SciPhysicsForums.com

Here's a modification to concept in last post, that results in just one stage of transversely magnetized tunnels yet still allows arbitrary orientation of angular momentum wrt velocity axis:
Compression spring or springs between balls can also act as torsion spring(s) - providing both initial linear + axial angular momentum. To avoid inducing reaction forces between balls and mounting pins, such coil springs should be double helix construction. Conical friction cups attached to spring ends could provide the necessary coupling to transfer torque to balls during acceleration phase, yet allow ready detachment at end of such phase.
Subsequent induction of transverse angular momentum when moving through 'tunnels' will follow. Of course gyroscopic precessional effects would need accounting for but that should not be too difficult.

Hi everyone,

I have finally got around to refuting Richard Gill's latest misguided arguments against my proposed macroscopic experiment: http://arxiv.org/abs/1501.03393.

While reading this it is worth remembering that this man calls himself a "mathematician." He often complains that I call him "algebraically challenged." But even after I have repeatedly made him aware, for over 40 days, that his latest preprint contains schoolboy howlers, he has not been able to spot them himself and correct them.

Happy reading!

For those not familiar with my work (or not wanting to read my arXiv reply to Gill), let me summarize the elementary conceptual mistake Gill and other Bell devotees have been making for the past 50 years.

Let the four numbers A, A’, B, and B’ take binary values +1 or -1, and consider the four averages, <AB>, <AB’>, <A’B>, and <A’B’>.

These four averages happen to be of physical interest in the actual EPR-Bohm type experiments.

Now in 1964 Bell noticed a century old observation by Boole that the absolute value of the average

<AB + AB’ + A’B – A’B’> = <A(B + B’) + A’(B – B’)>

cannot exceed the value 2, simply because if B + B’ = 2 then B – B’ = 0, and vice versa.

From this Bell jumped to the conclusion that, therefore, the absolute value of the string of averages,

| <AB> + <AB’> + <A’B> - <A’B’> |

also cannot exceed the value 2.

But any schoolboy can see that within the context of the EPR-Bohm type experiments the single average

<AB + AB’ + A’B – A’B’>

is not the same as the string of four averages

<AB> + <AB’> + <A’B> - <A’B’> .

To be sure, average of sum = sum of averages assumption is fine when all A, A', B, and B' are on equal footing (or are standardized variables), but not at all fine within the context of the EPR-Bohm type experiments involving spin measurements about different directions in the physical space. This is essentially the point brought out is some detail in the above reply to Gill. He and other Bell devotees have simply failed to understand the physics and 3D geometry involved in any such experiment: http://arxiv.org/pdf/1501.03393.pdf.

Moreover, it so happens that in almost every single physical experiment Bell has been proven wrong. The absolute value of the above string of averages has been shown in many experiments to exceed the value 2. But the Bell devotees like Gill do not take this experimental verdict on face value and accept that Bell has been proven wrong. Rather, they see the experimental refutation of Bell as a vindication of their belief that there is voodoo in the world, whereby our actions here may have instantaneous reactions at the remote parts of the universe. Well, the proposed macroscopic experiment discussed above aims to rectify this sad state of affairs.

*
Here is a very nice blog-post about my work on Bell by Paul Snively: http://psnively.github.io/blog/2015/01/22/Fallacy/.

It is good to know that there are knowledgeable people out there who are able to follow my logic: http://psnively.github.io/blog/2015/01/ ... 1814232555.

It is also interesting to note that those who claim not to follow my logic, or find faults with my work, are invariably people with substantive vested interests.

What continues to worry me is that your overthrowing of Bell is ultimately bound to viewing 3D physical reality as an 'illusion' subsumed into the 'real' world of a 7-sphere. And that the consequence in our 3D world is that an intrinsic spacetime torsion exists. From a previous exchange I took it such torsion manifests as an in-vacuo chirality of spacetime. Which torsion is somehow the physical basis for classical correlations being also able to beat the Bell inequality to the same degree as in QM. I just looked at a YouTube vid of a 2005 lecture by Bill Unruh:
Is Quantum Mechanics Non-Local
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lOT38L1utw8&app=desktop
Unfortunately bits of it are of poor audio-visual quality, but sufficient to get across Unruh's main argument. That QM is local despite violating the inequality as predicted by QM. That classical physics strictly obeys the Bell inequality (as opposed to Joy Christian's take on it), and the non-locality and/or non-realism assumptions stemming from Bell's theorem fails not because of any exotic 7-sphere physics, or weird non-locality, but because of a glaring failure to properly interpret the basic math of the theorem. He strongly ties it to superposition and measurement uncertainty - commuting vs non-commuting variables.
An earlier arXiv paper: http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/quant-ph/9710032

I have no horse in this race and certainly have not studied it enough to have any definite conclusion of my own. Maybe though the experts here would care to comment on Unruh's approach. He seems to have gone quiet on the topic since that lecture, and in fact has links to pro non-locality articles on his UBC website - but that may not mean much.

Hi Q-reeus,

Thanks for your comments.

The Unruh lecture you mention has already been discussed elsewhere in this forum: viewtopic.php?f=6&t=82#p3493.

Joy Christian wrote:Hi Q-reeus,

Thanks for your comments.

The Unruh lecture you mention has already been discussed elsewhere in this forum: viewtopic.php?f=6&t=82#p3493.

Thanks for that link to past discussion Joy. I will admit to not having looked through more than a fraction of the many past and sometimes very long posts!
OK so evidently the gist there is that Bill Unruh is wrong in claiming standard QM is really local. It's a shock for me to now realize you have all along been claiming standard QM is inherently non-local, but since reality is local, therefore wrong. instead I thought your argument was QM made all the right predictions but as an actually local theory. Got that much right?

Assuming so, do you agree with my last post in respect of that your theory predicts classical correlations of equal strength to QM, on the basis of a physically real torsion? Such torsion manifesting as in-vacuo chirality in our 'usual' spatial 3D?

Q-reeus wrote:Thanks for that link to past discussion Joy. I will admit to not having looked through more than a fraction of the many past and sometimes very long posts!
OK so evidently the gist there is that Bill Unruh is wrong in claiming standard QM is really local. It's a shock for me to now realize you have all along been claiming standard QM is inherently non-local, but since reality is local, therefore wrong. instead I thought your argument was QM made all the right predictions but as an actually local theory. Got that much right?

Assuming so, do you agree with my last post in respect of that your theory predicts classical correlations of equal strength to QM, on the basis of a physically real torsion? Such torsion manifesting as in-vacuo chirality in our 'usual' spatial 3D?

I wouldn't say quantum mechanics is "wrong" (and I don't think you meant to say that either). Quantum mechanics makes all the right statistical predictions, but as an intrinsically non-local theory, provided we accept it to be a "complete" theory of nature. This was essentially the point Einstein fought for most of his life. Einstein was right about this and Unruh is wrong. Bell, by the way, was on Einstein's side on this point. He too agreed that quantum mechanics is an intrinsically non-local theory of nature (provided we accept...). But unlike Einstein Bell thought that no local theory can reproduce all of the statistical predictions of quantum mechanics. And on this point I disagree with Bell and with most of the mainstream physics community: http://libertesphilosophica.info/blog/o ... lations-2/.

So, yes, I agree with your observation about the significance of torsion in the physical space for the existence of strong (i.e., quantum) correlations in nature.

Joy Christian wrote:

Q-reeus wrote:Thanks for that link to past discussion Joy. I will admit to not having looked through more than a fraction of the many past and sometimes very long posts!
OK so evidently the gist there is that Bill Unruh is wrong in claiming standard QM is really local. It's a shock for me to now realize you have all along been claiming standard QM is inherently non-local, but since reality is local, therefore wrong. instead I thought your argument was QM made all the right predictions but as an actually local theory. Got that much right?

Assuming so, do you agree with my last post in respect of that your theory predicts classical correlations of equal strength to QM, on the basis of a physically real torsion? Such torsion manifesting as in-vacuo chirality in our 'usual' spatial 3D?

I wouldn't say quantum mechanics is "wrong" (and I don't think you meant to say that either). Quantum mechanics makes all the right statistical predictions, but as an intrinsically non-local theory, provided we accept it to be a "complete" theory of nature. This was essentially the point Einstein fought for most of his life. Einstein was right about this and Unruh is wrong. Bell, by the way, was on Einstein's side on this point. He too agreed that quantum mechanics is an intrinsically non-local theory of nature (provided we accept...). But unlike Einstein Bell thought that no local theory can reproduce all of the statistical predictions of quantum mechanics. And on this point I disagree with Bell and with most of the mainstream physics community: http://libertesphilosophica.info/blog/o ... lations-2/.

So, yes, I agree with your observation about the significance of torsion in the physical space for the existence of strong (i.e., quantum) correlations in nature.

Allright so agreed QM makes the correct predictions - despite it's presumably wrong inherent non-local formulation. I'm feeling slightly dizzy at this point and obviously have never grasped the subtleties of ontological vs epistemic..... Well hopefully the acid test is not far off. How is the experimentalist team coming along? Converging rapidly to a final physical experimental regime? I like to think my own input this thread has helped in some small way.

Q-reeus wrote:Allright so agreed QM makes the correct predictions - despite it's presumably wrong inherent non-local formulation. I'm feeling slightly dizzy at this point and obviously have never grasped the subtleties of ontological vs epistemic..... Well hopefully the acid test is not far off. How is the experimentalist team coming along? Converging rapidly to a final physical experimental regime? I like to think my own input this thread has helped in some small way.

Yes, your input was helpful. The progress is slow, however, because of the complexities of the problem (as we discussed before). We just have to hope for the best.

Joy Christian wrote:Yes, your input was helpful. The progress is slow, however, because of the complexities of the problem (as we discussed before). We just have to hope for the best.

Indeed and all the best for that coming to fruition in the near term.

A theoretical computer scientist, Paul Snively, has crystalized the essence of my work in a logical sequence that I find quite interesting.

According to Snively the logic behind my refutation of Bell's theorem is:

algebra with operations lacking the closure property mathematical singularities partial functions logical inconsistency.

A brief discussion of what he means by this sequence can be found on his blog: http://psnively.github.io/blog/2015/01/22/Fallacy/.

After a few years of studying Bell's theorem, it (and its variants) seems to me that its interpretation(s) are one of the biggest hoaxes perpetrated on the physics community ever! All it really says is that a linear system can't violate the inequalities. Duh! Quantum theory never uses the theorem bounds to violate the inequalities. Take for example Bell-CHSH; simple examination shows the absolute bound to be 4 not 2 when each element is independent. For the Bell-CH inequality, the absolute bound used for QM to violate it is 1 not 0, etc.

Agreed, Bell's theorem will be known as the greatest scandal in theoretical physics.

It looks like some recent activities by the Bell mafia over at Pubpeer have backfired. I see some of their papers under serious attack, with one and possibly two of papers by a certain mathematical statistician completely discredited by peers over there, and two recent high-profile experiments proclaiming violation of inequalities discredited. From what I see, there is a lot of scrambling going on right now in the Bell camp.

Interesting point about the CH inequality. I haven't looked at it carefully but I suspect I will find similar skeletons as we unveiled about the CHSH here a while back.

See:
https://pubpeer.com/publications/D985B4 ... 3E3A314522
https://pubpeer.com/publications/E0F838 ... 516D03BB38
https://pubpeer.com/publications/B08756 ... ADC2E4CF1C

I remember the mathematical statistician was advised not to publish the paper with the identified errors (viewtopic.php?f=6&t=30&start=10#p971) but he proceeded.

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

I don't hardly ever even go check out FQXi any more. They definitely dropped the ball on one of the biggest foundational questions for physics that there is. No sense being a member of an organization that suppresses the debate on really important foundational questions.

minkwe wrote:Agreed, Bell's theorem will be known as the greatest scandal in theoretical physics.

It looks like some recent activities by the Bell mafia over at Pubpeer have backfired. I see some of their papers under serious attack, with one and possibly two of papers by a certain mathematical statistician completely discredited by peers over there, and two recent high-profile experiments proclaiming violation of inequalities discredited. From what I see, there is a lot of scrambling going on right now in the Bell camp.

Interesting point about the CH inequality. I haven't looked at it carefully but I suspect I will find similar skeletons as we unveiled about the CHSH here a while back.

See:
https://pubpeer.com/publications/D985B4 ... 3E3A314522
https://pubpeer.com/publications/E0F838 ... 516D03BB38
https://pubpeer.com/publications/B08756 ... ADC2E4CF1C

I remember the mathematical statistician was advised not to publish the paper with the identified errors (viewtopic.php?f=6&t=30&start=10#p971) but he proceeded.

Yeah, it is quite an amazing phenomenon because of the extreme level of self-brainwashing by so many people that should really know better.

As far as the CH inequality goes using the form from eq. (1) of this paper,

p_12(a, b) + p_12(a, b') + p_12(a', b) - p_12(a', b') - p_1(a) - p_2(b) <= 0

simple inspection shows it to be false as the probabilities, p, can range from zero to 1. We could have,

1 +1 + 1 - 0 - 1 -1 = 1

Of course it is easy to see that for expected averages, each element will tend to 0.5 so it is true for that in a linear system.

.5 + .5 +.5 - .5 - .5 - .5 = 0

Not surprisingly, not only the CHSH inequality, but also the CH inequality is violated by my local-realistic 3-sphere model, as explained in this chapter of my book:

It did not take Richard Gill too long to go down to Paul Snively's blog to display his intellectual incapacity to comprehend the first thing about my work on the origins of quantum correlations. He makes his usual straw-man arguments about my work, without mentioning that all of his duplicitous arguments have long been repeatedly refuted by many people, as documented, for example,

here

http://arxiv.org/pdf/1203.2529.pdf ,

here

http://arxiv.org/pdf/1501.03393.pdf ,

and here:

http://libertesphilosophica.info/blog/ .

He pretends to be the authority on Nature herself, but sadly the above refutations of his arguments make it clear that he is not even capable of doing simple algebra.

Nor does he mention that his own key paper has been comprehensively discredited on this forum as well as on PubPeer: viewtopic.php?f=6&t=30&p=3964#p3964 .

As noted above, Paul Snively, who is a theoretical computer scientist, has crystalized the essence of my refutation of Bell's theorem in this beautiful logical sequence:

algebra with operations lacking the closure property mathematical singularities partial functions logical inconsistency.

In the subsequent discussion on his blog post he summarizes the main point of this sequence as follows:

“Dr. Bell used scalar algebra. Scalar algebra isn’t closed over 3D rotation. Algebras that aren’t closed have singularities. Non-closed algebras having singularities are isomorphic to partial functions. Partial functions yield logical inconsistency via the Curry-Howard Isomorphism. So you cannot use a non-closed algebra in a proof, which Dr. Bell unfortunately did. … This is a sufficient disproof of Bell’s theorem."

"... you can't insist on using an algebra that doesn't model space correctly and then claim that your "proof" about space [such as non-locality] has meaning."

What is more, not only Bell’s original 1964 "proof", but ALL of the proofs of ALL of the Bell-type theorems, including the proofs of their variants and generalizations such as Hardy’s theorem or GHZ theorem, use only scalar algebra. Therefore all such no-go “proofs” are logically inconsistent (i.e., they are pure nonsense).

And some of you know that I have produced constructive disproofs of all such theorems, by means of explicit counterexamples, as in this paper and in my book.

Sadly, the physics community has been misled by Bell and his followers for over half a century. And some of his ardent followers continue to mislead the physics community by stooping to extreme levels, as noted on this page of my blog. I personally have paid very heavy price for their misdemeanours. But more significantly they have done a far greater damage to physics itself. The worse part is that these zealots continue to do the damage by employing all sorts of dirty political tactics.