistaken?

Nope. Because then I would be mistaken also. Joy's math is flawless. I've validated it via computer.

That is exactly right, Fred. There is no mistake in my math.
The mistake lies in the claim made by Gill, Baez, and some of the other biased mathematicians who fear that I am claiming to have disproved Hurwitz's theorem. But that is not the claim you will find in either of my papers. It is a claim that was made up by Gill because he has no understanding of what I have proved, and then taken up by Baez (who is a good pedagogue but that is about it) and other online "mathematicians" without ever reading my paper. Hurwitz's theorem simply does not apply to my proof of the norm relation || XY || = || X || || Y ||.
For the proof, see https://arxiv.org/pdf/1908.06172.pdf.

I never said that Joy claims to disprove what is nowadays called the Hurwitz theorem. He writes down some assumptions and claims to prove something under his stated assumptions. It looks as though he was blissfully unaware of the Hurwitz theorem when he started this particular line of thought. He explicitly restricts attention to a four-dimensional subset of his originally 8-dimensional real vector space, he does not prove closure under addition and multiplication, he merely claims multiplicativity of his norm (first defined as the Euclidean norm on R^8) on the restricted set of elements.

So if he is incredibly lucky, he might have found a rather weird embedding of the quaternions in his Clifford space Cl(3, 0)(R). I am not sure if it would be of any interest. Anyway, it is not my field, and I do not think it has any relevance to the EPR-Bohm story.

Re: Dr Bertlmann's socks and the 3-sphere model of EPR-Bohm

Post by Joy Christian » Thu Nov 05, 2020 6:19 am

***

O ye, of little brain.

***

Re: Dr Bertlmann's socks and the 3-sphere model of EPR-Bohm

Post by gill1109 » Thu Nov 05, 2020 3:48 am

FrediFizzx wrote:
gill1109 wrote:
Joy Christian wrote:
gill1109 wrote:
It's a good thing that pure mathematicians are more serious. Papers in pure maths can generally be trusted. Half of the papers in most other fields of science are wrong, and more than half are of no interest at all, they just serve academic career making.

I have found that some pure mathematicians are just as stupid, unreliable, biased, and political as some physicists are. Take, for example, your friend John C. Baez. He is just as biased, closed-minded, and dogmatic as any Bell-believer I know. In his case about the so-called Hurwitz's theorem, which, like any theorem, is based on a number of restrictive assumptions. But Baez thinks of it as if it were a god-given gospel. And the Editor-in-Cheif of Communications in Algebra, Scott Chapman, turned out to be as spineless and dishonest as the Editor-in-Chief of Annals of Physics, Brian Greene, had been. Both of them fell for a bogus claim by a statistician like you who has no qualifications to judge my work based on algebra and general relativity. So, please, stop bragging about mathematicians. They are just as politically and sociologically driven as any other scientist. And you don't have to believe me about the low ethical and scientific standards of mathematicians. Just ask Grigori Perelman about that: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grigori_P ... athematics.

Bias, closed-mindedness and dogmatism are universal. It is as common in Bell-deniers as in Bell-disciples. People cling to cherished beliefs. Then of course, power corrupts, politics is about power. Dr Joy Christian lacks qualifications in many parts of mathematics. So do I. It is easy to blame the people at the top. However, if you claim to have disproved the Hurwitz theorem you should be able to show where the standard proofs go wrong. On retraction watch, your arguments have been carefully dissected and analysed by ordinary (not powerful, not influential) mathematicians. It’s reassuring for me that they saw exactly the same mistakes which I noticed two years ago.

I understand your feelings, but did it ever occur to you that you could be mistaken?

Nope. Because then I would be mistaken also. Joy's math is flawless. I've validated it via computer.
.

Yes Fred, you are mistaken too. You are a Joy Christian-disciple. Your belief is impervious to reason. You drew a cosine curve by a Monte Carlo simulation on one computer. The cosine function is built into GAViewer, it is easy to get it out again! Remember, it was Albert Jan Wonninck who implemented Joy’s math faithfully in computer code, and got the wrong answer. Then he discovered a trick, transposing the multiplication depending on the sign of lambda. You adopted that. The original model was a fake, it did not work, and it needed someone else to add an extra faked line of code so that at last it drew that cosine. The whole thing is an elaborate hoax. Very interesting how the hoax is starting to have some success. So far it seems that just one powerful journal editor got taken in.

Re: Dr Bertlmann's socks and the 3-sphere model of EPR-Bohm

Post by Joy Christian » Wed Nov 04, 2020 11:54 pm

FrediFizzx wrote:
gill1109 wrote:
I understand your feelings, but did it ever occur to you that you could be mistaken?

Nope. Because then I would be mistaken also. Joy's math is flawless. I've validated it via computer.

That is exactly right, Fred. There is no mistake in my math.

The mistake lies in the claim made by Gill, Baez, and some of the other biased mathematicians who fear that I am claiming to have disproved Hurwitz's theorem. But that is not the claim you will find in either of my papers. It is a claim that was made up by Gill because he has no understanding of what I have proved, and then taken up by Baez (who is a good pedagogue but that is about it) and other online "mathematicians" without ever reading my paper. Hurwitz's theorem simply does not apply to my proof of the norm relation || XY || = || X || || Y ||.

For the proof, see https://arxiv.org/pdf/1908.06172.pdf.

...

Re: Dr Bertlmann's socks and the 3-sphere model of EPR-Bohm

Post by FrediFizzx » Wed Nov 04, 2020 11:33 pm

gill1109 wrote:
Joy Christian wrote:
gill1109 wrote:
It's a good thing that pure mathematicians are more serious. Papers in pure maths can generally be trusted. Half of the papers in most other fields of science are wrong, and more than half are of no interest at all, they just serve academic career making.

I have found that some pure mathematicians are just as stupid, unreliable, biased, and political as some physicists are. Take, for example, your friend John C. Baez. He is just as biased, closed-minded, and dogmatic as any Bell-believer I know. In his case about the so-called Hurwitz's theorem, which, like any theorem, is based on a number of restrictive assumptions. But Baez thinks of it as if it were a god-given gospel. And the Editor-in-Cheif of Communications in Algebra, Scott Chapman, turned out to be as spineless and dishonest as the Editor-in-Chief of Annals of Physics, Brian Greene, had been. Both of them fell for a bogus claim by a statistician like you who has no qualifications to judge my work based on algebra and general relativity. So, please, stop bragging about mathematicians. They are just as politically and sociologically driven as any other scientist. And you don't have to believe me about the low ethical and scientific standards of mathematicians. Just ask Grigori Perelman about that: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grigori_P ... athematics.

Bias, closed-mindedness and dogmatism are universal. It is as common in Bell-deniers as in Bell-disciples. People cling to cherished beliefs. Then of course, power corrupts, politics is about power. Dr Joy Christian lacks qualifications in many parts of mathematics. So do I. It is easy to blame the people at the top. However, if you claim to have disproved the Hurwitz theorem you should be able to show where the standard proofs go wrong. On retraction watch, your arguments have been carefully dissected and analysed by ordinary (not powerful, not influential) mathematicians. It’s reassuring for me that they saw exactly the same mistakes which I noticed two years ago.

I understand your feelings, but did it ever occur to you that you could be mistaken?

Nope. Because then I would be mistaken also. Joy's math is flawless. I've validated it via computer.
.

Re: Dr Bertlmann's socks and the 3-sphere model of EPR-Bohm

Post by gill1109 » Wed Nov 04, 2020 11:10 pm

Joy Christian wrote:
gill1109 wrote:
It's a good thing that pure mathematicians are more serious. Papers in pure maths can generally be trusted. Half of the papers in most other fields of science are wrong, and more than half are of no interest at all, they just serve academic career making.

I have found that some pure mathematicians are just as stupid, unreliable, biased, and political as some physicists are. Take, for example, your friend John C. Baez. He is just as biased, closed-minded, and dogmatic as any Bell-believer I know. In his case about the so-called Hurwitz's theorem, which, like any theorem, is based on a number of restrictive assumptions. But Baez thinks of it as if it were a god-given gospel. And the Editor-in-Cheif of Communications in Algebra, Scott Chapman, turned out to be as spineless and dishonest as the Editor-in-Chief of Annals of Physics, Brian Greene, had been. Both of them fell for a bogus claim by a statistician like you who has no qualifications to judge my work based on algebra and general relativity. So, please, stop bragging about mathematicians. They are just as politically and sociologically driven as any other scientist. And you don't have to believe me about the low ethical and scientific standards of mathematicians. Just ask Grigori Perelman about that: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grigori_P ... athematics.

Bias, closed-mindedness and dogmatism are universal. It is as common in Bell-deniers as in Bell-disciples. People cling to cherished beliefs. Then of course, power corrupts, politics is about power. Dr Joy Christian lacks qualifications in many parts of mathematics. So do I. It is easy to blame the people at the top. However, if you claim to have disproved the Hurwitz theorem you should be able to show where the standard proofs go wrong. On retraction watch, your arguments have been carefully dissected and analysed by ordinary (not powerful, not influential) mathematicians. It’s reassuring for me that they saw exactly the same mistakes which I noticed two years ago.

I understand your feelings, but did it ever occur to you that you could be mistaken?

Re: Dr Bertlmann's socks and the 3-sphere model of EPR-Bohm

Post by Joy Christian » Wed Nov 04, 2020 11:18 am

gill1109 wrote:
It's a good thing that pure mathematicians are more serious. Papers in pure maths can generally be trusted. Half of the papers in most other fields of science are wrong, and more than half are of no interest at all, they just serve academic career making.

I have found that some pure mathematicians are just as stupid, unreliable, biased, and political as some physicists are. Take, for example, your friend John C. Baez. He is just as biased, closed-minded, and dogmatic as any Bell-believer I know. In his case about the so-called Hurwitz's theorem, which, like any theorem, is based on a number of restrictive assumptions. But Baez thinks of it as if it were a god-given gospel. And the Editor-in-Cheif of Communications in Algebra, Scott Chapman, turned out to be as spineless and dishonest as the Editor-in-Chief of Annals of Physics, Brian Greene, had been. Both of them fell for a bogus claim by a statistician like you who has no qualifications to judge my work based on algebra and general relativity. So, please, stop bragging about mathematicians. They are just as politically and sociologically driven as any other scientist. And you don't have to believe me about the low ethical and scientific standards of mathematicians. Just ask Grigori Perelman about that: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grigori_P ... athematics.

***

Re: Dr Bertlmann's socks and the 3-sphere model of EPR-Bohm

Post by gill1109 » Wed Nov 04, 2020 10:26 am

Joy Christian wrote:
gill1109 wrote:
Joy Christian wrote:This paper is now officially published, with page numbers and everything, and can be downloaded freely: https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/stamp/stamp ... er=9226414.

That link gives you the pdf. One can post comments on the paper in a DISQUS forum at the end of the HTML version of the paper, https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/9226414

You can comment-away as much as you like. But all four of my refutations of Bell's theorem are staying up, remaining published, and on your face. You will just have to live with that:
(1) Macroscopic observability of spinorial sign changes under 2pi rotations, International Journal of Theoretical Physics, https://link.springer.com/article/10.10 ... 014-2412-2 (2015),
(2) Quantum correlations are weaved by the spinors of the Euclidean primitives, Royal Society Open Science, https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/ ... sos.180526 (2018),
(3) Bell's theorem versus local realism in a quaternionic model of physical space, IEEE Access, https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/8836453 (2019),
(4) Dr. Bertlmann's socks in the quaternionic world of ambidextral reality, IEEE Access, https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/9226414 (2020).

I am delighted you had so much success getting your work published at last. I am not interested in having your papers retracted. I'm interested in using the opportunity to publish my own work. You really stimulate interesting new developments in this field.

It's a good thing that pure mathematicians are more serious. Papers in pure maths can generally be trusted. Half of the papers in most other fields of science are wrong, and more than half are of no interest at all, they just serve academic career making.

Top

cron
CodeCogs - An Open Source Scientific Library