SciPhysicsForums.com

Heinera wrote:

FrediFizzx wrote:The challenge certainly does use the inequality.
.

The challenge is to reproduce the quantum correlations by simulation. There. Where did I say anything about an inequality?

That is a lie. Have you read the c****pot challenge? Read it. Its claim is that one cannot violate a certain Bell-type inequality. So what? Tell me what can, and show me how does it do it?

Only an idiot would claim that something violates a mathematical inequality.

***

Heinera wrote:

FrediFizzx wrote:The challenge certainly does use the inequality.
.

The challenge is to reproduce the quantum correlations by simulation. There. Where did I say anything about an inequality?

We are talking about the Quantum Randi Challenge. It uses the inequality. Which rigs it since it is mathematically impossible for ANYTHING to violate the inequality.

When you figure out how QM can predict individual event by event outcomes, let us know then we could do a simulation that you are NOW talking about. Maybe some day that "alarm bell" will go off in your head for you.
.

FrediFizzx wrote:

Heinera wrote:

FrediFizzx wrote:The challenge certainly does use the inequality.
.

The challenge is to reproduce the quantum correlations by simulation. There. Where did I say anything about an inequality?

We are talking about the Quantum Randi Challenge. It uses the inequality. Which rigs it since it is mathematically impossible for ANYTHING to violate the inequality.

When you figure out how QM can predict individual event by event outcomes, let us know then we could do a simulation that you are NOW talking about. Maybe some day that "alarm bell" will go off in your head for you.
.

The challenge does not specify any inequality. Just reproduce the quantum correlations, that's all.

Of course QM does not predict event by event outcomes. Have you spent ten years defending something that can do no better than QM? What's the point then?

***
All quantum correlations are reproducible (some explicitly and others in principle) within this elegantly local, realistic and deterministic framework: https://arxiv.org/abs/1806.02392.

***

Joy Christian wrote:***
All quantum correlations are reproducible (some explicitly and others in principle) within this elegantly local, realistic and deterministic framework: https://arxiv.org/abs/1806.02392.

***

Seems to me that QM already does a perfect job at "reproducing" the quantum correlations. So where's the beef?

Heinera wrote:

Joy Christian wrote:***
All quantum correlations are reproducible (some explicitly and others in principle) within this elegantly local, realistic and deterministic framework: https://arxiv.org/abs/1806.02392.

Seems to me that QM already does a perfect job at "reproducing" the quantum correlations. So where's the beef?

Can you read English? Or are you playing a blind and deaf Bell-believer as usual?

My statement says "...within this elegantly local, realistic and deterministic framework: https://arxiv.org/abs/1806.02392 ."

***

Joy Christian wrote:

Heinera wrote:

Joy Christian wrote:***
All quantum correlations are reproducible (some explicitly and others in principle) within this elegantly local, realistic and deterministic framework: https://arxiv.org/abs/1806.02392.

Seems to me that QM already does a perfect job at "reproducing" the quantum correlations. So where's the beef?

Can you read English? Or are you playing a blind and deaf Bell-believer as usual?

My statement says "...within this elegantly local, realistic and deterministic framework: https://arxiv.org/abs/1806.02392 ."

***

Yes, but where is the beef? I understand it is "elegant". So what? No beef for you.

Heinera wrote:

Joy Christian wrote:

Heinera wrote:

Joy Christian wrote:***
All quantum correlations are reproducible (some explicitly and others in principle) within this elegantly local, realistic and deterministic framework: https://arxiv.org/abs/1806.02392.

Seems to me that QM already does a perfect job at "reproducing" the quantum correlations. So where's the beef?

Can you read English? Or are you playing a blind and deaf Bell-believer as usual?

My statement says "...within this elegantly local, realistic and deterministic framework: https://arxiv.org/abs/1806.02392 ."

***

Yes, but where is the beef? I understand it is "elegant". So what? No beef for you.

For beef, you go to the butcher. Trolling here will not find you beef. This thread is for discussion by those who have some provable qualifications in physics and mathematics, not for trolls.

***

The "beef" is we have proven that QM is local. No spooky junk physics!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Joy Christian wrote:***
All quantum correlations are reproducible (some explicitly and others in principle) within this elegantly local, realistic and deterministic framework: https://arxiv.org/abs/1806.02392.

***

As you know, my opinion, Joy, is that you use sophisticated mathematical tools in order to hide incredible and elementary errors which, like bumps under the carpet, will always stay there. The best you can do is hide them under the furniture. Hence your longest papers have the heaviest furniture. However, it has been an incredibly rich learning experience watching the developments of your theory over the years. I'm looking forward to a great workshop and symposium. The problem is a lack of mathematical discipline. Sure, it is a kind of brain-washing which mathematicians have to undergo to become mathematicians. In Dutch we call them "mierenneukers", which literally means people who f*** ants. However, this has led to incredible human achievements such as, for instance, the proof of Fermat's last theorem. The mentality of physicists is very, very different. And they always have the escape-clause that "nature has the last word".

gill1109 wrote:

Joy Christian wrote:***
All quantum correlations are reproducible (some explicitly and others in principle) within this elegantly local, realistic and deterministic framework: https://arxiv.org/abs/1806.02392.

***

As you know, my opinion, Joy, is that you use sophisticated mathematical tools in order to hide incredible and elementary errors which, like bumps under the carpet, will always stay there. The best you can do is hide them under the furniture. Hence your longest papers have the heaviest furniture. However, it has been an incredibly rich learning experience watching the developments of your theory over the years. I'm looking forward to a great workshop and symposium. The problem is a lack of mathematical discipline. Sure, it is a kind of brain-washing which mathematicians have to undergo to become mathematicians. In Dutch we call them "mierenneukers", which literally means people who f*** ants. However, this has led to incredible human achievements such as, for instance, the proof of Fermat's last theorem. The mentality of physicists is very, very different. And they always have the escape-clause that "nature has the last word".

And you know my opinion: You pretend to know everything but, in fact, know nothing. Your opinion of my work is not worth a penny because it stems entirely from your dogmatic belief in Bell's flawed theorem. Moreover, as I have pointed out many times before, you do not have a physical or mathematical background to understand my work. Please do not forget that you are a statistician, not a mathematician or a physicist. Unfortunately, those without the expertise and/or peer-revised publication record in geometric algebra usually tend to misunderstand my work. In fact, some expertise or peer-reviewed publication record, not only in geometric algebra, but also in division algebras, differential geometry, topology, fiber bundles, and general relativity is essential for understanding my work on quantum correlations and Bell’s theorem. Please do not forget that you have no background or expertise in any of these vital subjects.

PS: In the past, I have exposed extremely elementary mathematical mistakes by Richard D. Gill, as summarized in this paper: https://www.academia.edu/38423874/Refut ... ls_Theorem.

***

It really boggles my mind that an immediate giant alarm bell doesn't go off in Bell fan's heads when you have an inequality that is mathematically impossible to violate that is supposedly "violated" by QM and the experiments. That should tell you that something is not correct right there. What the heck happened to their alarm bells?
.

Joy Christian wrote:Please do not forget that you are a statistician, not a mathematician or a physicist. Unfortunately, those without the expertise and/or peer-reviewed publication record in geometric algebra usually tend to misunderstand my work. In fact, some expertise or peer-reviewed publication record, not only in geometric algebra, but also in division algebras, differential geometry, topology, fibre bundles, and general relativity is essential for understanding my work on quantum correlations and Bell’s theorem. Please do not forget that you have no background or expertise in any of these vital subjects.

Dear Joy, you are so funny when you start blowing your own trumpet!

Indeed, I am not a physicist. My value to physicists is that I am a mathematician, not a physicist.

I am primarily a mathematical statistician. That's a mathematician who explores the mathematical basis of applied statistics. The arrogant disparaging of statisticians is a well-known phenomenon. I think the times they are a changin' in that respect, though we do often call ourselves data scientists nowadays to bypass ignorance and prejudice.

Here's my Google scholar publication record:
https://scholar.google.nl/citations?user=yJj_DosAAAAJ&hl=en

I'm not aware that you have a stunning peer-reviewed publication record in differential geometry, topology, fibre bundles and general relativity. Not to mention geometric algebra and division algebras. As far as I know, you have exactly one publication in algebra: the preprint https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/hal-01933757/document. I do admire your style in submitting this work to peer review by specialists in the field. How is the peer review going?

gill1109 wrote:
I am primarily a mathematical statistician.

You are no mathematician. I recognize a mathematician when I see one. Mathematicians do not make the kind of mathematical mistakes you keep making. Your mistakes are not my errors.

***

Joy Christian wrote:

gill1109 wrote:I am primarily a mathematical statistician.

You are no mathematician. I recognize a mathematician when I see one. Mathematicians do not make the kind of mathematical mistakes you keep making. Your mistakes are not my errors.

You live in your own universe! Wonderful. I like it.

OK guys, let's get back on-topic here.
.

Joy Christian wrote:And you know my opinion: You pretend to know everything but, in fact, know nothing. Your opinion of my work is not worth a penny because it stems entirely from your dogmatic belief in Bell's flawed theorem. Moreover, as I have pointed out many times before, you do not have a physical or mathematical background to understand my work. Please do not forget that you are a statistician, not a mathematician or a physicist. Unfortunately, those without the expertise and/or peer-revised publication record in geometric algebra usually tend to misunderstand my work. In fact, some expertise or peer-reviewed publication record, not only in geometric algebra, but also in division algebras, differential geometry, topology, fiber bundles, and general relativity is essential for understanding my work on quantum correlations and Bell’s theorem. Please do not forget that you have no background or expertise in any of these vital subjects.

PS: In the past, I have exposed extremely elementary mathematical mistakes by Richard D. Gill, as summarized in this paper: https://www.academia.edu/38423874/Refut ... ls_Theorem.

***

Bell didn't use all of that advanced hypermathematics, so if you are correct, your ideas have value unrelated to Bell. And if Bell's theorem is junk, why even mention Bell's theorem in your paper? Sell it as a "spacetime geometry model of quantum correlations". Sure, it is good form to comment on related issues when writing a paper, but you have been pilloried enough for contesting Bell's theorem, that I would say you are excused from mentioning Bell at all. And people are objecting your model is not local, although you think it is, so why mention locality at all? People who think Bell had a valid point might actually think you have a valid point about spacetime geometry and quantum correlations. Why turn them away by continuing to write about Bell?

Unrelated notes, but to give my stance: I don't think you have "disproved Bell". And I am more impressed by applied papers than theoretical physics papers using advanced hypermathematics.

FrediFizzx wrote:It really boggles my mind that an immediate giant alarm bell doesn't go off in Bell fan's heads when you have an inequality that is mathematically impossible to violate that is supposedly "violated" by QM and the experiments. That should tell you that something is not correct right there. What the heck happened to their alarm bells?

Dear Fred
This oft-repeated statement of yours boggles my mind.

Bell derived a mathematical inequality under certain mathematical conditions, inspired by physical intuition. The inequality is trivial and the proof is elementary.

The inequality is violated by QM and by experiments.

Conclusion: the mathematical structure of QM is in conflict with those mathematical conditions. Moreover, because of the violation of the inequalities in very, very careful and rigorously performed experiments, the physical intuition which Bell translated into mathematics is wrong, or his translation is wrong.

A lot of very, very smart people have been discussing "what is wrong" for >> 50 years now. And they've been discussing the EPR paper for >> 80 years. Not many people claim that all this work was a waste of time and that the "problem" is completely illusory. Moreover, each of such persons has their own explanation for the whole big mess and does not agree with any of the others.

gill1109 wrote:
The inequality is violated by QM and by experiments.

For making this claim or statement your highschool diploma should be revoked. Only a mathematically illiterate person would claim that anything can violate a mathematical inequality.

***

Joy Christian wrote:

gill1109 wrote:The inequality is violated by QM and by experiments.

For making this claim or statement your highschool diploma should be revoked. Only a mathematically illiterate person would claim that anything can violate a mathematical inequality.

Dear Joy, your primary school reading diploma needs to be revoked!