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 Joy Christian » Fri May 23, 2014 3:06 am

I have also added the following comment at the bottom of this "experimental" page of my blog:

"PS: I have recently won the 10,000 Euros offered by Richard Gill for theoretically producing the 2n angular momentum vectors, +s^k and -s^k, appearing in the equations above. He claimed that it was mathematically impossible to produce such 2n vectors and had challenged me to produce them as a "proof of concept" for my proposed experiment. I defeated his challenge in May 2014 by explicitly producing the 2n vectors in these two simulations."

This should now provide sufficient incentive to actually realize the experiment. If the experiment is successful, then Richard Gill will owe me 15,000 Euros 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 Joy Christian » Fri May 23, 2014 5:57 am

For the record, let me spell out what Richard Gill has been disputing about in this simulation: http://rpubs.com/jjc/16531.

I have used vectors defined by the set



for calculating the first two of the four correlations in the simulation,

and vectors defined by the set



for calculating the last two of the four correlations in the simulation.

Richard Gill claims that these sets of vectors specify different directions in the physical space. But that is absolutely ridiculous.
Evidently, they specify exactly the same set of directions in the physical space, as I have explained in the simulation in detail.
They both, in fact, define a unique distribution of points on a circle of radius . This should be quite easy to see.
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 » Fri May 23, 2014 9:26 am

Joy Christian wrote:For the record, let me spell out what Richard Gill has been disputing about in this simulation: http://rpubs.com/jjc/16531.

I have used vectors defined by the set



for calculating the first two of the four correlations in the simulation,

and vectors defined by the set



for calculating the last two of the four correlations in the simulation.

Richard Gill claims that these sets of vectors specify different directions in the physical space. But that is absolutely ridiculous.
Evidently, they specify exactly the same set of directions in the physical space, as I have explained in the simulation in detail.
They both, in fact, define a unique distribution of points on a circle of radius . This should be quite easy to see.


Evidently, either the u's or the v's are completely superfluous, since apparently they are just two different ways to represent the same directions.

I await a valid submission from JJC, according to the rules drawn up by JJC and RDG together, and inspired by JJC's "experimental papers".

Unfortunately for Joy, in the mean time a gentleman called Hugh Matlock from Princeton has submitted two files which do seem to form a valid submission. So at the moment, Matlock's submission has priority. Matlock seems to be well-versed in Christianology, so he is well placed to beat Christian to the post.

A valid submission consists of: two files of N directions of angular momentum; one for for Alice, one for Bob.

The two directions of angular momentum of the two spinning hemispheres are determined in advance of deciding "in which directions" a and b Alice and Bob decide to look. First you give me a direction u and a direction v. You tell me what coordinate system you are using. Cartesian coordinates; (x, y, z) or (y, x, z)? I don't mind but you had better tell me in advance how you *represent* each of the 2N directions in the two files. As we discussed earlier, spherical coordinates are also OK. Any sensible coordinate system is OK but it has to be specified in advance, or I can't process the data files.

Then I'll pick a or a', and b or b', and *calculate* sign(a.u) and sign(b.v) for each of the N pairs of hemispheres, etc etc. You know in advance what directions I will be using.
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 » Fri May 23, 2014 9:41 am

PS Joy's trick is called "action at a distance". Depending on whether Alice measures in the direction a or a', Bob's observed directions of angular momentum, which have already been measured and saved on a computer file, are encoded (x, y, z) or (y, x, z).

This is reminiscent of the magical parity flips in Christian 1.0 (the "one page paper" version of the original theory).

I wonder who Christian is trying to fool now. I suspect not many people are falling for this nonsense any more.

Earlier we heard him state that two vectors u and v represent the same directions if u.v = 1. Things are not looking good. His staunch supporter Tom Ray agrees that u.v = 1 implies that u and v are the same directions. Tom is also certain that Poincaré conjectured that S^3 is simply connected and that that Russian guy recently proved it, winning one of the Clay institute millenium prizes. However, earlier, Tom agreed with my "spread-sheet" theorem. The theorem which says that the present challenge is impossible to win. I believe that also Fred Diether understood the spread sheet theorem. It was not clear if it had any relevance to Bell type experiments and quantum physics. But it sure as hell has a lot of relevance to the "two computer files of directions" problem.

Any way, too bad, but right now I am processing Hugh Matlock's Princeton submission. Hugh does seem able to read the challenge rules. (Strange that Joy can't read them, since he did help write them... and he earlier wrote his experimental papers). I'm afraid Joy will be pipped at the post and the 10 000 Euro will go to Hugh Matlock from Princeton!!!!

Unless of course I am right in my supposition that actually it is impossible to win the challenge. As Michel Fodje well knows.
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 » Fri May 23, 2014 10:36 am

The above two posts by Richard Gill are not worth responding to, apart from pointing to his well documented errors: http://arxiv.org/abs/1203.2529.
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 FrediFizzx » Fri May 23, 2014 11:35 pm

gill1109 wrote:PS Joy's trick is called "action at a distance". Depending on whether Alice measures in the direction a or a', Bob's observed directions of angular momentum, which have already been measured and saved on a computer file, are encoded (x, y, z) or (y, x, z).

This is reminiscent of the magical parity flips in Christian 1.0 (the "one page paper" version of the original theory).


It is not Joy's fault that you simply don't seem to have the capability to understand parallelized 3-sphere topology and geometry. It is your fault. You really should try to learn this stuff instead of constantly misrepresenting Joy's model. Joy has won your challenge easily. You should pay up.
FrediFizzx
Independent Physics Researcher
 
Posts: 2905
Joined: Tue Mar 19, 2013 7:12 pm
Location: N. California, USA

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

Postby gill1109 » Fri May 23, 2014 11:38 pm

Anyone who understands what Joy Christian has been saying is now able to steal his submission, do the post-processing which puts them into the required format, submit them to me, and win 10 000 Euro. I won't know where he got the data from.

Maybe Fred would like to assist Joy.

The challenge specifies submission of two files of N directions of angular momentum, which are thereafter processed according to the exact rules drawn up after a long period of open negotiation between JJC and RDG. Joy's recent submission disqualifies itself. A submission by Hugh Matlock (Princeton) is currently being processed.

Joy is welcome to try again but he is now second in line. And if someone hijacks his submission, and it works, he will have lost.

I am primarily a mathematician. Not a lawyer, not a physicist, though I have had a great deal of experience working with both lawyers and physicist's. Setting open challenges on internet like this also presents new learning experiences.

In a future life, when I repeat the challenge, I'll stipulate Cartesian coordinates x, y, z of directions in space represented by non-zero vectors in R^3. Length arbitrary.

Optionally, spherical coordinates theta, phi are allowed (azimuth, zenith). Units must be specified (degrees or radians).

I'll also set a maximum of 100 000 to N but advise N = 10 000.

Submissions are also possible in the form of R scripts, Perl scripts, Python programs, or C++ programs in which a pseudo random generator is initialised by a starting value given in the submission. Such scripts should contain clearly indicated "write" statements generating the two files.

Notice: I am not saying that Joy has not won the challenge. I'm saying that his submission cannot be processed, since the format is illegal. If a simple post-processing step can remove all ambiguity and generate two files in a legal format, then Joy should do that right away, before someone else "steals" his submission from him.

It is not my fault that I don't understand parallelized 3-sphere topology and geometry. Someone who does should easily be able to "fix" Joy's submission for him. I am waiting. He collaborated with me drawing up the rules of the challenge. He knows I am merely a third rate statistician.

The rules of the challenge are crystal clear. They are designed so that any idiot can see if a submission is valid or not. They are designed so that any idiot can check if a valid submission wins the challenge. A valid submission about which disagreement should arise (ie in case of dispute whether or not it is a winner) will be offered to arbitration. This is almost inconceivable but one can imagine that due to rounding errors being treated differently on different computer platforms, one could end up in a "boundary case" after which a wise jury will toss a coin or offer the benefit of the doubt to the challenger.
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 » Sat May 24, 2014 1:40 am

gill1109 wrote:Notice: I am not saying that Joy has not won the challenge.
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 Joy Christian » Sat May 24, 2014 7:32 am

Richard Gill claims that the sets of vectors and appearing in this simulation specify different directions in the physical space.

Is there any mathematician out there who can convince me that these two sets of vectors



and



specify different sets of directions in the physical space? Evidently, they specify exactly the same set of directions in the physical space. They both,
in fact, define a unique distribution of points on a circle of radius . This should be quite easy for any mathematician to see, shouldn't it?
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 Heinera » Sat May 24, 2014 10:52 am

Joy Christian wrote:Richard Gill claims that the sets of vectors and appearing in this simulation specify different directions in the physical space.

Is there any mathematician out there who can convince me that these two sets of vectors



and



specify different sets of directions in the physical space? Evidently, they specify exactly the same set of directions in the physical space. They both,
in fact, define a unique distribution of points on a circle of radius . This should be quite easy for any mathematician to see, shouldn't it?

The way you specified your two sets above, with both x and y uniformly distributed between 0 and 1, then of course you are correct.

The problem is that the set u in your program is not uniformly distributed in x and y; on the contrary, it is heavily biased. This makes v biased too, but in an entirely different direction.

Before you ask me to "prove it," you should try to do so yourself. Start with the vector u, and generate a histogram of all the x-values. Then generate a histogram of all the y-values. Are the two histograms uniform (i.e., flat)? Then check the following: Are the two histograms of the x and y values equal?

And finally, convert the two vectors u and v into polar coordinates. Make two histograms of the directions for u and v, respectively. Do the two histograms indicate that u and v specify the same directions in space?
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 » Sat May 24, 2014 11:19 am

Heinera wrote:The point is that the set u in your program is not uniformly distributed in x and y; on the contrary, it is heavily biased. This makes v biased to, but in an entirely different direction.


There is no need to insult me. What you have stated is obvious from the definitions of x and y. But it is also entirely irrelevant for the issue at hand. The challenge was about producing the set of directions to be observed and recorded in my proposed experiment. Did you read my experimental paper as I asked you to? Of course not. Richard had claimed that it was mathematically impossible to produce a set of 2n vectors representing the directions of the angular momenta to be observed in the experiment, and had challenged me to produce them as a “proof of concept." I have defeated his challenge by explicitly producing such 2n vectors. It is entirely irrelevant whether u and v so produced are differently biased or completely chaotic, as long as they represent the same set of directions in the physical space.

Heinera wrote:And finally, convert the two vectors u and v into polar coordinates. Make two histograms of the directions for u and v, respectively. Do the two histograms indicate that u and v specify the same directions in space?


As usual, you are missing the point. u and v do not have to be the same directions in space. They only have to belong to the same set of directions. Do you get it now?
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 Heinera » Sat May 24, 2014 12:11 pm

Joy Christian wrote:As usual, you are missing the point. u and v do not have to be the same directions in space. They only have to belong to the same set of directions. Do you get it now?

I'm not getting it, I'm afraid. Since any direction belongs to the set of all directions, your sentence seems rater vacuous.

I guess I would get it if I was just able to adopt a post modern deconstruction attitude of "North is the new east; south is the new west."
But that is not working for me, I'm afraid.
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 » Sat May 24, 2014 12:19 pm

Heinera wrote:I'm not getting it, I'm afraid.


All I can do to help is ask you once again to read my experimental paper. Then read Gill's challenge. Then read the comments in my simulation. And then think.
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 Heinera » Sat May 24, 2014 12:43 pm

Joy Christian wrote:
Heinera wrote:I'm not getting it, I'm afraid.


All I can do to help is ask you once again to read my experimental paper. Then read Gill's challenge. Then read the comments in my simulation. And then think.

But I have surely done all of the four things you suggest. Now, how about you taking your fourth suggestion seriously yourself?

And it's not just about thinking; it's all about thinking without being infatuated with one's own idea. That is not easy.

And with that advice I'll drop out of this thread. Children and a surprisingly early summer (27 Celsius today!) means there's a life to attend to!
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 » Sat May 24, 2014 12:53 pm

Speaking of my ideas, in the last paragraph of this paper I make the following observation:

"I hypothesize that the space we live in respects the symmetries and topologies of a parallelized 3-sphere, which is one of the infinitely many fibers of a parallelized 7-sphere. The EPR correlations are thus correlations among the points of a parallelized 3-sphere, whereas quantum correlations in general are correlations among the point of a parallelized 7-sphere."

This hypothesis is fully spelt out in this paper as well as this paper (see, especially, the main theorem and its proof on the pages 12 to 16 of the last paper).
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 May 25, 2014 1:27 am

Joy Christian wrote:It is entirely irrelevant whether u and v so produced are differently biased or completely chaotic, as long as they represent the same set of directions in the physical space.

Not a set of directions, but a list of directions. (The lists of directions for Alice and Bob have to be in one-to-one correspondence).

So all Joy has to do is to get some help from one of his computer-savvy friends to convert his two data files into two files each containing N directions. To be specific, let's represent the directions using Cartesian coordinates x, y, z (usual right-handed convention) of non-zero vectors in R^3. The length of the vectors doesn't matter.

Just give me two files each containing an N x 3 array of real numbers. Then I will process your submission. If I think it fails, and you disagree, we call in the adjudicators.
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 » Mon May 26, 2014 2:31 am

The challenge (the terms of which were unambiguously spelt out here by Richard Gill himself), has been won by me already; resolved, done with, defeated:

Joy Christian wrote:
In addition to these simulations, I have recently won the 10,000 Euros offered by Richard Gill for theoretically producing the 2n angular momentum vectors, and , appearing in the equation (16) of my proposed experiment (see also this page). He had claimed that it was mathematically impossible to produce such 2n vectors and had challenged me to produce them as a "proof of concept" for my proposed experiment. I defeated his challenge on the 3rd of May 2014 by explicitly producing the 2n vectors in these two simulations.

Note that I have posted the two .txt files of angular momentum directions, as required by Richard Gill, on this very forum, here (with further justification here).

Richard Gill owes me 10,000 Euros, period.

By the way, I will be adding interest and inflation adjustment to 10,000 Euros, starting from 1 June 2014. If Richard Gill does not pay up by 1 June 2014, then the interest and inflation adjustment will increase the amount until he pays up (since Richard has been changing the rules of the game, this caution seems necessary).
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 Joy Christian » Mon May 26, 2014 8:48 pm

Joy Christian wrote:The challenge (the terms of which were unambiguously spelt out here by Richard Gill himself), has been won by me already; resolved, done with, defeated:

Joy Christian wrote:
In addition to these simulations, I have recently won the 10,000 Euros offered by Richard Gill for theoretically producing the 2n angular momentum vectors, and , appearing in the equation (16) of my proposed experiment (see also this page). He had claimed that it was mathematically impossible to produce such 2n vectors and had challenged me to produce them as a "proof of concept" for my proposed experiment. I defeated his challenge on the 3rd of May 2014 by explicitly producing the 2n vectors in these two simulations.

Note that I have posted the two .txt files of angular momentum directions, as required by Richard Gill, on this very forum, here (with further justification here).

Richard Gill owes me 10,000 Euros, period.

By the way, I will be adding interest and inflation adjustment to 10,000 Euros, starting from 1 June 2014. If Richard Gill does not pay up by 1 June 2014, then the interest and inflation adjustment will increase the amount until he pays up (since Richard has been changing the rules of the game, this caution seems necessary).


It is very important to note that in the second simulation above I have used vectors defined by the ordered set



for calculating the first two of the four correlations in the simulation,

and vectors defined by the ordered set



for calculating the last two of the four correlations in the simulation.

Richard Gill claims that these sets of vectors specify different sets of directions in the physical space. But evidently they specify exactly the same set of directions in the physical space. They both define a unique distribution of points on a circle of radius . This should be quite easy for any mathematician to see, by

simply noting that .

and are thus different names of one and the same spin direction (say ) in the physical space.
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 » Mon May 26, 2014 9:43 pm

I claim nothing. I await a valid submission to the challenge.

If u and v are merely two names for the same direction Christian can simply delete superfluous entries from his data files. He has till June 11 if he wants to claim the 10 000 Euro, after that the special offer closes and the prize reverts to the normal 5 000.

If anyone else wants to do the job for him, and claim the prize for themselves, or on Christian's behalf, they have a wonderful window of opportunity. Christian boasts that he has won but is too lazy to fix his data files. Anyone else can do the job for him, and walk off with the 10 000 themselves. What are you waiting for?

Rules are rules. 1 is 1. 1 is not equal to 2.

Two files each containing one list of N directions. Preferably represented by non-zero vectors in R^3, Cartesian coordinates (x, y, z). The measurement directions are vectors in the x-y plane and the protocol only requires us to determine the signs of the inner products of Alice's measurement direction a and Bob's measurement direction b with Alice's N observed spin directions u and Bob's N observed spin directions v, so it suffices just to specify x and y coordinates.

If Christian prefers a left-handed coordinate system, he is welcome to prepare his lists of vectors as triples (y, x, z). But he had better make his choice clear once and for all in advance, since we evidently must represent Alice and Bob's measurement directions according to the same convention.

Alternatively just the azimuthal angle theta of the spherical coordinates theta, phi would be enough. Please specify radians or degrees.

Recall that Alice's two measurement directions are 0 and 90 degrees; Bob's are 45 and 135 degrees.

Christian seems not to realize that a particular list of N directions obtained by choosing N times uniformly at random a point on S^2 is not the same as the uniform probability distribution on S^2. Two sets of directions chosen in this way with the same N, same probability distribution, are not the same set. It is just too bad that his background in mathematics is not as strong as his background in physics. His background in probability theory is even more deficient.
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 » Mon May 26, 2014 9:55 pm

I repeat: Richard Gill owes me 10,000 Euros.

There is only one set of directions for Alice, the negative of which is for Bob. I have submitted only 1 file for Alice, not 2, and likewise only 1 file for Bob, not 2.

u and v specify exactly the same set of N directions in the physical space, meeting the terms of the challenge documented by Richard Gill himself.

I have won the challenge. Richard Gill owes me 10,000 Euros.

I repeat: Richard Gill owes me 10,000 Euros.

Personal attacks by Richard Gill on my background in mathematics is not going to change this fact.

Joy Christian wrote:In the second simulation above I have used vectors defined by the ordered set



for calculating the first two of the four correlations in the simulation,

and vectors defined by the ordered set



for calculating the last two of the four correlations in the simulation.

Richard Gill claims that these sets of vectors specify different sets of directions in the physical space. But evidently they specify exactly the same set of directions in the physical space. They both define a unique distribution of points on a circle of radius . This should be quite easy for any mathematician to see, by

simply noting that .

and are thus different names of one and the same spin direction (say ) in the physical space.
Joy Christian
Research Physicist
 
Posts: 2793
Joined: Wed Feb 05, 2014 4:49 am
Location: Oxford, United Kingdom

PreviousNext

Return to Sci.Physics.Foundations

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: ahrefs [Bot] and 79 guests

cron
CodeCogs - An Open Source Scientific Library