Gull and Gill's theory

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

Re: Gull and Gill's theory

Postby Joy Christian » Fri Jan 15, 2021 12:06 am

gill1109 wrote:I gave the talk on Gull's theorem again, using some different tools. In particular YouTube. (3x approx 15 mins)
https://gill1109.com/2021/01/14/steve-g ... computing/
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W6uuaM4 ... 9RGdejBwAY

For the record, especially for those following this thread silently, what Gill has argued for decades, and will continue until the cows come home, has nothing whatsoever to do with physics.

We must not let statisticians and computer scientists hijack physics. What I have learned the hard way is that even some mathematicians, such as the good pedagogue John C. Baez, can be patently wrong. The task of a physicist, especially these days of all the hype about quantum computers, is not to get blindsided by statisticians, mathematicians, and computer scientists.

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

Re: Gull and Gill's theory

Postby gill1109 » Fri Jan 15, 2021 6:53 am

Joy Christian wrote:
gill1109 wrote:I gave the talk on Gull's theorem again, using some different tools. In particular YouTube. (3x approx 15 mins)
https://gill1109.com/2021/01/14/steve-g ... computing/
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W6uuaM4 ... 9RGdejBwAY

For the record, especially for those following this thread silently, what Gill has argued for decades, and will continue until the cows come home, has nothing whatsoever to do with physics.

We must not let statisticians and computer scientists hijack physics. What I have learned the hard way is that even some mathematicians, such as the good pedagogue John C. Baez, can be patently wrong. The task of a physicist, especially these days of all the hype about quantum computers, is not to get blindsided by statisticians, mathematicians, and computer scientists.

"Physicist", "mathematician", "statistician", "computer scientist" are labels, standing perhaps for various overlapping scientific communities. We are all, I hope, *scientists*. Physicists use mathematics, and a lot of mathematics has been developed for use in physics, as well as for use in administration, engineering, ... We also all have to communicate with one another, and we use mathematics as a *language* with which to communicate ideas in physics. Maybe that Joy has made the wrong deduction from his experiences. He thinks he has learnt that even some good mathematicians can be wrong. But maybe he should have learnt that he can be wrong.

Notice that he does not bother to tell me *where* I am making a mistake in my mathematical deductions. When a mathematician thinks they have proven a theorem which contradicts a previously accepted theorem, they point out where the earlier accepted proof went wrong. That is not a question of physics at all. Christian believes he has proven a mathematical theorem which contradicts earlier well-known mathematical theorems. So his whole talk of "physics vs. mathematics" is a red-herring, a diversionary tactic. A debating trick.

John Baez has written out a proof of a theorem nowadays called the Hurwitz theorem (though Hurwitz himself did not prove it). Christian claims to have a counterexample. Various mathematicians have pointed out where Christian makes mathematical mistakes. What we learn from this is that Christian's mathematics is not reliable. His status as a physicist is irrelevant here.
gill1109
Mathematical Statistician
 
Posts: 2812
Joined: Tue Feb 04, 2014 10:39 pm
Location: Leiden

Re: Gull and Gill's theory

Postby Joy Christian » Fri Jan 15, 2021 7:31 am

gill1109 wrote:
John Baez has written out a proof of a theorem nowadays called the Hurwitz theorem (though Hurwitz himself did not prove it). Christian claims to have a counterexample. Various mathematicians have pointed out where Christian makes mathematical mistakes. What we learn from this is that Christian's mathematics is not reliable.

On the contrary, not a single mathematician, including John C. Baez, has found a mistake in the proof I have presented in my mathematics paper: https://arxiv.org/pdf/1908.06172.pdf.

It is true that John Baez has made some incorrect claims about my paper, but I have pointed out why his claims are incorrect: https://pubpeer.com/publications/E3CC09 ... 5CAEE98D#5

As for "Gull and Gill's theory", I have pointed out in my previous comment that it has nothing whatsoever to do with physics, even if it turns out to be mathematically correct.

I have explained in this paper the physical reasons why "Bell's theorem" and its variants, such as "Gull's theorem" and "Gill's theorem", are irrelevant for hidden variable theories.
.
Joy Christian
Research Physicist
 
Posts: 2793
Joined: Wed Feb 05, 2014 4:49 am
Location: Oxford, United Kingdom

Re: Gull and Gill's theory

Postby gill1109 » Sat Jan 16, 2021 11:54 pm

Joy Christian wrote:
gill1109 wrote:
John Baez has written out a proof of a theorem nowadays called the Hurwitz theorem (though Hurwitz himself did not prove it). Christian claims to have a counterexample. Various mathematicians have pointed out where Christian makes mathematical mistakes. What we learn from this is that Christian's mathematics is not reliable.

On the contrary, not a single mathematician, including John C. Baez, has found a mistake in the proof I have presented in my mathematics paper: https://arxiv.org/pdf/1908.06172.pdf.

It is true that John Baez has made some incorrect claims about my paper, but I have pointed out why his claims are incorrect: https://pubpeer.com/publications/E3CC09 ... 5CAEE98D#5

As for "Gull and Gill's theory", I have pointed out in my previous comment that it has nothing whatsoever to do with physics, even if it turns out to be mathematically correct.

I have explained in this paper the physical reasons why "Bell's theorem" and its variants, such as "Gull's theorem" and "Gill's theorem", are irrelevant for hidden variable theories.

Gull's theorem and my theorem are actually two different proofs of almost the same theorem. The theorems say that you cannot simulate the singlet correlations on separated computers. Gull makes slightly different assumptions from Gill. Gull proves that you cannot exactly simulate the singlet correlations. Gill proves that you cannot do it approximately except by chance and shows that that chance is exponentially small as the size of your simulation is increased.

Now if a local hidden variables theory existed for the EPR-B experiment, and if it could be simulated on one computer, then it is easy to see that it could be simulated on a computer network. It would form a counter-example to Gill's theorem and it would form a counter-example to Gull's theorem.

Christian has included computer simulations of his models in his recent papers, which apparently reproduce the singlet correlations. If one investigates their code then it is not difficult to see that the computer program is just computing the negative cosine in an elaborate round-about way. The program cannot be used to do the simulation on two separated computers when the settings are freely supplied by the users rather than being generated inside the program, when the outcomes of the spin measurements are +/-1, when there is no post-selection, and when the correlations are computed using the standard formulas used by real experimenters.
gill1109
Mathematical Statistician
 
Posts: 2812
Joined: Tue Feb 04, 2014 10:39 pm
Location: Leiden

Re: Gull and Gill's theory

Postby FrediFizzx » Sun Jan 17, 2021 9:04 am

Blah! Blah! Blah! Such nonsense!!! Show us a calculation of the QM predictiion for -a.b that ISN'T "computing the negative cosine in an elaborate round-about way." Bell's junk theory is dead just like yours because you can't show us the QM calculation of -a.b that uses the event by event outcomes.
.
FrediFizzx
Independent Physics Researcher
 
Posts: 2905
Joined: Tue Mar 19, 2013 7:12 pm
Location: N. California, USA

Re: Gull and Gill's theory

Postby Heinera » Sun Jan 17, 2021 12:05 pm

FrediFizzx wrote:Bell's junk theory is dead just like yours because you can't show us the QM calculation of -a.b that uses the event by event outcomes.
.

You keep forgetting this simulation:

https://rpubs.com/heinera/16727

Simulating the QM correlations event by event is trivial.
Heinera
 
Posts: 917
Joined: Thu Feb 06, 2014 1:50 am

Re: Gull and Gill's theory

Postby FrediFizzx » Sun Jan 17, 2021 12:09 pm

Heinera wrote:
FrediFizzx wrote:Bell's junk theory is dead just like yours because you can't show us the QM calculation of -a.b that uses the event by event outcomes.
.

You keep forgetting this simulation:

https://rpubs.com/heinera/16727

Simulating the QM correlations event by event is trivial.

Nonsense, there is NO QM in that simulation! It is just a non-local HV simulation. Let's see some A and B functions with QM operators.
.
FrediFizzx
Independent Physics Researcher
 
Posts: 2905
Joined: Tue Mar 19, 2013 7:12 pm
Location: N. California, USA

Re: Gull and Gill's theory

Postby Heinera » Sun Jan 17, 2021 1:53 pm

FrediFizzx wrote:
Heinera wrote:
FrediFizzx wrote:Bell's junk theory is dead just like yours because you can't show us the QM calculation of -a.b that uses the event by event outcomes.
.

You keep forgetting this simulation:

https://rpubs.com/heinera/16727

Simulating the QM correlations event by event is trivial.

Nonsense, there is NO QM in that simulation! It is just a non-local HV simulation. Let's see some A and B functions with QM operators.
.

Rubbish. You should learn R.
Heinera
 
Posts: 917
Joined: Thu Feb 06, 2014 1:50 am

Re: Gull and Gill's theory

Postby FrediFizzx » Sun Jan 17, 2021 2:07 pm

Heinera wrote:
FrediFizzx wrote:
Heinera wrote:
FrediFizzx wrote:Bell's junk theory is dead just like yours because you can't show us the QM calculation of -a.b that uses the event by event outcomes.
.

You keep forgetting this simulation:

https://rpubs.com/heinera/16727

Simulating the QM correlations event by event is trivial.

Nonsense, there is NO QM in that simulation! It is just a non-local HV simulation. Let's see some A and B functions with QM operators.
.

Rubbish. You should learn R.

It's some non-local HV nonsense. You aren't even showing the -a.b curve resulting from the A and B outcomes like here,

viewtopic.php?f=6&t=424#p10656

You are just doing CHSH. And I still don't see any A and B functions with bonafide QM observables. Plus..., there shouldn't be any hidden variable necesssary.
.
FrediFizzx
Independent Physics Researcher
 
Posts: 2905
Joined: Tue Mar 19, 2013 7:12 pm
Location: N. California, USA

Re: Gull and Gill's theory

Postby gill1109 » Mon Jan 18, 2021 7:42 am

Gull, and Gill, each claim to have proved theorems concerning distributed computing. Their assumptions are slightly different, and their conclusions are slightly different. But they have the same "executive summary": it is not possible to write computer programs which run on two completely separated computers, and which do the following:

- each computer repeatedly asks a user to submit an angle between 0 and 360 degrees

- it then outputs a +/-1

- when the input angles are alpha and beta the average over many trials of the product of the outcomes is - cos(alpha - beta)

Gill's proof is built around the case when the users use fair coin tosses to each repeatedly select from just one pair of angles. Alice uses only the angles 0 and 90 degrees, Bob uses only the angles 45 and 135 degrees.

Gull's proof is built around the case that Alice uses angles chosen uniformly at random between 0 and 360 degrees, and Bob's angles are the same angles, shifted by an amount delta. Gull moreover imagines the whole experiment repeated many times with different values of delta.

I'm really grateful to Fred whose insistent criticism helped me and my student Dilara figure out what Gull was probably actually talking about. I'm really grateful to Joy for challenging us to come up with a proof of Bell's theorem which did not use probability or statistics (I think that was his challenge). Since all mathematics is intimately connected I guess that is an impossible challenge: he wants a proof without mathematics. Imagine that - physics without mathematics.

There is a connection with Bell's theorem. Suppose, in contradiction to what Bell claimed, that functions A(alpha, lambda) and B(beta, lambda) existed, taking the values +/-1, and a probability distribution rho over values of lambda in some set Lambda, such that
,
and suppose one could program those functions A and B, and simulate a long sequence of independent drawings of lambda from the probability distribution rho, then one could easily write those two computer programs to do that distributed Monte Carlo simulation task. The many independent drawings lambda_1, lambda_2, lambda_3, ... would simply be performed in advance and saved on hard disks of both computers.

I suggest Fred stops saying "blah blah blah" and then writing some nonsense which shows he hasn't read the posts of others. Let him get down to work. If Joy Christian's mathematical claims are correct and if Fred is such a great computer programmer, he can easily go ahead and win the 64 thousand Euro challenge by writing those two computer programs.
gill1109
Mathematical Statistician
 
Posts: 2812
Joined: Tue Feb 04, 2014 10:39 pm
Location: Leiden

Re: Gull and Gill's theory

Postby FrediFizzx » Mon Jan 18, 2021 8:27 am

Blah! Blah! Blah! More freakin' nonsense! I already told you that your challenge is rejected becuase you can't actually show us what the QM prediction is when using event by event outcomes. Pay attention this time!
.
FrediFizzx
Independent Physics Researcher
 
Posts: 2905
Joined: Tue Mar 19, 2013 7:12 pm
Location: N. California, USA

Re: Gull and Gill's theory

Postby Heinera » Mon Jan 18, 2021 10:59 am

FrediFizzx wrote:
Heinera wrote:Rubbish. You should learn R.

It's some non-local HV nonsense. You aren't even showing the -a.b curve resulting from the A and B outcomes like here,

viewtopic.php?f=6&t=424#p10656

If you learned R you could easily modify the code to give the correlation for any combination of angles a and b. It will exactly reproduce the QM correlations. In fact, everything in this model reproduce the QM predictions.

FrediFizzx wrote: And I still don't see any A and B functions with bonafide QM observables.

As I said, learn some R.

FrediFizzx wrote:Plus..., there shouldn't be any hidden variable necesssary.

Tell that to Joy Christian.
Heinera
 
Posts: 917
Joined: Thu Feb 06, 2014 1:50 am

Re: Gull and Gill's theory

Postby FrediFizzx » Mon Jan 18, 2021 11:31 am

Heinera wrote:
FrediFizzx wrote:
Heinera wrote:Rubbish. You should learn R.

It's some non-local HV nonsense. You aren't even showing the -a.b curve resulting from the A and B outcomes like here,

viewtopic.php?f=6&t=424#p10656

If you learned R you could easily modify the code to give the correlation for any combination of angles a and b. It will exactly reproduce the QM correlations. In fact, everything in this model reproduce the QM predictions.

FrediFizzx wrote: And I still don't see any A and B functions with bonafide QM observables.

As I said, learn some R.

FrediFizzx wrote:Plus..., there shouldn't be any hidden variable necesssary.

Tell that to Joy Christian.

When you can produce the -a.b curve without a hidden variable using real QM operators from the event by event outcomes, then we will have what we need. Come back when you can do that or just shut up with the non-local HV nonsense.
.
FrediFizzx
Independent Physics Researcher
 
Posts: 2905
Joined: Tue Mar 19, 2013 7:12 pm
Location: N. California, USA

Re: Gull and Gill's theory

Postby gill1109 » Tue Jan 26, 2021 1:45 am

FrediFizzx wrote:When you can produce the -a.b curve without a hidden variable using real QM operators from the event by event outcomes, then we will have what we need. Come back when you can do that or just shut up with the non-local HV nonsense.

Fred, you forgot to mention locality. What you are asking is close to nonsense. QM predicts probabilities. You can't produce event by event outcomes without introducing randomness. OK, so use a random number generator on your computer. That random number generator creates outcomes of hidden variables for you!
gill1109
Mathematical Statistician
 
Posts: 2812
Joined: Tue Feb 04, 2014 10:39 pm
Location: Leiden

Re: Gull and Gill's theory

Postby FrediFizzx » Mon Feb 01, 2021 4:50 pm

gill1109 wrote:
FrediFizzx wrote:When you can produce the -a.b curve without a hidden variable using real QM operators from the event by event outcomes, then we will have what we need. Come back when you can do that or just shut up with the non-local HV nonsense.

Fred, you forgot to mention locality. What you are asking is close to nonsense. QM predicts probabilities. ...

Of course what I am asking is nonsense. It is not even "close"; it is complete nonsense. Glad you finally got a clue.
.
FrediFizzx
Independent Physics Researcher
 
Posts: 2905
Joined: Tue Mar 19, 2013 7:12 pm
Location: N. California, USA

Re: Gull and Gill's theory

Postby FrediFizzx » Fri Apr 09, 2021 8:20 pm

Gull's "proof" is completely absurd and what Gill did here is also to that level of absurdity,

https://arxiv.org/abs/2012.00719

All it proves, if anything, is that when constructing a negative cosine curve using +/-1's you will always be able to find a space between points on the curve (IOW, the curve is discontinuous). It does NOT prove that it is impossible to correctly simulate an EPR experiment because Nature will always also have a space between the points on the curve. Does quantum mechanics use +/-1's for its predictions that are continuous? NO! So, Gull and Gill theory are shot down for now unless there is a real proof that it is impossible to correctly simulate an EPR experiment. Try again.
.
FrediFizzx
Independent Physics Researcher
 
Posts: 2905
Joined: Tue Mar 19, 2013 7:12 pm
Location: N. California, USA

Re: Gull and Gill's theory

Postby Joy Christian » Sat Apr 10, 2021 9:17 am

FrediFizzx wrote:Gull's "proof" is completely absurd and what Gill did here is also to that level of absurdity,

https://arxiv.org/abs/2012.00719

All it proves, if anything, is that when constructing a negative cosine curve using +/-1's you will always be able to find a space between points on the curve (IOW, the curve is discontinuous). It does NOT prove that it is impossible to correctly simulate an EPR experiment because Nature will always also have a space between the points on the curve. Does quantum mechanics use +/-1's for its predictions that are continuous? NO! So, Gull and Gill theory are shot down for now unless there is a real proof that it is impossible to correctly simulate an EPR experiment. Try again.

The paper by Gill and his student claims that "[Computer technology] cannot create the negative cosine. That is seen as a unique signature of quantum entanglement."

My response to the first sentence is: Who cares? If you are a physicist, then you shouldn't care.

My response to the second sentence is: The claim is wrong. The negative cosine is not a unique signature of quantum entanglement. It is a unique signature of a quaternionic 3-sphere, taken as a model of the three-dimensional physical space. I have provided proofs of that many times before, starting from 2007. But Gill remains fast asleep in his dogmatic slumber.

The whole paper by Gill and his student is nothing but sophistry.
.
Joy Christian
Research Physicist
 
Posts: 2793
Joined: Wed Feb 05, 2014 4:49 am
Location: Oxford, United Kingdom

Re: Gull and Gill's theory

Postby FrediFizzx » Sat Apr 10, 2021 10:06 am

Joy Christian wrote:
FrediFizzx wrote:Gull's "proof" is completely absurd and what Gill did here is also to that level of absurdity,

https://arxiv.org/abs/2012.00719

All it proves, if anything, is that when constructing a negative cosine curve using +/-1's you will always be able to find a space between points on the curve (IOW, the curve is discontinuous). It does NOT prove that it is impossible to correctly simulate an EPR experiment because Nature will always also have a space between the points on the curve. Does quantum mechanics use +/-1's for its predictions that are continuous? NO! So, Gull and Gill theory are shot down for now unless there is a real proof that it is impossible to correctly simulate an EPR experiment. Try again.

The paper by Gill and his student claims that "[Computer technology] cannot create the negative cosine. That is seen as a unique signature of quantum entanglement."

My response to the first sentence is: Who cares? If you are a physicist, then you shouldn't care.

My response to the second sentence is: The claim is wrong. The negative cosine is not a unique signature of quantum entanglement. It is a unique signature of a quaternionic 3-sphere, taken as a model of the three-dimensional physical space. I have provided proofs of that many times before, starting from 2007. But Gill remains fast asleep in his dogmatic slumber.

The whole paper by Gill and his student is nothing but sophistry.
.

Well, it is all about correctly modelling Nature. Surely, physicists should be interested in that. The continuous negative cosine curve produced by QM and your model is only an approximation. Nature via the EPR experiments will never produce an exact continuous curve using +/-1's.
.
FrediFizzx
Independent Physics Researcher
 
Posts: 2905
Joined: Tue Mar 19, 2013 7:12 pm
Location: N. California, USA

Re: Gull and Gill's theory

Postby Joy Christian » Sat Apr 10, 2021 10:17 am

FrediFizzx wrote:
Joy Christian wrote:
FrediFizzx wrote:Gull's "proof" is completely absurd and what Gill did here is also to that level of absurdity,

https://arxiv.org/abs/2012.00719

All it proves, if anything, is that when constructing a negative cosine curve using +/-1's you will always be able to find a space between points on the curve (IOW, the curve is discontinuous). It does NOT prove that it is impossible to correctly simulate an EPR experiment because Nature will always also have a space between the points on the curve. Does quantum mechanics use +/-1's for its predictions that are continuous? NO! So, Gull and Gill theory are shot down for now unless there is a real proof that it is impossible to correctly simulate an EPR experiment. Try again.

The paper by Gill and his student claims that "[Computer technology] cannot create the negative cosine. That is seen as a unique signature of quantum entanglement."

My response to the first sentence is: Who cares? If you are a physicist, then you shouldn't care.

My response to the second sentence is: The claim is wrong. The negative cosine is not a unique signature of quantum entanglement. It is a unique signature of a quaternionic 3-sphere, taken as a model of the three-dimensional physical space. I have provided proofs of that many times before, starting from 2007. But Gill remains fast asleep in his dogmatic slumber.

The whole paper by Gill and his student is nothing but sophistry.

Well, it is all about correctly modelling Nature. Surely, physicists should be interested in that. The continuous negative cosine curve produced by QM and your model is only an approximation. Nature via the EPR experiments will never produce an exact continuous curve using +/-1's.

Nature can be modeled correctly using analytical mathematics. Computer simulations can help pedagogically, but they have many inherent limitations. Until computer technology replaces analytical mathematics, "theorems" like Gull's and Gill's cannot provide definitive proofs of anything.
.
Joy Christian
Research Physicist
 
Posts: 2793
Joined: Wed Feb 05, 2014 4:49 am
Location: Oxford, United Kingdom

Re: Gull and Gill's theory

Postby FrediFizzx » Sat Apr 10, 2021 1:19 pm

Sure, but computer simulations put the analytical math into action. Everyone likes action. :D
.
FrediFizzx
Independent Physics Researcher
 
Posts: 2905
Joined: Tue Mar 19, 2013 7:12 pm
Location: N. California, USA

PreviousNext

Return to Sci.Physics.Foundations

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Majestic-12 [Bot] and 77 guests

cron
CodeCogs - An Open Source Scientific Library