The still open 5 000 Euro challenge

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

Re: The still open 5 000 Euro challenge

Postby menoma » Thu Jun 19, 2014 9:21 am

(1) It is quite clear that Richard Gill lied with intention to deceive.


That's your subjective assessment. It may or may not prove intersubjective.

(2) How on earth do you know anything about what Khrennikov did or did not do, or how he felt about the so-called "challenge", or what his circumstances are?


Richard Gill stated on the 10,000 euros thread that Khrennikov in effect was unable to deal with the question. You didn't disagree with that assessment nor that Khrennikov had agreed to be an adjudicator. Do you disagree now?

(3) How do you know the opinions of the other two physicists? How do you know that they agree that "Dr. Christian's submission failed..."? Did they tell you that?


Once again: do you dispute it? (If I subscribed to your aesthetic at its most disturbed I'd put that in bold large-font red letters.)

It is quite clear that Richard Gill lied with intention to deceive. Apparently you are quite happy to be decived by him, just as many other Bell-believers are.


Whatever.

It is not wise to indulge in speculations about things you know nothing about.


Your point being?
menoma
 
Posts: 23
Joined: Thu Apr 17, 2014 9:29 am

Re: The still open 5 000 Euro challenge

Postby gill1109 » Fri Jun 20, 2014 12:55 am

Thanks Menoma for your contributions.

Regarding what actually happened concerning the adjudication: just before the Växjö conference, Khrennikov agreed to be an adjudicator together with Gregor Weihs and Hans de Raedt. There was a brief email exchange concerning what they had to do. Then there was a busy conference week which included a lot of unforeseen problems due to a train strike in Sweden which meant all kinds of changes to invited speakers' travel schedules, hotels, rebookings... and now Andrei has a big head-ache raising the money to pay for the extra costs. That's why he informed us that he had to drop out. We have to respect that.

Gregor and Hans both independently did what they were supposed to do, informed Christian and me, and only after both had done this, were they also informed of what the other had done. They took this approach under their own initiative (as they were indeed free to). Andrei has not, as far as I know, been informed of their findings.

The adjudicators were not given any instructions as to how they were to work together - jointly or independently, with or without a chairman, majority vote or chairman decides, or whatever. What actually happened was that two of them completely independently on one another did what we asked them to do and reported, separately and independently, back to us. The third adjudicator dropped out because of time pressure of other obligations. Both Gregor and Hans told us that they considered that their work was now completed. They wish not to be involved in further discussion. This wish has to be respected, too; and indeed it was part of the request to them: do this, tell us your conclusion, that's it.

What we could do would be to re-recruit a replacement third adjudicator - Michel Fodje perhaps? Or Han Geurdes? Fred Diether III? And ask them to do the same as the other two? Then we could settle the challenge according to majority vote. However since the majority is already clear (rejecting Christian's claim) there seems no point in doing this.

In the meantime, anyone who likes is welcome to analyse Christian's submitted files however they like (at the last moment there were several verions with different values of N) and take another look at the original challenge and the original text of the four page experimental paper (page four is about the experiment) and discuss that here. I am always interested in further discussion about the merits or otherwise of the challenge. Everyone knows that my opinion is that it is unwinnable but who knows, maybe I'm actually as bad at mathematics as Christian suggests, and have overlooked something.

Since I *set* the challenge, I reserve the right to resolve new ambiguities, if any appear, unilaterally. Anyone who thinks I am shifting goal-posts is welcome to say so and to explain why they think that is the case.

I claim not to have told any falsehoods with intention to deceive. My prior opinion of Christian's work is well known. The challenge was both an experiment and a pedagogical exercise designed to enlighten independent onlookers. Personally I am very happy how it has turned out. As a devious Jesuitical Brit I like to use Machiavellian tricks to achieve my aims. For instance, "divide and rule" worked nicely, with Christian and Diether at one point apparently strongly disagreeing how the data from the experiment should be analysed.
gill1109
Mathematical Statistician
 
Posts: 1245
Joined: Tue Feb 04, 2014 9:39 pm
Location: Leiden

Re: The still open 5 000 Euro challenge

Postby Joy Christian » Fri Jun 20, 2014 1:56 am

The following points are self-evident from the previous comments by me, but let me restate them here for the record:

(1) It is quite clear that earlier Richard Gill deliberately made a false statement with intention to deceive. He unambiguously stated that "Khrennikov does not agree with Christian", which was a lie. A lie which cannot be covered up by even a million words of half truths.

(2) It is also quite clear that, with Khrennikov's withdrawal from participating in the process, the adjudication was never completed: No coram, no judgment.

(3) It is more than clear that the superficial calculations done by Richard Gill, Gregor Weihs, and Hans de Raedt with the data files I submitted are simply incorrect.

I do not mean to imply that they made any silly mistakes in their calculations. Far from it. The calculations are trivial to do. But their results contradict the clear-cut evidence presented in my simulation: http://rpubs.com/jjc/19298. Two of the four correlations they have computed do not lie on the correlation surface generated in the simulation. Thus their calculations have nothing to do with my model or my proposed experiment, or the so-called challenge. The correct calculations of the four correlations can be found at the bottom of my simulation. Note that all four correlations lie on the correlation surface generated at the top of the simulation. Moreover, as Fred has demonstrated so convincingly, feeding the text files of the spin directions back into the simulation reproduces the correlation surface exactly.

For my true opinion of Richard Gill's so-called challenge, I refer you back to my earlier statement: viewtopic.php?f=6&t=66#p3030.
Joy Christian
Research Physicist
 
Posts: 1742
Joined: Wed Feb 05, 2014 3:49 am
Location: Oxford, United Kingdom

Re: The still open 5 000 Euro challenge

Postby menoma » Fri Jun 20, 2014 9:08 am

This is how the affair will be presented by Dr. Christian's opponents, and he has few (and it seems always the same) proponents to contradict it:

"Joy Christian voluntarily accepted a proof-of-concept challenge, accompanied by a monetary bet, offered by Richard Gill, to be adjudicated by three independent physicists of unchallenged distinction. One of the physicists was forced to withdraw at the final moment due to an unforeseen emergency situation. The other two adjudicators, however, were in agreement and so the opinion of the third, while certainly of interest, would not have tipped the balance in terms of the challenge-cum-bet.

"The judgment of the two participating adjudicators was that Dr. Christian's submission did not meet the criteria of the challenge -- i.e., Dr. Christian did not put forward an acceptable proof-of-concept. However, Dr. Christian refused to defer to this determination and continued to maintain that he had, in effect, met all agreed-upon conditions and won the bet. An unfriendly observer might offer the opinion that this posture seemed divorced from reality. Dr. Christian moreover called Dr. Gill a liar on several occasions and accused him of deceitful practices. These attacks are on permanent record (magnetic media and DVD). Furthermore the above was merely the latest installment of a long history of arguably unprofessional, often ad hominem attacks -- frequently describable indeed as fulminations -- by Dr. Christian, of which permanent archival records exist. Indeed, many of those attacks are worth reading for their entertainment value if nothing else. And this man continued to ask for circa 200,000 dollars (US) to fund a proposed experiment designed to prove a conjecture for which, as noted, he was unable to provide any proof-of-concept acceptable to his professional peers and on behalf of which he appeared willing to insult and disparage no few of them on a continuing basis. This pattern of behavior was absolutely unprecedented in the annals of science and we can only hope it does not itself become a precedent."
menoma
 
Posts: 23
Joined: Thu Apr 17, 2014 9:29 am

Re: The still open 5 000 Euro challenge

Postby Joy Christian » Fri Jun 20, 2014 9:40 am

Well, the readers have two very simple options:

(1) Fall for the overt demonization attempt above (I have seen far more sophisticated approaches), or

(2) Checkout the actual evidence presented in this simulation themselves: http://rpubs.com/jjc/19298.

It all depends on whether one is interested in science and evidence or dirty propaganda and cheap thrills.

Image
Joy Christian
Research Physicist
 
Posts: 1742
Joined: Wed Feb 05, 2014 3:49 am
Location: Oxford, United Kingdom

Re: The still open 5 000 Euro challenge

Postby menoma » Fri Jun 20, 2014 9:59 am

Well, the readers have two very simple options:

(1) Fall for the overt demonization attempt above (I have seen far more sophisticated approaches), or ...


I don't doubt you've seen far more sophisticated approaches and I'd love to read them if I already haven't. Do you have it in your heart to share?
menoma
 
Posts: 23
Joined: Thu Apr 17, 2014 9:29 am

Re: The still open 5 000 Euro challenge

Postby florence » Sat Jun 21, 2014 2:45 am

in Joy's latest simulation (http://rpubs.com/jjc/19298) because of the way the 'good' vectors are selected, {good <- abs(ua) > p & abs(ub) > p ## Sets the topology to that of S^3} this results in v being different for each pair of a and b values? could someone please clarify, purely from the point of view of the prize challenge, whether that is permissible under the rules?
{if i use the same v each time, the correlations i find are -.7042 (as before), but +.5415, -.5353, -.2200 for the rest, which gives a value of 2.0010 for abs(E_0_45 - E_0_135 + E_90_45 + E_90_135), as might be expected}
florence
 
Posts: 3
Joined: Fri May 09, 2014 12:25 am

Re: The still open 5 000 Euro challenge

Postby Joy Christian » Sat Jun 21, 2014 3:20 am

florence wrote:in Joy's latest simulation (http://rpubs.com/jjc/19298) because of the way the 'good' vectors are selected, {good <- abs(ua) > p & abs(ub) > p ## Sets the topology to that of S^3} this results in v being different for each pair of a and b values? could someone please clarify, purely from the point of view of the prize challenge, whether that is permissible under the rules?
{if i use the same v each time, the correlations i find are -.7042 (as before), but +.5415, -.5353, -.2200 for the rest, which gives a value of 2.0010 for abs(E_0_45 - E_0_135 + E_90_45 + E_90_135), as might be expected}

The correct rules of the so-called challenge were discussed here: viewtopic.php?f=6&t=31&p=1651&hilit=replacement#p1651.

As you can see, you must sample without replacement to get the correct results. Otherwise you are doing something that is physically meaningless.

The rules of the fraudulent challenge were laid out here under my strenuous protests.

Nowhere in these fake rules does it say that the same spin vectors v must be used for all direction vectors a and b.

But now that you raise the question, the rules of the fraudulent challenge will change once again, the Nth time, where N is unbounded in all conceivable ways.

PS: The rpubs.com has been down since yesterday. At least I am unable to access it since yesterday.
Joy Christian
Research Physicist
 
Posts: 1742
Joined: Wed Feb 05, 2014 3:49 am
Location: Oxford, United Kingdom

Re: The still open 5 000 Euro challenge

Postby gill1109 » Sat Jun 21, 2014 7:30 am

florence wrote:in Joy's latest simulation (http://rpubs.com/jjc/19298) because of the way the 'good' vectors are selected, {good <- abs(ua) > p & abs(ub) > p ## Sets the topology to that of S^3} this results in v being different for each pair of a and b values? could someone please clarify, purely from the point of view of the prize challenge, whether that is permissible under the rules?
{if i use the same v each time, the correlations i find are -.7042 (as before), but +.5415, -.5353, -.2200 for the rest, which gives a value of 2.0010 for abs(E_0_45 - E_0_135 + E_90_45 + E_90_135), as might be expected}

You are right Florence. This indeed results in a different subset of directions being selected for each pair of a and b values. As is necessary in order to get the result with Christian desires! But it is firmly against the rules of the challenge. The challenge is in fact unwinnable - that was the whole point of it, as far as I am concerned. Who is going to spend months trying to win an obviously unwinnable challenge? What do we learn from observing someone trying to do that?

Christian is using Pearle's detection loophole model, which I told him about some months ago; *after* the challenge was formulated, and *long after* he wrote his experimental paper. In fact it cost me a lot of hard work to extract these simple formulas from Pearle's 1970 paper - misprints and old-fashioned unexplained notational conventions make that classic paper very, very hard to read. I think I am the first person who "decoded" it in nearly 45 years.

You will not find any reference at all to these selection tricks in the instructions to the experimenters on page 4 of Christian's so-called experimental paper. The challenge is modelled on the instructions which Christian himself wrote, as to how, after the experiment, they were to process the data which is gathered in the experiment. And for quite a while he tried again and again to win the challenge "according to the rules".
gill1109
Mathematical Statistician
 
Posts: 1245
Joined: Tue Feb 04, 2014 9:39 pm
Location: Leiden

Re: The still open 5 000 Euro challenge

Postby Joy Christian » Sat Jun 21, 2014 8:49 am

OK, here we go again:

(1) I have already defeated the so-called challenge: http://rpubs.com/jjc/19298. The Gill challenge is no more. I have defeated it decisively.

(2) My 3-sphere model has nothing whatsoever to do with the detection loophole: See, e.g., http://arxiv.org/abs/1405.2355 and http://rpubs.com/jjc/16567.

(3) As usual Richard Gill is giving far too much credit to himself. All he did was to make a minute correction to the original distribution function Michel Fodje and I worked out after Chantal Roth finally produced a viable computer simulation of my 3-sphere model. Without the pioneering simulation works of Chantal Roth and Michel Fodje in weeks of close collaborations with me on theoretical issues, and without the intense discussion that success triggered on several blogs among many participants, and without Fred having set up this particular forum to foster further collaboration with all parties involved, Richard Gill would not have been able to make the minute correction he did make to the distribution function used in Michel Fodje's original simulation. So while Richard Gill certainly deserves credit for digging up the correct distribution function from Pearle's classic paper, he is less than charitable, particularly to Michel Fodje. To understand the significance of the pioneering contributions by Chantal Roth and Michel Fodje, please see the appendices of this paper: http://libertesphilosophica.info/blog/w ... hapter.pdf.

(4) There are very good reasons why Richard Gill continues to misrepresent my theoretical work as well as my experimental paper. He is intellectually incapable of understanding my 3-sphere model. He has spent several years of considerable efforts to understand my work, but to no avail. There are others who do understand my work very well, however, such as Ben and Fred on this forum, not to mention Lucien Hardy, Michel Fodje, Hugh Matlock, Chantal Roth, Tom Ray, and many others.

(5) Anyone who understands my 3-sphere model and reads my experimental paper in its rightful context knows that I have already defeated the Gill challenge.
Joy Christian
Research Physicist
 
Posts: 1742
Joined: Wed Feb 05, 2014 3:49 am
Location: Oxford, United Kingdom

Re: The still open 5 000 Euro challenge

Postby FrediFizzx » Sat Jun 21, 2014 10:08 pm

gill1109 wrote:Unfortunately, an attempt to claim the 10 000 Euro prize for a successful attempt before June 11 failed at the adjudication stage. The challenge is still open, but now only 5 000 Euro is on offer.

LOL! There are a couple of big problems with your challenge.

1. You don't seem to know the difference between a real experiment and a simulation of such experiment

2. There are four separate experiments to simulate with the fixed angles. Therefore there needs to be 4 pairs of direction files.

And... as I said before, in the true spirt of the challenge, Joy had already beaten it before you even proposed it. Double LOL!

Now, something more interesting might be a simulation where the angle pairs are switched random like in Aspect or Weihs, et al. All in a single run of many trials.

Anyway, I doubt that anyone is interested in your challenge anymore.
FrediFizzx
Independent Physics Researcher
 
Posts: 1201
Joined: Tue Mar 19, 2013 6:12 pm
Location: California, USA

Re: The still open 5 000 Euro challenge

Postby gill1109 » Sat Jun 21, 2014 10:25 pm

FrediFizzx wrote:There are four separate experiments to simulate with the fixed angles. Therefore there needs to be 4 pairs of direction files.
...
More interesting might be a simulation where the angle pairs are switched random like in Aspect or Weihs, et al. All in a single run of many trials

Four separate experiments: you are calling Christian to revise his experimental paper? He asks for each correlation to be calculated separately, but each one to be calculated on the same set of data, without leaving any out for any of the correlations. His instructions as to what is calculated are completely explicit and Christian confirmed them many times.

Random switching of angles: I proposed random selection of setting pairs as in real experiments, but Christian turned this down, despite Michel Fodje's warnings.

The bet and the challenge were based on what Christian actually wrote on page 4 of his experimental paper, not on what he should have written.

I am glad Fred that you seem to be advising Christian to revise his page 4 instructions to the experimentalists, just as earlier Michel Fodje did. I consider this absolutely necessary, if anyone is ever to do the experiment. This was the whole point of the challenge. Get Christian to revise his experimental paper so that it at last could make sense for an experimentalist to do it.

I am pretty sure that no one is interested in my challenge any more. That was its whole point. You have discovered, Fred, that, as stated, it was unwinnable. You did not know that before, so you have learnt something.

In fact, Fred, you implicitly admit that I have won the original bet which you say we two had together on FQXi! ... the unfinished discussion which led to the foundation of this wonderful forum!
gill1109
Mathematical Statistician
 
Posts: 1245
Joined: Tue Feb 04, 2014 9:39 pm
Location: Leiden

Re: The still open 5 000 Euro challenge

Postby FrediFizzx » Sat Jun 21, 2014 10:48 pm

Richard, stop lying in your posts or I am going to block you from this forum. Joy's paper say RANDOM angles, not fixed angles. There are four separate experiments with YOUR proposed fixed angles. Your challenge is completely bogus so stop promoting it here. I am locking this thread and don't start another one about this topic.
FrediFizzx
Independent Physics Researcher
 
Posts: 1201
Joined: Tue Mar 19, 2013 6:12 pm
Location: California, USA

Next

Return to Sci.Physics.Foundations

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests

CodeCogs - An Open Source Scientific Library