Another Response to Richard Gill's 10,000 Euros Challenge

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

Re: Another Response to Richard Gill's 10,000 Euros Challeng

Postby Joy Christian » Wed Jun 11, 2014 2:29 pm

OK, I did some further investigation. Again for the first correlation E_0_45, I found the following:

(s1 <- length(sign(ca[good]) * sign(-cb[good])))
## [1] 7070

(s1a <- length(sign(ca[good])))
## [1] 7070

(s1b <- length(sign(-cb[good])))
## [1] 7070

(s1ca <- length(ca[good]))
## [1] 7070

(s1cb <- length(-cb[good]))
## [1] 7070

What this tells us is that all the "good" quantities in the calculations of the four correlations are exactly 7,070 trials long, not 10,000 trials long.
Joy Christian
Research Physicist
 
Posts: 2793
Joined: Wed Feb 05, 2014 4:49 am
Location: Oxford, United Kingdom

Re: Another Response to Richard Gill's 10,000 Euros Challeng

Postby Rick Lockyer » Wed Jun 11, 2014 3:24 pm

OK, so much for saying I would not respond.

Joy, you are behaving extremely dense here. Your calculations were not using ca[good] and cb[good], they were using the entire ca and cb without cherry picking. My program effectively did the calculations using ca[good] and cb[good], and the result is abs(-2) and NOT abs(-2sqrt(2)). Simply modify your own program to specify ca[good] and cb[good] instead of simply ca and cb and see for yourself. the result will be abs(-2) just as I said.

The chart you provided is manifestly NON-LOCAL as it depends on the particular directions BOTH Alice and Bob have chosen for the creation of the "good" array of TRUE/FALSE values. Please review the for loops and particularly the logical and condition for determining what is "good" vs what is not.
Rick Lockyer
 
Posts: 46
Joined: Tue May 27, 2014 6:22 am
Location: Nipomo

Re: Another Response to Richard Gill's 10,000 Euros Challeng

Postby Joy Christian » Wed Jun 11, 2014 4:05 pm

Rick Lockyer wrote:Joy, you are behaving extremely dense here.

No, Rick. It is you who is behaving extremely dense and arrogant here. You haven't a clue what is non-local and what is not within the context of Bell's theorem. You haven't a clue what is a complete state and what is not within the context of Bell's theorem. You have picked up the word "non-local" from somewhere and throwing it around as if you know what you are talking about. The functions A_k = sign(a . u_k[good]) and B_k = -sign(b . u_k[good]) in my simulation are manifestly local. I do not care about your simulation. In my simulation I am not supposed to use ca[good] and cb[good] when the measurement directions a and b are fixed rather than random.

Why on earth should I modify my program? There are a million different ways to get the wrong results, and you have found one way to get the wrong results. So what?

The chart in my simulation is manifestly local, because it is produced by means of manifestly local functions A_k = sign(a . u_k[good]) and B_k = -sign(b . u_k[good]).

Before your next comment, please read at least one of Bell's papers (the first one will do), and also don't forget to read my paper: http://arxiv.org/abs/1405.2355.
Joy Christian
Research Physicist
 
Posts: 2793
Joined: Wed Feb 05, 2014 4:49 am
Location: Oxford, United Kingdom

Re: Another Response to Richard Gill's 10,000 Euros Challeng

Postby FrediFizzx » Wed Jun 11, 2014 4:22 pm

Rick Lockyer wrote:Both of you are clearly wrong in stating you have beat Richard, you clearly (really clear) have not. I am done commenting on the bet and your conclusions on whether or not you won based on the requirements.

I never said anything about beating Richard. I don't even really care about his "rigged" challenge. And it is not a bet; it is some kind of lame attempt by Richard to understand Joy's proposed experiment. He (and you) have learned nothing from it. But we have learned that Richard and maybe even you don't even know what a hidden variable is.
FrediFizzx
Independent Physics Researcher
 
Posts: 2905
Joined: Tue Mar 19, 2013 7:12 pm
Location: N. California, USA

Re: Another Response to Richard Gill's 10,000 Euros Challeng

Postby gill1109 » Wed Jun 11, 2014 9:50 pm

FrediFizzx wrote:
Rick Lockyer wrote:Both of you are clearly wrong in stating you have beat Richard, you clearly (really clear) have not. I am done commenting on the bet and your conclusions on whether or not you won based on the requirements.

I never said anything about beating Richard. I don't even really care about his "rigged" challenge. And it is not a bet; it is some kind of lame attempt by Richard to understand Joy's proposed experiment. He (and you) have learned nothing from it. But we have learned that Richard and maybe even you don't even know what a hidden variable is.

The adjudicators are busy adjudicating Joy's submission. Exciting!

Hans de Raedt's talk here at Växjö was brilliant. He has got a new theory explaining the singlet correlations. It is based on Fisher information, not on 3-sphere

http://arxiv.org/abs/1303.4574

Quantum theory as the most robust description of reproducible experiments

H. De Raedt, M.I. Katsnelson, K. Michielsen

It is shown that the basic equations of quantum theory can be obtained from a straightforward application of logical inference to experiments for which there is uncertainty about individual events and for which the frequencies of the observed events are robust with respect to small changes in the conditions under which the experiments are carried.

Here is a video of a similar talk by him:

http://rugth30.phys.rug.nl/pdf/m-lecture%2019%2002%202014%20Prof.%20Hans%20Raedt%20apple%20tv.m4v
gill1109
Mathematical Statistician
 
Posts: 2812
Joined: Tue Feb 04, 2014 10:39 pm
Location: Leiden

Re: Another Response to Richard Gill's 10,000 Euros Challeng

Postby gill1109 » Wed Jun 11, 2014 9:54 pm

Rick Lockyer wrote:OK, so much for saying I would not respond.

Joy, you are behaving extremely dense here. Your calculations were not using ca[good] and cb[good], they were using the entire ca and cb without cherry picking. My program effectively did the calculations using ca[good] and cb[good], and the result is abs(-2) and NOT abs(-2sqrt(2)). Simply modify your own program to specify ca[good] and cb[good] instead of simply ca and cb and see for yourself. the result will be abs(-2) just as I said.

The chart you provided is manifestly NON-LOCAL as it depends on the particular directions BOTH Alice and Bob have chosen for the creation of the "good" array of TRUE/FALSE values. Please review the for loops and particularly the logical and condition for determining what is "good" vs what is not.

Thanks Rick. Seems that Fred and Joy have a different understanding of the word "local" from most of the rest of the world.

I would say that their simulation model (taking the length of "good(a, b)" as the actual number of particle pairs generated when the settings were a and b) is an example of violating Bell by using the *conspiracy loophole*. The settings are known in advance, the probability distribution of the hidden variables depends on the settings on both sides of the experiment. ie a kind of conspiratorial "pre-selection".

This is different from Pearle who thinks of outcomes having three possible values: -1, 0 and 1. There is no pre-selection, instead there is post-selection: particle pairs are discarded when either gives the outcome 0.

Bell's theorem can be paraphrased as "QM is incompatible with locality+realism+no-conspiracy". The same model can be interpreted different ways. One can think of its violation of CHSH as being caused by conspiracy (pre-selection). Or one can think of its violation of CHSH as being caused by post-selection which is quite simply "doing the wrong experiment". See Bertlmann's socks where Bell make clear what "the right experiment" is. Or one can think of Pearle's model as a local realistic 2x2x3 experiment and then it does not violate any inequality at all. It does not violate Clauser Horne, it does not violate Larsson modified CHSH ....

Seems to me that Christian and Diether need to read the literature on generalized Bell inequalities and experimental loopholes. My own recent paper is a good place to start.
gill1109
Mathematical Statistician
 
Posts: 2812
Joined: Tue Feb 04, 2014 10:39 pm
Location: Leiden

Re: Another Response to Richard Gill's 10,000 Euros Challeng

Postby FrediFizzx » Wed Jun 11, 2014 11:00 pm

gill1109 wrote:Seems to me that Christian and Diether need to read the literature on generalized Bell inequalities and experimental loopholes. My own recent paper is a good place to start.

Ok, it's my birthday and I am a bit snokered on a few shot of tquilla but if Richard and everyone else doesn't have a good concept on what a hidden variable is, then I don't think is is much else that can be said. The Bell believers are coming from a really non sustainable position.
FrediFizzx
Independent Physics Researcher
 
Posts: 2905
Joined: Tue Mar 19, 2013 7:12 pm
Location: N. California, USA

Re: Another Response to Richard Gill's 10,000 Euros Challeng

Postby Joy Christian » Wed Jun 11, 2014 11:42 pm

Rick Lockyer wrote:Joy, you are behaving extremely dense here.

Among the people who are behaving extremely dense, arrogant, and ignorant in this thread are actually the QC Richard Gill and Rick Lockyer.

gill1109 wrote:Seems that Fred and Joy have a different understanding of the word "local" from most of the rest of the world.

Seems that QC Gill and Rick Lockyer wants to use deferent definition of "local" from that of Einstein and Bell. I have consistently used Bell's precise formulation of Einstein's idea of locality throughout my entire body of work in this subject, and in particular in my latest simulation.

gill1109 wrote:I would say that their simulation model (taking the length of "good(a, b)" as the actual number of particle pairs generated when the settings were a and b) is an example of violating Bell by using the *conspiracy loophole*. The settings are known in advance, the probability distribution of the hidden variables depends on the settings on both sides of the experiment. ie a kind of conspiratorial "pre-selection".

This is of course complete nonsense. A desperate invention by QC Gill which has nothing whatsoever to do with my model. I am not going to try to teach him what he is unable to learn for himself. In slide 6 of his recent talk he proudly calls himself "an algebraically challenged third-rate statistician who has no background in physics or understanding of mathematics." If he is right to call himself QC, then there is no point of my trying to make him understand my rather subtle model: http://arxiv.org/abs/1405.2355. In my opinion he should stick to his number crunching.

gill1109 wrote:This is different from Pearle who thinks of outcomes having three possible values: -1, 0 and 1.

My model is indeed different from Pearle's model. Pearle’s model is a static model, based on SO(3) statics. Mine is a dynamic model, based on SU(2) dynamics. The QC Gill has no intellectual capacity to understand the difference (but this is not surprising, given the above emboldened quote by him). The distribution of the initial states (u, s) I have used in my latest simulations is a result of the SU(2) dynamics, not the SO(3) statics. The complete initial state is the pair (u, s), not just u alone.

gill1109 wrote:Bell's theorem can be paraphrased as "QM is incompatible with locality+realism+no-conspiracy".

Bell's so-called theorem was stillborn. It has been refuted uncountably many times, by uncountably many people, not to mention my own refutation of it.

gill1109 wrote:Seems to me that Christian and Diether need to read the literature on generalized Bell inequalities and experimental loopholes.

Seems to me that QC Gill needs to recite the above emboldened quote by him at least a 1000 times a day, since he is now also exhibiting learning difficulties.
Joy Christian
Research Physicist
 
Posts: 2793
Joined: Wed Feb 05, 2014 4:49 am
Location: Oxford, United Kingdom

Re: Another Response to Richard Gill's 10,000 Euros Challeng

Postby gill1109 » Wed Jun 11, 2014 11:58 pm

FrediFizzx wrote:
gill1109 wrote:Seems to me that Christian and Diether need to read the literature on generalized Bell inequalities and experimental loopholes. My own recent paper is a good place to start.

Ok, it's my birthday and I am a bit snokered on a few shot of tquilla but if Richard and everyone else doesn't have a good concept on what a hidden variable is, then I don't think is is much else that can be said. The Bell believers are coming from a really un-abstainable position.

Happy Birthday Fred! I hope some time we will meet and drink a tequilla together. It will be on me.

About the title of my Växjö talk http://www.slideshare.net/gill1109/vaxjo-2014: the whole point was that engaging with Bell-deniers is so worthwhile. The title was intentionally provocative. The program committee of the conference includes several famous "Bell-deniers" and many participants are "QM-deniers" and/or "Bell-deniers". The message was that "quantum c****pot" have a whole lot going for them. For instance, Caroline Thompson was a famous "quantum c****pot" for years. Yesterday's terrorist wins, the name changes to freedom fighter, and the person in question is tomorrow's statesman. Remember Gandhi. "First they ignore you, then they fight you, then you win". When they call you a quantum c****pot it means you are hurting them bad. Don't give up!

By the way everyone really ought to avoid direct name-calling about one another, individually, on the forum. Ad hominem remarks. Can't we stick to content? Don't shoot the messengers. Try to understand the message and if you don't understand it, ignore it.
Last edited by gill1109 on Thu Jun 12, 2014 12:56 am, edited 2 times in total.
gill1109
Mathematical Statistician
 
Posts: 2812
Joined: Tue Feb 04, 2014 10:39 pm
Location: Leiden

Re: Another Response to Richard Gill's 10,000 Euros Challeng

Postby Joy Christian » Thu Jun 12, 2014 12:32 am

gill1109 wrote:About the title of my Växjö talk http://www.slideshare.net/gill1109/vaxjo-2014: the whole point was that engaging with Bell-deniers is so worthwhile. The title was intentionally provocative.

By the way everyone really ought to avoid name-calling. Can't we stick to content? Don't shoot the messengers. Try to understand the message and if you don't understand it, ignore it.

I hope you recognize the hypocrisy in your second statement in the light of your first statement. But wait, may be your hypocrisy is also intentionally provocative.
Joy Christian
Research Physicist
 
Posts: 2793
Joined: Wed Feb 05, 2014 4:49 am
Location: Oxford, United Kingdom

Re: Another Response to Richard Gill's 10,000 Euros Challeng

Postby gill1109 » Thu Jun 12, 2014 12:58 am

Joy Christian wrote:
gill1109 wrote:About the title of my Växjö talk http://www.slideshare.net/gill1109/vaxjo-2014: the whole point was that engaging with Bell-deniers is so worthwhile. The title was intentionally provocative.

By the way everyone really ought to avoid name-calling. Can't we stick to content? Don't shoot the messengers. Try to understand the message and if you don't understand it, ignore it.

I hope you recognize the hypocrisy in your second statement in the light of your first statement. But wait, may be your hypocrisy is also intentionally provocative.

I believe that I understand your own model, JJC, much better than you do! No hypocrisy here.

Accusing someone of hypocrisy on this forum is a personal attack on the integrity of the person. You may believe what you like about other fellow forum participants but you should not say just whatever you like about your opinions as to their character and motivations here. You can't see into my soul. You think you do. I think you're mistaken.
gill1109
Mathematical Statistician
 
Posts: 2812
Joined: Tue Feb 04, 2014 10:39 pm
Location: Leiden

Re: Another Response to Richard Gill's 10,000 Euros Challeng

Postby Joy Christian » Thu Jun 12, 2014 1:40 am

gill1109 wrote:I posted my evaluation of Christian's submission of a few days ago as an R notebook

The "punchline" is

Code: Select all
 
E(0, 45)  E(0, 135)  E(90, 45)  E(90, 135)
   -0.6262     0.6325    -0.3542    -0.3872
.

This is the calculation done by Gill. It is quite easy to see that the four correlations he has calculated are wrong by simply looking at the manifestly local-realistic and rotationally invariant 2D correlation surface generated in my simulation. Evidently, two of the four correlations calculated by Gill do not reside on this surface. That alone should have made him realize that the calculation he is doing is wrong (he of course does realize this, but it would be quite costly for him to admit his error).

The correct calculation fully consistent with my local model as well as my proposed experiment is given in the above simulation. Note the precise consistency between the four points on the 2D surface (with random a and b) and the four separate correlations calculated in my simulation with fixed a and b. The correct results are:

Code: Select all
 
E(0, 45)  E(0, 135)  E(90, 45)  E(90, 135)
   -0.6993     0.703     -0.699      -0.7276
Joy Christian
Research Physicist
 
Posts: 2793
Joined: Wed Feb 05, 2014 4:49 am
Location: Oxford, United Kingdom

Re: Another Response to Richard Gill's 10,000 Euros Challeng

Postby gill1109 » Thu Jun 12, 2014 6:36 am

Joy Christian wrote:
gill1109 wrote:I posted my evaluation of Christian's submission of a few days ago as an R notebook

The "punchline" is

Code: Select all
 
E(0, 45)  E(0, 135)  E(90, 45)  E(90, 135)
   -0.6262     0.6325    -0.3542    -0.3872
.

This is the calculation done by Gill.

Which is the calculation specified on page 4 of Christian's experimental paper http://arxiv.org/abs/0806.3078, and agreed by Christian first for the bet on his experiment and then for the challenge to generate data in some way or another, which would win the bet if if had been found in the experiment. QED..

Christian did not listen to Fodje's advice concerning the challenge, but now that he has lost it, he is suddenly listening to Diether's advice. Good. Now he can revise (disambiguate, extend, clarify ...) his experimental paper and thank me for my persistence in getting this defect (ambiguity, ...) to his attention.
gill1109
Mathematical Statistician
 
Posts: 2812
Joined: Tue Feb 04, 2014 10:39 pm
Location: Leiden

Re: Another Response to Richard Gill's 10,000 Euros Challeng

Postby Joy Christian » Thu Jun 12, 2014 7:04 am

gill1109 wrote:
Joy Christian wrote:
gill1109 wrote:I posted my evaluation of Christian's submission of a few days ago as an R notebook

The "punchline" is

Code: Select all
 
E(0, 45)  E(0, 135)  E(90, 45)  E(90, 135)
   -0.6262     0.6325    -0.3542    -0.3872
.

This is the calculation done by Gill.

Which is the calculation specified on page 4 of Christian's experimental paper http://arxiv.org/abs/0806.3078, and agreed by Christian first for the bet on his experiment and then for the challenge to generate data in some way or another, which would win the bet if it had been found in the experiment. QED..

False!

Gill has calculated the four correlations by disregarding what has been specified on the page 4 of my experimental paper http://arxiv.org/abs/0806.3078 despite my repeated requests to not deviate from what has been specified in my paper. His error can be recognized at once by simply looking at the manifestly local-realistic and rotationally invariant 2D correlation surface generated in my simulation. Evidently, two of the four correlations calculated by Gill do not reside on this surface! That alone should have made him realize that the calculation he is doing is wrong (he of course does realize this, but it would be quite costly for him to admit his error).

The correct calculation fully consistent with both my local model as well as my proposed experiment is done in my simulation. Note the precise consistency between the four points on the 2D surface (with random a and b) and the four separate correlations calculated in my simulation with fixed a and b. The correct results are:

Code: Select all
 
E(0, 45)  E(0, 135)  E(90, 45)  E(90, 135)
   -0.6993     0.703     -0.699      -0.7276

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

Re: Another Response to Richard Gill's 10,000 Euros Challeng

Postby gill1109 » Thu Jun 12, 2014 8:48 pm

Joy Christian wrote:Gill has calculated the four correlations by disregarding what has been specified on the page 4 of my experimental paper http://arxiv.org/abs/0806.3078

This is a simple claim which anyone can check. I hope all Christian supporters will very carefully check this.

In the meantime, three adjudicators are doing the checking too.
gill1109
Mathematical Statistician
 
Posts: 2812
Joined: Tue Feb 04, 2014 10:39 pm
Location: Leiden

Re: Another Response to Richard Gill's 10,000 Euros Challeng

Postby FrediFizzx » Thu Jun 12, 2014 9:17 pm

gill1109 wrote:
Joy Christian wrote:Gill has calculated the four correlations by disregarding what has been specified on the page 4 of my experimental paper http://arxiv.org/abs/0806.3078

This is a simple claim which anyone can check. I hope all Christian supporters will very carefully check this.

Did you figure out what a hidden variable is yet? And the difference between a real experiment and a simulation?
FrediFizzx
Independent Physics Researcher
 
Posts: 2905
Joined: Tue Mar 19, 2013 7:12 pm
Location: N. California, USA

Re: Another Response to Richard Gill's 10,000 Euros Challeng

Postby gill1109 » Thu Jun 12, 2014 9:29 pm

FrediFizzx wrote:
gill1109 wrote:
Joy Christian wrote:Gill has calculated the four correlations by disregarding what has been specified on the page 4 of my experimental paper http://arxiv.org/abs/0806.3078

This is a simple claim which anyone can check. I hope all Christian supporters will very carefully check this.

Did you figure out what a hidden variable is yet? And the difference between a real experiment and a simulation?

Yes, did you?
gill1109
Mathematical Statistician
 
Posts: 2812
Joined: Tue Feb 04, 2014 10:39 pm
Location: Leiden

Re: Another Response to Richard Gill's 10,000 Euros Challeng

Postby FrediFizzx » Thu Jun 12, 2014 10:05 pm

gill1109 wrote:
FrediFizzx wrote:Did you figure out what a hidden variable is yet? And the difference between a real experiment and a simulation?

Yes, did you?

Then please tell us why the experimenters on the real experiment don't need to do anything with "s" and "p" from the simulation.
FrediFizzx
Independent Physics Researcher
 
Posts: 2905
Joined: Tue Mar 19, 2013 7:12 pm
Location: N. California, USA

Re: Another Response to Richard Gill's 10,000 Euros Challeng

Postby gill1109 » Fri Jun 13, 2014 12:46 am

FrediFizzx wrote:
gill1109 wrote:
FrediFizzx wrote:Did you figure out what a hidden variable is yet? And the difference between a real experiment and a simulation?

Yes, did you?

Then please tell us why the experimenters on the real experiment don't need to do anything with "s" and "p" from the simulation.

Ah, good question!

Please explain to us why there is no "s" and "p" in Christian's 2008 experimental paper.

Please explain to us why there is no "s" or "p" in the data sets which Christian submitted for the challenge.

Please explain to us why there is no "s" or "p" mentioned in the challenge.

We have only known the full details about "s" and "p" since Richard Gill decoded Pearle's (1970) detection loophole for Christian, earlier this year.
gill1109
Mathematical Statistician
 
Posts: 2812
Joined: Tue Feb 04, 2014 10:39 pm
Location: Leiden

Re: Another Response to Richard Gill's 10,000 Euros Challeng

Postby Joy Christian » Fri Jun 13, 2014 12:51 am

gill1109 wrote:Please explain to us why there is no "s" and "p" in Christian's 2008 experimental paper.

There is.

gill1109 wrote:Please explain to us why there is no "s" or "p" in the data sets which Christian submitted for the challenge.

There is.

gill1109 wrote:Please explain to us why there is no "s" or "p" mentioned in the challenge.

Ask the challenger.
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 82 guests

cron
CodeCogs - An Open Source Scientific Library