Bell's Theorem and Normed Division Algebras

[Joy Christian]

***
As some of you know, my disproof of Bell's theorem is intimately connected with normed division algebras: https://catalog.loc.gov/vwebv/search?se ... ermalink=y

Eight years ago, the International Journal of Theoretical Physics accepted my disproof of Bell's theorem --- see this thread: viewtopic.php?f=6&t=115#p3763

Two years ago, the Royal Society journal Open Science accepted my disproof of Bell's theorem --- see this thread: viewtopic.php?f=6&t=342#p8051

One year ago, the IEEE journal IEEE Access accepted my disproof of Bell's theorem ---- see this thread: viewtopic.php?f=6&t=406&p=10044#p10044

However, one key ingredient in my disproof --- a new normed division algebra I have discovered --- remained to be accepted by a mathematics journal.

But in July this year, this new normed division algebra was accepted by Communications in Algebra: https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10 ... 20.1791899

Here is the abstract of that paper:



Joy Christian
Oxford, England

***

[gill1109]

Congratulations! This is an impressive record!

[Joy Christian]

Congratulations! This is an impressive record!

Thanks!

But the "record" is even more "impressive" than it may appear, thanks to your valiant efforts for the past eight years to have each of the above four papers retracted. I don't think you will dispute this, but anyone wants to see evidence of the amount of effort put in by Richard D. Gill to have each of the above papers retracted, then just google for the information or ask me.

On one occasion Gill did succeed in having one of my papers retracted. The paper currently published in IEEE Access was previously published in Annals of Physics under a different title. But thanks to the incompetence of the latter journal's Editor-in-Chief Brian Greene (yes, the famous celebrity), Gill was able to have it retracted within minutes of sending his usual derogatory email about me and my refutations of Bell's theorem. My subsequent interactions with Annals of Physics have been documented in this thread: viewtopic.php?f=6&t=283&start=40#p6853.

So, as I said, the "record" of having published four disproofs of Bell's theorem in reputed journals (with two more on its way) is even more "impressive" than it may appear at first sight.

***

[gill1109]

Congratulations! This is an impressive record!

Thanks!

But the "record" is even more "impressive" than it may appear, thanks to your valiant efforts for the past eight years to have each of the above four papers retracted. I don't think you will dispute this, but anyone wants to see evidence of the amount of effort put in by Richard D. Gill to have each of the above papers retracted, then just google for the information or ask me.

On one occasion Gill did succeed in having one of my papers retracted. The paper currently published in IEEE Access was previously published in Annals of Physics under a different title. But thanks to the incompetence of the latter journal's Editor-in-Chief Brian Greene (yes, the famous celebrity), Gill was able to have it retracted within minutes of sending his usual derogatory email about me and my refutations of Bell's theorem. My subsequent interactions with Annals of Physics have been documented in this thread: viewtopic.php?f=6&t=283&start=40#p6853.

So, as I said, the "record" of having published four disproofs of Bell's theorem in reputed journals (with two more on its way) is even more "impressive" than it may appear at first sight.

***

I agree! Green with envy! Not really. Each of your publications gives me new opportunities for new publications, too.

[Joy Christian]

Each of your publications gives me new opportunities for new publications, too.

Unlike your usual online and offline bullying, new peer-reviewed publications, commentaries, refutations, rebuttals, etc. are scientifically a perfectly respectable course of action.

***

[gill1109]

Each of your publications gives me new opportunities for new publications, too.

Unlike your usual online and offline bullying, new peer-reviewed publications, commentaries, refutations, rebuttals, etc. are scientifically a perfectly respectable course of action.

I hereby promise to leave off what you call “bullying”. Indeed it is bullying, because it is use of power to achieve ends when power need not be applied. Please, will you avoid personal abuse? Let’s stay polite.

[Joy Christian]

Each of your publications gives me new opportunities for new publications, too.

Unlike your usual online and offline bullying, new peer-reviewed publications, commentaries, refutations, rebuttals, etc. are scientifically a perfectly respectable course of action.

I hereby promise to leave off what you call “bullying”. Indeed it is bullying, because it is use of power to achieve ends when power need not be applied. Please, will you avoid personal abuse? Let’s stay polite.

I am a pacifist and a peaceful person -- introvert, even. I don't bark back or hit back unless I am under attack. So you don't need to worry about hostility from me unless I am under attack.

***

[gill1109]

[Joy Christian]

Congratulations! This is an impressive record!

Thanks!

But the "record" is even more "impressive" than it may appear, thanks to your valiant efforts for the past eight years to have each of the above four papers retracted. I don't think you will dispute this, but anyone wants to see evidence of the amount of effort put in by Richard D. Gill to have each of the above papers retracted, then just google for the information or ask me.

On one occasion Gill did succeed in having one of my papers retracted. The paper currently published in IEEE Access was previously published in Annals of Physics under a different title. But thanks to the incompetence of the latter journal's Editor-in-Chief Brian Greene (yes, the famous celebrity), Gill was able to have it retracted within minutes of sending his usual derogatory email about me and my refutations of Bell's theorem. My subsequent interactions with Annals of Physics have been documented in this thread: viewtopic.php?f=6&t=283&start=40#p6853.

So, as I said, the "record" of having published four disproofs of Bell's theorem in reputed journals (with two more on its way) is even more "impressive" than it may appear at first sight.

Regardless of the sweet talk by Gill, he has, in fact, written to the Editor-in-Chief to have my latest paper retracted from Communications in Algebra. He knows very well that the easiest thing in the world is to spook an Editor-in-Chief by making noise about any publication, and he has used that against me in the past quite effectively. Considering this, I am going to link the PDF version of the published paper here. The wonderful thing about the internet is that records like these are not easy to erase: http://einstein-physics.org/wp-content/ ... C-in-A.pdf

***

[Heinera]

Regardless of the sweet talk by Gill, he has, in fact, written to the Editor-in-Chief to have my latest paper retracted from Communications in Algebra.

If the paper is correct you have nothing to worry about. These guys are algebraists and have hardly ever heard about Bell's theorem, let alone know anything about it. So there can be no "Bell-believer" conspiracy there.

[gill1109]

Regardless of the sweet talk by Gill, he has, in fact, written to the Editor-in-Chief to have my latest paper retracted from Communications in Algebra.

If the paper is correct you have nothing to worry about. These guys are algebraists and have hardly ever heard about Bell's theorem, let alone know anything about it. So there can be no "Bell-believer" conspiracy there.

I had already told you, Joy, what I thought was wrong with the paper. I already advised you to consult with John Baez. I already had put my comments on PubPeer. I was not going behind your back. I already complained to IEEE Access about plagiarism and I already helped Florin Moldoveanu write to RSOS. My sweet talk is genuine. I’m not angry, I’m getting mellow with age, and learning to keep cool. So you are, I notice. Great!

I asked John Baez if he could agree with my diagnosis, because I was surprised the paper got published. He did. He kindly wrote a letter to be forwarded to the algebra journal. Obviously his opinion will count there more than mine. Apparently editors and referees never check with PubPeer.

[Joy Christian]

I already had put my comments on PubPeer. ... Apparently editors and referees never check with PubPeer.

Interestingly, PubPeer has deleted five of the nine threads Gill had started on PubPeer about my papers over the past eight years. Alas, most of his "hard work" is lost forever.

***

[gill1109]

I already had put my comments on PubPeer. ... Apparently, editors and referees never check with PubPeer.

Interestingly, PubPeer has deleted five of the nine threads Gill had started on PubPeer about my papers over the past eight years. Alas, most of his "hard work" is lost forever.

Really! I did not notice. But that was ephemeral stuff, anyway. Like tweets on Twitter. As far as hard work was involved it got incorporated in peer-reviewed publications.

There are presently five threads on PubPeer on your publications started by me. I don't think any have been deleted. See https://pubpeer.com/search?q=users:%22Richard%20Gill%22

Did you see the list of citations of your RSOS paper https://app.dimensions.ai/discover/publication?or_subset_publication_citations=pub.1104291261, and in particular the paper "A 1d Up Approach to Conformal Geometric Algebra: Applications in Line Fitting and Quantum Mechanics" by Anthony N. Lasenby, 2020, Advances in Applied Clifford Algebras. Relevent to the paper being discussed here, Lasenby writes "a further perhaps surprising application of the 1d up approach ... is to the context of a recent paper by Joy Christian published by the Royal Society, which has made strong claims about Bell’s Theorem in quantum mechanics, and its relation to the sphere S7 and the exceptional group E8, and proposed a new associative version of the division algebra normally thought to require the octonions. We show that what is being discussed by Christian is mathematically the same as our 1d up approach to 3d geometry, but that after the removal of some incorrect mathematical assertions, the results he proves in the first part of the paper, and bases the application to Bell’s Theorem on, amount to no more than the statement that the combination of two rotors from the Clifford Algebra Cl(4, 0) is also a rotor."

[Joy Christian]

I already had put my comments on PubPeer. ... Apparently, editors and referees never check with PubPeer.

Interestingly, PubPeer has deleted five of the nine threads Gill had started on PubPeer about my papers over the past eight years. Alas, most of his "hard work" is lost forever.

Really! I did not notice. But that was ephemeral stuff, anyway. Like tweets on Twitter. As far as hard work was involved it got incorporated in peer-reviewed publications.

There are presently five threads on PubPeer on your publications started by me. I don't think any have been deleted. See https://pubpeer.com/search?q=users:%22Richard%20Gill%22

Did you see the list of citations of your RSOS paper https://app.dimensions.ai/discover/publication?or_subset_publication_citations=pub.1104291261, and in particular the paper "A 1d Up Approach to Conformal Geometric Algebra: Applications in Line Fitting and Quantum Mechanics" by Anthony N. Lasenby, 2020, Advances in Applied Clifford Algebras. Relevent to the paper being discussed here, Lasenby writes "a further perhaps surprising application of the 1d up approach ... is to the context of a recent paper by Joy Christian published by the Royal Society, which has made strong claims about Bell’s Theorem in quantum mechanics, and its relation to the sphere S7 and the exceptional group E8, and proposed a new associative version of the division algebra normally thought to require the octonions. We show that what is being discussed by Christian is mathematically the same as our 1d up approach to 3d geometry, but that after the removal of some incorrect mathematical assertions, the results he proves in the first part of the paper, and bases the application to Bell’s Theorem on, amount to no more than the statement that the combination of two rotors from the Clifford Algebra Cl(4, 0) is also a rotor."

You are getting old. It took you two months to stalk out that my octonion-like paper is published in Communications in Algebra. And Lasenby's paper was published on the 22nd of February 2020 and only now you notice it. That is a shocking delay in your stalking it out. In any case, you will be pleased to know that Lasenby has basically copy-pasted your words from the RSOS thread of my paper. I have responded to his critique in the following preprint, which I have posted on ReseachGate and Academia.Edu:

https://www.researchgate.net/publicatio ... _Mechanics

https://www.academia.edu/43165082/Reply ... Mechanics_

You are getting too slow. And of course, I hope that you get even slower.

***

[gill1109]

I already had put my comments on PubPeer. ... Apparently, editors and referees never check with PubPeer.

Interestingly, PubPeer has deleted five of the nine threads Gill had started on PubPeer about my papers over the past eight years. Alas, most of his "hard work" is lost forever.

Really! I did not notice. But that was ephemeral stuff, anyway. Like tweets on Twitter. As far as hard work was involved it got incorporated in peer-reviewed publications.

There are presently five threads on PubPeer on your publications started by me. I don't think any have been deleted. See https://pubpeer.com/search?q=users:%22Richard%20Gill%22

Did you see the list of citations of your RSOS paper https://app.dimensions.ai/discover/publication?or_subset_publication_citations=pub.1104291261, and in particular the paper "A 1d Up Approach to Conformal Geometric Algebra: Applications in Line Fitting and Quantum Mechanics" by Anthony N. Lasenby, 2020, Advances in Applied Clifford Algebras. Relevent to the paper being discussed here, Lasenby writes "a further perhaps surprising application of the 1d up approach ... is to the context of a recent paper by Joy Christian published by the Royal Society, which has made strong claims about Bell’s Theorem in quantum mechanics, and its relation to the sphere S7 and the exceptional group E8, and proposed a new associative version of the division algebra normally thought to require the octonions. We show that what is being discussed by Christian is mathematically the same as our 1d up approach to 3d geometry, but that after the removal of some incorrect mathematical assertions, the results he proves in the first part of the paper, and bases the application to Bell’s Theorem on, amount to no more than the statement that the combination of two rotors from the Clifford Algebra Cl(4, 0) is also a rotor."

You are getting old. It took you two months to stalk out that my octonion-like paper is published in Communications in Algebra. And Lasenby's paper was published on the 22nd of February 2020 and only now you notice it. That is a shocking delay in your stalking it out. In any case, you will be pleased to know that Lasenby has basically copy-pasted your words from the RSOS thread of my paper. I have responded to his critique in the following preprint, which I have posted on ReseachGate and Academia.Edu:

https://www.researchgate.net/publicatio ... _Mechanics

https://www.academia.edu/43165082/Reply ... Mechanics_

You are getting too slow. And of course, I hope that you get even slower.

***

I just turned 69 and I have a lot of hobbies beyond stalking Bell deniers. And ... their quality is decreasing. The 2015 experiments have really dampened their enthusiasm. Still no local realistic computer simulation of a loophole-free Bell experiment.

[Joy Christian]

I just turned 69 and I have a lot of hobbies beyond stalking Bell deniers. And ... their quality is decreasing. The 2015 experiments have really dampened their enthusiasm. Still no local realistic computer simulation of a loophole-free Bell experiment.

Unfortunately, the so-called loophole-free experiments of 2015 prove absolutely nothing. With only 256 events I can fit an elephant in the data and you would not be able to prevent me.

***

[Heinera]

It took you two months to stalk out that my octonion-like paper is published in Communications in Algebra. And Lasenby's paper was published on the 22nd of February 2020 and only now you notice it.
***

Great! I for one wasn't aware of Lasenby's paper until now, either. But it's a very interesting piece of work from one of the legends in the field, so thanks for bringing it to my attention!

[Joy Christian]

It took you two months to stalk out that my octonion-like paper is published in Communications in Algebra. And Lasenby's paper was published on the 22nd of February 2020 and only now you notice it.
***

Great! I for one wasn't aware of Lasenby's paper until now, either. But it's a very interesting piece of work from one of the legends in the field, so thanks for bringing it to my attention!

The legend he certainly is. But sadly, in his critique of my paper, he has simply copy-pasted Gill's incorrect arguments from the discussion thread of my RSOS paper. As I noted above, I have refuted his critique in the following preprint, which I have posted on ReseachGate and Academia.Edu:

https://www.researchgate.net/publicatio ... _Mechanics

https://www.academia.edu/43165082/Reply ... Mechanics_

It is unfortunate that, like Gill, you will not understand either Lasenby's paper or my response to it.

***

[Heinera]

The legend he certainly is. But sadly, in his critique of my paper, he has simply copy-pasted Gill's incorrect arguments from the discussion thread of my RSOS paper. As I noted above, I have refuted his critique in the following preprint, which I have posted on ReseachGate and Academia.Edu:
[...]
It is unfortunate that, like Gill, you will not understand either Lasenby's paper or my response to it.

***

Oh, I understand Lasenby's paper, but I willingly admit I can't say the same about yours. I don't like to give unsolicited advice, but as I see it, going up against Lasenby leaves you with only three options for yourself: Rare, medium, or well done.

[Joy Christian]

The legend he certainly is. But sadly, in his critique of my paper, he has simply copy-pasted Gill's incorrect arguments from the discussion thread of my RSOS paper. As I noted above, I have refuted his critique in the following preprint, which I have posted on ReseachGate and Academia.Edu:
[...]
It is unfortunate that, like Gill, you will not understand either Lasenby's paper or my response to it.

***

Oh, I understand Lasenby's paper, but I willingly admit I can't say the same about yours. I don't like to give unsolicited advice, but as I see it, going up against Lasenby leaves you with only three options for yourself: Rare, medium, or well done.

On the contrary, Lasenby made one mistake in his life. And that is to pick on me. He will regret that eventually.

As for you, like Gill, you are simply not capable of understanding my ideas. And it doesn't matter. We don't even know whether you are a person or a bot.

***