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 Heinera » Fri Aug 23, 2019 9:20 am

Joy Christian wrote:***
I wrote this paper last year. My first one in pure mathematics. After some minor improvements, it is now published on the arXiv. It is an explicit proof of the algebra used in the RSOS paper.

https://arxiv.org/abs/1908.06172

***


I really wish some expert on abstract algebra could be bothered to comment on this paper, since its claims are rather sensational.
Heinera
 
Posts: 696
Joined: Thu Feb 06, 2014 1:50 am

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

Postby Joy Christian » Fri Aug 23, 2019 9:34 am

Heinera wrote:
Joy Christian wrote:***
I wrote this paper last year. My first one in pure mathematics. After some minor improvements, it is now published on the arXiv. It is an explicit proof of the algebra used in the RSOS paper.

https://arxiv.org/abs/1908.06172

I really wish some expert on abstract algebra could be bothered to comment on this paper, since its claims are rather sensational.

I agree on both counts. The paper is now in the public eye at several venues and someone qualified in both Abstract Algebra and Geometric Algebra may eventually notice it.

Image
***
Joy Christian
Research Physicist
 
Posts: 2116
Joined: Wed Feb 05, 2014 4:49 am
Location: Oxford, United Kingdom

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

Postby Heinera » Sat Aug 24, 2019 10:35 am

Joy Christian wrote:I agree on both counts. The paper is now in the public eye at several venues and someone qualified in both Abstract Algebra and Geometric Algebra may eventually notice it.
***

Ok. Since you are waiting for the paper to be noticed on the arXiv, I assume you did not discuss it with any experts on abstract algebra before you put it there?
Heinera
 
Posts: 696
Joined: Thu Feb 06, 2014 1:50 am

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

Postby Joy Christian » Sat Aug 24, 2019 10:54 am

Heinera wrote:
Joy Christian wrote:I agree on both counts. The paper is now in the public eye at several venues and someone qualified in both Abstract Algebra and Geometric Algebra may eventually notice it.
***

Ok. Since you are waiting for the paper to be noticed on the arXiv, I assume you did not discuss it with any experts on abstract algebra before you put it there?

I do not know anyone apart from myself who is an expert in both Abstract Algebra and Geometric Algebra. Do you? Expertise in one of the two is not good enough to be a reliable judge.

***
Joy Christian
Research Physicist
 
Posts: 2116
Joined: Wed Feb 05, 2014 4:49 am
Location: Oxford, United Kingdom

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

Postby Heinera » Sat Aug 24, 2019 11:04 am

Joy Christian wrote:
Heinera wrote:
Joy Christian wrote:I agree on both counts. The paper is now in the public eye at several venues and someone qualified in both Abstract Algebra and Geometric Algebra may eventually notice it.
***

Ok. Since you are waiting for the paper to be noticed on the arXiv, I assume you did not discuss it with any experts on abstract algebra before you put it there?

I do not know anyone apart from myself who is an expert in both Abstract Algebra and Geometric Algebra. Do you? Expertise in one of the two is not good enough to be a reliable judge.

***

Ok. Well, I guess the paper will go unnoticed then, since it has a potential audience of one.
Heinera
 
Posts: 696
Joined: Thu Feb 06, 2014 1:50 am

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

Postby gill1109 » Sat Aug 24, 2019 12:25 pm

Heinera wrote:
Joy Christian wrote:
Heinera wrote:
Joy Christian wrote:I agree on both counts. The paper is now in the public eye at several venues and someone qualified in both Abstract Algebra and Geometric Algebra may eventually notice it.

Ok. Since you are waiting for the paper to be noticed on the arXiv, I assume you did not discuss it with any experts on abstract algebra before you put it there?

I do not know anyone apart from myself who is an expert in both Abstract Algebra and Geometric Algebra. Do you? Expertise in one of the two is not good enough to be a reliable judge.

Ok. Well, I guess the paper will go unnoticed then, since it has a potential audience of one.

I have studied the paper very carefully and in detail and my detailed and specific criticisms and analysis can be found on the RSOS website. I think I know exactly where Joy's proof breaks down and I even think I understand why he could so easily make the mistake which I think he makes. But obviously, I am not a "known expert in the field".

But I do know somebody who is. John C. Baez. The ideal referee. He has written a magnificent tutorial paper on the octonions, you can easily find it on internet. He's a qualified expert on the mathematical and the mathematical-physical content of geometric algebra, and on abstract algebra, including Clifford algebras and division algebras and more beyond (unlike the author of the paper in question!). John Baez' paper is a joy to read, and it is highly regarded by many. It proves, very carefully, the well-known and many years old Hurwitz theorem; the theorem which is contradicted by Joy's result.
Last edited by gill1109 on Sat Aug 24, 2019 12:33 pm, edited 1 time in total.
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 Aug 24, 2019 12:31 pm

***
John Baez is not an expert in Geometric Algebra. Unlike me, he has not published a single peer-reviewed paper in Geometric Algebra.

And Hurwitz's theorem is NOT contradicted by my result. Your claim is thus false propaganda. I have pointed out your mistakes about my result at least a 100 times.

***
Joy Christian
Research Physicist
 
Posts: 2116
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 » Sat Aug 24, 2019 12:39 pm

Joy Christian wrote:John Baez is not an expert in Geometric Algebra. Unlike me, he has not published a single peer-reviewed paper in Geometric Algebra.
And Hurwitz's theorem is NOT contradicted by my result. Your claim is thus false propaganda. I have pointed out your mistakes about my result at least a 100 times.

:lol:
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 Aug 24, 2019 12:57 pm

***
Here is my paper: https://arxiv.org/abs/1908.06172. It is instantly accessible. If anyone claims to see an error in my proof, then they should come forward and point out the line number, page number, or equation number in the proof where the error is. Until then all claims of error are bogus, just like the repeated false claim of "sign error" in my disproof of Bell's theorem.

***
Joy Christian
Research Physicist
 
Posts: 2116
Joined: Wed Feb 05, 2014 4:49 am
Location: Oxford, United Kingdom

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

Postby Heinera » Sat Aug 24, 2019 1:47 pm

Joy Christian wrote:***
Here is my paper: https://arxiv.org/abs/1908.06172. It is instantly accessible. If anyone claims to see an error in my proof, then they should come forward and point out the line number, page number, or equation number in the proof where the error is. Until then all claims of error are bogus, just like the repeated false claim of "sign error" in my disproof of Bell's theorem.

***

Ok, let's start with page 7:

"Needless to say, since all Clifford algebras are associative division algebras by definition..."

Needless to say, there is nothing in the definition of Clifford algebras that makes them always "associative division algebras". And in general, they are obviously not.
Heinera
 
Posts: 696
Joined: Thu Feb 06, 2014 1:50 am

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

Postby Joy Christian » Sat Aug 24, 2019 1:54 pm

Heinera wrote:
Joy Christian wrote:***
Here is my paper: https://arxiv.org/abs/1908.06172. It is instantly accessible. If anyone claims to see an error in my proof, then they should come forward and point out the line number, page number, or equation number in the proof where the error is. Until then all claims of error are bogus, just like the repeated false claim of "sign error" in my disproof of Bell's theorem.

***

Ok, let's start with page 7:

"Needless to say, since all Clifford algebras are associative division algebras by definition..."

Needless to say, there is nothing in the definition of Clifford algebras that makes them always "associative division algebras". And in general, they are obviously not.

In which equation number or line number in my proof is there an error? I am not interested in any other comments until an error is pointed out in one of the equations in my proof.

***
Joy Christian
Research Physicist
 
Posts: 2116
Joined: Wed Feb 05, 2014 4:49 am
Location: Oxford, United Kingdom

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

Postby Heinera » Sat Aug 24, 2019 2:08 pm

Joy Christian wrote:
Heinera wrote:Ok, let's start with page 7:

"Needless to say, since all Clifford algebras are associative division algebras by definition..."

Needless to say, there is nothing in the definition of Clifford algebras that makes them always "associative division algebras". And in general, they are obviously not.

In which equation number or line number in my proof is there an error? I am not interested in any other comments until an error is pointed out in one of the equations in my proof.

***

Uh,.. the "needless to say" sentence is your entire argument for your associative division algebra. Where else do you show that you have an associative division algebra? In what equations?
Last edited by Heinera on Sat Aug 24, 2019 2:21 pm, edited 2 times in total.
Heinera
 
Posts: 696
Joined: Thu Feb 06, 2014 1:50 am

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

Postby Joy Christian » Sat Aug 24, 2019 2:17 pm

Heinera wrote:
Joy Christian wrote:
Heinera wrote:Ok, let's start with page 7:

"Needless to say, since all Clifford algebras are associative division algebras by definition..."

Needless to say, there is nothing in the definition of Clifford algebras that makes them always "associative division algebras". And in general, they are obviously not.

In which equation number or line number in my proof is there an error? I am not interested in any other comments until an error is pointed out in one of the equations in my proof.

***

Uh,.. the "needless to say" sentence is your entire argument for your associative division algebra. Where else do you show that you have an associative division algebra? In what equations?

You are clearly unable to point out an error in one of my equations. That is because there are no errors in the paper.

As is well known, the even subalgebra of the Clifford algebra Cl(4, 0) discussed in the paper is an associative division algebra (see the GA references in the paper).

***
Joy Christian
Research Physicist
 
Posts: 2116
Joined: Wed Feb 05, 2014 4:49 am
Location: Oxford, United Kingdom

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

Postby Heinera » Sat Aug 24, 2019 2:20 pm

I'm just a bit puzzled that the world expert on Clifford algebras could write a howler like "all Clifford algebras are associative division algebras by definition..."
Heinera
 
Posts: 696
Joined: Thu Feb 06, 2014 1:50 am

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

Postby Joy Christian » Sat Aug 24, 2019 2:28 pm

Heinera wrote:I'm just a bit puzzled that the world expert on Clifford algebras could write a howler like "all Clifford algebras are associative division algebras by definition..."

The more interesting observation here is that you are not able to point out any error in any of my equations in the paper. Therefore you have started trolling as you always do:

minkwe wrote:
Heinera wrote:I see that Sabine Hossenfelder has not yet mentioned this substantial paper on her now famous blog. This a COMPLETE DISGRACE! ! I know she is a friend of Joy Christian, and that they have some commercial operation going together. So WHY wouldn't SHE MENTION HIM ON HER BLOG? DISGRACEFUL!


troll
noun [ C ] (COMPUTING)
- someone who leaves an intentionally annoying message on the internet, in order to get attention or cause trouble.
​https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/troll

***
Joy Christian
Research Physicist
 
Posts: 2116
Joined: Wed Feb 05, 2014 4:49 am
Location: Oxford, United Kingdom

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

Postby FrediFizzx » Sat Aug 24, 2019 2:37 pm

Ok, guys. You are getting way off topic here.
.
FrediFizzx
Independent Physics Researcher
 
Posts: 1693
Joined: Tue Mar 19, 2013 7:12 pm
Location: N. California, USA

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

Postby gill1109 » Sun Aug 25, 2019 1:42 am

Joy Christian wrote:The more interesting observation here is that you [Heinera] are not able to point out any error in any of my equations in the paper.

That was my role. Naturally, Joy presented what he considered a rebuttal of every single one of my criticisms.

I still think it would be a nice idea to edit and jointly publish our exchanges on the RSOS site. It's such a pain searching on the website for the particular postings which discuss specific possible errors, and it is not possible to automatically download the complete discussion. I did make a start on this, I do now have one file with the complete discussion. It was a long and annoying task to put it together. If anyone wants to see it, just let me know.

Alternatively, I suggest that Joy publishes his mathematical paper on https://researchers.one/. A lively critical discussion which is well organised and formatted will draw attention to the paper and its content. A paper which claims to revolutionize quantum mechanics, and another which claims to revolutionize abstract algebra, need fair and careful and transparent evaluation.
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 » Sun Aug 25, 2019 2:06 am

***
I rather publish my papers in established and reputable journals. One paper on Bell is published in IJTP. Another on Bell is published in RSOS. One more on Bell is coming up in a reputable journal. And the Octonion-like paper is under review by a mathematics journal.

***
Joy Christian
Research Physicist
 
Posts: 2116
Joined: Wed Feb 05, 2014 4:49 am
Location: Oxford, United Kingdom

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

Postby Joy Christian » Thu Sep 05, 2019 12:50 am

Joy Christian wrote:
I rather publish my papers in established and reputable journals. One paper on Bell is published in IJTP. Another on Bell is published in RSOS. One more on Bell is coming up in a reputable journal. And the Octonion-like paper is under review by a mathematics journal.

I should add that my latest paper refuting Bell's theorem that is soon to be published in a reputed peer-reviewed journal will be immune to retraction. As some readers of this forum know, there have been persistent attempts to retract at least three of my published refutations of Bell's theorem over the past decade. But once published, the latest paper, soon to be published, will be immune to retraction. Indeed, that was one of my criteria for selecting the journal where it will be published. It also addresses all unfounded criticisms of my local model in detail.

***
Joy Christian
Research Physicist
 
Posts: 2116
Joined: Wed Feb 05, 2014 4:49 am
Location: Oxford, United Kingdom

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

Postby Heinera » Thu Sep 05, 2019 2:09 am

I think that insisting on the paper being immune to retraction is a brilliant idea. I wish more authors would have thought of this.
Heinera
 
Posts: 696
Joined: Thu Feb 06, 2014 1:50 am

PreviousNext

Return to Sci.Physics.Foundations

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: ahrefs [Bot], Bing [Bot] and 8 guests

CodeCogs - An Open Source Scientific Library