58 posts
• Page **1** of **3** • **1**, 2, 3

***

One of my papers refuting Bell’s theorem is just published by IEEE. It is the third in a series of my papers that both formally and constructively overcome the claims of Bell’s theorem:

The paper is open access and can be downloaded freely: https://doi.org/10.1109/ACCESS.2019.2941275. Fortunately, I did not have to pay open access fees. I was given 100% discount.

The other two papers are published, respectively, by IJTP (International Journal of Theoretical Physics) and RSOS (the Open Science journal published by the Royal Society of London). The latter paper presents a comprehensive local-realistic framework for All quantum correlations, and the former proposes an experimental test of this framework in the macroscopic domain.

It is worth noting that there were seventeen reviewers and two rounds of extensive reviews before IEEE accepted my paper. During the review process, the editors and reviewers were fully aware of the fact that an earlier version of the submitted manuscript was retracted by Annals of Physics on dubious grounds. They were also fully aware of all online criticisms of my work dating back 2011 and my detailed responses to them, such as those summarized in the Ref. [59] of the IEEE paper linked above: https://www.academia.edu/38423874/Refut ... ls_Theorem.

The constructive model presented in the three papers linked above is the quaternionic 3-sphere model. This model has been discussed many times in this forum. But quite independently of this model, the RSOS and IEEE papers also present criticisms of Bell's formal argument in its own terms. Thus the papers present both formal and constructive refutations of Bell's theorem.

The problem with the formal claim of Bell's "theorem" is very easy to understand. Ironically, it was Bell himself who showed the succinct way to appreciate the problem with his "theorem."

The acceptance of my constructive refutation of Bell's theorem by three highly respected international journals is a clear message that the past criticisms of my work (by a few individuals) have been rejected by the larger physics community. However, I have included a long list of "Questions and Answers" in an appendix of the IEEE paper that responds to all known criticisms.

Several participants of this forum deserve credit for helping me with my 3-sphere model, via discussions or by direct contributions. Their efforts have been acknowledged in the IEEE paper.

***

One of my papers refuting Bell’s theorem is just published by IEEE. It is the third in a series of my papers that both formally and constructively overcome the claims of Bell’s theorem:

The paper is open access and can be downloaded freely: https://doi.org/10.1109/ACCESS.2019.2941275. Fortunately, I did not have to pay open access fees. I was given 100% discount.

The other two papers are published, respectively, by IJTP (International Journal of Theoretical Physics) and RSOS (the Open Science journal published by the Royal Society of London). The latter paper presents a comprehensive local-realistic framework for All quantum correlations, and the former proposes an experimental test of this framework in the macroscopic domain.

It is worth noting that there were seventeen reviewers and two rounds of extensive reviews before IEEE accepted my paper. During the review process, the editors and reviewers were fully aware of the fact that an earlier version of the submitted manuscript was retracted by Annals of Physics on dubious grounds. They were also fully aware of all online criticisms of my work dating back 2011 and my detailed responses to them, such as those summarized in the Ref. [59] of the IEEE paper linked above: https://www.academia.edu/38423874/Refut ... ls_Theorem.

The constructive model presented in the three papers linked above is the quaternionic 3-sphere model. This model has been discussed many times in this forum. But quite independently of this model, the RSOS and IEEE papers also present criticisms of Bell's formal argument in its own terms. Thus the papers present both formal and constructive refutations of Bell's theorem.

The problem with the formal claim of Bell's "theorem" is very easy to understand. Ironically, it was Bell himself who showed the succinct way to appreciate the problem with his "theorem."

The acceptance of my constructive refutation of Bell's theorem by three highly respected international journals is a clear message that the past criticisms of my work (by a few individuals) have been rejected by the larger physics community. However, I have included a long list of "Questions and Answers" in an appendix of the IEEE paper that responds to all known criticisms.

Several participants of this forum deserve credit for helping me with my 3-sphere model, via discussions or by direct contributions. Their efforts have been acknowledged in the IEEE paper.

***

- Joy Christian
- Research Physicist
**Posts:**2269**Joined:**Wed Feb 05, 2014 4:49 am**Location:**Oxford, United Kingdom

That is great news. Congrats!

.

.

- FrediFizzx
- Independent Physics Researcher
**Posts:**1835**Joined:**Tue Mar 19, 2013 7:12 pm**Location:**N. California, USA

Congratulations Joy, and I'm humbled by the acknowledgement. Thanks!

- minkwe
**Posts:**1151**Joined:**Sat Feb 08, 2014 10:22 am

***

Thanks, Fred and Michel, for your congratulations.

I should mention that IEEE journals do not retract papers once they are published. They are not insecure like Annals of Physics. So, try as some will, that trick is not going to work this time.

***

Thanks, Fred and Michel, for your congratulations.

I should mention that IEEE journals do not retract papers once they are published. They are not insecure like Annals of Physics. So, try as some will, that trick is not going to work this time.

***

- Joy Christian
- Research Physicist
**Posts:**2269**Joined:**Wed Feb 05, 2014 4:49 am**Location:**Oxford, United Kingdom

Joy Christian wrote:***

Thanks, Fred and Michel, for your congratulations.

I should mention that IEEE journals do not retract papers once they are published. They are not insecure like Annals of Physics. So, try as some will, that trick is not going to work this time.

***

You're welcome. I guess there are some brave folks at IEEE. That's good as now it is time to get rid of the Bell nonsense and non-locality nonsense forever.

.

- FrediFizzx
- Independent Physics Researcher
**Posts:**1835**Joined:**Tue Mar 19, 2013 7:12 pm**Location:**N. California, USA

I particularly enjoyed the Q&A section at the end. It was great of the editors to allow that to be included. Every paper should have one.

- minkwe
**Posts:**1151**Joined:**Sat Feb 08, 2014 10:22 am

minkwe wrote:

I particularly enjoyed the Q&A section at the end. It was great of the editors to allow that to be included. Every paper should have one.

Yes, that was a great suggestion by the editors. The extensive review process brought up some good questions and they thought that my answers to them would benefit the community.

***

- Joy Christian
- Research Physicist
**Posts:**2269**Joined:**Wed Feb 05, 2014 4:49 am**Location:**Oxford, United Kingdom

Joy Christian wrote:minkwe wrote:

I particularly enjoyed the Q&A section at the end. It was great of the editors to allow that to be included. Every paper should have one.

Yes, that was a great suggestion by the editors. The extensive review process brought up some good questions and they thought that my answers to them would benefit the community.

***

Yes, I liked the Q&A section in Appendix B also. For the simulation, I programmed the complete states function in GAViewer for the GA model and then outputted the +/-1 data for A, B and theta. Then copied and pasted into Word so I could format the data into lines that could be imported into Excel. Then saved as a .csv file that then was imported into Mathematica for data analysis. Here is the result for about 200K worth of events.

CHSH = 2.73098

I will post the code for GAViewer and Mathematica if anyone is interested.

.

- FrediFizzx
- Independent Physics Researcher
**Posts:**1835**Joined:**Tue Mar 19, 2013 7:12 pm**Location:**N. California, USA

***

Many thanks, Fred. Yes, please, post the codes.

***

Many thanks, Fred. Yes, please, post the codes.

***

- Joy Christian
- Research Physicist
**Posts:**2269**Joined:**Wed Feb 05, 2014 4:49 am**Location:**Oxford, United Kingdom

Joy Christian wrote:***

Many thanks, Fred. Yes, please, post the codes.

***

You're welcome. Here is the GAViewer code that produces the +/-1's for the A and B outcomes plus the angle theta between a and b.

- Code: Select all
`//Adaptation of Albert Jan Wonnink's original code based on GAViewer for Joy Christian's S^3 Model`

//of the 2-particle correlation via Complete States Function.

function getRandomLambda()

{

if( rand()>0.5) {return 1;} else {return -1;}

}

function getRandomUnitVector() //uniform random unit vector:

//http://mathworld.wolfram.com/SpherePointPicking.html

{

v=randGaussStd()*e1+randGaussStd()*e2+ randGaussStd()*e3; //3D Vectors

return normalize(v);

}

batch test()

{

set_window_title("3D Test of Complete States GA S^3 Model for the 2-particle correlation");

default_model(p3ga);

N=400000; //number of iterations (trials)

I=e1^e2^e3;

ss=0;

t=0;

u=0;

for(nn=0;nn<N;nn=nn+1) //perform the experiment N times

{

a=getRandomUnitVector();

Da=I a;

b=getRandomUnitVector();

Db=I b;

e=getRandomUnitVector(); //singlet spin vector 3D

s=rand()*pi; //complete states function

z=-1+2/(sqrt(1+3*s/pi));

if(a.e>0) {S1=Da;} else {S1=-Da;} //polarizer takes S1 to +/-Da

if(b.e>0) {S2=Db;} else {S2=-Db;} //polarizer takes S2 to +/-Db

lambda=getRandomLambda(); //lambda is a fair coin, giving the +1 or -1 choice

if(abs(a.e)<z) {A=0;} else {A=(Da*lambda*(-S1));} //A=0 means "no state"

if(abs(b.e)<z) {B=0;} else {B=(lambda*S2*Db);} //B=0 means "no state"

q=0;

if(lambda==1) {q=(Da (-S2))(S2 Db);} else {q=(Db S1)((-S1) Da);}

ss=ss+q;

p_a=atan2(scalar(Da/(e3^e1)), scalar(Da/(e2^e3))); //Get angle for a vector in x-y plane

p_b=atan2(scalar(Db/(e2^e3)), scalar(Db/(e3^e1))); //Get angle for b vector in x-y plane

//neg_adotb=-(a.b);

//print(neg_adotb, "f"); //Outputs -a.b event by event

if(p_a*p_b>0) {theta=acos(a.b)*180/pi;} else {theta=-acos(a.b)*180/pi+360;}

print(theta, "f"); //Output the angles event by event

//print(correlation=scalar(q), "f"); //Output the correlations event by event

print(A);

print(B);

t=t+A;

u=u+B;

}

mean=ss/N;

print(mean, "f"); //shows the vanishing of the non-scalar part

aveA=t/N;

print(aveA, "f"); //verifies that individual average < A > = 0

aveB=u/N;

print(aveB, "f"); //verifies that individual average < B > = 0

prompt();

}

Here is a PDF of the Mathematica code.

EPRsims/GAviewertoMath2.pdf

Here is a link to the .csv data file that is imported into Mathematica.

EPRsims/gaviewer400k.csv

Enjoy!

.

- FrediFizzx
- Independent Physics Researcher
**Posts:**1835**Joined:**Tue Mar 19, 2013 7:12 pm**Location:**N. California, USA

Joy Christian wrote:Thanks, Fred and Michel, for your congratulations.

I should mention that IEEE journals do not retract papers once they are published. They are not insecure like Annals of Physics. So, try as some will, that trick is not going to work this time.

Congratulations! Brilliant to choose a journal which does not do retractions!

This is going to make the workshop and symposium all the more timely, important, exciting.

I was not planning to play any more tricks on your future work. I leave that to the present young generation, and to future generations. I do wonder when you are going to thank me for my own positive contributions to your whole research programme in one of your papers. I can't forgive you for your past misdeeds, till you have done that.

How is the maths paper doing?

Greetings to all from Shanghai! Beautiful weather! Really nice people. Fantastic food of course... Internet a bit difficult of course (e.g. no Google or Facebook). But fortunately the problems are not insuperable.

- gill1109
- Mathematical Statistician
**Posts:**1756**Joined:**Tue Feb 04, 2014 10:39 pm**Location:**Leiden

gill1109 wrote:

I do wonder when you are going to thank me for my own positive contributions ...

Your contribution to my 3-sphere model has been acknowledged in the IEEE paper.

***

- Joy Christian
- Research Physicist
**Posts:**2269**Joined:**Wed Feb 05, 2014 4:49 am**Location:**Oxford, United Kingdom

Joy Christian wrote:gill1109 wrote:I do wonder when you are going to thank me for my own positive contributions ...

Your contribution to my 3-sphere model has been acknowledged in the IEEE paper.

Thanks! I am going to read it, soon I hope, but I also need to prepare a big lecture today and three hours lectures tomorrow and another lecture the day after ... and, the Great Internet Wall of China costs a lot of time and difficulty to get around.

I will give your paper, Joy, to my students, as an assignment.

- gill1109
- Mathematical Statistician
**Posts:**1756**Joined:**Tue Feb 04, 2014 10:39 pm**Location:**Leiden

FrediFizzx wrote:Yes, I liked the Q&A section in Appendix B also. For the simulation, I programmed the complete states function in GAViewer for the GA model and then outputted the +/-1 data for A, B and theta. Then copied and pasted into Word so I could format the data into lines that could be imported into Excel. Then saved as a .csv file that then was imported into Mathematica for data analysis. Here is the result for about 200K worth of events.

CHSH = 2.73098

I will post the code for GAViewer and Mathematica if anyone is interested.

.

Now, doing the simulation in GAViewer was not entirely necessary as one thing I found out doing these simulations is that when the polarizer functions are implemented both the GA and QM model measurement functions reduce to lambda*sign(n.s) where n is a or b and s is the singlet spin vector.

and

So the difference between the QM and GA measurement functions is just a sign.

.

- FrediFizzx
- Independent Physics Researcher
**Posts:**1835**Joined:**Tue Mar 19, 2013 7:12 pm**Location:**N. California, USA

It's an interesting new journal. The editor-in-chief, Derek Abbott, certainly is a very interesting guy.

https://www.adelaide.edu.au/directory/derek.abbott

He did some rather nice work on forensic science which we communicated about just a short time ago.

https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/can-you-help-solve-cold-case-derek-abbott/

The journal has 200 Associate Editors

https://ieeeaccess.ieee.org/editorial-leadership-and-staff/associate-editors/

Since 2013 it has published 20 000 papers

https://ieeeaccess.ieee.org/learn-more-about-ieee-access/announcements/ieee-access-now-over-15000-articles-published-2-2/

I think I should submit my unpublished arXiv paper on the Pearle model there

https://arxiv.org/abs/1505.04431

I also have an unpublished arXiv paper on Michel's model

https://arxiv.org/abs/1507.00106

Caroline Thompson knew about the Pearle model. So did Luigi Accardi (who, by the way, did actually have it programmed and who published about it *many* times). I discussed it personally with him, long ago. I think I first learnt about the Pearle model from reading those author's papers, long before I took a look at Michel's programmes. Here is a reference to one of Luigi's https://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0112067, here is one of Caroline's https://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/9611037. As I've said before: she was disgracefully suppressed by the establishment, and her academic research career was effectively destroyed.

Hans de Raedt and Christiel Michielsen also had already published their work and published their algorithms and had published web based demonstrations of the detection loophole

Michel, where did you get your ideas from? You published your computer code, which was enough for me to work out the mathematical model which you were using, but (AFAIK) you never published any mathematical theory or literature references.

https://www.adelaide.edu.au/directory/derek.abbott

He did some rather nice work on forensic science which we communicated about just a short time ago.

https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/can-you-help-solve-cold-case-derek-abbott/

The journal has 200 Associate Editors

https://ieeeaccess.ieee.org/editorial-leadership-and-staff/associate-editors/

Since 2013 it has published 20 000 papers

https://ieeeaccess.ieee.org/learn-more-about-ieee-access/announcements/ieee-access-now-over-15000-articles-published-2-2/

I think I should submit my unpublished arXiv paper on the Pearle model there

https://arxiv.org/abs/1505.04431

I also have an unpublished arXiv paper on Michel's model

https://arxiv.org/abs/1507.00106

Caroline Thompson knew about the Pearle model. So did Luigi Accardi (who, by the way, did actually have it programmed and who published about it *many* times). I discussed it personally with him, long ago. I think I first learnt about the Pearle model from reading those author's papers, long before I took a look at Michel's programmes. Here is a reference to one of Luigi's https://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0112067, here is one of Caroline's https://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/9611037. As I've said before: she was disgracefully suppressed by the establishment, and her academic research career was effectively destroyed.

Hans de Raedt and Christiel Michielsen also had already published their work and published their algorithms and had published web based demonstrations of the detection loophole

Michel, where did you get your ideas from? You published your computer code, which was enough for me to work out the mathematical model which you were using, but (AFAIK) you never published any mathematical theory or literature references.

- gill1109
- Mathematical Statistician
**Posts:**1756**Joined:**Tue Feb 04, 2014 10:39 pm**Location:**Leiden

Not sure why you care about this so much? You must think that Joy was right all along that Bell's junk physic theory is just that. Junk physics. Guess what? It is.

.

.

- FrediFizzx
- Independent Physics Researcher
**Posts:**1835**Joined:**Tue Mar 19, 2013 7:12 pm**Location:**N. California, USA

gill1109 wrote:

Michel, where did you get your ideas from? You published your computer code, which was enough for me to work out the mathematical model which you were using, but (AFAIK) you never published any mathematical theory or literature references.

Michel may have his own view about where he got his ideas from (and may correct me on this), but let me recall the online discussions which led to Michel's own "EPR simple" simulation:

In 2011 my disproof of Bell's theorem was under attack online at various websites, including at FQXi. One of the main attackers was you, Richard D. Gill. The misguided demand in many attacks was for a simulation of my model for the EPRB correlations. I had no interest or ability to simulate my model at the time. It was Chantal Roth who first approached me privately and offered her help. Chantal is a superb programmer and I was lucky to have her help. After many attempts, Chantal Roth and I finally produced a viable computer simulation of my 3-sphere model. This was then discussed on the old Usenet forum where Fred Diether and Jay Yablon were moderators. That is where Michel entered the discussion and also tried to independently simulate the EPRB correlations while participating in the Usenet forum in the discussion about my model. Thus it was the pioneering simulation works of Chantal Roth and Michel Fodje in weeks of close collaborations with me on theoretical issues which led to Michel's original "EPR simple" simulation. This success triggered intense discussions on several blogs among many participants, culminating in Fred setting up this particular forum to foster further collaboration with all parties involved. You, Richard Gill, were a very late comer into these discussions.

As for Pearle's 1970 paper, I learned about it in the 1980s from Pearle himself, who often visited us at Boston University in the USA where I was a doctoral student under Abner Shimony.

***

- Joy Christian
- Research Physicist
**Posts:**2269**Joined:**Wed Feb 05, 2014 4:49 am**Location:**Oxford, United Kingdom

Here is a link to about when Michel created epr-simple.

https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.phy ... XDA-aei3sJ

.

https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.phy ... XDA-aei3sJ

.

- FrediFizzx
- Independent Physics Researcher
**Posts:**1835**Joined:**Tue Mar 19, 2013 7:12 pm**Location:**N. California, USA

FrediFizzx wrote:Not sure why you care about this so much? You must think that Joy was right all along that Bell's junk physic theory is just that. Junk physics. Guess what? It is.

.

I think that Pearle was right, and Caroline Thompson was right, that the experimental results of the time could easily be explained by the so-called detection loophole. Other people also very early on programmed the detection loophole - Accardi; de Raedt; ....

If you look at the formulas which Michel had implemented in Python code in epr-simple, they have nothing to do with the formulas which Chantal Roth had programmed for Joy, or the formulas which she programmed for Bryan Sanctuary.

Joy says that I contributed a tiny bit to Michel's work with the help of others on the forum. That is not true. I already knew about Pearle's work, and I looked it up, and corrected Pearle's mistakes, and checked my mathematics with the help of Florin Modoveanu. I programmed it in R and showed all you guys the results. I was delighted to see the close family resememblence of Fodje's model, Caroline's model, Pearle's model. The big difference was that Pearle's generated exactly the cosine (in fact, he exhibited a whole family of models which did that). The others did not. No amount of fine tuning would make them fit exactly. Christian did not contribute to this process. When I told him about Pearle's model he was delighted, he had quite forgotten about it. People at the time used to write in their articles about the detection loophole that Pearle had done a theoretical analysis which established some bound. Nobody thought that his model could actually be implemented as computer program (except Luigi Accardi, who also had programs written which reproduced the cosine *exactly*).

I would love to know where Michel got his ideas from. He has always been rather secretive about that. His github site does not give literature references to the literature which existed at the time he first posted those programs on github. He was even angry at me for translating his Python assignments into mathematical definitions.

I think that Pearle should be credited. And Joy should not belittle my little contribution to a complex history.

- gill1109
- Mathematical Statistician
**Posts:**1756**Joined:**Tue Feb 04, 2014 10:39 pm**Location:**Leiden

***

I disagree with the claims made above by Richard Gill. What he has written is a gross misrepresentation of what actually led to Michel's original "EPR simple" simulation. I have not belittled Richard Gill's contribution. It has been acknowledged in my IEEE paper. But I am not going to give more credit to anyone than what they actually deserve. I am not running a credit charity.

***

I disagree with the claims made above by Richard Gill. What he has written is a gross misrepresentation of what actually led to Michel's original "EPR simple" simulation. I have not belittled Richard Gill's contribution. It has been acknowledged in my IEEE paper. But I am not going to give more credit to anyone than what they actually deserve. I am not running a credit charity.

***

- Joy Christian
- Research Physicist
**Posts:**2269**Joined:**Wed Feb 05, 2014 4:49 am**Location:**Oxford, United Kingdom

58 posts
• Page **1** of **3** • **1**, 2, 3

Return to Sci.Physics.Foundations

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 5 guests