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

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

Postby Joy Christian » Sat Mar 21, 2015 6:19 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.
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 observer » Sun Mar 22, 2015 7:59 pm

observer
 

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

Postby Joy Christian » Tue Mar 24, 2015 12:02 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/.
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 Schmelzer » Wed May 27, 2015 4:12 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.
Schmelzer
 
Posts: 123
Joined: Mon May 25, 2015 1:44 am

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

Postby Joy Christian » Wed May 27, 2015 5:18 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.
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 Schmelzer » Wed May 27, 2015 10:24 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.
Schmelzer
 
Posts: 123
Joined: Mon May 25, 2015 1:44 am

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

Postby Joy Christian » Fri Jul 03, 2015 12:28 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.
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 minkwe » Fri Jul 03, 2015 8:20 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:
minkwe
 
Posts: 986
Joined: Sat Feb 08, 2014 9:22 am

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

Postby Joy Christian » Sun Jul 05, 2015 10:50 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.
Joy Christian
Research Physicist
 
Posts: 1742
Joined: Wed Feb 05, 2014 3:49 am
Location: Oxford, United Kingdom

Previous

Return to Sci.Physics.Foundations

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot] and 3 guests

CodeCogs - An Open Source Scientific Library