My claim to collect the 10,000 Euros offered by Richard Gill

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

Re: My claim to collect the 10,000 Euros offered by Richard

Postby Heinera » Sun Jun 01, 2014 8:34 am

A somewhat OT linguistic question for those of you with English as a first language: What is the correct English expression for someone who happily walks into the same trap over and over again?
Heinera
 
Posts: 917
Joined: Thu Feb 06, 2014 1:50 am

Re: My claim to collect the 10,000 Euros offered by Richard

Postby Joy Christian » Sun Jun 01, 2014 8:36 am

Heinera wrote:A somewhat OT linguistic question for those of you with English as a first language: What is the correct English expression for someone who happily walks into the same trap over and over again?


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

Re: My claim to collect the 10,000 Euros offered by Richard

Postby gill1109 » Sun Jun 01, 2014 8:38 am

Heinera wrote:A somewhat OT linguistic question for those of you with English as a first language: What is the correct English expression for someone who happily walks into the same trap over and over again?

There is a Dutch saying “even a donkey doesn’t bump twice into the same stone”, the moral being that you’re stupid if you try something again and again and expect a different outcome. See also http://xkcd.com/242/

Then there is the famous quotation "Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results."
Albert Einstein
gill1109
Mathematical Statistician
 
Posts: 2812
Joined: Tue Feb 04, 2014 10:39 pm
Location: Leiden

Re: My claim to collect the 10,000 Euros offered by Richard

Postby Joy Christian » Sun Jun 01, 2014 8:43 am

gill1109 wrote:
Heinera wrote:A somewhat OT linguistic question for those of you with English as a first language: What is the correct English expression for someone who happily walks into the same trap over and over again?

There is a Dutch saying “even a donkey doesn’t bump twice into the same stone”, the moral being that you’re stupid if you try something again and again and expect a different outcome. See also http://xkcd.com/242/

Then there is the famous quotation "Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results."
Albert Einstein


On that count Bell and his followers are certainly insane. After all the experiments to date violating the Bell inequality without exception they haven't learned a thing.
Joy Christian
Research Physicist
 
Posts: 2793
Joined: Wed Feb 05, 2014 4:49 am
Location: Oxford, United Kingdom

Re: My claim to collect the 10,000 Euros offered by Richard

Postby gill1109 » Sun Jun 01, 2014 8:59 am

Joy Christian wrote:
gill1109 wrote:
Heinera wrote:A somewhat OT linguistic question for those of you with English as a first language: What is the correct English expression for someone who happily walks into the same trap over and over again?

There is a Dutch saying “even a donkey doesn’t bump twice into the same stone”, the moral being that you’re stupid if you try something again and again and expect a different outcome. See also http://xkcd.com/242/

Then there is the famous quotation "Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results."
Albert Einstein


On that count Bell and his followers are certainly insane. After all the experiments to date violating the Bell inequality without exception they haven't learned a thing.


Unfortunately still no loophole-free experiment. Emilios Santos wrote a wonderful article 10 years ago "Bell's theorem and the experiments: Increasing empirical support to local realism"

    It is argued that local realism is a fundamental principle, which might be rejected only if experiments clearly show that it is untenable. A critical review is presented of the derivations of Bell's inequalities and the performed experiments, with the conclusion that no valid, loophole-free, test exists of local realism vs. quantum mechanics. It is pointed out that, without any essential modification, quantum mechanics might be compatible with local realism. This suggests that the principle may be respected by nature.

http://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0410193

In other words, to date, the experiments don't prove anything. The experimenters do seem to be getting very close, however.

I named the position that QM could be true and QM itself could prevent (through intrinsic quantum uncertainty relations) the realization of a successful loophole-free experiment "Bell's fifth position", since he only mentions four possible positions to take regarding his findings in "Bertlmann's socks". He did later agree in private correspondence with Santos that Santos had a point, there was a fifth logical possibility.
gill1109
Mathematical Statistician
 
Posts: 2812
Joined: Tue Feb 04, 2014 10:39 pm
Location: Leiden

Re: My claim to collect the 10,000 Euros offered by Richard

Postby Joy Christian » Sun Jun 01, 2014 9:24 am

gill1109 wrote:Unfortunately still no loophole-free experiment. Emilios Santos wrote a wonderful article 10 years ago "Bell's theorem and the experiments: Increasing empirical support to local realism"

    It is argued that local realism is a fundamental principle, which might be rejected only if experiments clearly show that it is untenable. A critical review is presented of the derivations of Bell's inequalities and the performed experiments, with the conclusion that no valid, loophole-free, test exists of local realism vs. quantum mechanics. It is pointed out that, without any essential modification, quantum mechanics might be compatible with local realism. This suggests that the principle may be respected by nature.

http://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0410193

In other words, to date, the experiments don't prove anything.


Therefore it is all the more important that my proposed experiment is realized as soon as possible, even if it turns out to prove me totally wrong. It is a wonderful opportunity---and I claim the only opportunity---where we can test the viability of local realism decisively. It is the only experiment that can actually refute local realism. It is the only experiment in which all of the actual and counterfactual outcomes would exist in a data set, for all eternity, without zero outcomes.

As Michel has so convincingly argued, the traditional EPR-type experiments do not test local realism at all, because they replace counterfactual outcomes for one set of particles with actual outcomes for entirely different set of particles. In my proposed experiment, on the other hand, that is not what would be happening. I think the physics community should grab this opportunity with both hands and prove me wrong, experimentally, without snide remarks, derision, and neglect.
Last edited by Joy Christian on Sun Jun 01, 2014 10:02 am, edited 1 time in total.
Joy Christian
Research Physicist
 
Posts: 2793
Joined: Wed Feb 05, 2014 4:49 am
Location: Oxford, United Kingdom

Re: My claim to collect the 10,000 Euros offered by Richard

Postby harry » Sun Jun 01, 2014 10:02 am

gill1109 wrote: [..]
Unfortunately still no loophole-free experiment. Emilios Santos wrote a wonderful article 10 years ago "Bell's theorem and the experiments: Increasing empirical support to local realism"

    It is argued that local realism is a fundamental principle, which might be rejected only if experiments clearly show that it is untenable. A critical review is presented of the derivations of Bell's inequalities and the performed experiments, with the conclusion that no valid, loophole-free, test exists of local realism vs. quantum mechanics. It is pointed out that, without any essential modification, quantum mechanics might be compatible with local realism. This suggests that the principle may be respected by nature.

http://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0410193

In other words, to date, the experiments don't prove anything. The experimenters do seem to be getting very close, however.

I named the position that QM could be true and QM itself could prevent (through intrinsic quantum uncertainty relations) the realization of a successful loophole-free experiment "[..].

Yes indeed - a kind of principle of relativity for QM... maybe one day called the Principle of Quantum uncertainty?
Thanks for the link, Santos' paper looks very interesting. :)
harry
 
Posts: 48
Joined: Fri May 23, 2014 2:01 am

Re: My claim to collect the 10,000 Euros offered by Richard

Postby gill1109 » Sun Jun 01, 2014 11:26 am

harry wrote:Yes indeed - a kind of principle of relativity for QM... maybe one day called the Principle of Quantum uncertainty?
Thanks for the link, Santos' paper looks very interesting. :)


Well, I already gave the principle a catchy name: "Bell's fifth position". See http://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0301059, "Time, Finite Statistics, and Bell's Fifth Position". That was my first/only/other Vaxjo conference paper (I was there in 2002 and submitted that paper to the proceedings, and again in 2008 or so, but submitted no paper that time; my third time will be in a week. I was invited and first said no, because I had nothing new to say, but Andrei Khrennikov said "come and talk anyway, lots of other people come *every* year and give the same talk *every* year").

But you may also call it "Gill's uncertainty principle".

Klaas Landsman called it a kind of Gödel theorem for quantum mechanics.
gill1109
Mathematical Statistician
 
Posts: 2812
Joined: Tue Feb 04, 2014 10:39 pm
Location: Leiden

Re: My claim to collect the 10,000 Euros offered by Richard

Postby gill1109 » Sun Jun 01, 2014 11:35 am

Joy Christian wrote:Therefore it is all the more important that my proposed experiment is realized as soon as possible, even if it turns out to prove me totally wrong. It is a wonderful opportunity---and I claim the only opportunity---where we can test the viability of local realism decisively. It is the only experiment that can actually refute local realism. It is the only experiment in which all of the actual and counterfactual outcomes would exist in a data set, for all eternity, without zero outcomes.


Unfortunately the experiment is certain to fail:
Joy Christian wrote:
gill1109 wrote:Equation (16) is E(a, b) = 1/N sum_{j = 1}^N {sign (λj · a)} {sign(−λj · b)}
So: are a, b and λj unit vectors in R^3 ?
Is "." the scalar dot product?
Is "sign" the usual sign function?
Is everything else ordinary arithmetic?

    Are a, b and λj unit vectors in R^3 ?
Yes.

    Is "." the scalar dot product?
Yes.

    Is "sign" the usual sign function?
Yes.

    Is everything else ordinary arithmetic?
Yes.


gill1109 wrote:No ambiguities.

Suppose the experiment has delivered us the data sets u_1, ... u_N and v_1, ..., v_N.

Define

A = A(j) = sign(a . u_j),
A' = A'(j) = sign(a' . u_j),
B = B(j) = sign(b . v_j),
B' = B'(j) = sign(b'. v_j)

For each j, A B + A B' + A'B - A'B' = +/- 2.

Therefore averaging over j = 1 ... N

E(a, b) + E(a, b') + E(a', b) - E(a', b') lies between -2 and +2

Thus there is no way that three of the correlations will be within +/- 0.2 of 0.7071 and one within +/- 0.2 of - 0.7071.

Because every smart experimentalist can see that the experiment cannot succeed, no smart experimentalist will ever perform the experiment, and therefore Joy Christian and his followers can believe in his theory for ever.

Everybody gets to live happily ever after. It's indeed a cargo cult, as Florin Moldoveanu pointed out.

It's a bit like the following. Someone has a wonderful physical theory which depends on the square root of 2 being a rational number. His theory will be proven wrong by experiment, if the experiment would generate two positive integers p and q such that p^2 = 2 q^2. The theorist writes paper after paper and urges experimentalists to do his experiment. Let Nature be the arbiter! However, every clever experimentalist can very well understand Euclid's proof that no postive integers p and q exist such that p^2 = 2 q^2. The theorist remains a misunderstood genius to his death; his experiment (which could prove him right) is never performed; on the other hand, performing the experiment however many times would always result in failure so there is not much point in doing it.

Everybody gets to live happily ever after.

Incidentally, I know several renowned experimental physicists who don't believe Euclid was right. How can you prove that sqrt 2 is irrational, by assuming that it is not irrational? That's obviously pure stupidity.

"Impossibility proofs" are difficult to understand for practical minded people.

I'm reminded of an episode in the trials of alleged serial killer nurse Lucia de Berk. A probabilist tried to explain that a certain statistical calculation was wrong by performing a thought experiment in which he increased the numbers of wards in which the nurse had worked from 3 to some indefinitely large number. The judges cut him short. "We are not here to do thought experiments, we are here to ascertain the facts". Lucia got a life sentence plus thereafter indefinite detention in psychiatric hospital for 7 murders and 3 attempted murders ... none of which had actually happened. (Unless you count the usual life-shortening mistakes of medical specialists "murders". Every year in the Netherlands there are 2000 hospital deaths caused by avoidable medical errors. Almost none of them are admitted to have been caused by medical errors. Dutch medical specialists don't have to pay insurance against being sued for malpractice because they can't be sued for malpractice! Oh well, that lowers the cost of medical care.).

Einstein performed a thought experiment in the EPR paper: he imagined that instead of Alice measuring her particle's momentum, she had instead measured its position. What would Bob then have seen, if he had measured either position or momentum of his particle?

Einstein used the predictions of quantum theory, and locality, in order to infer realism, and from this, to infer the incompleteness of quantum mechanics. So was Einstein just as mistaken as John Bell? What colossal stupidity, to imagine the outcomes of different measurements from those which actually get performed (if any). We must resolutely forbid thought experiments. The only thing allowed in physics is (a) actual experiments, (b) simulation models of actual experiments.
Last edited by gill1109 on Sun Jun 01, 2014 11:57 am, edited 1 time in total.
gill1109
Mathematical Statistician
 
Posts: 2812
Joined: Tue Feb 04, 2014 10:39 pm
Location: Leiden

Re: My claim to collect the 10,000 Euros offered by Richard

Postby Joy Christian » Sun Jun 01, 2014 11:56 am

gill1109 wrote:Unfortunately the experiment is certain to fail.


So proclaims a flatlander. Sad, really.

Take heart, however, because even Clauser was absolutely certain before his first experiment that it will not exhibit the strong correlations, thus proving QM wrong.

My proposed experiment is guaranteed to confirm my hypothesis. By now I have accumulated a staggering amount of evidence in its favour, as documented on my blog and in my recent papers.

But suit yourself. Close your eyes to this evidence and it might just go away:

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

Re: My claim to collect the 10,000 Euros offered by Richard

Postby gill1109 » Sun Jun 01, 2014 11:59 am

Joy Christian wrote:Close your eyes to this evidence and it might just go away

I'm afraid that my evidence doesn't go away. But you can close your eyes to it forever, feel free ...
gill1109
Mathematical Statistician
 
Posts: 2812
Joined: Tue Feb 04, 2014 10:39 pm
Location: Leiden

Re: My claim to collect the 10,000 Euros offered by Richard

Postby gill1109 » Sun Jun 01, 2014 12:00 pm

Joy Christian wrote:Close your eyes to this evidence and it might just go away

I'm afraid that my evidence doesn't go away. But you can close your eyes to it forever, feel free ...


gill1109 wrote:No ambiguities.

Suppose the experiment has delivered us the data sets u_1, ... u_N and v_1, ..., v_N.

Define

A = A(j) = sign(a . u_j),
A' = A'(j) = sign(a' . u_j),
B = B(j) = sign(b . v_j),
B' = B'(j) = sign(b'. v_j)

For each j, A B + A B' + A'B - A'B' = +/- 2.

Therefore averaging over j = 1 ... N

E(a, b) + E(a, b') + E(a', b) - E(a', b') lies between -2 and +2

Thus there is no way that three of the correlations will be within +/- 0.2 of 0.7071 and one within +/- 0.2 of - 0.7071.
Last edited by gill1109 on Sun Jun 01, 2014 12:01 pm, edited 1 time in total.
gill1109
Mathematical Statistician
 
Posts: 2812
Joined: Tue Feb 04, 2014 10:39 pm
Location: Leiden

Re: My claim to collect the 10,000 Euros offered by Richard

Postby Joy Christian » Sun Jun 01, 2014 12:01 pm

gill1109 wrote:
Joy Christian wrote:Close your eyes to this evidence and it might just go away

I'm afraid that my evidence doesn't go away. But you can close your eyes to it forever, feel free ...


You have no evidence whatsoever. What you have is dogma, supported by ignorance.
Joy Christian
Research Physicist
 
Posts: 2793
Joined: Wed Feb 05, 2014 4:49 am
Location: Oxford, United Kingdom

Re: My claim to collect the 10,000 Euros offered by Richard

Postby gill1109 » Sun Jun 01, 2014 12:02 pm

This is my evidence:

gill1109 wrote:Suppose the experiment has delivered us the data sets u_1, ... u_N and v_1, ..., v_N.

Define

A = A(j) = sign(a . u_j),
A' = A'(j) = sign(a' . u_j),
B = B(j) = sign(b . v_j),
B' = B'(j) = sign(b'. v_j)

For each j, A B + A B' + A'B - A'B' = +/- 2.

Therefore averaging over j = 1 ... N

E(a, b) + E(a, b') + E(a', b) - E(a', b') lies between -2 and +2

Thus there is no way that three of the correlations will be within +/- 0.2 of 0.7071 and one within +/- 0.2 of - 0.7071.
gill1109
Mathematical Statistician
 
Posts: 2812
Joined: Tue Feb 04, 2014 10:39 pm
Location: Leiden

Re: My claim to collect the 10,000 Euros offered by Richard

Postby Joy Christian » Sun Jun 01, 2014 12:05 pm

gill1109 wrote:This is my evidence.


Keep it safe, like this flatlander's coins.
Joy Christian
Research Physicist
 
Posts: 2793
Joined: Wed Feb 05, 2014 4:49 am
Location: Oxford, United Kingdom

Re: My claim to collect the 10,000 Euros offered by Richard

Postby gill1109 » Sun Jun 01, 2014 12:10 pm

Joy Christian wrote:
gill1109 wrote:This is my evidence.


Keep it safe


It is safe! You may ignore it, and live happily ever after. The important thing is that people like Michel Fodje and Fred Diether are no longer deceived. I think they do not keep their eyes tight shut to relevant evidence.
gill1109
Mathematical Statistician
 
Posts: 2812
Joined: Tue Feb 04, 2014 10:39 pm
Location: Leiden

Re: My claim to collect the 10,000 Euros offered by Richard

Postby Joy Christian » Sun Jun 01, 2014 12:17 pm

gill1109 wrote:
Joy Christian wrote:
gill1109 wrote:This is my evidence.

Keep it safe


I didn't say "Keep it safe." I said "Keep it safe, like this flatlander's coins."

And let other people speak for themselves. You are not their mouthpiece.
Joy Christian
Research Physicist
 
Posts: 2793
Joined: Wed Feb 05, 2014 4:49 am
Location: Oxford, United Kingdom

Re: My claim to collect the 10,000 Euros offered by Richard

Postby gill1109 » Sun Jun 01, 2014 12:18 pm

Joy Christian wrote:And let other people speak for themselves. You are not their mouthpiece.

Sure. Other people will study and learn and think for themselves. Isn't that great!

I am just explaining to you my motivation.
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: No registered users and 85 guests

cron
CodeCogs - An Open Source Scientific Library