Dr Bertlmann's socks and the 3-sphere model of EPR-Bohm

[local]

All eighteen reviewers as well as the editors of IEEE Access were fully aware of the criticisms and my responses to them throughout the two rounds of the review process.

Wow, has any paper ever been so thoroughly scrutinized? According to Gill they are all wrong. Another instance of his claim to exclusive judgement of what is "the real explanation". If only Gill's work would be subjected to such examination.

[Joy Christian]

All eighteen reviewers as well as the editors of IEEE Access were fully aware of the criticisms and my responses to them throughout the two rounds of the review process.

Wow, has any paper ever been so thoroughly scrutinized? According to Gill they are all wrong. Another instance of his claim to exclusive judgement of what is "the real explanation".

My work has been "peer" reviewed online and offline for the past thirteen years. It has gone through more scrutiny than that of any presidential candidate in the US. Everyone in the journal business knows that it has been "canceled by Richard D. Gill" long ago, as the Bell-diehard Howard Wiseman put it in his official review of my RSOS paper. I guess that is why my first IEEE Access paper was reviewed by 17 reviewers in two rounds of review, and my current IEEE Access paper was reviewed by 18 reviewers in two rounds of review. My response letter for the last reviews was 41 pages long, twice the length of the paper itself. At least some of the reviewers must be deeply disappointed that by now four of my anti-Bell papers have been published in prestigious journals. The sad part, however, is that Bell's theorem is not science and therefore it cannot be defeated by science. It is a sociologically and politically sustained belief system.

***

[gill1109]

All eighteen reviewers as well as the editors of IEEE Access were fully aware of the criticisms and my responses to them throughout the two rounds of the review process.

Wow, has any paper ever been so thoroughly scrutinized? According to Gill they are all wrong. Another instance of his claim to exclusive judgement of what is "the real explanation". If only Gill's work would be subjected to such examination.

"Local", I make *no* claim whatsoever to exclusive judgement. I am a mathematician, I do not know the "real" explanation for the singlet correlations. That's a matter for physicists to work out. I am submitting my paper https://arxiv.org/abs/2001.11338 to IEEE Access. I already updated it somewhat to take account of Joy's latest changes, see version 4 on arXiv on Monday; after that I must just format it using IEEE LaTeX style. I hope it will be reviewed by 18 competent referees. You are welcome to make comments here, or by personal message, or direct email. Joy will surely be one of the referees.

Personally, I am delighted with the publication of Joy's paper. it gives me an opportunity to convert my hard work in studying his over the years, into peer-reviewed journal papers, as has already happened several times now.

Let me recall and old story.

The story goes that Bertrand Russell, in a lecture on logic, mentioned that in the sense of material implication, a false proposition implies any proposition.

A student raised his hand and said: "In that case, given that 1 = 0, prove that you are the Pope."

Russell immediately replied:

"Add 1 to both sides of the equation: then we have 2 = 1. The set containing just me and the Pope has 2 members. But 2 = 1, so it has only 1 member; therefore, I am the Pope."

The moral of the story is that you can prove anything and claim anything about anything if you start out with an equation that is manifestly wrong in that its LHS is not equal to its RHS.

So don't forget to check your starting equation before making a fool of yourself.

That's how to do it!

[local]

I make *no* claim whatsoever to exclusive judgement.

You are the guy that recently posted that a theory you did not understand or accept was not the "real explanation" (quite hysterically if I recall). You put it in quotes, but you did not cite any source. Seems you are disingenuous about this. If would be easier for you just to apologize.

I am a mathematician, I do not know the "real" explanation for the singlet correlations.

Consider stopping to opine about it.

Please let us know when you figure out Latex styles.

[gill1109]

I make *no* claim whatsoever to exclusive judgement.

You are the guy that recently posted that a theory you did not understand or accept was not the "real explanation". You put it in quotes, but you did not cite any source. Seems you are disingenuous about this.

I am a mathematician, I do not know the "real" explanation for the singlet correlations.

Then you should stop opining about it.
Let us know when you figure out Latex styles.

I have published in an IEEE journal before. https://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0307125. Also in quite a few physics journals, and in quite a few mathematical journals.

Also in demography, forensic science, medicine. As a statistician, one gets to see a lot of the world. And to use a lot of LaTeX styles.

I hope it is allowed to offer an opinion about general matters of physics or the philosophy of science. What is your opinion, Local? And what is your expertise? Which opinion of mine were you specifically referring to?

[local]

Will help you if you use my correct handle: local. I don't tolerate disrespect. All clear?

[local]

The sad part, however, is that Bell's theorem is not science and therefore it cannot be defeated by science. It is a sociologically and politically sustained belief system.

Hard to disagree with that.

[gill1109]

Will help you if you use my correct handle: local. I don't tolerate disrespect.

On this forum, I can tolerate disrespect.

The sad part, however, is that Bell's theorem is not science and therefore it cannot be defeated by science. It is a sociologically and politically sustained belief system.

According to French philosophers of the '60s, that applies to *all* of science. It can only be defeated by a Marxist revolution.

[local]

According to French philosophers of the '60s

You should try thinking for yourself. Too hard?

[gill1109]

According to French philosophers of the '60s

You should try thinking for yourself. Too hard?

Ha, ha! I recently was talking to the French doctor from Marseilles who promotes hydroxychloroquin. He doesn’t like statistics or statisticians, at least, he doesn’t like top French academic statisticians. He quotes French Marxist and anarchist philosophers of the 60s to justify his utter loathing of them.

[local]

We're supposed to care about Gill's lunatic friends. He cites them to "refute" Joy's pertinent observations about the sociology of "Bell physics". A commie told Gill that all science is wrong and must be defeated by Marxism, so he posts that here thinking he's putting Joy in his place. Laughable. And now he's on a posting jag trying to distract us from his general incoherence, and his jumping the shark, with false erudition and useless quibbling about notation. Pathetic. Should we make a Little Richard jumping the shark GIF?

[gill1109]

We're supposed to care about Gill's lunatic friends. He cites them to "refute" Joy's pertinent observations about the sociology of "Bell physics". A commie told Gill that all science is wrong and must be defeated by Marxism, so he posts that here thinking he's putting Joy in his place. Laughable. And now he's on a posting jag trying to distract us from his general incoherence, and his jumping the shark, with false erudition and useless quibbling about notation. Pathetic. Should we make a Little Richard jumping the shark GIF?

I think we are getting somewhat off topic. Meanwhile, version 4 of https://arxiv.org/abs/2001.11338 is on arXiv. My next task is to get it into shape for submission to IEEE Access.

[gill1109]

Oops, there's a lot wrong with my version 4. Version 5 "is scheduled to be announced at Wed, 21 Oct 2020 00:00:00 GMT". I still have to convert to IEEE format. That will be version 6, which I'll submit to the journal.

I have a question: in Joy Christian's new paper, what does the "dot product" mean in equation (32): L(a, λ) = λ D(a) = λ I·a ?
lambda and I are scalar and pseudo-scalar respectively. Couldn't one just as well have written L(a, λ) = λ D(a) = λ I a ?

[gill1109]

Oops, there's a lot wrong with my version 4. Version 5 "is scheduled to be announced at Wed, 21 Oct 2020 00:00:00 GMT". I still have to convert to IEEE format. That will be version 6, which I'll submit to the journal.

I have a question: in Joy Christian's new paper, what does the "dot product" mean in equation (32): L(a, λ) = λ D(a) = λ I·a ?
lambda and I are scalar and pseudo-scalar respectively. Couldn't one just as well have written L(a, λ) = λ D(a) = λ I a ?

Actually I got everything done. The paper is submitted to IEEE Access. And it’ll be on arXiv tomorrow.

If it gets accepted, I have to pay $1,750.

[Joy Christian]

***
This paper is now officially published, with page numbers and everything, and can be downloaded freely: https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/stamp/stamp ... er=9226414.


***

[gill1109]

This paper is now officially published, with page numbers and everything, and can be downloaded freely: https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/stamp/stamp ... er=9226414.

That link gives you the pdf. One can post comments on the paper in a DISQUS forum at the end of the HTML version of the paper, https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/9226414

[Joy Christian]

This paper is now officially published, with page numbers and everything, and can be downloaded freely: https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/stamp/stamp ... er=9226414.

That link gives you the pdf. One can post comments on the paper in a DISQUS forum at the end of the HTML version of the paper, https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/9226414

You can comment-away as much as you like. But all four of my refutations of Bell's theorem are staying up, remaining published, and on your face. You will just have to live with that:

(1) Macroscopic observability of spinorial sign changes under 2pi rotations, International Journal of Theoretical Physics, https://link.springer.com/article/10.10 ... 014-2412-2 (2015),

(2) Quantum correlations are weaved by the spinors of the Euclidean primitives, Royal Society Open Science, https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/ ... sos.180526 (2018),

(3) Bell's theorem versus local realism in a quaternionic model of physical space, IEEE Access, https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/8836453 (2019),

(4) Dr. Bertlmann's socks in the quaternionic world of ambidextral reality, IEEE Access, https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/9226414 (2020).

***

[gill1109]

This paper is now officially published, with page numbers and everything, and can be downloaded freely: https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/stamp/stamp ... er=9226414.

That link gives you the pdf. One can post comments on the paper in a DISQUS forum at the end of the HTML version of the paper, https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/9226414

You can comment-away as much as you like. But all four of my refutations of Bell's theorem are staying up, remaining published, and on your face. You will just have to live with that:
(1) Macroscopic observability of spinorial sign changes under 2pi rotations, International Journal of Theoretical Physics, https://link.springer.com/article/10.10 ... 014-2412-2 (2015),
(2) Quantum correlations are weaved by the spinors of the Euclidean primitives, Royal Society Open Science, https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/ ... sos.180526 (2018),
(3) Bell's theorem versus local realism in a quaternionic model of physical space, IEEE Access, https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/8836453 (2019),
(4) Dr. Bertlmann's socks in the quaternionic world of ambidextral reality, IEEE Access, https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/9226414 (2020).

I am delighted you had so much success getting your work published at last. I am not interested in having your papers retracted. I'm interested in using the opportunity to publish my own work. You really stimulate interesting new developments in this field.

It's a good thing that pure mathematicians are more serious. Papers in pure maths can generally be trusted. Half of the papers in most other fields of science are wrong, and more than half are of no interest at all, they just serve academic career making.

[Joy Christian]

It's a good thing that pure mathematicians are more serious. Papers in pure maths can generally be trusted. Half of the papers in most other fields of science are wrong, and more than half are of no interest at all, they just serve academic career making.

I have found that some pure mathematicians are just as stupid, unreliable, biased, and political as some physicists are. Take, for example, your friend John C. Baez. He is just as biased, closed-minded, and dogmatic as any Bell-believer I know. In his case about the so-called Hurwitz's theorem, which, like any theorem, is based on a number of restrictive assumptions. But Baez thinks of it as if it were a god-given gospel. And the Editor-in-Cheif of Communications in Algebra, Scott Chapman, turned out to be as spineless and dishonest as the Editor-in-Chief of Annals of Physics, Brian Greene, had been. Both of them fell for a bogus claim by a statistician like you who has no qualifications to judge my work based on algebra and general relativity. So, please, stop bragging about mathematicians. They are just as politically and sociologically driven as any other scientist. And you don't have to believe me about the low ethical and scientific standards of mathematicians. Just ask Grigori Perelman about that: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grigori_P ... athematics.

***

[gill1109]

It's a good thing that pure mathematicians are more serious. Papers in pure maths can generally be trusted. Half of the papers in most other fields of science are wrong, and more than half are of no interest at all, they just serve academic career making.

I have found that some pure mathematicians are just as stupid, unreliable, biased, and political as some physicists are. Take, for example, your friend John C. Baez. He is just as biased, closed-minded, and dogmatic as any Bell-believer I know. In his case about the so-called Hurwitz's theorem, which, like any theorem, is based on a number of restrictive assumptions. But Baez thinks of it as if it were a god-given gospel. And the Editor-in-Cheif of Communications in Algebra, Scott Chapman, turned out to be as spineless and dishonest as the Editor-in-Chief of Annals of Physics, Brian Greene, had been. Both of them fell for a bogus claim by a statistician like you who has no qualifications to judge my work based on algebra and general relativity. So, please, stop bragging about mathematicians. They are just as politically and sociologically driven as any other scientist. And you don't have to believe me about the low ethical and scientific standards of mathematicians. Just ask Grigori Perelman about that: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grigori_P ... athematics.

Bias, closed-mindedness and dogmatism are universal. It is as common in Bell-deniers as in Bell-disciples. People cling to cherished beliefs. Then of course, power corrupts, politics is about power. Dr Joy Christian lacks qualifications in many parts of mathematics. So do I. It is easy to blame the people at the top. However, if you claim to have disproved the Hurwitz theorem you should be able to show where the standard proofs go wrong. On retraction watch, your arguments have been carefully dissected and analysed by ordinary (not powerful, not influential) mathematicians. It’s reassuring for me that they saw exactly the same mistakes which I noticed two years ago.

I understand your feelings, but did it ever occur to you that you could be mistaken?