Joy Christian wrote:Although Richard Gill has been banned from this forum and can no longer post a reply here, it seems important to me that I should elaborate on why he and other Bell believers are having so much difficulty in understating my simple counterexample to the so-called theorem by Bell (cf. my post here: viewtopic.php?f=6&t=55#p2222).
As I have mentioned many times before, the fundamental difficulty they are having is in switching from the traditional R^3 perspective to the S^3 perspective on which my counterexample is based (see, for example, the detailed discussion on my blog).
Their difficulty can be understood in terms of Thomas Kuhn’s celebrated comments on scientific revolutions. Namely, that switching from understanding ideas within an old paradigm to ideas within a new paradigm requires something like a Gestalt Switch. A scientist cannot operate in the old paradigm after having been converted to a completely different way of conceptualizing the world through a new paradigm. In other words, while Richard Gill and his fellow Bell believers continue to see only the mature spinster in the picture below, I and a few others who understand my work are able to see the beautiful young lady, ready to take on the new world:
Joy Christian wrote:A complete, numerical, event-by-event verification of the local-realistic and deterministic 3-sphere model presented in this paper can be found in this simulation.
f = -1 + (2/sqrt(1 + ((3 * s)/pi))) # For details see the paper arXiv:1405.2355
g = function(u,v,s){ifelse((abs(colSums(u*v))) > f, colSums(u*v), 0)}
A = +sign(g(a,e,s)) # Alice's measurement results A(a, e, s) = +/-1
B = -sign(g(b,e,s)) # Bob's measurement results B(b, e, s) = -/+1
N = n((A*B),a,e,s,b,e,s) # Total number of simultaneous events observed
Schmelzer wrote:The simulation presented at that simulation is an example of a simulation of such an experiment with detector efficiency loophole.
Joy Christian wrote:The simulation presented at this location has nothing whatsoever to do with detector efficiency loophole or any other ridiculous loophole.
What you have written above is complete and utter garbage. There are no 0 outcomes, either in the theoretical model or in the simulation.
Bogus criticisms of my work is not going to get you anywhere.
Your comments only show that you are a closed-minded and uninformed Bell-fanatic who is incapable of understanding any rational argument.
I repeat:
A complete, numerical, event-by-event verification of the local-realistic and deterministic 3-sphere model presented in this paper can be found in this simulation.
g = function(u,v,s){ifelse((abs(colSums(u*v))) > f, colSums(u*v), 0)}
# g(u, v, s) = 0 if |u.v| < f(s)
g = function(u,v,s){colSums(u*v)}
# For completeness we now calculate the correlations for two special cases:
f = 0 # Switching back the geometry and topology from S^3 to R^3
A = +sign(g(a,e,s)) # Alice's measurement results A(a, e, s) = +/-1
B = -sign(g(b,e,s)) # Bob's measurement results B(b, e, s) = -/+1
# Defines an inner product on S^3, thus changing the space from R^3 to S^3
Joy Christian wrote:
It may be instructive here to make a rather general comment about an elementary logical fallacy (or deception) that is repeatedly and universally used by all of the Bell-believing critics of my refutation of Bell's theorem since 2007. Rather surprisingly, this logical fallacy is committed even by philosophers who should know better.
The elementary logical fallacy the critics commit is the well known straw-man fallacy. You can clearly see its blatant manifestation in the above comments by Ilja Schmelzer --- See how selectively he presents what he claims to be my simulation. The actual simulation is of course dramatically different from what he presents.
The usual form of this logical fallacy is the following: If a proposed physical model (or argument) is X, then the critic surreptitiously replaces it with his or her own grossly distorted, much weaker misrepresentation Y. And since the surrupticious and deceitful replacement Y of the original argument X is deliberately chosen to be much weaker, the critic is able to easily refute or discredit it, thus giving the false impression that he or she has refuted the original pristine model or argument X.
As we know, such a deceitful and dishonest strategy is often used in politics. But, sadly, some supposed scientists also use it in defending their own vested interests.
I will name names here so that there remains no ambiguity in exactly who I am blaming. The people who have used such a dishonest and deceitful strategy against my refutation of Bell's theorem include Philippe Grangier, Richard Gill, Scott Aaronson, James Owen Weatherall, Ilja Schmelzer, and coutless number of other lesser known "scientists", including endless number of anonymous reviewers of my papers employed by some of the top physics journals such as Nature and Physical Review.
It seems that physicists, philosophers, and statisticians will go to whatever length to protect their vested interests, regardless of the cost of their actions to physics.
Joy Christian wrote:Schmelzer wrote:The simulation presented at that simulation is an example of a simulation of such an experiment with detector efficiency loophole.
The simulation presented at this location has nothing whatsoever to do with detector efficiency loophole or any other ridiculous loophole.
What you have written above is complete and utter garbage. There are no 0 outcomes, either in the theoretical model or in the simulation.
Bogus criticisms of my work is not going to get you anywhere.
Your comments only show that you are a closed-minded and uninformed Bell-fanatic who is incapable of understanding any rational argument.
I repeat:
A complete, numerical, event-by-event verification of the local-realistic and deterministic 3-sphere model presented in this paper can be found in this simulation.
Joy wrote that:
locally S^3 is identical to R^3
Ben6993 wrote:But how local is local?
A = +sign(g(a,e,s)) # Alice's measurement results A(a, e, s) = +/-1
B = -sign(g(b,e,s)) # Bob's measurement results B(b, e, s) = -/+1
Cuu = length((A*B)[A > 0 & B > 0]) # Coincidence count of (+,+) events
Cdd = length((A*B)[A < 0 & B < 0]) # Coincidence count of (-,-) events
Cud = length((A*B)[A > 0 & B < 0]) # Coincidence count of (+,-) events
Cdu = length((A*B)[A < 0 & B > 0]) # Coincidence count of (-,+) events
corrs[i,j] = (Cuu + Cdd - Cud - Cdu) / (Cuu + Cdd + Cud + Cdu)
(Cou = length((A*B)[A == 0 & B > 0])) # Number of (0,+) events within S^3
(Cod = length((A*B)[A == 0 & B < 0])) # Number of (0,-) events within S^3
(Cuo = length((A*B)[A > 0 & B == 0])) # Number of (+,0) events within S^3
(Cdo = length((A*B)[A < 0 & B == 0])) # Number of (-,0) events within S^3
(Coo = length((A*B)[g(a,e,s) & A == 0 & B == 0])) # Number of (0,0) events
(CoB = length(A[g(a,e,s) & A == 0])) # Number of A = 0 events within S^3
(CAo = length(B[g(b,e,s) & B == 0])) # Number of B = 0 events within S^3
Guest wrote:Joy, small point but above (at Thu Jul 09, 2015 11:09 am) you have written: "Here is the essential part of the code, specifying A(a, L) = +/-1 = B(b, L), …"
That, to me is not correct. In my opinion it should be written: "Here is the essential part of the code, specifying A(a, L) = +/-1, B(b, L) = +/-1, …"
Perhaps I am missing something, but to me the above are two different expressions.
I expect you need to satisfy the second expression to coincide with Bell's formulation? And I am guessing that you do?
A local, deterministic, and realistic model within a Friedmann-Robertson-Walker spacetime with constant spatial curvature (S^3) is presented which describes simultaneous measurements of the spins of two fermions emerging in a singlet state from the decay of a spinless boson. Exact agreement with the probabilistic predictions of quantum theory is achieved in the model without data rejection, remote contextuality, superdeterminism, or backward causation. A singularity-free Clifford-algebraic representation of S^3 with vanishing spatial curvature and non-vanishing torsion is then employed to transform the model in a more elegant form. Several event-by-event numerical simulations of the model are presented, which confirm our analytical results with the accuracy of 4 parts in 10^4 parts.
Return to Sci.Physics.Foundations
Users browsing this forum: jtankersley and 8 guests