Expression of Concern for my Royal Society Paper

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

Expression of Concern for my Royal Society Paper

Postby Joy Christian » Thu Oct 29, 2020 5:01 am

***
By now the following four papers of mine refuting Bell's theorem have been published in highly respected scholarly journals:

(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).

While Richard D. Gill has devoted relentless efforts to have each of the above four papers retracted, his most intense efforts have been for a possible retraction of my Royal Society paper. For that paper, he was able to muster help from some other Bell-believers. Together with Florin Moldoveanu, Howard Wiseman, Scott Aaronson, Philippe Grangier, Brukner Caslav, and Gregor Weihs, Richard D. Gill sent out a complaining letter to the editors of the journal, demanding the retraction of my paper. But the Royal Society of London is one of the oldest and prestigious scientific societies, and its journal Open Science could not be bullied so easily. On the other hand, they also did not neglect their scientific duty to investigate the matter. They launched a very thorough post-hoc investigation of the peer-review of my paper, lasting over eighteen months, in which I had to respond to additional peer reviews by notable experts in Geometric Algebra such as Anthony N. Lasenby. The end result of that investigation is the following "Expression of Concern" (which is a technical term in such matters) they have published:

https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/ ... sos.201777.

To cut the long story short, after the investigation they have decided not to retract my paper and encourage debate. For convenience, let me reproduce here what they have published:

Royal Society Open Science wrote:
Following peer review and publication of https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/ ... sos.180526, Royal Society Open Science received correspondence expressing concern about the technical accuracy of this paper. Consequently, the journal conducted an independent post hoc assessment of the paper, resulting in this Expression of Concern.

A short explanation for the decision-making process to help readers understand why the editors opted to accept the paper is as follows:

1. As can be seen in the open review history of the paper, there was a divergence of opinion from the initial reviewers and the author mounted a response in a scholarly and comprehensive manner. This presents a challenge to editors: do the concerns outweigh potential positives? Does publishing a controversial approach add value to the literature through stimulating open debate? As for most academic journals, while reviewers make recommendations, editors make the final decision on what is acceptable for publication. Editors possess the ultimate veto. On balance, in this case, the decision was made to publish to encourage debate, which is central to scientific research.

2. While recognizing that a controversial paper may eventually be shown to contain flaws, it may be argued that all science is a work in progress. We move forward not in a linear process, but often in fractures of existing paradigms—the history of science is littered with examples of this. The editors felt that research presented in this paper may stimulate further debate and experimentation in this space. If a journal only ever published papers that reinforced existing mainstream knowledge, then science would be the poorer.

3. Royal Society Open Science has a remit to publish research that is appropriate for publication and which may be difficult to publish in more traditional journals. At the time of assessment and publication, the paper passed that test in the view of the editors. Furthermore, the journal's open peer review model allows readers to explore the review history for themselves.

4. Independent assessors that subsequently performed post-publication peer review on this manuscript have agreed to make their commentary available publicly and these are now online together with the author's responses. These comments can be read alongside this Expression of Concern. As the reader may note, there is no consensus on this work, which is why the journal has opted not to retract.

5. As with any human endeavour, the decision to publish a paper is not an exact science and editors balance a number of factors to decide what is appropriate. We remind readers that the journal permits and actively encourages replication studies. If readers with an interest in this field would like to submit either a replication or rebuttal of the author's work, we would welcome it.

6. It should be noted that correspondents critiquing the decision to publish this paper have been offered the opportunity to publish a rebuttal but, to date, have thus far declined to do so. We would once again encourage them and any others who may be interested to make open contributions in order to openly articulate and formalize the technical issues.

PS: I found out about who had written the complaining letter to the journal Royal Society Open Science from a derogatory blog post by Florin Moldoveanu, in which he mentions that the other signatories, apart from him, were Howard Wiseman, Scott Aaronson, Philippe Grangier, Brukner Caslav, Gregor Weihs, and Richard D. Gill.

***
Joy Christian
Research Physicist
 
Posts: 2793
Joined: Wed Feb 05, 2014 4:49 am
Location: Oxford, United Kingdom

Re: Expression of Concern for my Royal Society Paper

Postby FrediFizzx » Thu Oct 29, 2020 5:33 am

That is great news! It is how publishing should be done on controversial issues. Let those that disagree submit a rebuttal paper. But this issue should not be controversial at all since Bell's junk physics theory is shot down thoroughly.
.
FrediFizzx
Independent Physics Researcher
 
Posts: 2905
Joined: Tue Mar 19, 2013 7:12 pm
Location: N. California, USA

Re: Expression of Concern for my Royal Society Paper

Postby gill1109 » Thu Oct 29, 2020 7:56 am

FrediFizzx wrote:That is great news! It is how publishing should be done on controversial issues. Let those that disagree submit a rebuttal paper. But this issue should not be controversial at all since Bell's junk physics theory is shot down thoroughly.
.

A letter was sent by five persons, I was *not* involved. I had not refereed the paper in the first place. I always turn down requests to referee J.C.’s work.

I do not want the paper retracted by the journal.

I have been asked by the editors of RSOS to write a rebuttal, just a few days ago, and that I have done. After all, I posted a lot of comments on the paper’s official discussion forum. It is now being refereed, I presume. Joy Christian will presumably be asked to respond. The present draft of my paper is here: https://www.math.leidenuniv.nl/~gill/Author_tex-v2.pdf and here: https://vixra.org/abs/2010.0219. The ArXiv is holding out till the paper is accepted.

I think the paper should never have been published - the editorial process evidently failed, big-time. I think the author should admit his errors. He is the one who should voluntarily “retract” his own paper. It must remain available online, as a monument to foolishness in high places.
gill1109
Mathematical Statistician
 
Posts: 2812
Joined: Tue Feb 04, 2014 10:39 pm
Location: Leiden

Re: Expression of Concern for my Royal Society Paper

Postby Joy Christian » Thu Oct 29, 2020 8:57 am

gill1109 wrote:
FrediFizzx wrote:That is great news! It is how publishing should be done on controversial issues. Let those that disagree submit a rebuttal paper. But this issue should not be controversial at all since Bell's junk physics theory is shot down thoroughly.
.

A letter was sent by five persons, I was *not* involved. I had not refereed the paper in the first place. I always turn down requests to referee J.C.’s work.

I do not want the paper retracted by the journal.

I have been asked by the editors of RSOS to write a rebuttal, just a few days ago, and that I have done. After all, I posted a lot of comments on the paper’s official discussion forum. It is now being refereed, I presume. Joy Christian will presumably be asked to respond. The present draft of my paper is here: https://www.math.leidenuniv.nl/~gill/Author_tex-v2.pdf.

I think the paper should never have been published - the editorial process evidently failed, big-time. I think the author should admit his errors. He is the one who should voluntarily “retract” his own paper. It must remain available online, as a monument to foolishness in high places.

Florin Moldoveanu has included you in the list of signatories, along with him, Howard Wiseman, Scott Aaronson, Philippe Grangier, Brukner Caslav, and Gregor Weihs. That means either he is lying or you are lying or both of you are lying.

As I pointed out elsewhere in this forum, the "rebuttal" you say you have submitted to RSOS is not a scientific paper. It belongs to a tabloid newspaper. It will be rejected by RSOS, just as it was rejected by the arXiv moderators.

There are no "errors" in any of my papers, and especially in my RSOS paper. You wouldn't know even if there were errors in my papers, because you are not qualified enough to judge them.

***
Joy Christian
Research Physicist
 
Posts: 2793
Joined: Wed Feb 05, 2014 4:49 am
Location: Oxford, United Kingdom

Re: Expression of Concern for my Royal Society Paper

Postby gill1109 » Thu Oct 29, 2020 9:04 am

Joy Christian wrote:
gill1109 wrote:
FrediFizzx wrote:That is great news! It is how publishing should be done on controversial issues. Let those that disagree submit a rebuttal paper. But this issue should not be controversial at all since Bell's junk physics theory is shot down thoroughly.
.

A letter was sent by five persons, I was *not* involved. I had not refereed the paper in the first place. I always turn down requests to referee J.C.’s work.

I do not want the paper retracted by the journal.

I have been asked by the editors of RSOS to write a rebuttal, just a few days ago, and that I have done. After all, I posted a lot of comments on the paper’s official discussion forum. It is now being refereed, I presume. Joy Christian will presumably be asked to respond. The present draft of my paper is here: https://www.math.leidenuniv.nl/~gill/Author_tex-v2.pdf.

I think the paper should never have been published - the editorial process evidently failed, big-time. I think the author should admit his errors. He is the one who should voluntarily “retract” his own paper. It must remain available online, as a monument to foolishness in high places.

Florin Moldoveanu has included you in the list of signatories, along with him, Howard Wiseman, Scott Aaronson, Philippe Grangier, Brukner Caslav, and Gregor Weihs. That means either he is lying or you are lying or both of you are lying.

As I pointed out elsewhere in this forum, the "rebuttal" you say you have submitted to RSOS is not a scientific paper. It belongs to a tabloid newspaper. It will be rejected by RSOS, just as it was rejected by the arXiv moderators.

There are no "errors" in any of my papers, and especially in my RSOS paper. You wouldn't know even if there were errors in my papers, because you are not qualified enough to judge them.

***

I am a co-signatory to Florin’s blog post. I was not a signatory to the letter which my friends sent earlier to RSOS, and waited for more than a year to get a reply. They asked me if I wanted to support the blog post. (They still have not received a reply from RSOS).

The devil is in the details, Joy. You are not qualified to write your own papers.
Last edited by FrediFizzx on Thu Oct 29, 2020 9:44 am, edited 1 time in total.
Reason: Personal attack deleted.
gill1109
Mathematical Statistician
 
Posts: 2812
Joined: Tue Feb 04, 2014 10:39 pm
Location: Leiden

Re: Expression of Concern for my Royal Society Paper

Postby Joy Christian » Thu Oct 29, 2020 9:56 am

gill1109 wrote:
I am a co-signatory to Florin’s blog post. I was not a signatory to the letter which my friends sent earlier to RSOS...

That is not what Moldoveanu has written in his blog post. He has explicitly and unambiguously included you as one of the signatories at the end of the letter where the signatures appear.

gill1109 wrote:
You are not qualified to write your own papers.

Four highly respected journals disagree with your opinion, as you can see from the links in OP. In the past, Physical Review D and Physical Review Letters have also published my papers.

***
Joy Christian
Research Physicist
 
Posts: 2793
Joined: Wed Feb 05, 2014 4:49 am
Location: Oxford, United Kingdom

Re: Expression of Concern for my Royal Society Paper

Postby gill1109 » Thu Oct 29, 2020 11:06 pm

Joy Christian wrote:
gill1109 wrote:
I am a co-signatory to Florin’s blog post. I was not a signatory to the letter which my friends sent earlier to RSOS...

That is not what Moldoveanu has written in his blog post. He has explicitly and unambiguously included you as one of the signatories at the end of the letter where the signatures appear.

gill1109 wrote:
You are not qualified to write your own papers.

Four highly respected journals disagree with your opinion, as you can see from the links in OP. In the past, Physical Review D and Physical Review Letters have also published my papers.

***

I will check what Florin wrote, and if necessary ask Florin to correct his post.

I have also published in various top physics journals, as well, of course, in all the top mathematical statistics journals. I have been editor or associate editor on half a dozen high quality journals.

Publishing has, of course, changed dramatically over the years. For instance, RSOS and IEEE Access now operate like the predatory journals. Except that the “label” is more expensive. Elsevier and other publishers have multi-tier systems whereby rejected papers are fast-tracked to lower tier acceptance.
gill1109
Mathematical Statistician
 
Posts: 2812
Joined: Tue Feb 04, 2014 10:39 pm
Location: Leiden

Re: Expression of Concern for my Royal Society Paper

Postby Joy Christian » Fri Oct 30, 2020 2:31 am

gill1109 wrote:
I have also published in various top physics journals, as well, of course, in all the top mathematical statistics journals. I have been editor or associate editor on half a dozen high quality journals.

That is hard to believe. For you make extremely elementary mistakes in your papers, as I have repeatedly pointed out to you. See, for example, my summary of some of your mistakes here:

https://www.researchgate.net/publicatio ... orem/stats

For the benefit of the readers, let me give one example. Gill has spent an enormous amount of time on my local-realistic model of the singlet correlations for the past ten years, which is based on Geometric Algebra. And yet, even after ten years and even after both Fred and I had repeatedly explained things to Gill, he still does not understand what dot product stands for in Geometric algebra Cl(3, 0). He still gets confused about that. More specifically, I have represented detectors in my model with I.a for Alice. But Gill doesn't understand why I have used dot product here despite my having officially explained this in my two papers published in IEEE Access. It is therefore beyond me how Gill has managed to publish any scientific paper ever.

***
Joy Christian
Research Physicist
 
Posts: 2793
Joined: Wed Feb 05, 2014 4:49 am
Location: Oxford, United Kingdom

Re: Expression of Concern for my Royal Society Paper

Postby gill1109 » Fri Oct 30, 2020 4:08 am

Joy Christian wrote:
gill1109 wrote:
I have also published in various top physics journals, as well, of course, in all the top mathematical statistics journals. I have been editor or associate editor on half a dozen high quality journals.

That is hard to believe. For you make extremely elementary mistakes in your papers, as I have repeatedly pointed out to you. See, for example, my summary of some of your mistakes here:

https://www.researchgate.net/publicatio ... orem/stats

For the benefit of the readers, let me give one example. Gill has spent an enormous amount of time on my local-realistic model of the singlet correlations for the past ten years, which is based on Geometric Algebra. And yet, even after ten years and even after both Fred and I had repeatedly explained things to Gill, he still does not understand what dot product stands for in Geometric algebra Cl(3, 0). He still gets confused about that. More specifically, I have represented detectors in my model with I.a for Alice. But Gill doesn't understand why I have used dot product here despite my having officially explained this in my two papers published in IEEE Access. It is therefore beyond me how Gill has managed to publish any scientific paper ever.

***

Please explain what the dot product is supposed to mean in the expression “I.a”, and remind us what are “a” and “I”. There are half a dozen different products in Geometric Algebra. As far as I can remember, you do *not* explain it in your IEEE Access papers. By the way, your algebra K is the even subalgebra of Cl(4, 0), so isomorphic to Cl(0, 3). You had better remind us if you are using conventional notation of Cl(4, 0) or Cl(0, 3).
gill1109
Mathematical Statistician
 
Posts: 2812
Joined: Tue Feb 04, 2014 10:39 pm
Location: Leiden

Re: Expression of Concern for my Royal Society Paper

Postby Joy Christian » Fri Oct 30, 2020 4:25 am

gill1109 wrote:
Joy Christian wrote:
gill1109 wrote:
I have also published in various top physics journals, as well, of course, in all the top mathematical statistics journals. I have been editor or associate editor on half a dozen high quality journals.

That is hard to believe. For you make extremely elementary mistakes in your papers, as I have repeatedly pointed out to you. See, for example, my summary of some of your mistakes here:

https://www.researchgate.net/publicatio ... orem/stats

For the benefit of the readers, let me give one example. Gill has spent an enormous amount of time on my local-realistic model of the singlet correlations for the past ten years, which is based on Geometric Algebra. And yet, even after ten years and even after both Fred and I had repeatedly explained things to Gill, he still does not understand what dot product stands for in Geometric algebra Cl(3, 0). He still gets confused about that. More specifically, I have represented detectors in my model with I.a for Alice. But Gill doesn't understand why I have used dot product here despite my having officially explained this in my two papers published in IEEE Access. It is therefore beyond me how Gill has managed to publish any scientific paper ever.

***

Please explain what the dot product is supposed to mean in the expression “I.a”, and remind us what are “a” and “I”. There are half a dozen different products in Geometric Algebra. As far as I can remember, you do *not* explain it in your IEEE Access papers. By the way, your algebra K is the even subalgebra of Cl(4, 0), so isomorphic to Cl(0, 3). You had better remind us if you are using conventional notation of Cl(4, 0) or Cl(0, 3).

The even subalgebra of Cl(4,0) is not isomorphic to Cl(0,3). You should stop reading and believing what is written in Wikipedia. Moreover, Cl(0,3) and Cl(3,0) are not the same thing.

As for the "dot product", You will find the following in my this IEEE Access paper: https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/stamp/stamp ... er=8836453.

Image

***
Joy Christian
Research Physicist
 
Posts: 2793
Joined: Wed Feb 05, 2014 4:49 am
Location: Oxford, United Kingdom

Re: Expression of Concern for my Royal Society Paper

Postby gill1109 » Fri Oct 30, 2020 5:39 am

Joy Christian wrote:The even subalgebra of Cl(4,0) is not isomorphic to Cl(0,3). You should stop reading and believing what is written in Wikipedia. Moreover, Cl(0,3) and Cl(3,0) are not the same thing.

As for the "dot product", You will find the following in my this IEEE Access paper: https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/stamp/stamp ... er=8836453.

Image

***

As usual, this snippet from the Appendix of your paper does not define your dot product. Empty words. You fooled some editors of a crappy journal. I think it was not terribly difficult... They were already biased, greedy for internet clicks by showcasing what they had deluded themselves was probably fundamental and certainly controversial. It was certainly too complex for them to check the nitty-gritty details.

Your delusion is infectious. People *want* to believe that Einstein was right.

Wikipedia is not the only “authority” for my claims. You are good at debating - that is why it is great fun arguing with you - you exploit all the logical fallacies in the book. You should be a politician.

Indeed, Cl(0, 3) and Cl(3, 0) are quite different things. Your very own multiplication table for the even subalgebra of Cl(4, 0), both with lambda = +1 and with lambda = -1, confirms that the even subalgebra of Cl(4, 0) is Cl(0, 3). You should stop believing what is in your own head. It does not correspond with objective reality. You are deluded. Suffering from an illusion. A delusion which many people find attractive.

Please rewrite your snippet using the rigorous language of Clifford algebra. Forget the proliferation of jargon and window dressing which has become the cult of Geometric Algebra.
gill1109
Mathematical Statistician
 
Posts: 2812
Joined: Tue Feb 04, 2014 10:39 pm
Location: Leiden

Re: Expression of Concern for my Royal Society Paper

Postby Joy Christian » Fri Oct 30, 2020 5:51 am

***
I am not going to help you out any further in revising the tabloid articles you have submitted to IEEE Access and RSOS. You are on your own. Good luck with those "articles."

***
Joy Christian
Research Physicist
 
Posts: 2793
Joined: Wed Feb 05, 2014 4:49 am
Location: Oxford, United Kingdom

Re: Expression of Concern for my Royal Society Paper

Postby gill1109 » Fri Oct 30, 2020 7:33 am

Joy Christian wrote:***
I am not going to help you out any further in revising the tabloid articles you have submitted to IEEE Access and RSOS. You are on your own. Good luck with those "articles."

***

Thank you for confirming that you don’t understand your own printed words, and thanks for the reference to “Answer 8”, which obfuscates, and clarifies nothing. We’ll see what other referees think. I feel that those new submissions of mine are superfluous. But they did not cost a great deal of effort. Maybe someone finds them useful. We will see.
gill1109
Mathematical Statistician
 
Posts: 2812
Joined: Tue Feb 04, 2014 10:39 pm
Location: Leiden

Re: Expression of Concern for my Royal Society Paper

Postby Joy Christian » Fri Oct 30, 2020 7:53 am

gill1109 wrote:
Joy Christian wrote:
I am not going to help you out any further in revising the tabloid articles you have submitted to IEEE Access and RSOS. You are on your own. Good luck with those "articles."

Thank you for confirming that you don’t understand your own printed words, and thanks for the reference to “Answer 8”, which obfuscates, and clarifies nothing. We’ll see what other referees think. I feel that those new submissions of mine are superfluous. But they did not cost a great deal of effort. Maybe someone finds them useful. We will see.

You claim that I have not defined what an inner product is in Geometric Algebra. That proves that either you have not read the very paper you are criticizing, or that you cannot read. For inner products are precisely defined in the "Socks" paper on two separate occasions, providing precise mathematical definitions, which are standard definitions within the algebra Cl(3, 0).

***
Joy Christian
Research Physicist
 
Posts: 2793
Joined: Wed Feb 05, 2014 4:49 am
Location: Oxford, United Kingdom

Re: Expression of Concern for my Royal Society Paper

Postby Joy Christian » Sun Nov 01, 2020 12:21 pm

gill1109 wrote:
You fooled some editors of a crappy journal. I think it was not terribly difficult... They were already biased, greedy for internet clicks by showcasing what they had deluded themselves was probably fundamental and certainly controversial. It was certainly too complex for them to check the nitty-gritty details.

So four of my refutations of Bell's religion have been published in "crappy" journals. How does that make you feel? Do you feel that you have failed on your mission of spreading Bell's gospel?

***
Joy Christian
Research Physicist
 
Posts: 2793
Joined: Wed Feb 05, 2014 4:49 am
Location: Oxford, United Kingdom

Re: Expression of Concern for my Royal Society Paper

Postby gill1109 » Sun Nov 01, 2020 9:37 pm

Joy Christian wrote:
gill1109 wrote:
You fooled some editors of a crappy journal. I think it was not terribly difficult... They were already biased, greedy for internet clicks by showcasing what they had deluded themselves was probably fundamental and certainly controversial. It was certainly too complex for them to check the nitty-gritty details.

So four of my refutations of Bell's religion have been published in "crappy" journals. How does that make you feel? Do you feel that you have failed on your mission of spreading Bell's gospel?

It makes me laugh! What you write here, makes me smile. My work in the field of Bell’s theorem is widely known, is often cited, and has had big impact on experimenters and on theoreticians. I hope you’ll reconsider your refusal to take part in our workshop and party, next September. https://gill1109.com/2020/10/02/time-reality-and-bells-theorem/

I was glad your papers got published at last. They are providing new opportunities for “spreading Bell’s gospel”. I hope there will be more.
Last edited by FrediFizzx on Mon Nov 02, 2020 12:31 am, edited 1 time in total.
Reason: Personal attack deleted.
gill1109
Mathematical Statistician
 
Posts: 2812
Joined: Tue Feb 04, 2014 10:39 pm
Location: Leiden

Re: Expression of Concern for my Royal Society Paper

Postby FrediFizzx » Mon Nov 02, 2020 12:33 am

Guys, stop making personal comments. Stick to physics and related math.
.
FrediFizzx
Independent Physics Researcher
 
Posts: 2905
Joined: Tue Mar 19, 2013 7:12 pm
Location: N. California, USA


Return to Sci.Physics.Foundations

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: ahrefs [Bot] and 83 guests

cron
CodeCogs - An Open Source Scientific Library