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 Joy Christian » Thu Aug 16, 2018 6:08 am

FrediFizzx wrote:
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. :-)
.

Psychopathic or sociopathic, at the end of the day physics is the ultimate victim of one unqualified man's psychological disorder. :(

***
Joy Christian
Research Physicist
 
Posts: 1716
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 Aug 16, 2018 9:53 am

I did a short reply to the sociopath's latest comment on RSOS. How long does moderation usually take? Yes, you can tell from all the comments, that person could mostly likely benefit from professional help.
FrediFizzx
Independent Physics Researcher
 
Posts: 1200
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 » Thu Aug 16, 2018 10:00 am

FrediFizzx wrote:I did a short reply to the sociopath's latest comment on RSOS. How long does moderation usually take? Yes, you can tell from all the comments, that person could mostly likely benefit from professional help.

Moderation at RSOS is often slow. It can take up to six days, but usually it takes only one or two days for the posts to appear.

***
Joy Christian
Research Physicist
 
Posts: 1716
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 » Thu Aug 16, 2018 11:37 pm

***

On the positive side, the total number of downloads of the paper has exceeded 1,700.

Image
***
Joy Christian
Research Physicist
 
Posts: 1716
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 » Fri Aug 17, 2018 7:22 am

I agree that since Richard Gill is the only academic that has bothered to comment on the paper so far, it seems like a bad personal relationship between the two of you.
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 » Fri Aug 17, 2018 8:06 am

Heinera wrote:I agree that since Richard Gill is the only academic that has bothered to comment on the paper so far, it seems like a bad personal relationship between the two of you.

Most academics do not make unthoughtful comments on the Internet like Richard Gill, motivated by a personal vendetta. They download the paper and reflect on what has been said in it.

Besides, Richard Gill is hardly a qualified "academic." He has not published anything, on any subject, for more than three years, even on the arXiv. He has no expertise in geometric algebra, division algebras, differential geometry, topology, fiber bundles, or general relativity. He has no peer-reviewed publication record in any of these subjects on which my paper is founded. Therefore he is a completely unqualified individual to make any kind of comments on my paper. And yet he goes on doing that because he has some serious psychological problems.

**
Joy Christian
Research Physicist
 
Posts: 1716
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 Aug 21, 2018 10:18 pm

***

The paper now stands second in the rank of "Most read article(s)", with 1,742 PDF downloads to date: http://rsos.royalsocietypublishing.org/ ... ead?page=1

***
Joy Christian
Research Physicist
 
Posts: 1716
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 » Sat Sep 01, 2018 4:13 am

***
A "cosmic Bell test" by Zeilinger and his gang: https://journals.aps.org/prl/abstract/1 ... 121.080403

My response:

Image
***
Joy Christian
Research Physicist
 
Posts: 1716
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 » Mon Sep 03, 2018 2:52 am

***

The issue of the bogus claims made by Zeilinger and his gang and many others has been beaten to death in this forum. And yet the confusion over it persists among Bell-believers and Bell-refuters alike. So let me once again summarize the main points here (more details can be found in subsection 4.2 of my RSOS paper: http://rsos.royalsocietypublishing.org/ ... eytype=ref).

1) It is silly to claim that anything can violate a mathematical inequality. Anyone who claims such a thing should be stripped off their high-school diploma.

2) To be sure, the upper bound of 2 set by the Bell-CHSH inequality is exceeded by the observed correlations, but that fact should not be surprising to anyone, because, to begin with, that upper bound of 2 is derived by considering four mutually incompatible experiments and therefore is manifestly unphysical. It would be exceeded in any EPRB-type experiment, classical or quantum. Moreover, all actual experiments (which necessarily involve a finite number of runs) end up testing the CHSH-type inequality with the bound of 4, not 2 (what a cheat they are!).

3) Therefore, to claim that "violations" of the upper bound of 2 on the Bell-CHSH inequality means "local realism is ruled out" is utter nonsense, even if we ignore my local-realistic model presented in the RSOS paper and elsewhere.

***
Joy Christian
Research Physicist
 
Posts: 1716
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 Sep 21, 2018 1:49 pm

***
Image
***
Joy Christian
Research Physicist
 
Posts: 1716
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 » Fri Sep 21, 2018 11:04 pm

Here is the link to the Nature paper.

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-018-05739-8
FrediFizzx
Independent Physics Researcher
 
Posts: 1200
Joined: Tue Mar 19, 2013 6:12 pm
Location: California, USA

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

Postby Dirkman » Sat Sep 22, 2018 2:11 am

So, basically they're saying we should doubt the notion of superposition?
Dirkman
 
Posts: 19
Joined: Sat Aug 22, 2015 8:39 pm

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

Postby Joy Christian » Sat Sep 22, 2018 2:44 am

Dirkman wrote:So, basically they're saying we should doubt the notion of superposition?

They are saying that if we take the rules of quantum mechanics (including superposition and entanglement) to be universally valid (or universally applicable), then that assumption leads to blatant contraction, such as both P and not-P being true, in some application of the rules.

***
Joy Christian
Research Physicist
 
Posts: 1716
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 » Sun Sep 23, 2018 10:00 am

Something is definitely wrong somewhere in QM otherwise there wouldn't be so many different interpretations. Or the correct interpretation hasn't been found yet. Ahh... of course, people have been ignoring the orientation of quantum objects as a hidden variable. :D
FrediFizzx
Independent Physics Researcher
 
Posts: 1200
Joined: Tue Mar 19, 2013 6:12 pm
Location: California, USA

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

Postby FrediFizzx » Sun Sep 23, 2018 12:34 pm

FrediFizzx wrote:Something is definitely wrong somewhere in QM otherwise there wouldn't be so many different interpretations. Or the correct interpretation hasn't been found yet. Ahh... of course, people have been ignoring the orientation of quantum objects as a hidden variable. :D

And of course the true spinorial nature of space and what effects it has on that orientation. Perhaps this suggests the title of a new paper,

"The New and Correct Hidden Variable Theory of Quantum Mechanics"
.
FrediFizzx
Independent Physics Researcher
 
Posts: 1200
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 » Mon Sep 24, 2018 8:07 pm

***

Image
***
Joy Christian
Research Physicist
 
Posts: 1716
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 » Mon Oct 01, 2018 4:12 pm

***
Image
This one-page disproof is all one needs to understand Bell-test experiments: https://arxiv.org/abs/1103.1879
***
Joy Christian
Research Physicist
 
Posts: 1716
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 » Tue Oct 02, 2018 2:45 am

I don't think anything Bell related will ever get the Nobel. The Swedish Royal Society regards the issue of "local realism" as a matter of philosophy, not physics.
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 » Mon Oct 08, 2018 11:53 pm

***
Image
***
Joy Christian
Research Physicist
 
Posts: 1716
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 » Sat Oct 13, 2018 8:45 am

***
Richard D. Gill, allegedly a professor of statistics at Leiden University in the Netherlands, writes: "If the results of this paper are correct, then Bell's theorem, a quite elementary result from the point of view of mathematics, but also a cornerstone of modern quantum information science (quantum computing, quantum cryptography, quantum communication), is destroyed." :D

***
Joy Christian
Research Physicist
 
Posts: 1716
Joined: Wed Feb 05, 2014 3:49 am
Location: Oxford, United Kingdom

PreviousNext

Return to Sci.Physics.Foundations

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: ahrefs [Bot], Bing [Bot] and 0 guests

CodeCogs - An Open Source Scientific Library