Experimental Refutation of Quantum Mysticism,

[FrediFizzx]

Yeah, truly amazing that the solution ended up being so simple and elegant. It was just a matter of figuring out what the left hand oriented part looks like from a right handed persective.

[Joy Christian]

Yeah, truly amazing that the solution ended up being so simple and elegant. It was just a matter of figuring out what the left hand oriented part looks like from a right handed perspective.

And yet the mad man vociferously continues his childish tantrums and doomed campaign: http://psnively.github.io/blog/2015/01/ ... 1938520408.

[Joy Christian]

I have updated my latest arXiv refutation of Richard Gill’s vacuous claims. I have added an appendix discussing the reasoning behind Albert Jan’s latest code, which at last puts an end to the nonsensical claims by Gill and other naysayers: http://arxiv.org/abs/1501.03393.

[Joy Christian]

***
Well, well, Richard Gill just can't help being what he actually is . I just received a communication from an editor of a journal informing me about a review (which is quite clearly by Richard Gill) of one of my Bell papers. The "review" is long and nasty, with personal attacks on me, specifically about my academic affiliations. He of course does not mention that it is he who has been writing malicious letters to my academic superiors, such as the President of Wolfson College of Oxford University.

In any case, here is an updated abstract of my refutation of Gill's vacuous claims:

In a recent arXiv preprint Richard Gill has criticized an experimental proposal published in a journal of theoretical physics which describes how to detect a macroscopic signature of fermionic sign changes. Here I point out that his worries stem from his own elementary algebraic and conceptual mistakes, and present several event-by-event numerical simulations which independently expose the vacuity of his claims by explicit computations.

[FrediFizzx]

Yeah, it is pretty pathetic when a dude doesn't realize that they lost the debate. But I imagine Gill will continue to make a fool of himself to the very end. Seems like all his cronies have bailed on him. He's totally lost now.

[Joy Christian]

Yeah, it is pretty pathetic when a dude doesn't realize that they lost the debate. But I imagine Gill will continue to make a fool of himself to the very end. Seems like all his cronies have bailed on him. He's totally lost now.

Well, for what its worth I directed the editor to my blog page where I graphically detail how low Gill has stooped: http://libertesphilosophica.info/blog/ .

Those sitting in the comforts of Ivory Tower should know that there is a nasty wolf among their sheep. I will not miss a single opportunity to point that out to them.

[FrediFizzx]

The "end" of Gill's foolishness being when you are standing at the podium in Stockholm for your discovery that space has unique spinor properties. Hope I am still around when that party happens. Man..., there is going to be a lot of embarrassed people between now and then!

[Joy Christian]

***
Well, well, Richard Gill just can't help being what he actually is . I just received a communication from an editor of a journal informing me about a review (which is quite clearly by Richard Gill) of one of my Bell papers. The "review" is long and nasty, with personal attacks on me, specifically about my academic affiliations. He of course does not mention that it is he who has been writing malicious letters to my academic superiors, such as the President of Wolfson College of Oxford University.

A few days ago, in his latest shenanigan, Gill tried to submit a truly c****pot paper to the arXiv, but the arXiv moderators quickly rejected his paper because it was full of personal attacks on me, and they deemed it to be devoid of any scientific value. In fact it was of negative scientific value because, just like all his previous preprints, it was riddled with schoolboy mathematical and conceptual errors. It is extraordinary that after eight years of efforts Gill has yet to learn the first thing about geometric algebra, let alone about my work. It is heartening to know that the arXiv moderators spotted the c****pot of his paper at once and rejected it.

[Schmelzer]

This of course amounts to a decisive refutation of Bell's so-called "theorem." I will spare you the details, but the correlation between the actually observed raw scores can be easily calculated using the corresponding standard scores, by taking the bivetorial dispersion in the raw scores into account (the full details can be found in the paper linked above):



This image of the calculation is reproduced from the page 10 of my book. As straightforward as this calculation is, it was viciously attacked by some individuals. It is therefore all the more important to appreciate that it has now been endorsed by the distinguished editorial board of the International Journal of Theoretical Physics:

Hm, by publishing an article where the word "Bell" is found only three times, two times in the appendix in the combination "Bell-CHSH" and one time in the references (at least in the linked preprint variant), they endorse a 'decisive refutation of Bell's so-called "theorem."'? Wow.

By the way, I don't find the step from (1.22) to (1.23) in any way straightforward. Local realism - in the way used by Bell - presupposes that the A(a,l) and B(b,l) are functions with values -1 or +1. In (1.23) I see something completely different.

[Joy Christian]

By the way, I don't find the step from (1.22) to (1.23) in any way straightforward. Local realism - in the way used by Bell - presupposes that the A(a,l) and B(b,l) are functions with values -1 or +1. In (1.23) I see something completely different.

Have you bothered to read the paper: http://arxiv.org/abs/1211.0784 ?

Of course not. Don't bother to comment until you have read the full paper.

[Schmelzer]

By the way, I don't find the step from (1.22) to (1.23) in any way straightforward. Local realism - in the way used by Bell - presupposes that the A(a,l) and B(b,l) are functions with values -1 or +1. In (1.23) I see something completely different.

Have you bothered to read the paper: http://arxiv.org/abs/1211.0784 ?
Of course not. Don't bother to comment until you have read the full paper.

Nice start of the discussion - with an accusation which is not based on any argument, and is BTW wrong.

Formula (52) is completely mystical there too - especially how you get the idea that it is a "geodesic distance on S^3". For me, a distance between two points is zero if the points are identical - but your "geodesic distance" is obviously something different, which is -1 if a=b.

[Joy Christian]

Nice start of the discussion...

What makes you think that I have any interest in discussing anything with you? This is my last response to you.

[Schmelzer]

What makes you think that I have any interest in discussing anything with you? This is my last response to you.

What a pity! I would have been interested to understand how these mystical geodesic distances are defined, which start with -1 instead of 0 for equal points, and appear, according to pic. 4, different for SO(3) and SU(2), even if the geodesics of SO(3) are simply the same, only lifted to SU(2), as you explain around eq. (54).

[Joy Christian]

The size of one's ego is often inversely proportional to the depth of one's knowledge.

[FrediFizzx]

Hi Ilja,

Does your theory incorporate space as having spinor properties in any way?

[Schmelzer]

Hi Ilja,

Does your theory incorporate space as having spinor properties in any way?

No. In my theory fermions appear only in electroweak doublets. So that spin and isospin operators can combine into usual nonspinor rotation.

[FrediFizzx]

No. In my theory fermions appear only in electroweak doublets. So that spin and isospin operators can combine into usual nonspinor rotation.

Thanks; just curious as to why an etherist like yourself would ever buy into "spooky action at a distance"? IMHO, the only way out is for space to have spinor properties.

[Schmelzer]

... just curious as to why an etherist like yourself would ever buy into "spooky action at a distance"? IMHO, the only way out is for space to have spinor properties.

Strange question - I thought this is obvious. The "spooky action at a distance" has a quite simple solution, moreover, a realistic one: A hidden preferred frame, as used, for example, in de Broglie-Bohm theory. Such a hidden preferred frame is, of course, the ideal for an ether theorist. So, why should I support the last hope for realists that the spacetime interpretation, which forbids a hidden preferred frame, can be preserved?

No, I'm quite comfortable with a situation where one has or to accept a hidden preferred frame, or to give up realism and causality in exchange for nothing. A hidden preferred frame is the much better way out of quantum mysticism.

[FrediFizzx]

You are still non-local so in fact are still prescribing to "action at a distance". You have not gotten yourself out of quantum mysticism completely.

[Schmelzer]

You are still non-local so in fact are still prescribing to "action at a distance". You have not gotten yourself out of quantum mysticism completely.

So why should I be afraid of action at a distance? Newton was also not afraid of it. This is something one can leave to the future. It was also clear to Newton that his theory can be only an approximation, because it has this action at a distance. But so what? Realism and causality are preserved, not in danger, with a hidden preferred frame. And if one, in some future, observes violations of quantum theory because the immediate action at a distance it requires is not as immediate as required, I will be happy (if I'm yet alive).

There is certainly much less quantum mysticism in de Broglie-Bohm theory than in all the non-realistic interpretations. Without doubt, there is yet room for improvement, I'm working in this direction right now. But the "action at a distance" is, from the point of view of an ether theorist, not even a problem.