My Challenge to All Bell-Believers --- Meet it or Beat it:

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

Re: My Challenge to All Bell-Believers --- Meet it or Beat i

Postby gill1109 » Sun Jan 31, 2021 11:46 pm

Curiosity wrote:
gill1109 wrote:Even experimenters who do a GHZ experiment have to use probability and statistics, since one does not observe perfect correlations in the lab. Theory may say that some probability is zero, but at best, with experiment, you can only show that it seems to be very small. You'll never engineer that state, and those measurements, perfectly. "Behind" the GHZ argument "without probability" there is actually a generalized Bell inequality, which is tested in a GHZ experiment.

That was exactly the reason we moved from Bell's 1964 three correlation inequality to the 1969 CHSH four correlation inequality. Bell's 1964 argument needed an assumption of perfect anti-correlation in certain circumstances. When you experimentally test that, you will find the anti-correlation is not perfect.

Physicists, statisticians and probabilists have to work together and speak one another's languages


My point is that the purely theoretical argument of GHZ does not need statistics or probability. This is an important point because GHZ theoretical argument is so simple that an error should be easily and unambiguously detected if there is one.
Experiments are complicated and are a different issue.

Joy Christian claims to have disproved the Bell theorem. I believe that besides having disproved the theorem it is also important to point out where it went wrong. He also has done that. I am not saying that I agree with his proofs/disproofs. I am only pointing out that it is important to explain where it went wrong.

In the GHZ case, he also claims that his model reproduces the quantum predictions. In my opinion, it will be good for his claim to be taken seriously, that he explains, as he did for the Bell's theorem case, where the GHZ reasoning went wrong. If he could explain that, it would motivate people to analyze his proof.

I am just trying to make an objective and unbiased point. I don't want to be a rodent.

You are making a very good point, Curiosity.

Regarding Joy Christian’s arguments, indeed he claims to have a counter example to Bell’s theorem; and he claims to have explained where Bell’s argument goes wrong. I have published analyses and refutations of both claims. See https://arxiv.org/abs/1203.1504 and https://www.mdpi.com/1099-4300/22/1/61. He not only claims to have disproved Bell’s theorem, he also claims to have disproved a famous theorem from algebra called the Hurwitz theorem. He has never shown us where the established proofs of the Hurwitz theorem go wrong. In my opinion, he is not very reliable in matters of mathematics and logic. His physics insight may be strong, and his originality and perseverance is in no doubt.
gill1109
Mathematical Statistician
 
Posts: 2812
Joined: Tue Feb 04, 2014 10:39 pm
Location: Leiden

Re: My Challenge to All Bell-Believers --- Meet it or Beat i

Postby Joy Christian » Mon Feb 01, 2021 12:09 am

...
Gill has linked his junk paper again. It is full of elementary conceptual and mathematical mistakes that start with the very title of his paper. See my responses here:

https://arxiv.org/abs/1203.2529

But there is no need to rely on my extremely low opinion of Gill's mathematics and physics. All one needs to do is look at the published reviewer reports on his paper:

https://www.mdpi.com/1099-4300/22/1/61/review_report

Let me reproduce an image of one of the reports for everyone to see (it is a report on Gill's paper in Entropy):

Image

Note that his paper was accepted by Entropy without him having to respond to the above report because he is one of the editors of the journal. Academic nepotism!
...
Joy Christian
Research Physicist
 
Posts: 2793
Joined: Wed Feb 05, 2014 4:49 am
Location: Oxford, United Kingdom

Re: My Challenge to All Bell-Believers --- Meet it or Beat i

Postby gill1109 » Mon Feb 01, 2021 6:55 am

Joy Christian wrote:...
Gill has linked his junk paper again. It is full of elementary conceptual and mathematical mistakes that start with the very title of his paper. See my responses here:

https://arxiv.org/abs/1203.2529

But there is no need to rely on my extremely low opinion of Gill's mathematics and physics. All one needs to do is look at the published reviewer reports on his paper:

https://www.mdpi.com/1099-4300/22/1/61/review_report

Let me reproduce an image of one of the reports for everyone to see (it is a report on Gill's paper in Entropy):

Image

Note that his paper was accepted by Entropy without him having to respond to the above report because he is one of the editors of the journal. Academic nepotism!
...

I did respond to that report, as I did to all the referee reports. My paper was not accepted “because I am one of the editors of the journal”. I have no doubt that one of the referees was Joy Christian. In fact, I had recommended the editors to ask him for a review.

I suggest that interested persons read my paper and let me know if there is anything they think is wrong. I suggest that Christian submits a rebuttal of my paper to “Entropy”. I note that his paper https://arxiv.org/abs/1203.2529 has apparently not been published anywhere yet.
gill1109
Mathematical Statistician
 
Posts: 2812
Joined: Tue Feb 04, 2014 10:39 pm
Location: Leiden

Re: My Challenge to All Bell-Believers --- Meet it or Beat i

Postby Joy Christian » Mon Feb 01, 2021 7:26 am

gill1109 wrote:
I have no doubt that one of the referees was Joy Christian.

I was not a reviewer of Gill's paper in Entropy, of which he is one of the editors. I was never asked by the journal to review his paper.

In fact, I have asked the Chief editor of Entropy to retract Gill's paper because it contains demonstrable lies about my work and ad hominem attacks on me personally.
.
Joy Christian
Research Physicist
 
Posts: 2793
Joined: Wed Feb 05, 2014 4:49 am
Location: Oxford, United Kingdom

Re: My Challenge to All Bell-Believers --- Meet it or Beat i

Postby gill1109 » Mon Feb 01, 2021 11:09 pm

Joy Christian wrote:
gill1109 wrote:I have no doubt that one of the referees was Joy Christian.
I was not a reviewer of Gill's paper in Entropy, of which he is one of the editors. I was never asked by the journal to review his paper. In fact, I have asked the Chief editor of Entropy to retract Gill's paper because it contains demonstrable lies about my work and ad hominem attacks on me personally.

Well, I’m not aware of any untruths in my paper, though of course there may well be some errors. I will gladly acknowledge and correct any mistakes. The arXiv version contains a correction note which I’ve submitted to “Entropy”. As for ad hominem attacks, I have been on the receiving end of quite a few, myself. Some people find it hard to accept criticism. In science however it is essential to discuss and correct errors.
gill1109
Mathematical Statistician
 
Posts: 2812
Joined: Tue Feb 04, 2014 10:39 pm
Location: Leiden

Re: My Challenge to All Bell-Believers --- Meet it or Beat i

Postby Joy Christian » Tue Feb 02, 2021 1:45 am

gill1109 wrote:
Joy Christian wrote:
gill1109 wrote:I have no doubt that one of the referees was Joy Christian.
I was not a reviewer of Gill's paper in Entropy, of which he is one of the editors. I was never asked by the journal to review his paper. In fact, I have asked the Chief editor of Entropy to retract Gill's paper because it contains demonstrable lies about my work and ad hominem attacks on me personally.

Well, I’m not aware of any untruths in my paper, though of course there may well be some errors. I will gladly acknowledge and correct any mistakes. The arXiv version contains a correction note which I’ve submitted to “Entropy”. As for ad hominem attacks, I have been on the receiving end of quite a few, myself. Some people find it hard to accept criticism. In science however it is essential to discuss and correct errors.

No, there are outright lies in your paper that I have pointed out to the Chief editor. There are also ad hominem attacks on me in your paper that the Chief editor has said are unacceptable.
.
Joy Christian
Research Physicist
 
Posts: 2793
Joined: Wed Feb 05, 2014 4:49 am
Location: Oxford, United Kingdom

Re: My Challenge to All Bell-Believers --- Meet it or Beat i

Postby gill1109 » Wed Feb 03, 2021 2:53 am

Joy Christian wrote:
gill1109 wrote:
Joy Christian wrote:
gill1109 wrote:I have no doubt that one of the referees was Joy Christian.
I was not a reviewer of Gill's paper in Entropy, of which he is one of the editors. I was never asked by the journal to review his paper. In fact, I have asked the Chief editor of Entropy to retract Gill's paper because it contains demonstrable lies about my work and ad hominem attacks on me personally.

Well, I’m not aware of any untruths in my paper, though of course there may well be some errors. I will gladly acknowledge and correct any mistakes. The arXiv version contains a correction note which I’ve submitted to “Entropy”. As for ad hominem attacks, I have been on the receiving end of quite a few, myself. Some people find it hard to accept criticism. In science however it is essential to discuss and correct errors.

No, there are outright lies in your paper that I have pointed out to the Chief editor. There are also ad hominem attacks on me in your paper that the Chief editor has said are unacceptable.

So long as neither you nor the editor-in-chief inform me of your specific complaints, there is nothing I can do about them.

Actually, I submitted a correction note to “Entropy” a while ago, but they seem to have forgotten about it. I got the impression that they don’t yet have a mechanism in place for dealing with corrections. (I added the correction to the arXiv version). I have to write to them about it. I will ask about your complaints at the same time. If there is anything I can fix, I will do that.

I also haven’t heard from IEEE Access nor from Royal Society Open Science for a long time.
gill1109
Mathematical Statistician
 
Posts: 2812
Joined: Tue Feb 04, 2014 10:39 pm
Location: Leiden

Re: My Challenge to All Bell-Believers --- Meet it or Beat i

Postby Joy Christian » Thu Feb 04, 2021 8:42 am

gill1109 wrote:
I also haven’t heard from IEEE Access nor from Royal Society Open Science for a long time.

Interesting! Gill claimed in this forum and in his paper itself that he was invited by the editors of the journals to submit his papers. He also claimed on the 30th of November last year that he has gracefully accepted the invitations by the editors and submitted his papers. That was more than two months ago. Invited papers usually get published within weeks, if not days. :)
.
Joy Christian
Research Physicist
 
Posts: 2793
Joined: Wed Feb 05, 2014 4:49 am
Location: Oxford, United Kingdom

Re: My Challenge to All Bell-Believers --- Meet it or Beat i

Postby gill1109 » Fri Feb 05, 2021 6:11 am

Joy Christian wrote:
gill1109 wrote:
I also haven’t heard from IEEE Access nor from Royal Society Open Science for a long time.

Interesting! Gill claimed in this forum and in his paper itself that he was invited by the editors of the journals to submit his papers. He also claimed on the 30th of November last year that he has gracefully accepted the invitations by the editors and submitted his papers. That was more than two months ago. Invited papers usually get published within weeks, if not days. :)

Yes, very interesting. I can supply evidence supporting my claims by showing you the emails. Just email me (or send me a Private Message on this forum) if you want to see them. I don't think I should publish them here.

So long as neither Joy Christian nor the editors-in-chief of the journals concerned inform me of specific complaints, there is nothing I can do about them. I have emailed to the editors of all three journals concerned (IEEE Access, RSOS, Entropy) to ask them if complaints have been received.
gill1109
Mathematical Statistician
 
Posts: 2812
Joined: Tue Feb 04, 2014 10:39 pm
Location: Leiden

Re: My Challenge to All Bell-Believers --- Meet it or Beat i

Postby Joy Christian » Fri Feb 05, 2021 1:13 pm

.
I will believe when I see Gill's papers published in RSOS and IEEE Access. Until then, I am not holding my breath about anything.

And the Chief editor of Entropy has assured me that they are reassessing Gill's paper and considering what action to take. His paper was accepted without proper scrutiny and despite its low quality because it was edited by one of Gill's friends who is not a proper editor but a temporary guest editor who was invited for a specific volume published in Entropy. In my opinion, Gill's paper should be retracted from Entropy if the journal wants to improve its reputation.
.
Joy Christian
Research Physicist
 
Posts: 2793
Joined: Wed Feb 05, 2014 4:49 am
Location: Oxford, United Kingdom

Re: My Challenge to All Bell-Believers --- Meet it or Beat i

Postby gill1109 » Fri Feb 05, 2021 11:25 pm

Joy Christian wrote:.
I will believe when I see Gill's papers published in RSOS and IEEE Access. Until then, I am not holding my breath about anything.

And the Chief editor of Entropy has assured me that they are reassessing Gill's paper and considering what action to take. His paper was accepted without proper scrutiny and despite its low quality because it was edited by one of Gill's friends who is not a proper editor but a temporary guest editor who was invited for a specific volume published in Entropy. In my opinion, Gill's paper should be retracted from Entropy if the journal wants to improve its reputation.

I wonder! I’ll ask Kevin and Andrei about this.

IEEE-Access says I should be receiving fresh reports soon.
gill1109
Mathematical Statistician
 
Posts: 2812
Joined: Tue Feb 04, 2014 10:39 pm
Location: Leiden

Re: My Challenge to All Bell-Believers --- Meet it or Beat i

Postby gill1109 » Sat Feb 06, 2021 2:08 am

gill1109 wrote:
Joy Christian wrote:.
I will believe when I see Gill's papers published in RSOS and IEEE Access. Until then, I am not holding my breath about anything.

And the Chief editor of Entropy has assured me that they are reassessing Gill's paper and considering what action to take. His paper was accepted without proper scrutiny and despite its low quality because it was edited by one of Gill's friends who is not a proper editor but a temporary guest editor who was invited for a specific volume published in Entropy. In my opinion, Gill's paper should be retracted from Entropy if the journal wants to improve its reputation.

I wonder! I’ll ask Kevin and Andrei about this.

IEEE-Access says I should be receiving fresh reports soon.

Yes, the reports arrived this morning, the paper is accepted subject to a final revision!
gill1109
Mathematical Statistician
 
Posts: 2812
Joined: Tue Feb 04, 2014 10:39 pm
Location: Leiden

Re: My Challenge to All Bell-Believers --- Meet it or Beat i

Postby Joy Christian » Sat Feb 06, 2021 2:12 am

gill1109 wrote:
Yes, the reports arrived this morning, the paper is accepted subject to a final revision!

I will believe it when I see the paper online on the IEEE website.
.
Joy Christian
Research Physicist
 
Posts: 2793
Joined: Wed Feb 05, 2014 4:49 am
Location: Oxford, United Kingdom

Re: My Challenge to All Bell-Believers --- Meet it or Beat i

Postby gill1109 » Sun Feb 07, 2021 11:30 pm

Joy Christian wrote:
gill1109 wrote:
Yes, the reports arrived this morning, the paper is accepted subject to a final revision!

I will believe it when I see the paper online on the IEEE website.

I mentioned to Derek Abbott the idea of having a Zoom debate. He was interested. Are you in for that, Joy? Maybe Jay Yablon would like to moderate. Several of the referees would probably be very interested too.
gill1109
Mathematical Statistician
 
Posts: 2812
Joined: Tue Feb 04, 2014 10:39 pm
Location: Leiden

Re: My Challenge to All Bell-Believers --- Meet it or Beat i

Postby Joy Christian » Mon Feb 08, 2021 1:38 am

gill1109 wrote:
Joy Christian wrote:
gill1109 wrote:
Yes, the reports arrived this morning, the paper is accepted subject to a final revision!

I will believe it when I see the paper online on the IEEE website.

I mentioned to Derek Abbott the idea of having a Zoom debate. He was interested. Are you in for that, Joy? Maybe Jay Yablon would like to moderate. Several of the referees would probably be very interested too.

No, I am not interested. There is nothing to debate.
.
Joy Christian
Research Physicist
 
Posts: 2793
Joined: Wed Feb 05, 2014 4:49 am
Location: Oxford, United Kingdom

Re: My Challenge to All Bell-Believers --- Meet it or Beat i

Postby gill1109 » Mon Feb 08, 2021 9:27 am

Joy Christian wrote:
gill1109 wrote:
Joy Christian wrote:
gill1109 wrote:
Yes, the reports arrived this morning, the paper is accepted subject to a final revision!

I will believe it when I see the paper online on the IEEE website.

I mentioned to Derek Abbott the idea of having a Zoom debate. He was interested. Are you in for that, Joy? Maybe Jay Yablon would like to moderate. Several of the referees would probably be very interested too.

No, I am not interested. There is nothing to debate.

Don't call it a debate then. You present something. I present something. Other people discuss. Other people also make some presentations. Call it a meeting, or a seminar, or a Spring school. You could give a course.

Or are you leaving science now?
gill1109
Mathematical Statistician
 
Posts: 2812
Joined: Tue Feb 04, 2014 10:39 pm
Location: Leiden

Re: My Challenge to All Bell-Believers --- Meet it or Beat i

Postby Esail » Thu Feb 25, 2021 2:22 am

Joy Christian wrote:***
You are not permitted to surreptitiously replace the sum E(a, b) + E(a, b' ) + E(a', b) - E(a', b' ) of four separate averages with the following single average:

E( a, b, a', b' ) = << A(a)B(b) + A(a)B(b' ) + A(a' )B(b) - A(a' )B(b' ) >>


***


I suspect you did not understand Bell's reasoning. He writes (in my words) : If the measurement results can be described by unambiguous functions A (a, lambda) and B (b, lambda), then conclusions can be drawn from them - purely deductively. For instance
E(a, b) + E(a, b' ) + E(a', b) - E(a', b' ) = E( a, b, a', b' ) = << A(a)B(b) + A(a)B(b' ) + A(a' )B(b) - A(a' )B(b' ) >>
and finally Bell's inequality. This is purely mathematically and has nothing to do with the possibility of simultaneous measurements.

Now he realizes that QM violates Bell's inequality and concludes from this that nature is not local. This is wrong. It only means that no unambiguous functions A(a,lambda) and B(b,lambda) exist which could describe the measurement results. His claim nature is nonlocal would only be correct if there could be no other models for hidden variables than A (a, lambda) and B (b, lambda).
Esail
 
Posts: 132
Joined: Sun Jan 28, 2018 10:44 am

Re: My Challenge to All Bell-Believers --- Meet it or Beat i

Postby gill1109 » Fri Feb 26, 2021 4:35 am

I would like to see a mathematical or computer science definition of a non-conspiratorial local realistic model which could not be expressed through hidden variables models of the type discussed by Bell. Note: there is no suggestion that "lambda" is in any way "local". It can be classical information of any kind associated with source, detectors, transmission lines... Bell is only supposing that if Alice could choose between settings a1 and a2 then both associated outcomes x1 and x2 exist, mathematically, and do not depend on which setting b1 or b2 is chosen by Bob; and vice versa. One could take lambda to be the quadruple (x1, x2, y1, y2). A local hidden variable model is just a probability distribution over {-1, +1}^4. It's just a list of 16 probabilities adding up to 1. The model says: if Alice chooses setting i and Bob chooses setting j then they'll observe outcomes xi, yj with the probability which is obtained by summing 4 of the 16 probabilities in the just mentioned list.
gill1109
Mathematical Statistician
 
Posts: 2812
Joined: Tue Feb 04, 2014 10:39 pm
Location: Leiden

Re: My Challenge to All Bell-Believers --- Meet it or Beat i

Postby Curiosity » Fri Mar 05, 2021 8:12 am

Esail wrote:Now he realizes that QM violates Bell's inequality and concludes from this that nature is not local. This is wrong. It only means that no unambiguous functions A(a,lambda) and B(b,lambda) exist which could describe the measurement results. His claim nature is nonlocal would only be correct if there could be no other models for hidden variables than A (a, lambda) and B (b, lambda).


I think that is no correct. Why? Because the Bell inequality is valid even if we do not assume determinism.
Curiosity
 

Re: My Challenge to All Bell-Believers --- Meet it or Beat i

Postby gill1109 » Fri Mar 05, 2021 10:39 pm

Curiosity wrote:
Esail wrote:Now he realizes that QM violates Bell's inequality and concludes from this that nature is not local. This is wrong. It only means that no unambiguous functions A(a,lambda) and B(b,lambda) exist which could describe the measurement results. His claim nature is nonlocal would only be correct if there could be no other models for hidden variables than A (a, lambda) and B (b, lambda).


I think that is no correct. Why? Because the Bell inequality is valid even if we do not assume determinism.

Yes, what he says is correct, but it is empty. There are no other local hidden variables models which reproduce the singlet correlations than models which can be cast in the form A (a, lambda) and B (b, lambda). Determinism is indeed irrelevant.

A local hidden variables model would (a) be local and (b) satisfy counterfactual definiteness. One could create a probability space with random variables A_a and B_b, for all directions a and b, such that A_a is the outcome which Alice would see if she chose setting a. Now define lambda = the pair of functions (A_a, B_b; a, b directions). Nature chooses a 0/1 valued function A_(.), and a function B_(.). The experimenter chooses settings a, b. The experimenter observes outcomes A_(a) and B_(b).

The no-conspiracy assumption says that nature and the experimenter are not constrained by one another.
gill1109
Mathematical Statistician
 
Posts: 2812
Joined: Tue Feb 04, 2014 10:39 pm
Location: Leiden

PreviousNext

Return to Sci.Physics.Foundations

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 75 guests

cron
CodeCogs - An Open Source Scientific Library