Comment on Joy Christian's second IEEE Access paper

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

Re: Comment on Joy Christian's second IEEE Access paper

Postby Joy Christian » Wed May 05, 2021 10:13 am

gill1109 wrote:
All three of my “Comments” were written on the invitation of the editors.

This claim by Gill is not believable. It took months after submission for his first comment to be published in IEEE Access. My reply took less time than that to be published in IEEE Access. So far, there is no word about his second comment to IEEE Access either, which was also submitted months ago. And the worst is the case about his comment to RSOS, which was submitted last October, over six months ago. An invited paper usually gets published within a few weeks or a month. Most likely his RSOS comment has been rejected, as it is very unprofessionally written.
.
Joy Christian
Research Physicist
 
Posts: 2793
Joined: Wed Feb 05, 2014 4:49 am
Location: Oxford, United Kingdom

Re: Comment on Joy Christian's second IEEE Access paper

Postby gill1109 » Mon Jun 07, 2021 2:45 am

Joy Christian wrote:
gill1109 wrote:All three of my “Comments” were written on the invitation of the editors.

This claim by Gill is not believable. It took months after submission for his first comment to be published in IEEE Access. My reply took less time than that to be published in IEEE Access. So far, there is no word about his second comment to IEEE Access either, which was also submitted months ago. And the worst is the case about his comment to RSOS, which was submitted last October, over six months ago. An invited paper usually gets published within a few weeks or a month. Most likely his RSOS comment has been rejected, as it is very unprofessionally written.

I can prove it, if you like. But anyway, never fear, things are moving again. RSOS seems to have been in crisis (Corona?) for about a year but at last, a couple of weeks ago, the reviews came in both from RSOS (7 reviews) and from IEEE (12 reviews!!!). I nearly missed them because my university mail servers sent them straight to the spam box. I think our IT personnel is also suffering from the pandemic.

The last few days I have been composing revisions. They will indeed be much more professionally written than the first versions! A lot of reviewers were very positive (on both papers), a few rather negative, a few were mainly concerned with promoting their own hobby horses. The resubmissions have been resubmitted, the waiting resumes. I also posted both on arXiv but they might take some time to pass moderation (and they might not pass it). It doesn't matter. If the papers actually get accepted, arXiv will change its tune, and it's not the only preprint server either. arXiv is getting more and more an organ for mainstream researchers only. They are less and less tolerant of work by outsiders.

I'm really happy now that RSOS and IEEE did publish Joy's papers. I think that with these Comments and Replies, the general discussion about quantum foundations is now brought to a much wider audience. Another student has been working with me on Gull's theorem and really cleared up a number of tricky points, so my work with Dilara Karakozak can now also resume. For me, this closes the book which opened when I met Joy in Oxford about ten years ago (and about a year before in or near Berlin at the German "Young Academy").

I fear that Joy has only one true supporter among all those reviewers, and that is clearly a professor from the Indian subcontinent, with whom I would love to correspond. I'm sure he is a good theoretical physicist, and he knows geometric algebra. Yet even he admits that Joy's work is blemished by poor mathematical notation and perhaps wrong mathematical terminology. His faith in Joy's work is touching.

Now I really must get back to two other projects
https://arxiv.org/abs/2106.00758 Serial killer nurses
https://arxiv.org/abs/2104.00333 Dutch new herring, consumer research, poor research practices, causality
gill1109
Mathematical Statistician
 
Posts: 2812
Joined: Tue Feb 04, 2014 10:39 pm
Location: Leiden

Re: Comment on Joy Christian's second IEEE Access paper

Postby FrediFizzx » Mon Jun 07, 2021 3:29 am

@gill1109 You really should trash all that junky nonsense you write about Joy and Bell's thoroughly shot down theory. :mrgreen:
.
FrediFizzx
Independent Physics Researcher
 
Posts: 2905
Joined: Tue Mar 19, 2013 7:12 pm
Location: N. California, USA

Re: Comment on Joy Christian's second IEEE Access paper

Postby Joy Christian » Mon Jun 07, 2021 4:50 am

gill1109 wrote:
I fear that Joy has only one true supporter among all those reviewers, and that is clearly a professor from the Indian subcontinent...

Do I detect closet racism? If, as speculated, the reviewer is indeed from the Indian subcontinent, does that make his or her opinion less important, instead of less corrupted by prejudices?
.
Joy Christian
Research Physicist
 
Posts: 2793
Joined: Wed Feb 05, 2014 4:49 am
Location: Oxford, United Kingdom

Re: Comment on Joy Christian's second IEEE Access paper

Postby gill1109 » Mon Jun 07, 2021 7:53 pm

Joy Christian wrote:
gill1109 wrote:I fear that Joy has only one true supporter among all those reviewers, and that is clearly a professor from the Indian subcontinent...

Do I detect closet racism? If, as speculated, the reviewer is indeed from the Indian subcontinent, does that make his or her opinion less important, instead of less corrupted by prejudices?

No, you detect my great interest in India; and my curiosity as to the human story here. I imagine you know this person.

https://arxiv.org/abs/2103.00225 IEEE 1
https://arxiv.org/abs/2106.03169 RSOS

Looking forward to your Replies
gill1109
Mathematical Statistician
 
Posts: 2812
Joined: Tue Feb 04, 2014 10:39 pm
Location: Leiden

Re: Comment on Joy Christian's second IEEE Access paper

Postby Joy Christian » Mon Jun 07, 2021 8:34 pm

gill1109 wrote:
I imagine you know this person.

I indeed do. He is not from the Indian subcontinent. He is from Latin America. Your speculation is as grossly mistaken as your opinions about me and my refutation of Bell's theorem.

Joy Christian wrote:
Bell's theorem did not require disproving. To begin with, Bell's theorem was a nonstarter. Moreover, I disproved it on the 20th of March 2007 by demonstrating that the measurement results, +/-1, observed by Alice and Bob are limiting scalar points of a quaternionic 3-sphere, taken as a model of the 3D physical space. Thus, Bell's theorem has been dead for more than 14 years.

In Section II of my latest paper (open access), I explain why Bell's theorem was a nonstarter, and in Section III of the same paper, I summarize this 3-sphere model of the singlet correlations.

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

Re: Comment on Joy Christian's second IEEE Access paper

Postby gill1109 » Tue Jun 08, 2021 5:00 am

There are persons of Indian extraction in Latin America. I sensed Indian use of English, not a Hispanic use of English, in his (or her?) comments. But it doesn't matter, anyway.
Joy Christian wrote:Bell's theorem did not require disproving. To begin with, Bell's theorem was a nonstarter. Moreover, I disproved it on the 20th of March 2007 by demonstrating that the measurement results, +/-1, observed by Alice and Bob are limiting scalar points of a quaternionic 3-sphere, taken as a model of the 3D physical space. Thus, Bell's theorem has been dead for more than 14 years.
In Section II of my latest paper (open access), I explain why Bell's theorem was a nonstarter, and in Section III of the same paper, I summarize this 3-sphere model of the singlet correlations.

Yes, the latest paper is fantastic! You write:
Joy Christian wrote:That is not to say that Bell’s theorem does not have a sound mathematical core. When stated as a mathematical theorem in probability theory, there can be no doubt about its validity. But my work on the subject does not challenge this mathematical core, if it is viewed as a piece of mathematics.

So you have changed your position dramatically! At last we agree concerning Bell's mathematics.

You go on to say
Joy Christian wrote:What it challenges are the metaphysical conclusions regarding locality and realism derived from that mathematical core. My work thus draws a sharp distinction between the mathematical core of Bell’s theorem and the metaphysical conclusions derived from it.

It would be wonderful if that were true. I don't see the challenge to metaphysical conclusions, and I disagree that your work draws that distinction. But the referees who support your work believe it is true.
gill1109
Mathematical Statistician
 
Posts: 2812
Joined: Tue Feb 04, 2014 10:39 pm
Location: Leiden

Re: Comment on Joy Christian's second IEEE Access paper

Postby Joy Christian » Tue Jun 08, 2021 5:22 am

.
Your selective reading of my papers will keep you deluded and mislead the Bell-beliving community, but it will not change the fact that Bell's theorem has been dead for the past 14 years.
.
Joy Christian
Research Physicist
 
Posts: 2793
Joined: Wed Feb 05, 2014 4:49 am
Location: Oxford, United Kingdom

Re: Comment on Joy Christian's second IEEE Access paper

Postby FrediFizzx » Tue Jun 08, 2021 10:44 am

Joy Christian wrote:.
Your selective reading of my papers will keep you deluded and mislead the Bell-beliving community, but it will not change the fact that Bell's theorem has been dead for the past 14 years.
.

Since it has been dead for 14 years, it is no longer a theorem but a theory. Gill has absolutely no proof of what he is being so fanatical about. What is up with that? :mrgreen:
.
FrediFizzx
Independent Physics Researcher
 
Posts: 2905
Joined: Tue Mar 19, 2013 7:12 pm
Location: N. California, USA

Re: Comment on Joy Christian's second IEEE Access paper

Postby gill1109 » Tue Jun 08, 2021 10:07 pm

FrediFizzx wrote:
Joy Christian wrote:Your selective reading of my papers will keep you deluded and mislead the Bell-beliving community, but it will not change the fact that Bell's theorem has been dead for the past 14 years.

Since it has been dead for 14 years, it is no longer a theorem but a theory. Gill has absolutely no proof of what he is being so fanatical about. What is up with that? :mrgreen:

You may think and say what you like about the theory, just as I may do too. But as Joy himself says, there is nothing wrong with the mathematical theorems which Bell uses. I am fanatical about the misunderstanding of true mathematical theorems. It's my job. It's my task in science, to care deeply about mathematical truth. Physicists may do with it what they like, but they may not deny it. 8-)

I'm perfectly happy that Joy tries to publish his own mathematical findings in mathematical journals and multidisciplinary journals (e.g. IEEE Access, RSOS, which publish research in mathematics, physics, engineering, ...). Any mathematician who thinks there are important mistakes that others haven't noticed is duty-bound to raise the matter, first privately with Joy, and if that does not lead to a resolution either way, then publicly. That's how science works.
gill1109
Mathematical Statistician
 
Posts: 2812
Joined: Tue Feb 04, 2014 10:39 pm
Location: Leiden

Re: Comment on Joy Christian's second IEEE Access paper

Postby Joy Christian » Wed Jun 09, 2021 12:09 am

gill1109 wrote:
I am fanatical about the misunderstanding of true mathematical theorems.

You, the statistician, are the one who has misunderstood the "true mathematical theorems." For example, the "theorem" part of Bell's work is the derivation of an inequality that was actually accomplished by George Boole one hundred and eleven years before Bell's paper of 1964. Boole, however, did not make any outrageous metaphysical claims based on his inequality. On the other hand, Bell and his early followers (which included my mentor, Shimony, and his mentor Wigner) stole Boole's inequality without even mentioning him. Worse still, unlike Boole, they misunderstood its significance and misapplied it to physics. This was a forgivable mistake of early masters. What is not forgivable, however, is the extreme fanaticism of the later followers of Bell who stoop as low as academic thuggery to defend their faith in the historical mistake that is "Bell's theorem." It is worth remembering that Jesus was not a Christian and Marx was not a Marxist. But the fanatical followers of Jesus and Marx have been wreaking havoc on this world. Similarly, Bell was not a Bellian (I know, because I was privileged enough to meet him on several occasions). But Bell's followers like you have been wreaking havoc on the intellectual world. I am determined to undo the damage done by you and other followers of Bell until the last breath of my life, with whatever resources I may have.
.
Joy Christian
Research Physicist
 
Posts: 2793
Joined: Wed Feb 05, 2014 4:49 am
Location: Oxford, United Kingdom

Re: Comment on Joy Christian's second IEEE Access paper

Postby FrediFizzx » Wed Jun 09, 2021 6:27 am

gill1109 wrote:
FrediFizzx wrote:
Joy Christian wrote:Your selective reading of my papers will keep you deluded and mislead the Bell-beliving community, but it will not change the fact that Bell's theorem has been dead for the past 14 years.

Since it has been dead for 14 years, it is no longer a theorem but a theory. Gill has absolutely no proof of what he is being so fanatical about. What is up with that? :mrgreen:

You may think and say what you like about the theory, just as I may do too. But as Joy himself says, there is nothing wrong with the mathematical theorems which Bell uses. I am fanatical about the misunderstanding of true mathematical theorems. It's my job. It's my task in science, to care deeply about mathematical truth. Physicists may do with it what they like, but they may not deny it. 8-) ...

As usual, you are mixing things up. If you want to call the derivation of the Bell inequalities, some kind of theorem, whatever. Theorem-wise, it is not the same as Bell's physical theory based on the inequalities. Bell's physical theory based on the inequalities has been thoroughly shot down more than one way. You really should get over it and move on.
.
FrediFizzx
Independent Physics Researcher
 
Posts: 2905
Joined: Tue Mar 19, 2013 7:12 pm
Location: N. California, USA

Re: Comment on Joy Christian's second IEEE Access paper

Postby gill1109 » Fri Jun 11, 2021 8:03 am

FrediFizzx wrote:
gill1109 wrote:
FrediFizzx wrote:
Joy Christian wrote:Your selective reading of my papers will keep you deluded and mislead the Bell-beliving community, but it will not change the fact that Bell's theorem has been dead for the past 14 years.

Since it has been dead for 14 years, it is no longer a theorem but a theory. Gill has absolutely no proof of what he is being so fanatical about. What is up with that? :mrgreen:

You may think and say what you like about the theory, just as I may do too. But as Joy himself says, there is nothing wrong with the mathematical theorems which Bell uses. I am fanatical about the misunderstanding of true mathematical theorems. It's my job. It's my task in science, to care deeply about mathematical truth. Physicists may do with it what they like, but they may not deny it. 8-) ...

As usual, you are mixing things up. If you want to call the derivation of the Bell inequalities, some kind of theorem, whatever. Theorem-wise, it is not the same as Bell's physical theory based on the inequalities. Bell's physical theory based on the inequalities has been thoroughly shot down more than one way. You really should get over it and move on.
.

I’m not aware of a physical theory due to Bell. He gave an example of one theory *by way of example*, and shot it down himself. Recent experiments have pretty definitively finished the job. The escape routes (super-determinism, p-adic topology, many worlds - no reality, inconsistency of ZFC axioms of mathematics, …) have become less and less plausible. The only remaining escape route is “shut up and calculate”. You may mutter ‘Copenhagen’ and refer to Bohr if you wish to dress that up a bit. What was good enough for Niels Bohr and Richard Feynman is surely good enough for you!
gill1109
Mathematical Statistician
 
Posts: 2812
Joined: Tue Feb 04, 2014 10:39 pm
Location: Leiden

Re: Comment on Joy Christian's second IEEE Access paper

Postby FrediFizzx » Fri Jun 11, 2021 9:17 am

@gill1109 "I’m not aware of a physical theory due to Bell." You really are lost aren't you? Perhaps we have found your problem with all of this. :mrgreen:
.
FrediFizzx
Independent Physics Researcher
 
Posts: 2905
Joined: Tue Mar 19, 2013 7:12 pm
Location: N. California, USA

Re: Comment on Joy Christian's second IEEE Access paper

Postby Joy Christian » Fri Jun 11, 2021 7:37 pm

FrediFizzx wrote:@gill1109 "I’m not aware of a physical theory due to Bell." You really are lost aren't you? Perhaps we have found your problem with all of this. :mrgreen:

He is sitting in a box and does not know it. I don't think he will ever know it. He will continue to believe in the fiction he so fanatically believes in. No evidence will convince him otherwise.
.
Joy Christian
Research Physicist
 
Posts: 2793
Joined: Wed Feb 05, 2014 4:49 am
Location: Oxford, United Kingdom

Re: Comment on Joy Christian's second IEEE Access paper

Postby gill1109 » Mon Jun 14, 2021 7:44 am

FrediFizzx wrote:@gill1109 "I’m not aware of a physical theory due to Bell." You really are lost aren't you? Perhaps we have found your problem with all of this. :mrgreen:

I think we have found your problem, Fred!

Please tell us what you think is the physical theory due to Bell. :lol:
gill1109
Mathematical Statistician
 
Posts: 2812
Joined: Tue Feb 04, 2014 10:39 pm
Location: Leiden

Re: Comment on Joy Christian's second IEEE Access paper

Postby FrediFizzx » Mon Jun 14, 2021 12:07 pm

Joy Christian wrote:
FrediFizzx wrote:@gill1109 "I’m not aware of a physical theory due to Bell." You really are lost aren't you? Perhaps we have found your problem with all of this. :mrgreen:

He is sitting in a box and does not know it. I don't think he will ever know it. He will continue to believe in the fiction he so fanatically believes in. No evidence will convince him otherwise.
.

Yep, Gill is forever doomed to sit in that box. Otherwise he would have got over it and moved on already. :mrgreen:
.
FrediFizzx
Independent Physics Researcher
 
Posts: 2905
Joined: Tue Mar 19, 2013 7:12 pm
Location: N. California, USA

Re: Comment on Joy Christian's second IEEE Access paper

Postby Joy Christian » Fri Jun 18, 2021 5:55 am

.
My reply to Gill's first of three junk papers is now also available on the arXiv: https://arxiv.org/abs/2106.09479.

However, the version published in IEEE Access is also downloadable freely: https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/stamp/stamp ... er=9418997.
.
Joy Christian
Research Physicist
 
Posts: 2793
Joined: Wed Feb 05, 2014 4:49 am
Location: Oxford, United Kingdom

Re: Comment on Joy Christian's second IEEE Access paper

Postby gill1109 » Sun Jul 18, 2021 9:55 pm

Joy Christian wrote:.
My reply to Gill's first of three junk papers is now also available on the arXiv: https://arxiv.org/abs/2106.09479.
However, the version published in IEEE Access is also downloadable freely: https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/stamp/stamp ... er=9418997.

You mean, my three "Comments" on your three "junk papers"? (Your use of language, not mine).

Be happy! You get three "Replies" out of this. Publicity, publicity, publicity!

Meanwhile, my "Comment" to Joy Christian's first IEEE Access paper "Bell's Theorem Versus Local Realism in a Quaternionic Model of Physical Space" is now accepted subject to very minor improvements. I hope to incorporate them soon! The hard work will be to respond point by point to a dozen referees all with different ideas. Also, my "Comment" to his RSOS paper is slowly but surely moving towards publication. The referees were delighted by my courteous use of language. One lives and learns.
gill1109
Mathematical Statistician
 
Posts: 2812
Joined: Tue Feb 04, 2014 10:39 pm
Location: Leiden

Previous

Return to Sci.Physics.Foundations

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: ahrefs [Bot] and 72 guests

cron
CodeCogs - An Open Source Scientific Library