IEEE has also Accepted my Refutation of Bell's Theorem

Foundations of physics and/or philosophy of physics, and in particular, posts on unresolved or controversial issues

Re: IEEE has also Accepted my Refutation of Bell's Theorem

Postby FrediFizzx » Sat Sep 28, 2019 1:18 pm

FrediFizzx wrote:
gill1109 wrote:That formula looks to me like p = ½ sin²t, t ∈ [0..π/2). Of course you can rewrite it in terms of a cosine of twice the angle, using the familiar identity cos 2t = 1 - 2 sin²t. …

Egads! More crazy subterfuge snipped out. :D Now..., what does this look like to you?



It is just the quantum probability for ++ or --. His distribution function is simply that formula varied from 0 to pi/2! No big mystery there.
.

And here is the Mathematica simulation using Michel's distribution function.

Image

EPRsims/michel_local_CS_no0s3Dsep.pdf

CHSH = 2.72272

It is nearly as good as the other distribution function. However, the other function seems like it is better tied to the 3-sphere topology than Michel's.
.
FrediFizzx
Independent Physics Researcher
 
Posts: 1700
Joined: Tue Mar 19, 2013 7:12 pm
Location: N. California, USA

Re: IEEE has also Accepted my Refutation of Bell's Theorem

Postby gill1109 » Sun Sep 29, 2019 2:52 am

FrediFizzx wrote:
FrediFizzx wrote:
gill1109 wrote:That formula looks to me like p = ½ sin²t, t ∈ [0..π/2). Of course you can rewrite it in terms of a cosine of twice the angle, using the familiar identity cos 2t = 1 - 2 sin²t. …

Egads! More crazy subterfuge snipped out. :D Now..., what does this look like to you?

It is just the quantum probability for ++ or --. His distribution function is simply that formula varied from 0 to pi/2! No big mystery there.

And here is the Mathematica simulation using Michel's distribution function.
Image
http://www.sciphysicsforums.com/spfbb1/EPRsims/michel_local_CS_no0s3Dsep.pdf
CHSH = 2.72272
It is nearly as good as the other distribution function. However, the other function seems like it is better tied to the 3-sphere topology than Michel's.

Fred, are you telling me that you simply programmed the *answer*, not the model? I can also write a program which draws a cosine curve. I can also write a program which draw a noisy cosine curve. Who are you trying to convince, of what?

Anyone who can read your code and knows some elementary trigonometry can see that it draws a noisy cosine curve.

Indeed, we know - because of Pearle's paper - that Pearle's "distribution function" gives the answer exactly (up to experimental noise); and we know - because of the same paper - that Michel's "distribution function" does *not* give the answer exactly even if the number of particle pairs is close to infinite and hence there is no experimental noise.

You say "it seems like it is better because it is better tied to the 3-sphere topology". It seems better because it is exact and that has got nothing whatsoever to do with 3-sphere topology. Pearle does not use 3-sphere topology. He uses the detection loophole. Joy had forgotten about Pearle's work till I reminded him of it. Joy could not have recalled Pearle using 3-sphere topology. He could have recalled that Pearle fot the example *exactly right* provided the detection rate was not too large. Other researchers at around the same time showed that no lower detection rate would suffice: Pearle's result was the best possible, for the singlet state and the usual measurements thereof.

Joy didn't tell Michel how to get the *exactly right* answer. He couldn't have done that.
gill1109
Mathematical Statistician
 
Posts: 1653
Joined: Tue Feb 04, 2014 10:39 pm
Location: Leiden

Re: IEEE has also Accepted my Refutation of Bell's Theorem

Postby FrediFizzx » Sun Sep 29, 2019 9:15 am

gill1109 wrote: … Who are you trying to convince, of what? …

I wasn't trying to convince anyone of anything. I was merely demonstrating that Michel's distribution function is nearly as good as the other one. Some tiny tiny deviation near the peaks but it exceeds CHSH by almost the full amount. Which is good enough.
.
FrediFizzx
Independent Physics Researcher
 
Posts: 1700
Joined: Tue Mar 19, 2013 7:12 pm
Location: N. California, USA

Re: IEEE has also Accepted my Refutation of Bell's Theorem

Postby gill1109 » Mon Sep 30, 2019 3:14 am

This is the point we were discussing:
Heinera wrote:
Joy Christian wrote:On Tuesday, October 29, 2013 4:10:02 AM UTC, mich...@gmail.com wrote:
> I have posted an event-by-event simulation of EPR which reproduces the QM results at https://github.com/minkwe/epr-simple/ (comments welcome)
>
>
>
> It appears it should be possible to do the same for Joy's model. As a first step, I have ported the code written by Chantal Roth to python https://github.com/minkwe/jcspython/ but I need to understand a little what is going on:
>
>
>


Hi Michel,

> Specifically, can I use the Ca1,Ca2,Cb1,Cb2 functions to
> generate the +1/-1 results at each station? If so, how?

No, that won't work. Ca1, Ca2, Cb1, and Cb2 do not have enough
information within them to generate the strong correlation.

I looked at your program, but I do not yet understand how you
are able to produce the strong correlation. My hunch is that
your program involves either exploiting some sort of detector
loophole
or non-locality. I will ask Chantal to have a look.

Best,

Joy

Oh, the irony!

We also see that Joy was not involved in the creation of epr-simple at all. It was already on github when Joy was first made aware of it.

In the light of this and of the other evidence which I have earlier brought forward (and there is yet more which can be brought to the table), Joy's words "The distribution function used by Fodje was improved by Richard D. Gill in 2014 with help from me and several other participants in an online discussion forum, leading to the distribution function (55)" are a new, fresh, personal insult to me, composed *after* we agreed our truce. They need urgent attention and correction. I improved Michel's model with no help from anyone on the forum, and least of all with help from Joy. I'm sorry to keep going on about it, but I cannot change that fact.
gill1109
Mathematical Statistician
 
Posts: 1653
Joined: Tue Feb 04, 2014 10:39 pm
Location: Leiden

Re: IEEE has also Accepted my Refutation of Bell's Theorem

Postby local » Mon Sep 30, 2019 10:21 am

With or without help?! Does it really matter, to the extent of needing urgent attention? Gill was engaged in an online discussion during which, as he admits, he modified and improved the Fodje formula. Others made valuable and germane contributions to the discussion. Suddenly, we must accept that Gill is the true and only contributor and that he has been gravely insulted, and how dare you diminish this giant creative leap of genius by suggesting it didn't derive 100% from the awesome mind of Richard Gill? Humbug. As I have said elsewhere, "Hey guys, it's Richard Gill. :roll: "
Last edited by local on Mon Sep 30, 2019 10:42 am, edited 2 times in total.
local
 
Posts: 83
Joined: Mon Aug 05, 2019 1:19 pm

Re: IEEE has also Accepted my Refutation of Bell's Theorem

Postby Heinera » Mon Sep 30, 2019 10:35 am

Is this "local" a sockpuppet for some other regular contributor to this forum?
Heinera
 
Posts: 696
Joined: Thu Feb 06, 2014 1:50 am

Re: IEEE has also Accepted my Refutation of Bell's Theorem

Postby local » Mon Sep 30, 2019 10:37 am

When Heinera's arguments and logic fail, he must resort to ad hominems (low-IQ and unscientific behavior in my humble opinion). local is no sockpuppet. I know you would doxx me if you could; that's what scoundrels do.

Stay on topic, Heinera!
Last edited by local on Mon Sep 30, 2019 10:47 am, edited 1 time in total.
local
 
Posts: 83
Joined: Mon Aug 05, 2019 1:19 pm

Re: IEEE has also Accepted my Refutation of Bell's Theorem

Postby FrediFizzx » Mon Sep 30, 2019 10:47 am

Guys, this is way too personal. Get back on topic.
.
FrediFizzx
Independent Physics Researcher
 
Posts: 1700
Joined: Tue Mar 19, 2013 7:12 pm
Location: N. California, USA

Re: IEEE has also Accepted my Refutation of Bell's Theorem

Postby gill1109 » Mon Sep 30, 2019 2:24 pm

local wrote:With or without help?! Does it really matter, to the extent of needing urgent attention? Gill was engaged in an online discussion during which, as he admits, he modified and improved the Fodje formula. Others made valuable and germane contributions to the discussion. Suddenly, we must accept that Gill is the true and only contributor and that he has been gravely insulted, and how dare you diminish this giant creative leap of genius by suggesting it didn't derive 100% from the awesome mind of Richard Gill? Humbug. As I have said elsewhere, "Hey guys, it's Richard Gill. :roll: "


Hey guys, I think that was the great Thomas Ray! :roll:

Whoever you are, "local", could you just accept that I felt gravely insulted.

Do feelings play a role in science? Well, science is an activity of human beings. I am trying to get a star speaking spot arranged for Joy Christian at the Lorentz Center, where you can see Einstein's signature on the wall - Albert Einstein had a visiting professorship in Leiden. He did actually visit. I hope Joy will too. Jay is desperately mediating, trying to get us on speaking terms again, so that this venture can succeed. Fred has kindly allowed me back on his great forum.

I modified and improved Michel Fodje's formula. My source was Pearle's paper. The discussion here was "germane" (it sowed the seed of my contribution) because it led me to re-read the ancient literature on the detection loophole. I checked the mathematical details in Pearle's splendid paper and fixed some bothersome errors. Till that date, the paper had always been referred to as a *theoretical* work, which derived a bound on the detection rate, which it would be necessary to exceed in order to attain a loophole-free experiment if one used the singlet state and the Bell/Tsirelson optimal measurement (Eberhard showed that a lower detection rate was acceptable if you used a less entangled state and other measurements; his work is related to the famous Lucien Hardy proof of Bell's theorem). Nobody seemed to notice that Pearle's work also contained an explicit model; in fact a whole family of models. To my knowledge, till that time nobody had actually implemented the Pearle model (or even: a Pearle model) in a computer simulation. Philip Pearle was also unaware of any implementation.

A question of historical interest, and I think of greater historical interest, is: what inspired Michel to use the particular detection loophole model which he took? He doesn't say.
gill1109
Mathematical Statistician
 
Posts: 1653
Joined: Tue Feb 04, 2014 10:39 pm
Location: Leiden

Re: IEEE has also Accepted my Refutation of Bell's Theorem

Postby local » Mon Sep 30, 2019 6:02 pm

Hey guys, I think that was the great Thomas Ray!

Competing with Heinera for the doxxing crown? Grow up.

Just because you had a feeling doesn't mean we must all engage in urgent corrective action. Poor Richard! And going to a journal to ask for a correction of an acknowledgement section looks to me like just more deranged stalking/harrassment. Be sure to let us all know how that goes.

Didn't you have a truce with JC? It seems very ungentlemanly of you to go back on that so soon. Can't you at least pretend for a while?
local
 
Posts: 83
Joined: Mon Aug 05, 2019 1:19 pm

Re: IEEE has also Accepted my Refutation of Bell's Theorem

Postby Joy Christian » Tue Oct 01, 2019 12:32 am

gill1109 wrote:
I am trying to get a star speaking spot arranged for Joy Christian at the Lorentz Center, where you can see Einstein's signature on the wall - Albert Einstein had a visiting professorship in Leiden.

Big deal! In the Oxford History of Science Museum, we have an entire blackboard, "Einstein's Blackboard", which he used on 16 May 1931 during his lectures while visiting the University.

Image

The writing on the blackboard is of historic interest because the equations displayed are taken from a model of the universe proposed by Einstein in May 1931, known as the Friedmann-Einstein universe, as opposed to the accepted Friedmann-Robertson-Walker universe. The equations of the latter are used in my IEEE paper as a starting point of my local-realistic model.

***
Joy Christian
Research Physicist
 
Posts: 2132
Joined: Wed Feb 05, 2014 4:49 am
Location: Oxford, United Kingdom

Re: IEEE has also Accepted my Refutation of Bell's Theorem

Postby gill1109 » Tue Oct 01, 2019 3:16 pm

local wrote:
Hey guys, I think that was the great Thomas Ray!

Competing with Heinera for the doxxing crown? Grow up.

Just because you had a feeling doesn't mean we must all engage in urgent corrective action. Poor Richard! And going to a journal to ask for a correction of an acknowledgement section looks to me like just more deranged stalking/harrassment. Be sure to let us all know how that goes.

Didn't you have a truce with JC? It seems very ungentlemanly of you to go back on that so soon. Can't you at least pretend for a while?


I'm not "pretending" anything. As I see it, JC broke the truce. What's done was done. Please let's move forward.
gill1109
Mathematical Statistician
 
Posts: 1653
Joined: Tue Feb 04, 2014 10:39 pm
Location: Leiden

Re: IEEE has also Accepted my Refutation of Bell's Theorem

Postby Joy Christian » Tue Oct 15, 2019 1:07 am

***
One day historians of physics may begin to wonder why it took over twelve years --- form the appearance of my first paper on the subject in 2007 to the publication of two of my key papers in 2019 by respected journals --- to accept my work on the origins of quantum correlations. But fortunately, thanks to the Internet, they will quickly discover that it was not due to any lack of effort on my part against some of the most unjustified resistance any scientific work has ever encountered. I have left enough clues on the Internet to make this quite evident to anyone.

***
Joy Christian
Research Physicist
 
Posts: 2132
Joined: Wed Feb 05, 2014 4:49 am
Location: Oxford, United Kingdom

Re: IEEE has also Accepted my Refutation of Bell's Theorem

Postby FrediFizzx » Tue Oct 15, 2019 8:43 am

For myself right now I wonder how the heck Bell's junk physics theory has survived for more than 50 years.
.
FrediFizzx
Independent Physics Researcher
 
Posts: 1700
Joined: Tue Mar 19, 2013 7:12 pm
Location: N. California, USA

Re: IEEE has also Accepted my Refutation of Bell's Theorem

Postby Joy Christian » Tue Nov 19, 2019 3:58 am

FrediFizzx wrote:
For myself right now I wonder how the heck Bell's junk physics theory has survived for more than 50 years.

Those who have been preaching it have too big an ego to admit that they have been blindsided for over half a century.

***
Joy Christian
Research Physicist
 
Posts: 2132
Joined: Wed Feb 05, 2014 4:49 am
Location: Oxford, United Kingdom

Re: IEEE has also Accepted my Refutation of Bell's Theorem

Postby local » Tue Nov 19, 2019 8:39 pm

Joy Christian wrote: Those who have been preaching it have too big an ego

Bingo!
local
 
Posts: 83
Joined: Mon Aug 05, 2019 1:19 pm

Re: IEEE has also Accepted my Refutation of Bell's Theorem

Postby Joy Christian » Fri Nov 29, 2019 3:58 am

***
I have published a new paper on the arXiv that, I think, adds some conceptual clarity to my IEEE Access paper: https://arxiv.org/abs/1911.11578.

***
Joy Christian
Research Physicist
 
Posts: 2132
Joined: Wed Feb 05, 2014 4:49 am
Location: Oxford, United Kingdom

Re: IEEE has also Accepted my Refutation of Bell's Theorem

Postby Joy Christian » Fri Dec 06, 2019 5:30 pm

Joy Christian wrote:
I have published a new paper on the arXiv that, I think, adds some conceptual clarity to my IEEE Access paper: https://arxiv.org/abs/1911.11578.


The following is a lovely response to the above paper I received yesterday from a reader via email:

Hi Joy,

Brilliant new pedagogical/introductory paper. I've forwarded it to researchers like XXX and YYY. Unfortunately, it looks like very few people understand both quantum (information) theory AND hypersphere geometric algebra...

Have you ever received feedback from academic mathematicians or physicists who actually understood your model and its implications?

Best,

ZZZ

***
Joy Christian
Research Physicist
 
Posts: 2132
Joined: Wed Feb 05, 2014 4:49 am
Location: Oxford, United Kingdom

Previous

Return to Sci.Physics.Foundations

Who is online

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

cron
CodeCogs - An Open Source Scientific Library