Royal Society has Accepted my Disproof of Bell's Theorem

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

Re: Royal Society has Accepted my Disproof of Bell's Theorem

Postby Joy Christian » Mon Sep 30, 2019 2:13 am

FrediFizzx wrote:
Joy Christian wrote:Elsewhere in this forum, Richard D. Gill wrote:

In preparation for the debate at the symposium, I posted a summary criticism of the IEEE Access paper on PubPeer, https://pubpeer.com/publications/A60DFDEE69A368611FCDCD3184125D...

This action by Richard Gill violates the condition I had put forward for attending the planned symposium in Leiden in the so-called "truce agreement" mediated by Jay R. Yablon. My condition for attending the symposium was that Gill will not take any action aimed at having my published papers on the subject retracted. In fact, since the "truce agreement" Gill has taken several actions that violate the truce agreement. Under the circumstances, I am no longer bound by the "truce agreement" and reserve my right to not attend the planned symposium.


I guess some people just can't help themselves. ??? I figured the truce would never last. And I doubt any substantial progress would be made at the symposium anyways. Bell fans always have some kind of excuse not to see the truth.

Just one individual has started SIX threads on PubPeer over the past seven years criticizing five of my papers on Bell's theorem. Just one individual has tried to have all of my published papers retracted over the past seven years. Just one individual has written a series of malicious letters about me to the President of my college at Oxford University since 2011. Just one individual has admitted that they "...should not have pursued [me], like [they] did, to all far corners of the internet! It was an unhealthy obsession on [their] part, and it caused harm to [me] and to others, which [they are] deeply sorry for." Do you think that is a normal behavior of a human being? We cannot blame the whole Bell community for the obsessive-compulsive behavior of just one of their members.

***
Joy Christian
Research Physicist
 
Posts: 2114
Joined: Wed Feb 05, 2014 4:49 am
Location: Oxford, United Kingdom

Re: Royal Society has Accepted my Disproof of Bell's Theorem

Postby gill1109 » Mon Sep 30, 2019 2:32 am

Yablon wrote:The role of a mediator is to move the parties to, hopefully, make the right decisions and take the right actions, and narrow the range of their disputes. But no amount of diplomacy can force the parties to do so.

All I can do at this point is urge Richard to continue forward with planning and securing support for the workshop / symposium irrespective of what decisions Joy may make once the Lorentz Center has (hopefully) signed on, because of the importance of the underlying science. And urge Joy to keep his options open to whatever the state of affairs may be several months or more down the road once it is seen how these organization efforts develop and unfold, because of the extensive efforts he has undertaken over many years to study this science. The scientific enterprise must always come before any one individual.
FrediFizzx wrote:
Joy Christian wrote:Elsewhere in this forum, Richard D. Gill wrote:
In preparation for the debate at the symposium, I posted a summary criticism of the IEEE Access paper on PubPeer, https://pubpeer.com/publications/A60DFDEE69A368611FCDCD3184125D...

This action by Richard Gill violates the condition I had put forward for attending the planned symposium in Leiden in the so-called "truce agreement" mediated by Jay R. Yablon. My condition for attending the symposium was that Gill will not take any action aimed at having my published papers on the subject retracted. In fact, since the "truce agreement" Gill has taken several actions that violate the truce agreement. Under the circumstances, I am no longer bound by the "truce agreement" and reserve my right to not attend the planned symposium.

I guess some people just can't help themselves. ??? I figured the truce would never last. And I doubt any substantial progress would be made at the symposium anyways. Bell fans always have some kind of excuse not to see the truth.


My posting on PubPeer is not aimed at getting the paper retracted. I don't want it retracted. I am not writing to the editors suggesting the paper is retracted, I am not writing to Retraction Watch about the curious publication process; I am not fighting the paper on any blogs. I should imagine that nobody will take any notice of my PubPeer posting, whatsoever.

On PubPeer I have placed the criticism which I will deploy at the symposium. This gives Joy more than a year to hone his counter-attack.

In my symposium debate I will secondly focus on my 64 000 dollar challenge to Joy (and his programming friends). This challenge is to reproduce a standard loophole-free Bell experiment by computer simulation of Joy's model. 64 thousand dollars says he cannot do it.

A sample size of 2000 trials should be enough. The determining criterium (who wins and who loses) should be whether the *success rate* is larger than or smaller than 0.80. Here, "success" means that with setting combination 11, 12, or 21, the two outcomes are equal; with setting combination 22 they are unequal. Otherwise we have "failure". With 2000 trials, I believe that the probability I lose is less than 1 in 10 million. If, however, Christian can indeed reproduce the singlet correlations, the probability he loses is less than 1 in 100 million.

This seems to me quite fair. 64 thousand dollars says that Joy and his friends can't do it. How much do they want to bet?
Code: Select all
> N <- 2 * 1000; pbinom(0.80*N, N, 0.75, lower.tail = FALSE, log = TRUE) / log(10)
[1] -7.272659
> pbinom(0.80*N, N, 0.85, lower.tail = TRUE, log = TRUE) / log(10)
[1] -8.979237


I must admit that I felt goaded into this action by the total lack of any empathy whatsoever on the side of Fred Diether or Joy Christian for my feelings concerning his personally demeaning and factually false "acknowledgement". I plan at some time to write to the editors of IEEE Access documenting my complaint and asking for a *correction*. A *correction* (to that one sentence), not a *retraction* of the paper.

I repeat that I am delighted that is was published; just as I was delighted that the RSOS paper was published. Every scientist has the right to publish carefully justified criticism on work published by others. I reserve to myself that right.
gill1109
Mathematical Statistician
 
Posts: 1653
Joined: Tue Feb 04, 2014 10:39 pm
Location: Leiden

Re: Royal Society has Accepted my Disproof of Bell's Theorem

Postby Joy Christian » Sat Oct 05, 2019 7:30 pm

gill1109 wrote:
In my symposium debate I will secondly focus on my 64 000 dollar challenge to Joy (and his programming friends). This challenge is to reproduce a standard loophole-free Bell experiment by computer simulation of Joy's model. 64 thousand dollars says he cannot do it.

A sample size of 2000 trials should be enough. The determining criterium (who wins and who loses) should be whether the *success rate* is larger than or smaller than 0.80. Here, "success" means that with setting combination 11, 12, or 21, the two outcomes are equal; with setting combination 22 they are unequal. Otherwise we have "failure". With 2000 trials, I believe that the probability I lose is less than 1 in 10 million. If, however, Christian can indeed reproduce the singlet correlations, the probability he loses is less than 1 in 100 million.

This seems to me quite fair. 64 thousand dollars says that Joy and his friends can't do it. How much do they want to bet?
Code: Select all
> N <- 2 * 1000; pbinom(0.80*N, N, 0.75, lower.tail = FALSE, log = TRUE) / log(10)
[1] -7.272659
> pbinom(0.80*N, N, 0.85, lower.tail = TRUE, log = TRUE) / log(10)
[1] -8.979237


For the record, I want to make two points clear:

(1) I am definitely not attending the planned symposium in Leiden. It is finished. I am perfectly happy if no one mentions my name or my work at the symposium (if it does take place).

(2) As for the so-called challenge above, all the experimenters are doing is confirming what is predicted by quantum mechanics. If they are observing something that is not predicted by quantum mechanics or going beyond quantum mechanics, then we already have a revolution in physics and then nothing we are discussing here matters. Moreover, what my local model predicts and Fred's Mathematica code varifies is exactly what is predicted by quantum mechanics. Therefore the new "challenge" (or the latest shift in the goalpost) has been met.

***
Joy Christian
Research Physicist
 
Posts: 2114
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 2 guests

CodeCogs - An Open Source Scientific Library