Experiment confirms my local-realistic model for EPR-Bohm

[Joy Christian]

A rigorous experiment confirming the predictions of my local-realistic 3-sphere model has been finally performed.

http://arxiv.org/abs/1508.05949.

Here is one of the simulaions of my 3-sphere model (see also http://rpubs.com/jjc/105450).

A theoretical analysis of my local-realistic model can be found here: http://arxiv.org/abs/1405.2355.

The experiemet is heavily discussed on various web and social media sites, and hailed as a triumph for quantum mechanics (good) and Bell's theorem (what a joke).

[Joy Christian]

***
Over at FQXi blog they are spreading false propaganda about the above experiment, while deleting any serious challenge to their false propaganda. For example, they immediately deleted Fred's post pointing out Bell's mistake and my work on the origins of quantum correlations. This once again reminds me why I resigned from FQXi:

Earlier today I resigned from FQXi. I am reproducing my resignation letter here, which explains my reasons:

Dear Professors Tegmark and Aguirre,

I am writing to withdraw my membership of FQXi, effective immediately.

If “resign” is the right word, then I am writing to resign from FQXi, effective immediately.

I do not wish to be part of an institute which I consider to be too hypocritical and political for my liking.

I also do not wish to be part of an institute where rogue scientists and disingenuous characters like Scott
Aaronson and Richard Gill are members. In my opinion a morally bankrupt, algebraically challenged,
third-rate statistician like Richard Gill should not have been offered a membership of the institute.

Please ensure that my name from the membership list on the FQXi website is removed as soon as possible.

Sincerely,

Joy Christian

14 February, 2015
Oxford, England

[ivica]

Joy, they have you heard!? Just copied from FQXi blog:

Fred Diether wrote on Aug. 26, 2015 @ 22:34 GMT
It is great that we have further experimental validation that the predictions of quantum theory are correct for the EPRB type scenarios. But this also confirms former member Dr. Joy Christian's classical local realistic model.

http://challengingbell.blogspot.com/201 ... f-joy.html

So this experiment doesn't really have anything to do the with confirming or denying of local models. Bell was simply wrong.

post approved

Anonymous replied on Aug. 27, 2015 @ 00:15 GMT
Thanks, Fred.

It is really sad to see how brainwashed the entire physics community has become about the absurd notion of "non-locality", and how they continue to spread the false propaganda here at FQXi about the so-called "theorem" by Bell --- which, as we know, has been discredited for many years. I guess mysticism sells and politics in more important than truth.

But as you point out, the experiment under discussion is more naturally and rationally understood as confirming my manifestly local-realistic model for the EPR-Bohm correlation, as we have been discussing here and here.

Best,

Joy

Or you are talking about other posts...

[Joy Christian]

Oh... they restored the deleted posts! Thanks, ivica. So perhaps FQXi has not gone as badly down the drain as I had feared.

[Joy Christian]

In any case, returning to the main topic of this thread...

... what this experiment finally proves is that we do indeed live in a quaternionic 3-sphere: viewtopic.php?f=6&t=188#p5129, viewtopic.php?f=6&t=115#p3763

[ivica]

Sorry for hijacking but I couldn't resist.
None of us gave the link to the actual blog, it's for lurkers - like me, it's here.

BTW: I like this respond:

Thomas Howard Ray replied on Aug. 29, 2015 @ 17:30 GMT
...
One thing is for certain: no useful technology will ever be developed from "spookiness".
...

No useful technology but so many pluses in social activity under current society .

[Joy Christian]

***
ivica, I have just posted a comment about FQXi and (as you put it) the "current society", here: viewtopic.php?f=6&t=183&p=5421#p5421

[ivica]

Joy, deal with them is not easy, they ('utility' product of the "current society") are so numerous and well positioned. I envy you on strength :



-- a long time lurker at 'expelling of mystics from natural science, at least'.

[Joy Christian]

Huge amount of false and fraudulent propaganda and hype about the above experiment continues all over the internet, in Nature journal to NewScientist magazine.



PS: Fred Diether has posted a comment about my model at Nature-journal's blog about the experiment: http://www.nature.com/news/quantum-spoo ... 2229358016

[jreed]

:D
A rigorous experiment confirming the predictions of my local-realistic 3-sphere model has been finally performed.

http://arxiv.org/abs/1508.05949.

Here is one of the simulaions of my 3-sphere model (see also http://rpubs.com/jjc/105450).

A theoretical analysis of my local-realistic model can be found here: http://arxiv.org/abs/1405.2355.

The experiemet is heavily discussed on various web and social media sites, and hailed as a triumph for quantum mechanics (good) and Bell's theorem (what a joke).

Here's a statement from your theoretical analysis leading up to your simulation:

"The relationship between the rotation angle r within
Pearle’s state space SO(3) and the rotation angle ..."

It is clear from this statement and the programming in your simulation you are using the equations from Pearle's paper, which uses the detection loophole, to violate CHSH. Now you are saying that an experiment that is free from this loophole confirms your simulation which uses this loophole. You need to understand your program before you make incorrect claims like this.

[Joy Christian]

A rigorous experiment confirming the predictions of my local-realistic 3-sphere model has been finally performed.

http://arxiv.org/abs/1508.05949.

Here is one of the simulaions of my 3-sphere model (see also http://rpubs.com/jjc/105450).

A theoretical analysis of my local-realistic model can be found here: http://arxiv.org/abs/1405.2355.

The experiemet is heavily discussed on various web and social media sites, and hailed as a triumph for quantum mechanics (good) and Bell's theorem (what a joke).

Here's a statement from your theoretical analysis leading up to your simulation:

"The relationship between the rotation angle r within
Pearle’s state space SO(3) and the rotation angle ..."

It is clear from this statement and the programming in your simulation you are using the equations from Pearle's paper, which uses the detection loophole, to violate CHSH. Now you are saying that an experiment that is free from this loophole confirms your simulation which uses this loophole. You need to understand your program before you make incorrect claims like this.

Thank you, John. I am indeed using some equations from Pearle's classic paper, which uses the detection loophole to violate CHSH. That is not a secret.

But rather interestingly, the statements from my theoretical analysis you have conveniently ignored to mention are the following:

(1) "Abstract: Exact agreement with the probabilistic predictions of quantum theory is achieved in the model without data rejection, remote contextuality, superdeterminism, or backward causation."

(2) "In what follows it is very important to recognize that this constraint is simply an expression of the intrinsic metrical and topological structures of S3..."

(3) "What has been overlooked in Pearle’s derivation are the contributions to [ the overlap area ] from the relative rotations of the state e ... along the directions a and b. While the state e can be common to both a and b, the corresponding rotations r cannot be the same in general about both a and b."

(4) "Although the statistical effects of the constraints (30) in our model turn out to be almost identical to those in Pearle’s model, the characteristics of the two models are markedly different."

And most importantly:

(5)


You are doing exactly the same type of selective reading when you make blatantly false claims about my simulation (which I have repeatedly addressed elsewhere).

You are conveniently ignoring the actual content of the simulation, distorting it in your Mathematica re-write to your own liking and prejudices, and then falsely claiming that your distortion is my simulation and thus it is based on detection loophole. That is absolute rubbish, as I have repeatedly demonstrated elsewhere.

[jreed]

You are conveniently ignoring the actual content of the simulation, distorting it in your Mathematica re-write to your own liking and prejudices, and then falsely claiming that your distortion is my simulation and thus it is based on detection loophole. That is absolute rubbish, as I have repeatedly demonstrated elsewhere.

My Mathematica rewrite follows the same logic as your R simulation, and is nearly line for line identical, except for those functions in R that aren't in Mathematica. The output of my program is identical with the output of your R program. I wrote the Mathematica version as a learning tool to help me understand R. Now that this is done, I'm certain I understand your simulation, and see the detection loophole in it, which should be obvious to anyone who sees how the program works. I encourage you study your simulation more completely. If you do, you will reach an understanding of the detection loophole. It's an interesting subject.

[Joy Christian]

My Mathematica rewrite follows the same logic as your R simulation, and is nearly line for line identical, except for those functions in R that aren't in Mathematica. The output of my program is identical with the output of your R program. I wrote the Mathematica version as a learning tool to help me understand R. Now that this is done, I'm certain I understand your simulation, and see the detection loophole in it, which should be obvious to anyone who sees how the program works. I encourage you study your simulation more completely. If you do, you will reach an understanding of the detection loophole. It's an interesting subject.

As I have repeatedly tried to explain to you, my model or its simulation has nothing to do with the detection loophole: viewtopic.php?f=6&t=192&start=20#p5369.

I learned about detection loophole in the 1980's from my eminent PhD adviser Abner Shimony (the "S" in the CHSH) and from Philp Pearle himself (whom I happen to know personally). You, on the other hand, learned about detection loophole yesterday, from the dishonest and incompetent character like Richard Gill. So you need not give me any lecture on detection loophole. As anyone with knowledge of physics can see for himself, my simulations have nothing to do with detection loophole.

[FrediFizzx]

My Mathematica rewrite follows the same logic as your R simulation, and is nearly line for line identical, except for those functions in R that aren't in Mathematica. The output of my program is identical with the output of your R program. I wrote the Mathematica version as a learning tool to help me understand R. Now that this is done, I'm certain I understand your simulation, and see the detection loophole in it, which should be obvious to anyone who sees how the program works. I encourage you study your simulation more completely. If you do, you will reach an understanding of the detection loophole. It's an interesting subject.

John, that is not the issue here at all. The issue is merely how you interpret the simulations based on physical principles. If you want to continue to interpret the simulation your way in R^3, there is probably nothing we are going to be able to do to get you to understand the interpretation in S^3. If that is the case, then just agree to disagree. It's done.

[Joy Christian]

I hear that the experiment is now published in Nature: http://www.nature.com/articles/nature15 ... ItSGV_gnLF

See also my recent paper: http://arxiv.org/abs/1103.1879

Needless to say, the non-localists and non-realists are in frenzy, claiming that they finally have the confirmation of the voodoo they believe in !!!!!!

Here is a New York Times article about the experiment (the world has gone mad): http://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/22/scien ... v=top-news

[FrediFizzx]

I hear that the experiment is now published in Nature: http://www.nature.com/articles/nature15 ... ItSGV_gnLF

See also my recent paper: http://arxiv.org/abs/1103.1879

Needless to say, the non-localists and non-realists are in frenzy, claiming that they finally have the confirmation of the voodoo they believe in !!!!!!

Here is a New York Times article about the experiment (the world has gone mad): http://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/22/scien ... v=top-news

I posted the following in the NY Times comment section. We will see if it shows up.

It is very good that an experiment finally confirms the predictions of quantum theory for EPR type scenarios. However, it does not prove "spooky action at a distance". Because there does exist a classical local realistic explanation for the correlations based on a simple common sense physics postulate.

http://arxiv.org/abs/1103.1879

That postulate being that when the particle pairs are created, there is a 50-50 chance that they will be created as a left handed system or right handed system.

[Joy Christian]

I posted the following in the NY Times comment section. We will see if it shows up.

It is very good that an experiment finally confirms the predictions of quantum theory for EPR type scenarios. However, it does not prove "spooky action at a distance". Because there does exist a classical local realistic explanation for the correlations based on a simple common sense physics postulate.

http://arxiv.org/abs/1103.1879

That postulate being that when the particle pairs are created, there is a 50-50 chance that they will be created as a left handed system or right handed system.

I also posted somewhat similar comment in the New York Times, but they seem to have censored both my comment and your comment. They of course have no time for the spoilers like us. They are profiting enormously from this "scientifically justified" mysticism and "experimentally demonstrated" "spooky action at a distance."

We can't really blame New York Times, can we?

When the entire physics community is addicted to the "spooky action at a distance", why should New York Times pay any attention to the truth? When the so-called scientists like Scott Aaronson and Richard Gill are stooping to lying, cheating, harassing, cyber-stalking, and cyber-bullying to protect their vested interests in such mysticism, and when academic institutions like FQXi are setting up kangaroo courts to root out any dissenter to mysticism, how can anyone blame New York Times?

[FrediFizzx]

My post made it on there but I did not see yours. Did you use your full name?

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/22/scien ... d=16433447

[Joy Christian]

My post made it on there but I did not see yours. Did you use your full name?

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/22/scien ... d=16433447

Oh.., good. Yes, I did use my full name and logged in with my google account. Apparently they did not like my comment. It was very much like your comment.

[Joy Christian]

So the bogus propaganda by the topologically naïve Bell believers continues: http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/va ... 15631.html

As some of us already know, the title of this article is an outright lie. Unfortunately there are plenty of people out there who desperately want to believe this lie.