XXXXXXX wrote:
Dear Joy,
I read your excellent 2018 Royal Society Paper on Quantum Correlations in S3/S7 and some of your earlier publications. ...
The mathematical and physical properties of S3 are absolutely fascinating indeed. ...
Obviously Aaronson is a critic of your work; however, my impression is that there may be some degree of misunderstanding involved. In your view, what is it that he and others basically get wrong about quantum correlations in S3?
Best,
XXXXXXX
Joy Christian wrote:
Dear XXXXXXX,
Thank you for your kind words about my Royal Society paper. ... The properties of S^3 are indeed profound. What I have presented in my Royal Society paper is ... that once we take into account the properties of S^3 as a physical space, then the strong correlations can be reproduced using local functions like A(a, h) and B(b, h), where h is a randomness shared between Alice and Bob.
Aaronson and others do not seem to have realized that I am using S^3 for my argument. You will not find S^3 mentioned anywhere in their criticism of my work. In my view there are two mistakes involved in their criticisms:
(1) Quite independently of my S^3 model for the quantum correlations, their first mistake is to think that Bell’s theorem is a theorem in a mathematical sense. But it is not. It is a physical argument based on mathematical inequalities that were discovered by George Boole some 100 years before Bell. And, as a physical argument, Bell’s theorem is a deeply flawed argument, as I have explained in section 4.2 of my Royal Society paper.
(2) When it comes to my S^3 model for the strong correlations, what the critics do is misrepresent what I have actually presented, criticize their own misrepresentation, and then declare that they have refuted my model. In other words, their argument against my model is a strawman argument. More specifically, Aaronson argues that my measurement results A(a, h) = +/-1 and B(b, h) = +/-1 are always anti-correlated and therefore Bell inequalities are never violated. Nothing can be further from the truth. In my model A(a, h) and B(b, h) are anti-correlated for all a and b if and only if the conservation of zero-spin angular momentum is violated. This is Physics 101. So Aaronson’s mistake is actually quite elementary. He makes this mistake for two reasons: (I) Because he can’t bring himself to believe that Bell’s theorem is wrong, and (II) because he has not understood that I am talking about the geometry of S^3, and consequently what he calls “something complicated” in my definitions of the functions A(a, h) and B(b, h) is in fact absolutely vital for understanding the physics of the singlet correlations.
Best,
Joy
Joy Christian wrote:
I have written up a long overdue refutation of Scott Aaronson's online critique of my local-realistic model:
Refutation of Scott Aaronson's Critique of my Disproof of Bell's Theorem
Joy Christian wrote:***
I have heard that Gill has been permanently banned from posting on the arXiv since mid-2015, after he tried to post the above error-filled critique to arXiv. Apparently, the archive moderators did not approve the abusive and unprofessional language Gill used throughout the submitted version of his critique, apart from it being a manifestly incoherent preprint.
***
Richard D. Gill wrote:Joy Christian wrote:***
I have heard that Gill has been permanently banned from posting on the arXiv since mid-2015, after he tried to post the above error-filled critique to arXiv. Apparently, the archive moderators did not approve the abusive and unprofessional language Gill used throughout the submitted version of his critique, apart from it being a manifestly incoherent preprint.
I have not been permanently banned from posting on the arXiv.
Joy Christian wrote:Richard D. Gill wrote:Joy Christian wrote:***
I have heard that Gill has been permanently banned from posting on the arXiv since mid-2015, after he tried to post the above error-filled critique to arXiv. Apparently, the archive moderators did not approve the abusive and unprofessional language Gill used throughout the submitted version of his critique, apart from it being a manifestly incoherent preprint.
I have not been permanently banned from posting on the arXiv.
That is good to know.
I look forward to seeing Gill’s new work on the arXiv, or a renewal of an existing preprint, since none has appeared after July 2015: https://arxiv.org/search/?query=Gill%2C ... rce=header
***
Richard D. Gill wrote:
It occurs to me right now that Joy and I could bundle our exchanges on the RSOS forum into a joint paper.
Joy Christian wrote:Joy Christian wrote:
I have written up a long overdue refutation of Scott Aaronson's online critique of my local-realistic model:
Refutation of Scott Aaronson's Critique of my Disproof of Bell's Theorem
Fortunately, the Truth cannot be starved off so easily, and Aaronson has not succeeded in his goal.
Scott Aaronson wrote:
Once I slipped up, and made a single ad hominem comment about Cathy McGeoch (lead author of the “D-Wave machine gets a 3000x speedup” paper). I quickly apologized and I still regret it. Besides that, the one time in 13 years that I think I even came close to Bray and Pachter’s tone, was with the aggressive Bell’s-theorem-denialist Joy Christian. The reader can judge for herself whether Joy Christian and Manolis Kellis inhabit the same moral or intellectual universe. Even there, though, I regret getting drawn into the mud; it would’ve been more effective on my part to keep things professional.
minkwe wrote:This is indeed the most ironic aspect of this Bell drama. Bell himself provided the most succinct explanation of his error. Is the problem that most Bell proponents can't read, or won't read, or simply do not understand what seems so obvious? It is a sad state of affairs.
Joy Christian wrote:minkwe wrote:This is indeed the most ironic aspect of this Bell drama. Bell himself provided the most succinct explanation of his error. Is the problem that most Bell proponents can't read, or won't read, or simply do not understand what seems so obvious? It is a sad state of affairs.
Their blind spot has to do with the assumption of the so-called "statistical independence'' of the three or four separate pairs of measurement settings involved in Bell's argument. But, to put it rather politely, statistical independence is hardly the same thing as actual independence. Statistics and probabilities are used by the followers of Bell to simply obfuscate Bell's mistake.
gill1109 wrote:Certainly, the distinction between statistical independence, mathematical independence, and physical independence has confused readers and critics of Bell for all these long years, and still does.
FrediFizzx wrote:gill1109 wrote:Certainly, the distinction between statistical independence, mathematical independence, and physical independence has confused readers and critics of Bell for all these long years, and still does.
You might be and probably still are confused but many of us are not.
Return to Sci.Physics.Foundations
Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot], Google [Bot], Google Feedfetcher and 2 guests