"Macroscopic Observability of Spinorial Sign Changes under 2π Rotations"

Comments (754):

Display By:

Unregistered Submission:

( December 6th, 2014 6:12am UTC )

Edit your feedback below

It's too bad Dr Christian isn't around (or is he?) to speak for himself, but if he were (or is) it'd be sweet to see his answer to this question: Do you, Sir, continue to endorse this statement made by you on 2nd May 2012 on Scott Aaronson's blog? ---:

"My model for the EPR experiment on the other hand predicts that it will violate the Bell-CHSH inequality, in a purely classical, macroscopic domain. In other words, if performed, my experiment could finally test the validity of Bell’s theorem experimentally. So far there has been absolutely no evidence for the validity of Bell’s theorem in a purely classical, macroscopic domain."

(Repeat, in case anyone missed it: "So far there has been absolutely no evidence for the validity of Bell’s theorem in a purely classical, macroscopic domain.")

Cite: http://www.scottaaronson.com/blog/?p=993 (Comment #19)

In contrast one would like to reference J.S. Bell's discussion of the Wigner-d'Espagnat Inequality (pp. 147-50, Speakable and Unspeakable in Quantum Mechanics, a.k.a. the section "Difficulty with Locality" from "Bertlmann's Socks and the Nature of Reality") which is still well worth reading.

"My model for the EPR experiment on the other hand predicts that it will violate the Bell-CHSH inequality, in a purely classical, macroscopic domain. In other words, if performed, my experiment could finally test the validity of Bell’s theorem experimentally. So far there has been absolutely no evidence for the validity of Bell’s theorem in a purely classical, macroscopic domain."

(Repeat, in case anyone missed it: "So far there has been absolutely no evidence for the validity of Bell’s theorem in a purely classical, macroscopic domain.")

Cite: http://www.scottaaronson.com/blog/?p=993 (Comment #19)

In contrast one would like to reference J.S. Bell's discussion of the Wigner-d'Espagnat Inequality (pp. 147-50, Speakable and Unspeakable in Quantum Mechanics, a.k.a. the section "Difficulty with Locality" from "Bertlmann's Socks and the Nature of Reality") which is still well worth reading.

Peer 1:

( December 6th, 2014 4:58pm UTC )

Edit your feedback below

The answer to your question is in the very title of the published paper: "Macroscopic Observability of Spinorial Sign Changes under 2π Rotations."

But if you are unable to read the title, then you may also find the answer here: http://www.sciphysicsforums.com/spfbb1/viewtopic.php?f=6&t=115#p3763

But if you are unable to read the title, then you may also find the answer here: http://www.sciphysicsforums.com/spfbb1/viewtopic.php?f=6&t=115#p3763

Peer 1:

( December 8th, 2014 5:43pm UTC )

Edit your feedback below

Trolls like the commentator are not a new problem. See Einstein's advice to Marie Curie on how to deal with trolls: http://www.vox.com/xpress/2014/12/6/7342171/trolls-einstein-curie

Enter your reply below (Please read the **How To**)

Richard Gill:

( December 6th, 2014 3:50pm UTC )

Edit your feedback below

Detailed computer simulations of ... Pearle's detection loophole model from 1970, translated from obscure analytic expressions into simple probability language, and programmed in R by Richard Gill, http://rpubs.com/gill1109/Pearle

Peer 1:

( December 6th, 2014 5:03pm UTC )

Edit your feedback below

The above comment by the commentator is completely off topic. It only shows his inability to understand the author's theoretical analysis. The correct simulations of the experiment proposed in the published paper are provided here http://rpubs.com/jjc/16415 and http://rpubs.com/jjc/19298 .

But while we are off topic, it is worth noting that the commentator is giving far too much credit to himself. All he did was to make a minute correction to the original distribution function Michel Fodje had proposed after Chantal Roth originally produced a viable computer simulation of the author's 3-sphere model for the EPRB correlation. Without the pioneering simulation works by Chantal Roth and Michel Fodje in weeks of close collaboration with the author on theoretical issues, and without the intense discussion that success triggered on several blogs among many participants, the commentator would not have been able to make the minute correction he did make to the distribution function used in Michel Fodje's original simulation. He is thus less than charitable, particularly to Michel Fodje. To understand the significance of the pioneering contributions by Chantal Roth and Michel Fodje, please see the appendices of this paper:

http://libertesphilosophica.info/blog/wp-content/uploads/2014/01/Book-Chapter.pdf .

But while we are off topic, it is worth noting that the commentator is giving far too much credit to himself. All he did was to make a minute correction to the original distribution function Michel Fodje had proposed after Chantal Roth originally produced a viable computer simulation of the author's 3-sphere model for the EPRB correlation. Without the pioneering simulation works by Chantal Roth and Michel Fodje in weeks of close collaboration with the author on theoretical issues, and without the intense discussion that success triggered on several blogs among many participants, the commentator would not have been able to make the minute correction he did make to the distribution function used in Michel Fodje's original simulation. He is thus less than charitable, particularly to Michel Fodje. To understand the significance of the pioneering contributions by Chantal Roth and Michel Fodje, please see the appendices of this paper:

http://libertesphilosophica.info/blog/wp-content/uploads/2014/01/Book-Chapter.pdf .

Enter your reply below (Please read the **How To**)

Unregistered Submission:

( December 6th, 2014 5:43pm UTC )

Edit your feedback below

Bertlmann's Socks:

http://www.dancing-peasants.com/bell_bertlmannssocks.pdf

There's also an end-note (#16) about women smokers, which is pretty macroscopic.

http://www.dancing-peasants.com/bell_bertlmannssocks.pdf

There's also an end-note (#16) about women smokers, which is pretty macroscopic.

Peer 1:

( December 7th, 2014 12:09pm UTC )

Edit your feedback below

This outdated paper by Bell has been superseded by the above paper published in IJTP (with the arXiv preprint http://arxiv.org/pdf/1211.0784.pdf ), and by the detailed discussion in the book http://lccn.loc.gov/2013040705 . Both of these publications bring out the errors in Bell's reasoning (more accessible discussion is found here: http://libertesphilosophica.info/blog/ ).

Enter your reply below (Please read the **How To**)

Richard Gill:

( December 7th, 2014 3:23pm UTC )

Edit your feedback below

Chantal Roth and Michel Fodje both simulated detection loophole models. It has been known for 40 years that such models can easily violate Bell inequalities, and many earlier versions have been published in the literature. For instance, Caroline Thompson's chaotic ball model was one of them.

Pearle's 1970 model reproduces the singlet correlations exactly. As far as I know, nobody converted his analytic formulas into a recipe for probabilistic simulation before: his result was always quoted as being an "existence proof". Converting the existence proof to a simulation programme was no easy task in view of a number of errors in Pearle's derivations as well as unconventional notation.

Pearle's 1970 model reproduces the singlet correlations exactly. As far as I know, nobody converted his analytic formulas into a recipe for probabilistic simulation before: his result was always quoted as being an "existence proof". Converting the existence proof to a simulation programme was no easy task in view of a number of errors in Pearle's derivations as well as unconventional notation.

Richard Gill:

( December 8th, 2014 1:38pm UTC )

Edit your feedback below

"Peer 1" (Joy Christian?) seems to be reverting to personal slander. It is sad for his friend Karl Hess that Hess's "disproof of Bell's theorem" depended on a forgotten index in the middle of an elaborate analytic construction supplied by his colleague, the late probabilist Walter Philipp. Apparently Hess asked his very famous Illinois colleague probabilist Joe Doob if I were a force to be reckoned with. I had used some elementary martingale theory to prove that there was no time loophole in Bell's theorem. Doob will never have heard of me, I am a mathematical statistician, not a probabilist, I just use the wonderful tools which people like Doob have created for us. So now poor Karl Hess *allegedly* likes to tell his friends that the great Joseph Doob called Richard Gill "a third rate statistician". I somewhat doubt that those were Doob's own words, it doesn't seem to be in character, as far as one can judge from the legends one hears about Doob. The words do say something of the character of those who like to repeat them in an attempt to discredit me.

Hans de Raedt, who knows Karl Hess well, doubts that Hess would ever use language like this: they do not seem to be in character at all, either.

Hans de Raedt, who knows Karl Hess well, doubts that Hess would ever use language like this: they do not seem to be in character at all, either.

Peer 1:

( December 8th, 2014 9:36pm UTC )

Edit your feedback below

See, for example, this analysis: http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11948-013-9433-8 . His main strategy is pseudoskepticism: "uttering negative conclusions about someone else's work that are downright false." Science is paying a very heavy price for this type of misconduct. The commentator has benefited enormously from habitually engaging in it.

Enter your reply below (Please read the **How To**)

Richard Gill:

( December 7th, 2014 4:03pm UTC )

Edit your feedback below

The editorial board of the journal IJTP (2012 impact factor of 1.09) does indeed have a most interesting composition.

Editor-in-chief Heinrich Saller was ten years ago already an emeritus professor at the Max-Planck-Institut für Physik, München.

Editorial board:

Sheldon Glashow born 1932 Nobel prize 1979 (with Weinberg)

Christopher Isham born 1944

Tsung-Dao Lee born 1926 Nobel prize 1957 (with Yang)

Roger Penrose born 1931

Sylvia Pulmannová born ? (first publication: 1971)

Rafael D. Sorkin born 1945

Leonard Susskind born 1940

Andrzej Trautman born 1933

Steven Weinberg born 1933 Nobel prize 1979 (with Glashow)

Chen-Ning Yang born 1922 Nobel prize 1957 (with Lee)

Editorial assistant Mohsen Shiri Garakani got his PhD in 2004 from "editor emeritus" David Finkelstein. He has published in recent years with David Finkelstein and Heinrich Saller.

Editor-in-chief Heinrich Saller was ten years ago already an emeritus professor at the Max-Planck-Institut für Physik, München.

Editorial board:

Sheldon Glashow born 1932 Nobel prize 1979 (with Weinberg)

Christopher Isham born 1944

Tsung-Dao Lee born 1926 Nobel prize 1957 (with Yang)

Roger Penrose born 1931

Sylvia Pulmannová born ? (first publication: 1971)

Rafael D. Sorkin born 1945

Leonard Susskind born 1940

Andrzej Trautman born 1933

Steven Weinberg born 1933 Nobel prize 1979 (with Glashow)

Chen-Ning Yang born 1922 Nobel prize 1957 (with Lee)

Editorial assistant Mohsen Shiri Garakani got his PhD in 2004 from "editor emeritus" David Finkelstein. He has published in recent years with David Finkelstein and Heinrich Saller.

Peer 1:

( December 7th, 2014 4:15pm UTC )

Edit your feedback below

What I find interesting is some of the landmark papers published in this journal.

For example this pioneering paper by Richard Feynman: http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2FBF02650179

For example this pioneering paper by Richard Feynman: http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2FBF02650179

Richard Gill:

( December 8th, 2014 5:52am UTC )

Edit your feedback below

Perhaps the quality of the journal has changed in 30 years

Peer 1:

( December 8th, 2014 7:36am UTC )

Edit your feedback below

It indeed has. The quality of the journal has vastly improved in 30 years.

Enter your reply below (Please read the **How To**)

Richard Gill:

( December 9th, 2014 6:45am UTC )

Edit your feedback below

At the suggestion of emeritus editor-in-chief Finkelstein, I have submitted a letter to IJTP: http://arxiv.org/abs/1412.2677

Peer 1:

( December 9th, 2014 7:12am UTC )

Edit your feedback below

The commentator has tried to play this broken record many times before, without understanding the first thing about either the proposed experiment or the physical theory behind it. For a clear-cut refutation of his claims, see, for example, http://arxiv.org/pdf/1203.2529.pdf . For explicit numerical simulations contradicting his claims, see, for example: http://rpubs.com/jjc/16415 and http://rpubs.com/jjc/19298 . For the author's personal response, see, for example, http://www.sciphysicsforums.com/spfbb1/viewtopic.php?f=6&t=115&start=10#p3793 . Finally, for a classical derivation of the upper bound on the correlation, see, for example, the last appendix of this paper: http://arxiv.org/pdf/1211.0784.pdf .

The dishonesty of the commentator is quite telling, as he fails to mention in his latest preprint the above already existing refutations of his claims. Is he trying to deceive and mislead the physics community on purpose?

The dishonesty of the commentator is quite telling, as he fails to mention in his latest preprint the above already existing refutations of his claims. Is he trying to deceive and mislead the physics community on purpose?

Unregistered Submission:

( December 9th, 2014 7:39am UTC )

Edit your feedback below

LOL! I see Gill is still trying to impose his bogus CHSH inequality on the experiment. CHSH is not required by the experiment at all. His arXiv preprint is entirely wrong.

Unregistered Submission:

( December 9th, 2014 12:30pm UTC )

Edit your feedback below

Gill is an expert statistician.

" ... the experiment has an interesting self-destructive property: it is certain not to deliver the required result," says he.

Gill is so used to the weak double-negation proofs of conventional quantum theory that he apparently cannot get his mind around the point of a physical experiment that does not assume its result a priori.

In fact, the self-limiting (not "self destructive") property of an experiment based on a function continuous from the initial condition is to be expected as a product of a time-limited experimental protocol . We do not observe the results of any experiment in infinite time (which is why Bell-Aspect type experiments simply throw out the time parameter by normalization).

Allowing the function to continue to the upper bound (Tsirelson bound) of strong quantum correlations is a feature, not a bug. The function is not probabilistic.

"The bump under the carpet" is and always has been the inability of Bell/CHSH experiments to produce an independent mathematical framework, i.e., one that does not assume its own conclusions. Christian's framework is truly independent of experiment. (PubPeer 9 december 2014)

" ... the experiment has an interesting self-destructive property: it is certain not to deliver the required result," says he.

Gill is so used to the weak double-negation proofs of conventional quantum theory that he apparently cannot get his mind around the point of a physical experiment that does not assume its result a priori.

In fact, the self-limiting (not "self destructive") property of an experiment based on a function continuous from the initial condition is to be expected as a product of a time-limited experimental protocol . We do not observe the results of any experiment in infinite time (which is why Bell-Aspect type experiments simply throw out the time parameter by normalization).

Allowing the function to continue to the upper bound (Tsirelson bound) of strong quantum correlations is a feature, not a bug. The function is not probabilistic.

"The bump under the carpet" is and always has been the inability of Bell/CHSH experiments to produce an independent mathematical framework, i.e., one that does not assume its own conclusions. Christian's framework is truly independent of experiment. (PubPeer 9 december 2014)

Unregistered Submission:

( December 9th, 2014 4:22pm UTC )

Edit your feedback below

For the record, Professor Gill, did Professor Emeritus David Finkelstein initiate contact with you, so as to solicit your submitting a letter to IJTP?

Peer 1:

( December 9th, 2014 6:34pm UTC )

Edit your feedback below

The commentator writes: "At the suggestion of emeritus editor-in-chief Finkelstein...." This is yet another example of how the commentator often tries to deceive the physics community. The statement made by him is deliberately misleading, prompting the previous question.

Enter your reply below (Please read the **How To**)

Richard Gill:

( December 9th, 2014 6:49pm UTC )

Edit your feedback below

I wrote to David Finkelstein. I had previously written to editor and assistant editor, but got no response. Prof. Finkelstein wrote back promptly, suggesting that I submit a letter to IJTP. Which I did one or two days ago.

I discovered that when one submits a paper to IJTP, one gets to suggest three referees.

I updated my quant-ph paper http://arxiv.org/abs/1412.2677 : from tomorrow you will be able to download version 2, which contains a few more remarks and references at the end of the note.

I discovered that when one submits a paper to IJTP, one gets to suggest three referees.

I updated my quant-ph paper http://arxiv.org/abs/1412.2677 : from tomorrow you will be able to download version 2, which contains a few more remarks and references at the end of the note.

Unregistered Submission:

( December 9th, 2014 8:47pm UTC )

Edit your feedback below

Richard Gill has made clear that he'd like to see the experiment under discussion conducted but believes Dr Christian still needs to submit an acceptable proof of concept in order to obtain both financial support and the involvement of qualified experimentalists. Back in June (I believe it was) of this year Dr Christian submitted what he considered to be such a proof, which was read by two distinguished physicists accepted as arbiters by both Christian and Gill, namely Hans de Raedt (anti-Bell) and Gregor Weihs (pro-Bell) while those gentlemen were attending the annual QM conference at Växjö along with Prof Gill. Apparently neither saw fit to endorse what they read and the experiment did not edge forward at that time. Nor, seemingly, has it gone anywhere since then unless one considers the fact that Dr Christian has now been published in a peer-reviewed journal to represent at least hope for progress.

Is there anything untrue the above statement?

Is there anything untrue the above statement?

Unregistered Submission:

( December 9th, 2014 9:10pm UTC )

Edit your feedback below

Thank you. Many years ago, I received a handwritten rejection note from David Finkelstein, "Plausible physical ideas, not accompanied by a mathematical theory that would incorporate them." I couldn't imagine an editor with that much empathy and integrity would engage in hidden activity behind the scenes -- an invitation to open debate, especially on such an imortant topic, would be public.

Peer 1:

( December 9th, 2014 11:02pm UTC )

Edit your feedback below

The truth is very clearly spelt out on this page: http://libertesphilosophica.info/blog/.

Peer 1:

( December 10th, 2014 3:37am UTC )

Edit your feedback below

Even after being prompted, he fails to make any reference to the clear-cut refutations of his claims, as brought out in detail, for example, in this paper: http://arxiv.org/pdf/1203.2529.pdf . Nor does he make any reference to the explicit numerical simulations which contradict his claims, such as http://rpubs.com/jjc/16415 and http://rpubs.com/jjc/19298 . Version 2 does make a reference to a new straw-man argument, which too has been thoroughly refuted in this chapter:

http://libertesphilosophica.info/blog/wp-content/uploads/2014/01/Book-Chapter.pdf (for the crux of the matter, see also http://www.sciphysicsforums.com/spfbb1/viewtopic.php?f=6&t=49&p=2545&hilit=third+rate#p2545 ). Finally, he again fails to make any reference in version 2 to the clear-cut classical derivation of the upper bound on the correlation, as shown, for example, in the last appendix of this paper: http://arxiv.org/pdf/1211.0784.pdf

http://libertesphilosophica.info/blog/wp-content/uploads/2014/01/Book-Chapter.pdf (for the crux of the matter, see also http://www.sciphysicsforums.com/spfbb1/viewtopic.php?f=6&t=49&p=2545&hilit=third+rate#p2545 ). Finally, he again fails to make any reference in version 2 to the clear-cut classical derivation of the upper bound on the correlation, as shown, for example, in the last appendix of this paper: http://arxiv.org/pdf/1211.0784.pdf

Enter your reply below (Please read the **How To**)

Peer 2:

( December 10th, 2014 12:42pm UTC )

Edit your feedback below

Guys, I think no readers will expect you to converge to a consensus. And any readers seeing this thread will have been adequately warned that the paper is the subject of some controversy. I therefore suggest that you try to limit further comments to significant external events: a miraculous experiment; some addition to the literature, especially by any authorities on the subject. Of course, other experts are welcome to add their views here. Science-free opinions generally carry greater weight if signed.

Unregistered Submission:

( January 16th, 2015 7:25pm UTC )

Edit your feedback below

In addition, it might be helpful to get ideas for solution of an open problem identified in the initial comment: how to motivate experimenters to perform the experiment, in spite of the mathematically justified prediction that the result is uninteresting.

Peer 1:

( January 16th, 2015 9:23pm UTC )

Edit your feedback below

LOL, what open problem? Preparations for realizing the experiment are already under way.

Experimenters aren't stupid. They recognize that Gill has simply failed to understand the physical and mathematical analysis presented in the published paper. His schoolboy howlers have been brought out quite clearly in this official reply by the author: http://arxiv.org/pdf/1501.03393.pdf .

Experimenters aren't stupid. They recognize that Gill has simply failed to understand the physical and mathematical analysis presented in the published paper. His schoolboy howlers have been brought out quite clearly in this official reply by the author: http://arxiv.org/pdf/1501.03393.pdf .

Unregistered Submission:

( January 17th, 2015 12:11pm UTC )

Edit your feedback below

Peer 1: ( January 16th, 2015 9:23pm UTC ): "LOL, what open problem? Preparations for realizing the experiment are already under way."

There is a long way from preparations to results. There will be problems and motivation must be maintained.

There is a long way from preparations to results. There will be problems and motivation must be maintained.

Enter your reply below (Please read the **How To**)

Unregistered Submission:

( December 11th, 2014 6:52am UTC )

Edit your feedback below

Great!! I am totally amused and a little disappointed too at the same time after reading this whole discussion. It is totally new for me to learn that theoretical physicists (particularly well known ones) are publicly launching personal attacks on each other. If there is some disagreement, it must be sorted out academically (i.e. publishing in an academic journal), as rightly done so by Dr. Richard Gill. Yet there exist numerous threads of personal attacks on each other as can be found on various other internet blogs.

As far as I know in molecular biology or any other related fields we do not launch such defamatory and derogatory personal attacks on each other when we disagree. But we rather prefer to point out in-consistencies in published work (see reviews on various other papers on this site) or conduct experiments and publish them.

Nevertheless, It is quite an amusement to see how these world renowned physicists are attacking each other (apparently for fame or for being more influential than the other). In the mean while, I would say ""God help physics" (Note the word "God" here though :)) )"""

As far as I know in molecular biology or any other related fields we do not launch such defamatory and derogatory personal attacks on each other when we disagree. But we rather prefer to point out in-consistencies in published work (see reviews on various other papers on this site) or conduct experiments and publish them.

Nevertheless, It is quite an amusement to see how these world renowned physicists are attacking each other (apparently for fame or for being more influential than the other). In the mean while, I would say ""God help physics" (Note the word "God" here though :)) )"""

Peer 1:

( December 11th, 2014 9:01am UTC )

Edit your feedback below

Don't be so naive.

Read what Brian Martin has to say here: https://www.uow.edu.au/~bmartin/pubs/93nw.html .

There is a lot more nastiness going on behind the scenes than what is seen on the Internet, and not just in physics (note also that the commentator is *not* a theoretical physicist).

Read what Brian Martin has to say here: https://www.uow.edu.au/~bmartin/pubs/93nw.html .

There is a lot more nastiness going on behind the scenes than what is seen on the Internet, and not just in physics (note also that the commentator is *not* a theoretical physicist).

Richard Gill:

( December 11th, 2014 9:18am UTC )

Edit your feedback below

I am not a theoretical physicist, but a mathematical statistician. However, I have published quite a bit on statistical and probabilistic issues around Bell-Aspect type experiments and the Bell theorem.

I do my best to focus on the content of the new IJTP paper by Joy Christian. I do not discuss his personality or motivations or qualifications. In my note http://arxiv.org/abs/1412.2677 (submitted to IJTP), I point out what I believe is a serious anomaly in Christian's IJTP paper, and (in version 2) I refer to two other serious anomalies (at least: I believe they are serious anomalies) which have earlier been noted in the literature. I am of course flummoxed by the fact that the referees of Christian's paper did not notice these features.

The interesting thing is that the present anomaly can be easily understood by non-experts. A line of elementary algebra is enough.

Something worth remarking is that the present paper by Christian contains a "disproof" of Bell's theorem, without any mention of the fact. In the past, people who published disproofs of Bell's theorem reached the front pages of the science supplements of major newspapers (Hess and Philipp for instance, ten years ago: New York Times). Since the theorem is of fundamental importance in modern quantum information theory, quantum computation and so on, a valid disproof of Bell's theorem would have simply enormous repercussions throughout modern physics.

I do my best to focus on the content of the new IJTP paper by Joy Christian. I do not discuss his personality or motivations or qualifications. In my note http://arxiv.org/abs/1412.2677 (submitted to IJTP), I point out what I believe is a serious anomaly in Christian's IJTP paper, and (in version 2) I refer to two other serious anomalies (at least: I believe they are serious anomalies) which have earlier been noted in the literature. I am of course flummoxed by the fact that the referees of Christian's paper did not notice these features.

The interesting thing is that the present anomaly can be easily understood by non-experts. A line of elementary algebra is enough.

Something worth remarking is that the present paper by Christian contains a "disproof" of Bell's theorem, without any mention of the fact. In the past, people who published disproofs of Bell's theorem reached the front pages of the science supplements of major newspapers (Hess and Philipp for instance, ten years ago: New York Times). Since the theorem is of fundamental importance in modern quantum information theory, quantum computation and so on, a valid disproof of Bell's theorem would have simply enormous repercussions throughout modern physics.

Unregistered Submission:

( December 11th, 2014 11:31am UTC )

Edit your feedback below

"The interesting thing is that the present anomaly can be easily understood by non-experts. A line of elementary algebra is enough. "

Except that linear algebra isn't the mathematical language in which Joy Christian's framework is written. Gill's refuted argument is akin to claiming that because the circle can't be squared using compass and straightedge, that there exists no area of any circle equivalent to that of any square. Or to take an equally ludicrous example -- the story of a drunk found on his hands and knees looking for his car keys under a streetlight, even though they were actually lost in a nearby parking lot, "because the light is better over here."

Richard Gill may not believe that the real world can be described by a local analytical framework; however, only a model demonstrably independent of experiment can conclude with scientific validity whether or not this is true. And the fact remains that no matter how they spin it, proponents of the Bell-Aspect result do not have a mathematical model independent of experiment.

I opine that Christian's framework is to quantum theory as Riemannian geometry was to general relativity.

Except that linear algebra isn't the mathematical language in which Joy Christian's framework is written. Gill's refuted argument is akin to claiming that because the circle can't be squared using compass and straightedge, that there exists no area of any circle equivalent to that of any square. Or to take an equally ludicrous example -- the story of a drunk found on his hands and knees looking for his car keys under a streetlight, even though they were actually lost in a nearby parking lot, "because the light is better over here."

Richard Gill may not believe that the real world can be described by a local analytical framework; however, only a model demonstrably independent of experiment can conclude with scientific validity whether or not this is true. And the fact remains that no matter how they spin it, proponents of the Bell-Aspect result do not have a mathematical model independent of experiment.

I opine that Christian's framework is to quantum theory as Riemannian geometry was to general relativity.

Unregistered Submission:

( January 16th, 2015 7:34pm UTC )

Edit your feedback below

Peer 1: "Read what Brian Martin has to say here: https://www.uow.edu.au/~bmartin/pubs/93nw.html ."

The linked page discusses four cases. Three of them are about medical science and one is not about science at all. Not relevant to this discussion.

The linked page discusses four cases. Three of them are about medical science and one is not about science at all. Not relevant to this discussion.

Enter your reply below (Please read the **How To**)

Richard Gill:

( December 11th, 2014 1:50pm UTC )

Edit your feedback below

"Unregistered Submitter": regarding what I called "the present anomaly", I am not talking about Joy Christian's theoretical framework. I am talking about his plain English instructions to experimenters on how to process the data which a certain classical lab experiment would generate.

I point out that Christian's own experimental instructions appear to kill the experiment which he would like to be done.

I point out that Christian's own experimental instructions appear to kill the experiment which he would like to be done.

Peer 1:

( December 11th, 2014 2:02pm UTC )

Edit your feedback below

This is getting exceedingly tedious.

Here are the author's instructions: http://www.sciphysicsforums.com/spfbb1/viewtopic.php?f=6&t=31&p=1651&hilit=hogwash#p1651 .

The only thing they kill are the commentator's claims.

Here are the author's instructions: http://www.sciphysicsforums.com/spfbb1/viewtopic.php?f=6&t=31&p=1651&hilit=hogwash#p1651 .

The only thing they kill are the commentator's claims.

Unregistered Submission:

( December 11th, 2014 2:42pm UTC )

Edit your feedback below

Richard Gill, an experiment independent of the measurement framework by which it is conducted is always dependent on theoretical criteria, not on the way one processes data. That's why I made the general relativity comparison:

If the geometry of spacetime were not curved at relativistic distance, gravitational lensing would not be observed. Now, one can say -- if light travels in a straight line relativistically, and that line is relativistically a geodesic as the experiment demonstrates, then the flat Euclidean space of our local experience is connected continuously to the curved spacetime. As Einstein averred, all physics is local.

Same with Joy Christian's local realistic model. Because we know that spacetime is locally flat, the parallelized 3-sphere meets the criterion for locally real measure space correspondent to the continuous spacetime of relativity and the special relativity limit on the speed of light.

There is no definition of the measure space in Bell-Aspect protocols. That is what allows the experiment to beg its own conclusions, and what limits conventional quantum theory to a probabilistic model that is not independent of the experiment.

If the geometry of spacetime were not curved at relativistic distance, gravitational lensing would not be observed. Now, one can say -- if light travels in a straight line relativistically, and that line is relativistically a geodesic as the experiment demonstrates, then the flat Euclidean space of our local experience is connected continuously to the curved spacetime. As Einstein averred, all physics is local.

Same with Joy Christian's local realistic model. Because we know that spacetime is locally flat, the parallelized 3-sphere meets the criterion for locally real measure space correspondent to the continuous spacetime of relativity and the special relativity limit on the speed of light.

There is no definition of the measure space in Bell-Aspect protocols. That is what allows the experiment to beg its own conclusions, and what limits conventional quantum theory to a probabilistic model that is not independent of the experiment.

Unregistered Submission:

( December 11th, 2014 4:48pm UTC )

Edit your feedback below

Why aren't effects of Dr Christian's topological structure of space observable in the behavior of mosquitoes, fruitflies etc. whose mass is 1/1000 - 1/500 that of the balls in the proposed experiment?

Peer 1:

( December 11th, 2014 8:07pm UTC )

Edit your feedback below

They would be observable if you can make two mosquitoes --- or two fruit flies --- rotate in tandem relative to each other, in a singlet state, just as the two fragments of an exploding bomb described in the paper.

Unregistered Submission:

( December 11th, 2014 8:33pm UTC )

Edit your feedback below

Effects should be observable by applying the Wigner-d'Espagnat inequality to a confined set of the insects. You select three behavioral parameters (pitch greater or less than n degrees, yaw less or greater than n degrees, roll greater or less than n degrees, direction within n degrees of magnetic north or not, speed greater than n knots or not, for example) and make synchronous measurements using camera and/or laser. It would be an extraordinarily strange classical world if the inequality were violated. Indeed, it would be unimaginably strange.

Unregistered Submission:

( December 12th, 2014 12:41am UTC )

Edit your feedback below

Classical orientation entanglement is nothing like the Wigner-d'Espagnat inequality. The former is continuous and covariant; the latter is pairwise discrete.

Peer 1:

( December 12th, 2014 3:10am UTC )

Edit your feedback below

There is no classical world separate from the quantum world. There is just world, and there is nothing strange about it. See, for example, the astute comments by Bell quoted on this page: http://libertesphilosophica.info/blog/ .

What *is* strange is the extraordinarily poor understanding of basic mechanics and elementary topology of some of the followers of Bell. The correct physical analysis is very clearly spelt out in the published paper (or in preprint http://arxiv.org/pdf/1211.0784.pdf ).

What *is* strange is the extraordinarily poor understanding of basic mechanics and elementary topology of some of the followers of Bell. The correct physical analysis is very clearly spelt out in the published paper (or in preprint http://arxiv.org/pdf/1211.0784.pdf ).

Enter your reply below (Please read the **How To**)

Peer 4:

( December 11th, 2014 5:48pm UTC )

Edit your feedback below

Ladies and gentlemen,

Is this really how scientists behave?

I would ask the PubPeer moderator to remove the rudest comments from Peer 1 (those that suggest that Gill is dishonest, and those that contribute nothing other than unsolicited links).

I also suggest that no-one else posts here until that has been done.

Is this really how scientists behave?

I would ask the PubPeer moderator to remove the rudest comments from Peer 1 (those that suggest that Gill is dishonest, and those that contribute nothing other than unsolicited links).

I also suggest that no-one else posts here until that has been done.

Unregistered Submission:

( December 12th, 2014 4:45pm UTC )

Edit your feedback below

The problem with "classical orientation entanglement" would seem to be making it coherent for experiment. Richard Gill and Florin Moldoveanu apparently aren't alone in believing this hasn't been accomplished; Hans de Raedt and Gregor Weihs had an opportunity to sign off on Dr Christian's proof of concept but did not. One senses an impasse.

Peer 1:

( December 12th, 2014 8:29pm UTC )

Edit your feedback below

What evidence do you have for your sociological claims? Did Hans de Raedt and Gregor Weihs --- whoever they are --- communicated to you (or anyone else) about their supposed "opportunity to sign off" on author's "proof of concept" but did not, assuming they are even capable of understanding what orientation entanglement actually is? By contrast, in the published paper we have a clear-cut public endorsement of the author's proposal by the distinguished editors and editorial board members of IJTP. What is more, at least one of the editorial board members, namely Sir Roger Penrose, is an eminent authority on the subject of author's proposal, as evident from the title of his landmark book: "Spinors and Space-Time."

By contrast, among the other two obscure names you mention, one is a statistician, not a physicist, and the other does not seem to have a single publication on his name in any journal whatsoever, in any subject whatsoever. Are you suggesting that an endorsement from these four obscure figures is somehow sociologically more significant than from the four Nobel Laureates and other distinguished members of the editorial board of IJTP?

By contrast, among the other two obscure names you mention, one is a statistician, not a physicist, and the other does not seem to have a single publication on his name in any journal whatsoever, in any subject whatsoever. Are you suggesting that an endorsement from these four obscure figures is somehow sociologically more significant than from the four Nobel Laureates and other distinguished members of the editorial board of IJTP?

Unregistered Submission:

( December 12th, 2014 9:53pm UTC )

Edit your feedback below

Here's another, later, more colorful page from SciPhysicsForum, updating the imbroglio. One had forgotten how emotional it became.

http://www.sciphysicsforums.com/spfbb1/viewtopic.php?f=6&t=66&start=10

http://www.sciphysicsforums.com/spfbb1/viewtopic.php?f=6&t=66&start=10

Peer 1:

( December 12th, 2014 10:35pm UTC )

Edit your feedback below

And here is a stern response to the above lies (by the administrator of that forum): http://www.sciphysicsforums.com/spfbb1/viewtopic.php?f=6&t=66&start=20#p3057 .

Unregistered Submission:

( December 12th, 2014 11:04pm UTC )

Edit your feedback below

The administrator of the forum is Fred Diether, one of Joy Christian's outriders (endless cites available). It's his website; he can ban whomever he pleases for whatever reason, fairly or not.

Peer 1:

( December 13th, 2014 12:14am UTC )

Edit your feedback below

If you say so. You seem to have a lot of "inside" information.

Unregistered Submission:

( December 13th, 2014 2:07am UTC )

Edit your feedback below

Gill's and Moldoveanu's arguments have been addressed and refuted. If you want to know what Weihs and de Raedt think, why not ask them instead of spreading innuendo?

Also, the same people who said the experiment is impossible are the same who said that Joy's framework couldn't be simulated on a classical computer. As a fortune cookie I once opened said, those who insist something can't be done should get out of the way of those doing it.

The bottom line -- classical physics is not finished.

Also, the same people who said the experiment is impossible are the same who said that Joy's framework couldn't be simulated on a classical computer. As a fortune cookie I once opened said, those who insist something can't be done should get out of the way of those doing it.

The bottom line -- classical physics is not finished.

Richard Gill:

( December 13th, 2014 6:56am UTC )

Edit your feedback below

Does "Peer 1" seriously imagine that the august editorial board of IJTP has anything whatever to do with the day to day management of the journal? The submitter of a paper proposes referees. The managing editor manages the electronic document stream. The editor-in-chief "signs off" on the content of each new issue. The publisher makes a modest profit. Everyone is happy.

Peer 3:

( December 30th, 2014 8:07pm UTC )

Edit your feedback below

I agree that somebody should call "time out" here. I get half a dozen emails every day for this thread, and feel like am tuning in to a bunch of kindergarten children trowing sand at each other in the sandbox and arguing over he did what to whom and who said what when. Everyone in this pileup is discrediting themselves and giving science and scientists a bad name. Joy, Richard, love you both, but to you and everybody else: grow up! enough is enough!! Jay R. Yablon (I will never post anonymously, nor should anybody else who intends to be forthright.)

Richard Gill:

( February 11th, 2015 9:30am UTC )

Edit your feedback below

Splendid, Jay. I agree wholeheartedly. Especially with your stance on anonymity. Anonymity seems to bring out the worst in people.

The important thing to remember is that is that we should criticise scientific works, but should not criticise scientific workers. Of course nobody likes to be told that [someone thinks that] their paper is rubbish. But it is part of science, that we can say that - provided we give our reasoning, too.

"Neuroskeptic" has a nice essay on this: http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/neuroskeptic/2014/01/27/post-publication-cyber-bullying

The important thing to remember is that is that we should criticise scientific works, but should not criticise scientific workers. Of course nobody likes to be told that [someone thinks that] their paper is rubbish. But it is part of science, that we can say that - provided we give our reasoning, too.

"Neuroskeptic" has a nice essay on this: http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/neuroskeptic/2014/01/27/post-publication-cyber-bullying

Peer 1:

( February 11th, 2015 9:34am UTC )

Edit your feedback below

The author also has nice comments on this issue here: http://libertesphilosophica.info/blog/ .

Enter your reply below (Please read the **How To**)

Peer 2:

( December 13th, 2014 8:18am UTC )

Edit your feedback below

Richard is right that a "proof by authority" appealing to the existence of distinguished scientists in the editorial board is simply not credible. Editorial board members are usually not involved in the routine processing of manuscripts. In any case, did the referees of the paper even realise and address the points of contention?

Referees rarely put up much resistance except at the most sought after journals. Somehow I can imagine Christian wearing down most referees quite effectively.

Referees rarely put up much resistance except at the most sought after journals. Somehow I can imagine Christian wearing down most referees quite effectively.

Peer 1:

( December 13th, 2014 11:59am UTC )

Edit your feedback below

What points of contention?
I suggest actually reading this reply to Gill, which is available since March 2012: http://arxiv.org/abs/1203.2529 .
It is also worth noting that the author has not even bothered to reply to Gill's latest preprint

Enter your reply below (Please read the **How To**)

Richard Gill:

( December 13th, 2014 8:50am UTC )

Edit your feedback below

I suggest that Christian posts the referee reports of his paper to internet, and I will do the same, of mine. Moreover, if he is willing to reveal the names of referees which he proposed to IJTP, I'll do the same.

Peer 2:

( December 13th, 2014 8:53am UTC )

Edit your feedback below

I considered suggesting posting the referees' reports, but readers will have no real way of checking their veracity.

Peer 1:

( December 13th, 2014 1:00pm UTC )

Edit your feedback below

A little birdie just told me that the referees suggested to IJTP by the author were John Clauser, Alain Aspect, and Anton Zeilinger.

Unregistered Submission:

( December 13th, 2014 1:25pm UTC )

Edit your feedback below

If the little birdie is not being sarcastic, it would make imminent sense that the leading defenders of Bell's theorem as fundamental law would be eager to put to rest this serious challenge to conventional quantum theory. There is no clearer dichotomy in science that the world is either probabilistic at foundation, or it is not.

Peer 5:

( December 13th, 2014 6:06pm UTC )

Edit your feedback below

Since Peer 1 is obviously the original author himself, we should trust the little birdie. But it is highly doubtful that any of these three suggested referees would recommend publication. Hence, I encourage the author to actually make the referee reports public.

Peer 2:

( December 13th, 2014 6:43pm UTC )

Edit your feedback below

There is also no guarantee that any of those suggested referees did actually examine the paper.

Peer 1:

( December 13th, 2014 7:36pm UTC )

Edit your feedback below

Peer 5, I beg to differ. Both John Clauser and Anton Zeilinger are fine theoretical physicists, in addition to being excellent experimentalists. And unlike the likes of Richard Gill they can certainly verify a bit of algebra correctly. Being scientists with integrity they would recommend the paper for publication for sure, after having verified its contents to their own satisfaction. I left out Alain Aspect because in his own words he is merely a "naïve experimentalist", not a theorist.

Peer 2:

( December 13th, 2014 7:48pm UTC )

Edit your feedback below

It really is ridiculous to be arguing over what these scientists would say. If they have made a public statement, please point to it.

Beyond that, I think people would agree that these would be high quality suggested referees. If these were the suggestions, we can deduce that Christian believes his theory, but we already knew that.

Beyond that, I think people would agree that these would be high quality suggested referees. If these were the suggestions, we can deduce that Christian believes his theory, but we already knew that.

Richard Gill:

( December 14th, 2014 6:52am UTC )

Edit your feedback below

Anton Zeilinger was at my Vaxjo talk and greatly enjoyed it. I conclude that Christian is joking, again. I would guess that Karl Hess was one of the referees. He believes that he has proven Bell's theorem to be false and would probably support anyone else who supports him. Obviously, he has his own supporters too, and no doubt shares their names with his allies. http://www.pnas.org/content/101/7/1797.full

Peer 1:

( December 14th, 2014 2:53pm UTC )

Edit your feedback below

Karl Hess was not one of the referees. As noted, the suggested referees were John Clauser, Alain Aspect, and Anton Zeilinger. The published paper is about physics, not about John Bell.

Richard Gill:

( December 15th, 2014 4:15pm UTC )

Edit your feedback below

Well, maybe the manager of IJTP uses the fame of the suggested referees as a measure of the likely quality of the paper. I know that neither Aspect nor Zeilinger were consulted. If the names of suggested referees are *huge*, the manager is obviously not going to bother them by asking for a report.

Next time, I will try that trick myself.

In my humble opinion, the paper is "science fantasy". It would be a great Sokal-type hoax, if only it actually were a hoax ...

Next time, I will try that trick myself.

In my humble opinion, the paper is "science fantasy". It would be a great Sokal-type hoax, if only it actually were a hoax ...

Peer 1:

( December 15th, 2014 4:49pm UTC )

Edit your feedback below

You may insult the editorial board of IJTP as much as you like, but your opinions count for nothing. You are not a physicist, and anyone who can do a little bit of algebra can judge your mathematical ability for themselves by simply checking out your preprints. We also have no reason to believe your claim that "you know" neither Aspect nor Zelinger were consulted.

Enter your reply below (Please read the **How To**)

Richard Gill:

( December 13th, 2014 4:35pm UTC )

Edit your feedback below

For those who wonder why I spend so much time (picking up heaps of personal abuse, in public) in such debates, please see the slides of my invited talk http://www.slideshare.net/gill1109/vaxjo-2014 at the last Vaxjo conference on quantum foundations http://lnu.se/subjects/mathematics/conferences/quantum-theory-from-problems-to-advances---qtpa/qtpa?l=en

Unregistered Submission:

( December 13th, 2014 6:11pm UTC )

Edit your feedback below

"I know you are, but what am I"? Come on, guys, stop it. Who cares if Gill doesn't take IJTP or its editors and referees seriously? Who cares if Christian doesn't take Gill seriously? If we are expected to take the science seriously, we have to talk about the science. May I suggest:

Gill: Why do you think the physical space has no effect on the measurement?

Christian: Why do you think the measure space physically participates in the measurement result?

http://mathworld.wolfram.com/MeasureSpace.html

Gill: Why do you think the physical space has no effect on the measurement?

Christian: Why do you think the measure space physically participates in the measurement result?

http://mathworld.wolfram.com/MeasureSpace.html

Enter your reply below (Please read the **How To**)

Richard Gill:

( December 14th, 2014 6:18am UTC )

Edit your feedback below

Thank you, "Unregistered submitter". You asked me why do I think the physical space has no effect on the measurement and you post a link to Wolfram's definition of a measure space.

I make no claim about that, either way. I merely point out that Christian's experiment will *certainly* disprove his own claims. Those who know Bell's inequality and read my note will know why, but clearly many readers of PubPeer are unaware of the context. Let me try briefly to explain. This will lead me into some of the (elementary) technicalities of Bell's theorem (1965) and the CHSH inequality (1969), and the Aspect experiment (1982). You may want to Google these terms. Here is a recent Nature article: http://www.nature.com/news/physics-bell-s-theorem-still-reverberates-1.15435 and here is the wikipedia article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bell%27s_theorem

Christian describes an experiment which is supposed to determine correlations E(a, b) between the spin of particle 1 measured in direction "a" and the spin of particle 2 measured in direction "b". There are "N" pairs of particles and their spin (+/- 1) is measured in many pairs of directions "a" and "b" (represented as unit vectors in R^3). Christian believes that his experiment will result in the so-called singlet correlations E(a, b) = - a . b = minus the the inner product between the two vectors "a" and "b". Suppose we look at four correlations, based on the four combinations between two particular choices for a and two particular choices for b. I choose them all in the same plane and refer to them by giving the angles they make with some fixed reference direction in the plane. Take a_1 = 90 degrees, a_2 = 0 degrees, b_1 = 45 degrees, b_2 = 135 degrees. Define E_ij = E(a_i, b_j). You will notice that each E_{ij} = +/- 1/sqrt 2. Three of the correlations are negative, one is positive. E11 - E12 - E21 - E22 = 2 sqrt 2 > 2. However as I show in my note, Christian's experiment will deliver |E11 - E12 - E21 - E22| less than or equal to 2.

Christian's first "disproof of Bell's theorem" appeared on arXiv in 2007. It initially caused some interest and some controversy, but has since been more or less forgotten. Since then he posted about 15 papers elaborating this original result on arXiv. Many of them are chapters in his book "Disproof of Bell's Theorem: Illuminating the Illusion of Entanglement" http://www.amazon.com/Disproof-Bells-Theorem-Illuminating-Entanglement/dp/1599425645 ; for an eBook, second edition, go to http://www.brownwalker.com/book/1612337244 . This is the first time, as far as I know, that he succeeded in getting one of these papers published in a peer reviewed journal, which is why it is interesting.

Incidentally, the CHSH inequality is due to Clauser, Horne, Shimony and Holt (1969) and Abner Shimony was Christian's PhD supervisor. Christian used to have impeccable research credentials. They brought him research fellowships at Perimeter Institute and at an Oxford college, a research grant from FQXi, and a lot of highly connected friends. (He is a charming person, by the way!)

I first heard about Christian's disproof of Bell's theorem at a conference in Berlin in about 2008, at which Christian gave a talk on his work. Since he obtained his theoretical results by redefining "correlation" in a non-standard way, using geometric algebra, it was clear to me that it was quite simply *irrelevant* to the ongoing discussions on Bell's theorem, but his use of "geometric algebra" seemed amusing. I decided to learn about this, it might be useful. I met Christian in Oxford and he explained to me a little bit. Then I discovered that not only was his approach irrelevant, it also depended on an elementary sign error, carefully hidden (through notational ambiguity) in a routine calculation.

These same issues had been discovered independently by others working in the field of quantum foundations, and confirmed by anyone who took the trouble to check, and Christian's work has since been totally ignored, as far as I know.

Later still the arXiv preprint of the paper presently under discussion appeared. I got involved in discussions at several internet fora on this paper. It seemed to me that at last it should be possible to explain to the most fervent supporter of Christian that his work depends on one elementary error after another, since the new paper contains an error which anyone can see for themselves by doing one line of elementary algebra. No need to learn about geometric algebra, no need to learn about bivectors and Clifford algebra and differential geometry, no need to learn anything subtle about Bell's inequality. But of course, nothing will shake the cherished beliefs of the true believers.

All of this is interesting from a psychological and sociological point of view: why is Bell's theorem so poorly understand? Why does it constantly attract well-meaning and intelligent people who come up with flawed "disproofs" again and again? Often, these disproofs catch the attention of the popular science media. For instance, I became aware of Hess and Philipp's work, published in PNAS in about 2004, through my local newspaper. Hess and Philipp are (were) two highly regarded US scientists, stepping a little bit outside of their usual fields. Karl Hess is still not giving up ... http://www.amazon.com/Einstein-Was-Right-Karl-Hess/dp/9814463698/

I make no claim about that, either way. I merely point out that Christian's experiment will *certainly* disprove his own claims. Those who know Bell's inequality and read my note will know why, but clearly many readers of PubPeer are unaware of the context. Let me try briefly to explain. This will lead me into some of the (elementary) technicalities of Bell's theorem (1965) and the CHSH inequality (1969), and the Aspect experiment (1982). You may want to Google these terms. Here is a recent Nature article: http://www.nature.com/news/physics-bell-s-theorem-still-reverberates-1.15435 and here is the wikipedia article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bell%27s_theorem

Christian describes an experiment which is supposed to determine correlations E(a, b) between the spin of particle 1 measured in direction "a" and the spin of particle 2 measured in direction "b". There are "N" pairs of particles and their spin (+/- 1) is measured in many pairs of directions "a" and "b" (represented as unit vectors in R^3). Christian believes that his experiment will result in the so-called singlet correlations E(a, b) = - a . b = minus the the inner product between the two vectors "a" and "b". Suppose we look at four correlations, based on the four combinations between two particular choices for a and two particular choices for b. I choose them all in the same plane and refer to them by giving the angles they make with some fixed reference direction in the plane. Take a_1 = 90 degrees, a_2 = 0 degrees, b_1 = 45 degrees, b_2 = 135 degrees. Define E_ij = E(a_i, b_j). You will notice that each E_{ij} = +/- 1/sqrt 2. Three of the correlations are negative, one is positive. E11 - E12 - E21 - E22 = 2 sqrt 2 > 2. However as I show in my note, Christian's experiment will deliver |E11 - E12 - E21 - E22| less than or equal to 2.

Christian's first "disproof of Bell's theorem" appeared on arXiv in 2007. It initially caused some interest and some controversy, but has since been more or less forgotten. Since then he posted about 15 papers elaborating this original result on arXiv. Many of them are chapters in his book "Disproof of Bell's Theorem: Illuminating the Illusion of Entanglement" http://www.amazon.com/Disproof-Bells-Theorem-Illuminating-Entanglement/dp/1599425645 ; for an eBook, second edition, go to http://www.brownwalker.com/book/1612337244 . This is the first time, as far as I know, that he succeeded in getting one of these papers published in a peer reviewed journal, which is why it is interesting.

Incidentally, the CHSH inequality is due to Clauser, Horne, Shimony and Holt (1969) and Abner Shimony was Christian's PhD supervisor. Christian used to have impeccable research credentials. They brought him research fellowships at Perimeter Institute and at an Oxford college, a research grant from FQXi, and a lot of highly connected friends. (He is a charming person, by the way!)

I first heard about Christian's disproof of Bell's theorem at a conference in Berlin in about 2008, at which Christian gave a talk on his work. Since he obtained his theoretical results by redefining "correlation" in a non-standard way, using geometric algebra, it was clear to me that it was quite simply *irrelevant* to the ongoing discussions on Bell's theorem, but his use of "geometric algebra" seemed amusing. I decided to learn about this, it might be useful. I met Christian in Oxford and he explained to me a little bit. Then I discovered that not only was his approach irrelevant, it also depended on an elementary sign error, carefully hidden (through notational ambiguity) in a routine calculation.

These same issues had been discovered independently by others working in the field of quantum foundations, and confirmed by anyone who took the trouble to check, and Christian's work has since been totally ignored, as far as I know.

Later still the arXiv preprint of the paper presently under discussion appeared. I got involved in discussions at several internet fora on this paper. It seemed to me that at last it should be possible to explain to the most fervent supporter of Christian that his work depends on one elementary error after another, since the new paper contains an error which anyone can see for themselves by doing one line of elementary algebra. No need to learn about geometric algebra, no need to learn about bivectors and Clifford algebra and differential geometry, no need to learn anything subtle about Bell's inequality. But of course, nothing will shake the cherished beliefs of the true believers.

All of this is interesting from a psychological and sociological point of view: why is Bell's theorem so poorly understand? Why does it constantly attract well-meaning and intelligent people who come up with flawed "disproofs" again and again? Often, these disproofs catch the attention of the popular science media. For instance, I became aware of Hess and Philipp's work, published in PNAS in about 2004, through my local newspaper. Hess and Philipp are (were) two highly regarded US scientists, stepping a little bit outside of their usual fields. Karl Hess is still not giving up ... http://www.amazon.com/Einstein-Was-Right-Karl-Hess/dp/9814463698/

Peer 1:

( December 14th, 2014 6:50am UTC )

Edit your feedback below

The above claims by the commentator have been refuted many times over by the author and many other experts in the field. The commentator is hiding his real motives very carefully, which are malicious, very personal, and deeply unethical, as described in detail here: http://www.sciphysicsforums.com/spfbb1/viewtopic.php?f=6&t=115#p3763 .

He is now trying to play Dr Jekyll, but in truth he is just Mr Hyde.

He has clearly demonstrated to be incapable of understanding the physics and mathematics of the author's approach, which has been described in detail on author's blog: http://libertesphilosophica.info/blog/ .

As already noted several times, the commentator's fallacious claims have been repeatedly refuted by many experts in the field, most notably by the distinguished editors and the editorial board of the International Journal of Theoretical Physics (which includes at least four Nobel Laureates and a renowned mathematical physicist like Sir Roger Penrose). It is well known to many scholars that the commentator's misconceptions about the cited paper stem from his inability to understand basic physics and his poor grasp of elementary mathematics. It is very important to recognize the fact that he is not a theoretical physicist. We also have these testimonies which spell out his elementary mistakes in simpler terms: http://www.sciphysicsforums.com/spfbb1/viewtopic.php?f=6&t=49&p=2545&hilit=third+rate#p2545 .

What is extraordinary is that, even after being prompted, in version 2 of his latest preprint he fails to make any reference to already existing clear-cut refutations of *ALL* of his fallacious claims, which were brought out in detail several years ago in this paper: http://arxiv.org/pdf/1203.2529.pdf .

Nor does he make any reference to the explicit numerical simulations which contradict his claims, such as http://rpubs.com/jjc/16415 and http://rpubs.com/jjc/19298 .

The straw-man argument he puts forward in version 2 of his latest preprint has also been thoroughly refuted in this chapter of the author's book: http://libertesphilosophica.info/blog/wp-content/uploads/2014/01/Book-Chapter.pdf

Finally, in version 2 of his latest preprint he again fails to make any reference to the clear-cut classical derivation of the "quantum" upper bound on the correlation, as derived in the last appendix of this paper: http://arxiv.org/pdf/1211.0784.pdf .

He is now trying to play Dr Jekyll, but in truth he is just Mr Hyde.

He has clearly demonstrated to be incapable of understanding the physics and mathematics of the author's approach, which has been described in detail on author's blog: http://libertesphilosophica.info/blog/ .

As already noted several times, the commentator's fallacious claims have been repeatedly refuted by many experts in the field, most notably by the distinguished editors and the editorial board of the International Journal of Theoretical Physics (which includes at least four Nobel Laureates and a renowned mathematical physicist like Sir Roger Penrose). It is well known to many scholars that the commentator's misconceptions about the cited paper stem from his inability to understand basic physics and his poor grasp of elementary mathematics. It is very important to recognize the fact that he is not a theoretical physicist. We also have these testimonies which spell out his elementary mistakes in simpler terms: http://www.sciphysicsforums.com/spfbb1/viewtopic.php?f=6&t=49&p=2545&hilit=third+rate#p2545 .

What is extraordinary is that, even after being prompted, in version 2 of his latest preprint he fails to make any reference to already existing clear-cut refutations of *ALL* of his fallacious claims, which were brought out in detail several years ago in this paper: http://arxiv.org/pdf/1203.2529.pdf .

Nor does he make any reference to the explicit numerical simulations which contradict his claims, such as http://rpubs.com/jjc/16415 and http://rpubs.com/jjc/19298 .

The straw-man argument he puts forward in version 2 of his latest preprint has also been thoroughly refuted in this chapter of the author's book: http://libertesphilosophica.info/blog/wp-content/uploads/2014/01/Book-Chapter.pdf

Finally, in version 2 of his latest preprint he again fails to make any reference to the clear-cut classical derivation of the "quantum" upper bound on the correlation, as derived in the last appendix of this paper: http://arxiv.org/pdf/1211.0784.pdf .

Peer 2:

( December 14th, 2014 7:47am UTC )

Edit your feedback below

Thank you Richard for taking the time to try to explain things for less expert readers here. I think readers are perfectly capable of identifying and filtering ad hominem stuff, so it would be counterproductive to descend to that.

Richard Gill:

( December 14th, 2014 8:19am UTC )

Edit your feedback below

"Finally, in version 2 of his latest preprint he again fails to make any reference to the clear-cut classical derivation of the "quantum" upper bound on the correlation, as derived in the last appendix of this paper: http://arxiv.org/pdf/1211.0784.pdf ." That paper being the preprint version of the IJTP paper under discussion here. Peer 1 (= Joy Christian, I suppose) refers to his proof of the Tsirelson inequality. Tsirelson (1980) himself gave a beautiful and correct proof of the Tsirelson bound. Both Tsirelson's proof and Christian's uses Clifford algebra whether explicitly or implicitly, so Christian's proof could be a re-working of Tsirelson's in different notation. But on past experience I would guess that Christian's new proof is yet again based on sleight-of-hand exploitation of notational ambiguity, but I did not feel any need to check. Anyway, it has no bearing at all on the issue I raised here on PubPeer. Diversionary tactic?

Christian always fights back pluckily so whenever anyone publishes any criticism of his work he immediately publishes a "refutation". For an example I recommend that the interested reader study the sequence http://arxiv.org/abs/1103.1879 (Christian, 1 page), http://arxiv.org/abs/1203.1504 (Gill, four pages), http://arxiv.org/abs/1203.2529 (Christian, 7 pages). They may decide for themselves who is right.

I proposed to Christian that we submit that whole bundle to a journal but he declined so none of these three papers have seen peer review. The first one comes straight out of the introductory chapter of his book.

The numerical simulations which Christian claims confirm his predictions have been mentioned before. Simulations of the detection loophole model of Pearle (1970) are fun but irrelevant. The idea is that when a particle is measured, the outcome can be "no particle" instead of +1 or -1. One can engineer the detection probability, dependent on values of local hidden variables in the particle, such that the surviving pairs of particles exhibit any correlations one likes ... as long as one allows enough particles to go undetected.

Christian always fights back pluckily so whenever anyone publishes any criticism of his work he immediately publishes a "refutation". For an example I recommend that the interested reader study the sequence http://arxiv.org/abs/1103.1879 (Christian, 1 page), http://arxiv.org/abs/1203.1504 (Gill, four pages), http://arxiv.org/abs/1203.2529 (Christian, 7 pages). They may decide for themselves who is right.

I proposed to Christian that we submit that whole bundle to a journal but he declined so none of these three papers have seen peer review. The first one comes straight out of the introductory chapter of his book.

The numerical simulations which Christian claims confirm his predictions have been mentioned before. Simulations of the detection loophole model of Pearle (1970) are fun but irrelevant. The idea is that when a particle is measured, the outcome can be "no particle" instead of +1 or -1. One can engineer the detection probability, dependent on values of local hidden variables in the particle, such that the surviving pairs of particles exhibit any correlations one likes ... as long as one allows enough particles to go undetected.

Peer 1:

( December 14th, 2014 8:31am UTC )

Edit your feedback below

If there is any sleight-of-hand anywhere, it is in Gill's attempt to misrepresent the author's calculation. Actually, that is not quite true. What Gill does is shamelessly fabricate an error and claim that it has been made by the author. He is a master of such despicable tactics. This paper brings out his tactics quite well: http://arxiv.org/abs/1203.2529 .

Peer 2:

( December 14th, 2014 9:50am UTC )

Edit your feedback below

@ Peer 1

"I wouldn't be surprised at all if "Peer 2" is Gill himself."

Well I'm not. Comment signing on PubPeer is per thread (as you would discover if you pressed the magic button, Mr./Ms. Anonymous, Ardent and Extremely Well Informed Defender of Joy Christian). So readers can at least be assured that the Peer 2 and Richard Gill accounts are associated with different institutional email addresses. Yes, the system can still be gamed, but I'm not Gill. Oddly enough, having read this thread, I wouldn't envisage much benefit from revealing my identity.

"I wouldn't be surprised at all if "Peer 2" is Gill himself."

Well I'm not. Comment signing on PubPeer is per thread (as you would discover if you pressed the magic button, Mr./Ms. Anonymous, Ardent and Extremely Well Informed Defender of Joy Christian). So readers can at least be assured that the Peer 2 and Richard Gill accounts are associated with different institutional email addresses. Yes, the system can still be gamed, but I'm not Gill. Oddly enough, having read this thread, I wouldn't envisage much benefit from revealing my identity.

Enter your reply below (Please read the **How To**)

Peer 0:

( December 14th, 2014 10:13am UTC )

Edit your feedback below

Keep to the scientific issues. Don't be surprised if approval of non-scientific comments by moderators takes infinite time or if rude comments are perfunctorily disabled.

Peer 1:

( December 14th, 2014 12:08pm UTC )

Edit your feedback below

Ladies and gentlemen,

I hear that --- prompted by the online publication of the paper --- preparations to realize the proposed experiment have already begun. I hear that the experimentalists involved are of exceptional talent, and are based at a world renowned institution. They are unimpressed by Gill's attempt to derail the progress of science. It is good to know that in the end the quality and rigour of the theoretical analysis that matters.

I hear that --- prompted by the online publication of the paper --- preparations to realize the proposed experiment have already begun. I hear that the experimentalists involved are of exceptional talent, and are based at a world renowned institution. They are unimpressed by Gill's attempt to derail the progress of science. It is good to know that in the end the quality and rigour of the theoretical analysis that matters.

Richard Gill:

( December 14th, 2014 1:18pm UTC )

Edit your feedback below

Splendid. We trust the experimenters will make their experimental data and data-analysis scripts publicly available. It should not be too difficult to realise the singlet correlations using the detection loophole, perhaps on the lines of Caroline Thompson's spinning chaotic ball model http://freespace.virgin.net/ch.thompson1/Papers/The%20Record/TheRecord.htm . It would be good to see a genuine (natural) physical realization of Pearle's (1970) model.

Peer 1:

( December 14th, 2014 1:42pm UTC )

Edit your feedback below

Sour grapes. Anyone can see that the experiment will be immune to detection loophole.

Richard Gill:

( December 14th, 2014 4:51pm UTC )

Edit your feedback below

As described, the experiment indeed obviously has no detection loophole, but also absolutely no chance of reproducing the singlet correlations. Which is the point I made here, and which so far no one has refuted. However, suitably modified (so as to physically realise Pearle's probabilistic non-detection process) the experiment could do that - at the cost of a certain proportion of un-detected spins. Which Christian would say never had existed.

It would be beautiful to see this realised in a natural way with classical mechanical objects. Caroline Thompson already described a process which comes close.

As Hans de Raedt and Gregor Weihs confirmed at the Vaxjo conference, Christian was unable even to simulate "successful" data of his own experiment, where successful means: gives the desired result when processed according to Christian's own instructions - the instructions in the paper we are discussing here. And all that, despite repeated attempts and repeated claims he had done so. His data sets were posted on internet so that everyone could independently verify this.

One of Christian's long time supporters Fred Diether (who apparently, at the time, felt that Christian was doing it wrong) also submitted his own simulated data on Christian's behalf, but also failed. (Fred Diether can be recognised by frequent use of the phrase "LOL" in his postings). Fred Diether and Jay Yablon, also active here, run the UseNet discussion group sci.physics.foundations (which can nowadays also be accessed via Google groups).

It would be beautiful to see this realised in a natural way with classical mechanical objects. Caroline Thompson already described a process which comes close.

As Hans de Raedt and Gregor Weihs confirmed at the Vaxjo conference, Christian was unable even to simulate "successful" data of his own experiment, where successful means: gives the desired result when processed according to Christian's own instructions - the instructions in the paper we are discussing here. And all that, despite repeated attempts and repeated claims he had done so. His data sets were posted on internet so that everyone could independently verify this.

One of Christian's long time supporters Fred Diether (who apparently, at the time, felt that Christian was doing it wrong) also submitted his own simulated data on Christian's behalf, but also failed. (Fred Diether can be recognised by frequent use of the phrase "LOL" in his postings). Fred Diether and Jay Yablon, also active here, run the UseNet discussion group sci.physics.foundations (which can nowadays also be accessed via Google groups).

Peer 1:

( December 15th, 2014 7:44am UTC )

Edit your feedback below

The data sets have indeed been posted on the internet, here http://rpubs.com/jjc/16415 and here http://rpubs.com/jjc/19298 , together with a theoretical analysis here http://arxiv.org/abs/1405.2355 and here http://libertesphilosophica.info/blog/ .

Unregistered Submission:

( December 16th, 2014 12:55pm UTC )

Edit your feedback below

If Richard Gill is correct, there is no chance of the experiment reproducing the singlet correlations. The data likely from such an experiment could be simulated and analysed in advance. That would enable the method of analysis to be firmed up and agreed in advance of the experiment. Richard has been a strong advocate of that sensible approach.

This has already been done in simulations an discussed in posts on a website from which Richard is now barred [http://www.sciphysicsforums.com], there was disagreement between Richard and the proponents of the experiment about the mathematics used in the analysis. Those disagreements about the mathematics of the analysis should be aired again with a view to resolving them preferably before or during the conducting of the experiment.

This has already been done in simulations an discussed in posts on a website from which Richard is now barred [http://www.sciphysicsforums.com], there was disagreement between Richard and the proponents of the experiment about the mathematics used in the analysis. Those disagreements about the mathematics of the analysis should be aired again with a view to resolving them preferably before or during the conducting of the experiment.

Peer 1:

( December 16th, 2014 7:30pm UTC )

Edit your feedback below

But Richard Gill is anything but correct. The physics and mathematics dictate that the experiment will inevitably reproduce the singlet correlation.

Moreover, the data sets likely from the proposed experiment are already available in these two simulations: http://rpubs.com/jjc/16415 and http://rpubs.com/jjc/19298 (together with the theoretical analysis discussed here http://arxiv.org/abs/1405.2355 and here http://libertesphilosophica.info/blog/ ).

It is not for Richard Gill to decide which method of analysis the experimentalists should use. Who is he anyway? Does he know the first thing about the physics and mathematics discussed in the published paper? Evidently not, as pointed out here: http://www.sciphysicsforums.com/spfbb1/viewtopic.php?f=6&t=55&start=10#p3529 .

There is nothing to be resolved. The preparations for the experiment are already underway.

Moreover, the data sets likely from the proposed experiment are already available in these two simulations: http://rpubs.com/jjc/16415 and http://rpubs.com/jjc/19298 (together with the theoretical analysis discussed here http://arxiv.org/abs/1405.2355 and here http://libertesphilosophica.info/blog/ ).

It is not for Richard Gill to decide which method of analysis the experimentalists should use. Who is he anyway? Does he know the first thing about the physics and mathematics discussed in the published paper? Evidently not, as pointed out here: http://www.sciphysicsforums.com/spfbb1/viewtopic.php?f=6&t=55&start=10#p3529 .

There is nothing to be resolved. The preparations for the experiment are already underway.

Richard Gill:

( December 19th, 2014 5:13pm UTC )

Edit your feedback below

The point is, that Christian himself (in his paper) tells the experimenters exactly what method of analysis to use! His own analysis instructions ring the death-knell for his own experiment. (They sign its own death-warrant). As any smart experimenter can easily see. I hope the editors and referees of IJTP will be able to understand this point.

Unregistered Submission:

( December 19th, 2014 8:19pm UTC )

Edit your feedback below

Is there a projected or tentative date for the experiment? Is there or will there be a web site to keep us abreast of developments?

Peer 1:

( December 19th, 2014 11:42pm UTC )

Edit your feedback below

The answers are, No and No. The experiment will be done in complete secrecy, until the actual publication. After the publication every relevant fact will be made available on the Internet.

Enter your reply below (Please read the **How To**)

Unregistered Submission:

( December 14th, 2014 9:03pm UTC )

Edit your feedback below

"Gill is so used to the weak double-negation proofs of conventional quantum theory that he apparently cannot get his mind around the point of a physical experiment that does not assume its result a priori." (December 9th, 2014 12:30pm UTC )

Okay ... are we saying that, lacking a proof of concept, the experiment is intended to induce an Archimedean -style Eureka moment, some insight or insights out of the blue that cannot be predicted in advance? Are we proposing that the experiment will design its own hypothesis when it's performed? If so, how do we identify the elements of this potential in the experiment as proposed?

Okay ... are we saying that, lacking a proof of concept, the experiment is intended to induce an Archimedean -style Eureka moment, some insight or insights out of the blue that cannot be predicted in advance? Are we proposing that the experiment will design its own hypothesis when it's performed? If so, how do we identify the elements of this potential in the experiment as proposed?

Unregistered Submission:

( December 15th, 2014 12:11am UTC )

Edit your feedback below

No. One is simply proposing a mathematical framework independent of experiment. The Bell-Aspect model, demonstrably, is not independent of its expected experimental results.

The insights of Joy's framework are prescribed by the mathematical completeness of the model; i.e., manifestly local results that produce all quantum correlations of a continuous measurement function in a defined space of spinorial properties. The concept has already been proven by computer simulation in several different machine languages by several expert programmers.

The insights of Joy's framework are prescribed by the mathematical completeness of the model; i.e., manifestly local results that produce all quantum correlations of a continuous measurement function in a defined space of spinorial properties. The concept has already been proven by computer simulation in several different machine languages by several expert programmers.

Richard Gill:

( December 15th, 2014 7:05am UTC )

Edit your feedback below

The anonymous writer of this "the point of a physical experiment that does not assume its result a priori" is one of Joy Christian's staunchest supporters: Thomas H. Ray. You may recognise his style among the book reviewers here: http://www.amazon.com/Disproof-Bells-Theorem-Illuminating-Entanglement/product-reviews/1599425645/ref=cm_cr_dp_see_all_btm?ie=UTF8&showViewpoints=1&sortBy=bySubmissionDateDescending

Peer 1:

( December 15th, 2014 7:37am UTC )

Edit your feedback below

Here is what the anonymous writer meant: http://libertesphilosophica.info/blog/experimental-metaphysics/

Unregistered Submission:

( December 15th, 2014 12:11pm UTC )

Edit your feedback below

Gill is flummoxed that Christian is published, has supporters, gets good reviews, in spite of all his vigorous efforts to prevent it. With his esteemed knowledge of probability, Gill no doubt understands that every idea has a nonzero probability of being recognized, so why is he surprised? I suggest this:

The non-vanishing topological torsion of every measurement continuous from the initial condition, from every arbitrarily chosen point of space, is exactly equivalent to the nonzero probability of any event being observed. Nothing controversial here -- probability theory makes no sense at all without this mathematical kludge.

Gill and other defenders of conventional quantum theory want to do away with uncertainty, so they can enshrine probability into physical law. However -- if physics were so simple that statisticians can wave the law of large numbers at it and change reality, they would also eliminate Heisenberg's principle, relativity and probability theory itself. Gill likes to say that Christian's proposed experiment is "self destructive" and perhaps he is right in a certain sense; the expected result destroys any hope that we mortals can use past events to predict future events with certainty -- events, observations, are all of a piece and not discretely random.

Philosophers call this "metaphysical realism" -- that the moon is really there when no one is looking, does not depend on the time that one looks or even on the moon's existence. It depends on the physics of locality, i.e. the principle of local causality. And the principle of local causality depends on a continuous measurement function. Because of this dependence, probability in physics is reduced to local binary choices in an action principle whose sum is zero -- i.e., classical probability.

It is classical probability that subsumes both the principle of locality, and the illusion of discretely random events -- because the initial condition determines every outcome without reference to past events. Conventional quantum theory will never be able to calculate the point at which discrete quantum events "smooth out" into our world of classical, continuous, experience -- the converse, however, is not true. Our classical experience tells us exactly where smooth processes become discrete events: at any point one chooses. That point is neither in the past, nor the future.

The deepest question that Joy's framework answers, in my opinion, is the one posed by Einstein: Did God have a choice in creation? (God is always synonymous with an impersonal Nature in Einstein's lexicon.) The answer is "yes." If Nature did not have a choice, we products of Nature would also not have the freedom to choose.

The non-vanishing topological torsion of every measurement continuous from the initial condition, from every arbitrarily chosen point of space, is exactly equivalent to the nonzero probability of any event being observed. Nothing controversial here -- probability theory makes no sense at all without this mathematical kludge.

Gill and other defenders of conventional quantum theory want to do away with uncertainty, so they can enshrine probability into physical law. However -- if physics were so simple that statisticians can wave the law of large numbers at it and change reality, they would also eliminate Heisenberg's principle, relativity and probability theory itself. Gill likes to say that Christian's proposed experiment is "self destructive" and perhaps he is right in a certain sense; the expected result destroys any hope that we mortals can use past events to predict future events with certainty -- events, observations, are all of a piece and not discretely random.

Philosophers call this "metaphysical realism" -- that the moon is really there when no one is looking, does not depend on the time that one looks or even on the moon's existence. It depends on the physics of locality, i.e. the principle of local causality. And the principle of local causality depends on a continuous measurement function. Because of this dependence, probability in physics is reduced to local binary choices in an action principle whose sum is zero -- i.e., classical probability.

It is classical probability that subsumes both the principle of locality, and the illusion of discretely random events -- because the initial condition determines every outcome without reference to past events. Conventional quantum theory will never be able to calculate the point at which discrete quantum events "smooth out" into our world of classical, continuous, experience -- the converse, however, is not true. Our classical experience tells us exactly where smooth processes become discrete events: at any point one chooses. That point is neither in the past, nor the future.

The deepest question that Joy's framework answers, in my opinion, is the one posed by Einstein: Did God have a choice in creation? (God is always synonymous with an impersonal Nature in Einstein's lexicon.) The answer is "yes." If Nature did not have a choice, we products of Nature would also not have the freedom to choose.

Unregistered Submission:

( December 15th, 2014 5:00pm UTC )

Edit your feedback below

It's interesting that Eugene Wigner (of Wigner-d'Espagnat) didn't seem bothered by proposed Bell experiments predicting their own results (see his robust endorsement of Bell in "On Hidden Variables and Quantum Mechanical Probabilities") even though in "The Unreasonable Effectiveness of Mathematics in the Natural Sciences" (1960) he says:

"I was even more confused when, not many days later, someone came to me and expressed his bewilderment [1 The remark to be quoted was made by F. Werner when he was a student in Princeton.] with the fact that we make a rather narrow selection when choosing the data on which we test our theories. 'How do we know that, if we made a theory which focuses its attention on phenomena we disregard and disregards some of the phenomena now commanding our attention, that we could not build another theory which has little in common with the present one but which, nevertheless, explains just as many phenomena as the present theory?' It has to be admitted that we have no definite evidence that there is no such theory."

https://www.dartmouth.edu/~matc/MathDrama/reading/Wigner.html

"On Hidden Variables and Quantum Mechanical Probabilities" (1970):

http://www.dancing-peasants.com/Wigner1970.pdf

"I was even more confused when, not many days later, someone came to me and expressed his bewilderment [1 The remark to be quoted was made by F. Werner when he was a student in Princeton.] with the fact that we make a rather narrow selection when choosing the data on which we test our theories. 'How do we know that, if we made a theory which focuses its attention on phenomena we disregard and disregards some of the phenomena now commanding our attention, that we could not build another theory which has little in common with the present one but which, nevertheless, explains just as many phenomena as the present theory?' It has to be admitted that we have no definite evidence that there is no such theory."

https://www.dartmouth.edu/~matc/MathDrama/reading/Wigner.html

"On Hidden Variables and Quantum Mechanical Probabilities" (1970):

http://www.dancing-peasants.com/Wigner1970.pdf

Richard Gill:

( December 15th, 2014 7:54pm UTC )

Edit your feedback below

The long posting, the one before last, with "The non-vanishing topological torsion of every measurement continuous from the initial condition, from every arbitrarily chosen point of space, is exactly equivalent to the nonzero probability of any event being observed" sounds to me like pure bullshit. And I believe the author is one Thomas H Ray. But then I'm a third rate statistician and a compulsive liar, according to numerous posts by Joy Christian, which unfortunately have since been removed by the PubPeer admin. But if, dear reader, you search for the word "third" on this page, you will find many URL's including the instruction "hilit=third+rate". The PubPeer admins didn't (so far) censor these ones.

This (together with Christian's own papers) would be a great Sokal-like hoax if only it were a hoax, but it is for real, it seems ...

I understand that there are different people here all posting as "Unregistered submitter". Confusing. The remarks attributed to Wigner by another unregistered submitter do give food for thought.

This (together with Christian's own papers) would be a great Sokal-like hoax if only it were a hoax, but it is for real, it seems ...

I understand that there are different people here all posting as "Unregistered submitter". Confusing. The remarks attributed to Wigner by another unregistered submitter do give food for thought.

Unregistered Submission:

( December 16th, 2014 12:19am UTC )

Edit your feedback below

Do you know what a simply connected topology is, Richard?

Unregistered Submission:

( December 16th, 2014 11:38am UTC )

Edit your feedback below

Gill, do you have any science based objections to Christian's paper? Your protests appear to boil down to the facts that it's published and that you don't understand it.

Unregistered Submission:

( December 16th, 2014 11:57am UTC )

Edit your feedback below

"The remarks attributed to Wigner by another unregistered submitter do give food for thought."

Yes, the thought being that the absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. If one understands what Wigner is saying, one sees it as a surrendering of correspondence between mathematical theory and measured physical result -- which is the scientific norm for an effective theory -- to belief in the effectiveness of mathematics to "somehow" capture reality in phenomena not observed.

Anti-realism is the issue here, Gill. If you stick to that subject and defend it, instead of personally attacking your opponents, maybe the scientific debate could get somewhere.

Yes, the thought being that the absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. If one understands what Wigner is saying, one sees it as a surrendering of correspondence between mathematical theory and measured physical result -- which is the scientific norm for an effective theory -- to belief in the effectiveness of mathematics to "somehow" capture reality in phenomena not observed.

Anti-realism is the issue here, Gill. If you stick to that subject and defend it, instead of personally attacking your opponents, maybe the scientific debate could get somewhere.

Richard Gill:

( December 17th, 2014 12:43pm UTC )

Edit your feedback below

Apparently, unregistered submitter (Tom H Ray?), you can't read. You asked: "do you have any science based objections to Christian's paper?". Read my note http://arxiv.org/abs/1412.2677 and check the math. More precisely, arithmetic. Unfortunately, Christians IJTP paper is behind a paywall but you can find an earlier version here http://arxiv.org/abs/1211.0784

Unregistered Submission:

( December 17th, 2014 1:39pm UTC )

Edit your feedback below

Gill, why is it when anyone points out your gaps and errors, they "can't read"? I have asked you only straightforward questions -- 1) what effect, if any, does a simply connected topology have on a physical model; 2) can the realism of a classical physical theory subsume quantum anti-realism? -- and gotten anything but straightforward answers. Can't you read?

Peer 5:

( December 17th, 2014 5:52pm UTC )

Edit your feedback below

For someone who has attempted to read the original paper by Joy Christian, questions 1) and 2) sound like unanswerable gibberish.

Unregistered Submission:

( December 18th, 2014 9:07am UTC )

Edit your feedback below

Peer 5, if you were reading Newton's paper on "fluxions" when first published, might you have had a similar reaction as Bishop Berkley? Most times, when unfamiliar methods are applied to familiar problems, they raise new and unfamiliar questions. However, that unfamiliarity makes them neither gibberish, nor unanswerable.

Unregistered Submission:

( February 8th, 2015 3:28pm UTC )

Edit your feedback below

Unregistered Submission: ( December 16th, 2014 12:19am UTC ): "Do you know what a simply connected topology is?"

Simply connected topology is how we think about the world when we don't think about it.

Simply connected topology is how we think about the world when we don't think about it.

Enter your reply below (Please read the **How To**)

Unregistered Submission:

( December 16th, 2014 12:22am UTC )

Edit your feedback below

"'How do we know that, if we made a theory which focuses its attention on phenomena we disregard and disregards some of the phenomena now commanding our attention, that we could not build another theory which has little in common with the present one but which, nevertheless, explains just as many phenomena as the present theory?' It has to be admitted that we have no definite evidence that there is no such theory." This sounds like nonsense to me. Or poetry. I can't connect it to physics.

Richard Gill:

( December 16th, 2014 2:34pm UTC )

Edit your feedback below

I can connect the Wigner quote to physics. Especially when I read it in context, in Eugene Wigner's wonderful essay on the unreasonable effectiveness of mathematics, https://www.dartmouth.edu/~matc/MathDrama/reading/Wigner.html . And yes Tom H. Ray, I do know what a simply connected topology is. Incidentally, Eugene Wigner is, I believe, Joy Christian's academic grandfather: the PhD supervisor (in physics) of his PhD supervisor Abner Shimony, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abner_Shimony

Another wonderful quote from that essay is the following: "The great mathematician fully, almost ruthlessly, exploits the domain of permissible reasoning and skirts the impermissible. That his recklessness does not lead him into a morass of contradictions is a miracle in itself".

This is how we may distinguish the great mathematician from the bad mathematician. The bad (as opposed to great) mathematician is similarly reckless (creative?) but somehow does run into a morass of contradictions. The not great, but not bad, use mathematical discipline.

Another wonderful quote from that essay is the following: "The great mathematician fully, almost ruthlessly, exploits the domain of permissible reasoning and skirts the impermissible. That his recklessness does not lead him into a morass of contradictions is a miracle in itself".

This is how we may distinguish the great mathematician from the bad mathematician. The bad (as opposed to great) mathematician is similarly reckless (creative?) but somehow does run into a morass of contradictions. The not great, but not bad, use mathematical discipline.

Peer 3:

( December 16th, 2014 8:39pm UTC )

Edit your feedback below

"The great mathematician fully, almost ruthlessly, exploits the domain of permissible reasoning and skirts the impermissible. That his recklessness does not lead him into a morass of contradictions is a miracle in itself."

I am rather fond of this quote from Wigner. And as someone who is very much involved on the "creative" side of theoretical physics, let me put in my two cents about how I see this. And I want to be clear, I am NOT intending to cast any implication on ANY of the parties who are engaged in this rather strenuous discussion of Bell. I am just talking generally. . .

There is an old saying "if it looks like a duck and walks like a duck and quacks like a duck and smells like a duck, then it is a duck." The question becomes this: at what point in time will science accept that this thing we all see is a duck?

There are some who at the first sight of a pigeon will say, "hmmm, I think I just saw a duck." They will then proclaim to the world that they have discovered a duck, and if anybody disagrees with them they will argue even more loudly that they found a duck. And likely, by the time they are done arguing, that duck will in their view not only be able to fly, but will be able to rocket to the moon. And they will cling to the view that the whole world is conspiring against them, and that anybody who questions their duck finding is corrupt, craven, self-interested, and an all-around terrible human being. These are the people that scientists learn to ignore. And to whom they give derogatory names that sound like a duck. :-)

But as to the range of legitimate disagreement against capable and well-intentioned scientists, there is a good question as to when a duck proclamation can and should be issued. A good creative scientist will see some vague outline in a murky horizon that looks like a duck, and will organically, instinctively, instantly say to himself or herself, "I think I just saw a duck." But in contrast to the prior person who goes right off the deep end, the good scientist will immediately proceed to carefully and systematically test for duckiness. He (or she) will get a better pair of lenses and wait till the fog clears to see if the image is right. He will study the motion to see if it has the right walk. He will listen for quacks and study them closely against other animal voice patterns. He may also take a whiff to see if the smell is right, and pick up droppings and analyze them in a lab to see if they are right.

At a certain point, if not dissuaded by some contrary evidence, the scientist will start to tell his friends and colleagues about this duck he thinks he has found, and at some later point will finally submit a duck-finding paper for publication. And if he has carefully done his homework, the paper should be accepted for publication, published, and accepted as science.

So now, back to Wigner:

A great creative scientist or mathematician will allow himself to intuitively sense the duck from the vague murky outline long before the sharp image or the waddle or the quack or the stink has been confirmed, will go on overdrive trying to confirm the duckiness, will be willing to start over if things fall apart when a rose aromatic is detected during the smell test, and will keep his mouth fairly shut until some number of tests has backed up the original sense of a duck.

A competent but rigid and unimaginative scientist will not only wait until the sight test and the walk test and the sound test and the smell test are done, but he will wait until the damned thing steps forward and itself announces to the world, "hey there everyone, I am a duck!"

Most scientists are in the middle between these two pictures.

Perhaps "reckless" is too reckless a word. But surely a creative scientist who is going to discover new knowledge must first and foremost be a detective sleuth who is prepared to go down a trail based on faint intimations and objectively perform the due diligence needed to track down that original intimation to a "go" or "no go" conclusion. There is nothing wrong with the scientist who is unwilling to take this risk until the duck proclaims itself. But that person will never create anything new. They will simply end up practicing and applying what others have created, and may even end up teaching the freshman course in "duck droppings 101" and receive government funding to study duck sounds over 3000 Hz. Which is important too, because it does take all types to make the world turn.

For me personally, however, there is no greater thrill than scientific detective work. Taking a small thread that appears somewhere in an equation or an experimental result that faintly inmates some type of duck, and going on a relentless duck hunt. Not only does this open the possibility of confirming the duck, but it often reveals new discoveries along the way that are independent of the duck. And if you do not come home with a duck but come home having bagged something else of equal or even greater value, then the pursuit has still borne fruit and been wholly satisfying.

Jay R. Yablon

I am rather fond of this quote from Wigner. And as someone who is very much involved on the "creative" side of theoretical physics, let me put in my two cents about how I see this. And I want to be clear, I am NOT intending to cast any implication on ANY of the parties who are engaged in this rather strenuous discussion of Bell. I am just talking generally. . .

There is an old saying "if it looks like a duck and walks like a duck and quacks like a duck and smells like a duck, then it is a duck." The question becomes this: at what point in time will science accept that this thing we all see is a duck?

There are some who at the first sight of a pigeon will say, "hmmm, I think I just saw a duck." They will then proclaim to the world that they have discovered a duck, and if anybody disagrees with them they will argue even more loudly that they found a duck. And likely, by the time they are done arguing, that duck will in their view not only be able to fly, but will be able to rocket to the moon. And they will cling to the view that the whole world is conspiring against them, and that anybody who questions their duck finding is corrupt, craven, self-interested, and an all-around terrible human being. These are the people that scientists learn to ignore. And to whom they give derogatory names that sound like a duck. :-)

But as to the range of legitimate disagreement against capable and well-intentioned scientists, there is a good question as to when a duck proclamation can and should be issued. A good creative scientist will see some vague outline in a murky horizon that looks like a duck, and will organically, instinctively, instantly say to himself or herself, "I think I just saw a duck." But in contrast to the prior person who goes right off the deep end, the good scientist will immediately proceed to carefully and systematically test for duckiness. He (or she) will get a better pair of lenses and wait till the fog clears to see if the image is right. He will study the motion to see if it has the right walk. He will listen for quacks and study them closely against other animal voice patterns. He may also take a whiff to see if the smell is right, and pick up droppings and analyze them in a lab to see if they are right.

At a certain point, if not dissuaded by some contrary evidence, the scientist will start to tell his friends and colleagues about this duck he thinks he has found, and at some later point will finally submit a duck-finding paper for publication. And if he has carefully done his homework, the paper should be accepted for publication, published, and accepted as science.

So now, back to Wigner:

A great creative scientist or mathematician will allow himself to intuitively sense the duck from the vague murky outline long before the sharp image or the waddle or the quack or the stink has been confirmed, will go on overdrive trying to confirm the duckiness, will be willing to start over if things fall apart when a rose aromatic is detected during the smell test, and will keep his mouth fairly shut until some number of tests has backed up the original sense of a duck.

A competent but rigid and unimaginative scientist will not only wait until the sight test and the walk test and the sound test and the smell test are done, but he will wait until the damned thing steps forward and itself announces to the world, "hey there everyone, I am a duck!"

Most scientists are in the middle between these two pictures.

Perhaps "reckless" is too reckless a word. But surely a creative scientist who is going to discover new knowledge must first and foremost be a detective sleuth who is prepared to go down a trail based on faint intimations and objectively perform the due diligence needed to track down that original intimation to a "go" or "no go" conclusion. There is nothing wrong with the scientist who is unwilling to take this risk until the duck proclaims itself. But that person will never create anything new. They will simply end up practicing and applying what others have created, and may even end up teaching the freshman course in "duck droppings 101" and receive government funding to study duck sounds over 3000 Hz. Which is important too, because it does take all types to make the world turn.

For me personally, however, there is no greater thrill than scientific detective work. Taking a small thread that appears somewhere in an equation or an experimental result that faintly inmates some type of duck, and going on a relentless duck hunt. Not only does this open the possibility of confirming the duck, but it often reveals new discoveries along the way that are independent of the duck. And if you do not come home with a duck but come home having bagged something else of equal or even greater value, then the pursuit has still borne fruit and been wholly satisfying.

Jay R. Yablon

Unregistered Submission:

( December 16th, 2014 9:06pm UTC )

Edit your feedback below

Gill, what do you think the domain of permissible reasoning is?

If you truly do understand what a simply connected topology is, how would you "exploit it almost ruthlessly" to allow correspondence to a physical theory? Would you do it differently from what Christian has done? And if you don't think it is a domain of permissible reasoning -- why? What imposes the boundaries on your own reasoning?

The thing about Wigner is -- he prescribed the limits of his own domain; he didn't seek to impose them on others.

If you truly do understand what a simply connected topology is, how would you "exploit it almost ruthlessly" to allow correspondence to a physical theory? Would you do it differently from what Christian has done? And if you don't think it is a domain of permissible reasoning -- why? What imposes the boundaries on your own reasoning?

The thing about Wigner is -- he prescribed the limits of his own domain; he didn't seek to impose them on others.

Unregistered Submission:

( December 16th, 2014 9:25pm UTC )

Edit your feedback below

And speaking of great creative mathematicians, one might take a lesson from a contemporary one, Barry Mazur, whose reaction upon seeing a new result, is most often, "I didn't know you could do that!" ( ~ Mazur, *Imagining Numbers*)

Domain and range, limit and function, are fundamental tools of the analyst. One does not look under a streetlight for keys lost in a parking lot simply just because the light is better there, nor go duck hunting in a desert just because one might find an occasional oasis. (nice post, Jay)

Where does one find quantum correlations? Where do they live?

Domain and range, limit and function, are fundamental tools of the analyst. One does not look under a streetlight for keys lost in a parking lot simply just because the light is better there, nor go duck hunting in a desert just because one might find an occasional oasis. (nice post, Jay)

Where does one find quantum correlations? Where do they live?

Unregistered Submission:

( December 16th, 2014 11:00pm UTC )

Edit your feedback below

"Where does one find quantum correlations? Where do they live?"

Where does one find classical correlations? Where do they live? For example the correlations between sample populations and general populations in political tracking and exit polling? Where do the correlations between the 1200 or so Nielsen Households and tens of millions of TV viewers live? Apparently somewhere. Why single out quantum correlations?

Where does one find classical correlations? Where do they live? For example the correlations between sample populations and general populations in political tracking and exit polling? Where do the correlations between the 1200 or so Nielsen Households and tens of millions of TV viewers live? Apparently somewhere. Why single out quantum correlations?

Unregistered Submission:

( December 17th, 2014 1:18pm UTC )

Edit your feedback below

The answer is embarrassingly simple, Gill. Classical correlations live in the same domain as quantum correlations. To begin to understand how this happens, now tell us your understanding of what a simply connected topology physically means, if anything.

Richard Gill:

( December 20th, 2014 4:23pm UTC )

Edit your feedback below

Jay: "But surely a creative scientist who is going to discover new knowledge must first and foremost be a detective sleuth who is prepared to go down a trail based on faint intimations and objectively perform the due diligence needed to track down that original intimation to a "go" or "no go" conclusion." Indeed. The problem here is a lack of ability to perform the due diligence. For eight long years, again and again, highly qualified people (to start with: Abner Shimony and David Hestenes) have pointed out that Christian's theory is a fantasy castle in the air. (1) conceptually misguided, (2) built on a schoolboy howler of a sign error, made possible by careless notation (lack of mathematical discipline). And now the experimental section of this published paper makes all this clear for non-experts, as well.

On a personal note: Christian exhibits pluck and obstinacy and originality. On the whole, those are good qualities in a scientist. I am afraid that his supporters are sorely to blame for "leading him on". If your best friends don't let you know when you are making a fool of yourself, you may never find out. Sometimes it is cruel to be kind. Christian wondered why I spent eight years fighting against him. The answer is (a) it is fun, (b) somebody has to do the job, (c) it is such a pity to see someone with so many talents destroying his career needlessly.

On a personal note: Christian exhibits pluck and obstinacy and originality. On the whole, those are good qualities in a scientist. I am afraid that his supporters are sorely to blame for "leading him on". If your best friends don't let you know when you are making a fool of yourself, you may never find out. Sometimes it is cruel to be kind. Christian wondered why I spent eight years fighting against him. The answer is (a) it is fun, (b) somebody has to do the job, (c) it is such a pity to see someone with so many talents destroying his career needlessly.

Peer 1:

( December 21st, 2014 12:53am UTC )

Edit your feedback below

here are the actual truth and facts: http://www.sciphysicsforums.com/spfbb1/viewtopic.php?f=6&t=115#p3763 .

Enter your reply below (Please read the **How To**)

Richard Gill:

( December 17th, 2014 2:10am UTC )

Edit your feedback below

Christian's work is based on the rule a b = a.b + a x b, where a and b stand, recklessly, both for purely imaginary quaternions of length 1 and for unit vectors in R^3. The dot product stands for scalar product of real 3-vectors, it's real. The cross product stands recklessly both for cross product in R^3 and for corresponding purely imaginary quaternion. However, with the opposite convention (left-handed / right handed) for the direction of the cross product, we could just as well have a minus sign instead of a plus sign. Now suppose the sign of the cross product is completely random and average: E(a b) = a . b. This is the Christian's conjuring trick. It can be dressed up in many ways. Who knows, maybe it can come in useful somewhere. And geometric algebra certainly is really cool.

Richard Gill:

( December 17th, 2014 7:25am UTC )

Edit your feedback below

I typed a cross instead of a wedge, deliberately. I could also have written a ^ b. Both expressions would be correct, thanks (among other things) to the isomorphism (as real vector spaces) between the set of *all* quaternions and the set R^4 = R^1 x R^3 (real part, imaginary part of quaternion). In my formula every real 3-vector (a, b, a x b) is simultaneously a purely imaginary quaternion, the real number a.b is simultaneously a purely real quaternion. My use (abuse?) of notation is "skirting the limits of the permissible", but I believe not exceeding the limits of the permissible.

More people know about cross product than know about wedge product. I tried to keep the analysis simple. And as I said, the one-page paper by Christian (and extract from the first chapter of his book) http://arxiv.org/abs/1103.1879 gets by perfectly well without explicitly introducing wedge products, either.

By the way, the formula a b = a.b + a x b involves three different products: the quaternionic product of two quaternions a b; the dot product of two vectors a.b; and the cross product of two vectors a x b. The quaternion product is not commutative. In fact, b a = a.b - a x b. But both in defining quaternions and in defining vector cross product, we have to make an arbitrary choice of "handedness". If we had chosen different conventions, we could have had the signs reversed in these two formulas. Christian's trick (in his theoretical derivation of the singlet correlation) is to randomly *switch convention* when no one is looking, in the middle of dense calculations, by the toss of a fair coin. This comes down to assuming that -1 equals to +1, and from then on, anything is of course possible.

More people know about cross product than know about wedge product. I tried to keep the analysis simple. And as I said, the one-page paper by Christian (and extract from the first chapter of his book) http://arxiv.org/abs/1103.1879 gets by perfectly well without explicitly introducing wedge products, either.

By the way, the formula a b = a.b + a x b involves three different products: the quaternionic product of two quaternions a b; the dot product of two vectors a.b; and the cross product of two vectors a x b. The quaternion product is not commutative. In fact, b a = a.b - a x b. But both in defining quaternions and in defining vector cross product, we have to make an arbitrary choice of "handedness". If we had chosen different conventions, we could have had the signs reversed in these two formulas. Christian's trick (in his theoretical derivation of the singlet correlation) is to randomly *switch convention* when no one is looking, in the middle of dense calculations, by the toss of a fair coin. This comes down to assuming that -1 equals to +1, and from then on, anything is of course possible.

Peer 1:

( December 17th, 2014 11:53am UTC )

Edit your feedback below

The above reply is even more revealing. Mr. Gill (Diploma in Statistics) is now trying to get out of his manifest blunders by obfuscating them even further. He did not write cross product instead of wedge product deliberately. The truth is that he does not understand --- and has never understood --- the difference between cross product and wedge product within geometric algebra. Nor does he understand the fact that there is no strict isomorphism between the set of unit quaternions and the set R^1 x R^3. I think it is best he stops embarrassing himself further and learns a bit of basic mathematics from the published paper: http://arxiv.org/abs/1211.0784 .

Richard Gill:

( December 17th, 2014 12:39pm UTC )

Edit your feedback below

There is a (real vector space) isomorphism between the set of all quaternions, and the set R^4 = R^1 x R^3. I did not mention the wedge product in order to keep things simple

Peer 1:

( December 17th, 2014 1:49pm UTC )

Edit your feedback below

Indeed Mr. Gill never mentioned the wedge product. Because he hasn't a clue what it is and why it is of central importance in both geometric algebra and in the author's work. What is amusing is that he has spent eight years claiming to have studied the author's work and yet has no idea what a wedge product is. I think it is about time he stops embarrassing himself any further and acknowledges that he has not understood the author's work at all.

Richard Gill:

( December 17th, 2014 5:53pm UTC )

Edit your feedback below

Richard Gill knows all about the wedge product, but in order to explain the essence of Christian's construction, you don't need to know anything about it. You'll not see a wedge product in this paper by Christian: http://arxiv.org/abs/1103.1879 From the first chapter of his book. I invite everyone to work through the one page of elementary algebra in that paper. Exercise: find the schoolboy howler of an error. And that's aside from a new concept of correlation totally irrelevant to the whole Bell-Aspect story. As Christian often used to say, you don't disprove a true theorem, you circumvent it. Sure, you can circumvent it by totally changing the context. However that does not mean that what you are doing is of any use or of any interest. And if you moreover smuggle in -1 = +1 in order to get to where you want to go ...

Peer 1:

( December 17th, 2014 6:29pm UTC )

Edit your feedback below

Please, this is getting far too hilarious. After all these years Mr. Gill is still unable to see the wedge product in the one-page paper he has linked, and claims that he knows all about it.

I rest my case.

If what the author has derived in his book as well as in his published paper is of no use or interest to anyone, then how come Gill has spent eight years of his life attacking it, not to mention attacking the author personally? How come he has bombarded everyone connected to it with hundreds of emails? How come he has posted literally thousands of posts about it and about the author all over the internet? How come he has been posting all these comments on this very thread he started? It would be much easier to simply ignore the author's work if he thinks it is of no use or interest to anyone.

Now, to see where Mr. Gill (Diploma in Statistics) has gone wrong, please read this paper: http://arxiv.org/pdf/1203.2529.pdf .

I rest my case.

If what the author has derived in his book as well as in his published paper is of no use or interest to anyone, then how come Gill has spent eight years of his life attacking it, not to mention attacking the author personally? How come he has bombarded everyone connected to it with hundreds of emails? How come he has posted literally thousands of posts about it and about the author all over the internet? How come he has been posting all these comments on this very thread he started? It would be much easier to simply ignore the author's work if he thinks it is of no use or interest to anyone.

Now, to see where Mr. Gill (Diploma in Statistics) has gone wrong, please read this paper: http://arxiv.org/pdf/1203.2529.pdf .

Enter your reply below (Please read the **How To**)

Peer 7:

( December 17th, 2014 6:09pm UTC )

Edit your feedback below

This has got to be one of the sorriest "debates" that I've ever seen.

Can this thread just die please?

Can this thread just die please?

Peer 2:

( December 17th, 2014 6:34pm UTC )

Edit your feedback below

@ Peer 7

One is right and the other won't change his mind.

What would be useful would be if other physicists checked some of the details. The recent point of discussion seems to involve a few equations in a one-page "disproof of Bell's theorem". http://arxiv.org/abs/1103.1879

One is right and the other won't change his mind.

What would be useful would be if other physicists checked some of the details. The recent point of discussion seems to involve a few equations in a one-page "disproof of Bell's theorem". http://arxiv.org/abs/1103.1879

Peer 5:

( December 17th, 2014 6:38pm UTC )

Edit your feedback below

I second that. The original author's papers on his theory have been on Arxiv since at least 2008. Nothing has come out of it, except for a handful of rebuttals. That a journal with an impact factor of about 1 publish his paper is no big deal. It only serves to indicate that said journal's impact factor will go even lower.

Peer 1:

( December 17th, 2014 7:04pm UTC )

Edit your feedback below

The equations in the one-page paper you have linked have been explicitly verified (in great detail) by Lucien Hardy (who is a very prominent expert in the field) as well as several other high profile and exceptionally competent physicists and mathematicians around the world. In fact, any competent reader with only basic skills in mathematics should be able to reproduce the equations rather effortlessly.

Richard Gill:

( December 18th, 2014 4:43am UTC )

Edit your feedback below

Lucien Hardy, and the other competent people Christian has referred to in the past, have all confirmed the fatal mistakes in Christian's work. Many physicists have checked the details. Nobody has attempted to resurrect it, or take it further. Nobody is interested anymore!

What is interesting here is not the paper in question, but the review process. The comment of one expert to me was "we all know that peer review is broken".

The interesting thing now, is: will the journal retract the paper? (after all, it is actually not more than a Sokal-hoax-like mass of gibberish!). Will they do anything?

Why it can actually be quite rewarding to enter into discussion with quantum crackpots: http://www.slideshare.net/gill1109/vaxjo-2014

What is interesting here is not the paper in question, but the review process. The comment of one expert to me was "we all know that peer review is broken".

The interesting thing now, is: will the journal retract the paper? (after all, it is actually not more than a Sokal-hoax-like mass of gibberish!). Will they do anything?

Why it can actually be quite rewarding to enter into discussion with quantum crackpots: http://www.slideshare.net/gill1109/vaxjo-2014

Peer 1:

( December 18th, 2014 5:14am UTC )

Edit your feedback below

The facts are actually quite the opposite of what Mr. Gill (Diploma in Statistics) has been claiming. The equations in the one-page paper linked above have been explicitly verified (in great detail) by Lucien Hardy (who is a very prominent expert in the field) as well as several other high profile and exceptionally competent physicists and mathematicians around the world. In fact, any competent reader with only basic skills in mathematics should be able to reproduce the equations of that paper rather effortlessly. For non-experts, a simplified explanation of Mr. Gill's elementary mistakes have been brought out at the following links: http://www.sciphysicsforums.com/spfbb1/viewtopic.php?f=6&t=49&p=2545&hilit=third+rate#p2545 and http://libertesphilosophica.info/blog/ .

Peer 7:

( December 18th, 2014 6:15am UTC )

Edit your feedback below

You're just repeating yourself and making no progress. In addition, hiding behind anonymity (when your identity is obvious) reflects very poorly on you. You're not going to agree; you're never going to agree. Please just stop. You both look extraordinarily immature at this point.

Peer 1:

( December 18th, 2014 6:22am UTC )

Edit your feedback below

As long as Gill keeps posting falsehoods and misrepresentations, I will keep correcting him.

Peer 7:

( December 18th, 2014 6:37am UTC )

Edit your feedback below

Which essentially just means copy-pasting from something you've already written. Or linking to one of the same three forum posts over and over again.

Your counter-arguments are already laid out; time to lay off.

Your counter-arguments are already laid out; time to lay off.

Peer 1:

( December 18th, 2014 6:47am UTC )

Edit your feedback below

As I said, as long as Gill keeps posting falsehoods and misrepresentations, I will keep correcting him. You are under no obligation to read any of this. I am sure you have better things to do.

Enter your reply below (Please read the **How To**)

Peer 7:

( December 19th, 2014 8:54pm UTC )

Edit your feedback below

For the uninitiated who want to get a good sense of what the argument is about, there are excellent summaries here:

http://www.scottaaronson.com/blog/?p=993

http://www.scottaaronson.com/blog/?p=1028

http://www.scottaaronson.com/blog/?p=993

http://www.scottaaronson.com/blog/?p=1028

Peer 1:

( December 19th, 2014 9:18pm UTC )

Edit your feedback below

I strongly disagree. The blogger who launched and incited the linked frenzied and personal attack against the author did so without reading a single line of author's argument. One cannot have "excellent summaries" of a model X by summarizing a model Y, without having a clue about either. That would be an elementary logical fallacy, called straw-man fallacy: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v5vzCmURh7o . Worse still, the discussion in the above links also includes many derogatory and some racist comments against the author. I am sure MIT, where the blogger teaches computers, is very proud of his extracurricular activities.

Unregistered Submission:

( December 19th, 2014 10:19pm UTC )

Edit your feedback below

It's a really bad idea for one to 'get initiated' to a scientific model on an opinion site, when textbooks and peer reviewed publications are readily available. Initiated into what -- silliness?

Peer 2:

( December 19th, 2014 10:19pm UTC )

Edit your feedback below

Via Aaronson:

Disproof of Joy Christian's "Disproof of Bell's theorem"

Florin Moldoveanu

http://arxiv.org/abs/1109.0535

"Disproof of Bell's Theorem" : more critics

Philippe Grangier

http://arxiv.org/abs/0707.2223

and of course

Simple refutation of Joy Christian's simple refutation of Bell's simple theorem

Richard D. Gill

http://arxiv.org/abs/1203.1504

Disproof of Joy Christian's "Disproof of Bell's theorem"

Florin Moldoveanu

http://arxiv.org/abs/1109.0535

"Disproof of Bell's Theorem" : more critics

Philippe Grangier

http://arxiv.org/abs/0707.2223

and of course

Simple refutation of Joy Christian's simple refutation of Bell's simple theorem

Richard D. Gill

http://arxiv.org/abs/1203.1504

Peer 1:

( December 19th, 2014 10:44pm UTC )

Edit your feedback below

Via the author's blog: http://libertesphilosophica.info/blog/ :

"It is important to note that I have systematically debunked all of the misguided claims made against my local realistic framework by certain uninformed and unqualified individuals."

"All of the so-called arguments against my disproof to date are based on an elementary logical fallacy --- the Straw-man Fallacy. What the critics do is deceitfully replace my model X with its grossly distorted misrepresentation Y, and then pretend --- by refuting their own distortion Y (by resorting to deliberate dishonesty, willful deception, or out of sheer incompetence) --- that they have undermined my actual model X. Such a dishonest strategy is an insult to the scientific process."

All of the rebuttals by the author can be found here: http://arxiv.org/find/quant-ph/1/au:+Christian_J/0/1/0/all/0/1 .

It is also important to note that none of supposed criticisms linked by Peer 2 are published anywhere.

"It is important to note that I have systematically debunked all of the misguided claims made against my local realistic framework by certain uninformed and unqualified individuals."

"All of the so-called arguments against my disproof to date are based on an elementary logical fallacy --- the Straw-man Fallacy. What the critics do is deceitfully replace my model X with its grossly distorted misrepresentation Y, and then pretend --- by refuting their own distortion Y (by resorting to deliberate dishonesty, willful deception, or out of sheer incompetence) --- that they have undermined my actual model X. Such a dishonest strategy is an insult to the scientific process."

All of the rebuttals by the author can be found here: http://arxiv.org/find/quant-ph/1/au:+Christian_J/0/1/0/all/0/1 .

It is also important to note that none of supposed criticisms linked by Peer 2 are published anywhere.

Unregistered Submission:

( December 19th, 2014 10:45pm UTC )

Edit your feedback below

Peer reviewed and published by The International Journal of Theoretical Physics

Joy Christian

https://www.academia.edu/6809841/Macroscopic_Observability_of_Spinorial_Sign_Changes_under_2pi_Rotations

Joy Christian

https://www.academia.edu/6809841/Macroscopic_Observability_of_Spinorial_Sign_Changes_under_2pi_Rotations

Peer 2:

( December 20th, 2014 12:11am UTC )

Edit your feedback below

If every published paper was 100% correct, there wouldn't be much need to comment on PubPeer. In reality, it is possible to publish papers that are 100% gibberish.

Peer 1:

( December 20th, 2014 12:23am UTC )

Edit your feedback below

And I suppose the unpublished preprints you have so fondly linked are 100% gold. Perhaps that's why they are not published --- for the fear of turning into gibberish upon the kiss of a publisher.

Brian Martin often talks about a double standard test for suppression: https://www.uow.edu.au/~bmartin/pubs/93nw.html . In my view Peer 2 is guilty of double standards.

Brian Martin often talks about a double standard test for suppression: https://www.uow.edu.au/~bmartin/pubs/93nw.html . In my view Peer 2 is guilty of double standards.

Peer 7:

( December 20th, 2014 12:31am UTC )

Edit your feedback below

Also, it's pointless to link to the "peer-reviewed paper", since that's the paper that this PubPeer thread is about in the first place. And in any case, the version linked appears to be a pre-print version (i.e., that version has not yet been approved by reviewers), so it's certainly misleading to link to it and call it "peer-reviewed" as well.

In addition, I will point out that Peer 1 appears to have a deep misunderstanding of how peer review even works, since he has indicated above that he thinks that four Nobel Laureates have approved of this paper, merely because they are on the editorial board of the journal. In actual fact, it is likely that none of them have even seen it. He also appears to believe that recommended reviewers are necessarily the reviewers that are used by the journal.

Peer 1 also dishonestly casts aspersions on Scott Aaronson when he suggests that Aaronson approved of allegedly racist comments on his blog. Whereas in actual fact, you can see that Aaronson explicitly ~disapproved~ of these statements (which were made by a fellow Indian and are in no way racist, for what it's worth) in comment #68 of the second blog post that I linked to above.

Finally, it's also wrong to say that Aaronson has not read Christian's work, as he specifically says in the second blog post linked to above that he *has* read it. Quote:

"I hadn't actually studied Joy's 'work' at a technical level. Well, yesterday I finally did, and I confess that I was astonished by what I found... It's so bad that I don't understand how even Joy's fellow *insult_redacted* haven't laughed this off the stage."

In addition, I will point out that Peer 1 appears to have a deep misunderstanding of how peer review even works, since he has indicated above that he thinks that four Nobel Laureates have approved of this paper, merely because they are on the editorial board of the journal. In actual fact, it is likely that none of them have even seen it. He also appears to believe that recommended reviewers are necessarily the reviewers that are used by the journal.

Peer 1 also dishonestly casts aspersions on Scott Aaronson when he suggests that Aaronson approved of allegedly racist comments on his blog. Whereas in actual fact, you can see that Aaronson explicitly ~disapproved~ of these statements (which were made by a fellow Indian and are in no way racist, for what it's worth) in comment #68 of the second blog post that I linked to above.

Finally, it's also wrong to say that Aaronson has not read Christian's work, as he specifically says in the second blog post linked to above that he *has* read it. Quote:

"I hadn't actually studied Joy's 'work' at a technical level. Well, yesterday I finally did, and I confess that I was astonished by what I found... It's so bad that I don't understand how even Joy's fellow *insult_redacted* haven't laughed this off the stage."

Peer 2:

( December 20th, 2014 12:37am UTC )

Edit your feedback below

"In my view Peer 2 is guilty of double standards. "

Huh? I haven't sought to suppress anything, I just pointed out that getting published doesn't carry that much weight.

Huh? I haven't sought to suppress anything, I just pointed out that getting published doesn't carry that much weight.

Peer 1:

( December 20th, 2014 1:04am UTC )

Edit your feedback below

Evidently Peer 7 too is guilty of double (or even multiple) standards (what on earth does he/she mean by "fellow Indian" --- that sounds racist to me). Peer 7 evidently condones the defamatory and libellous actions by Aaronson --- that itself speaks volumes --- but then nit-picks about the preprint version versus the actually published paper. What is more, Peer 7 appears to "know" the editorial procedure at IJTP without having read them, and appears to "know" what Peer 1 thinks and believes about the suggested referees.

For the record, Aaronson published not only racist comments on his blog, but actually planted and edited-in some of the worse defamatory comments himself. He is responsible for whatever is published on his blog. It is his blog and he can edit and modify it anytime he wishes. For the record, several sociologists of science actually observed and recorded Aaronson's actions live, during the frenzied attack he launched on the author. This recording will be published sooner or later, in a sociology journal. Then the truth will be out for everyone to see.

In my view whoever condones Aaronson's defamatory and libellous actions is equally guilty.

For the record, Aaronson published not only racist comments on his blog, but actually planted and edited-in some of the worse defamatory comments himself. He is responsible for whatever is published on his blog. It is his blog and he can edit and modify it anytime he wishes. For the record, several sociologists of science actually observed and recorded Aaronson's actions live, during the frenzied attack he launched on the author. This recording will be published sooner or later, in a sociology journal. Then the truth will be out for everyone to see.

In my view whoever condones Aaronson's defamatory and libellous actions is equally guilty.

Peer 7:

( December 20th, 2014 1:48am UTC )

Edit your feedback below

1. If "fellow Indian" sounds racist to you, I suggest you work on reading comprehension.

2. There is no journal I know of at which an entire editorial board signs off on every paper. Especially when the impact factor is one-point-something, the journal is likely to be a relatively low priority for most scientists. If you believe that the entire editorial board has signed off on this paper, the burden is on you to show it; it is not standard editorial practice, and no one who understands how journals work (or appreciates a scientist's workload) would think that this is the case.

3. It has been suggested that certain individuals reviewed this paper, when no evidence of this has been supplied at all. Especially when the impact factor of a journal is only one-point-something, prestigious reviewers are likely to decline or to bounce it to one of their grad students. Again, the burden is on the person making the claim that these people reviewed the paper; it would be unusual if they actually had.

4. I suppose this groundbreaking sociology paper will appear in a peer-reviewed journal around the same time as the completion of "the experiment [that] will be done in complete secrecy" that you refer to above.

In any case, at this point anyone coming upon this PubPeer thread will be able to discern which side of this matter is the correct one.

Have a nice day.

P.S. I do not condone any "defamatory" statements, which is why I censored out an insult from Aaronson in my comment above.

2. There is no journal I know of at which an entire editorial board signs off on every paper. Especially when the impact factor is one-point-something, the journal is likely to be a relatively low priority for most scientists. If you believe that the entire editorial board has signed off on this paper, the burden is on you to show it; it is not standard editorial practice, and no one who understands how journals work (or appreciates a scientist's workload) would think that this is the case.

3. It has been suggested that certain individuals reviewed this paper, when no evidence of this has been supplied at all. Especially when the impact factor of a journal is only one-point-something, prestigious reviewers are likely to decline or to bounce it to one of their grad students. Again, the burden is on the person making the claim that these people reviewed the paper; it would be unusual if they actually had.

4. I suppose this groundbreaking sociology paper will appear in a peer-reviewed journal around the same time as the completion of "the experiment [that] will be done in complete secrecy" that you refer to above.

In any case, at this point anyone coming upon this PubPeer thread will be able to discern which side of this matter is the correct one.

Have a nice day.

P.S. I do not condone any "defamatory" statements, which is why I censored out an insult from Aaronson in my comment above.

Unregistered Submission:

( December 20th, 2014 4:30am UTC )

Edit your feedback below

By the way, what reason would one have to trust Scott Aronson's "review" more than the referee or referees at a highly respected physics journal?

Peer 1:

( December 20th, 2014 7:58am UTC )

Edit your feedback below

For the record, Peer 7 edited his earlier post and added the last paragraph (where he/she claims to have "censored out" an insult) after being caught out for employing multiple standards and condoning the defamatory comments on a private blog by linking its pages here. It is good to know that his standard for assessing a scientific work in physics is some derogatory remarks on a private blog of a computer teacher who launched and incited defamatory and libellous attacks on the author for nine days before reading a single line of his argument.

Silly me to think that one should actually read the published paper to assess its merits.

It turns out that one of the sociologists of science mentioned above has already published a paper where he identifies Aaronson's and Gill's type of unethical actions as forms of scientific misconduct: http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11948-013-9433-8 . He identifies the main culprit as pseudoskepticism: "uttering negative conclusions about someone else's work that are downright false." As the physicist and sociologist Brian Marin has discovered in his 30 years of extensive study, science is paying a very heavy price for this form of misconduct: http://www.bmartin.cc/pubs/08nd.pdf .

Silly me to think that one should actually read the published paper to assess its merits.

It turns out that one of the sociologists of science mentioned above has already published a paper where he identifies Aaronson's and Gill's type of unethical actions as forms of scientific misconduct: http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11948-013-9433-8 . He identifies the main culprit as pseudoskepticism: "uttering negative conclusions about someone else's work that are downright false." As the physicist and sociologist Brian Marin has discovered in his 30 years of extensive study, science is paying a very heavy price for this form of misconduct: http://www.bmartin.cc/pubs/08nd.pdf .

Richard Gill:

( December 20th, 2014 3:57pm UTC )

Edit your feedback below

Pseudoscepticism is "uttering negative conclusions about someone else's work that are downright false". And is obviously unethical. Scepticism, on the other hand, is "uttering negative conclusions about someone else's work that are correct".

Then there is crackpottery: "making grandiose claims about one's work that are obviously false". I hope that Marcoen J. T. F. Cabbolet (Center for Logic and Philosophy of Science, Vrije Universiteit Brussel, Belgium) knows enough math and physics to be able to work out which of these categories applies to whom. It really would be good to see a sociological, psychological, and philosophical study of the Christian affair, which has now rumbled on for 7 years ...

So Scott Aaronson (MIT) is a "computer teacher with a private blog"? I recall that Christian himself posted on Aaronson's rather famous blog claiming attention for his work, making extremely rude personal comments about Aaronson ... and indeed getting thereby a lot of attention, but perhaps not the kind he was after.

Joy Christian (director and sole member of the Einstein Centre for Local-Realistic Physics, Oxford http://libertesphilosophica.academia.edu/) is an English teacher with a private blog.

Then there is crackpottery: "making grandiose claims about one's work that are obviously false". I hope that Marcoen J. T. F. Cabbolet (Center for Logic and Philosophy of Science, Vrije Universiteit Brussel, Belgium) knows enough math and physics to be able to work out which of these categories applies to whom. It really would be good to see a sociological, psychological, and philosophical study of the Christian affair, which has now rumbled on for 7 years ...

So Scott Aaronson (MIT) is a "computer teacher with a private blog"? I recall that Christian himself posted on Aaronson's rather famous blog claiming attention for his work, making extremely rude personal comments about Aaronson ... and indeed getting thereby a lot of attention, but perhaps not the kind he was after.

Joy Christian (director and sole member of the Einstein Centre for Local-Realistic Physics, Oxford http://libertesphilosophica.academia.edu/) is an English teacher with a private blog.

Peer 1:

( December 20th, 2014 5:02pm UTC )

Edit your feedback below

So the falsehoods, misrepresentations, smear, insults, and all sorts of negative propaganda by Mr. Gill (Diploma in Statistics) continue, as anyone who cares to check out the actual facts will know at once. I don't know about Cabbolet, but it is not hard to see that the statistician Mr. Gill does not know enough math and physics to be able to understand the first thing about the paper published in IJTP, as we are assured by the author here: http://challengingbell.blogspot.co.uk/2014/12/joy-christians-macroscopic-experiment.html?showComment=1418820474096#c1952901398690369950 . As noted earlier, more details are also available here: http://libertesphilosophica.info/blog/ . As for the rude remarks, they were clearly planted by Aaronson and Gill themselves. If one can believe what Aaronson and Gill say, one can believe anything. Their goal is clearly to defame the author in every which way possible.

As noted, in my view whoever condones Aaronson's and Gill's defamatory and libellous actions is equally guilty.

As noted, in my view whoever condones Aaronson's and Gill's defamatory and libellous actions is equally guilty.

Enter your reply below (Please read the **How To**)

Richard Gill:

( December 20th, 2014 5:34pm UTC )

Edit your feedback below

Amusing. So this post: http://www.scottaaronson.com/blog/?p=993#comment-43617 was not actually made by Joy Christian but was maliciously posted by Gill or Aaronson impersonating Christian.

Peer 1:

( December 20th, 2014 5:45pm UTC )

Edit your feedback below

There is nothing amusing about it. It just shows to what extent Aaronson and Gill are willing to stoop to defame the author. In fact the above is not the only post Mr. Gill (Diploma in Statistics) has maliciously planted on the internet in the author's name: http://www.sciphysicsforums.com/spfbb1/viewtopic.php?f=6&t=111&hilit=malicious#p3729 .

Richard Gill:

( December 20th, 2014 6:27pm UTC )

Edit your feedback below

Ah ha, so every post where Christian calls Gill an algebraically challenged third-rate statistician was actually made by Gill or Scott Aaronson masquerading as Christian!

This has become a Monty Python sketch again, just like Scott Aaronson's two classic blogs on the Joy Christian model ...

I rest my case. Happy Christmas everyone, best wishes for the New Year.

This has become a Monty Python sketch again, just like Scott Aaronson's two classic blogs on the Joy Christian model ...

I rest my case. Happy Christmas everyone, best wishes for the New Year.

Peer 1:

( December 20th, 2014 6:35pm UTC )

Edit your feedback below

I thought it was "morally bankrupt, algebraically challenged, third-rate statistician."

And I thought it was Joseph Doob who used to call Gill third-rate statistician.

And I thought it was Joseph Doob who used to call Gill third-rate statistician.

Enter your reply below (Please read the **How To**)

Richard Gill:

( December 23rd, 2014 9:19am UTC )

Edit your feedback below

It was through publicly making comments like that, that Joy Christian was subjected to a disciplinary investigation at Wolfson College, Oxford, where he was, on account of an earlier postdoctoral fellowship at the college, member of the "senior combination room", i.e., coffee club. That also gave him a smart academic email address. It seems he has now lost the Wolfson college email address because of this.

That is, by the way, another reason why the paper on IJTP should be retracted: the author's claim of affiliation to Wolfson College (University of Oxford, Oxford OX2 6UD, UK) is bogus. Notice that the email address he gives in the paper is a Boston State University alumnus email address.

In a similar way, he claimed affiliation with Perimeter Institute for several years after his post doctoral fellowship there had finished. Through an administrative error he kept a PI home page for several years and used it in his PR.

His only recent academic affiliation with Oxford was as an academic visitor to the Materials Department, 2013-2014. I guess this was on account of his "experiment".

According to his LinkedIn page he is "Research Physicist in Foundations of Quantum and Gravitational Physics, University of Oxford, United Kingdom, October 1991 – August 2014. Actually, of this total of 13 years, he was a "junior research fellow" for three years, and a visitor for one.

That is, by the way, another reason why the paper on IJTP should be retracted: the author's claim of affiliation to Wolfson College (University of Oxford, Oxford OX2 6UD, UK) is bogus. Notice that the email address he gives in the paper is a Boston State University alumnus email address.

In a similar way, he claimed affiliation with Perimeter Institute for several years after his post doctoral fellowship there had finished. Through an administrative error he kept a PI home page for several years and used it in his PR.

His only recent academic affiliation with Oxford was as an academic visitor to the Materials Department, 2013-2014. I guess this was on account of his "experiment".

According to his LinkedIn page he is "Research Physicist in Foundations of Quantum and Gravitational Physics, University of Oxford, United Kingdom, October 1991 – August 2014. Actually, of this total of 13 years, he was a "junior research fellow" for three years, and a visitor for one.

Peer 1:

( December 23rd, 2014 10:02am UTC )

Edit your feedback below

Once again the actual facts are quite the opposite of what Mr. Gill (Diploma in Statistics) has stated. What he has written above contain easily refutable falsehoods. One has to be quite gullible to not see through the malicious intent behind his post. It sums up the extent of his long-standing personal vendetta against the author.

For many years Mr. Gill has tried to destroy the author's scientific reputation and career by launching bogus and deceitful criticisms of his work, by online and offline intimidation and harassment, and by bombarding his academic superiors at Oxford University and elsewhere with malicious letters about him, as has been pointed out by the author here: http://www.sciphysicsforums.com/spfbb1/viewtopic.php?f=6&t=115#p3763 .

Fortunately Mr. Gill's underhand tactics to target and destroy the author's academic reputation and career, to block the publication of his anti-Bell results, and to hurt him both academically and financially, seem to have failed: http://libertesphilosophica.info/blog/about/ .

For many years Mr. Gill has tried to destroy the author's scientific reputation and career by launching bogus and deceitful criticisms of his work, by online and offline intimidation and harassment, and by bombarding his academic superiors at Oxford University and elsewhere with malicious letters about him, as has been pointed out by the author here: http://www.sciphysicsforums.com/spfbb1/viewtopic.php?f=6&t=115#p3763 .

Fortunately Mr. Gill's underhand tactics to target and destroy the author's academic reputation and career, to block the publication of his anti-Bell results, and to hurt him both academically and financially, seem to have failed: http://libertesphilosophica.info/blog/about/ .

Unregistered Submission:

( December 23rd, 2014 2:37pm UTC )

Edit your feedback below

Gill, these personal attacks and innuendo are unconscionable. I call on the moderator to remove them, as they have absolutely nothing to do with the paper under discussion.

Richard Gill:

( December 23rd, 2014 7:46pm UTC )

Edit your feedback below

So far, no one has responded to the concrete issue I raised at the start. No one. It's about time someone read the relevant passage of the paper and checked the math. I make a simple claim and have published the math (elementary math) on arXiv.

Instead we have opinions and metaphysical essays and diversionary smoke-screens and ad hominem attacks including the spreading of malicious and slanderous rumours.

BTW, stating that Christian's academic CV as presented on LinkedIn is blatantly false, isn't innuendo. It is an accusation. It's about facts. Facts which can be checked. Relevant facts. Peer review is dead, as we all know. Garbage papers are published on the basis of a superficial impression. An impressive affiliation works wonders.

BTW I should have said "Boston University".

Instead we have opinions and metaphysical essays and diversionary smoke-screens and ad hominem attacks including the spreading of malicious and slanderous rumours.

BTW, stating that Christian's academic CV as presented on LinkedIn is blatantly false, isn't innuendo. It is an accusation. It's about facts. Facts which can be checked. Relevant facts. Peer review is dead, as we all know. Garbage papers are published on the basis of a superficial impression. An impressive affiliation works wonders.

BTW I should have said "Boston University".

Peer 1:

( December 23rd, 2014 8:13pm UTC )

Edit your feedback below

The bogus "issues" Mr. Gill (Diploma in Statistics) raised "at the start" of this thread were refuted two years before he raised them here the nth time. There is no need to keep refuting them again and again. They have been refuted already, many times over, by many people. See, for just one example, this paper http://arxiv.org/abs/1203.2529 and the last appendix of this paper http://arxiv.org/abs/1211.0784 .

His other cheap theatricals to discredit the author are also not worth responding to again: http://www.sciphysicsforums.com/spfbb1/viewtopic.php?f=6&t=111&p=3838#p3837 .

His other cheap theatricals to discredit the author are also not worth responding to again: http://www.sciphysicsforums.com/spfbb1/viewtopic.php?f=6&t=111&p=3838#p3837 .

Richard Gill:

( December 24th, 2014 5:51am UTC )

Edit your feedback below

I spoke of the *issue*, not issues. The issue I raised here on PubPeer, is that Christian's experiment will generate correlations which will certainly *not* violate Bell-CHSH inequality, hence certainly *not* reproduce the singlet correlations. Nobody has refuted that. (It would be difficult!). By the way, Christian's experiment was originally described by Asher Peres in a paper in AJP and later in Peres' very well known book. Of course, the point being that it could *not* exhibit quantum correlations. I did not notice any mention of that in the IJTP paper.

The problem with Christian's experiment is that because it is classical, the spin of each particle is (can be) measured in many directions all at once. In a classical Bell-Aspect type experiment, "the measurement outcome which we would have obtained had Alice's particle been measured in a different direction to the direction actually chosen by the experimenter" is a counter-factual measurement outcome. We may imagine it in our minds, or we may devise mathematical-physical models in which it can be given a mathematical existence, but it does not exist in reality in the same way that the outcome of the actually performed measurement does exist in reality, once the measurement is done.

The fact that Christian has not noticed this, and the fact that the referees of his IJTP paper did not notice it, show that none of them can have any competence at all in the field of quantum foundations. Of course, the paper carefully disguised the fact that it did have anything at all to say about quantum foundations and quantum information. A disproof of Bell's theorem would be a bombshell in science, it would "take out" a huge area of quantum physics, it would revolutionise what is left. The paper contains such a "disproof" yet does not even cite Bell.

Here on PubPeer, "Peer 1" has not refuted my claim, nor have his supporters Tom Ray, Fred Diether, Jay Yablon (just to mention the mainly anonymous "Unregistered submitters" on his side who can be recognised. There may be others).

The problem with Christian's experiment is that because it is classical, the spin of each particle is (can be) measured in many directions all at once. In a classical Bell-Aspect type experiment, "the measurement outcome which we would have obtained had Alice's particle been measured in a different direction to the direction actually chosen by the experimenter" is a counter-factual measurement outcome. We may imagine it in our minds, or we may devise mathematical-physical models in which it can be given a mathematical existence, but it does not exist in reality in the same way that the outcome of the actually performed measurement does exist in reality, once the measurement is done.

The fact that Christian has not noticed this, and the fact that the referees of his IJTP paper did not notice it, show that none of them can have any competence at all in the field of quantum foundations. Of course, the paper carefully disguised the fact that it did have anything at all to say about quantum foundations and quantum information. A disproof of Bell's theorem would be a bombshell in science, it would "take out" a huge area of quantum physics, it would revolutionise what is left. The paper contains such a "disproof" yet does not even cite Bell.

Here on PubPeer, "Peer 1" has not refuted my claim, nor have his supporters Tom Ray, Fred Diether, Jay Yablon (just to mention the mainly anonymous "Unregistered submitters" on his side who can be recognised. There may be others).

Peer 1:

( December 24th, 2014 6:13am UTC )

Edit your feedback below

The bogus *issues* Mr. Gill keeps raising, including the above supposed "new" issue, without ever reading and/or understanding the published paper, have been refuted many times over, by many people, as has been detailed extensively on this page (which includes many references and links): http://libertesphilosophica.info/blog/experimental-metaphysics/ .

It is disingenuous to keep raising already refuted *issues* (or issue) again and again, to deliberately mislead the scientific community.

The proof of the fact that Mr. Gill (Diploma in Statistics) has not bothered to read (let alone understand) the published paper is here for everyone to see: Contrary to Mr. Gill's claim, Ref. 23 of the published paper indeed refers to the page 161 of Peres's book where Peres ends up calculating the correlations incorrectly. In the published paper, on the other hand, the correlations are calculated correctly, with the correct bound obtained in the last equation of the last appendix on the last page of this paper: http://arxiv.org/pdf/1211.0784.pdf .

It is disingenuous to keep raising already refuted *issues* (or issue) again and again, to deliberately mislead the scientific community.

The proof of the fact that Mr. Gill (Diploma in Statistics) has not bothered to read (let alone understand) the published paper is here for everyone to see: Contrary to Mr. Gill's claim, Ref. 23 of the published paper indeed refers to the page 161 of Peres's book where Peres ends up calculating the correlations incorrectly. In the published paper, on the other hand, the correlations are calculated correctly, with the correct bound obtained in the last equation of the last appendix on the last page of this paper: http://arxiv.org/pdf/1211.0784.pdf .

Unregistered Submission:

( December 24th, 2014 2:27pm UTC )

Edit your feedback below

Gill, everyone knows what counterfactual results mean. What Christian and the referees know -- that you don't -- is that a function continuous from an initial condition is a measurable outcome that differs from your assumption of discrete probabilistic results. You also don't grasp that Christian's measurement framework is independent of the experiment, such that the empirical correspondence between abstract model and experimental result is either complete, or the model fails. In contrast, you think that because you can model the outcome a priori, any contrary result is impossible -- thus admitting that your model and the experiment are not independent of one other.

Just because you don't know that you have been refuted, doesn't mean that you haven't been.

Just because you don't know that you have been refuted, doesn't mean that you haven't been.

Unregistered Submission:

( December 25th, 2014 7:48am UTC )

Edit your feedback below

Plus Gill wants to still impose the CHSH inequality on the experiment when it is not required at all. All the experiment has to show is E(a, b) = -a.b.

Richard Gill:

( December 28th, 2014 6:00pm UTC )

Edit your feedback below

Ah, that sounds like Fred Diether speaking.

Unfortunately, the experiment can't show E(a, b) = - a.b. Because if it could, it could violate CHSH. But it can't violate CHSH (read my arXiv submission).

Unfortunately, the experiment can't show E(a, b) = - a.b. Because if it could, it could violate CHSH. But it can't violate CHSH (read my arXiv submission).

Peer 1:

( December 28th, 2014 6:14pm UTC )

Edit your feedback below

Once again Gill is making a circular argument and relying on his erroneous algebra.

His unpublished arxiv preprint contains many errors. The experiment cannot but (and will) show E(a, b) = - a.b.

Gill's errors have been exposed already two years ago: http://arxiv.org/pdf/1203.2529v1.pdf .

How and why the CHSH inequality will be violated in the experiment has been very clearly explained in the last appendix of this paper: http://arxiv.org/pdf/1211.0784.pdf .

See also this thread: http://www.sciphysicsforums.com/spfbb1/viewtopic.php?f=21&t=34#p948 .

His unpublished arxiv preprint contains many errors. The experiment cannot but (and will) show E(a, b) = - a.b.

Gill's errors have been exposed already two years ago: http://arxiv.org/pdf/1203.2529v1.pdf .

How and why the CHSH inequality will be violated in the experiment has been very clearly explained in the last appendix of this paper: http://arxiv.org/pdf/1211.0784.pdf .

See also this thread: http://www.sciphysicsforums.com/spfbb1/viewtopic.php?f=21&t=34#p948 .

Enter your reply below (Please read the **How To**)

Unregistered Submission:

( December 24th, 2014 8:24pm UTC )

Edit your feedback below

I've followed the discussions on Joy Christian's work on Scott Aaronson's blog as well as the FQXi.

I've also been an observer, never a commenter.

I have to say that, much like Dr. Gill, I take great (morbid) interest in watching how scientists (like Ray, Christian, etc...) can be in absolute denial of basic fact. Not one single person on this (pathetic) thread has ever responded to the Dr. Gill's criticism.

Instead, what you see are people patting themselves on the back for managing (after countless submissions presumably) to squeeze their paper through thoughtless reviewers in a journal of impact factor 1.

As someone who submits and publishes many papers per year in higher impact factor journals, I only have to disagree with Dr. Gill on 1 point. The peer review process is not broken. The fact that one nonsense paper, by chance, makes it through means nothing. The ultimate test of a theory's validity comes in the number of times it is cited, how it used by experimentalists, whether its content makes its way into graduate courses on quantum information (for instance).

In this regard, Joy Christian's endeavor has been an abject failure from start to finish.

I've also been an observer, never a commenter.

I have to say that, much like Dr. Gill, I take great (morbid) interest in watching how scientists (like Ray, Christian, etc...) can be in absolute denial of basic fact. Not one single person on this (pathetic) thread has ever responded to the Dr. Gill's criticism.

Instead, what you see are people patting themselves on the back for managing (after countless submissions presumably) to squeeze their paper through thoughtless reviewers in a journal of impact factor 1.

As someone who submits and publishes many papers per year in higher impact factor journals, I only have to disagree with Dr. Gill on 1 point. The peer review process is not broken. The fact that one nonsense paper, by chance, makes it through means nothing. The ultimate test of a theory's validity comes in the number of times it is cited, how it used by experimentalists, whether its content makes its way into graduate courses on quantum information (for instance).

In this regard, Joy Christian's endeavor has been an abject failure from start to finish.

Peer 1:

( December 26th, 2014 10:30am UTC )

Edit your feedback below

Mr. Gill's so-called criticism has been refuted many times over, by many people, for example in this paper http://arxiv.org/abs/1203.2529 as well as in the last appendix of this paper http://arxiv.org/abs/1211.0784 . I think the above unregistered submitter should actually spend some time reading these refutations of Mr. Gill's fallacious claims. He might then realize who, in fact, is in denial of facts. It takes only a few minutes of reflection to recognize Mr. Gill's errors.

By the way, in my view anyone who condones Aaronson's and Gill's anti-science tactics, however indirectly or tacitly, is equally guilty.

Finally, what is the impact factor of the journal where Mr. Gill's criticisms are unpublished? Clearly, the above unregistered submitter fails the double standards test of Brian Martin: https://www.uow.edu.au/~bmartin/pubs/93nw.html . Praising manifestly fallacious unpublished preprints of Mr. Gill and at the same time criticising the published paper in a highly respected physics journal is not the way a scientific work should be evaluated.

By the way, in my view anyone who condones Aaronson's and Gill's anti-science tactics, however indirectly or tacitly, is equally guilty.

Finally, what is the impact factor of the journal where Mr. Gill's criticisms are unpublished? Clearly, the above unregistered submitter fails the double standards test of Brian Martin: https://www.uow.edu.au/~bmartin/pubs/93nw.html . Praising manifestly fallacious unpublished preprints of Mr. Gill and at the same time criticising the published paper in a highly respected physics journal is not the way a scientific work should be evaluated.

Enter your reply below (Please read the **How To**)

Richard Gill:

( December 26th, 2014 7:22am UTC )

Edit your feedback below

My apologies! The paper does indeed refer to Peres' very famous book. So: nobody noticed that the famous Peres got these simple calculations wrong for 20 years! Incredible.

Incidentally, I spoke to one of the very famous editors of IJTP. He was amazed that he was listed as an editor since he has had nothing whatever to do with the journal for a long time.

Concerning Christian's affiliation with Oxford, I was amused when I visited him at the Physics Department a few years ago. We agreed to meet on a Saturday morning. As a three day visitor to the department, I had a key. I was the one who had to let Christian in, since he didn't have access to the department.

Incidentally, I spoke to one of the very famous editors of IJTP. He was amazed that he was listed as an editor since he has had nothing whatever to do with the journal for a long time.

Concerning Christian's affiliation with Oxford, I was amused when I visited him at the Physics Department a few years ago. We agreed to meet on a Saturday morning. As a three day visitor to the department, I had a key. I was the one who had to let Christian in, since he didn't have access to the department.

Peer 1:

( December 26th, 2014 10:05am UTC )

Edit your feedback below

The author does not recall ever meeting Mr. Gill at the Physics Department in Oxford. That is quite amusing. Nor does any of the editors of IJTP recall ever speaking to Mr. Gill. Sir Roger Penrose, however, does recall meeting the author in the Physics Department on several occasions, as he thanks him in a few of his books and papers. And the author does seem to have discussed Peres's error extensively in this paper: http://arxiv.org/pdf/0806.3078v2.pdf .

Unregistered Submission:

( December 26th, 2014 11:52am UTC )

Edit your feedback below

Once again, Gill, you show that your interest in science is overshadowed by your penchant for innuendo and character assassination. Have you no shame?

Unregistered Submission:

( December 26th, 2014 12:02pm UTC )

Edit your feedback below

Gill, it shouldn't escape anyone's attention that if you are so careless as to not recognize the reference, you probably haven't even read the paper. I for one wouldn't be surprised.

Enter your reply below (Please read the **How To**)

Unregistered Submission:

( December 26th, 2014 7:16pm UTC )

Edit your feedback below

richard gill should have crossed his Ts and dotted his Is before posting here; arguably, he should have it done twice.

the fact that he didn't even recognize the reference and continues to assassinate someone's character is ridiculous and ludicrous. i wonder what his motive is and who is putting him up to it.

perhaps he is trying to overwhelm us with the sheer length/volume of his posts, because i cannot, for the life of me, figure out how so much volume is produced when it is evidence he has not done his due diligence.

the fact that he didn't even recognize the reference and continues to assassinate someone's character is ridiculous and ludicrous. i wonder what his motive is and who is putting him up to it.

perhaps he is trying to overwhelm us with the sheer length/volume of his posts, because i cannot, for the life of me, figure out how so much volume is produced when it is evidence he has not done his due diligence.

Peer 1:

( December 26th, 2014 10:24pm UTC )

Edit your feedback below

It is evident that Mr. Gill (Diploma in Statistics) has not bothered to read the crucial first three sections of the published paper where the actual physics is discussed, before jumping to section 4 where the experiment is described. And even in section 4 he has missed the crucial reference, Ref. 23, as he admitted above. Apparently he has also not bothered to read the already existing refutations of all of his misguided claims, as spelt out in this old paper: http://arxiv.org/abs/1203.2529 . This makes me wonder whether he is deliberately trying to mislead the scientific community for motives other than scientific.

Is he exploiting the good intentions of PubPeer to further his own personal agenda of some sort?

Is he exploiting the good intentions of PubPeer to further his own personal agenda of some sort?

Unregistered Submission:

( December 27th, 2014 5:34am UTC )

Edit your feedback below

It's amazing to me how much interest Joy Christian can generate by solving a problem (incorrectly) that never was in QM. Dr. Gill I look forward to meeting you one day. You should write a book about your experience in "science sociology".

Peer 1:

( December 27th, 2014 9:32am UTC )

Edit your feedback below

"... by solving a problem (incorrectly) that never was in QM..." This sentence is clearly written by someone who has no clue what they are talking about. Instead of such wisecracking they should actually read the published paper. Unless of course they are as incapable as the statistician Mr. Gill of understanding the elementary physical and mathematical analysis discussed in the published paper. As for the sociology of science, they may benefit from the 30 years of extensive study by Brian Martin: http://www.bmartin.cc/pubs/08nd.pdf .

Unregistered Submission:

( December 27th, 2014 11:04am UTC )

Edit your feedback below

What a ludicrous comment. Bell's approach to the problem was always classical, not quantum.

Peer 1:

( December 27th, 2014 9:15pm UTC )

Edit your feedback below

That much is baby physics. What is not baby physics is in the published paper. But one has to actually read the published paper instead of continuing to wisecrack about something they have no clue about. Just like Mr. Gill, I suspect that someone has never bothered to read the paper.

Unregistered Submission:

( December 27th, 2014 10:09pm UTC )

Edit your feedback below

Does Dr Christian believe in the possibility of valid mathematics (including geometric algebra) that doesn't correctly portray physical reality? And let's keep the question within this present universe.

Unregistered Submission:

( December 27th, 2014 10:28pm UTC )

Edit your feedback below

In some sense, Bell re-pitched an old result in a new light showing that no trivial (local, realist) classical model could reproduce quantum results.

Again, Christian et al. are "solving" a nonexistent problem (i.e. a problem perceived only by them and others who would rank equally highly on the crackpot index). No need for me to read Brian Martin's manifesto. Instead, I recommend John Baez draw from this thread (and Peer 1's lunatic ramblings) to expand his crackpot index.

You should be embarassed that a "third-rate statistician" knows far deeper physics than Joy's miscreants could ever wrap their heads around.

Again, Christian et al. are "solving" a nonexistent problem (i.e. a problem perceived only by them and others who would rank equally highly on the crackpot index). No need for me to read Brian Martin's manifesto. Instead, I recommend John Baez draw from this thread (and Peer 1's lunatic ramblings) to expand his crackpot index.

You should be embarassed that a "third-rate statistician" knows far deeper physics than Joy's miscreants could ever wrap their heads around.

Peer 1:

( December 28th, 2014 10:12am UTC )

Edit your feedback below

The above derogatory comments by the unregistered submitter sums up the attitude of those steadfastly committed to the Bell dogma without actually understanding it. They would rather stoop to insults (and praise a statistician who is incapable of doing simple algebra) than actually read the paper published in the International Journal of Theoretical Physics. For there is no hope that they could possibly understand the physics and mathematics discussed in the published paper.

Bell, whom I knew personally, would be appalled to have such devotees of his now falsified theorem. As proved in the section 1.3 of the following paper, it is indeed possible --- in fact even inevitable --- that classical, local, realistic, and deterministic model reproduce quantum results: http://arxiv.org/pdf/1201.0775.pdf . For more details, it is perhaps worth consulting the whole book: http://lccn.loc.gov/2013040705 .

It is amusing to see how the pseudo Bell devotees like the unregistered submitter always resort to derogatory comments and insults when their "scientific" arguments are defeated.

Bell, whom I knew personally, would be appalled to have such devotees of his now falsified theorem. As proved in the section 1.3 of the following paper, it is indeed possible --- in fact even inevitable --- that classical, local, realistic, and deterministic model reproduce quantum results: http://arxiv.org/pdf/1201.0775.pdf . For more details, it is perhaps worth consulting the whole book: http://lccn.loc.gov/2013040705 .

It is amusing to see how the pseudo Bell devotees like the unregistered submitter always resort to derogatory comments and insults when their "scientific" arguments are defeated.

Enter your reply below (Please read the **How To**)

Unregistered Submission:

( December 28th, 2014 3:24pm UTC )

Edit your feedback below

Well, since Joy's gang of miscreants can't seem to address Dr. (not Mr.) Gill's clear-cut criticism, maybe they can explain how Joy (who can only develop a local realist model for a spin one-half through mathematical sleight of hand) could ever develop a theory that would address the infinite Hilbert space required to remove the dreaded non-realism assumption needed to explain the well-known interference pattern of the Young two-slit experiment. Other "magick tricks" up your sleeve?

p.s. I don't expect a scientific answer, only more lunatic ramblings. I am only writing this in hopes that if a student ever thinks of studying quantum foundations -- they think twice. Faculty positions are hard enough to find the way it is without shooting yourself in the foot and studying nonsense.

p.s. I don't expect a scientific answer, only more lunatic ramblings. I am only writing this in hopes that if a student ever thinks of studying quantum foundations -- they think twice. Faculty positions are hard enough to find the way it is without shooting yourself in the foot and studying nonsense.

Peer 1:

( December 28th, 2014 5:34pm UTC )

Edit your feedback below

Mr. Gill's bogus and unpublished criticisms have been refuted many times over, by many people, for example in this paper: http://arxiv.org/pdf/1203.2529.pdf , and in the last appendix of this paper: http://arxiv.org/pdf/1211.0784.pdf . If there is any "sleight of hand", it is in Mr. Gill's deceitful criticisms of the author's work, as already noted many times over in this very thread.

Evidently the unregistered submitter is incapable of seeing the blatant algebraic errors in Mr. Gill's latest unpublished preprint (not to mention in his previous unpublished preprint). Mr. Gill's silly preprint will surely be thrown out by the editors of IJTP without a review. It is that bad.

As noted already, the section 1.3 of the following paper provides a local-realistic foundations for *ALL* quantum correlations: http://arxiv.org/pdf/1201.0775.pdf (which is the chapter 1 of this book: http://lccn.loc.gov/2013040705 ). Here *ALL* means *ALL*, not just spin one-half. Moreover, correlations are all we could ever observe in any experiment. No one has ever seen an "infinite Hilbert space" in any experiment, nor have they seen a "quantum entanglement."

Evidently the unregistered submitter is incapable of seeing the blatant algebraic errors in Mr. Gill's latest unpublished preprint (not to mention in his previous unpublished preprint). Mr. Gill's silly preprint will surely be thrown out by the editors of IJTP without a review. It is that bad.

As noted already, the section 1.3 of the following paper provides a local-realistic foundations for *ALL* quantum correlations: http://arxiv.org/pdf/1201.0775.pdf (which is the chapter 1 of this book: http://lccn.loc.gov/2013040705 ). Here *ALL* means *ALL*, not just spin one-half. Moreover, correlations are all we could ever observe in any experiment. No one has ever seen an "infinite Hilbert space" in any experiment, nor have they seen a "quantum entanglement."

Unregistered Submission:

( December 28th, 2014 5:53pm UTC )

Edit your feedback below

"No one has ever seen an "infinite Hilbert space" in any experiment, nor have they seen a "quantum entanglement."" Spoken like a true expert.

Unregistered Submission:

( December 28th, 2014 7:12pm UTC )

Edit your feedback below

Peer 1 says: No one has ever seen an "infinite Hilbert space" in any experiment, nor have they seen a "quantum entanglement."

So what's this? ....:

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2014/08/140827-quantum-imaging-cats-undetected-photon-science/

So what's this? ....:

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2014/08/140827-quantum-imaging-cats-undetected-photon-science/

Unregistered Submission:

( December 28th, 2014 8:07pm UTC )

Edit your feedback below

"I don't expect a scientific answer ..." because you don't know how to pose a scientific question. I think Joy was too generous in calling your understanding "baby physics." You simply don't know what you are talking about.

Unregistered Submission:

( December 28th, 2014 8:22pm UTC )

Edit your feedback below

Hmm... I guess the moderators must be on holiday break to allow such blatant name calling by the above unregistered poster to pass. It is really amazing to see people follow someone like Gill that can't do some pretty simple math and physics.

Unregistered Submission:

( December 28th, 2014 9:44pm UTC )

Edit your feedback below

couldn't agree with you more unregistered submissions. youngsters should realize the difficulty of interfacing mathematics with intuition. if they don't, then they'll be caught in a vicious cycle.

Peer 1:

( December 28th, 2014 10:47pm UTC )

Edit your feedback below

Before embarrassing yourself any further, learn some quantum mechanics. That will answer your question. If it does not, then read section 1.3 of this paper: http://arxiv.org/pdf/1201.0775.pdf .

Correlations are all we could ever observe in any experiment. No one has ever seen an "infinite Hilbert space" in any experiment, nor have they seen a "quantum entanglement."

Correlations are all we could ever observe in any experiment. No one has ever seen an "infinite Hilbert space" in any experiment, nor have they seen a "quantum entanglement."

Unregistered Submission:

( December 28th, 2014 11:09pm UTC )

Edit your feedback below

Crackpottery at its finest. QM predicts entire distributions of possible events -- not just point statistics (like correlations). Again, even the outcome of the simplest two-slit experiment wreaks havoc on your "theory".

Unregistered Submission:

( December 28th, 2014 11:13pm UTC )

Edit your feedback below

What's that? An entanglement of wave functions -- local, classical orientation entanglement, as easily explained by Joy Christian's framework and Einstein, as by quantum entanglement of particles with the assumption of non-locality.

Images of reversed polarity do not imply a superposition of live cat-dead cat. Both images are "live," i.e., produced by a higher energy state than that in which they are observed. This is the same self-organized phenomenon by which LASERs themselves operate; population inversion creates an out of equilibrium state with more emission than absorption, so that the stimulated particles grow coherently. ( "Lasers", Zeiger, H. J. and Kelley, P. L. The Encyclopedia of Physics, Second Edition, edited by Lerner, R. and Trigg, G., VCH Publishers, 1991. Pp. 614–619.)

Images of reversed polarity do not imply a superposition of live cat-dead cat. Both images are "live," i.e., produced by a higher energy state than that in which they are observed. This is the same self-organized phenomenon by which LASERs themselves operate; population inversion creates an out of equilibrium state with more emission than absorption, so that the stimulated particles grow coherently. ( "Lasers", Zeiger, H. J. and Kelley, P. L. The Encyclopedia of Physics, Second Edition, edited by Lerner, R. and Trigg, G., VCH Publishers, 1991. Pp. 614–619.)

Peer 1:

( December 29th, 2014 10:08am UTC )

Edit your feedback below

The unregistered submitter who keeps resorting to insults is clearly some undergrad trying to be wise. I recommend a few grad level courses in quantum mechanics before advancing to the level of author's work.

Enter your reply below (Please read the **How To**)

Unregistered Submission:

( December 28th, 2014 6:14pm UTC )

Edit your feedback below

Since scientific arguments won't work. Maybe the scientific opinion of an expert should help sway the tide. Here it is, straight from the horse's mouth.

Here is what Joy Christian thinks his advisor thinks of him:

"Having known my PhD supervisor (Abner Shimony) for over 30 years, I knew that he would never say a negative word about any of his students, let alone his best student, either in public or in private."

Ref: http://challengingbell.blogspot.com/2014/12/joy-christians-macroscopic-experiment.html

Here is what his advisor actually thinks:

"“You ask my opinion about Joy Christian, and my opinion is mixed. He was a good assiduous student when I was teaching at Boston University. But since then I occasionally received papers from him which disappointed me — e.g., “Disproof of Bell’s Theorem by Clifford Algebra valued Local Variables” in arXiv: quant-ph (0703179), I wrote him careful criticisms of these papers, but never received convincing replies to my criticisms. Hence I cannot praise him as a brilliant mathematician. However, I want to be open-minded to my former student, and therefore do not want to insist upon my assessment without at least some agreement on the part of some one whom I have reason to respect. Recently I received a draft of a paper by James Owen Weatherall, in the Department of Logic and Philosophy of Science at the University of California, which seemed to me very carefully reasoned and strongly critical to Dr. Christian. It is titled “The Scope and Generality of Bell’s Theorem”. I am attaching this paper as a file. If you have an editor read this paper you may receive confirmation of my reservations of Dr. Christian as a mathematician. I hope this will be helpful to you.

Yours sincerely,

Abner Shimony"

Ref: http://www.scottaaronson.com/blog/?p=1028

Needless to say, if my own students were to use my name to push their theory the way Dr. Christian does, I would disown my own Ph.D. students faster than it takes to write down an entangled two-particle state.

Peer 1:

( December 28th, 2014 10:54pm UTC )

Edit your feedback below

Nice fabrication of a supposed letter from Prof. Abner Shimony. You could go to jail for this.

Here is the full quotation which you cleverly edited out to give the wrong impression:

"Having known my PhD supervisor (Abner Shimony) for over 30 years, I knew that he would never say a negative word about any of his students, let alone his best student, either in public or in private. Still, I verified with him that he has not said what Gill has been claiming he has said. As noted, it is Gill and Aaronson who have been planting this type of lies about me all over the internet, in order to defame and debilitate me. Gill has gotten away with this sort of criminality in the past, but not anymore. I intend to expose his crimes with documentary evidence."

And here is the devastating refutation of James Owen Weatherall's straw-man argument: http://libertesphilosophica.info/blog/wp-content/uploads/2014/01/Book-Chapter.pdf .

The last paragraph of this refutation reads as follows:

"It is evident from the above results that there is a valuable lesson to be learned from Weatherall's analysis: An explicit, constructive, quantitatively precise physical model X cannot be undermined by repudiating its distorted misrepresentation Y, even by appealing to a formal theorem (especially when that theorem is grounded on unphysical assumptions). Such a strategy only serves to exemplify an elementary logical fallacy --- namely, the straw-man fallacy." https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v5vzCmURh7o

Here is the full quotation which you cleverly edited out to give the wrong impression:

"Having known my PhD supervisor (Abner Shimony) for over 30 years, I knew that he would never say a negative word about any of his students, let alone his best student, either in public or in private. Still, I verified with him that he has not said what Gill has been claiming he has said. As noted, it is Gill and Aaronson who have been planting this type of lies about me all over the internet, in order to defame and debilitate me. Gill has gotten away with this sort of criminality in the past, but not anymore. I intend to expose his crimes with documentary evidence."

And here is the devastating refutation of James Owen Weatherall's straw-man argument: http://libertesphilosophica.info/blog/wp-content/uploads/2014/01/Book-Chapter.pdf .

The last paragraph of this refutation reads as follows:

"It is evident from the above results that there is a valuable lesson to be learned from Weatherall's analysis: An explicit, constructive, quantitatively precise physical model X cannot be undermined by repudiating its distorted misrepresentation Y, even by appealing to a formal theorem (especially when that theorem is grounded on unphysical assumptions). Such a strategy only serves to exemplify an elementary logical fallacy --- namely, the straw-man fallacy." https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v5vzCmURh7o

Unregistered Submission:

( December 29th, 2014 1:22am UTC )

Edit your feedback below

if i was dr shimony, i'd be posting here under my name to clear this up. this is getting pretty nasty.

there was no need to drag in the supervisors. now we have two divergent accounts of, apparently, the same email/letter written by dr shimony.

there was no need to drag in the supervisors. now we have two divergent accounts of, apparently, the same email/letter written by dr shimony.

Enter your reply below (Please read the **How To**)

Unregistered Submission:

( December 28th, 2014 11:03pm UTC )

Edit your feedback below

The point is only to draw a distinction between what Dr. Christian thinks of himself ("best student") versus Shimony's actual assessment ("disappointed", "mixed opinion"). The rest of the quote disparaging Dr. Gill is irrelevant.

Peer 1:

( December 29th, 2014 9:05am UTC )

Edit your feedback below

LOL! The point is that a totally fabricated letter from a former PhD advisor is being repeatedly posted on the Internet in order to defame a perfectly respectable scientist. It is evidently a cheap trick, not too dissimilar to what happens sometimes in the political arena. It is clearly a despicable criminal act. The real motives behind such acts are explained by Brian martin (who has studied them for 3 decades): https://www.uow.edu.au/~bmartin/pubs/93nw.html .

Richard Gill:

( December 29th, 2014 10:38am UTC )

Edit your feedback below

This is the complete item (comment #95 on Scott Aaronson's second Joy Christian blog). Curiously, the poster, one David Brown, first expresses support for Christian. The (apparently) same individual posted numerous times, on this blog and others, his opinion that Christian was onto something important in string theory, but interprets his result incorrectly. Then he quotes from an alleged letter by Shimony which supports his contention that Christian has some mathematical weaknesses.

If the letter would not be authentic, Christian could easily have got Shimony to say so, or have got lawyers to demand its removal from Aaronson's blog.

Seems to me it could well be authentic. We know that Shimony thought his student was mistaken in his claim to have disproved Bell's theorem. Shimony brought in David Hestenes, the father of geometric algebra, to verify the math. Hestenes confirmed Christian's mistake.

Somebody should ask Shimony if the letter is authentic.

David Brown Says:

Comment #95 May 12th, 2012 at 5:33 pm

@Scott #104: “… elementary errors had been pointed out.” I respectfully disagree, and I support J. Christian on the mathematical soundness of his work. In my opinion, J. Christian’s replacement of quantum SU(1) correlations by quantum SU(8) correlations is a genius-level idea, no matter what else might be true of his work. I strongly believe that Christian is at least correct on the mathematics, although I believe that his model is non-local if and only if the Seiberg-Witten interpretation of M-theory is true. In other words, Christian is correct if and only if Seiberg and Witten are wrong. I bet on Christian over Seiberg and Witten, but with a great deal of fear. In reply to the question, “In your opinion, is Joy Christian, your former student, a brilliant mathematician?”, Professor Emeritus Abner Shimony replied on Fri. May 12, 2012 as follows:

“You ask my opinion about Joy Christian, and my opinion is mixed. He was a good assiduous student when I was teaching at Boston University. But since then I occasionally received papers from him which disappointed me — e.g., “Disproof of Bell’s Theorem by Clifford Algebra valued Local Variables” in arXiv: quant-ph (0703179), I wrote him careful criticisms of these papers, but never received convincing replies to my criticisms. Hence I cannot praise him as a brilliant mathematician. However, I want to be open-minded to my former student, and therefore do not want to insist upon my assessment without at least some agreement on the part of some one whom I have reason to respect. Recently I received a draft of a paper by James Owen Weatherall, in the Department of Logic and Philosophy of Science at the University of California, which seemed to me very carefully reasoned and strongly critical to Dr. Christian. It is titled “The Scope and Generality of Bell’s Theorem”. I am attaching this paper as a file. If you have an editor read this paper you may receive confirmation of my reservations of Dr. Christian as a mathematician. I hope this will be helpful to you.

Yours sincerely,

Abner Shimony”

Weatherall's paper got published in a very respectable journal specializing in quantum foundations. You can also find it on arXiv.

If the letter would not be authentic, Christian could easily have got Shimony to say so, or have got lawyers to demand its removal from Aaronson's blog.

Seems to me it could well be authentic. We know that Shimony thought his student was mistaken in his claim to have disproved Bell's theorem. Shimony brought in David Hestenes, the father of geometric algebra, to verify the math. Hestenes confirmed Christian's mistake.

Somebody should ask Shimony if the letter is authentic.

David Brown Says:

Comment #95 May 12th, 2012 at 5:33 pm

@Scott #104: “… elementary errors had been pointed out.” I respectfully disagree, and I support J. Christian on the mathematical soundness of his work. In my opinion, J. Christian’s replacement of quantum SU(1) correlations by quantum SU(8) correlations is a genius-level idea, no matter what else might be true of his work. I strongly believe that Christian is at least correct on the mathematics, although I believe that his model is non-local if and only if the Seiberg-Witten interpretation of M-theory is true. In other words, Christian is correct if and only if Seiberg and Witten are wrong. I bet on Christian over Seiberg and Witten, but with a great deal of fear. In reply to the question, “In your opinion, is Joy Christian, your former student, a brilliant mathematician?”, Professor Emeritus Abner Shimony replied on Fri. May 12, 2012 as follows:

“You ask my opinion about Joy Christian, and my opinion is mixed. He was a good assiduous student when I was teaching at Boston University. But since then I occasionally received papers from him which disappointed me — e.g., “Disproof of Bell’s Theorem by Clifford Algebra valued Local Variables” in arXiv: quant-ph (0703179), I wrote him careful criticisms of these papers, but never received convincing replies to my criticisms. Hence I cannot praise him as a brilliant mathematician. However, I want to be open-minded to my former student, and therefore do not want to insist upon my assessment without at least some agreement on the part of some one whom I have reason to respect. Recently I received a draft of a paper by James Owen Weatherall, in the Department of Logic and Philosophy of Science at the University of California, which seemed to me very carefully reasoned and strongly critical to Dr. Christian. It is titled “The Scope and Generality of Bell’s Theorem”. I am attaching this paper as a file. If you have an editor read this paper you may receive confirmation of my reservations of Dr. Christian as a mathematician. I hope this will be helpful to you.

Yours sincerely,

Abner Shimony”

Weatherall's paper got published in a very respectable journal specializing in quantum foundations. You can also find it on arXiv.

Peer 1:

( December 29th, 2014 11:31am UTC )

Edit your feedback below

Wow! The above post by Mr. Gill is loaded with double standards and fabrication of "facts", which are extracted from a private blog whose author is well known to manipulate and edit its content to suit his own unethical purposes. Mr. Gill obviously "knows" many things only from such dubious sources.

It is amusing to note that Weatherall's paper is published in a journal whose impact factor is far lower than that of IJTP, but Mr. Gill calls it "a very respectable journal." So by his own standards IJTP --- where the author's paper is published --- is surely *an extremely respectable journal*, because its impact factor is much higher than where Weatherall's paper is published (hint: double standards test of Brian Martin).

In any event, Weatherall's straw-man argument has been totally demolished in this detailed refutation: http://libertesphilosophica.info/blog/wp-content/uploads/2014/01/Book-Chapter.pdf . The bottom line of this detailed refutation is that Weatherall has deceitfully refuted his own model Y and claimed that he has refuted the author's model X. Talk about blatant dishonesty: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v5vzCmURh7o .

As for the supposed letter by Prof. Shimony, the real issue is that a totally fabricated letter from a former PhD advisor is being repeatedly posted by Mr. Gill and his surrogates on the Internet in order to defame a perfectly respectable scientist. As noted, this is evidently a cheap trick, not too dissimilar to what happens sometimes in the political arena. It is a despicable criminal act, which is being repeated over and over again by Mr. Gill for malicious purposes, as already noted here: http://www.sciphysicsforums.com/spfbb1/viewtopic.php?f=6&t=111&p=3838#p3837 .

Here we have a real insight into how far people like Mr. Gill can stoop to protect their own vested interests (as already documented by Brian Martin here: http://www.bmartin.cc/dissent/documents/ss/ss.pdf ).

It is amusing to note that Weatherall's paper is published in a journal whose impact factor is far lower than that of IJTP, but Mr. Gill calls it "a very respectable journal." So by his own standards IJTP --- where the author's paper is published --- is surely *an extremely respectable journal*, because its impact factor is much higher than where Weatherall's paper is published (hint: double standards test of Brian Martin).

In any event, Weatherall's straw-man argument has been totally demolished in this detailed refutation: http://libertesphilosophica.info/blog/wp-content/uploads/2014/01/Book-Chapter.pdf . The bottom line of this detailed refutation is that Weatherall has deceitfully refuted his own model Y and claimed that he has refuted the author's model X. Talk about blatant dishonesty: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v5vzCmURh7o .

As for the supposed letter by Prof. Shimony, the real issue is that a totally fabricated letter from a former PhD advisor is being repeatedly posted by Mr. Gill and his surrogates on the Internet in order to defame a perfectly respectable scientist. As noted, this is evidently a cheap trick, not too dissimilar to what happens sometimes in the political arena. It is a despicable criminal act, which is being repeated over and over again by Mr. Gill for malicious purposes, as already noted here: http://www.sciphysicsforums.com/spfbb1/viewtopic.php?f=6&t=111&p=3838#p3837 .

Here we have a real insight into how far people like Mr. Gill can stoop to protect their own vested interests (as already documented by Brian Martin here: http://www.bmartin.cc/dissent/documents/ss/ss.pdf ).

Unregistered Submission:

( December 29th, 2014 11:34am UTC )

Edit your feedback below

"Weatherall's paper got published in a very respectable journal specializing in quantum foundations." And Christian's paper got published in a very respectable journal specializing in theoretical physics.

The problem with mixing philosophy and science, as Weatherall has attempted, is that science is based on actual correspondence between theory and physical result, not on wishful correspondence between theorem and reality.

The only course of effective criticism of Christian's paper that Gill could ever pursue on a scientific basis, is to show an error in the mathematical theory. He tried that, and was refuted.

The problem with mixing philosophy and science, as Weatherall has attempted, is that science is based on actual correspondence between theory and physical result, not on wishful correspondence between theorem and reality.

The only course of effective criticism of Christian's paper that Gill could ever pursue on a scientific basis, is to show an error in the mathematical theory. He tried that, and was refuted.

Unregistered Submission:

( December 29th, 2014 6:06pm UTC )

Edit your feedback below

Foundations of Physics, in which Weatherall's paper was published, has a 2013 impact factor of 1.14 (compared to 1.188 for IJTP). Hardly that much of a difference. It is edited, one presumes actively edited, by a guy named Gerard 't Hooft. I mean, Peer 1... please.

Richard Gill:

( December 29th, 2014 6:26pm UTC )

Edit your feedback below

I find the alleged letter by Shimony very puzzling, though it seems to me (knowing about the Hestenes - Shimony interactions, from David Hestenes) plausible that he has written such a letter. How would David Brown have access to this letter? Who is David Brown? http://vixra.org/author/david_brown His writings on viXra make me think "another crackpot" but I don't know anything about string theory and maybe I'm wrong. Since he is actually a supporter of Joy Christian's work, why would he copy-paste this letter into his comment, which is supposed to argue the mathematical soundness of Christian's work? If the letter is a forgery why hasn't it been removed from Scott Aaronson's blog?

Maybe David Brown and Joy Christian are the same person?

Maybe David Brown and Joy Christian are the same person?

Peer 1:

( December 29th, 2014 6:57pm UTC )

Edit your feedback below

LOL! You are not fooling anyone, Mr. Gill. You may spin as many stories as you may like, but the facts --- as spelt out in my previous post --- are very clear and for all to see. The alleged letter has been planted by you and your surrogates on Aaronson's blog and elsewhere, which means Aaronson is as guilty as you are. Anyone can make up a name like "David Brown." Worse still, this is not the only malicious post you have planted to defame the author. How low are you planning to stoop next?

Unregistered Submission:

( December 29th, 2014 10:23pm UTC )

Edit your feedback below

This may seem tangential but it deals directly with the comparative credibility of Dr. Gill and Dr. Christian. The attached link is to screen-shots of Dr. Christian's website in July 2014 and December 2014. Both versions of the complete webpage are securely archived and date-stamped.

Why did Dr. Christian's establishment of the Einstein Centre seemingly require his disaffiliation from Wolfson College, Oxford? Plenty of Fellows and Members of Oxford colleges work for institutions outside the University. Also what does his current "based at University of Oxford (UK)" mean exactly? Viewed from a certain angle it seems slippery. On the basis of past affiliation I could become a member of the University Club (which is on University grounds) and drop in regularly for a drink and a bit of grub and while there dispatch some emails using the club's wifi hookup and make the identical claim. But perhaps Dr. Christian's situation is different.

It's pretty apparent I've received an unflattering account of Dr. Christian's abdication of his Oxford affiliation. But perhaps Peer 1 can set the record straight on Dr. Christian's behalf before I can be accused of disseminating lies.

www.dancing-peasants.com/Before-After..png

Why did Dr. Christian's establishment of the Einstein Centre seemingly require his disaffiliation from Wolfson College, Oxford? Plenty of Fellows and Members of Oxford colleges work for institutions outside the University. Also what does his current "based at University of Oxford (UK)" mean exactly? Viewed from a certain angle it seems slippery. On the basis of past affiliation I could become a member of the University Club (which is on University grounds) and drop in regularly for a drink and a bit of grub and while there dispatch some emails using the club's wifi hookup and make the identical claim. But perhaps Dr. Christian's situation is different.

It's pretty apparent I've received an unflattering account of Dr. Christian's abdication of his Oxford affiliation. But perhaps Peer 1 can set the record straight on Dr. Christian's behalf before I can be accused of disseminating lies.

www.dancing-peasants.com/Before-After..png

Peer 1:

( December 30th, 2014 12:27am UTC )

Edit your feedback below

This, from Einstein to Curie, may help: http://www.vox.com/xpress/2014/12/6/7342171/trolls-einstein-curie .

Richard Gill:

( December 30th, 2014 2:09pm UTC )

Edit your feedback below

Christian's LinkedIn and Amazon author pages suggest that he was continuously a member of various research departments at Oxford University for about 13 years up to 2014. The webpage https://libertesphilosophica.academia.edu/JoyChristian (you may need to register to academia.edu in order to see it) seems again to be designed to project the notion that he is an established academic at Oxford University: "Joy Christian, Einstein Centre for Local-Realistic Physics, Oxford, Department Member". On his other promotional web pages he is "director".

Peer 1:

( December 30th, 2014 2:23pm UTC )

Edit your feedback below

Here is another blatant proof that Mr. Gill, QC, cannot do simple algebra, or even simple arithmetic. He thinks that from 1991 to 2014 adds up to 13 years (this is the second time on this thread that he has calculated this to be 13 years --- so it is not just a simple school boy mistake).

Mr. Gill, FYI, from 1991 to 2014 adds up, not to 13 years, but to 23 years, and counting: http://www.sciphysicsforums.com/spfbb1/viewtopic.php?f=6&t=111&p=3838#p3806 .

The algebraic and arithmetical errors in Mr. Gill's unpublished preprints are far worse.

Mr. Gill, FYI, from 1991 to 2014 adds up, not to 13 years, but to 23 years, and counting: http://www.sciphysicsforums.com/spfbb1/viewtopic.php?f=6&t=111&p=3838#p3806 .

The algebraic and arithmetical errors in Mr. Gill's unpublished preprints are far worse.

Richard Gill:

( December 31st, 2014 7:09am UTC )

Edit your feedback below

Oops! Thank you for the correction, Joy. Yes that was a simple schoolboy mistake. And you are a far bigger liar than I thought. 23 years at Oxford University! Rewarded at last by becoming Director of your own prestigious institute!

Peer 1:

( December 31st, 2014 7:53am UTC )

Edit your feedback below

Well, Mr. Gill (Diploma in Statistics), the truth has been spelt out by the author in detail here: http://www.sciphysicsforums.com/spfbb1/viewtopic.php?f=6&t=115#p3763 .

Enter your reply below (Please read the **How To**)

Unregistered Submission:

( December 29th, 2014 9:38pm UTC )

Edit your feedback below

What I think is particularly interesting is to call anyone who refuses to pervert the QM rules of logic a member of the "bell mafia". On this point I agree with lubos motl on the fact that bell probably hurt QM overall. Actually it created the non-locality hype which ultimately generated the bell denialism we see today. My personal opinion of bell's work is rather mixed. Physicists who fail to understand basic statistics often times, do understand correlations. That's what bell provided -- an almost statistics-less way to understand probabilitistic arguments in QM. Without getting too far off topic, there is no better manifestation of physicists' lack I understanding of statistics than the many worlds interpretation.

Long story short, disagreeing with you joy (I.e. Peer 1) does not imply an agreement with bell's correct albeit perhaps unhelpful contribution to QM.

As for joy's cabal of miscreants, nature does indeed play dice (e.g. Evolution).

Long story short, disagreeing with you joy (I.e. Peer 1) does not imply an agreement with bell's correct albeit perhaps unhelpful contribution to QM.

As for joy's cabal of miscreants, nature does indeed play dice (e.g. Evolution).

Richard Gill:

( December 30th, 2014 7:43am UTC )

Edit your feedback below

This is why it is important to address quantum crackpots. Bell became a hype and a dogma. Yet most physicists have no idea at all what he achieved. The establishment pushes the party line but does not know what it is talking about. Bell-deniers continually add further "noise". The public has absolutely no idea at all what quantum entanglement is all about.

Caroline Thompson, for years, pointed out defects in the experiments which had been supposed to "confirm" Bell. She certainly suffered from the "Establishment":

Editorial policy of the American Physical Society journals (including PRL and PRA):

"In 1964, John Bell proved that local realistic theories led to an upper bound on correlations between distant events (Bell's inequality) and that quantum mechanics had predictions that violated that inequality. Ten years later, experimenters started to test in the laboratory the violation of Bell's inequality (or similar predictions of local realism). No experiment is perfect, and various authors invented "loopholes" such that the experiments were still compatible with local realism. Of course nobody proposed a local realistic theory that would reproduce quantitative predictions of quantum theory (energy levels, transition rates, etc.).

This loophole hunting has no interest whatsoever in physics. It tells us nothing on the properties of nature. It makes no prediction that can be tested in new experiments. Therefore I recommend not to publish such papers in Physical Review A. Perhaps they could be suitable for a journal on the philosophy of science."

Only now, 40 years on, at the point when experimentalists are on the verge of performing a loophole free Bell-type experiment, have they actually taken all of Thompson's criticism on board.

So it is possible for a lone scientist to see major defects in existing theory and to be completely suppressed by the establishment ... for some number of years.

http://freespace.virgin.net/ch.thompson1/Papers/The%20Record/TheRecord.htm

I'm preparing slides for a talk on Bell's theorem to "scholars". Tried to explain it in pictures: no formulas, almost no numbers

http://www.slideshare.net/gill1109/bell-43072906

Caroline Thompson, for years, pointed out defects in the experiments which had been supposed to "confirm" Bell. She certainly suffered from the "Establishment":

Editorial policy of the American Physical Society journals (including PRL and PRA):

"In 1964, John Bell proved that local realistic theories led to an upper bound on correlations between distant events (Bell's inequality) and that quantum mechanics had predictions that violated that inequality. Ten years later, experimenters started to test in the laboratory the violation of Bell's inequality (or similar predictions of local realism). No experiment is perfect, and various authors invented "loopholes" such that the experiments were still compatible with local realism. Of course nobody proposed a local realistic theory that would reproduce quantitative predictions of quantum theory (energy levels, transition rates, etc.).

This loophole hunting has no interest whatsoever in physics. It tells us nothing on the properties of nature. It makes no prediction that can be tested in new experiments. Therefore I recommend not to publish such papers in Physical Review A. Perhaps they could be suitable for a journal on the philosophy of science."

Only now, 40 years on, at the point when experimentalists are on the verge of performing a loophole free Bell-type experiment, have they actually taken all of Thompson's criticism on board.

So it is possible for a lone scientist to see major defects in existing theory and to be completely suppressed by the establishment ... for some number of years.

http://freespace.virgin.net/ch.thompson1/Papers/The%20Record/TheRecord.htm

I'm preparing slides for a talk on Bell's theorem to "scholars". Tried to explain it in pictures: no formulas, almost no numbers

http://www.slideshare.net/gill1109/bell-43072906

Unregistered Submission:

( December 30th, 2014 10:53am UTC )

Edit your feedback below

What utter nonsense. Nonlocality isn't something that Bell invented; there is no proof of Bell's theorem without the assumption of nonlocality. And evolution isn't random. You need to hit the books, bud.

Peer 1:

( December 30th, 2014 11:02am UTC )

Edit your feedback below

Are we pretending to be Mr. Nice now, Mr. Gill. "[Caroline Thompson] certainly suffered from the "Establishment"", says Mr. Gill --- LOL --- forgetting to mention that it was no other than Mr. Gill who ridiculed, harassed, and vilified Caroline Thompson, not to mention Karl Hess and many others, for decades, using truly despicable underhand tactics behind the scenes. You don't have to believe me. Simply read their own accounts at the following links:

http://www.bmartin.cc/pubs/99air/99Thompson.pdf

http://www.sciphysicsforums.com/spfbb1/viewtopic.php?f=6&t=111#p3729

http://www.sciphysicsforums.com/spfbb1/viewtopic.php?f=6&t=115#p3763 .

To be fair to Mr. Gill, he does often refer to himself as a "quantum crackpot." That is quite honest of you Mr. Gill --- Mr. Gill, QC.

http://www.bmartin.cc/pubs/99air/99Thompson.pdf

http://www.sciphysicsforums.com/spfbb1/viewtopic.php?f=6&t=111#p3729

http://www.sciphysicsforums.com/spfbb1/viewtopic.php?f=6&t=115#p3763 .

To be fair to Mr. Gill, he does often refer to himself as a "quantum crackpot." That is quite honest of you Mr. Gill --- Mr. Gill, QC.

Richard Gill:

( December 30th, 2014 12:28pm UTC )

Edit your feedback below

Peer 1 really is going insane now (i.e. losing all grip on reality). I corresponded with Caroline Thompson very amicably indeed for two years: 2003 - 2005. I have about two hundred emails from her and presumably sent her a similar number. She was a very nice lady. Very smart. A statistician as well as a physicist.

Her criticism of the experiments done to date was absolutely correct, and the way she was treated by "the establishment" is very very shameful.

I only had one disagreement with her. She was certain that a loophole-free yet successful (successful in reproducing quantum correlations) Bell-type experiment could never, ever, be done (she "knew" that local realism was true). I am not certain of that. That's the only thing we disagreed on.

Since Christian believes that *his* experiment will reproduce the singlet correlations and hence violate the CHSH inequality, Christian would even be on my side of that argument!

Here's a little snippet from our correspondence "Thanks for this message, and for your support versus Kracklauer" (June 4, 2005). She certainly very well realised that many of the anti-Bell crowd really were cranks who could not get their heads around the simple logic of the game.

Caroline died (cancer) Wednesday 8th February 2006, aged 62.

Poor Karl Hess worked with the late Walter Philipp who unfortunately forgot one of the three indices of one of the variables in their very complicated local hidden variables mode, somewhere in the middle of a lot of very tricky calculations. It was clear in advance that their reasoning was incorrect and I had previously used martingale theory to show that there is no time loophole in a properly conducted Bell-type experiment. But it was very hard to identify exactly where the mathematical error was hidden in the appendices of their PNAS paper. Hess got very angry and broke off all communication. Foolish. This little slip-up killed their model stone dead, though fortunately it could be resurrected as a detection-loophole model, and later Hess collaborated with Hans de Raedt to do exactly that. (A renormalisation was needed: probabilities have to add up to one! Renormalisation can be interpreted probabilistically as probabilitistic conditioning).

Their work did inspire Jan-Ake Larsson and myself to study the so-called "coincidence loophole" which turned out to be even more serious than the so-far well studied "detection loophole". So I am very grateful for the stimulus which their work gave me.

It is so sad to see so much talent go to waste. Those who support Christian through thick and thin should look deep in their hearts. What motivates them? I see a lot of vanity. Who needs enemies with friends like that? A true friend lets you know when you are making a big fool of yourself.

Her criticism of the experiments done to date was absolutely correct, and the way she was treated by "the establishment" is very very shameful.

I only had one disagreement with her. She was certain that a loophole-free yet successful (successful in reproducing quantum correlations) Bell-type experiment could never, ever, be done (she "knew" that local realism was true). I am not certain of that. That's the only thing we disagreed on.

Since Christian believes that *his* experiment will reproduce the singlet correlations and hence violate the CHSH inequality, Christian would even be on my side of that argument!

Here's a little snippet from our correspondence "Thanks for this message, and for your support versus Kracklauer" (June 4, 2005). She certainly very well realised that many of the anti-Bell crowd really were cranks who could not get their heads around the simple logic of the game.

Caroline died (cancer) Wednesday 8th February 2006, aged 62.

Poor Karl Hess worked with the late Walter Philipp who unfortunately forgot one of the three indices of one of the variables in their very complicated local hidden variables mode, somewhere in the middle of a lot of very tricky calculations. It was clear in advance that their reasoning was incorrect and I had previously used martingale theory to show that there is no time loophole in a properly conducted Bell-type experiment. But it was very hard to identify exactly where the mathematical error was hidden in the appendices of their PNAS paper. Hess got very angry and broke off all communication. Foolish. This little slip-up killed their model stone dead, though fortunately it could be resurrected as a detection-loophole model, and later Hess collaborated with Hans de Raedt to do exactly that. (A renormalisation was needed: probabilities have to add up to one! Renormalisation can be interpreted probabilistically as probabilitistic conditioning).

Their work did inspire Jan-Ake Larsson and myself to study the so-called "coincidence loophole" which turned out to be even more serious than the so-far well studied "detection loophole". So I am very grateful for the stimulus which their work gave me.

It is so sad to see so much talent go to waste. Those who support Christian through thick and thin should look deep in their hearts. What motivates them? I see a lot of vanity. Who needs enemies with friends like that? A true friend lets you know when you are making a big fool of yourself.

Peer 1:

( December 30th, 2014 12:41pm UTC )

Edit your feedback below

I would rather believe Caroline Thompson's own account of events from her paper linked above and from her website than the above fabrications by Mr. Gill, QC. Also, I would rather believe Karl Hess's own account of events from the link below than the above fabrications by Mr. Gill, QC: http://www.sciphysicsforums.com/spfbb1/viewtopic.php?f=6&t=49&p=2545&hilit=third+rate#p2545 .

Richard Gill:

( December 30th, 2014 1:39pm UTC )

Edit your feedback below

Caroline Thompson's article does not mention me. Her website does not mention me. Yes, she did suffer from the "Bell mafia", for many years, long before I even knew about Bell's theorem and all that. But at least her scientific insights have now become mainstream! Peer 1 (Joy Christian) has lost all touch with reality.

Peer 1:

( December 30th, 2014 1:46pm UTC )

Edit your feedback below

Even complete strangers seem to know exactly who --- literally --- are the real Bell mafia behind the scenes: http://www.sciphysicsforums.com/spfbb1/viewtopic.php?f=6&t=111&p=3838#p3806 .

Unregistered Submission:

( December 30th, 2014 1:59pm UTC )

Edit your feedback below

"Those who support Christian through thick and thin should look deep in their hearts. What motivates them?"

What motivates you, Gill?

"I see a lot of vanity."

And I see a lot of psychological projection. Look deep in your heart -- you'll see it, too.

What motivates you, Gill?

"I see a lot of vanity."

And I see a lot of psychological projection. Look deep in your heart -- you'll see it, too.

Unregistered Submission:

( December 30th, 2014 2:11pm UTC )

Edit your feedback below

"Poor Karl Hess worked with the late Walter Philipp who unfortunately forgot one of the three indices of one of the variables in their very complicated local hidden variables mode, somewhere in the middle of a lot of very tricky calculations. It was clear in advance that their reasoning was incorrect and I had previously used martingale theory to show that there is no time loophole in a properly conducted Bell-type experiment. "

Having just finished Karl Hess's book *Einstein was Right* I encourage everyone who wants to know the truth of Gill's error to read it for themselves. As usual, Gill has only argued a strawman.

Having just finished Karl Hess's book *Einstein was Right* I encourage everyone who wants to know the truth of Gill's error to read it for themselves. As usual, Gill has only argued a strawman.

Unregistered Submission:

( December 30th, 2014 10:34pm UTC )

Edit your feedback below

"What utter nonsense. Nonlocality isn't something that Bell invented; there is no proof of Bell's theorem without the assumption of nonlocality. And evolution isn't random. You need to hit the books, bud."

Perhaps your reading comprehension is as poor as your grasp of QM. Let me explain.

Bell created the "hype" not the concept.

Second, randomness is a driving force (not the only, but one of them) at the macroscopic scale. No one doubts this on this thread (except for you?).

Perhaps your reading comprehension is as poor as your grasp of QM. Let me explain.

Bell created the "hype" not the concept.

Second, randomness is a driving force (not the only, but one of them) at the macroscopic scale. No one doubts this on this thread (except for you?).

Unregistered Submission:

( December 30th, 2014 11:53pm UTC )

Edit your feedback below

Awkward backpedaling doesn't make you look any better. You have no clue of either Bell's theorem, which assumes nonlocality, and is incoherent without that assumption -- or evolution, which assumes adaptation or is otherwise incoherent. Knowing the mechanics of a subject doesn't imply that one understands it.

Richard Gill:

( December 31st, 2014 7:26am UTC )

Edit your feedback below

Rather amusingly, Karl Hess actually ends up proving Bell's theorem in his book. He discusses the "Bell game" and explains why it can't be won. In other words, he proves that Christian's experiment will fail to reproduce the singlet correlations.

His position regarding Bell-type experiments done so far is the same as that of Caroline Thompson, Hans de Raedt, and myself: there has still not been a both loophole-free and succesfull Bell-type experiment. This opinion is no longer a crack-pot opinion, it is now mainstream. The experimentalists agree. That's because they believe that the definitive experiment is now within reach, and whoever does it first gets a Nobel prize!

Karl Hess however thinks the definitive and successful experiment won't get done, not ever. Not with polarized photons, and certainly not with colourful exploding balls. Because he knows that Einstein was right.

Yes, do read this book. Karl Hess finally saw the light. Of course, he does not mention the errors in the late Walter Philipps' mathematical construction, and he explains how he instructed his computer not to receive emails from me, so he'll remain in ignorance for ever. But these are mere details...

His position regarding Bell-type experiments done so far is the same as that of Caroline Thompson, Hans de Raedt, and myself: there has still not been a both loophole-free and succesfull Bell-type experiment. This opinion is no longer a crack-pot opinion, it is now mainstream. The experimentalists agree. That's because they believe that the definitive experiment is now within reach, and whoever does it first gets a Nobel prize!

Karl Hess however thinks the definitive and successful experiment won't get done, not ever. Not with polarized photons, and certainly not with colourful exploding balls. Because he knows that Einstein was right.

Yes, do read this book. Karl Hess finally saw the light. Of course, he does not mention the errors in the late Walter Philipps' mathematical construction, and he explains how he instructed his computer not to receive emails from me, so he'll remain in ignorance for ever. But these are mere details...

Peer 1:

( December 31st, 2014 8:11am UTC )

Edit your feedback below

Twisting facts once again, Mr. Gill?

The "Bell game" and the physical experiments have nothing to do with each other.

Any fool can make up a game that cannot be won. But it takes a real physical understanding, like the one Einstein had, to understand how Nature wins the "Bell game." The experiment proposed in the paper published in the IJTP is a physical experiment, and therefore it cannot fail to produce the singlet correlations, just as predicted by the author of the IJTP paper back in 2008. Diploma in statistics is not enough to understand this simple physical fact.

The "Bell game" and the physical experiments have nothing to do with each other.

Any fool can make up a game that cannot be won. But it takes a real physical understanding, like the one Einstein had, to understand how Nature wins the "Bell game." The experiment proposed in the paper published in the IJTP is a physical experiment, and therefore it cannot fail to produce the singlet correlations, just as predicted by the author of the IJTP paper back in 2008. Diploma in statistics is not enough to understand this simple physical fact.

Unregistered Submission:

( December 31st, 2014 12:40pm UTC )

Edit your feedback below

The details are quite different from what Gill claims. Let the readers of Hess's book judge for themselves. The errors are Gill's -- not Hess's, not Philipp's, not Christian's. One thing is evident: Gill's hysteria over having "crackpot" science overcome quantum mysticism is way out of proportion to what would be appropriate if the "crackpots" had no substance to their research.

Richard Gill:

( December 31st, 2014 2:11pm UTC )

Edit your feedback below

"Any fool can make up a game that cannot be won". An even bigger fool plays it and claims repeatedly that he has won it. See the six different attempts here, http://rpubs.com/jjc

Unregistered Submission:

( December 31st, 2014 5:13pm UTC )

Edit your feedback below

Let's look at the record: 1. Gill said that if Christian's framework couldn't be simulated on a classical computer, it is worthless. 1a. The framework was successfully computer simulated many times over, thanks to Chantal Roth, Michel Fodje and others; so successful was the endeavor, in fact, that Gill even took some of the credit for himself! 2. Gill said that if Christian's research couldn't get peer reviewed and published, it is worthless. 2b. The work got peer reviewed and published in a distinguished physics journal. Now Gill attacks the journal and its refereeing as worthless. Apparently, Gill divides the scientific world into categories of Gill and not-Gill. Whatever is not-Gill is worthless. 3. Gill claims that Joy Christian's academic credentials are worthless. 3b. Joy Christian's PhD has as much if not more worth than Gill's. Besides which, one does not need a license to practice physics; one does require knowledge that comes from actually studying the subject, however. Recall the words of Eleanor Roosevelt: "Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people."

Unregistered Submission:

( January 1st, 2015 11:01am UTC )

Edit your feedback below

"1. Gill said that if Christian's framework couldn't be simulated on a classical computer, it is worthless. 1a. The framework was successfully computer simulated many times over, thanks to Chantal Roth, Michel Fodje and others; so successful was the endeavor, in fact, that Gill even took some of the credit for himself!"

No. Programs have been presented that give results that violate Bell's and similar inequalities but without any proof that they simulate Christian's theory or that they satisfy locality or local realism. A possible way to make both locality and realism obvious is presented in

http://www.sciphysicsforums.com/spfbb1/viewtopic.php?f=6&t=21

but none of the claimed simulation does so or anything similar.

Bell's inequality is about statistics and is therefore mathematical. Such statements cannot be tested experimentally. They can be tested with a simulation but only if the simulation is proven correct.

No. Programs have been presented that give results that violate Bell's and similar inequalities but without any proof that they simulate Christian's theory or that they satisfy locality or local realism. A possible way to make both locality and realism obvious is presented in

http://www.sciphysicsforums.com/spfbb1/viewtopic.php?f=6&t=21

but none of the claimed simulation does so or anything similar.

Bell's inequality is about statistics and is therefore mathematical. Such statements cannot be tested experimentally. They can be tested with a simulation but only if the simulation is proven correct.

Peer 1:

( January 1st, 2015 1:21pm UTC )

Edit your feedback below

"No. Programs have been presented that give results that violate Bell's and similar inequalities but without any proof that they simulate Christian's theory or that they satisfy locality or local realism."

This is a false assertion. The simulations precisely simulate the manifestly local 3-sphere model, especially this simulation: http://rpubs.com/jjc/16567 . The false assertion stems from a lack of understanding of the 3-sphere topology, which is best presented in this paper: http://arxiv.org/pdf/1405.2355.pdf .

Bell's theorem is a false claim that "no physical theory which is local and realistic (in the sense espoused by Einstein) can reproduce all of the statistical predictions of quantum mechanics." This false claim can be tested experimentally. It can also be refuted theoretically, as has been done in the published paper and in this published book: http://lccn.loc.gov/2013040705 .

This is a false assertion. The simulations precisely simulate the manifestly local 3-sphere model, especially this simulation: http://rpubs.com/jjc/16567 . The false assertion stems from a lack of understanding of the 3-sphere topology, which is best presented in this paper: http://arxiv.org/pdf/1405.2355.pdf .

Bell's theorem is a false claim that "no physical theory which is local and realistic (in the sense espoused by Einstein) can reproduce all of the statistical predictions of quantum mechanics." This false claim can be tested experimentally. It can also be refuted theoretically, as has been done in the published paper and in this published book: http://lccn.loc.gov/2013040705 .

Unregistered Submission:

( January 1st, 2015 4:43pm UTC )

Edit your feedback below

I wrote: "No. Programs have been presented that give results that violate Bell's and similar inequalities but without any proof that they simulate Christian's theory or that they satisfy locality or local realism."

Peer 1 wrote: "This is a false assertion."

So far seems to be true. Of course new simulations may be presented in future, as well as new proofs about existing ones.

Peer 1 wrote: "The simulations precisely simulate the manifestly local 3-sphere model, especially this simulation: http://rpubs.com/jjc/16567 ."

Comments in the code claim so but no proof is presented, in the code or elsewhere. In particular, violation of locality is easy to hide in the code.

Peer 1 wrote: "The false assertion stems from a lack of understanding of the 3-sphere topology, which is best presented in this paper: http://arxiv.org/pdf/1405.2355.pdf ."

No. First, the assertion is not shown to be false. Second, the allegedly false assertion does not stem from any lack of understanding but from the observed lack of proofs.

Peer 1 wrote: "This is a false assertion."

So far seems to be true. Of course new simulations may be presented in future, as well as new proofs about existing ones.

Peer 1 wrote: "The simulations precisely simulate the manifestly local 3-sphere model, especially this simulation: http://rpubs.com/jjc/16567 ."

Comments in the code claim so but no proof is presented, in the code or elsewhere. In particular, violation of locality is easy to hide in the code.

Peer 1 wrote: "The false assertion stems from a lack of understanding of the 3-sphere topology, which is best presented in this paper: http://arxiv.org/pdf/1405.2355.pdf ."

No. First, the assertion is not shown to be false. Second, the allegedly false assertion does not stem from any lack of understanding but from the observed lack of proofs.

Enter your reply below (Please read the **How To**)

Unregistered Submission:

( December 30th, 2014 12:40am UTC )

Edit your feedback below

you know, i've tried to be really nice about this entire thing.

given that i'm the one who has the evidence to "disprove" bell's theorem (seriously, how can a local hidden variable theory *not* reproduce a result of QM? think about it, you still need powerful enough machinery to explain the local observations--mb something like matrix mechanix ;)), i am growing increasingly concerned about the state of the field. before people start asking me for my proof, i urge them to exercise some patience as it still has to be seen by the appropriate authorities (Dr 't hooft has seen it over a year ago).

no real discussion about this matter can continue until the evidence is released via accepted publication. given the application on psychiatric data, there are understandably many in both biology and physics that are upset with the result. all i can say is people must wait until the community is ready to coalesce and collaborate.

reading these replies, together with the sock puppetry (see mr joy's comment at december 30th,2014 11:31, followed by an unregistered person at 11:34 who i highly suspect is him), is really starting to affect my mood. this is an embarrassment to those who came before us. i am not surprised that "physics" has degenerated into theoretical arguments over extremely niche mathematical theories and constructs. it must stop. sir isaac & robert hooke's dispute wasn't even this ugly. i doubt either would have even thought of using sock puppets. they had "homies" who would use their credentials to lend support (see bernoulli & huygens wrt leibniz newton calculus controversy).

unless some authorities want to speak on this matter, i am hopeful pubpeer can lock the comments until further notice. this has gone too far.

as a note to the "quantum physics" and "neuroscience" communities: get your act together. we won't be able to move forward with this kind of nonsense. get it together. with each comment, there will be more embarrassment. we need to keep whatever dignity we have left if we truly want to contribute to science instead of padding our names using obscure mathematical theories. (bell's theorem is obscure if you consider it from a mathematics standpoint. i never learned it. take that as you will).

given that i'm the one who has the evidence to "disprove" bell's theorem (seriously, how can a local hidden variable theory *not* reproduce a result of QM? think about it, you still need powerful enough machinery to explain the local observations--mb something like matrix mechanix ;)), i am growing increasingly concerned about the state of the field. before people start asking me for my proof, i urge them to exercise some patience as it still has to be seen by the appropriate authorities (Dr 't hooft has seen it over a year ago).

no real discussion about this matter can continue until the evidence is released via accepted publication. given the application on psychiatric data, there are understandably many in both biology and physics that are upset with the result. all i can say is people must wait until the community is ready to coalesce and collaborate.

reading these replies, together with the sock puppetry (see mr joy's comment at december 30th,2014 11:31, followed by an unregistered person at 11:34 who i highly suspect is him), is really starting to affect my mood. this is an embarrassment to those who came before us. i am not surprised that "physics" has degenerated into theoretical arguments over extremely niche mathematical theories and constructs. it must stop. sir isaac & robert hooke's dispute wasn't even this ugly. i doubt either would have even thought of using sock puppets. they had "homies" who would use their credentials to lend support (see bernoulli & huygens wrt leibniz newton calculus controversy).

unless some authorities want to speak on this matter, i am hopeful pubpeer can lock the comments until further notice. this has gone too far.

as a note to the "quantum physics" and "neuroscience" communities: get your act together. we won't be able to move forward with this kind of nonsense. get it together. with each comment, there will be more embarrassment. we need to keep whatever dignity we have left if we truly want to contribute to science instead of padding our names using obscure mathematical theories. (bell's theorem is obscure if you consider it from a mathematics standpoint. i never learned it. take that as you will).

Unregistered Submission:

( December 30th, 2014 6:42pm UTC )

Edit your feedback below

( December 30th, 2014 12:40am UTC ) is nearly as enigmatic as anything out of the Einstein Centre for Local-Realistic Physics, i.e., Joy Christian's flat in North Oxford. Or maybe I'm just out of touch.

Peer 2:

( December 30th, 2014 10:34pm UTC )

Edit your feedback below

Now I'm lost: what exactly does neuroscience have to do with this??

Unregistered Submission:

( December 30th, 2014 11:08pm UTC )

Edit your feedback below

Neuroscience has nothing to do with this and this unregistered submitter (at 12:40am) is clearly a crackpot. Just another dead fly on Dr. Gill's windshield.

Ultimately, as Dr. Gill says, the point is to have an open discussion as to why people have a profound psychological need to revisit assumptions of QM.

My opinion (being a physicist who makes extensive use of statistics) is that physicists

often look for simple pictures and are deeply suspicious with probabilistic arguments. Just look at Jaynes' uphill battle trying to convince the physics community that entropy is not related to your own personal degree of ignorance!

Yet this pursuit of simple models is profoundly misguided in part because simplicity isn't defined

in physics (we are not talking SIC here for physics!) and a model's simplicity clearly depends on one's own skills.

That's the point. What you see here is someone (Peer 1) who snuck in a nonsense disproof of Bell's theorem just to create a simple picture of QM that they can wrap their heads around.

Look at others who deny Bell. What is their motivation?

Here is one example "Logically Non-locality makes no sense"

Ref: http://quantummechanics.mchmultimedia.com/2014/quantum-mechanics/logically-the-epr-paradox-must-have-a-rational-explanation/

I think my point is made.

Ultimately, as Dr. Gill says, the point is to have an open discussion as to why people have a profound psychological need to revisit assumptions of QM.

My opinion (being a physicist who makes extensive use of statistics) is that physicists

often look for simple pictures and are deeply suspicious with probabilistic arguments. Just look at Jaynes' uphill battle trying to convince the physics community that entropy is not related to your own personal degree of ignorance!

Yet this pursuit of simple models is profoundly misguided in part because simplicity isn't defined

in physics (we are not talking SIC here for physics!) and a model's simplicity clearly depends on one's own skills.

That's the point. What you see here is someone (Peer 1) who snuck in a nonsense disproof of Bell's theorem just to create a simple picture of QM that they can wrap their heads around.

Look at others who deny Bell. What is their motivation?

Here is one example "Logically Non-locality makes no sense"

Ref: http://quantummechanics.mchmultimedia.com/2014/quantum-mechanics/logically-the-epr-paradox-must-have-a-rational-explanation/

I think my point is made.

Peer 1:

( December 30th, 2014 11:43pm UTC )

Edit your feedback below

What puzzles me is this: Why do you think you are qualified to understand and voice your opinion about the author's mathematical analysis? Have you actually read the published paper? Do you even know the first thing about it? It is abundantly clear that you have not bothered to read the paper. Then where does your arrogant comments stem from?

Enter your reply below (Please read the **How To**)

Unregistered Submission:

( December 30th, 2014 12:00pm UTC )

Edit your feedback below

gentlemen, this thread is an embarassment to scientists.

Peer 3:

( December 30th, 2014 8:57pm UTC )

Edit your feedback below

I fully agree!!!

Unregistered Submission:

( December 30th, 2014 10:23pm UTC )

Edit your feedback below

An embarrassment to scientists, surely. The published paper, however, is no embarrassment to science -- or else the detractors would be addressing its contents, rather than its author.

Unregistered Submission:

( December 31st, 2014 5:14pm UTC )

Edit your feedback below

I agree. A large number of posts do not pertain to science but to cheap gossip for eample what the PhD advisor said about his student.

Unregistered Submission:

( January 1st, 2015 11:19am UTC )

Edit your feedback below

However, both the initial comment and the first reply are strictly about the scientific content of the published paper.

Enter your reply below (Please read the **How To**)

Unregistered Submission:

( December 30th, 2014 10:22pm UTC )

Edit your feedback below

I also agree.

Perhaps it is worth ending with

a quote from Peer 1 himself avowing Nature's hermaphroditic constitution:

"Let no man but Nature bestow her verdict on herself."

Ref: http://www.scottaaronson.com/blog/?p=993

Perhaps it is worth ending with

a quote from Peer 1 himself avowing Nature's hermaphroditic constitution:

"Let no man but Nature bestow her verdict on herself."

Ref: http://www.scottaaronson.com/blog/?p=993

Peer 1:

( December 30th, 2014 11:21pm UTC )

Edit your feedback below

I wonder how many of the contributors to this thread are actually "gentlemen" or "scientists".

I know that the above unregistered submitter is certainly neither (I wonder whether this time around he is calling himself Nick Mann, Rick Padua, Erik Trier, or "menoma", from Concord, California).

I know that the above unregistered submitter is certainly neither (I wonder whether this time around he is calling himself Nick Mann, Rick Padua, Erik Trier, or "menoma", from Concord, California).

Enter your reply below (Please read the **How To**)

Unregistered Submission:

( December 30th, 2014 11:07pm UTC )

Edit your feedback below

Bell's theorem has been blamed for a lot of wickedness, including New Age bogosity and, no doubt, the epidemic of online pornography. But the real blame for Quantum Mysticism rests more appropriately on the shoulders of Arthur Stanley Eddington. Back in the late 20s of the last century Sir Arthur was saying things like "The universe is of the nature of a thought or sensation in a universal Mind... To put the conclusion crudely — the stuff of the world is mind-stuff." So Deepak Chopra and Shirley MacLaine or something resembling them would with us even had John Stewart Bell never been born. BT is neither evil nor incorrect. Locke, Hume and Kant wouldn't have been intimidated by it. Therefore trouble not, comrades. All will be sorted in the end.

Richard Gill:

( December 31st, 2014 9:50am UTC )

Edit your feedback below

I just noticed that Joy Christian has himself explicitly claimed the "crackpot" epithet: http://www.scottaaronson.com/blog/?p=993 comment number 583. Interestingly, he is here associating himself with David Brown, the guy who supported Christian's theory for its connections to string theory while at the same time revealing the content of a confidential letter casting allegations on Christian's mathematical skills, allegedly written by Abner Shimony.

According to entries in several FQXi essay competitions: "David Brown has an M.A. in mathematics from Princeton University and was for a number of years a computer programmer." Here is an example of his work. http://www.fqxi.org/data/essay-contest-files/Brown_spaceroaressay.pdf It would be good if he would contribute to this discussion on PubPeer.

According to entries in several FQXi essay competitions: "David Brown has an M.A. in mathematics from Princeton University and was for a number of years a computer programmer." Here is an example of his work. http://www.fqxi.org/data/essay-contest-files/Brown_spaceroaressay.pdf It would be good if he would contribute to this discussion on PubPeer.

Peer 1:

( December 31st, 2014 10:10am UTC )

Edit your feedback below

Once again Mr. Gill is trying to muster support from some dubious posts, which have been most likely planted by him only, on a private blog of someone who is well known to edit and modify his blog frequently to suit his own unethical purposes. Gill's purpose here is quite clear: To discredit the author in everyway possible because he is unable to discredit his work. Elsewhere the author has already caught him out on this despicable trick: "Having known my PhD supervisor (Abner Shimony) for over 30 years, I knew that he would never say a negative word about any of his students, let alone his best student, either in public or in private. Still, I verified with him that he has not said what Gill has been claiming he has said. As noted, it is Gill and Aaronson who have been planting this type of lies about me all over the internet, in order to defame and debilitate me. Gill has gotten away with this sort of criminality in the past, but not anymore. I intend to expose his crimes with documentary evidence." http://challengingbell.blogspot.co.uk/2014/12/joy-christians-macroscopic-experiment.html?showComment=1418820474096#c1952901398690369950

Richard Gill:

( December 31st, 2014 2:08pm UTC )

Edit your feedback below

I don't claim that Abner Shimony actually said what David Brown said he said. It is a mystery to me why Christian or Shimony did not get Scott Aaronson to remove that item from Aaronson's blog. Brown mentioned the letter from Shimony in several different postings, all of them otherwise extremely favourable to Christian. Quite weird.

What is however very clear is that Christian and his sole remaining supporters (afaik) Thomas H. Ray and Fred Diether have assiduously *not* responded to the factual mathematical issue concerning Christian's experiment which I raised at the start. The issue, namely, that it is bound to fail.

Actually, nobody at all has reported that they ran through my computation and either agreed with it or otherwise identified an error and if so what precisely. This is also weird in view of the huge number of views this page has got so far. Nobody is interested in actually checking simple mathematical facts, simple mathematical claims!

Of course the paper in question is published in a rather obscure physics journal ... so who cares about *mathematical* truth, we only care about the verdict of Nature ... though it is a journal published by Springer ... it is not one of the new generation of journals whose purpose is to allow junk scientists to publish junk science so as to "grow" their publication lists solely in order to support their academic careers.

What is however very clear is that Christian and his sole remaining supporters (afaik) Thomas H. Ray and Fred Diether have assiduously *not* responded to the factual mathematical issue concerning Christian's experiment which I raised at the start. The issue, namely, that it is bound to fail.

Actually, nobody at all has reported that they ran through my computation and either agreed with it or otherwise identified an error and if so what precisely. This is also weird in view of the huge number of views this page has got so far. Nobody is interested in actually checking simple mathematical facts, simple mathematical claims!

Of course the paper in question is published in a rather obscure physics journal ... so who cares about *mathematical* truth, we only care about the verdict of Nature ... though it is a journal published by Springer ... it is not one of the new generation of journals whose purpose is to allow junk scientists to publish junk science so as to "grow" their publication lists solely in order to support their academic careers.

Peer 1:

( December 31st, 2014 2:34pm UTC )

Edit your feedback below

No, Mr. Gill, you don't claim anything. You simply plant the fraudulent letter all over the Internet, as many times as you get a chance, for no reason at all, as the author has already noted here: http://challengingbell.blogspot.co.uk/2014/12/joy-christians-macroscopic-experiment.html?showComment=1418820474096#c1952901398690369950 .

As for your erroneous preprint where you claim 2 + 2 = 2, I suggest you do your sums again. If you are unable to, then read the last appendix of this paper: http://arxiv.org/pdf/1211.0784.pdf .

Your errors have been repeatedly pointed out to you, many times over, also in this very thread, and yet you are unable to see them. They were pointed out to you two year ago, for example, in this paper: http://arxiv.org/pdf/1203.2529v1.pdf . If you can't see them, then it is your problem.

As for your erroneous preprint where you claim 2 + 2 = 2, I suggest you do your sums again. If you are unable to, then read the last appendix of this paper: http://arxiv.org/pdf/1211.0784.pdf .

Your errors have been repeatedly pointed out to you, many times over, also in this very thread, and yet you are unable to see them. They were pointed out to you two year ago, for example, in this paper: http://arxiv.org/pdf/1203.2529v1.pdf . If you can't see them, then it is your problem.

Peer 5:

( December 31st, 2014 3:25pm UTC )

Edit your feedback below

Richard Gill wrote:

"Actually, nobody at all has reported that they ran through my computation and either agreed with it or otherwise identified an error and if so what precisely. This is also weird in view of the huge number of views this page has got so far. Nobody is interested in actually checking simple mathematical facts, simple mathematical claims!"

Oh, I agree with it. As described, it is mathematically impossible that Christian's experiment can produce anything but classical correlations.

"Actually, nobody at all has reported that they ran through my computation and either agreed with it or otherwise identified an error and if so what precisely. This is also weird in view of the huge number of views this page has got so far. Nobody is interested in actually checking simple mathematical facts, simple mathematical claims!"

Oh, I agree with it. As described, it is mathematically impossible that Christian's experiment can produce anything but classical correlations.

Peer 1:

( December 31st, 2014 3:33pm UTC )

Edit your feedback below

Is Peer 5 confident enough in his/her prediction to put his/her name on it? The author and Mr. Gill, to their credit, have put their names on what they predict would be the outcome of the experiment. It would be nice to know whether Peer 5 is confident enough to do the same.

Peer 5:

( December 31st, 2014 3:50pm UTC )

Edit your feedback below

Why on earth should I agree to that request from someone called Peer 1?

Peer 1:

( December 31st, 2014 4:06pm UTC )

Edit your feedback below

It is not a request. It is a test of the credibility of your opinion. From your response it is clear that either you are not confident of your prediction, or simply not qualified to make a judgement on the outcome of the experiment.

Unregistered Submission:

( December 31st, 2014 4:53pm UTC )

Edit your feedback below

Well, there you go projecting again, Gill. " ... a rather obscure physics journal ..."? The skirt of your jealousy shows quite prominently. Ask your friends for a reality check, and find out who your true friends are.

Peer 5:

( December 31st, 2014 6:15pm UTC )

Edit your feedback below

Well, Peer 1, I am both confident and qualified. Happy New Year!

Unregistered Submission:

( December 31st, 2014 6:20pm UTC )

Edit your feedback below

How do we know that "Peer 1" is "qualified to make a judgment on the outcome of the experiment"? Who and what is Peer 1 other than clearly a Joy Christian supporter?

Unregistered Submission:

( December 31st, 2014 6:44pm UTC )

Edit your feedback below

Well, then, Peer 5, perhaps you can answer the question that Gill has refused to even acknowledge: what effect, if any, does a simply connected topology have on a physical model? Why or why not? The many who claim to be qualified to judge this research, have not the first glimmer of understanding that the Christian framework is analytical and non-trivial. What makes you different?

Richard Gill:

( December 31st, 2014 7:14pm UTC )

Edit your feedback below

Thanks Peer 5, and Happy New Year to you too!

My New Year's Resolution is to leave this thread alone till I get word from IJTP. My paper was allocated to an editor on December 9. Today I sent a message that there is a better version of my paper (version 2: on arXiv) which might be helpful for the referees, http://arxiv.org/abs/1412.2677 The preprint version of Christian's paper is also on arXiv http://arxiv.org/abs/1211.0784 Everyone can verify my claims for themselves

My New Year's Resolution is to leave this thread alone till I get word from IJTP. My paper was allocated to an editor on December 9. Today I sent a message that there is a better version of my paper (version 2: on arXiv) which might be helpful for the referees, http://arxiv.org/abs/1412.2677 The preprint version of Christian's paper is also on arXiv http://arxiv.org/abs/1211.0784 Everyone can verify my claims for themselves

Enter your reply below (Please read the **How To**)

Unregistered Submission:

( December 31st, 2014 6:14pm UTC )

Edit your feedback below

@Richard Gill

After lauding Caroline Thompson and acknowledging that the inadequacy of EPRB experiments (excluding a few recent ones, see below) is now mainstream, you commented that you remain certain that nonlocality will be experimentally proven. I am wondering:

a) What is the basis of this certainty? Is it just a matter of faith or is there a rational basis for it?

b) Two experiments have been recently performed with sufficient detection efficiency and low enough noise to be decisive: 1) Christensen et al, and 2) Giustina et al. The first has been shown to *confirm local realism* (when it is correctly interpreted/analyzed). The mistake in the Christensen analysis that leads them to erroneously claim a violation is an improper post-selection of the data, as described here: http://arxiv.org/abs/1409.5158. The second must be considered meaningless, because the authors will not make public the experimental data and their analysis thereof (are they well aware that their claim will not stand up to scrutiny?). We are therefore now in the position that the only decisive EPRB experiment confirms local realism. What is your response?

The foregoing should not be taken as supporting Joy Christian's position. In fact, as Dr. Gill shows, the proposed experiment cannot possibly show a violation. My position is the same as that of Thompson, Santos, etc.: valid experiments must conform local realism. The correct quantum prediction for EPRB must use the marginals and not the joint distribution. The experiments when properly interpreted and analysed disconfirm the quantum joint prediction. But this does not mean that quantum mechanics is wrong, just that the joint prediction is misapplied to separated measurement situations.

Are you amenable to another bet about whether the CH inequality will be violated in a valid experiment that is properly analyzed (within a reasonable timeframe)?

After lauding Caroline Thompson and acknowledging that the inadequacy of EPRB experiments (excluding a few recent ones, see below) is now mainstream, you commented that you remain certain that nonlocality will be experimentally proven. I am wondering:

a) What is the basis of this certainty? Is it just a matter of faith or is there a rational basis for it?

b) Two experiments have been recently performed with sufficient detection efficiency and low enough noise to be decisive: 1) Christensen et al, and 2) Giustina et al. The first has been shown to *confirm local realism* (when it is correctly interpreted/analyzed). The mistake in the Christensen analysis that leads them to erroneously claim a violation is an improper post-selection of the data, as described here: http://arxiv.org/abs/1409.5158. The second must be considered meaningless, because the authors will not make public the experimental data and their analysis thereof (are they well aware that their claim will not stand up to scrutiny?). We are therefore now in the position that the only decisive EPRB experiment confirms local realism. What is your response?

The foregoing should not be taken as supporting Joy Christian's position. In fact, as Dr. Gill shows, the proposed experiment cannot possibly show a violation. My position is the same as that of Thompson, Santos, etc.: valid experiments must conform local realism. The correct quantum prediction for EPRB must use the marginals and not the joint distribution. The experiments when properly interpreted and analysed disconfirm the quantum joint prediction. But this does not mean that quantum mechanics is wrong, just that the joint prediction is misapplied to separated measurement situations.

Are you amenable to another bet about whether the CH inequality will be violated in a valid experiment that is properly analyzed (within a reasonable timeframe)?

Peer 1:

( December 31st, 2014 8:40pm UTC )

Edit your feedback below

"In fact, as [M]r. Gill shows, the proposed experiment cannot possibly show a violation."

Mr. Gill shows no such thing. He simply miscalculates the upper bound on CHSH, because he has absolutely no understanding of the physical analysis presented in the published paper.

The correct derivation of the upper bound on CHSH for the proposed experiment is presented in the last appendix of this paper: http://arxiv.org/pdf/1211.0784.pdf . It shows a clear-cut violation of the CHSH inequality. The experiment will, in fact, also violate the CH inequality, as discussed in this paper: http://libertesphilosophica.info/blog/wp-content/uploads/2014/01/Book-Chapter.pdf .

Mr. Gill shows no such thing. He simply miscalculates the upper bound on CHSH, because he has absolutely no understanding of the physical analysis presented in the published paper.

The correct derivation of the upper bound on CHSH for the proposed experiment is presented in the last appendix of this paper: http://arxiv.org/pdf/1211.0784.pdf . It shows a clear-cut violation of the CHSH inequality. The experiment will, in fact, also violate the CH inequality, as discussed in this paper: http://libertesphilosophica.info/blog/wp-content/uploads/2014/01/Book-Chapter.pdf .

Unregistered Submission:

( December 31st, 2014 8:49pm UTC )

Edit your feedback below

"Unregistered Submission: ( December 31st, 2014 6:14pm UTC )

.... Are you amenable to another bet about whether the CH inequality will be violated in a valid experiment that is properly analyzed (within a reasonable timeframe)?"

"Peer 1: ( December 19th, 2014 11:42pm UTC )

.... The experiment will be done in complete secrecy, until the actual publication. After the publication every relevant fact will be made available on the Internet."

How can an experiment be regarded as valid if it's performed in secrecy and the data selectively released after the fact?

.... Are you amenable to another bet about whether the CH inequality will be violated in a valid experiment that is properly analyzed (within a reasonable timeframe)?"

"Peer 1: ( December 19th, 2014 11:42pm UTC )

.... The experiment will be done in complete secrecy, until the actual publication. After the publication every relevant fact will be made available on the Internet."

How can an experiment be regarded as valid if it's performed in secrecy and the data selectively released after the fact?

Peer 1:

( December 31st, 2014 9:15pm UTC )

Edit your feedback below

That is not for you to judge, but for the journal which decides to publish the results, and for the community which evaluates them afterwards. Besides, what makes you think that the data will be released "selectively"? And what makes you think that the data of other physics experiments have not been released selectively?

The reasons for secrecy for this particular experiment is for all to see in this very thread. You have no idea what underhand political tactics the Bell mafia have been using to prevent the publications of the author's work for the past seven and a half years --- you have absolutely no idea. Please check out some of the details here: http://libertesphilosophica.info/blog/ .

The reasons for secrecy for this particular experiment is for all to see in this very thread. You have no idea what underhand political tactics the Bell mafia have been using to prevent the publications of the author's work for the past seven and a half years --- you have absolutely no idea. Please check out some of the details here: http://libertesphilosophica.info/blog/ .

Unregistered Submission:

( December 31st, 2014 9:23pm UTC )

Edit your feedback below

"Peer 1: ( December 31st, 2014 9:15pm UTC )

... And what makes you think that the data of other physics experiments have not been released selectively?"

And, absent independent monitoring, the results need to be independently replicated before the experiment can be judged valid. If I were Dr. Gill I'd insist on that as a condition for any resumption of the wager.

... And what makes you think that the data of other physics experiments have not been released selectively?"

And, absent independent monitoring, the results need to be independently replicated before the experiment can be judged valid. If I were Dr. Gill I'd insist on that as a condition for any resumption of the wager.

Richard Gill:

( January 1st, 2015 10:09am UTC )

Edit your feedback below

Dear unregistered submitter

I definitely am not certain that "quantum non-locality" will be definitely proven in the near future. I do report that the present generation of top experimentalists do seem to be working towards this goal; it's a race, and there's a big prize at the end. They seem to believe they will get there soon. And they already are damned close. Last year, they finally closed all loopholes in separate experiments on the same physical system: polarisation entangled photons. Now they just need to do one experiment closing all at the same time. Which means: a bit bigger distance, a bit better detectors, a bit faster randomised settings, etc etc etc.

It would be amusing if they were beaten to it by a classical physics experiment with colourful exploding balls. But I am certain that that is not going to happen.

Still, the logical possibility, promoted for many years by Santos, that quantum mechanics itself will prevent a successful loophole-free experiment, remains open as a logical possibility with some physics support behind it (but not enough to become a "mainstream" opinion). Some years ago, I named this "Bell's fifth position", since Bell several times listed four possible positions to take regarding his work, but later (in correspondence with Santos) admitted that this fifth was certainly also logically feasible.

Bell's fifth position states that quantum uncertainty relations themselves could prevent that a sufficiently entangled quantum state between (some quantum feature of) two well-localised and distant and rapidly-measurable physical systems can be "engineered" to order. In other words, quantum mechanics itself might prevent the kind of "spooky interactions at a distance", called "passion at a distance" by Shimony, which, if we would ever observe them, would definitively disprove (well - as far as an experiment disproves anything) the existence of a "classical world" (a classical explanation) behind the quantum phenomena.

Your interesting posting causes me to break my New year's Resolution already! I have to revise it: I will only respond to sensible contributions to the discussion here, and not repeat myself or fall into the temptation of name-calling.

Happy New Year! Maybe the year of the experiment of the century?

PS *if* Christian's experiment gets done, *and* the data is analysed precisely according to his own already published instructions, and *if* the four correlations of the CHSH-Bell test criterion are then all above 0.6 in absolute value (three negative, one positive; or three positive, one negative), *then* Christian gets 5000 Euro from me. Moreover I will have to withdraw quite a few publications, and eat my hat ...

However, since such a result is a *logical* impossibility, which is the point of my critique of the paper under discussion right now, it is pretty safe for me to say all this.

Christian was not even able to simulate data (in the format which would result from his experiment when performed according to *his* published instructions), such that when also analysed according to the instructions *he* wrote in his paper, this would be the case. There was 10 000 Euro on offer for that task (deadline, last June, now past).

Post deadline, 5 000 Euro is still on offer.

There have been several claims but no successful one yet. As there never can be.

You can find 6 different attempts by Christian here: http://rpubs.com/jjc

It is an amusing student exercise to figure out what is wrong with each one.

I definitely am not certain that "quantum non-locality" will be definitely proven in the near future. I do report that the present generation of top experimentalists do seem to be working towards this goal; it's a race, and there's a big prize at the end. They seem to believe they will get there soon. And they already are damned close. Last year, they finally closed all loopholes in separate experiments on the same physical system: polarisation entangled photons. Now they just need to do one experiment closing all at the same time. Which means: a bit bigger distance, a bit better detectors, a bit faster randomised settings, etc etc etc.

It would be amusing if they were beaten to it by a classical physics experiment with colourful exploding balls. But I am certain that that is not going to happen.

Still, the logical possibility, promoted for many years by Santos, that quantum mechanics itself will prevent a successful loophole-free experiment, remains open as a logical possibility with some physics support behind it (but not enough to become a "mainstream" opinion). Some years ago, I named this "Bell's fifth position", since Bell several times listed four possible positions to take regarding his work, but later (in correspondence with Santos) admitted that this fifth was certainly also logically feasible.

Bell's fifth position states that quantum uncertainty relations themselves could prevent that a sufficiently entangled quantum state between (some quantum feature of) two well-localised and distant and rapidly-measurable physical systems can be "engineered" to order. In other words, quantum mechanics itself might prevent the kind of "spooky interactions at a distance", called "passion at a distance" by Shimony, which, if we would ever observe them, would definitively disprove (well - as far as an experiment disproves anything) the existence of a "classical world" (a classical explanation) behind the quantum phenomena.

Your interesting posting causes me to break my New year's Resolution already! I have to revise it: I will only respond to sensible contributions to the discussion here, and not repeat myself or fall into the temptation of name-calling.

Happy New Year! Maybe the year of the experiment of the century?

PS *if* Christian's experiment gets done, *and* the data is analysed precisely according to his own already published instructions, and *if* the four correlations of the CHSH-Bell test criterion are then all above 0.6 in absolute value (three negative, one positive; or three positive, one negative), *then* Christian gets 5000 Euro from me. Moreover I will have to withdraw quite a few publications, and eat my hat ...

However, since such a result is a *logical* impossibility, which is the point of my critique of the paper under discussion right now, it is pretty safe for me to say all this.

Christian was not even able to simulate data (in the format which would result from his experiment when performed according to *his* published instructions), such that when also analysed according to the instructions *he* wrote in his paper, this would be the case. There was 10 000 Euro on offer for that task (deadline, last June, now past).

Post deadline, 5 000 Euro is still on offer.

There have been several claims but no successful one yet. As there never can be.

You can find 6 different attempts by Christian here: http://rpubs.com/jjc

It is an amusing student exercise to figure out what is wrong with each one.

Unregistered Submission:

( January 1st, 2015 3:29pm UTC )

Edit your feedback below

Thank you for your reply and have a joyful and prosperous 2015. I noticed you passed over the demonstration that the Christensen experiment actually confirms local realism (Giustina et al is meaningless because they hide their data and analysis), and continue to make the unsupported claim that all that is now needed is for the demonstrations of violation to be done in a single experiment. Yet, as I have shown, there is no violation of CH in the Christensen experiment. Would you be kind enough to comment on this specifically? Thank you.

Also, I'm aware of your "fifth position" but I find it unsatisfying. I prefer my first position defined by:

a. The quantum joint prediction cannot be recovered in an experiment with separated (marginal) measurements, just as for classical probability. Quantum mechanics does not predict a violation of CH!

b. Valid experiments properly interpreted do not violate the CH inequality and therefore confirm local realism.

c. That does not mean quantum mechanics is wrong. The correct quantum mechanics prediction for an EPRB experiment must use the marginals and not the joint distribution. The essence of quantum mechanics is just fine; we need only to be careful about separated measurement situations, just as we are in classical probability theory. Just as we would not blindly expect the joint prediction to apply in the presence of heavy decoherence, we should not expect it to apply in a case of separated measurement. Surely, as a statistician this must be obvious to you.

Do you find anything inconsistent or wrong with this?

Also, I'm aware of your "fifth position" but I find it unsatisfying. I prefer my first position defined by:

a. The quantum joint prediction cannot be recovered in an experiment with separated (marginal) measurements, just as for classical probability. Quantum mechanics does not predict a violation of CH!

b. Valid experiments properly interpreted do not violate the CH inequality and therefore confirm local realism.

c. That does not mean quantum mechanics is wrong. The correct quantum mechanics prediction for an EPRB experiment must use the marginals and not the joint distribution. The essence of quantum mechanics is just fine; we need only to be careful about separated measurement situations, just as we are in classical probability theory. Just as we would not blindly expect the joint prediction to apply in the presence of heavy decoherence, we should not expect it to apply in a case of separated measurement. Surely, as a statistician this must be obvious to you.

Do you find anything inconsistent or wrong with this?

Unregistered Submission:

( January 1st, 2015 3:36pm UTC )

Edit your feedback below

I wrote a long reply but on submission the forum timed out and lost my text! Wonderful.

OK, instead of retyping it, I simply ask why you ignored my demonstration that the Christensen et al experiment actually confirms local realism. Do you find any problem with it? If not, why do you continue to claim that all we need is to combine things in a single experiment? Which experiment do you cite as demonstrating a violation of CH? I know that you are aware that the CH inequality in contrast to CHSH eliminates the detection loophole, and that now that the detection efficiency has reached 75% valid experiments are now possible.

Thanks for your reply and have a great 2015.

OK, instead of retyping it, I simply ask why you ignored my demonstration that the Christensen et al experiment actually confirms local realism. Do you find any problem with it? If not, why do you continue to claim that all we need is to combine things in a single experiment? Which experiment do you cite as demonstrating a violation of CH? I know that you are aware that the CH inequality in contrast to CHSH eliminates the detection loophole, and that now that the detection efficiency has reached 75% valid experiments are now possible.

Thanks for your reply and have a great 2015.

Richard Gill:

( January 1st, 2015 4:29pm UTC )

Edit your feedback below

Ah, Unregistered Submitter, thanks for your comments.

The last I heard (talks at Växjö, June 2014) was that, analysed appropriately and properly, *both* the Christensen et al. and the Giustina et al. experiments do just manage to violate appropriate bounds. There is not just CHSH and CH, there is also Larssen corrected-for-detection-loophole CHSH, Larssen-Gill corrected-for-coincidence-loophole CHSH, and moreover one can analyse the same experimental data in different ways, e.g. impose fixed coincidence windows instead of letting the arrival times determine the coincidence windows. (In fact, CH is just CHSH, but with non-detections merged with one of the two "real" measurement outcomes, so that there is a binary outcome, every time). But anyway, these two experiments have the two measurement stations too close together compared to the speed of the measurement (time between generation of a new random measurement setting and commitment to a measurement outcome), so they are both subject to the "locality loophole". OK you may say, we just reel out a few more hundred meters of glass fibre on a large enough campus, and then we're OK. However it is not just the detectors' efficiency which counts, it is the efficiency of the total system. Some photons will get lost during transmission and the longer the distance, the more that will be.

I will check this with someone more knowledgeable than myself.

The last I heard (talks at Växjö, June 2014) was that, analysed appropriately and properly, *both* the Christensen et al. and the Giustina et al. experiments do just manage to violate appropriate bounds. There is not just CHSH and CH, there is also Larssen corrected-for-detection-loophole CHSH, Larssen-Gill corrected-for-coincidence-loophole CHSH, and moreover one can analyse the same experimental data in different ways, e.g. impose fixed coincidence windows instead of letting the arrival times determine the coincidence windows. (In fact, CH is just CHSH, but with non-detections merged with one of the two "real" measurement outcomes, so that there is a binary outcome, every time). But anyway, these two experiments have the two measurement stations too close together compared to the speed of the measurement (time between generation of a new random measurement setting and commitment to a measurement outcome), so they are both subject to the "locality loophole". OK you may say, we just reel out a few more hundred meters of glass fibre on a large enough campus, and then we're OK. However it is not just the detectors' efficiency which counts, it is the efficiency of the total system. Some photons will get lost during transmission and the longer the distance, the more that will be.

I will check this with someone more knowledgeable than myself.

Unregistered Submission:

( January 1st, 2015 4:39pm UTC )

Edit your feedback below

Read my paper. It is very clear and clearly shows illegitimate post-selection. Decide for yourself!

Richard Gill:

( January 1st, 2015 4:43pm UTC )

Edit your feedback below

Dear Unregistered Submitter, your long post with (a) (b) and (c) has turned up after all. I don't agree with you but perhaps we should discuss by email or at some suitable other forum or blog. QM tells us *joint* probabilities of the measurement outcomes of any two particular measurements, one on each of the two components of a bipartite system in any given state. The problem with the experiments is actually engineering things so that you do have a bipartite quantum system, living in two pre-chosen distant and well-localized (in time and space) regions, which can both be measured rapidly, independently of one another, with rapidly and locally chosen measurement settings. Whether you use CH or CHSH (as long as you use some appropriate modification to take care of detection loophole) is not a big deal. The coincidence loophole is not a big deal either; you can correct for it, or it is gone altogether if you use a pre-fixed grid of time intervals to determine which events belong together, which don't. As far as I know, Giustina et al and Christensen et al. were so close to violating a good bound, that whether or not they actually did is not so important -- with some small improvements, they will be able to do so. No reason to suppose that small improvements are not possible. What is difficult to know, is whether the necessary *big* improvements are possible, e.g. get the two measurement stations a whole lot further away from one another. The detectors are maybe good enough but the glass fibre cables also absorb photons, and the time of arrival gets more randomly spread out, the longer the distance they travel.

Unregistered Submission:

( January 1st, 2015 4:55pm UTC )

Edit your feedback below

Whether the experiment showed a violation or not is "not so important"? Are you kidding? The experiment decisively confirms local realism. The locality loophole is not an issue if the experiment doesn't show a violation in a local experiment. Nevertheless, I will create a new thread here to discuss my demonstration of Christensen et al's illegitimate post-selection. I hope you will participate in it.

Peer 8:

( January 1st, 2015 5:16pm UTC )

Edit your feedback below

My new thread can be found by searching for arXiv:1409.5158
(https://pubpeer.com/publications/E0F8384FC19A6034E86D516D03BB38).
The paper is currently under submission and is in peer review, so any feedback will be useful for me and I will be grateful for it.

Unregistered Submission:

( January 1st, 2015 5:37pm UTC )

Edit your feedback below

"PS *if* Christian's experiment gets done, *and* the data is analysed precisely according to his own already published instructions, and *if* the four correlations of the CHSH-Bell test criterion are then all above 0.6 in absolute value (three negative, one positive; or three positive, one negative),..."

Let's revisit the record of Gill's widespread negative proclamations: IF Christian's work has substance, his program can be simulated on a classical computer. (It was.) IF Christian can get peer reviewed and published, one ought to take his research seriously. (He has been reviewed and published.) IF the experiment gets done ... etc, etc.

Gill knows, and fears, that physics does not obey his logical inferences derived from linear algebra and statistics. With just the added degree of topological freedom afforded by the spacetime signature + + + - or - - - +, Gill's Aristotelian logic fails to deliver the strong quantum correlations that we actually observe, IF the function is analytical; i.e., a measurement function continuous from the initial condition and not probabilistic.

IF Gill understood analysis and topology, he would understand that the proposed experiment tests the connection between local reality and global structure. IF the topological connection is simple (classically smooth) and not multiple (quantum probabilistic), local and global domains are not separated by any boundary greater than measure zero. THEN the geometry of a 4-dimension pythagorean theorem corresponds to the parallelized 3-sphere. This is clearly spelled out in Joy's theorema egregium: "Every quantum mechanical correlation among a set of measurement results, A = +/- 1, B = +/- 1, C = +/- 1, etc., can be understood as a classical, local-realistic correlation among a set of points of a parallelized 7-sphere." The 7-sphere is the limit of division algebras (S^0, S^1,S^3,S^7), and Christian's description could not be clearer: "In the language of fiber bundles one can view the 7-sphere as a 4-sphere worth of 3-spheres. Each fiber of the 7-sphere is then a 3-sphere and each one of these 3-spheres is a 2-sphere's worth of circles. Thus the 4 parallelizable spheres -- S^0, S^1, S^3 and S^7 -- can all be viewed as nested within a 7-sphere. The EPR-Bohm correlations can then be understood as correlations among the equatorial points of one of the fibers of this 7-sphere ..." (Disproof of Bell's Theorem, p. 293) This is physically testable in ordinary space.

Christian's measure space is logically closed and well defined. Gill's space is neither closed nor defined.

One has to have some minimal background in, or at least elemental understanding of, differential geometry and topology to grasp the difference between Gill's algebraic-probabilistic model and Christian's topological-analytical model. They are entirely different things, even though Gill has repeatedly tried, procrustean-style, to fit Christian's program into his own erroneous notions.

Let's revisit the record of Gill's widespread negative proclamations: IF Christian's work has substance, his program can be simulated on a classical computer. (It was.) IF Christian can get peer reviewed and published, one ought to take his research seriously. (He has been reviewed and published.) IF the experiment gets done ... etc, etc.

Gill knows, and fears, that physics does not obey his logical inferences derived from linear algebra and statistics. With just the added degree of topological freedom afforded by the spacetime signature + + + - or - - - +, Gill's Aristotelian logic fails to deliver the strong quantum correlations that we actually observe, IF the function is analytical; i.e., a measurement function continuous from the initial condition and not probabilistic.

IF Gill understood analysis and topology, he would understand that the proposed experiment tests the connection between local reality and global structure. IF the topological connection is simple (classically smooth) and not multiple (quantum probabilistic), local and global domains are not separated by any boundary greater than measure zero. THEN the geometry of a 4-dimension pythagorean theorem corresponds to the parallelized 3-sphere. This is clearly spelled out in Joy's theorema egregium: "Every quantum mechanical correlation among a set of measurement results, A = +/- 1, B = +/- 1, C = +/- 1, etc., can be understood as a classical, local-realistic correlation among a set of points of a parallelized 7-sphere." The 7-sphere is the limit of division algebras (S^0, S^1,S^3,S^7), and Christian's description could not be clearer: "In the language of fiber bundles one can view the 7-sphere as a 4-sphere worth of 3-spheres. Each fiber of the 7-sphere is then a 3-sphere and each one of these 3-spheres is a 2-sphere's worth of circles. Thus the 4 parallelizable spheres -- S^0, S^1, S^3 and S^7 -- can all be viewed as nested within a 7-sphere. The EPR-Bohm correlations can then be understood as correlations among the equatorial points of one of the fibers of this 7-sphere ..." (Disproof of Bell's Theorem, p. 293) This is physically testable in ordinary space.

Christian's measure space is logically closed and well defined. Gill's space is neither closed nor defined.

One has to have some minimal background in, or at least elemental understanding of, differential geometry and topology to grasp the difference between Gill's algebraic-probabilistic model and Christian's topological-analytical model. They are entirely different things, even though Gill has repeatedly tried, procrustean-style, to fit Christian's program into his own erroneous notions.

Richard Gill:

( January 1st, 2015 5:55pm UTC )

Edit your feedback below

Thanks, Peer 8. High time for a new and serious discussion!

Enter your reply below (Please read the **How To**)

Unregistered Submission:

( December 31st, 2014 9:13pm UTC )

Edit your feedback below

Joy, if you are going to quote me directly within quotation marks, do not alter my text! That you do so seems to me to further underline your lack of integrity and civilized discourse. If you want to insult Dr. Gill feel free but don't attribute it to me. Thank you.

Peer 1:

( January 1st, 2015 11:40am UTC )

Edit your feedback below

Joy to you too!

Integrity and civilized discourse are overrated. Those so-called "scientists" who pretend "integrity" and engage superficially in "civilized discourse" are the very ones who behind the scenes are behaving in the most appalling and revolting manner. Take my word for it. I have seen the dark underbelly of the academia up-close-and-personal for a very long time.

Integrity and civilized discourse are overrated. Those so-called "scientists" who pretend "integrity" and engage superficially in "civilized discourse" are the very ones who behind the scenes are behaving in the most appalling and revolting manner. Take my word for it. I have seen the dark underbelly of the academia up-close-and-personal for a very long time.

Unregistered Submission:

( January 1st, 2015 3:40pm UTC )

Edit your feedback below

And that gives you the right to fraudulently modify my words when quoting them. Thank you for your explanation. I'm sure all will recognize and applaud its cogency.

Peer 1:

( January 1st, 2015 4:01pm UTC )

Edit your feedback below

What???

Your words have *not* been modified, fraudulently or otherwise. What I quoted from your post was in complete accordance with the common literary practice of correcting a mistake in the original sentence. Anyone knowledgeable enough of this practice can easily see this. Here is the quotation again, which corrects a mistake in a single word of yours. See it for yourself:

"In fact, as [M]r. Gill shows, the proposed experiment cannot possibly show a violation."

Your words have *not* been modified, fraudulently or otherwise. What I quoted from your post was in complete accordance with the common literary practice of correcting a mistake in the original sentence. Anyone knowledgeable enough of this practice can easily see this. Here is the quotation again, which corrects a mistake in a single word of yours. See it for yourself:

"In fact, as [M]r. Gill shows, the proposed experiment cannot possibly show a violation."

Richard Gill:

( January 1st, 2015 4:10pm UTC )

Edit your feedback below

Peer 1 calls me "Mr" instead of "Dr" because he knows I got the Diploma of Statistics ("with distinction") at Cambridge University, UK, in 1974, a year after my Cambridge bachelor degree ("first class") in mathematics. I actually studied physics and mathematics and Dutch. He is apparently unaware of my PhD degree in mathematics in 1979, Free University, Amsterdam.

My thesis "Censoring and Stochastic Integrals" was re-published the next year as a monograph of the Mathematical Centre, Amsterdam, http://www.math.leidenuniv.nl/~gill/MC_Tract_124.pdf, and has got cited about 750 times since then, according to Google Scholar.

Over at http://challengingbell.blogspot.nl/2014/12/joy-christians-macroscopic-experiment.html, someone who is probably the real Joy Christian now calls me "Osama-Gill-Laden". He seems rather pissed off.

But all this is pretty irrelevant. The reader just needs to read the criticism in my note, submitted to IJTP, http://arxiv.org/abs/1412.2677

The preprint version of Christian's IJTP paper is also on arXiv, http://arxiv.org/abs/1211.0784 so everyone can verify my claims for themselves

My thesis "Censoring and Stochastic Integrals" was re-published the next year as a monograph of the Mathematical Centre, Amsterdam, http://www.math.leidenuniv.nl/~gill/MC_Tract_124.pdf, and has got cited about 750 times since then, according to Google Scholar.

Over at http://challengingbell.blogspot.nl/2014/12/joy-christians-macroscopic-experiment.html, someone who is probably the real Joy Christian now calls me "Osama-Gill-Laden". He seems rather pissed off.

But all this is pretty irrelevant. The reader just needs to read the criticism in my note, submitted to IJTP, http://arxiv.org/abs/1412.2677

The preprint version of Christian's IJTP paper is also on arXiv, http://arxiv.org/abs/1211.0784 so everyone can verify my claims for themselves

Unregistered Submission:

( January 1st, 2015 4:20pm UTC )

Edit your feedback below

That is not common practice and I did not make a mistake. You can add a [sic] if you like and explain what you think is wrong, but you cannot simply change my words within quotations. You've acknowledged that you believe integrity is overrated, so I will leave the readers to draw appropriate conclusions about your motives and methods.

Peer 1:

( January 1st, 2015 4:34pm UTC )

Edit your feedback below

Well, I wouldn't be surprised if you planted those posts as well, Mr. Gill, since you have a habit of doing so.

Enter your reply below (Please read the **How To**)

Peer 5:

( January 1st, 2015 6:03pm UTC )

Edit your feedback below

Peer 1, you should stop accusing Profs. Aaronson and Gill of planting posts in Joy Christian's name all over the internet, since this gives the impression that you are a pathologically paranoid lunatic.

Peer 1:

( January 1st, 2015 6:21pm UTC )

Edit your feedback below

I will continue to expose the underhand unethical tactics of Aaronson and Gill, such as the fact that they have (at least in the past) planted posts on the Internet in other people's name.

Enter your reply below (Please read the **How To**)

Unregistered Submission:

( January 2nd, 2015 1:33am UTC )

Edit your feedback below

The pub peer forum is misused to settle some personal problems which is unfair. Please discuss the science of the paper titled, "Macroscopic Observability of Spinorial Sign Changes under 2π Rotations" and stop this cheap GOSSIP, personal fights. Many (more than 80%) of the comments in this thread have nothing to do with the science.

Peer 1:

( January 2nd, 2015 11:59am UTC )

Edit your feedback below

The science of the published paper is discussed in very simple, non-technical terms here: http://www.sciphysicsforums.com/spfbb1/viewtopic.php?f=6&t=115#p3763 .

The main criticism of the published paper stems from a confusion between the *practical* experimental procedure of evaluating the correlation as spelt out in section 4, and the *theoretical* prediction of the correlation in section 5 based on the actual *physics* behind the correlation discussed in the first three sections. Thus the criticism, apart from stemming from elementary algebraic errors, is completely missing or misrepresenting the main argument of the paper (see also the last appendix of this paper: http://arxiv.org/pdf/1211.0784.pdf ).

The main criticism of the published paper stems from a confusion between the *practical* experimental procedure of evaluating the correlation as spelt out in section 4, and the *theoretical* prediction of the correlation in section 5 based on the actual *physics* behind the correlation discussed in the first three sections. Thus the criticism, apart from stemming from elementary algebraic errors, is completely missing or misrepresenting the main argument of the paper (see also the last appendix of this paper: http://arxiv.org/pdf/1211.0784.pdf ).

Unregistered Submission:

( January 2nd, 2015 1:10pm UTC )

Edit your feedback below

Please do discuss the science, "unregistered submitter". Please, check yourself the claim made in the initial submision, and report back here whether it seems valid or not.

Peer 1:

( January 3rd, 2015 9:36am UTC )

Edit your feedback below

I have checked the claims made in the initial submission and found them to be misguided. It appears that the critic has failed to understand the argument presented in the original paper.

Unregistered Submission:

( January 4th, 2015 11:11am UTC )

Edit your feedback below

If the appearence that the critic has failed to understand the argument is correct, can we infer that the paper presents the argument so badly that it can't be understood with a reasonable effort?

Peer 1:

( January 4th, 2015 3:59pm UTC )

Edit your feedback below

No, we cannot.

The argument presented in the paper has been understood perfectly well by the referees, the distinguished editors, and the august editorial board members of IJTP which approved the publication of the paper. The argument presented in the paper has also been understood perfectly well by some well known experts in the foundations of physics, such as Lucian Hardy of Perimeter Institute, Canada. Even the experimentalists who are currently attempting to realize the proposed experiment have not failed to appreciate the cogency of the argument presented in the published paper. Thus it is quite clear that the failure of the critic to understand the argument presented in the published paper stems entirely from his own lack of background in physics and mathematics. After all, he is a statistician, not a theoretical physicist or a proper mathematician, which is evident from the elementary algebraic errors in his unpublished preprints that tries to criticise the published paper.

The argument presented in the paper has been understood perfectly well by the referees, the distinguished editors, and the august editorial board members of IJTP which approved the publication of the paper. The argument presented in the paper has also been understood perfectly well by some well known experts in the foundations of physics, such as Lucian Hardy of Perimeter Institute, Canada. Even the experimentalists who are currently attempting to realize the proposed experiment have not failed to appreciate the cogency of the argument presented in the published paper. Thus it is quite clear that the failure of the critic to understand the argument presented in the published paper stems entirely from his own lack of background in physics and mathematics. After all, he is a statistician, not a theoretical physicist or a proper mathematician, which is evident from the elementary algebraic errors in his unpublished preprints that tries to criticise the published paper.

Unregistered Submission:

( January 4th, 2015 4:20pm UTC )

Edit your feedback below

If the experiment, once conducted, fails to produce the result Dr. Christian anticipates will we ever be told?

Enter your reply below (Please read the **How To**)

Unregistered Submission:

( January 4th, 2015 5:02pm UTC )

Edit your feedback below

To anyone trying to understand this debate, in this simulation

http://rpubs.com/jjc/16567

linked by Peer 1 in one the posts above, this line

good <- abs(ua) > f & abs(ub)

is obviously non-local: it involves a logical "AND" between functions of the angle choices at both detectors.

Insisting that this is a local realistic simulation of the EPR experiment is pure temper tantrum!

http://rpubs.com/jjc/16567

linked by Peer 1 in one the posts above, this line

good <- abs(ua) > f & abs(ub)

is obviously non-local: it involves a logical "AND" between functions of the angle choices at both detectors.

Insisting that this is a local realistic simulation of the EPR experiment is pure temper tantrum!

Peer 8:

( January 4th, 2015 6:44pm UTC )

Edit your feedback below

It does look suspicious. And that is why the Randi-like challenges specify separate computers for the two sides. We could compromise while remaining honest and use separate processes on a single machine. Even a single process would be OK if it lacks obvious swindles.

I'd have to take a further look at the code to verify my understanding, but really, why bother? It is possible that it is still legitimate, given other assumptions that may be borne out in the code. For example, if the subclauses represent the actual detections, and the AND is part of a correlation calculation, then it is only a matter of convenience that it is all condensed into one line. I'm not saying that is the case here.

I'd have to take a further look at the code to verify my understanding, but really, why bother? It is possible that it is still legitimate, given other assumptions that may be borne out in the code. For example, if the subclauses represent the actual detections, and the AND is part of a correlation calculation, then it is only a matter of convenience that it is all condensed into one line. I'm not saying that is the case here.

Peer 1:

( January 4th, 2015 7:25pm UTC )

Edit your feedback below

It is quite evident that the unregistered submitter above is unaware of what is meant by "local" within the context of Bell's theorem. I would suggest actually reading at least one of the papers by Bell himself, even just his famous 1964 paper, before declaring anything "temper tantrum." One cannot just jump into a discussion about Bell's theorem without knowing anything about it, even if one has spent 40 years as a computer programmer.

Unregistered Submission:

( January 4th, 2015 7:42pm UTC )

Edit your feedback below

The "Randi-Like challenge" -- which has nothing to do with professional skeptic Amazing Randi -- is the biggest hoax in the quantum theory community. Peer 8 fails to understand the meaning of S^3 topology and its relation to local measurement.

Unregistered Submission:

( January 5th, 2015 10:27am UTC )

Edit your feedback below

"It is quite evident that the unregistered submitter above is unaware of what is meant by "local" within the context of Bell's theorem."

There is no evdience to judge that unregister submitter's understanding. Perhaps it was just a lucky guess, perhaps a reflection of better understanding than Peer 1's. Anyway, it looks suspicious, as Peer 8 correctly observed, and no proof of correct simulation of locality (in any sense of the word) is presented.

There is no evdience to judge that unregister submitter's understanding. Perhaps it was just a lucky guess, perhaps a reflection of better understanding than Peer 1's. Anyway, it looks suspicious, as Peer 8 correctly observed, and no proof of correct simulation of locality (in any sense of the word) is presented.

Peer 1:

( January 5th, 2015 1:19pm UTC )

Edit your feedback below

Luck has nothing to do with it. It is abundantly clear to anyone knowledgeable enough in the subject that the unregistered submitter is quite ignorant of what is meant by "local" within the context of Bell's work. His last assertion is therefore simply false.

Enter your reply below (Please read the **How To**)

Richard Gill:

( January 4th, 2015 6:36pm UTC )

Edit your feedback below

Permalink

PS: For a refutation of the commentator's recent claims see: http://arxiv.org/abs/1501.03393 , http://rpubs.com/jjc/84238 , and http://arxiv.org/abs/1103.1879 .

For the latest developments *independently* validating the author's results, see also:

http://challengingbell.blogspot.co.uk/2015/03/numerical-validation-of-vanishing-of_30.html

http://challengingbell.blogspot.co.uk/2015/03/numerical-validation-of-vanishing-of.html

http://web.archive.org/web/20150123015323/http://psnively.github.io/blog/2015/01/22/Fallacy/ , http://libertesphilosophica.info/blog/ ,

https://www.academia.edu/19235737/Macroscopic_Observability_of_Spinorial_Sign_Changes_A_Simplified_Proof , https://libertesphilosophica.academia.edu/JoyChristian/Papers

Permalink

## Are you sure you want to delete your feedback?

For example: http://www.scottaaronson.com/blog/?p=1028

Permalink

## Are you sure you want to delete your feedback?

Permalink

## Are you sure you want to delete your feedback?

Permalink

## Are you sure you want to delete your feedback?

Permalink

## Are you sure you want to delete your feedback?

Another way to see the utter silliness of the claim by the commentator is to recognize that if his claim were true, then even quantum mechanics cannot violate Bell inequality.

For further details, see http://libertesphilosophica.info/blog/ .

Permalink

## Are you sure you want to delete your feedback?

Permalink

## Are you sure you want to delete your feedback?

Permalink

## Are you sure you want to delete your feedback?

The continuous locally real measurement function is the exact context in which Bell introduced what is known as Bell's theorem, and it's why he chose the analytical tool of inequality in the first place. Christian's paper explains this quite well, as he shows in appendix C -- by independently deriving Tsirelson's bound (2/2) -- that because all binary correlations obey this analytical (i.e., covariant) limit, the non vanishing torsion of parallelized 3-sphere accounts for and reproduces quantum mechanical violations of Bell's inequality, in the local realistic measure space.

As Christian said from the very beginning, it is only the wrong choice of topology that keeps Bell from having a local realistic measurement. Statistical correlations derived by experiment, and based on Tsirelson's bound, demonstrate the mathematical completeness of Christian's framework without a random probabilistic interpretation that denies local realism -- because the geometric correlations are indifferent to boundaries of scale and are independent of time.

Time-limited discrete data sets of the type Richard demands, are not sufficient to disprove local realism, because they assume nonlocal measure. Bell's theorem cannot be proven absent this assumption, and Bell-Aspect type experiments end up proving their own assumption without correspondence to an independent mathematical model.

Permalink

## Are you sure you want to delete your feedback?

So for once, it seem that the interests of Christian and his critics are aligned, and that the critics should be to loudest proponents of having somebody perform his experiment and settle the matter once and forever. If the experient fails they will shut up Christian. If the experiment succeeds Christian will shut them up. And in either case, science will be well-served because we will be using nature, not any human being, as the final arbiter of what is scientifically true and what is not.

Jay R. Yablon, saying what Galileo would say if he was alive today.

Permalink

## Are you sure you want to delete your feedback?

I agree that the experiment ought to be done. However it is unlikely to be done for the reason I gave in my initial posting. In the experiment, N colourful balls, time and time again, explode and fly apart through the air (or space) as two spinning hemispheres. A battery of video cameras film them. Advanced image analysis software creates a reconstruction of their motions. This classical computer processing generates, for each pair of hemispheres, two real 3-vectors representing the (classical) angular momenta of the two hemispheres at some chosen moment. The signs of the projections of the two angular momenta onto a large number of spatial directions are calculated (ie sign of inner products of pairs of 3-vectors). Finally correlations are calculated, for each pair of directions, as the sum of products of the signs divided by N.

These correlations satisfy Bell's inequality, as a matter of elementary algebra. See "Fact 1" and "Fact 2" in Section 2 of http://arxiv.org/pdf/1207.5103v5.pdf (to appear in the next number of "Statistical Science".). See Theorem 1 for the variant in which each correlation is computed on a randomly selected, disjoint, subset of pairs of hemispheres.

The problem is that in Joy's experiment, the binary spin measurement is actually performed in all possible directions, on both particles, altogether, in each run of the experiment. This is rather different from the situation in Bell type experiments where the spin of each particle can only be measured in one (randomly chosen) direction.

Richard Gill

Permalink

## Are you sure you want to delete your feedback?

Permalink

## Are you sure you want to delete your feedback?

Locality plus realism in the classical view is the experience of time continuous with space, and not as Gill claims, time independent of space. That is, causal influences do not propagate consistent with linear algebra; causality is the property of least action without boundaries of scale -- as Einstein averred, all physics is local. If one were to ask for the origin of the big bang event, for example, one would find it to be at every point of the 4 dimension Minkowski space, and not a nonlocal point some place distant. Feynman's path integrals express locality in this same static model of least action.

"Realism and freedom" says Gill, " are directly connected to statistical thinking on causality: they relate to counterfactual reasoning, and to randomisation, respectively."

So realism is counterfactual, and freedom is random, according to Gill. From where does he derive his conclusion? -- not from an independent mathematical model; rather, from Bell-Aspect experimental data which begs its own conclusion: the realism of the experiment, with the freedom of the experimenter to choose her direction of causality, identical to the direction of time. The mathematical model is guaranteed incomplete, therefore, by the shell game character of this reasoning -- i.e., the a posteriori analysis (statistical post-selection, in Gill's terms) of which data stream contains the pea. The pea will not be found under any shell that is observed; therefore, realism is counterfactual and freedom is random. This circular argument that can lead nowhere except to an observer-created reality.

If reality is observer-created and counterfactual, then, how can freedom be random? This is the point that conventional quantum theory starts to sound like post-modernist screed. There's no escaping the existential dilemma. (The poet Delmore Schwartz described existentialism as meaning that "No one can take a bath for you." That's a good example of a true statement without physical meaning, and in the same class of those statements by quantum theorists that only sound physical if one does not look for the actual physics.)

Randomization in Joy Christian's framework is classical:

Among the more brilliant aspects of his measurement model, is its ability to include time without analytical time dependence. That is, the non-vanishing topological torsion of parallelized 3-sphere guarantees correlation of spatial points, from an initial condition, as a continuous function of topological transformation absent boundaries of scale (relativistically speaking, without time-like or space-like separation between correlated elements). A little explosion will contain the same correlation criteria as the big explosion at the cosmological boundary -- why? -- because the hidden variable is Nature's choice of handedness, the spinorial properties of space, as this little paper explains.

Random quantum theorists taking random baths and concluding that the universe is made of random acts, hardly brings us any closer to the "thoughts of the Old One," as Einstein put it. If quantum theorists believe that the world has no objective freedom of its own, they are only imprisoning themselves, without any prospect of escape. This belief, however, has no relation to the meaning of local reality. Bad philosophy does not make good science.

Permalink

## Are you sure you want to delete your feedback?

Is it possible to recognize that whithot violating sound logic? Without a proof the claim is closer to incredible than obvious.

Permalink

## Are you sure you want to delete your feedback?

Permalink

## Are you sure you want to delete your feedback?

Permalink

## Are you sure you want to delete your feedback?

How To)## Are you sure you want to delete your feedback?