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 gill1109 » Mon Jun 16, 2014 12:31 pm

Joy Christian wrote:
Heinera wrote:And the fact that the pre-selection at the source uses a formula that depends heavily on detector settings a and b doesn't bother you at all?

Why should the fact that the pre-selection of N vectors "v" at the source does not depend at all, even lightly, on the future detector settings a and b bother me?

Christian can't read R code. So he can believe whatever he likes.
gill1109
Mathematical Statistician
 
Posts: 2048
Joined: Tue Feb 04, 2014 10:39 pm
Location: Leiden

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

Postby Joy Christian » Mon Jun 16, 2014 12:51 pm

gill1109 wrote:
Joy Christian wrote:
Heinera wrote:And the fact that the pre-selection at the source uses a formula that depends heavily on detector settings a and b doesn't bother you at all?

Why should the fact that the pre-selection of N vectors "v" at the source does not depend at all, even lightly, on the future detector settings a and b bother me?

Christian can't read R code. So he can believe whatever he likes.

Gill lives in a flatland. So he can only see his flatland in my R code.
Joy Christian
Research Physicist
 
Posts: 2400
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 » Mon Jun 16, 2014 10:36 pm

I think we can now say publicly that Christian's bid to win my challenge before June 11 has failed. Gregor Weihs and Hans de Raedt have independently calculated the four correlations from both of Christian's recent submissions and in every case at least one of those correlations deviated more than 0.2 from target (+/- 0.7071).

I suspect that Andrei Khrennikov is not going to respond to the request to adjudicate.

The challenge remains open but the prize now goes down to 5 000.

But of course, if Christian's experiment is ever done, and if it succeeds in reproducing the singlet correlations when the data is processed as in page 4 of the experimental paper and as described in the challenge, then Christian still can win two times 5 000 Euro: once for our original but cancelled bet (because I'm a gentleman), and once for the challenge (if no-one else has won it in the meantime).

However if Christian desires to be vindicated by Nature through experiment, I recommend he revises his experimental paper, explaining to the experimenters how to calculate correlations in S^3 instead of in flatland.
gill1109
Mathematical Statistician
 
Posts: 2048
Joined: Tue Feb 04, 2014 10:39 pm
Location: Leiden

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

Postby FrediFizzx » Mon Jun 16, 2014 11:46 pm

gill1109 wrote:However if Christian desires to be vindicated by Nature through experiment, I recommend he revises his experimental paper, explaining to the experimenters how to calculate correlations in S^3 instead of in flatland.

It is quite amusing that you still don't "get it" about the hidden variables. Nature does the S^3 correlations; the experimenters don't have to calculate correlations in S^3. Joy tried to show that better in the latest simulation but you still don't "get it". Your loss.
FrediFizzx
Independent Physics Researcher
 
Posts: 2075
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 » Mon Jun 16, 2014 11:57 pm

gill1109 wrote:I think we can now say publicly that Christian's bid to win my challenge before June 11 has failed. Gregor Weihs and Hans de Raedt have independently calculated the four correlations from both of Christian's recent submissions and in every case at least one of those correlations deviated more than 0.2 from target (+/- 0.7071).

On the contrary, I have defeated Richard Gill's challenge decisively, by not only unambiguously constructing the N spin vectors he had claimed were impossible to construct (as a “proof of concept” for my proposed experiment), but also by constructing the entire correlation surface correctly: http://rpubs.com/jjc/19298.

The evidence I have presented in the above simulation is here for everyone to see. On the other hand, it is also easy to see that the four correlations calculated by Richard Gill are simply wrong. Two of his results do not even lie on the correlation surface constructed in the above simulation. In other words, the four correlations he has calculated are not predicted by my model or my proposed experiment, or supported in any way by the data files of directions extracted from the simulation. As Fred has so clearly demonstrated above, one can easily feed the spin directions back into the simulation and see that they reproduce the correlation surface exactly.

What is more, I have been able to generate the above correlation surface in a manifestly local-realistic manner, by providing the N pre-selected spin directions. This suggests that my proposed experiment will be a spectacular success. It will reproduce the strong correlations exactly as I have predicted in several of my papers.

The evidence I have presented over the years for my 3-sphere model has been neatly summarized in this simulation: http://rpubs.com/jjc/16567.

The most important conceptual innovation here is that, what appeared as a "post-selection" of states to the flatlanders like Richard Gill, has now been formulated as a "state preparation" of the pre-selected initial states of the system, originating at the source. This was never a problem from the perspective of the 3-sphere, but the flatlanders were having a great deal of difficulty understanding my model because of it. But now the N spin directions, "v", which are actually observed by Alice and Bob, are all pre-selected at the source (rather than post-selected at the detector), thereby removing the last vestige of the Bell-baggage from the simulation.

In summary, N spin directions, "v", as an ensemble of the initial or complete states of the physical system, are pre-selected at the source, after the state preparation within the 3-sphere, just as we prepare initial states in quantum mechanics and/or experiments. The correlations are then calculated using the standard formula,

E(a, b) = (1/N) Sum_(k=1)^(k=N) [ sign(+a.v_k) * sign(-b.v_k) ] = -cos(alpha - beta),

where the measurement directions a and b are randomly selected, respectively, by Alice and Bob. Note that not a single one of Bell's assumptions has been dropped.

In conclusion, the Gill challenge is no more. I have defeated it decisively, by explicitly constructing the spin vectors he had claimed were impossible to construct.
Joy Christian
Research Physicist
 
Posts: 2400
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 » Tue Jun 17, 2014 1:41 am

Joy Christian wrote:
gill1109 wrote:I think we can now say publicly that Christian's bid to win my challenge before June 11 has failed. Gregor Weihs and Hans de Raedt have independently calculated the four correlations from both of Christian's recent submissions and in every case at least one of those correlations deviated more than 0.2 from target (+/- 0.7071).

On the contrary, I have defeated Richard Gill's challenge decisively, by not only unambiguously constructing the N spin vectors he had claimed were impossible to construct (as a “proof of concept” for my proposed experiment), but also by constructing the entire correlation surface correctly: http://rpubs.com/jjc/19298.

The evidence I have presented in the above simulation is here for everyone to see. On the other hand, it is also easy to see that the four correlations calculated by Richard Gill are simply wrong. Two of his results do not even lie on the correlation surface constructed in the above simulation. In other words, the four correlations he has calculated are not predicted by my model or my proposed experiment, or supported in any way by the data files of directions extracted from the simulation. As Fred has so clearly demonstrated above, one can easily feed the spin directions back into the simulation and see that they reproduce the correlation surface exactly.

What is more, I have been able to generate the above correlation surface in a manifestly local-realistic manner, by providing the N pre-selected spin directions. This suggests that my proposed experiment will be a spectacular success. It will reproduce the strong correlations exactly as I have predicted in several of my papers.

The evidence I have presented over the years for my 3-sphere model has been neatly summarized in this simulation: http://rpubs.com/jjc/16567.

The most important conceptual innovation here is that, what appeared as a "post-selection" of states to the flatlanders like Richard Gill, has now been formulated as a "state preparation" of the pre-selected initial states of the system, originating at the source. This was never a problem from the perspective of the 3-sphere, but the flatlanders were having a great deal of difficulty understanding my model because of it. But now the N spin directions, "v", which are actually observed by Alice and Bob, are all pre-selected at the source (rather than post-selected at the detector), thereby removing the last vestige of the Bell-baggage from the simulation.

In summary, N spin directions, "v", as an ensemble of the initial or complete states of the physical system, are pre-selected at the source, after the state preparation within the 3-sphere, just as we prepare initial states in quantum mechanics and/or experiments. The correlations are then calculated using the standard formula,

E(a, b) = (1/N) Sum_(k=1)^(k=N) [ sign(+a.v_k) * sign(-b.v_k) ] = -cos(alpha - beta),

where the measurement directions a and b are randomly selected, respectively, by Alice and Bob. Note that not a single one of Bell's assumptions has been dropped.

In conclusion, the Gill challenge is no more. I have defeated it decisively, by explicitly constructing the spin vectors he had claimed were impossible to construct.

Pity for you that the adjudicators disagree.
gill1109
Mathematical Statistician
 
Posts: 2048
Joined: Tue Feb 04, 2014 10:39 pm
Location: Leiden

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

Postby Joy Christian » Tue Jun 17, 2014 1:54 am

gill1109 wrote:Pity for you that the adjudicators disagree.

I have yet to hear from the Chairman of the adjudicators. Besides, the truth spelt out by me above does not need any adjudication. It is for all to see for themselves.
Joy Christian
Research Physicist
 
Posts: 2400
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 » Tue Jun 17, 2014 2:08 am

Joy Christian wrote:
gill1109 wrote:Pity for you that the adjudicators disagree.

I have yet to hear from the Chairman of the adjudicators. Besides, the truth spelt out by me above does not need any adjudication. It is for all to see for themselves.

There is no chairman of the adjudicators. They are self-organizing. The letter I sent to those three gentlemen did not prescribe their internal organization.

But you can bother Andrei if you wish to grasp at straws. As far as I'm concerned, we're finished. However if the three adjudicators together wish to revise the preliminary judgements made by two of the three, I'm willing to hear their arguments. That's all. Do you copy? Over and out.

Christian's, Diether's and Gill's conclusions were foregone conclusions. Gill correctly predicted de Raedt's and Weihs' conclusions. Everything is on record. Everyone else can judge for themselves.
gill1109
Mathematical Statistician
 
Posts: 2048
Joined: Tue Feb 04, 2014 10:39 pm
Location: Leiden

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

Postby Joy Christian » Tue Jun 17, 2014 2:22 am

gill1109 wrote:As far as I'm concerned, we're finished.

As far as I am concerned, we are indeed finished. The Gill challenge is no more. I have defeated it decisively, by explicitly constructing the spin vectors Richard Gill had foolishly claimed were impossible to construct. The facts I spelt out here do not need any adjudication by anyone. They are for all to see for themselves.
Joy Christian
Research Physicist
 
Posts: 2400
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 » Tue Jun 17, 2014 2:47 am

Good. Maybe Fred (our friendly and just forum admin) would like to close down this topic now.
gill1109
Mathematical Statistician
 
Posts: 2048
Joined: Tue Feb 04, 2014 10:39 pm
Location: Leiden

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

Postby Joy Christian » Tue Jun 17, 2014 2:57 am

gill1109 wrote:Good. Maybe Fred (our friendly and just forum admin) would like to close down this topic now.

We will close this thread when we officially hear from the Chairman of the adjudicators.
Joy Christian
Research Physicist
 
Posts: 2400
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 » Tue Jun 17, 2014 5:45 am

Joy Christian wrote:
gill1109 wrote:Good. Maybe Fred (our friendly and just forum admin) would like to close down this topic now.

We will close this thread when we officially hear from the Chairman of the adjudicators.

There is no chairman of the adjudicators. You saw the letter we sent them. (I think you are confusing bet and challenge).

But we can of course wait till we have heard from Andrei Khrennikov as well as the other two.
gill1109
Mathematical Statistician
 
Posts: 2048
Joined: Tue Feb 04, 2014 10:39 pm
Location: Leiden

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

Postby Joy Christian » Wed Jun 18, 2014 10:09 am

.
Andrei Khrennikov has informed us that he is unable to contribute to the debate. I have informed him that Richard Gill and I have agreed to disagree.

I have summarized the matter in a postscript on this page of my blog. Richard Gill is free to conclude whatever he wishes to conclude. This thread can now be closed.
.
Joy Christian
Research Physicist
 
Posts: 2400
Joined: Wed Feb 05, 2014 4:49 am
Location: Oxford, United Kingdom

Previous

Return to Sci.Physics.Foundations

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 8 guests

CodeCogs - An Open Source Scientific Library