Einstein was right --- a new anti-Bell book by Karl Hess

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: Einstein was right --- a new anti-Bell book by Karl Hess

Re: Einstein was right --- a new anti-Bell book by Karl Hess

Post by Joy Christian » Sun Jul 05, 2015 11:50 pm

Unfortunately, Michel, most unsuspecting scientists are completely unaware of the duplicitous character and thieving strategies of Richard Gill. If only they knew that there is a nasty wolf among their meek sheep they would not be so obliging to him. He knows exactly how to manipulate and exploit the fine "loopholes" of academia.

Re: Einstein was right --- a new anti-Bell book by Karl Hess

Post by minkwe » Fri Jul 03, 2015 9:20 pm

Joy,
He claims I stole it from Pearle, but that he was the first person in 45 years to decipher what Pearle did. If I stole it from Pearle, then I must have deciphered it before him :lol: . I think he also claimed at one point I stole it from Catherine Thompson. A lot of contradictions if you ask me.

But that old thread revealed a gem I hadn't noticed before:

Gill wrote:The rough sinusoidal shape of the error curves is because the *same* sample of 10^6 hidden variables is being used for all possible measurement angles. That saves a heap of time, but creates correlation. Which wouldn't be there, of course, if we used a new sample to calculate each separate point on the curve.


An admission that his recent paper on Statistics, Causality and Bell's theorem is false! If he's reading this, he'll know what I mean -- hint: picking pairs from a 4xN spreadsheet of outcomes without replacement, and claiming the statistics are the same as those of 4 separate independent paired ensembles. :shock:

Re: Einstein was right --- a new anti-Bell book by Karl Hess

Post by Joy Christian » Fri Jul 03, 2015 1:28 pm

Joy Christian wrote:According to an online book review by Richard Gill, Karl Hess actually makes a much more serious charge in his book against Larsson and Gill. Karl Hess points out that Larsson and Gill [Europhys. Lett. 67 707 (2004)] actually stole the ideas discussed in their paper from Hess and Philipp. Now that charge is much more serious than the petty harassments and other intimidation tactics by the Bell mafia I was referring to earlier: http://libertesphilosophica.info/blog/.

In his latest attempt to take false credit for something he did not do, Richard Gill tried to steal Michel Fodje's epr-simple simulation by reproducing it in R and calling it a simulation of Pearle's detection loophole model. In fact Gill had been claiming that Pearle had found a unique solution to the problem until I pointed out to him on this very forum that Pearle's solution is not unique, and it differs from Michel's choice of the distribution only minutely. I have already pointed out on this forum (see

viewtopic.php?f=6&t=66&start=10#p3054 )

that many people played a role in unpacking what Pearle had found, whose true physical significance I spelt out last year: http://arxiv.org/abs/1405.2355. Gill was a referee of this paper which I had submitted to Nature, Scientific Reports. He torpedoed the paper with bogus criticisms, sprinkled with nasty personal attacks on me.

Gill had been boasting among his quantum information groupies that he had singlehandedly figured out, for the first time in history, how to simulate Pearle's detection loophole model. As it happens I too am a member of one of the quantum information groups where Gill had been boasting. So I cought him out on his lie, and pointed out to the group members that all Gill had actually done was to reproduce Michel's epr-simple simulation in R without giving him much credit. This in turn prompted Gill to "analyse" (LOL) two of Michel's simulations and publish his "analysis" here: http://arxiv.org/abs/1507.00106. Michel's scathing response can be found here:

viewtopic.php?f=6&t=168&start=140#p4642 .

There is a great need to keep an eye on Gill's shenanigans. He lurks on these forums, so let me point out to him that I will not cease to expose his unethical tactics.

PS: Here is the evidence that it was I who first pointed out to Gill that Pearle's solution is not unique: viewtopic.php?f=6&t=18&p=643&hilit=pearle+unique#p642.

Re: Einstein was right --- a new anti-Bell book by Karl Hess

Post by Schmelzer » Wed May 27, 2015 11:24 am

Yablon wrote:First, extraordinary care must be taken to get one's own house in order before even thinking about crying foul. The worst thing to have happen, is for someone to complain that they are being "censored," and then to have someone else easily prove that the allegedly censored theory is objectively flawed. While I have certainly felt the strong headwinds for many years, it is very important to tend to "one's own house" and make certain that the work proposed is on solid ground before taking on the fight. It is only after the proponent feels highly secure about his or her ability to objectively defend his or her work that it is advisable to start the full court press against the "establishment" and its censors and gatekeepers and power and money centers.


A very good point. I think, the alternative scientist should be able and ready to answer every counter-argumentation against his proposals. And it is also important to learn to behave more politely than the mainstream attackers. Because, if people see a simple exchange of personal attacks between two persons, and one of them is mainstream, the other not, they will prefer the mainstream guy. If, instead, the "alternative" scientist behaves extremely reasonable, answering everything without personal attacks, and only the mainstream guy is using personal attacks, the situation is already quite different.

By the way, this is not only a recommendation for outsiders. In every situation, to behave modestly, to argue about the content, and to avoid personal attacks is the winning strategy. (Of course, only for those with the better arguments. For those, who have no chance to win the argumentative battle, it is, of course, almost necessary to switch to personal attacks.) But for the alternative scientist it is especially important to recognize this - because, if two mainstream scientist start personal attacks against each other, each has a 50% chance to win in the eyes of the public. If the personal battle starts between a mainstream scientist and an alternative scientist, the mainstream scientist almost certainly counts as the winner in the eyes of the public.

Re: Einstein was right --- a new anti-Bell book by Karl Hess

Post by Joy Christian » Wed May 27, 2015 6:18 am

Schmelzer wrote:Gill was faster publishing a refutation.

I will not bother to respond to your other worthless and uninformed comments, but let me note that Gill's so-called "refutation" has

(1) nothing whatsoever to do with my proposed experiment, or any of my other works on the subject,

and

(2) Gill's supposed "refutation" is based on several sophomoric mathematical and conceptual blunders.

I have exposed all of Gill's blunders thoroughly and systematically in this paper: http://arxiv.org/abs/1501.03393.

It is truly mindboggling that a person who can make such embarrassing mathematical blunders calls himself a "mathematician."

Bell's so-called theorem has long been discredited. It is extraordinary that some people continue to believe in such a bygone fantasy.

Re: Einstein was right --- a new anti-Bell book by Karl Hess

Post by Schmelzer » Wed May 27, 2015 5:12 am

Joy Christian wrote:The central question is: Whether the world is governed by fundamentally probabilistic laws or deterministic laws? In other words, the question is: Whether or not the quantum mechanical randomness is reducible to ordinary classical randomness (as in coin tossing, gambling, weather, or currency fluctuations).


No. The conflict between you and Gill has nothing to do with indeterminism vs. determinism. You certainly can support determinism and Bell's theorem - as Bell himself, who was a strong supporter of de Broglie-Bohm theory, which is deterministic. You can support indeterminism and Bell - as proponents of, say, Nelsonian stochastics would do.

Regarding the motivations of people who do not accept what IMHO are simple proven theorems I, of course, cannot make any reasonable hypotheses, because this behaviour is IMHO irrational. But I would say that such irrational behaviour can be combined as with a belief in indeterminism, as with a belief in determinism.

Joy Christian wrote:What is more, now I have even managed to get an important paper published in a highly respected physics journal --- a journal in which Feynman published his pioneering paper on quantum computers, for example. This is what has made people like Gill go ballistic.

Oh, I, for example, was happy to hear that you have published in such a journal - a nice possibility to publish there a refutation :D The journal "Annalen der Physik" has made me a similar present by publishing an Anti-Bell crank: "Schulz, B.: A new look at Bell’s inequalities and Nelson’s theorem, Annalen der Physik (Berlin) 18, No. 4, 231 (2009), arXiv:0807.3369v45" So, now I have a publication in the journal wher Einstein, Planck and Röntgen have published their most important papers: Schmelzer, I.: Comments on a Paper by B.Schulz about Bell's Inequalities, Ann. Phys. (Berlin), 523, 576–579 (2011)

Unfortunately, I have heard about your publication too late - Gill was faster publishing a refutation. :(

So, I hope you will have more success in the future - may be the next time I will be faster than Gill ;)

But, please don't use a PRX journal for publishing. I will not publish in journals where one has to pay for publishing, even if it is prestigeous from mainstream point of view. In this case, I would leave to write the refutation to Gill.

Re: Einstein was right --- a new anti-Bell book by Karl Hess

Post by Joy Christian » Tue Mar 24, 2015 1:02 am

observer wrote:I read about this somewhere else https://pubpeer.com/publications/B08756 ... 1C#fb22567

Well, Richard Gill has been trying some of the same underhand tactics with me and my work, but in my case he has been out of his depth. After eight years of trying he has yet to understand the first thing about my work. :lol: And he can't steal that which he has no capacity of understanding: http://libertesphilosophica.info/blog/.

Re: Einstein was right --- a new anti-Bell book by Karl Hess

Post by observer » Sun Mar 22, 2015 8:59 pm

Re: Einstein was right --- a new anti-Bell book by Karl Hess

Post by Joy Christian » Sat Mar 21, 2015 7:19 pm

According to an online book review by Richard Gill, Karl Hess actually makes a much more serious charge in his book against Larsson and Gill. Karl Hess points out that Larsson and Gill [Europhys. Lett. 67 707 (2004)] actually stole the ideas discussed in their paper from Hess and Philipp. Now that charge is much more serious than the petty harassments and other intimidation tactics by the Bell mafia I was referring to earlier.

Re: Einstein was right --- a new anti-Bell book by Karl Hess

Post by Q-reeus » Tue Dec 23, 2014 7:24 am

Recently came across reference to the currently last listed arXiv article by this fella: http://arxiv.org/find/quant-ph/1/au:+Lo ... /0/all/0/1
Maybe some here are familiar with his approach and might like to comment as they see it on any pros and cons, for the lay audience here.

Re: Einstein was right --- a new anti-Bell book by Karl Hess

Post by Joy Christian » Tue Dec 23, 2014 6:29 am

lcwelch wrote:"All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident."
Arthur Schopenhauer

Schopenhauer is right, of course, but at least in my case things have gone far beyond simply ridiculing and opposing my work on Bell's theorem. The malicious actions by some of the opponents of my work, in particular those by Richard Gill, have been quite vicious and personal (although on the Internet that may not appear to be the case). He and several other opponents of my work have developed deep-seated personal vendetta against me --- they have gone as far as cyber-stalking me. For example, for the past several years Richard Gill has been trying to destroy my scientific reputation and career, not only by launching bogus and deceitful criticisms of my work, but also by online and offline intimidation and harassment. For example, he has been bombarding my academic superiors at Oxford University and elsewhere with malicious letters about me. His rationale behind targeting my academic reputation and career is to discredit my work by discrediting me personally. And if that does not work, then to use all sorts of underhand political tactics to block the publication of my anti-Bell results. He appears to exhibit no shame in willing to hurt me academically and financially, if that is what it takes to protect his vested interests. This seem to go far beyond what Schopenhauer may have witnessed in his time.

Re: Einstein was right --- a new anti-Bell book by Karl Hess

Post by lcwelch » Thu Dec 18, 2014 8:34 am

"All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident."
Arthur Schopenhauer

Re: Einstein was right --- a new anti-Bell book by Karl Hess

Post by Yablon » Wed Dec 17, 2014 10:37 pm

Joy Christian wrote:The battle between me and Richard Gill continues elsewhere: http://challengingbell.blogspot.co.uk/2 ... 8690369950.

There are some who say that any publicity is good publicity. I hope they are right, because you and Gill are sure generating a lot of publicity for your paper these days. This, given the Editorial Board at IJTP, may be guaranteeing that one or two Nobel Laureates take a look through your paper. Jay

Re: Einstein was right --- a new anti-Bell book by Karl Hess

Post by Joy Christian » Wed Dec 17, 2014 8:21 am

The battle between me and Richard Gill continues elsewhere: http://challengingbell.blogspot.co.uk/2 ... 8690369950.

Re: Einstein was right --- a new anti-Bell book by Karl Hess

Post by Joy Christian » Mon Dec 15, 2014 1:23 pm

Yablon wrote:
You know the landscape and the players way better than I. I have learned in my almost 61 years on this earth that bad human behaviors and motivations are always understood based on one or more self-interests: money, power, ego, or sex. (Sorry to throw that last one in, but we all know it is true.)

What are the various self-interests arrayed around Bell's theorem and it standing or falling? Is somebody going to lose a $billion project? Is somebody going to go to the physics doghouse? I just see such sound and fury going on over Bell, and frankly, I find it bewildering.

I'd really like to understand the self-interests that lead people to get so overwrought about this.

Jay


Jay,

Fortunately sex, I think, is not the culprit here. But money, power, and ego indeed are. In addition, big science and the lure of immortality are also in the mix.

Why science? Because what Gill and I have been disputing about is very much at the heart of science. The central question is: Whether the world is governed by fundamentally probabilistic laws or deterministic laws? In other words, the question is: Whether or not the quantum mechanical randomness is reducible to ordinary classical randomness (as in coin tossing, gambling, weather, or currency fluctuations). This question has been with us since the birth of the quantum. The debate over it was famously started by the dialogues between Einstein and Bohr. The question is so important that it brings out extraordinarily bad behaviour in some people.

But then there are also more usual reasons for the bad behaviour, such as money, power, ego, and the lure of immortality. What do I mean by that? Well, to begin with, in recent years billions of dollars have been invested in the subjects like quantum information, quantum cryptography, and quantum computation. All of these subjects heavily rely on the validity of Bell's theorem. Therefore anyone who challenges this theorem is immediately branded a "crackpot." The feeling in the quantum community about this is very similar to how you and I feel about those who claim that special relativity is wrong. Thus most of the Bell challengers are simply ignored, because they are not enough of a threat to the Bell community. I am a somewhat different case, partly because of my academic background and partly because of the fact that I have some very powerful and elegant results. It is therefore paramount for the survival of the quantum and/or Bell communities to simply denounce my results as wrong. This is very easy to do. They simply have to declare that my results are wrong and block any publications of mine that challenge Bell's theorem. That is what they have been doing to me for the past eight years. But even then I managed to get a whole book published with grants from FQXi. What is more, now I have even managed to get an important paper published in a highly respected physics journal --- a journal in which Feynman published his pioneering paper on quantum computers, for example. This is what has made people like Gill go ballistic.

As you can imagine, some of the followers of Bell have become extremely powerful because of the central importance of the theorem. We are talking about Nobel Prizes and other major accolades. Some of these people have been waiting by the phone every year to get a call from Stockholm. The last thing these people want to hear is that some little guy like me has disproved Bell's theorem. That would not only rob them from Nobel prizes, but make them look like fools for believing in such a non-theorem, and fighting for it tooth and nail. There goes their egos and their immortal fame in the history of physics. You can now fill in the details to see why some people behave the way they do in defending Bell's theorem.

Joy

Re: Einstein was right --- a new anti-Bell book by Karl Hess

Post by Yablon » Mon Dec 15, 2014 12:02 pm

Joy Christian wrote:...Sadly, I am not the first victim of Gill’s insatiable aggression, nor will I be the last, as I pointed out here.

Joy:

You know the landscape and the players way better than I. I have learned in my almost 61 years on this earth that bad human behaviors and motivations are always understood based on one or more self-interests: money, power, ego, or sex. (Sorry to throw that last one in, but we all know it is true.)

What are the various self-interests arrayed around Bell's theorem and it standing or falling? Is somebody going to lose a $billion project? Is somebody going to go to the physics doghouse? I just see such sound and fury going on over Bell, and frankly, I find it bewildering.

I'd really like to understand the self-interests that lead people to get so overwrought about this.

Jay

Re: Einstein was right --- a new anti-Bell book by Karl Hess

Post by Joy Christian » Mon Dec 15, 2014 7:36 am

Having been banned from this forum, Richard Gill has taken his unethical tactics elsewhere on the internet, by launching a renewed attack on my published paper, with his usual strategy of cunning innuendos, fabricated lies, and misrepresented half-truths --- both about my work as well as about me personally.

Apparently bombarding my academic superiors with a series of malicious letters about me has not provided him enough satisfaction.

Some time ago I received the following message from a complete stranger, which is quite revealing (I have edited it somewhat for obvious reasons):

I sympathize with your current struggle [with Gill]. I do not understand why any researcher needs to attack another with inflammatory phrases like ". . . his research program has been set up around an elaborately hidden but trivial mistake," and "Sanity has been restored." I mean "elaborately hidden" implies deliberate deceit. His use of "Sanity has been restored" suggests clinical aberration on your part. Both phrases are personal attacks and pointlessly malicious. On the other hand your reply argument is thoughtful, detailed and free of sarcasm.

Keep up the good work.


The messenger is referring to this reply argument by me.

Sadly, I am not the first victim of Gill’s insatiable aggression, nor will I be the last, as I pointed out here.

Re: Einstein was right --- a new anti-Bell book by Karl Hess

Post by Yablon » Sun Nov 16, 2014 9:25 am

Joy Christian wrote:Hi Jay,

I would certainly feel intimidated because the arXiv administrators seem to have absolute power to do whatever they like. Several of my anti-Bell papers have been on hold in the past few years, before being released after a week or so, with one of them---a reply to a critic of my work---reclassified to "general physics" before release. My latest paper, this one, for example, remained on hold at arXiv for nearly a month before being released. It is difficult to prove (at least in my case) that this was due to suppression or due to letter writing campaign by Gill. But there are other claims of suppression by the arXiv, documented, for example, in this book.
I have been fortunate, however, that none of my papers---even the anti-Bell ones---have been rejected by the arXiv. I remain intimidated by the arXiv nonetheless.

Hi Joy,

My experience has been similar, but worse. In October 2013 ArXiV had cancelled my earlier ability to post anything, so I obtained a new endorsement in HEP-TH from a well-placed physicist in Europe. Then over the past year I submitted five papers, two of which had been published following peer review. All five were put on hold pending review of classification. For the two papers that had been published, after months of delay, they notified me that those has been removed as "inappropriate for ArXiV." Never mind that they were published following peer review elsewhere. The other three remain on hold to this day, one of those for over a year at this time. Last week I went to submit my latest work on defining quark masses. I could not even submit it. So when I asked what had happened and sent them a copy of the endorsement from a year ago, they told me that I could no longer submit and needed to obtain a new endorsement. Such is the unaccountable, Alice in Wonderland-type rabbit hold that is ArXiV.

Because my goal has been to get my baryons = YM monopoles work accepted at the level of Physical Review, I have stayed away from getting into a war with ArXiV despite being sorely tempted. I just cannot take on any distractions from the main goal. The time for me to take on ArXiV will be after my work has been accepted and recognized which will happen because all of the empirical data I have explained will win the day at the end of the day. I hope to become a living example of the type of work that gets abducted and buried because of the present day rot in the physics power structure, much of which emanates from the outrageous and totally unaccountable conduct at ArXiV and the insidious way in which their attitudes have seeped into the physics milieu as a whole. They say that power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely; ArXiV is a great example of this. I heartily commend Phil Gibbs for starting ViXrA as a competitor; one day he should receive a scientific "Profiles in Courage" award; if nobody else gives that to him I will. Right now many people sneer at ViXrA, but I plan to change that once the work I have placed there because of ArXiV's closed door is recognized, sort of how Joe Namath got the AFL recognized in 1969 when he led the NY Jets to the first ever Super Bowl win over the old NFL.

On a related front, I reported a week ago that the Editor-in-Chief at PRD was undertaking a personal review of my paper (http://vixra.org/pdf/1403.0272v3.pdf). And I also, a week ago at the same time, sent him a copy of the new paper that I now have submitted at PRC (the one at http://vixra.org/pdf/1411.0023v2.pdf, see the separate SPF thread where I am discussing this). He did say that he would give me a full review by the "end of the week" (which week is now ended) even if the end result meant that the paper "would not be appropriate" for publication. So far, I have not heard anything further from him, which I guess means that so far he has not been able to find a way to reject the paper. With this paper now at PRD together with the second paper at PRC, I intend to mount and maintain a full court press. Either someone will have to reject something with a convincing rationale for why it is wrong, or I will keep at it until this work is recognized. I am letting nobody off the hook.

On a personal note, I went back for the first time in decades to look at Kuhn's book http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Struct ... evolutions. This was tremendously influential to me back in my MIT days (1972-1976) where I first came across this in one of my courses. I of course use this in my blog name Lab Notes for a Scientific Revolution at http://jayryablon.wordpress.com/, and never a days goes by when I am not keenly aware that what I am doing is bringing on a scientific revolution by the simple act of finding the right answers to deep unsolved problems while letting the political and powers chips fall wherever they may.

Jay

Re: Einstein was right --- a new anti-Bell book by Karl Hess

Post by Joy Christian » Sat Nov 15, 2014 6:47 pm

Yablon wrote:
Joy Christian wrote:Here is another brief summary of the suppression problem in science by Brian Martin: http://www.bmartin.cc/dissent/intro/DNAleaflet.pdf, with this conclusion:

It is vitally important that action be taken against suppression. This is because the most important effect of suppression is not on the dissident - though that may be traumatic - but on others who observe the process. Every case of suppression is a warning to potential critics not to buck the system. And every case in which suppression is vigorously opposed is a warning to vested interests that attacks will not be tolerated.

Okay everybody, so let's try a little experiment. And be honest. If I put the name ArXiV and suppression in the same sentence, how many of you will feel intimidated by my doing so, because you are afraid that by saying something you might lose whatever rights you have to post papers there? Jay

Hi Jay,

I would certainly feel intimidated because the arXiv administrators seem to have absolute power to do whatever they like. Several of my anti-Bell papers have been on hold in the past few years, before being released after a week or so, with one of them---a reply to a critic of my work---reclassified to "general physics" before release. My latest paper, this one, for example, remained on hold at arXiv for nearly a month before being released. It is difficult to prove (at least in my case) that this was due to suppression or due to letter writing campaign by Gill. But there are other claims of suppression by the arXiv, documented, for example, in this book.
I have been fortunate, however, that none of my papers---even the anti-Bell ones---have been rejected by the arXiv. I remain intimidated by the arXiv nonetheless.

Re: Einstein was right --- a new anti-Bell book by Karl Hess

Post by Yablon » Sat Nov 15, 2014 5:37 pm

Joy Christian wrote:Here is another brief summary of the suppression problem in science by Brian Martin: http://www.bmartin.cc/dissent/intro/DNAleaflet.pdf, with this conclusion:

It is vitally important that action be taken against suppression. This is because the most important effect of suppression is not on the dissident - though that may be traumatic - but on others who observe the process. Every case of suppression is a warning to potential critics not to buck the system. And every case in which suppression is vigorously opposed is a warning to vested interests that attacks will not be tolerated.

Okay everybody, so let's try a little experiment. And be honest. If I put the name ArXiV and suppression in the same sentence, how many of you will feel intimidated by my doing so, because you are afraid that by saying something you might lose whatever rights you have to post papers there? Jay

Top

CodeCogs - An Open Source Scientific Library