Richard Gill owes me 10,000 Euros + profuse apologies

[Joy Christian]

***

Hi Everyone,

As some of you may recall, Richard Gill has been rather skeptical about my proposed macroscopic experiment, designed to test the tenets of Bell's theorem itself.

In fact Gill had challenged me on several occasions to provide a "proof of concept" for the experiment and claimed that he would part with 10,000 Euros if I did.

Well, in the past I have provided plenty of proofs of concept, both in the form of analytical arguments and (with help from others) numerical simulations. If you explore the pages of this forum (or my blog) you will find plenty of evidence of this fact. But Gill never paid up, finding one excuse or another to evade paying up.

But now I have produced a decisive and irrefutable analytical argument --- indeed an ultimate "proof of concept" --- for my proposed macroscopic experiment:

https://www.academia.edu/19235737/Macro ... i_ed_Proof.

So there. It is now up to Gill to admit defeat, pay up 10,000 Euros, and apologize to me profusely (if you are curious why he must apologize, visit my blog to find out).

***

[Joy Christian]

***

Speaking of money owed to me, not only Richard D. Gill owes me 10,000 Euros since June 2014, but also Scott Aaronson owes me 100,000 Dollars since March 2007.

***

PS: For those unfamiliar with my work, since March 2007 I have demonstrated in many different ways that quantum entanglement is not a fundamental feature of the world, and therefore there is not going to be any "exponential speed up" as the "perpetual quantum computing" loonies such as Scott Aaronson have been fantasising.

[Joy Christian]

***
And here is the central derivation from my latest paper linked above:

[Joy Christian]

***

Some people are having difficulty downloading the above paper from Academia.Edu, so I have now made it downloadable directly from my blog:

http://libertesphilosophica.info/blog/l ... impExp.pdf

***

[Joy Christian]

***
It is worth noting here that, given the following relation specified in Eq. (16) of the above paper,



the following geometrical identity holds almost trivially,



which can be verified by recalling that all unit bivectors square to -1. This again demonstrates that Eq. (31) of the above paper immediately follows from Eq. (27),
thanks to the conservation of zero spin angular momentum for each iteration (or run) of the experiment:


***

[Joy Christian]

***


Here is a figure from Peres's book (cited in my paper) which may help to understand what is meant by conservation of angular momentum in the present context:



My apologies to physicists. I am posting this figure for the "mathematicians" like Gill and Lockyer who often have difficulty understanding simple physical concepts.

***

[Joy Christian]

***
A telling quote from one of my Facebook friends (who is an analytical philosopher). The quote is about his own negative experiences with bullies (in his profession):

The onus of understanding is always on the critic. Yet, the prevalent attitude amongst the bullies is to criticise first and then to demand the criticised spend their life "explaining" themselves. I've endured my fair share of bullies, at the beginning of my career, many years back. It turned me cynical about analytical philosophers' claim to be merely interested in 'uncovering truth' through dialectics.

So the tactics of bullies appear to be the same in every field, whether it is science or philosophy. In my case they tend to criticise without even reading my papers.

***

[Joy Christian]

***
So I am still waiting for Richard Gill to keep his word and pay up 10,000 Euros to me. He knows my address as well as at least one of the convenient ways to pay me.

For those who don't know the history behind this, Ricard Gill had challenged me to provide a "proof of concept" for my proposed experiment, as I mentioned above. He had agreed --- on this very forum and elsewhere --- that he would pay me 10,000 Euros if I succeeded in providing a "proof of concept" for my proposed experiment.

Well, I have now provided an ultimate, unambiguous, and incontrovertible "proof of concept" for my proposed experiment in the following paper, which is also further discussed in my posts above: https://www.academia.edu/19235737/Macro ... fied_Proof. The calculations in this paper are very easy to understand and reproduce.

So -- even if we disregard all of my previous "proofs of concept" -- the above "Simplified Proof" is more than sufficient "proof of concept" for my proposed experiment.

It is therefore time for Richard Gill to keep his word and pay up 10,000 Euros (for further discussion on "Simplified Proof", see also: viewtopic.php?f=6&t=237#p6179).

I know that he has seen my posts in this thread and read the paper I have linked and discussed above. So there is no excuse of him not knowing about the above proof.

I will even accept payment from any of Gill's "friends" who had joined his bandwagon in support of his now thoroughly refuted claims about my proposed experiment.

Richard Gill also said he would eat his hat in public if I succeeded in providing a "proof of concept" for my proposed experiment. But I am willing to forget about that.

***

[Q-reeus]

Joy, don't you think the best answer to all this seemingly endless personal contention stuff is to have the proposed experiment actually done and dusted?
If there are real difficulties in getting it physically implemented, surely the next best, maybe the best thing, is to get someone proficient in 4D simulation (CGI, gaming industry) to just model the proposed setup and run it on a computer. Purely Newtonian physics based. That would be distinctly different to your purely GA-based simulations that require faith in the'S3-not-R3 world' algebra.

[Joy Christian]

Joy, don't you think the best answer to all this seemingly endless personal contention stuff is to have the proposed experiment actually done and dusted?
If there are real difficulties in getting it physically implemented, surely the next best, maybe the best thing, is to get someone proficient in 4D simulation (CGI, gaming industry) to just model the proposed setup and run it on a computer. Purely Newtonian physics based. That would be distinctly different to your purely GA-based simulations that require faith in the'S3-not-R3 world' algebra.

None of these is actually needed. No experiments or simulations are needed. All one needs is to reproduce the few lines of calculation shown above. Anyone with a Bachelor's degree in physics should be able to do that. This is not rocket science. Anyone who understands Bell's claim (and Gill definitely understands Bell's claim unlike some of his "friends") should be able to understand that the game is long over. Let me spell out the real issue once again, as I have done many times before:

Let A(a, h) = +/-1 and B(b, h) = +/-1 be two functions such that their joint observable AB(a, b, h) = +/-1 is factorizable as follows (see, e.g., Bell's first paper of 1964):

AB(a, b, h) = A(a, h) x B(b, h),

where the initial or complete state h is a shared randomness between A and B, and "a" and "b" are freely chosen, "non-hidden" parameters. Note that A(a, h) does not depend on either B or b, and B(b, h) does not depend on either A or a. Thus A(a, h) and B(b, h) are manifestly local functions. It is easy to see that A(a, h) and B(b, h) are also realistic and deterministic functions. Given a freely chosen parameter a and an initial state h, the function A(a, h) yields a definite result, either +1 or -1, and likewise for the function B(b, h). I do not believe Richard Gill doubts that the functions A(a, h) and B(b, h) so defined by Bell are realistic and deterministic functions.

Bell then claimed -- and this is the real issue -- that with such local-realistic functions it is mathematically impossible to reproduce the strong correlations, such as the singlet correlation -a.b, where "correlation" E(a, b) simply means an ordinary average of the product A(a, h_i) x B(b, h_i) over a large number N of initial states h_i :

E(a, b) = (1/N) Sum_i A(a, h_i) x B(b, h_i) = -a.b.

However, it is not difficult to see that Bell's mathematical claim above about the strong correlations -a.b is simply false. It is, in fact, quite easy to reproduce the strong correlation -a.b with the functions A(a, h) and B(b, h), as anyone can verify for themselves by studying some of my papers, for example those linked above:



Let me stress again that there is no need for actual experiments or simulations. As anyone can see from what I have just spelt out, the issue is purely mathematical. There is no need even to understand what S^3 is, but of course it helps if one does. All one needs to understand is the following few lines of elementary calculation:



The meanings of all the symbols are meticulously explained in the paper linked above. All that remains now is for Gill to keep his word and pay up 10,000 Euros.

***

[luca valeri]

Hi Joy
may I call your attention to a mistake you made in your paper in "https://www.academia.edu/19235737/Macroscopic_Observability_of_Spinorial_Sign_Changes_A_Simplified_Proof"?

1. Let me first point out that the definition in (14) is very unusual in the sense, that you have the s in left to be defined function, but then on the right the s is moving to a.

2. The mistake is made between formula (27) and (28). You have 2 different s: one going to a the other to b. You should use 2 different labels there. Than between (30) and (31) the L(s) terms wouldn't disappear.

3. The right thing to do would be in (30) the first s let go to a the second to b. That you would get -1 inside the sum giving -1 for E(a,b). Something you could get if you directly would put the last terms with the lambdas in the definition (14) into formula (26). Where you actually can see, that the sign(sa) does not depend from a.

Best regards
Luca

[Joy Christian]

Hi Joy
may I call your attention to a mistake you made in your paper in "https://www.academia.edu/19235737/Macroscopic_Observability_of_Spinorial_Sign_Changes_A_Simplified_Proof"?

1. Let me first point out that the definition in (14) is very unusual in the sense, that you have the s in left to be defined function, but then on the right the s is moving to a.

2. The mistake is made between formula (27) and (28). You have 2 different s: one going to a the other to b. You should use 2 different labels there. Than between (30) and (31) the L(s) terms wouldn't disappear.

3. The right thing to do would be in (30) the first s let go to a the second to b. That you would get -1 inside the sum giving -1 for E(a,b). Something you could get if you directly would put the last terms with the lambdas in the definition (14) into formula (26). Where you actually can see, that the sign(sa) does not depend from a.

Best regards
Luca

Hi Luca,

There is no mistake in my paper you cite. You are the one who is making a mistake. You have not understood what happens in the EPR-Bohm type experiments.

What you are suggesting would violate the conservation of spin angular momentum. You have read several of my equations incorrectly --- especially equation (25):



Here is a figure from Peres's book (cited in my paper) which may help to understand what is meant by conservation of angular momentum in the present context:



Also, you are reading my equation (14) incorrectly. Please read equation (14) again to spot your mistake. Please recall that after the interaction the two particles have separated with no interaction between them, and they are measured by the detectors D(a) and D(b) on the two sides without any knowledge of each other.

Moreover you have missed my equation (35) completely. Please read my equation (35) to understand the limiting process.

If you understand the physics of EPR correctly and do your calculations correctly, then you get the result E(a, b) = -1 only for the special case when we set a = b.

For the general case we get E(a, b) = -a.b, unless of course if you insist on violating the conservation of spin angular momentum by letting s_1 different from s_2.

***

[luca valeri]

Hi Joy,

I belief that while the understanding of the physics helps one to make the math right, it is not needed to spot math errors. (And I do understand the EPR-Bohm type experiments.)

If you have a non standard theory and want to convince the physics community it is crucial to do the math right.

For instance (35) is correct, but (29) makes no sense. Is s going to a or to b?

I could add other small mistakes or wrong use of mathematical notation, if you are interested.

However I say it again: to convince the physics community for your theory you have to be correct and unambiguous in you math.

Best regards
Luca

PS:
Why are use using the Limit s -> a and/or s -> b anyway. There is no need for that in your Derivation.
Or why are you not taking the Limit allready in (27)? What would you get then?

[FrediFizzx]

Hi Joy,

I belief that while the understanding of the physics helps one to make the math right, it is not needed to spot math errors. (And I do understand the EPR-Bohm type experiments.)

If you have a non standard theory and want to convince the physics community it is crucial to do the math right.

For instance (35) is correct, but (29) makes no sense. Is s going to a or to b?

Apparently you don't understand the physics of EPR-Bohm. Two particles are created from a common source that imparts "s" to both particles. So each particle has "s" in common. There is the "s" for particle A that goes to the A detector and there is the "s" for particle B that goes to the B detector. It is really quite simple. Not sure why you don't understand it after Joy explained it to you.

[Joy Christian]

***
Luca,

As I have already pointed out above, there are no errors or ambiguities in either mathematics or physics discussed in my paper (see also Fred's comments above).

But since you are having difficulty understanding what has been explained in my paper in considerable detail, let me stress that, apart from the detection processes at detectors A and B defined in the equations (14) and (15), the key physical requirement you seems to be overlooking is the conservation of the spin angular momentum:



Once the conservation of spin angular momentum is duly respected in the derivation, it is quite straightforward to reproduce the strong EPR-Bohm correlation:



There is absolutely no way to avoid the strong correlation without violating the conservation of spin angular momentum or making the mistakes like you are making:

The meanings of the limiting processes involved in the derivation [as, for example, in eq. (29)] are also unambiguous, and can be verified by immediate inspection:


***

[Joy Christian]

***

So I think Richard Gill has probably left this world, or has been either mentally or physically incapacitated. For some reason he seems to be hiding from the cyberspace for the past four months. Or perhaps he has run away from the Internet just because he has been caught with his pants on fire too many times.

Who knows?

Whatever the reason behind his shame, he still owes me 10,000 Euros + profuse apologies. And of course he also owes apologies to a lot of other people.

***

[Joy Christian]

***
In order to remove even a perception of ambiguity in my notation, I have published a revised version of the above paper:

https://www.academia.edu/24765800/Propo ... ls_Theorem

Please note that the physical content of my argument in this version is identical to that in the original paper. The only difference is a slightly different presentation of the equations (26) to (35). This should remove even a perception of ambiguity from my use of the "product of the limits = limits of the product" rule in the derivation.

***

[thray]

Joy,

"... product of the limits = limits of the product ..." reminds me of something else you have said: "No observation in any experiment was ever made except in some direction." A wonderfully compact and elegant way to say that spacetime is connected and continuous.

Future's so bright, you ought to wear shades.

All best,

Tom

[Joy Christian]

Joy,

"... product of the limits = limits of the product ..." reminds me of something else you have said: "No observation in any experiment was ever made except in some direction." A wonderfully compact and elegant way to say that spacetime is connected and continuous.

Future's so bright, you ought to wear shades.

All best,

Tom

Haha... Thanks, Tom.

[Joy Christian]

***
For convenience, here is the revised presentation of the central derivation in the new version of my latest paper I have linked above:



***