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 » Tue Jul 24, 2018 5:04 am

Mikko wrote:
Heinera wrote:Does anyone know of some good discussions about this grounbreaking paper on the internet? Links would be most welcome.


There is some discussion on https://pubpeer.com/publications/170464 ... 5E2632D018


Yes, I know about that one. I would be more interested in discussions where someone actually writes something positive about the paper.
Heinera
 
Posts: 422
Joined: Thu Feb 06, 2014 12:50 am

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

Postby thray » Tue Jul 24, 2018 5:38 am

Joy Christian wrote:
Mikko wrote:
Heinera wrote:Does anyone know of some good discussions about this grounbreaking paper on the internet? Links would be most welcome.


There is some discussion on https://pubpeer.com/publications/170464 ... 5E2632D018

That is correct. There are some incredibly stupid comments on PubPeer about my paper by a certain third-rate statistician, who has no publication record either in Clifford algebra or general relativity --- even on the arXiv. Therefore his comments are worthless and should be ignored, as I have now decided to do.

***


I wouldn't exactly call it a 'good' discussion. Reading Gill's mathematics makes me throw up in my mouth a little bit.
thray
 
Posts: 143
Joined: Sun Feb 16, 2014 5:30 am

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

Postby FrediFizzx » Tue Jul 24, 2018 7:30 am

So far the only good discussions are here. It is quite amazing to me that 7-spheres can be constructed from Euclidean primitives. Let's talk about that.
FrediFizzx
Independent Physics Researcher
 
Posts: 1201
Joined: Tue Mar 19, 2013 6:12 pm
Location: California, USA

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

Postby Joy Christian » Tue Jul 24, 2018 7:54 am

Heinera wrote:Yes, I know about that one. I would be more interested in discussions where someone actually writes something positive about the paper.

What is wrong with what the Royal Society of London has written about the paper? The Royal Society is telling the world that it is a good paper, by endorsing it and publishing it with the full Review History of the paper, including my detailed replies to each of the five reviewers: http://rsos.royalsocietypublishing.org/ ... 5/5/180526. That is more than enough positive writing.

***
Joy Christian
Research Physicist
 
Posts: 1743
Joined: Wed Feb 05, 2014 3:49 am
Location: Oxford, United Kingdom

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

Postby thray » Tue Jul 24, 2018 9:05 am

FrediFizzx wrote:So far the only good discussions are here. It is quite amazing to me that 7-spheres can be constructed from Euclidean primitives. Let's talk about that.


You're right, Fred. It is amazing to me that geometric shapes possess metric identities, such that the Euclidean sphere can be generalized. What I find most remarkable, however, is how deep the principle of relativity -- things in relation -- goes.
thray
 
Posts: 143
Joined: Sun Feb 16, 2014 5:30 am

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

Postby Heinera » Tue Jul 24, 2018 2:11 pm

Mikko wrote:
Heinera wrote:Does anyone know of some good discussions about this grounbreaking paper on the internet? Links would be most welcome.


There is some discussion on https://pubpeer.com/publications/170464 ... 5E2632D018


I also found this: http://mateusaraujo.info, but it's mainly negative so it's still not what I am looking for.
Heinera
 
Posts: 422
Joined: Thu Feb 06, 2014 12:50 am

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

Postby Joy Christian » Tue Jul 24, 2018 2:25 pm

Heinera wrote:
Mikko wrote:
Heinera wrote:Does anyone know of some good discussions about this grounbreaking paper on the internet? Links would be most welcome.


There is some discussion on https://pubpeer.com/publications/170464 ... 5E2632D018


I also found this: http://mateusaraujo.info, but it's mainly negative so it's still not what I am looking for.

If you look for negativity, then you will find negativity. If you look for idiots, then you will find idiots. That is how the world works. You will find what you look for. :)

***
Joy Christian
Research Physicist
 
Posts: 1743
Joined: Wed Feb 05, 2014 3:49 am
Location: Oxford, United Kingdom

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

Postby Joy Christian » Tue Jul 24, 2018 10:08 pm

***

Speaking of negativity and naysayers, here is a nice article by a professor of mathematics and astronomy at Johns Hopkins University --- Prof. Simon Newcomb --- which proves, scientifically, that powered human flight is “utterly impossible”: "The Outlook for the Flying Machine". The Independent. 55 (2864): 2509. October 22, 1903.

***
Joy Christian
Research Physicist
 
Posts: 1743
Joined: Wed Feb 05, 2014 3:49 am
Location: Oxford, United Kingdom

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

Postby Heinera » Thu Jul 26, 2018 1:35 am

Weird that not even Sabine Hossenfelder has mentioned the paper on her blog.
Heinera
 
Posts: 422
Joined: Thu Feb 06, 2014 12:50 am

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

Postby Joy Christian » Thu Jul 26, 2018 2:34 am

Heinera wrote:Weird that not even Sabine Hossenfelder has mentioned the paper on her blog.

Oh...well, in that case the Royal Society should definitely retract the paeper despite the fact that there have been 1,581 PDF downloads of the paper to date.

***
Joy Christian
Research Physicist
 
Posts: 1743
Joined: Wed Feb 05, 2014 3:49 am
Location: Oxford, United Kingdom

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

Postby Heinera » Thu Jul 26, 2018 2:46 am

Joy Christian wrote:
Heinera wrote:Weird that not even Sabine Hossenfelder has mentioned the paper on her blog.

Oh...well, in that case the Royal Society should definitely retract the paeper despite the fact that there have been 1,581 PDF downloads of the paper to date.

***

No one said anything about retraction. It's just weird, thar's all
Heinera
 
Posts: 422
Joined: Thu Feb 06, 2014 12:50 am

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

Postby Joy Christian » Thu Jul 26, 2018 2:53 am

Heinera wrote:
Joy Christian wrote:
Heinera wrote:Weird that not even Sabine Hossenfelder has mentioned the paper on her blog.

Oh...well, in that case the Royal Society should definitely retract the paeper despite the fact that there have been 1,581 PDF downloads of the paper to date.

***

No one said anything about retraction. It's just weird, thar's all

It is far less weird than the voodoo of nonlocality and nonreality believed in by the Bell believers.

***
Joy Christian
Research Physicist
 
Posts: 1743
Joined: Wed Feb 05, 2014 3:49 am
Location: Oxford, United Kingdom

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

Postby FrediFizzx » Thu Jul 26, 2018 8:04 am

Come on Heine, certainly you know that over 50 years of intense self-brainwashing is difficult to overcome. It is not weird at all that some physicists don't want to be personally attacked by Bell fanatics and potentially have their careers ruined. But some do stand against the lunacy like Joy.
FrediFizzx
Independent Physics Researcher
 
Posts: 1201
Joined: Tue Mar 19, 2013 6:12 pm
Location: California, USA

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

Postby Heinera » Thu Jul 26, 2018 10:07 pm

FrediFizzx wrote:Come on Heine, certainly you know that over 50 years of intense self-brainwashing is difficult to overcome. It is not weird at all that some physicists don't want to be personally attacked by Bell fanatics and potentially have their careers ruined. But some do stand against the lunacy like Joy.

Do you really think that Sabine would risk anything by commenting on something that has been endorsed by The Royal Society?
Heinera
 
Posts: 422
Joined: Thu Feb 06, 2014 12:50 am

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

Postby Joy Christian » Thu Jul 26, 2018 10:21 pm

***

Fred, let us not forget the first rule of the Internet.

***
Joy Christian
Research Physicist
 
Posts: 1743
Joined: Wed Feb 05, 2014 3:49 am
Location: Oxford, United Kingdom

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

Postby Joy Christian » Fri Jul 27, 2018 1:27 pm

***
Here are my detailed replies to the five peer-reviewers chosen by the journal: http://einstein-physics.org/wp-content/ ... s-RSOS.pdf.

Image

***
Joy Christian
Research Physicist
 
Posts: 1743
Joined: Wed Feb 05, 2014 3:49 am
Location: Oxford, United Kingdom

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

Postby thray » Thu Aug 02, 2018 5:01 am

Joy Christian wrote:***
Here are my detailed replies to the five peer-reviewers chosen by the journal: http://einstein-physics.org/wp-content/ ... s-RSOS.pdf.

Image

***


That's just excellent, Joy.
thray
 
Posts: 143
Joined: Sun Feb 16, 2014 5:30 am

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

Postby thray » Thu Aug 02, 2018 7:10 am

Having gotten distracted, I'm only 14% through Sabine Hossenfelder's wonderful book, Lost in Math: How beauty leads physics astray. I'm planning to get back into it.

Something jogged my memory about an exchange on B's blog a couple of months ago, that I hope you'll find relevant.

Sabine Hossenfelder said...
t h ray,

What you get from experiment is data that allows you to tell which theories work and which don't. Experiment of course doesn't give you a theory by itself, and if that's what you think I said you misunderstood. (To be more precise, I was probably referring to models, not to theories, but not sure the distinction matters for the present purpose.)

8:19 AM, May 16, 2018
t h ray said...
B,

A theory is a model. Without it, how do you know what you're looking for? What "works"? Then, suppose one has a theory of models that work (e.g. string theory), what experimental data would falsify the underlying assumptions? One can't say that string theory is unfalsifiable, on the one hand -- and yet accounts for every known physical interaction, on the other.

So one expects to find an unknown physical interaction, using known experimental methods?

I think the problem is flatland thinking, a problem that Joy Christian identified long ago. So long as one is working in a framework assuming 3 dimensions, one gets 3-dimension results--reasonable to assume, except that Christian has shown an extended framework includes hyperspace. Which necessitates dropping the 3-dimension assumption, replacing it if you will, with an assumption of 3-sphere (4 dimension) dynamics. And he has outlined experimental ways to falsify 4-dimension dynamics in our locally real 3 dimensions--that's the model, independent of a theory.

Unless one is willing, like Einstein, to challenge assumptions--axioms--one is unlikely to make the leap out of flatland. Worse, one imagines the leap and calls it magical. After all, that model works just fine in 3 dimensions.

10:27 AM, May 16, 2018
Sabine Hossenfelder said...
t h ray,

I don't see the point of this discussion, but when I say "theory" I do not mean "model." A theory is a prescription for how to identify mathematical structures with observables. If you want to make a prediction with it, however, you need a model. Example: The standard MODEL is a quantum field THEORY. If a model doesn't fit with data, it may be the model that's wrong or it may be the theory that's wrong. That Anti-de-Sitter space (a model) doesn't describe our universe, for example, doesn't mean that general relativity (a theory) is wrong. And so on. I know this isn't standard terminology, but please take it as my definition. I think it agrees reasonably well with how most physicists use the terms.

11:04 AM, May 16, 2018
t h ray said...
B,

"Example: The standard MODEL is a quantum field THEORY. If a model doesn't fit with data, it may be the model that's wrong or it may be the theory that's wrong."

Okay. Except the standard model is not a (complete) quantum field theory. String theory is, and it fits all the data. It's too successful in fact -- predicts 500+ vacua, and provides no way to determine the lowest state. So why shouldn't we just trust the standard model? -- it doesn't have enough dimensions. And so on.

We gotta get out of flatland. A flatland model won't do anything but verify its own assumptions.

11:39 AM, May 16, 2018
Sabine Hossenfelder said...
t h ray,

Every model has a limited range of applicability and the standard model works just fine, I don't know what your problem is with it. As to your comments about string theory: you can't make predictions with a theory, you need a model...

11:49 AM, May 16, 2018
t h ray said...
B,

I don't have any more problem with the standard model than, as you say, its domain and range.

As I said previously, a theory of models (string theory) does predict models. A model is for testing, not predicting--one would not have gotten the model without predicting it. Theory is primary.
thray
 
Posts: 143
Joined: Sun Feb 16, 2014 5:30 am

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

Postby Joy Christian » Wed Aug 15, 2018 12:12 am

***

So after several months of harassment (not to mention several years of past harassment), with one bogus claim after another such as the norm relation ||XY|| = ||X|| ||Y|| stated in my equation (2.40) is wrong etc., Richard D. Gill has now admitted on the paper's website that my equations are all correct after all. What is extraordinary is that the equations and concepts used in my paper are not difficult to understand and verify if you have a tiny bit of skill in elementary mathematics and knowledge of Bell's local-realistic framework. In fact, one has to be mathematically severely incompetent if it takes them over two months to understand the derivation of my equation (2.59). But the goal of Richard Gill is not to understand my work but to have my published papers retracted. This is the third of my published papers he has been trying to have retracted for the past three months. One has to have acute psychopathic tendencies to target and incessantly attack one person and his work in this manner for over a number of years. As someone else said on this forum before, Gill badly needs some psychological help.

***
Joy Christian
Research Physicist
 
Posts: 1743
Joined: Wed Feb 05, 2014 3:49 am
Location: Oxford, United Kingdom

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

Postby FrediFizzx » Wed Aug 15, 2018 8:48 am

Joy Christian wrote:***

So after several months of harassment (not to mention several years of past harassment), with one bogus claim after another such as the norm relation ||XY|| = ||X|| ||Y|| stated in my equation (2.40) is wrong etc., Richard D. Gill has now admitted on the paper's website that my equations are all correct after all. What is extraordinary is that the equations and concepts used in my paper are not difficult to understand and verify if you have a tiny bit of skill in elementary mathematics and knowledge of Bell's local-realistic framework. In fact, one has to be mathematically severely incompetent if it takes them over two months to understand the derivation of my equation (2.59). But the goal of Richard Gill is not to understand my work but to have my published papers retracted. This is the third of my published papers he has been trying to have retracted for the past three months. One has to have acute psychopathic tendencies to target and incessantly attack one person and his work in this manner for over a number of years. As someone else said on this forum before, Gill badly needs some psychological help.

***

Plus it is fairly easy to see that the computer simulations we did also prove that the math is correct.

And it is acute sociopathic tendencies as a psychopath probably would have killed you by now. :-)
.
FrediFizzx
Independent Physics Researcher
 
Posts: 1201
Joined: Tue Mar 19, 2013 6:12 pm
Location: California, USA

PreviousNext

Return to Sci.Physics.Foundations

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests

CodeCogs - An Open Source Scientific Library