FrediFizzx wrote: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.
Joy Christian wrote: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 wrote: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 wrote:***
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.
Joy Christian wrote: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:
Schmelzer wrote: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 wrote:Schmelzer wrote: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 wrote:Nice start of the discussion...
Joy Christian wrote:What makes you think that I have any interest in discussing anything with you? This is my last response to you.
FrediFizzx wrote:Hi Ilja,
Does your theory incorporate space as having spinor properties in any way?
Schmelzer wrote:No. In my theory fermions appear only in electroweak doublets. So that spin and isospin operators can combine into usual nonspinor rotation.
FrediFizzx wrote:... 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.
FrediFizzx wrote: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.
Return to Sci.Physics.Foundations
Users browsing this forum: ahrefs [Bot] and 9 guests