## Schmelzer's and Gill's mathematical nonsense

Foundations of physics and/or philosophy of physics, and in particular, posts on unresolved or controversial issues

### Re: Schmelzer's and Gill's mathematical nonsense

Joy Christian wrote:In other words, anyone who is familiar with the Bell literature, as the "expert" Richard D. Gill should be, should not have any difficulty in understanding the model.

***

LOL! Well, I don't think he does understand so for him and others, you might want to consider making the time parameter explicit. For most people that know EPR it is no problem but some people seem to be having trouble with it. Bottom line, the math doesn't happen all at once. For someone not familiar with EPR such as a mathematician, that fact is not clear. They look at the math without taking anything else you have said in the paper into consideration and say it is nonsense.

Most likely in Gill's case he knows the truth but is ignoring it on purpose because otherwise he has no case.
FrediFizzx
Independent Physics Researcher

Posts: 1699
Joined: Tue Mar 19, 2013 7:12 pm
Location: N. California, USA

### Re: Schmelzer's and Gill's mathematical nonsense

Is there a complete, numbered list of Richard Gill's criticisms of Joy Christian's paper: Local Causality in a Friedmann-Robertson-Walker Spacetime, version 4?
I note that Richard had another five or so criticisms (Ref: https://pubpeer.com/publications/06814F ... 6B37BB4EF1) on an earlier version of this paper, some of which were in connection with simulations which are still referred to in the later versions of the paper, and these criticisms are not in the list of four criticisms noted by Joy at viewtopic.php?f=6&t=271#p6808 above. But these extra criticisms are presumably extant. A complete and numbered (presumably with only a finite number of bullet points ) might be useful to overcome:
"But year after year Gill keeps coming back with new objections, while endlessly repeating the already debunked ones. So I am highly sceptical that he will ever stop. He will keep coming back like the Terminator. " as quoted from Joy at viewtopic.php?f=6&t=271#p6833

Is version 4 of Joy's paper the same as the version 'retracted'? Having a new version 5 while all this discussion wrt retracted paper, on version 4 or earlier, is still ongoing may be a complicating factor. The new text in the new version(s) will undoubtedly attract new wordings of criticisms.
Ben6993

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

### Re: Schmelzer's and Gill's mathematical nonsense

Ben6993 wrote:Is version 4 of Joy's paper the same as the version 'retracted'? Having a new version 5 while all this discussion wrt retracted paper, on version 4 or earlier, is still ongoing may be a complicating factor. The new text in the new version(s) will undoubtedly attract new wordings of criticisms.

Hi Ben,

Version 5 of my paper is exactly the same as version 4, with the same text, apart from the 8 new equations in a new paragraph whose snapshot I have posted above.

Should the confusions about my model be called criticisms? If my model is X, but someone insists on misrepresenting it as Y, and then criticises Y, should we take that seriously? I have of course responded to all kinds of confusions and straw-man arguments. But should I have bothered to do so for nine painful years? Why is there never any peer-review of the critics and their so-called criticisms? It is quite evident that Annals of Physics, for example, did not bother to recognise that Gill's "criticisms" are actually not those of my model at all, but of his misrepresentations of it. That is not difficult to see once you spend some time peer-reviewing Gill's "criticisms."

***
Joy Christian
Research Physicist

Posts: 2131
Joined: Wed Feb 05, 2014 4:49 am
Location: Oxford, United Kingdom

### Re: Schmelzer's and Gill's mathematical nonsense

Hi Joy

Sorry if the word 'criticisms' was unpleasant for you. I did not intend offence.

I still think you should draw a line under version 4 and say that is the paper which was retracted and that is the paper which needs to be defended and have Richard Gill's confusions countered one by one, item by item. Making new versions of the retracted paper gives more scope for confusion, with the potential implication (for any 'hostile' opponents) that the retracted version was somehow inadequate. Making more ammunition for the opponents when all you intended to do was add clarifications to overcome the misunderstandings of readers you consider to be not versed well enough in Bell literature. Anyway, that is my humble opinion. As you know, I am not an expert in this, or in any other (!), matter.

BTW Jay seems to have made an excellent start at a 'clarification of confusions' concerning the paper.
Ben6993

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

### Re: Schmelzer's and Gill's mathematical nonsense

Ben6993 wrote:Hi Joy

Sorry if the word 'criticisms' was unpleasant for you. I did not intend offence.

I still think you should draw a line under version 4 and say that is the paper which was retracted and that is the paper which needs to be defended and have Richard Gill's confusions countered one by one, item by item. Making new versions of the retracted paper gives more scope for confusion, with the potential implication (for any 'hostile' opponents) that the retracted version was somehow inadequate. Making more ammunition for the opponents when all you intended to do was add clarifications to overcome the misunderstandings of readers you consider to be not versed well enough in Bell literature. Anyway, that is my humble opinion. As you know, I am not an expert in this, or in any other (!), matter.

BTW Jay seems to have made an excellent start at a 'clarification of confusions' concerning the paper.

Hi Ben,

No offence taken. I was just venting my frustration at the unfair "system", which seems to favour mediocrity and ambidexterity over creativity and originality.

Anyway, I think your suggestions are good, and I should concentrate on defending version 4, which, as you note, is the retracted, withdrawn, or removed paper.

***
Joy Christian
Research Physicist

Posts: 2131
Joined: Wed Feb 05, 2014 4:49 am
Location: Oxford, United Kingdom

### Re: Schmelzer's and Gill's mathematical nonsense

Joy Christian wrote:Hi Ben,

No offence taken. I was just venting my frustration at the unfair "system", which seems to favour mediocrity and ambidexterity over creativity and originality.

Anyway, I think your suggestions are good, and I should concentrate on defending version 4, which, as you note, is the retracted, withdrawn, or removed paper.

***

I agree. I think eqs. (57) to (64) just add more confusion because if you take the limit of both s1's and s2's, the results are respectively $\lambda^k$ and $- \lambda^k$. Which is actually OK because it proves the A and B outcomes are $\pm 1$ thus proving eqs (54) and (55).

Now that Gill has been shot down by the fact that a is only equal to b if the experimenter sets them that way, he is back on the -1 thing. Poor guy doesn't seem to realize the -1 result is the $R^3$ result not the $S^3$ result. Of course all the -1 $R^3$ result shows is that A and B are anti-correlated. If the $S^3$ properties of the model are to be maintained, the correlation calculation must be done as Joy shows.
FrediFizzx
Independent Physics Researcher

Posts: 1699
Joined: Tue Mar 19, 2013 7:12 pm
Location: N. California, USA

### Re: Schmelzer's and Gill's mathematical nonsense

Hi Joy and Fred

I woke in the night with the following eureka idea in the spirit of clarifying confusions about version 4 of your paper. My idea may just illustrate my own confusion, but I hope the idea is useful.

Two items on my incomplete list of Richard Gill's 'confusions' with respect to the paper and the computer simulations are RGC5 and RGC6. (If Richard is reading this I hope he does not counter-object to my use of the word 'confusions' ... no offence intended.) Item RGC5 is that your simulations have missing valid data and hence the simulations are not loophole-free. Item RG6 is that invalid operations in geometric algebra are being performed in the computer simulations by using left-hand and right hand background torsions within 'one and the same' calculation. These are my terse re-wordings of points on a Pubpeer website.

I think that your very short answer to RGC5 could be that only invalid data are excluded and to RGC6 could be that the geometric algebra operations are valid. But in the spirit of clarifying confusions I have the following suggestion for an interactive display of new simulation results which may throw some light on RG5 and RGC6.

First, am I correct in assuming that if in nature all the particle pairs were produced in a background of left-hand torsion then a simulation based on these pairs would produce only a saw-tooth Bell curve? And ditto for an exclusively right-hand torsion background. But when you have an equal number of pairs with left- and right-handed backgrounds then you get the cosine curve?

This assumes that by restricting the simulation background to only one type of handedness, you would be be modelling an artificially constrained nature somehow acting more like having an R^3 space. (Although R^3 does not actually have a background handedness and you cannot actually constrain nature in this way. )

So I envisage an interactive display being made and posted somewhere (eg here http://einstein-physics.org/) showing the effects of having various mixes of left- and right- handednesses. One example of such a type of display is http://nilesjohnson.net/hopf.html . But perhaps there could be a control panel on screen where the user could control the proportion of left over right backgrounds of pairs. It would mean running the simulation a hundred times or so in advance to get smooth transitions of curves from saw-toothed to cosine and back to saw-toothed as the proportion varied from 0 to 100%. The interactive display would use these pre-prepared outputs so the interactiveness could be speedy. And it would mean adding a subroutine of new code to the simulation which controlled the background torsion of a particle pair without compromising the random nature of generation of data with respect to all the other factors.

What I hope is that such an interactive display could help show that the transition from saw-tooth to cosine was not so much dependent on a data loophole as on having an equal mix of the background torsions. So as the slider is moved from 0% to 50% to 100%, it replicates pseudo R^3 then S^3 then pseudo R^3 respectively.
Ben6993

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

### Re: Schmelzer's and Gill's mathematical nonsense

***
Hi Everyone,

I have cleaned up Jay's analysis so that there is no "backtracking" (which could be subject to objection). Here it is, with only "front-tracking":

***
Joy Christian
Research Physicist

Posts: 2131
Joined: Wed Feb 05, 2014 4:49 am
Location: Oxford, United Kingdom

### Re: Schmelzer's and Gill's mathematical nonsense

Yeah, the argument is better like that. It is only possible for a to equal b if the experimenters set them equal.
FrediFizzx
Independent Physics Researcher

Posts: 1699
Joined: Tue Mar 19, 2013 7:12 pm
Location: N. California, USA

### Re: Schmelzer's and Gill's mathematical nonsense

Now that Gill has been shot down by that, he is back on the -1 thing. Poor guy doesn't seem to realize the -1 result is the $R^3$ result not the $S^3$ result. Of course all the -1 $R^3$ result shows is that A and B are anti-correlated. If the $S^3$ properties of the model are to be maintained, the correlation calculation must be done as Joy shows.
FrediFizzx
Independent Physics Researcher

Posts: 1699
Joined: Tue Mar 19, 2013 7:12 pm
Location: N. California, USA

### Re: Schmelzer's and Gill's mathematical nonsense

FrediFizzx wrote:Now that Gill has been shot down by that, he is back on the -1 thing. Poor guy doesn't seem to realize the -1 result is the $R^3$ result not the $S^3$ result. Of course all the -1 $R^3$ result shows is that A and B are anti-correlated. If the $S^3$ properties of the model are to be maintained, the correlation calculation must be done as Joy shows.

I replied to him on Retraction Watch and explained the same thing, but my reply is still waiting for moderator's approval. Here is what I explained:

Perhaps I should elaborate.

We live in Einstein’s Universe. One of the solutions of Einstein’s theory of spacetime for the physical 3D space is a 3-sphere. My local model is based on the assumption that we live in this 3-sphere, S^3, not in the flat Euclidean space, R^3, as is usually assumed. Therefore the EPRB correlations we observe in Nature are correlations among the points of this 3-sphere, not among the points of a Euclidean R^3. Now the functions A(a, lambda) and B(b, lambda) defined by my equations (54) and (55) represent points of this Einsteinian 3-sphere. What is then being calculated in equations (67) to (75) are correlations among the points of this 3-sphere. lambda on the other hand is the orientation of this 3-sphere. Therefore it makes no sense to calculate correlations between the two values of lambda, which in any case is just -1. It is a gross misrepresentation of the physics being considered to write A(a, lambda) = +lambda and B(b, lambda) = -lambda. That is like writing Cat = Dog. It means nothing.

Joy Christian
Research Physicist

Posts: 2131
Joined: Wed Feb 05, 2014 4:49 am
Location: Oxford, United Kingdom

### Re: Schmelzer's and Gill's mathematical nonsense

Hi Fred

I couldn't find online anything Richard Gill posted in the last two days.
In the interests of clarity is it one of the following six points of 'confusion'?

RGC1. According to (55) and (56), A(a, lambda) = lambda and B(b, lambda) = - lambda where lambda = +/-1. This should lead to E(a, b), computed in (60)-(68), equal to -1. But instead the author gets the result - a . b. How is it done?

RGC2. Notice formula (58) where s_1 and s_2 are argued to be equal, leading in (59) to L(s_1, lambda)L(s_2, lambda) = -1. This result is then substituted inside a double limit as s_1 converges to a and s_2 converges to b in the transition from equation (62) to (63).

So s_1 and s_2 are equal yet converge to different limits a and b.

RGC3. But that is not enough. A second trick is put into play a few lines later. According to (57) we should have L(a, lambda)L(b, lambda) = D(a)D(b) independent of lambda, which means that the step from (65) to (66) can't be correct.
(For Item RGC1 to RGC3 the source is https://pubpeer.com/publications/AEF49D ... B4#fb53868 , July 5th, 2016)

RGC4. To take that step he uses (50), but this contradicts (51) and (52). If L(a, lambda) = lambda I a and L(b, lambda) = lambda I b then L(a, lambda)L(b, lambda) = -ab independent of whether lambda = -1 or +1 (lambda and I both commute with a and b; lambda^2 = 1, I^2 = -1). (I can't find a source for this point, except in a post by Joy.)

RGC5 is that your simulations have missing valid data and hence the simulations are not loophole-free.

RGC6 is that invalid operations in geometric algebra are being performed in the computer simulations by using left-hand and right hand background torsions within 'one and the same' calculation.

(RGC5 and RGC6 are are my terse re-wordings of points on a Pubpeer website.)

If you do not keep detailed track of the points of confusion you will not be able to label accurately if and when the points of confusion are cleared up. Or is it just me that has problems finding old posts on the www?
Ben6993

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

### Re: Schmelzer's and Gill's mathematical nonsense

Ben6993 wrote:Hi Fred

I couldn't find online anything Richard Gill posted in the last two days.

Sorry, I should have included the link.

http://retractionwatch.com/2016/09/30/p ... nt-1137639

It is all settled now. Gill is completely shot down once again.
FrediFizzx
Independent Physics Researcher

Posts: 1699
Joined: Tue Mar 19, 2013 7:12 pm
Location: N. California, USA

### Re: Schmelzer's and Gill's mathematical nonsense

Joy Christian wrote:
FrediFizzx wrote:Now that Gill has been shot down by that, he is back on the -1 thing. Poor guy doesn't seem to realize the -1 result is the $R^3$ result not the $S^3$ result. Of course all the -1 $R^3$ result shows is that A and B are anti-correlated. If the $S^3$ properties of the model are to be maintained, the correlation calculation must be done as Joy shows.

I replied to him on Retraction Watch and explained the same thing, but my reply is still waiting for moderator's approval. Here is what I explained:

Perhaps I should elaborate.

We live in Einstein’s Universe. One of the solutions of Einstein’s theory of spacetime for the physical 3D space is a 3-sphere. My local model is based on the assumption that we live in this 3-sphere, S^3, not in the flat Euclidean space, R^3, as is usually assumed. Therefore the EPRB correlations we observe in Nature are correlations among the points of this 3-sphere, not among the points of a Euclidean R^3. Now the functions A(a, lambda) and B(b, lambda) defined by my equations (54) and (55) represent points of this Einsteinian 3-sphere. What is then being calculated in equations (67) to (75) are correlations among the points of this 3-sphere. lambda on the other hand is the orientation of this 3-sphere. Therefore it makes no sense to calculate correlations between the two values of lambda, which in any case is just -1. It is a gross misrepresentation of the physics being considered to write A(a, lambda) = +lambda and B(b, lambda) = -lambda. That is like writing Cat = Dog. It means nothing.

Yeah, Gill got a double whammy from us on Retraction Watch. Of course he will never admit that you are right; he will find something else to erroneously complain about.
...
FrediFizzx
Independent Physics Researcher

Posts: 1699
Joined: Tue Mar 19, 2013 7:12 pm
Location: N. California, USA

### Re: Schmelzer's and Gill's mathematical nonsense

FrediFizzx wrote:Yeah, Gill got a double whammy from us on Retraction Watch. Of course he will never admit that you are right; he will find something else to erroneously complain about.
...

When the physics community finally wakes up from the sirenic Bell-spell, there will be gasps of amazement: Why did no one see something so simple, so elegant, and so natural as the 3-sphere model of locally explicable correlations even after decades of efforts to explain it by its proponents? Why couldn't people see that quantum correlations --- at least the EPRB ones --- are a natural consequence of Einstein's geometric theory of gravity?

***
Joy Christian
Research Physicist

Posts: 2131
Joined: Wed Feb 05, 2014 4:49 am
Location: Oxford, United Kingdom

### Re: Schmelzer's and Gill's mathematical nonsense

Fred,

Thanks for the reference to http://retractionwatch.com/2016/09/30/p ... nt-1137639 .
When I previously tried to load Retraction Watch, my computer failed to obtain the site. The site may have been overloaded at that time (!?) which is why I did not find the comment previously.

Richard Gill's latest post at Retraction Watch, on 12 October 12 2016 at 8:01 am, might be paraphrased as 'the correlation clearly equals minus one' which is very similar to Item RGC1 on my list of "Richard Gill's confusions". However, the equation now referred to is not identical to that in Item RGC1 as the former includes the expression ^k throughout. So I will call the new confusion RGC7.

Item RGC7 (not using an exact quote):
From definitions (54) and (55), it follows that A(a, lambda^k) = lambda^k and B(b, lambda^k) = – lambda^k.
The measurement outcomes are equal and opposite (and do not depend on the measurement settings).
Why compute the correlation by a roundabout route if it is now already clear that it equals minus one?

Jay has subsequently posted what seems to me to be an excellent clarification of that confusion on Retraction Watch on October 12, 2016 at 10:09 pm.

However, Fred, you appear in your post of October 13, 2016 at 12:01 am at Retraction Watch to have taken (mild?) offence at Jay's use of the words "fancy dressing"? When I read Jay's post I simply took it all as positive for Joy's paper. Perhaps if Jay had used the words: "is just a creative and original way of transforming +lambda" or the like instead of "is just a fancy way of dressing up the +lambda" the words might not have grated on you? I agree that there could be negative implications of both "fancy" [implying unnecessarily complicated?] and "dressing" [implying not the real essence?], but how you interpret that maybe depends on your personality. As I say, I took it as a positive comment for the paper.

BTW did you read Jay's own recent paper at http://vixra.org/pdf/1609.0387v1.pdf , section 10 page 33 where Jay writes: " ... the number “1” constructed in ... is useful in a variety of circumstances ...". To be fair Jay did not say that his own usage was "fancy dressing".

Further. you have later commented at viewtopic.php?f=6&t=271&start=20#p6857
"It is all settled now. Gill is completely shot down once again."

You may be privy to personal posts that I have not seen, but afaik we are waiting for an update by Jay, or Richard, on how clarification of that particular point is progressing?
Ben6993

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

### Re: Schmelzer's and Gill's mathematical nonsense

Ben6993 wrote:Jay has subsequently posted what seems to me to be an excellent clarification of that confusion on Retraction Watch on October 12, 2016 at 10:09 pm.

However, Fred, you appear in your post of October 13, 2016 at 12:01 am at Retraction Watch to have taken (mild?) offence at Jay's use of the words "fancy dressing"? When I read Jay's post I simply took it all as positive for Joy's paper. Perhaps if Jay had used the words: "is just a creative and original way of transforming +lambda" or the like instead of "is just a fancy way of dressing up the +lambda" the words might not have grated on you? I agree that there could be negative implications of both "fancy" [implying unnecessarily complicated?] and "dressing" [implying not the real essence?], but how you interpret that maybe depends on your personality. As I say, I took it as a positive comment for the paper.

BTW did you read Jay's own recent paper at http://vixra.org/pdf/1609.0387v1.pdf , section 10 page 33 where Jay writes: " ... the number “1” constructed in ... is useful in a variety of circumstances ...". To be fair Jay did not say that his own usage was "fancy dressing".

Well, I will admit to being a little colorful to try to make a point. So I am willing to say that I am also doing a "fancy dressing" with my 1 as well. But think about it: Every equation ever written can be rewritten in the form

"$something = 0$."

Just move everything onto one side and you have a zero. (And to be really clear the zero may have all sort of finite or infinite structure to it; think tensors, and think SU(N), and think Hilbert spaces, and think Heisenberg matrices.) Richard said "Why compute the correlation by a roundabout route if it is now already clear that it equals minus one?" That would be analogous to saying the "Why compute anything about the 'something' if it is now already clear that it equals 0?" That is a slippery slope which degenerates into an argument that mathematical calculation serves no purpose.
Yablon
Independent Physics Researcher

Posts: 355
Joined: Tue Feb 04, 2014 10:39 pm
Location: New York

### Re: Schmelzer's and Gill's mathematical nonsense

Ben6993 wrote:Further. you have later commented at viewtopic.php?f=6&t=271&start=20#p6857
"It is all settled now. Gill is completely shot down once again."

You may be privy to personal posts that I have not seen, but afaik we are waiting for an update by Jay, or Richard, on how clarification of that particular point is progressing?

Everything has been on the public table for quite some time now; there is nothing "privy". I wouldn't hold your breath whilst you are waiting but I will explain some more. Gill is stuck in R^3 "flatland". He has been making that -1 result argument for years now and always falls back on it when his other criticisms are shot down. But Joy's model is an S^3 theory so the correlations must be calculated via a method that respects S^3. Not R^3. Gill wants to always use an R^3 theory. So does Schmelzer. It is just plain nonsense as represented by the title of this thread. So basically they are rejecting Joy's S^3 postulate. But that is OK as it doesn't matter. Joy's S^3 model is still a valid counter-example to Bell's junk physics theory because it predicts the same result as quantum mechanics in a local-realistic way. There are no flaws in Joy's model. It has been numerically validated by the computer program GAViewer to extraordinary precision. So quite frankly we don't really care what Gill and his cronies believe as we know what the truth is. They can stay stuck in flatland if they wish as the truth ultimately and eventually wins.
FrediFizzx
Independent Physics Researcher

Posts: 1699
Joined: Tue Mar 19, 2013 7:12 pm
Location: N. California, USA

### Re: Schmelzer's and Gill's mathematical nonsense

Hi Jay

I wish I had written my final thought in my last email. I left it out for brevity's sake. I was going to add the same point about " = 0".
I have already followed about 200 hours of Susskind's Theoretical Minimum online courses with only about 40 hours left to see.
Susskind likes to move asap all the terms to one side so as to set them equal to zero. I think this is because he gets worried about the signs and its easier to get the signs right if all terms stay all on one side of the equation.
That's a different reason than yours though, but it does show lots of different ways you can get zero.

Talking about signs, I think that a sign flip is at the heart of one of the confusions wrt the simulations, but it hasn't come up explicitly yet. Can't thing of a good previous reference post for this, but the issue will certainly come up.

Also, I may be imagining this but I thought one page of your report had a whole string of half a dozen or more different structures for '1'. But I couldn't find that page, if it exists.

I have thought more about my idea for an interactive display. I might even try to make one myself, when I have finished tiling the kitchen. I am of the view that spinors are fundamental to creating the space metric and I think that the counterbalancing LH and RH torsions are very important.

All the best

Ben
Ben6993

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

### Re: Schmelzer's and Gill's mathematical nonsense

***
Ben,

When I wrote above that the so-called "criticisms" of Gill are in fact his own confusions about, and misrepresentations of my model, I was being polite and charitable.

The truth is that Gill is mathematically quite incompetent. He himself has admitted on this very forum that he cannot do algebra. I have proven his incompetence in mathematics time and again, by debunking his fallacious claims about my local model. Most recently Jay has skilfully disproved at least two of his silly claims. Let me give you one very clear example of how Gill makes false claims with such an authoritative panache that even the editors of Annals of Physics are fooled by them. Very recently he made a foolish claim on PubPeer about the version 5 of my paper that is not only manifestly wrong, but Jay has now proven it to be mathematically wrong:

Richard D. Gill wrote:
The expression concerned is continuous in s_1, a and lambda and the limit can therefore be computed by simply evaluating it with s_1 set equal to a. That results in lambda, as already claimed in (54).

So the step from (59) to (60) is non-sense, and the final result moreover contradicts (54).

What Gill is questioning here is the following elementary equality:

One does not have to be a genius to see that (at least in the present context) this equality is trivially true. Gill is either unable to see that, or being disingenuous.

***
Joy Christian
Research Physicist

Posts: 2131
Joined: Wed Feb 05, 2014 4:49 am
Location: Oxford, United Kingdom

PreviousNext

### Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest