Joy Christian wrote:Why don't you ask her yourself?

***

I did. She didn't answer.

Joy Christian wrote:Why don't you ask her yourself?

***

I did. She didn't answer.

- Heinera
**Posts:**608**Joined:**Thu Feb 06, 2014 1:50 am

Heinera wrote:I see that Sabine Hossenfelder has not yet mentioned this substantial paper on her now famous blog. This a COMPLETE DISGRACE! ! I know she is a friend of Joy Christian, and that they have some commercial operation going together. So WHY wouldn't SHE MENTION HIM ON HER BLOG? DISGRACEFUL!

troll noun [ C ] (COMPUTING)

- someone who leaves an intentionally annoying message on the internet, in order to get attention or cause trouble.

https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/troll

- minkwe
**Posts:**1024**Joined:**Sat Feb 08, 2014 10:22 am

Seems like RSOS has started a retraction process for the paper.

"An investigation into these aspects is under way, and the journal is therefore issuing an expression of concern and will notify readers as to the results of our investigation as soon as possible."

"An investigation into these aspects is under way, and the journal is therefore issuing an expression of concern and will notify readers as to the results of our investigation as soon as possible."

- Heinera
**Posts:**608**Joined:**Thu Feb 06, 2014 1:50 am

Heinera wrote:Seems like RSOS has started a retraction process for the paper.

"An investigation into these aspects is under way, and the journal is therefore issuing an expression of concern and will notify readers as to the results of our investigation as soon as possible."

I do not see any mention by RSOS of "retraction" or "withdrawal." Some extremely stupid comments have been posted about my paper by a few extremist Bell-believers (because they are petrified of my repudiation of Bell's so-called theorem), and therefore the journal is naturally obliged to investigate the matter following the standard COPE protocol.

Incidentally, so far my paper has been downloaded over fourteen thousand times from the journal's website. Thus, it is no wonder that some Bell-believers are petrified of my paper.

***

- Joy Christian
- Research Physicist
**Posts:**1984**Joined:**Wed Feb 05, 2014 4:49 am**Location:**Oxford, United Kingdom

Joy Christian wrote:I do not see any mention by RSOS of "retraction" or "withdrawal." Some extremely stupid comments have been posted about my paper by a few extremist Bell-believers (because they are petrified of my repudiation of Bell's so-called theorem), and therefore the journal is naturally obliged to investigate the matter following the standard COPE protocol.

***

Sure. But we all know how these "investigations" end. I just hope you get your money back.

- Heinera
**Posts:**608**Joined:**Thu Feb 06, 2014 1:50 am

Heinera wrote:Sure. But we all know how these "investigations" end. I just hope you get your money back.

I did not have to pay any publication fee to RSOS, so there is no question of getting anything back from them. And Bell's dead theorem will not be resurrected even if my paper is retracted. More than fourteen thousand people have already read my paper, so the cat is out of the bag. Only extremely stupid may continue to believe in Bell's theorem after having read my paper.

***

- Joy Christian
- Research Physicist
**Posts:**1984**Joined:**Wed Feb 05, 2014 4:49 am**Location:**Oxford, United Kingdom

Whatever. But you should stop your attempts at publishing, because having a paper published and then retracted is much, much worse for your reputation than not having attempted to publish. And you already had one retracted.

But I guess you don't care about your reputation anymore.

But I guess you don't care about your reputation anymore.

- Heinera
**Posts:**608**Joined:**Thu Feb 06, 2014 1:50 am

Heinera wrote:Whatever. But you should stop your attempts at publishing, because having a paper published and then retracted is much, much worse for your reputation than not having attempted to publish. And you already had one retracted.

But I guess you don't care about your reputation anymore.

Thanks for your concern, but my reputation is of no significance. What is important is that junk like "Bell's theorem" must be exposed at whatever cost, together with the stupidity of the intellectual lightweights who continue to believe in it. For this reason, I have submitted this paper to a very prominent journal with a policy of not retracting a paper once it is published.

I will, of course, announce the details on this forum and elsewhere as soon as the above paper is published. From now on I will be publishing my papers in journals which cannot be bullied.

***

- Joy Christian
- Research Physicist
**Posts:**1984**Joined:**Wed Feb 05, 2014 4:49 am**Location:**Oxford, United Kingdom

Having your paper published, retracted, and then re-published again in a journal of even higher prestige, would on the other hand give one a sublimely high reputation. Probably it has already happened a few times. "The Times They Are a-Changin".

- gill1109
- Mathematical Statistician
**Posts:**1507**Joined:**Tue Feb 04, 2014 10:39 pm**Location:**Leiden

gill1109 wrote:Having your paper published, retracted, and then re-published again in a journal of even higher prestige, would on the other hand give one a sublimely high reputation. Probably it has already happened a few times. "The Times They Are a-Changin".

The paper was retracted after some bogus complaint of "errors" in it was sent to the editors of Annals of Physics. But the journal failed to provide me any evidence of error, even privately, and even after repeated requests from me. I have documented the full context of the shoddy behavior of the journal in this regard in this thread: viewtopic.php?f=6&t=283&p=8139#p6853

I have also summarized my response to various criticisms of my paper that could have been sent to the journal in this paper: https://www.academia.edu/38423874/Refut ... ls_Theorem

Considering the gross injustice done to the paper and the setback that has inflicted to the foundations of physics, it is only fair that the paper is now being reconsidered for publication.

***

- Joy Christian
- Research Physicist
**Posts:**1984**Joined:**Wed Feb 05, 2014 4:49 am**Location:**Oxford, United Kingdom

gill1109 wrote:Having your paper published, retracted, and then re-published again in a journal of even higher prestige, would on the other hand give one a sublimely high reputation. Probably it has already happened a few times. "The Times They Are a-Changin".

Hi Richard, nice to see you back on this site!

- jreed
**Posts:**71**Joined:**Mon Feb 17, 2014 5:10 pm

jreed wrote:gill1109 wrote:Having your paper published, retracted, and then re-published again in a journal of even higher prestige, would on the other hand give one a sublimely high reputation. Probably it has already happened a few times. "The Times They Are a-Changin".

Hi Richard, nice to see you back on this site!

Thanks Jim!

All thanks to the enormous efforts and sublime patience of Jay Yablon, and thanks to the graciousness of Joy and Fred!

- gill1109
- Mathematical Statistician
**Posts:**1507**Joined:**Tue Feb 04, 2014 10:39 pm**Location:**Leiden

Joy Christian wrote:

The paper was retracted after some bogus complaint of "errors" in it was sent to the editors of Annals of Physics. But the journal failed to provide me any evidence of error, even privately, and even after repeated requests from me. I have documented the full context of the shoddy behavior of the journal in this regard in this thread: viewtopic.php?f=6&t=283&p=8139#p6853

I have also summarized my response to various criticisms of my paper that could have been sent to the journal in this paper: https://www.academia.edu/38423874/Refut ... ls_Theorem

Considering the gross injustice done to the paper and the setback that has inflicted to the foundations of physics, it is only fair that the paper is now being reconsidered for publication.

***

Good luck with it, Joy.

- FrediFizzx
- Independent Physics Researcher
**Posts:**1583**Joined:**Tue Mar 19, 2013 7:12 pm**Location:**N. California, USA

gill1109 wrote:jreed wrote:

Hi Richard, nice to see you back on this site!

Thanks Jim!

All thanks to the enormous efforts and sublime patience of Jay Yablon, and thanks to the graciousness of Joy and Fred!

I meant: John.

- gill1109
- Mathematical Statistician
**Posts:**1507**Joined:**Tue Feb 04, 2014 10:39 pm**Location:**Leiden

***

I wrote this paper last year. My first one in pure mathematics. After some minor improvements, it is now published on the arXiv. It is an explicit proof of the algebra used in the RSOS paper.

https://arxiv.org/abs/1908.06172

***

I wrote this paper last year. My first one in pure mathematics. After some minor improvements, it is now published on the arXiv. It is an explicit proof of the algebra used in the RSOS paper.

https://arxiv.org/abs/1908.06172

***

- Joy Christian
- Research Physicist
**Posts:**1984**Joined:**Wed Feb 05, 2014 4:49 am**Location:**Oxford, United Kingdom

Joy Christian wrote:***

I wrote this paper last year. My first one in pure mathematics. After some minor improvements, it is now published on the arXiv. It is an explicit proof of the algebra used in the RSOS paper.

https://arxiv.org/abs/1908.06172

Excellent! As you well know, I believe it is fatally flawed, as it contradicts the very well known and well understood Hurwitz's theorem https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hurwitz%27s_theorem_(composition_algebras). "The theorem states that if the quadratic form defines a homomorphism into the positive real numbers on the non-zero part of the algebra, then the algebra must be isomorphic to the real numbers, the complex numbers, the quaternions, or the octonions". I would be surprised if you can get any support for the content of this paper from qualified pure mathematicians. Of course, the devil is in the details.

See also John Baez's magisterial work on the octonions http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/octonions/, in particular, Theorem 1 on

the "preliminaries" page http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/octonions/node2.html.

I have elsewhere detailed exactly where, I believe, your proof goes off the rails. A telling phrase in the paper is that you write, just after the crucial formula (10), "provided the norms are calculated employing the fundamental geometric product instead of the usual scalar product". This is a bit odd since it is completely irrelevant to the Hurwitz' theorem *how* norms are calculated. The only thing that is important is that there is a quadratic form defining a homomorphism into the positive real numbers on the non-zero part of the algebra. You have a norm which generates a quadratic form in the usual way by the process called "polarization". It does define a homomorphism into the positive real numbers on the non-zero part of the algebra. At the end of the paper, you again write " this difference arises because we have used the geometric product XX† rather than the scalar product to derive the constraint". This gives a clue to the error in your computations: I believe that your derivation of (63) was wrong. But I am not an expert, and it is a while since I looked at the details. I hope some real experts do peruse the details very carefully indeed.

But I very much doubt that you have escaped Hurwitz' theorem! (If you have, your result will send shockwaves through the world of pure mathematics).

- gill1109
- Mathematical Statistician
**Posts:**1507**Joined:**Tue Feb 04, 2014 10:39 pm**Location:**Leiden

gill1109 wrote:

I believe it is fatally flawed, as it contradicts the very well known and well understood Hurwitz's theorem

I disagree on both counts. There is no contraction between the correct proof of the algebra presented in my paper and Hurwitz's theorem. Indeed, since 1898 it has been believed that only four normed division algebras are possible: (1) real numbers, (2) complex numbers, (3) quaternions, and (4) octonions, in 1, 2, 4 and 8 dimensions, respectively, with only octonions forming a non-associative algebra. I have found a fifth one. An 8-dimensional associative normed division algebra, based on six imaginaries instead of seven. As you say, the devil is in the details.

gill1109 wrote:

I have elsewhere detailed exactly where, I believe, your proof goes off the rails. A telling phrase in the paper is that you write, just after the crucial formula (10), "provided the norms are calculated employing the fundamental geometric product instead of the usual scalar product". This is a bit odd since it is completely irrelevant to the Hurwitz's theorem *how* norms are calculated.

It does not matter how the norms are calculated. They can indeed be calculated using a scalar product. I have a good reason for using the fundamental geometric product. It does require some basic understanding of Geometric Algebra. Elsewhere I have exposed your elementary mistakes in Geometric Algebra: https://www.academia.edu/38423874/Refut ... ls_Theorem.

***

- Joy Christian
- Research Physicist
**Posts:**1984**Joined:**Wed Feb 05, 2014 4:49 am**Location:**Oxford, United Kingdom

Joy Christian wrote:...

As you say, the devil is in the details.

...

It does not matter how the norms are calculated. They can indeed be calculated using a scalar product. I have a good reason for using the fundamental geometric product. It does require some basic understanding of Geometric Algebra. Elsewhere I have exposed your elementary mistakes in Geometric Algebra: https://www.academia.edu/38423874/Refut ... ls_Theorem.

Dear Joy

In the literature reference you gave just now, you "exposed" my incorrect terminology in some earlier critiques by me of some of your earlier work. In the meantime, I do think I have acquired "some basic understanding of Geometric Algebra". And more besides.

Your work is a moving target. Over the years, you try new tricks, and I learn more about Geometric Algebra and about Clifford Algebra and about Division Algebras. Your work has been a great inspiration and stimulus for me.

I do not believe that you ever exposed a fundamental error in my writings, and I still maintain that every one of your writings about your (always evolving) model is fundamentally flawed, sometimes for the same and sometimes for new reasons. It seems to me that you keep trying to hide an original error in ever more sophisticated mathematics. You are clearly able to convince yourself that this is not the case. I wish you good luck in your attempts to convince others.

Notice that one of my critiques of one of your papers was peer-reviewed and published by the same prestigious journal ((International Journal of Theoretical Physics) which had published one of your papers. I suppose that this is reflection on referee standards at that once-famous journal. It has an editorial board mainly consisting of aged Nobel Prize winners but I doubt any of the editorial board has much to do with the day to day running of the journal.

My critique on the mathematical core of your RSOS paper was posted (by me) on the RSOS article's own web-pages. It is not addressed by what you write about my earlier work in the earlier publication by you which you just cited. Your present "ad hominem" remark about my knowledge of geometric algebra is no more than that - an ad hominem remark. In your own words, you have now set up a new straw-man to attack - your image of myself.

You do claim on the RSOS web-pages to refute each of my new criticisms on the new (RSOS) paper, but the jury is still out on that one. Unfortunately, so far, no undisputed world expert in the field has taken any interest whatsoever in the affair. I hope that the RS has now succeeded in recruiting such a person. I, for one, would certainly submit to the judgement of John Baez.

- gill1109
- Mathematical Statistician
**Posts:**1507**Joined:**Tue Feb 04, 2014 10:39 pm**Location:**Leiden

***

I do not care about your opinion of my work. You do not have the qualifications to judge it. You have shown no understanding of Geometric Algebra despite years of my efforts to teach you.

***

I do not care about your opinion of my work. You do not have the qualifications to judge it. You have shown no understanding of Geometric Algebra despite years of my efforts to teach you.

***

- Joy Christian
- Research Physicist
**Posts:**1984**Joined:**Wed Feb 05, 2014 4:49 am**Location:**Oxford, United Kingdom

Joy Christian wrote:I do not care about your opinion of my work. You do not have the qualifications to judge it. You have shown no understanding of Geometric Algebra despite years of my efforts to teach you.

That's fine then! Everyone is welcome to their own opinions.

I do know that I still have much to learn, and I still enjoy learning new stuff, every day.

- gill1109
- Mathematical Statistician
**Posts:**1507**Joined:**Tue Feb 04, 2014 10:39 pm**Location:**Leiden

Return to Sci.Physics.Foundations

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 4 guests