Experimental Refutation of Quantum Mysticism,
Posted: Mon Dec 01, 2014 7:30 amor Macroscopic Observability of Fermionic Sign Changes Under 
Rotations:
Some of the readers of this forum may know that I have proposed a macroscopic experiment to test Bell's theorem itself (as opposed to merely observing violations of Bell inequality in quantum experiments). One of the papers where I have proposed the experiment is now published in the International Journal of Theoretical Physics. The published version of the paper can be downloaded from this URL: http://link.springer.com/article/10.100 ... 014-2412-2 (the preprint version can be found here).
This is of course a major step forward for an actual realization of the proposed experiment, which some have dubbed audaciously as the experiment of the century.
The proposed experiment is exceedingly simple. The idea is to have a large number of artificial bomb explosions in a laboratory, and measure the spin directions of the two fragments of each bomb (made out of squashy toy balls). The correlation between the local spin directions is then calculated just as in the usual EPR-Bohm (or Bell test) experiments. The main difference in the proposed experiment is that it would be entirely macroscopic, and hence manifestly local and realistic. And yet the classical analysis described in the above paper unambiguously predicts strong (or "quantum") correlations. The reasons behind this state of affairs are in fact quite elementary. I have discussed these reasons many times before, in many papers and a book, including in a brief summary on my blog. All indications---based not only on the theoretical arguments presented in the above paper but also on explicit computer simulations---are that the predicted strong correlation will be confirmed in the actual macroscopic experiment (if it is indeed realized), thereby demystifying once and for all the origins of quantum correlations and quantum entanglement.
In essence, my argument is that the strong quantum correlations we observe in Nature are natural consequences of the topological properties of the physical space itself. They have nothing to do with quantum entanglement or non-locality per se. Just as gravitational effects were shown by Einstein to be due to the geometrical properties of spacetime, I have shown that quantum correlations are due to the spinorial properties of spacetime. Once the correct spinorial properties of spacetime are taken into account, it is trivial to reproduce the EPR-Bohm or Bell correlation in a complete, local, realistic, and deterministic manner. This of course amounts to a decisive refutation of Bell's so-called "theorem." I will spare you the details, but the correlation between the actually observed raw scores can be easily calculated using the corresponding standard scores, by taking the bivetorial dispersion in the raw scores into account (the full details can be found in the paper linked above):
This image of the calculation is reproduced from the page 10 of my book. As straightforward as this calculation is, it was viciously attacked by some individuals. It is therefore all the more important to appreciate that it has now been endorsed by the distinguished editorial board of the International Journal of Theoretical Physics:
You may wonder why anyone would have a problem with my hypothesis or my experimental proposal, but the fact is that the hostility, abuse, and suppression I have faced from some followers of Bell have been extraordinarily vicious and malicious. Some of the readers of this forum already know this, but let me summarize what I have had to endure for the past seven and a half years. It includes hostility and ostracism, not only from some unsavoury individuals, but also from some well known academic institutions. I have been called, for example, "a crank", "a hoaxer", "an obnoxious fraud", "a charlatan", "a c****pot", "an imbecile", and "a fringe lunatic" on various blogs and internet sites, not only by unprofessional characters like Moldoveanu and Vongehr, but also by professional scientists like Scott Aaronson, Richard Gill, Matt Leifer, and Dan Browne, with tacit support from other professional scientists like Adrian Kent. These were direct and personal attacks by those who should know better, with most of them never having read---let alone understood---a single line of my argument. Not surprisingly, the attacks have had quite a debilitating academic and financial consequences for me. But why such hostility, abuse, and suppression? Perhaps the physicist and sociologist Brian Martin has the right answer.
It takes only about 20 minutes or so to derive equations (1.22) to (1.26) above and understand that they provide the most accurate description of the EPR-Bohm type experiments. Instead, I have had to endure some seven and a half years of attacks, verbal abuse, and suppression, some of which happening in the editorial offices, on the referee's desks, and in the corridors of power. Even the academic institutions seem to have adapted a kind of sharia law especially for me, whereby the victim of the crime is punished for being victimized while the criminals themselves are rewarded for their misdemeanours. Take, for example, the contemptible anti-scientific actions taken by Scott Aaronson. Without reading a single line of my argument, he launched and incited a frenzied attack on me on his blog for a full fortnight. He held FQXi (Foundational Questions Institute) to ransom by declaring that he would resign from FQXi in protest and inspire others to do the same unless FQXi stopped its financial support for my work. FQXi complied in full in blatant violation of its own proclaimed charter, not only by discontinuing its financial support for my work, but also by declaring publicly that my work on Bell is flawed. It also disinvited me from its last conference, while Aaronson remained a star speaker at the conference.
But by far the most despicable and malicious underhand tactics used against me are by Richard Gill. As some of you know, he is a statistician with limited grasp of basic physics and proven incompetence in elementary mathematics. He has been relentlessly and viciously attacking my work (and me personally) for several years. What you may not know, however, is what he has been up to behind the scenes, away from the prying eyes of the Internet. If the attacks on me by Richard Gill had been purely scientific in nature and aimed only at my work, then I would not have much to complain against him, since I and others have already refuted his scientific misconceptions about my work many times over. Unfortunately his attacks on me have been very personal and malicious. For example, for the past several years he has been writing nasty letters about me to several of my academic superiors, such as the President of the Wolfson College of Oxford University. Needless to say, his motives behind such letters are manifestly malicious. His long-standing goal has been to debilitate me both academically and financially so that I could no longer publish my anti-Bell results with credibility. From the start of his malicious campaign he has targeted my academic affiliations with the intention to discredit my work by discrediting me personally. He has used similar despicable strategy against many others in the past, many times before, and not without considerable success. For example, see the discussion by Karl Hess in his recent book where he describes his own unpleasant past interactions with Richard Gill. Earlier Caroline Thompson also publicized her own victimization by the likes of Richard Gill in this paper. More recently when Richard Gill was caught lying compulsively on this forum, not only by me but also by Michel Fodje and Fred Diether, he resumed his malicious campaign of writing nasty letters about me to my academic superiors. He has been writing such nasty letters to everyone connected to my affiliations, and/or to my work on Bell's theorem, for the past several years. Apparently he thinks that academics are so gullible that they will not see through the real motives behind his malicious letters. At one point the bombardment of his aggressive and provocative emails to me had become so unbearable that I had to threaten him with legal injunction or restraining order. Only then he stopped bombarding me with provocative emails. Earlier Karl Hess also had to block his emails after being harassed by him for three years. Caroline Thompson also suffered similar harassment from the likes of Richard Gill.
I want to draw two conclusions from the seven and a half years of struggle I have summarized above: (1) Regardless of their malice, the critics of my work were and are plain wrong (because the editorial board of IJTP which approved my paper for publication could not have been more distinguished), and (2) Instead of castigating creative scientists like Caroline Thompson, Karr Hess, and myself for challenging the prevalent quantum ideology, the "foundations" community needs to take a hard look at its own dark underbelly. It needs to castigate those rogue "scientists" who are playing dirty politics behind the scenes to protect their own vested interests.
Some of the readers of this forum may know that I have proposed a macroscopic experiment to test Bell's theorem itself (as opposed to merely observing violations of Bell inequality in quantum experiments). One of the papers where I have proposed the experiment is now published in the International Journal of Theoretical Physics. The published version of the paper can be downloaded from this URL: http://link.springer.com/article/10.100 ... 014-2412-2 (the preprint version can be found here).
This is of course a major step forward for an actual realization of the proposed experiment, which some have dubbed audaciously as the experiment of the century.
The proposed experiment is exceedingly simple. The idea is to have a large number of artificial bomb explosions in a laboratory, and measure the spin directions of the two fragments of each bomb (made out of squashy toy balls). The correlation between the local spin directions is then calculated just as in the usual EPR-Bohm (or Bell test) experiments. The main difference in the proposed experiment is that it would be entirely macroscopic, and hence manifestly local and realistic. And yet the classical analysis described in the above paper unambiguously predicts strong (or "quantum") correlations. The reasons behind this state of affairs are in fact quite elementary. I have discussed these reasons many times before, in many papers and a book, including in a brief summary on my blog. All indications---based not only on the theoretical arguments presented in the above paper but also on explicit computer simulations---are that the predicted strong correlation will be confirmed in the actual macroscopic experiment (if it is indeed realized), thereby demystifying once and for all the origins of quantum correlations and quantum entanglement.
In essence, my argument is that the strong quantum correlations we observe in Nature are natural consequences of the topological properties of the physical space itself. They have nothing to do with quantum entanglement or non-locality per se. Just as gravitational effects were shown by Einstein to be due to the geometrical properties of spacetime, I have shown that quantum correlations are due to the spinorial properties of spacetime. Once the correct spinorial properties of spacetime are taken into account, it is trivial to reproduce the EPR-Bohm or Bell correlation in a complete, local, realistic, and deterministic manner. This of course amounts to a decisive refutation of Bell's so-called "theorem." I will spare you the details, but the correlation between the actually observed raw scores can be easily calculated using the corresponding standard scores, by taking the bivetorial dispersion in the raw scores into account (the full details can be found in the paper linked above):
This image of the calculation is reproduced from the page 10 of my book. As straightforward as this calculation is, it was viciously attacked by some individuals. It is therefore all the more important to appreciate that it has now been endorsed by the distinguished editorial board of the International Journal of Theoretical Physics:
You may wonder why anyone would have a problem with my hypothesis or my experimental proposal, but the fact is that the hostility, abuse, and suppression I have faced from some followers of Bell have been extraordinarily vicious and malicious. Some of the readers of this forum already know this, but let me summarize what I have had to endure for the past seven and a half years. It includes hostility and ostracism, not only from some unsavoury individuals, but also from some well known academic institutions. I have been called, for example, "a crank", "a hoaxer", "an obnoxious fraud", "a charlatan", "a c****pot", "an imbecile", and "a fringe lunatic" on various blogs and internet sites, not only by unprofessional characters like Moldoveanu and Vongehr, but also by professional scientists like Scott Aaronson, Richard Gill, Matt Leifer, and Dan Browne, with tacit support from other professional scientists like Adrian Kent. These were direct and personal attacks by those who should know better, with most of them never having read---let alone understood---a single line of my argument. Not surprisingly, the attacks have had quite a debilitating academic and financial consequences for me. But why such hostility, abuse, and suppression? Perhaps the physicist and sociologist Brian Martin has the right answer.
It takes only about 20 minutes or so to derive equations (1.22) to (1.26) above and understand that they provide the most accurate description of the EPR-Bohm type experiments. Instead, I have had to endure some seven and a half years of attacks, verbal abuse, and suppression, some of which happening in the editorial offices, on the referee's desks, and in the corridors of power. Even the academic institutions seem to have adapted a kind of sharia law especially for me, whereby the victim of the crime is punished for being victimized while the criminals themselves are rewarded for their misdemeanours. Take, for example, the contemptible anti-scientific actions taken by Scott Aaronson. Without reading a single line of my argument, he launched and incited a frenzied attack on me on his blog for a full fortnight. He held FQXi (Foundational Questions Institute) to ransom by declaring that he would resign from FQXi in protest and inspire others to do the same unless FQXi stopped its financial support for my work. FQXi complied in full in blatant violation of its own proclaimed charter, not only by discontinuing its financial support for my work, but also by declaring publicly that my work on Bell is flawed. It also disinvited me from its last conference, while Aaronson remained a star speaker at the conference.
But by far the most despicable and malicious underhand tactics used against me are by Richard Gill. As some of you know, he is a statistician with limited grasp of basic physics and proven incompetence in elementary mathematics. He has been relentlessly and viciously attacking my work (and me personally) for several years. What you may not know, however, is what he has been up to behind the scenes, away from the prying eyes of the Internet. If the attacks on me by Richard Gill had been purely scientific in nature and aimed only at my work, then I would not have much to complain against him, since I and others have already refuted his scientific misconceptions about my work many times over. Unfortunately his attacks on me have been very personal and malicious. For example, for the past several years he has been writing nasty letters about me to several of my academic superiors, such as the President of the Wolfson College of Oxford University. Needless to say, his motives behind such letters are manifestly malicious. His long-standing goal has been to debilitate me both academically and financially so that I could no longer publish my anti-Bell results with credibility. From the start of his malicious campaign he has targeted my academic affiliations with the intention to discredit my work by discrediting me personally. He has used similar despicable strategy against many others in the past, many times before, and not without considerable success. For example, see the discussion by Karl Hess in his recent book where he describes his own unpleasant past interactions with Richard Gill. Earlier Caroline Thompson also publicized her own victimization by the likes of Richard Gill in this paper. More recently when Richard Gill was caught lying compulsively on this forum, not only by me but also by Michel Fodje and Fred Diether, he resumed his malicious campaign of writing nasty letters about me to my academic superiors. He has been writing such nasty letters to everyone connected to my affiliations, and/or to my work on Bell's theorem, for the past several years. Apparently he thinks that academics are so gullible that they will not see through the real motives behind his malicious letters. At one point the bombardment of his aggressive and provocative emails to me had become so unbearable that I had to threaten him with legal injunction or restraining order. Only then he stopped bombarding me with provocative emails. Earlier Karl Hess also had to block his emails after being harassed by him for three years. Caroline Thompson also suffered similar harassment from the likes of Richard Gill.
I want to draw two conclusions from the seven and a half years of struggle I have summarized above: (1) Regardless of their malice, the critics of my work were and are plain wrong (because the editorial board of IJTP which approved my paper for publication could not have been more distinguished), and (2) Instead of castigating creative scientists like Caroline Thompson, Karr Hess, and myself for challenging the prevalent quantum ideology, the "foundations" community needs to take a hard look at its own dark underbelly. It needs to castigate those rogue "scientists" who are playing dirty politics behind the scenes to protect their own vested interests.
