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

Foundations of physics and/or philosophy of physics, and in particular, posts on unresolved or controversial issues

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

Postby Joy Christian » Thu Nov 06, 2014 3:55 am

Prof. Karl Hess has written a new book explaining how John Bell managed to pull Einstein’s Trojan horse into the castle of physics, unleashing the forces against the use of probability as a basis for the laws of nature.

He argues that Bell was not aware of the special role that space-time play in any rigorous probability theory. As a result, his formalism is not general enough to be applied to the Aspect–Zeilinger type of experiments, and consequently his conclusions about the existence of instantaneous influences at a distance are not correct.

Readers of this forum may be aware that I too have somewhat similar views, documented, for example, in my latest paper and the accompanying simulation.

In the book Karl also describes his unpleasant past interactions with a certain statistician called Richard Gill. Karl, however, is much too polite to bring out the truly despicable underhand tactics used by the likes of Richard Gill against any dissenters of the Bell ideology. To get a more candid picture of various tactics used you may have to visit my blog and check out the references linked therein. They demand reconceptualization of the enterprise usually called "science." As the physicist and sociologist Brian Martin puts it (again, far too politely), "rather than being solely a search for the truth, science is closely bound up with the exercise of power."

In any case, I recommend Prof. Hess’s new book to all parties interested in investigating the true nature of the physical reality.

Einstein was indeed right!

Joy Christian
Joy Christian
Research Physicist
 
Posts: 1742
Joined: Wed Feb 05, 2014 3:49 am
Location: Oxford, United Kingdom

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

Postby Yablon » Thu Nov 06, 2014 6:42 am

Joy Christian wrote:As the physicist and sociologist Brian Martin puts it (again, far too politely), "rather than being solely a search for the truth, science is closely bound up with the exercise of power.

Joy, I absolutely agree. Jay
Yablon
Independent Physics Researcher
 
Posts: 267
Joined: Tue Feb 04, 2014 9:39 pm
Location: New York

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

Postby Joy Christian » Sat Nov 08, 2014 2:22 am

Yablon wrote:
Joy Christian wrote:As the physicist and sociologist Brian Martin puts it (again, far too politely), "rather than being solely a search for the truth, science is closely bound up with the exercise of power.

Joy, I absolutely agree. Jay

Thanks, Jay.

What I find disturbing is that there is no accountability in science for misdemeanours of the kind I mention. The culprits are usually rewarded for their misdeeds.

Here is the website by Brian Martin, who has investigated such cases of gross injustice for over 30 years: https://www.uow.edu.au/~bmartin/pubs/93nw.html.
Joy Christian
Research Physicist
 
Posts: 1742
Joined: Wed Feb 05, 2014 3:49 am
Location: Oxford, United Kingdom

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

Postby Yablon » Sat Nov 08, 2014 1:30 pm

Joy Christian wrote:
Yablon wrote:
Joy Christian wrote:As the physicist and sociologist Brian Martin puts it (again, far too politely), "rather than being solely a search for the truth, science is closely bound up with the exercise of power.

Joy, I absolutely agree. Jay

Thanks, Jay.

What I find disturbing is that there is no accountability in science for misdemeanours of the kind I mention. The culprits are usually rewarded for their misdeeds.

Here is the website by Brian Martin, who has investigated such cases of gross injustice for over 30 years: https://www.uow.edu.au/~bmartin/pubs/93nw.html.


Joy, Brian is doing very important work. For scientists like you and me who have developed "unconventional" theories, the challenge is indeed immense. Because it is so easy to develop a theory which the proponent believes is "right," only to have that belief contradicted or some fatal error detected, and because there truly are so-called "quacks" out there too, as well as tons of just plain low-grade noise from legitimate but average researchers doing nominal things to make their living or secure their tenure or land their funding, a scientist with truly groundbreaking research seeking to break through to mainstream acceptance is really caught in a conundrum.

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. First, one must be right, but while necessary, this is not sufficient. After that, there is a fight that is needed to prevail, and one must be prepared to throw everything into that.

Personally, with the paper I posted and submitted to PRC a few days ago, I am precisely at that tipping point in my own efforts. I am absolutely confident that my theory that protons and neutrons and other baryons are the chromo-magnetic monopoles of Yang-Mills theory is correct, and am bolstered by multiple empirical confirmations from nuclear energy data which has never been explained by anyone else before. I also do not think it immodest to believe that this is an advance the likes of which does not come along with a frequency measured by less than decades. So I am now gearing up for whatever fight may be needed from here.

Just today I sent a somewhat more assertive letter to PRD to get on the stick, because the manuscript has been there for 13 months without them sending it to a referee, and it has been almost 8 months since I provided them a manuscript which addressed all the issues the editors had previously raised. I have to believe that if I was part of the "club," there is no way that an APS journal would ever sit on my manuscript for 8 months without a rejection or the start of peer review. But that is exactly what I am now facing.

At the same time, I now have submitted the empirical side of this work to PRC. That gives me a second avenue via an sister APS journal. I cannot envision that a paper which explains multiple items of nuclear data such as H and He and Li and Be and B and C and N and Fe binding and fusion energies, and the proton and neutron masses, and addresses questions previously raised by earlier reviews about how one can define the measurement of confined current quark masses with precision, and which at the same time reviews the theory sufficiently to make clear how the theory gets connected to experiment, can similarly sit at a top nuclear journal and not move. So I will let this one follow its natural course for awhile, and hope that the right thing happens.

But I am with this post and a few recent posts starting to speak out about the specifics of my situation. I am preparing the ground so that if a fight is needed, I can carry the fight. I am also prepared, if somebody demonstrates that something I am doing is wrong, to gladly adjust as warranted by the evidence. At the same time, I know there are still good and fair people in the world practicing science, and hope that the "ideal" will be realized and that right work will be recognized as right work and the fight will not be needed. But I have studied Copernicus and Galileo and many other past scientists and so know what forces can array against something that totally changes a paradigm. Which is why in my latest PRC paper I have put so much effort into making clear that I am actually not changing any paradigms; I am merely synthesizing settled paradigms to obtain new results. But even that will put quite a few practicing scientists out of their present businesses.

Getting it objectively right has to come first. Nature does not respect politics or money or power. I am confident I have nature on my side. Enough so, so that I am now prepared for an titanic political fight while hoping that none is needed.

Jay
Yablon
Independent Physics Researcher
 
Posts: 267
Joined: Tue Feb 04, 2014 9:39 pm
Location: New York

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

Postby Joy Christian » Sun Nov 09, 2014 2:37 am

Hi Jay,

It must have been very frustrating to wait for 13 odd months for PRD to make up its mind. But I would say that is not so bad. It is better than your paper being rejected based on incompetent and unfair referee reports, like the ones discussed in this paper: http://emilkirkegaard.dk/en/wp-content/ ... reates.pdf.
Joy Christian
Research Physicist
 
Posts: 1742
Joined: Wed Feb 05, 2014 3:49 am
Location: Oxford, United Kingdom

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

Postby Yablon » Sun Nov 09, 2014 8:42 am

Joy Christian wrote:Hi Jay,

It must have been very frustrating to wait for 13 odd months for PRD to make up its mind. But I would say that is not so bad. It is better than your paper being rejected based on incompetent and unfair referee reports, like the ones discussed in this paper: http://emilkirkegaard.dk/en/wp-content/ ... reates.pdf.

Joy, what a great article you linked there!

I did receive an email back late last night from the chief editor of PRD. He stated that both the length (225 pages) of the manuscript and the fact that the subject will be seen as "controversial or speculative" makes it "difficult to receive thoughtful feedback" "by "the usual referee process." So he has decided to review the paper himself and provide a detailed response, and I am of course interested in seeing how that turns out. As your link points out,it is better to have a review even if it is wrong, than to have nothing at all. And that will enable me to maintain a dialogue rather than sit idly amidst silence. So, fingers crossed, time to get on my advocate's hat and help people understand what I have found.

Best regards,

Jay
Yablon
Independent Physics Researcher
 
Posts: 267
Joined: Tue Feb 04, 2014 9:39 pm
Location: New York

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

Postby Joy Christian » Sun Nov 09, 2014 9:49 am

That is great news, Jay. Your paper is getting a very special treatment from one of the top journals. That is something to be proud of, regardless of the final outcome.

I too have some good news. This paper of mine, which proposes an experiment to test my refutation of Bell's theorem (and which has been unfairly attacked by some on this very forum), has been accepted for publication. I dare not say which journal as yet, because some of the Bell mafia (especially Richard Gill) has been writing nasty letters about me to the President of my college in Oxford with malicious intent to hurt me. If I reveal the name of the journal here, then they will surely try to spook the editors of the journal about the paper (I am not being paranoid---they have done far worse). I will reveal the details as soon as the paper appears in print.

The acceptance of the paper is of course a major step forward for an independent realization of the experiment. Most conspicuously, the referees and editors---who seemed quite competent and knowledgeable in both Clifford algebra and physics in general---did not question the validity of my classical derivation of the strong quantum correlations. So the uninformed critics like Richard Gill who have been unfairly attacking my work on Bell for the past several years were dead wrong. Some of us of course knew that, but it is good to be vindicated and endorsed by a highly competent and knowledgeable referees and editors of a respected physics journal.
Joy Christian
Research Physicist
 
Posts: 1742
Joined: Wed Feb 05, 2014 3:49 am
Location: Oxford, United Kingdom

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

Postby Yablon » Sun Nov 09, 2014 9:05 pm

Joy Christian wrote:That is great news, Jay. Your paper is getting a very special treatment from one of the top journals. That is something to be proud of, regardless of the final outcome.

I too have some good news. This paper of mine, which proposes an experiment to test my refutation of Bell's theorem (and which has been unfairly attacked by some on this very forum), has been accepted for publication. I dare not say which journal as yet, because some of the Bell mafia (especially Richard Gill) has been writing nasty letters about me to the President of my college in Oxford with malicious intent to hurt me. If I reveal the name of the journal here, then they will surely try to spook the editors of the journal about the paper (I am not being paranoid---they have done far worse). I will reveal the details as soon as the paper appears in print.

The acceptance of the paper is of course a major step forward for an independent realization of the experiment. Most conspicuously, the referees and editors---who seemed quite competent and knowledgeable in both Clifford algebra and physics in general---did not question the validity of my classical derivation of the strong quantum correlations. So the uninformed critics like Richard Gill who have been unfairly attacking my work on Bell for the past several years were dead wrong. Some of us of course knew that, but it is good to be vindicated and endorsed by a highly competent and knowledgeable referees and editors of a respected physics journal.

Joy, Congratulations! But it is sad to hear that anybody would go to such lengths. Scientists should strive to make their work a contest of ideas and not stoop to the slanders and personal attacks that people in other domains use when they cannot prevail on merit alone. Just look at our politics these days. :(

I commend your use of a classical derivation. I too use classical theory -- in this case Yang-Mills -- to derive all of the nuclear energy predictions in my theory. The place where quantum is needed is to obtain the running QCD curve. Classical theory is sold short these days, but it should be clear that a classical field theory in any domain (e.g. electrodynamics, Yang-Mills, even gravitation) is related to the quantum field theory in the same domain via the path integral which is a "machine" that takes a classical field Lagrangian and converts it over to a quantum field action. So if one is disciplined, then for any theory, one should always be asking about what the classical theory can explain by itself, versus what is the quantum theory needed to explain.

Jay
Yablon
Independent Physics Researcher
 
Posts: 267
Joined: Tue Feb 04, 2014 9:39 pm
Location: New York

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

Postby Joy Christian » Sat Nov 15, 2014 12:19 am

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.
Joy Christian
Research Physicist
 
Posts: 1742
Joined: Wed Feb 05, 2014 3:49 am
Location: Oxford, United Kingdom

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

Postby Yablon » Sat Nov 15, 2014 4:37 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
Yablon
Independent Physics Researcher
 
Posts: 267
Joined: Tue Feb 04, 2014 9:39 pm
Location: New York

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

Postby Joy Christian » Sat Nov 15, 2014 5:47 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.
Joy Christian
Research Physicist
 
Posts: 1742
Joined: Wed Feb 05, 2014 3:49 am
Location: Oxford, United Kingdom

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

Postby Yablon » Sun Nov 16, 2014 8:25 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
Yablon
Independent Physics Researcher
 
Posts: 267
Joined: Tue Feb 04, 2014 9:39 pm
Location: New York

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

Postby Joy Christian » Mon Dec 15, 2014 6:36 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.
Joy Christian
Research Physicist
 
Posts: 1742
Joined: Wed Feb 05, 2014 3:49 am
Location: Oxford, United Kingdom

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

Postby Yablon » Mon Dec 15, 2014 11:02 am

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
Yablon
Independent Physics Researcher
 
Posts: 267
Joined: Tue Feb 04, 2014 9:39 pm
Location: New York

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

Postby Joy Christian » Mon Dec 15, 2014 12:23 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
Joy Christian
Research Physicist
 
Posts: 1742
Joined: Wed Feb 05, 2014 3:49 am
Location: Oxford, United Kingdom

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

Postby Joy Christian » Wed Dec 17, 2014 7:21 am

The battle between me and Richard Gill continues elsewhere: http://challengingbell.blogspot.co.uk/2 ... 8690369950.
Joy Christian
Research Physicist
 
Posts: 1742
Joined: Wed Feb 05, 2014 3:49 am
Location: Oxford, United Kingdom

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

Postby Yablon » Wed Dec 17, 2014 9:37 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
Yablon
Independent Physics Researcher
 
Posts: 267
Joined: Tue Feb 04, 2014 9:39 pm
Location: New York

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

Postby lcwelch » Thu Dec 18, 2014 7:34 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
lcwelch
 
Posts: 21
Joined: Thu Sep 11, 2014 2:16 pm

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

Postby Joy Christian » Tue Dec 23, 2014 5:29 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.
Joy Christian
Research Physicist
 
Posts: 1742
Joined: Wed Feb 05, 2014 3:49 am
Location: Oxford, United Kingdom

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

Postby Q-reeus » Tue Dec 23, 2014 6:24 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.
Q-reeus
 
Posts: 277
Joined: Sat Jun 07, 2014 11:18 pm

Next

Return to Sci.Physics.Foundations

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests

CodeCogs - An Open Source Scientific Library