Fred, what you have presented is far too sophisticated for Lockyer. He does not even know what a "hidden variable" is in my model, or what it means in general.

- Joy Christian
- Research Physicist
**Posts:**2793**Joined:**Wed Feb 05, 2014 4:49 am**Location:**Oxford, United Kingdom

Joy Christian wrote:Fred, what you have presented is far too sophisticated for Lockyer. He does not even know what a "hidden variable" is in my model, or what it means in general.

Well... I mainly did it for Ben and any lurkers. Hopefully others will understand. It all seems so simple to me. And it is quite a real thing of beauty.

- FrediFizzx
- Independent Physics Researcher
**Posts:**2905**Joined:**Tue Mar 19, 2013 7:12 pm**Location:**N. California, USA

Hi Rick

I have agreed with your maths. From a mathematical point of view one can use +I or -I trivectors and get identical results. That is using GA as a mathmatical framework instead of, say, using cartesian or polar coordinates. The choice of analystical tool should not change the mathematical description of what is going on in the space being analysed. I think that is as far as your comments go?

But the above implies an inert space is being used as the backdrop for the physical events being analysed. Under that condition you would be correct. However Joy is using S3 as the physical space in which the physical events take place, and Joy maintains that the two different torsions, +I and -I in S3 are the two physically diffferent backdrops for the analysis. This provides a physical dynamism which I cannot see addressed in your comments. This is not to claim that Joy's model is correct as I am trying to be neutral in this post. But Joy has to inject the effects of the dynamism of the physical space into his mathematical model, and he has presumably done that with an extra sign change.

I admit that I have difficulty with grasping the import of the association of +I or -I to a particle. Instead, probably wrongly, I think of a torsion as being a frozen instant of a twist and that dynamic twist enables me to attempt to visualise the dyamism of the trivectors. As an example of the importance of that dynamism I have an analogy of my own. No doubt Joy would not approve of it, but here it is:

A projectile is fired north from a point on the equator. Because of the earth's spin and the Coriolis effect, the projectile lands to the east of its starting position. I associate that with the physical effects of a +I space in which the projectile is moving. The deflection to the east could be found using any of cartesian coordinates or polar coordinates or a +I GA analysis or a -I GA analysis.

Next imagine an earth rotating in the opposite direction. The projectile would land to the west of its starting point in the -I physical space of this experiment. All types of analysis would confirm this.

All types of mathematical analysis yield identical results, but there are two different physical effects, east and west deflections, caused by the two different spaces of the experiment. How do the two different physical effects, east or west deflection, get incorporated into a mathematical model without incorporating a sign change representing the physically different effects of the two different spaces?

I have agreed with your maths. From a mathematical point of view one can use +I or -I trivectors and get identical results. That is using GA as a mathmatical framework instead of, say, using cartesian or polar coordinates. The choice of analystical tool should not change the mathematical description of what is going on in the space being analysed. I think that is as far as your comments go?

But the above implies an inert space is being used as the backdrop for the physical events being analysed. Under that condition you would be correct. However Joy is using S3 as the physical space in which the physical events take place, and Joy maintains that the two different torsions, +I and -I in S3 are the two physically diffferent backdrops for the analysis. This provides a physical dynamism which I cannot see addressed in your comments. This is not to claim that Joy's model is correct as I am trying to be neutral in this post. But Joy has to inject the effects of the dynamism of the physical space into his mathematical model, and he has presumably done that with an extra sign change.

I admit that I have difficulty with grasping the import of the association of +I or -I to a particle. Instead, probably wrongly, I think of a torsion as being a frozen instant of a twist and that dynamic twist enables me to attempt to visualise the dyamism of the trivectors. As an example of the importance of that dynamism I have an analogy of my own. No doubt Joy would not approve of it, but here it is:

A projectile is fired north from a point on the equator. Because of the earth's spin and the Coriolis effect, the projectile lands to the east of its starting position. I associate that with the physical effects of a +I space in which the projectile is moving. The deflection to the east could be found using any of cartesian coordinates or polar coordinates or a +I GA analysis or a -I GA analysis.

Next imagine an earth rotating in the opposite direction. The projectile would land to the west of its starting point in the -I physical space of this experiment. All types of analysis would confirm this.

All types of mathematical analysis yield identical results, but there are two different physical effects, east and west deflections, caused by the two different spaces of the experiment. How do the two different physical effects, east or west deflection, get incorporated into a mathematical model without incorporating a sign change representing the physically different effects of the two different spaces?

- Ben6993
**Posts:**287**Joined:**Sun Feb 09, 2014 12:53 pm

Hi Ben,

real joy should/could come with s7 and, as much as I gathered from this forum, good people work on that.

I tied my belt, waiting for results .

real joy should/could come with s7 and, as much as I gathered from this forum, good people work on that.

I tied my belt, waiting for results .

- ivica
**Posts:**11**Joined:**Wed Apr 15, 2015 11:29 am

FrediFizzx wrote:Rick Lockyer wrote:Joy claims his beta algebra is GA bivector algebra. It is NOT my claim. If this is indeed the case, he has made a sign error. Rather than your spamming the site by repeating the statements that are in dispute, as though somehow it vindicates you, or wrapping yourselves in the cloaks of better men, all you need to do is show us all where my response to Ben violates any rule of geometric algebra.

Your response to Ben does not violate any rules of GA.

Finally, a correct statement from you. But then you state this:

So what? It has nothing to do with Joy's model. And that is your mistake that you continue to make. Perhaps a demonstration using GAViewer will highlight your mistake (hopefully at least Ben and others will "get it"). Run this code so that I, a and b are setup,

Your code, which does not represent Joy's model, but does represent his sign error, got snipped because it is not meaningful to the discussion topic in this thread. It does not in any manner represent a bivector orientation change. It is my understanding Heinera put out commutation as a joke. You clearly took it hook, line and sinker.

So while there is no mathematical error in your presentation, it doesn't fit the physics of Joy's model, as we have been saying all along. There is also no math error in what I presented.

Joy's STATED MODEL is, and I quote Joy, "...where lambda = +/-1 is a fair coin representing two alternative orientations of the 3-sphere." Second Edition of his book, page 5, where the beta bivector basis multiplication rules are introduced with a formula that is at the HEART of the issue this thread is all about. His bivector lambda modified beta "rules" do not represent "two alternative orientations of the 3-sphere". The GA presentation from me you now have come to realize is correct does. Baby steps in geometric algebra, explicitly showing there is no sign change when you have elements suitably mapped such that you are not adding apples to oranges.

Your math error in the code is that it does not match Joy's model, it matches his math error. I can lead a jackass to water, but I cannot make it drink. Fred, it is too kind to say you have merely been a jackass here and on other forums. More like remove jack and add hole.

I have wasted way too much time on this.

- Rick Lockyer
**Posts:**46**Joined:**Tue May 27, 2014 6:22 am**Location:**Nipomo

Rick Lockyer wrote:FrediFizzx wrote:Rick Lockyer wrote:Joy claims his beta algebra is GA bivector algebra. It is NOT my claim. If this is indeed the case, he has made a sign error. Rather than your spamming the site by repeating the statements that are in dispute, as though somehow it vindicates you, or wrapping yourselves in the cloaks of better men, all you need to do is show us all where my response to Ben violates any rule of geometric algebra.

Your response to Ben does not violate any rules of GA.

Finally, a correct statement from you. But then you state this:So what? It has nothing to do with Joy's model. And that is your mistake that you continue to make. Perhaps a demonstration using GAViewer will highlight your mistake (hopefully at least Ben and others will "get it"). Run this code so that I, a and b are setup,

Your code, which does not represent Joy's model, but does represent his sign error, got snipped because it is not meaningful to the discussion topic in this thread. It does not in any manner represent a bivector orientation change. It is my understanding Heinera put out commutation as a joke. You clearly took it hook, line and sinker.

Please provide a reference where Heine (Heinera) actually said that. You can't because he never did; another lie being spread by you know who. What Heine offered up was to add a.b to the summation to see if -a.b got cancelled it out. You can look at Albert Jan's blog to see what actually happened. So there was no "hook, line and sinker" to "take". It was Albert Jan that discovered the correct translation that properly represents Joy's model. At the same time, I actually discovered another method for properly showing the physics of Joy's model but Albert Jan's solution was simple, better and more elegant.

It is pretty obvious that you still don't understand Joy's physics postulate and probably never will. But I will explain it again for lurkers. You say that,

(-I.a)(-I.b) = -a.b - (+I).(a x b)

Which is true if you are stuck in say a right handed basis. But Joy's model is not stuck in a right handed only basis or viewpoint. When lambda = -1, the particle pair system is in a left handed basis. Now... you have to ask yourself. What the heck does this look like if I am stuck in a right handed viewpoint? The order of the cross product a x b will be reversed to b x a and we know that b x a = -a x b. Therefore substituting in the above expression we get for the proper left handed expression translated to the right handed perspective,

(-I.a)(-I.b) = -a.b + (+I).(a x b) = -a.b - (-I).(a x b)

Which is part of Joy's main physics postulate for his model. Now, the problem to solve was how to actually get -a.b - (-I).(a x b) in GAViewer because it still would always do the first expression which was wrong for the physics of the model. We kicked around the idea of modifying the source code of GAViewer so that it would switch to the left handed basis when lambda = -1 but that looked like a really difficult task. Fortunately there was a simple solution to get -a.b - (-I).(a x b). That being to simply reverse the order of the geometric product. And anyone can try this in GAViewer to confirm that it is correct.

(I.b)(I.a) = -a.b - (-I).(a x b)

- FrediFizzx
- Independent Physics Researcher
**Posts:**2905**Joined:**Tue Mar 19, 2013 7:12 pm**Location:**N. California, USA

For the last time Fred, the cross product is not fundamental, it is an outcome of the basis element multiplication rules for the algebras it actually exists in. The basis element multiplication rules are what is fundamental in any algebra. We have a non-disputable map between right and left handed bivector bases: ei^ej becomes ej^ei. I correctly worked out the math for bivectors a, b: a^b in both right handed and left handed bases alternately using these fundamental definitions (ei^ej) for the bivector bases, and it should be quite clear to anyone with a modicum of math skills that it demonstrates Joy's lambda modified beta bivector equation he bases his claims on are algebraically incorrect as stated since they do not correlate. You correctly saw I made no GA errors, yet you failed to make the connection to Joy's sign error. I find that rather bizarre, since it is crystal clear within the presentation.

Your GAViewer program is likewise not fundamental, and its order reversal does not map between left and right handed bases in any meaningful way that indicates Joy has not made a sign error. Your "physics postulate" crutch is idiotic, this is an algebra error on Joy's part that can't be excused by any physics.

Your GAViewer program is likewise not fundamental, and its order reversal does not map between left and right handed bases in any meaningful way that indicates Joy has not made a sign error. Your "physics postulate" crutch is idiotic, this is an algebra error on Joy's part that can't be excused by any physics.

- Rick Lockyer
**Posts:**46**Joined:**Tue May 27, 2014 6:22 am**Location:**Nipomo

Rick Lockyer wrote:It is my understanding Heinera put out commutation as a joke.

Lockyer the liar is talking to (or at least taking cues from) his Master, the mega-liar, and took his lie "hook, line and sinker." What a dimwit this Mr. Mathematician is?

Heinera himself is on the record of categorically disavowing his alleged involvement in Albert Jan Wonnink's code that numerically confirms my analytical calculation.

Lockyer's Master, on the other hand, has already admitted his mistake:

Richard Gill wrote:

I am delighted to admit that I had overlooked the intended interpretation of your two equations: the interpretation which makes them entirely consistent with one another. In retrospect, very obvious ...

Lockyer the novice, however, has still to wake up and smell the coffee. The calculations in my published paper in a distinguished physics journal are explicit and elementary. Any precocious schoolboy can reproduce them in less than 20 minutes, just as several prominent physicists and mathematicians have already done.

With by construction (and being the "hidden variable" in my model),

Here transition from Eq. (1.23) to Eq. (1.24) follows from geometric product, and transition from Eq. (1.25) to Eq. (1.26) follows from the fact that is a fair coin.

Non-commutativity of the GA bivectors is a trivial mathematical fact, proved with baby steps in the first appendix of this paper: http://arxiv.org/abs/1501.03393:

Last edited by Joy Christian on Tue Aug 04, 2015 1:00 am, edited 6 times in total.

- Joy Christian
- Research Physicist
**Posts:**2793**Joined:**Wed Feb 05, 2014 4:49 am**Location:**Oxford, United Kingdom

Rick Lockyer wrote:For the last time Fred, the cross product is not fundamental, it is an outcome of the basis element multiplication rules for the algebras it actually exists in. The basis element multiplication rules are what is fundamental in any algebra. We have a non-disputable map between right and left handed bivector bases: ei^ej becomes ej^ei. I correctly worked out the math for bivectors a, b: a^b in both right handed and left handed bases alternately using these fundamental definitions (ei^ej) for the bivector bases, and it should be quite clear to anyone with a modicum of math skills that it demonstrates Joy's lambda modified beta bivector equation he bases his claims on are algebraically incorrect as stated since they do not correlate. You correctly saw I made no GA errors, yet you failed to make the connection to Joy's sign error. I find that rather bizarre, since it is crystal clear within the presentation.

Your GAViewer program is likewise not fundamental, and its order reversal does not map between left and right handed bases in any meaningful way that indicates Joy has not made a sign error. Your "physics postulate" crutch is idiotic, this is an algebra error on Joy's part that can't be excused by any physics.

Of course you are just obfuscating again. Answer this simple question. When looking at a left handed system from a right handed only frame of reference, is a x b in the left handed system going to be b x a in the right handed frame? If your answer is no, then we know who the real idiot is that doesn't understand basic physics.

- FrediFizzx
- Independent Physics Researcher
**Posts:**2905**Joined:**Tue Mar 19, 2013 7:12 pm**Location:**N. California, USA

Moldoveanu further complaining on Aug 2, wrote:I gave up following the latest twist and turns of what Joy claimed it was his original model all along.

(b⋅σ)(a⋅σ)=−a⋅b−i(a×b)σ is the latest incarnation of the so many different variations of the attempts to arrive at -a.b, but I only consider the very first Joy proposal. If Joy will ever admit that was mistaken, then I can entertain considering a new proposal.

http://fmoldove.blogspot.com/2015/07/jo ... 2591161517

Of course expressions like (b⋅σ)(a⋅σ)=−a⋅b−i(a×b)σ never had anything to do with Joy's model proposal so he is not even close to considering Joy's very first proposal if that be the case. Anyone can see what Joy's first proposal was here in eq. (17). And eq. (17) still holds perfectly well for the classical local realistic model so how could Joy ever admit that it was mistaken? And what new proposal? There is no new proposal. This must be some kind of "goal post shifting" on Moldoveanu's part of course.

Now, did Joy ever say that the math for the model was in one fixed basis or the other? I don't think so. This is probably the source of the incompetence of these criticisms since alot of people seem to be able to think only in a right handed basis. But perhaps if Joy had put the math in one fixed basis or the other at the beginning, this nonsense could have been avoided. Water under the bridge now however. Anyways, now we have a correct math representation of the model in a fixed right hand basis that most should be able to understand. And you can search back in the thread to see the proof from Joy that his original eq. (17) still holds true.

http://challengingbell.blogspot.com/201 ... of_30.html

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

http://challengingbell.blogspot.com/201 ... tians.html

So I still claim that Moldoveanu is both disingenuous and incompetent. And you can throw in the other character to that description also.

- FrediFizzx
- Independent Physics Researcher
**Posts:**2905**Joined:**Tue Mar 19, 2013 7:12 pm**Location:**N. California, USA

FrediFizzx wrote:So I still claim that Moldoveanu is both disingenuous and incompetent. And you can throw in the other character to that description also.

Fred, the main problem here is that these disingenuous characters keep spewing out nonsense about my model without ever having read my papers, let alone studying the references cited therein. Their error was spotted at once by Bill Schnieder a long time ago. Here is what Bill Schnieder wrote on Physics Forums several years ago:

"Richard Gill's refutation is not a new critique. It is essentially the same as one of the critiques advanced by a certain Florin Moldoveanu in the fall last year to which Joy Christian has already replied. It originates from a misunderstanding of Joy's framework which admittedly is not very easy to understand, especially for those who have blinders of one kind or another.

Gill thinks Joy is using a convoluted more difficult method to do a calculation and prefers a different method which ultimately leads him to a different result, not realizing/understanding that the calculation method Joy used is demanded by his framework. This is hardly a serious critique, not unlike his failed critique of Hess and Philipp. He should at least have read Joy's response to Moldoveanu which he apparently did not, since he does not cite or mention it. It's been available since October 2011, one-month after Moldoveanu posted his critique.

I remember Florin came here to boast about his critique and I pointed out his misunderstanding at the time in this thread:

"... you are missing the point because Joy Christian is not using handedness as a convention but as the hidden variable itself."

This is the same error Gill has made. See section (II) of Joy's response to Moldoveanu."

It is astonishing that, although Gill has now realized and admitted his mistake, Moldoveanu and Lockyer still continue to make the same mistake after all these years.

- Joy Christian
- Research Physicist
**Posts:**2793**Joined:**Wed Feb 05, 2014 4:49 am**Location:**Oxford, United Kingdom

More nonsense that Gill has posted here.

Anyone following that thread on the forum can plainly see that Joy's model produces the bound of using counterfactual terms just like quantum theory does. So another perfect match for Joy's local realistic model to the predictions of QM. If you have dependent expectation terms in CHSH and use counterfactual terms, you can get the bound of . If the terms are completely independent, then the bound is 4.

What we are wondering is that if physics has nothing to fear, then why is Gill so obsessed with spreading lies and nonsense about Joy's model?

Gill wrote:Seems that Joy has radically changed his mind. So has Fred Diether. For a long time he has been saying that the only good CHSH bound is 4 but now he is following his master in trying to establish the Tsirelson bound 2 sqrt 2.

viewtopic.php?f=6&t=196

Seems these guys are impervious to *science*. Everything confirms Joy's theory, nothing contradicts it. They can change their mind 100% every year or so without their supporters noticing. It ain't physics. it really is a cargo cult. Pretty much marginalised, so physics does not have to fear.

Anyone following that thread on the forum can plainly see that Joy's model produces the bound of using counterfactual terms just like quantum theory does. So another perfect match for Joy's local realistic model to the predictions of QM. If you have dependent expectation terms in CHSH and use counterfactual terms, you can get the bound of . If the terms are completely independent, then the bound is 4.

What we are wondering is that if physics has nothing to fear, then why is Gill so obsessed with spreading lies and nonsense about Joy's model?

- FrediFizzx
- Independent Physics Researcher
**Posts:**2905**Joined:**Tue Mar 19, 2013 7:12 pm**Location:**N. California, USA

FrediFizzx wrote:What we are wondering is that if physics has nothing to fear, then why is Gill so obsessed with spreading lies and nonsense about Joy's model?

In fact several members of FQXi are engaged in outright scientific misconduct in broad daylight. In particular, Richard Gill, Scott Aaronson, and James Weatherall have been making blatantly bogus claims about my work despite the fact that their straw-man arguments have been repeatedly and comprehensively debunked by several people over the past years. That is scientific misconduct. It is designed to deliberately mislead the scientific community, as explained in this fine sociological analysis:

http://link.springer.com/article/10.100 ... 013-9433-8

In fact, Richard Gill is engaged in far worse activities for many years, designed to hoodwink the scientific community, as I have listed on my blog. Shame on you, FQXi.

- Joy Christian
- Research Physicist
**Posts:**2793**Joined:**Wed Feb 05, 2014 4:49 am**Location:**Oxford, United Kingdom

***

By the way, Richard Gill is still stalking me on the Internet. It seems he has stopped stalking Michel Fodje, but as yet haven't lost his obsession with me and my work.

***

By the way, Richard Gill is still stalking me on the Internet. It seems he has stopped stalking Michel Fodje, but as yet haven't lost his obsession with me and my work.

***

- Joy Christian
- Research Physicist
**Posts:**2793**Joined:**Wed Feb 05, 2014 4:49 am**Location:**Oxford, United Kingdom

***

There has been a complaint by an anonymous poster (a certain "guest1202") that this thread contains incivility, including in its very title (which was written by me).

The anonymous poster may be forgiven, however, for he or she has no way of knowing what Richard Gill and some of his "friends" are up to behind the prying eyes of the Internet for the past four (if not eight) years. Their "civil" activities include smear, cyber-bullying, cyber-stalking, name-calling, sustained online harassment and lynch-mobbing, malicious letters writing to my academic superiors (such as to the President of my college at Oxford University), blocking my publications by lobbying to journal editors with bogus criticisms of my work and personal attacks on my character and academic affiliations, attempts to have my published papers retracted, online public calls to have my research funding blocked from academic institutions such as FQXi, blatantly lying online about some aspects of my work and spreading rumors, posting fake letters online supposedly from my former PhD advisor to denigrate my mathematical abilities, attempts to debilitate me personally, financially, and academically in order to eliminate the threat I pose to their vested interests, and fake-posting in my name (as if I had written them) to discredit me personally.

I should stress that I am not the only or the first victim of such activities, some of which may be classified as criminal (I have documentary evidence for all of these).

It is also interesting to me that in my experience over the past eight years most of who find some of my online rebuttals "uncivil" are invariably committed to the now debunked ideology inspired by Bell's theorem. Those who are opposed to the Bell-ideology tend to sympathize with me. I find this experience of mine quite revealing.

***

There has been a complaint by an anonymous poster (a certain "guest1202") that this thread contains incivility, including in its very title (which was written by me).

The anonymous poster may be forgiven, however, for he or she has no way of knowing what Richard Gill and some of his "friends" are up to behind the prying eyes of the Internet for the past four (if not eight) years. Their "civil" activities include smear, cyber-bullying, cyber-stalking, name-calling, sustained online harassment and lynch-mobbing, malicious letters writing to my academic superiors (such as to the President of my college at Oxford University), blocking my publications by lobbying to journal editors with bogus criticisms of my work and personal attacks on my character and academic affiliations, attempts to have my published papers retracted, online public calls to have my research funding blocked from academic institutions such as FQXi, blatantly lying online about some aspects of my work and spreading rumors, posting fake letters online supposedly from my former PhD advisor to denigrate my mathematical abilities, attempts to debilitate me personally, financially, and academically in order to eliminate the threat I pose to their vested interests, and fake-posting in my name (as if I had written them) to discredit me personally.

I should stress that I am not the only or the first victim of such activities, some of which may be classified as criminal (I have documentary evidence for all of these).

It is also interesting to me that in my experience over the past eight years most of who find some of my online rebuttals "uncivil" are invariably committed to the now debunked ideology inspired by Bell's theorem. Those who are opposed to the Bell-ideology tend to sympathize with me. I find this experience of mine quite revealing.

***

- Joy Christian
- Research Physicist
**Posts:**2793**Joined:**Wed Feb 05, 2014 4:49 am**Location:**Oxford, United Kingdom

Return to Sci.Physics.Foundations

Users browsing this forum: ahrefs [Bot] and 12 guests