SciPhysicsForums.com

Here's a revision of my paper Comment on “Dr. Bertlmann’s Socks in a Quaternionic World of Ambidextral Reality” https://www.math.leidenuniv.nl/~gill/IEEE_Access_paper-rev2.pdf. It should also be on arXiv tomorrow morning https://arxiv.org/abs/2001.11338.

I report some results of further investigation into the GAViwer simulation.

gill1109 wrote:
Here's a revision of my paper Comment on “Dr. Bertlmann’s Socks in a Quaternionic World of Ambidextral Reality” https://www.math.leidenuniv.nl/~gill/IEEE_Access_paper-rev2.pdf. It should also be on arXiv tomorrow morning https://arxiv.org/abs/2001.11338.

A vacuous gibberish of a statistician who habitually makes extremely elementary mathematical and conceptual mistakes and incorrect claims. I have provided plenty of evidence of that fact in the past, for example in this paper: https://www.academia.edu/38423874/Refut ... ls_Theorem. No further effort from me is necessary to refute his new gibberish, and no physicist or a mathematician should ever pay any attention to it. I reluctantly respond to this post, just to reproduce a part of my response paper here for the convenience of the readers of this forum:



.

My paper is further shortened and sanitised, and is finally accepted by IEEE Access. I’ll also upload the final version to arXiv.

Obviously I will never convince Joy Christian that he is wrong but it seems I did convince quite a few others.

How about holding a Zoom seminar on this? We need a neutral chairman and moderator - maybe Jay Yablon? Or Fred Diether?

By the way, I already corrected my mistaken remark in my Entropy paper about bivectors squaring to 1. It is the trivector which squares to +1. The correction note is being processed.

I also asked Kevin Knuth and Andrei Khrennikov about Christian’s complaints. They are not taking any action on them.

gill1109 wrote:
Obviously I will never convince Joy Christian that he is wrong but it seems I did convince quite a few others.

You may have convinced some Bell-believers. That doesn't mean much, as they are already blindsided by Bell's junk theorem. Like you, they are already incapable of seeing the light.
.

Joy Christian wrote:[quote="gill1109"
Obviously I will never convince Joy Christian that he is wrong but it seems I did convince quite a few others.

You may have convinced some Bell-believers. That doesn't mean much, as they are already blindsided by Bell's junk theorem. Like you, they are already incapable of seeing the light. [/quote]
The final version for IEEE Access is also on arXiv now, https://arxiv.org/pdf/2001.11338v8.pdf

This is Joy Christian's GAViewer code running in GAViewer in Wine in Mint Linux on a VM Ware Fusion virtual machine on a MacBook Pro. GAViewer no longer runs on the newest Linux or Mac platforms but still can got be run under Windows.

@gill1109 Good! Now maybe you will learn some proper geometric algebra.
.

FrediFizzx wrote:@gill1109 Good! Now maybe you will learn some proper geometric algebra.

Learn something new every day.

I am trying to rebuild GAViewer. The source code is available but standard rebuilding does not seem to work on MacOS or Ubuntu Linux. It needs some pretty ancient libraries which clash with presently used ones.

gill1109 wrote:

FrediFizzx wrote:@gill1109 Good! Now maybe you will learn some proper geometric algebra.

Learn something new every day.

I am trying to rebuild GAViewer. The source code is available but standard rebuilding does not seem to work on MacOS or Ubuntu Linux. It needs some pretty ancient libraries which clash with presently used ones.

It would be good if there was a way to collect the data in GAviewer and export it as a file. Seems like there ought to be some kind of C+ function that could do that. I tried a few but no luck. Copy and paste into Word is limited by the number of trials.
.

Meantime, I have been talking to the guys behind GAViewer. They don't have the resources to keep it updated. They tell me that the future maybe lies with ganja: https://github.com/enkimute/ganja.js
And Charles Gunn is doing very interesting and innovative stuff. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/290437718_Geometric_Algebras_for_Euclidean_Geometry

gill1109 wrote:Meantime, I have been talking to the guys behind GAViewer. They don't have the resources to keep it updated. They tell me that the future maybe lies with ganja: https://github.com/enkimute/ganja.js ...

Looks pretty nerdy. Try progamming one of the GAViewer scripts in it. Let's see how you do. It needs to compile data in a list and export to a file or it is useless.
.

FrediFizzx wrote:

gill1109 wrote:Meantime, I have been talking to the guys behind GAViewer. They don't have the resources to keep it updated. They tell me that the future maybe lies with ganja: https://github.com/enkimute/ganja.js ...

Looks pretty nerdy. Try progamming one of the GAViewer scripts in it. Let's see how you do. It needs to compile data in a list and export to a file or it is useless.

“Ganja” is just a way of doing GA in JavaScript. I don’t know JavaScript. Maybe this is something for Chantal Roth or Albert-Jan Wonninck. They are skilled programmers. JavaScript allows you to do anything you could want to do with data. And make beautiful graphics.

While waiting for IEEE Access to finish their review (not to mention RSOS) I wrote a comment on Joy Christian’s first IEEE Access paper. It’s now on arXiv, https://arxiv.org/abs/2103.00225
Comment on "Bell's Theorem Versus Local Realism in a Quaternionic Model of Physical Space"
Abstract: I point out critical errors in the paper "Bell's Theorem Versus Local Realism in a Quaternionic Model of Physical Space" by J. Christian, published in IEEE Access. Christian's paper in fact contains several conflicting models. None of them form counterexamples to Bell's theorem. Most of Christian's paper is devoted to a model based on the detection loophole due to Pearle (1970).

Comments are welcome!

@gill1109 Same old junk physics and math, and lies; different day.
.

FrediFizzx wrote:@gill1109 Same old junk physics and math, and lies; different day.

Well, the junk physics and math and the lies are elsewhere! Take a look at https://rpubs.com/jjc/13965, in particular, this text:

Code: Select all

## This version has been adapted from Richard Gill's optimized version of
## Michel Fodje's original simulation of the model, which can be found here:
## http://rpubs.com/gill1109/EPRB3opt. Later Richard Gill improved his 3D
## version by employing the exact probability distribution derived by Philip
## Pearle in his classic 1970 paper: http://rpubs.com/gill1109/Pearle. It
## should be noted, however, that, unlike Pearle's model, the 3-sphere model
## has nothing whatsoever to do with data rejection or detection loophole.
## All of the above simulations are inspired by the original simulation of
## the 3-sphere model by Chantal Roth, https://github.com/chenopodium/JCS2.

First of all, Michel Fodje never wrote a simulation of Christian's model. He invented his own detection loophole and coincidence loophole models and published the Python code of them. He saw them as local realistic models which reproduced experimental results. He did not like the names "detection loophole" and "coincidence loophole". But that doesn't matter. None of these simulations were inspired by Chantal Roth's. Mine was a simulation of Pearle's model, which I learnt about from papers by Caroline Thompson, who published detection loophole models long, long ago. Caroline's models had nice physical interpretations, unlike Pearle's. But they did not produce the negative cosine exactly, only approximately. But good enough that one would not have been able to see the difference, with experimentally available data.

Chantal's model is a simple calculation using quaternions. In GA terms, she simply computes the real part of a b, and she even says that that is what she is doing! Her program was inspired by John Reeds' Mathematica implementation of some formulas in some of Christian's papers, which later resulted in that GA Viewer simulation. Which .... effectively, simply computes the real part of a b while adding some noise due to binning of "continuous" angles in discrete bins.

It is not even physics. It's just some elementary maths disguised as physics. In my opinion, it would make a rather nice hoax (cf. Sokal and Sneath). This is a fantastic "stress test" on present day scientific publishing.

@gill1109 More lies and nonsense. You're doomed to bending the truth. Nobody cares about what happened 7 years ago. Get over it.
.

FrediFizzx wrote:@gill1109 More lies and nonsense. You're doomed to bending the truth. Nobody cares about what happened 7 years ago. Get over it.
.

IEEE is interested. It’s good that Christian did accurately document the evolution of the supposed computer simulations of his model, as he saw them. We know he doesn’t program himself.

Yesterday I got the expected request to referee Christian's "reply" to my "comment" on Joy Christian's second IEEE Access paper. My report has now been submitted. My "comment" on the first IEEE Access paper is being reviewed. I hope to get news from RSOS coming week.

gill1109 wrote:
Yesterday I got the expected request to referee Christian's "reply" to my "comment" on Joy Christian's second IEEE Access paper. My report has now been submitted. My "comment" on the first IEEE Access paper is being reviewed. I hope to get news from RSOS coming week.

I have posted my "reply" on Academia.Edu and ResearchGate:

https://www.academia.edu/45322288/Reply ... l_Reality_

https://www.researchgate.net/publicatio ... l_Reality'

I have not posted my "reply" on the arXiv yet as it will have to go through revisions in light of the reviewer comments and editorial suggestions, and that may take a while.
.

Joy Christian wrote:

gill1109 wrote:
Yesterday I got the expected request to referee Christian's "reply" to my "comment" on Joy Christian's second IEEE Access paper. My report has now been submitted. My "comment" on the first IEEE Access paper is being reviewed. I hope to get news from RSOS coming week.

I have posted my "reply" on Academia.Edu and ResearchGate:

https://www.academia.edu/45322288/Reply ... l_Reality_

https://www.researchgate.net/publicatio ... l_Reality'

I have not posted my "reply" on the arXiv yet as it will have to go through revisions in light of the reviewer comments and editorial suggestions, and that may take a while.
.

Very good! Let’s hope they continue to move fast.