Classical Spheres, Division Algebras, and the Illusion of Quantum Non-locality:

Richard Gill

Here is some fascinating goal-post moving going on. Joy writes "What remains for me is to extract these N vectors to a file and do the calculations of the four correlations myself. Once I finish these calculations according to my own correct specification linked above, I will submit my calculations to the mutually agreed adjudicators."

He forgets that he and Gill made a very clear agreement what was going to be done when, by whom. First a file is submitted by Joy. Then Gill does a calculation following formulas agreed by Gill and Christian in writing. If Gill and Christian agree we are done. Only if they disagree are adjudicators called in. They adjudicate on the basis of the written agreement drawn up by Gill and Christian, posted in several places on internet, ... an agreement freely agreed by both to them, without any undue pressure from anyone else.

If this procedure is followed, and if it leads to victory by Joy, then Joy may claim victory and claim 10 000 Euro (and he will get it too, as well as apologies and a whole lot more besides).

I find this interesting new development shedding an unpleasant new light on the character of the other person involved in the agreement with me. I hope he realizes that he is jumping ahead a bit too fast and causing a lot of discredit to himself by these careless words.

Joy Christian

Relax, Richard. Don't worry. I have won already. I have generated the "impossible" 2 x N vectors that produce the strong correlations. It is right here for all to see: http://rpubs.com/jjc/16415. This is what you have been demanding. Please do check out the last plot of the simulation to recognize that none of the four correlations, namely

E(0, 45) = - 0.7071...,

E(0, 135) = 0.7071...,

E(90, 45) = - 0.7071...,

and

E(90, 135) = - 0.7071....,

when calculated separately without replacement, deviate by more or less than 0.2 from the predicted values. This is more than evident from the last plot of the simulation, with both "a" and "b" completely freely chosen. That is all that is needed to recognize the fact that I have won the 10,000 Euros from you.

Richard Gill

Incidently, Michel Fodje repeatedly urged Joy to get out of the bet, as formulated, but Christian insisted on sticking with the formulation taken from his own experimental paper. He could hardly disown something he had written in the past. Possibly he is beginning to regret that decision.

Anyway, no harm done, we can all remain friends: Joy just has to submit that file of those directions which he is already so proud of having simulated. He can crow victory as much as he likes once he has completed the final lap. A kind of victory lap, maybe superfluous, but still important. You can't win by cheating, you don't cut off corners. Certainly not if victory is certain, anyway. It should be a matter of honour.

Richard Gill

There he goes again. Now he is lying.

He says "that is what you have been demanding".

No. What I have been demanding, and Joy agreed to deliver it, was a computer file of directions.

He says "check the plot ... that is all that is needed to recognize the fact that he has won".

No. All that is needed is that he submits the computer file of directions.

He is breaking the agreement we made. I wonder why. I begin to fear the most.

Joy Christian

This is what the instructions in my experimental paper say: http://www.sciphysicsforums.com/spfbb1/viewtopic.php?f=6&t=31&p=1651&hilit=replacement#p1651

Richard Gill

Joy, I've had enough of your lying and cheating. You know what we agreed to.

Submit a file. In the mean time you may of course boast what you like, but I think that is foolish of you. I don't want to hear your boasting. It is just too too embarassing (for you).

You'll have to send me a personal email when it is ready because to be honest I am now pretty nearly convinced that i don't want to have anything more to do with you ever again.

But ... submit your file according to our agreement and we will continue according to our agreement. I am a man of honour. If according to our agreement you have won, then I'll admit it, publicly, and you'll get 10 000 Euro, as fast as I can get it to you. Etc etc

Florin Moldoveanu

"Anyway, no harm done, we can all remain friends"

Only with one condition: whoever loses must apologize to their scientific opponents.

And I make my prediction again: in April 2016, two years from now, this debate will still not be over regardless of bets, files, experiments, official adjudications, etc, etc.

Richard Gill

Joy has only till June 11 to claim 10 000 Euro, and in order to get it, he has to submit a computer file, to be processed according to a publicly known and publicly agreed protocol. On June 11 that offer is finished.

Moreover I am considering withdrawing from the other bet (the bet about the experiment) on the grounds that Christian cannot be trusted.

So he had better stop boasting that he has won, and instead deliver the goods (and win, if the goods are winning goods). If not, he had better relax, and try again.

Notice: he's unilaterally changing the agreement as to how the data should be analysed, and unilaterally changing the agreement as to who is to do what, when. What does that mean?

It could mean that he finally knows he has lost. And now that he knows he has lost, he is no longer the honest fool who honestly thought he had made an incredible scientific breakthrough ... now he is the cat in a narrow corner who starts to spit and scratch.

Or it could mean that he is just over-excited because he believes he has won, he finally has done it. Well, great, if that's true, congratulations all round! But let's see the proof first. According to the regulations of the race, there is one more lap to be done.

Richard Gill

Game over for dr. Christian. I can't do science or business with a liar and a cheat.

However, anyone else who still believes in Christian's work can try to extract a computer file of directions from Christian's latest simulation program (R is pretty easy - Christian became fairly proficient in a few weeks), post them on internet, and email me the URL. If the file does the job, and the submission is received before June 11, they'll receive 10 000 Euro from me. This special offer closes June 11 when I talk about my experiences at the Vaxjo conference. Christian will receive special attention there, either way.

Christian says it can be done, and he never ever admitted to any mistake, so if indeed he is infallible this will be like taking candy from a baby.

Affter June 11 the prize falls back to the basic 5 000 Euro, and remains open as long as I live. I strongly urge supporters off Christian to do their best and win it, since construction by computer simulation of this simple computer file is "proof of concept" for the viability off the exploding balls experiment. A constructive existence proof, that that experiment can succeed. Strong encouragement to ambitious experimenters.

I am doing no more business with dr. Christian.

Richard Gill

By the way, here is my attempt to complete Christian's simulation with computation of the four agreed correlations in the agreed way. Unfortunately it didn't seem to work. But maybe this can inspire a more dedicated disciple of Christian to get it right and finally clinch the 10 000.

Who knows, maybe pigs can fly.

http://rpubs.com/gill1109/Fail

Richard Gill

Well, now Joy is demonstrating a capacity to lie and cheat that quite amazes me, but which certainly will stand him in good stead in his new career as as data scientist in the city of London for one of those large pyramid game organizations they call banks. Now he really is totally finished as a scientist.

Joy, you blew it, man.

Richard Gill

This announcement by J. Christian was not the claim to collect 10 000 Euro from R D Gill. This is an announcement that such a claim may be considered imminent.

Maybe the announcement is a bit premature. 10 hours have gone by and still no computer file has been submitted.

It only took me five minutes to extract the data file from Christian's scripts and compute the four correlations from it according to Christian's instructions. By another extraordinary coincidence their absolute values added up to 2, exactly. Could that be the very same "2" as in "42"? There is a mysterious hand at work here.

Two of them were close to Christian's predictions, the other two were far off.

A correlation curve rho(theta) is only part of a correlation surface rho(alpha, beta). We need to extract four points from the surface; four points positioned above a square in the alpha-beta plane, aligned with the alpha-beta axes.

Joy Christian

Dear All,

Perhaps it is worthwhile to recapture the facts. I have won the 10,000 Euros offered by Richard Gill. I have won his challenge fair and square. The simulation I have produced yesterday adds to the long list of results supporting my local-realistic framework for the quantum correlations: http://libertesphilosophica.info/blog/.

I have generated 2 x N vectors, e_k and -e_k, in this simulation. They produce the -cosine curve to a very good approximation, with neither "a" nor "b" fixed a priori. The correlations E(a, b) are plotted as a function of the relative angle between the measurement directions a and b. This is what Richard Gill had been demanding. This is what Bell considered "impossible" to achieve. I have achieved it with spectacular success!!!

Please do check out the last plot of the simulation to recognize that none of the four correlations, namely

E(0, 45) = - 0.7071...,

E(0, 135) = 0.7071...,

E(90, 45) = - 0.7071...,

and

E(90, 135) = - 0.7071....,

Joy Christian

It is also worth recalling that this is what the instructions in my experimental paper say: http://www.sciphysicsforums.com/spfbb1/viewtopic.php?f=6&t=31&p=1651&hilit=replacement#p1651.

Heine Rasmussen

You made a silly programming mistake with the consequence that b is not freely chosen at all. All correlations are computed with the same value of b. Your plot proves nothing.

Joy Christian

Your claim is false. Both "a" and "b" are chosen completely freely. Any competent programmer can see that. I have consulted several extremely talented programmers.

Richard Gill

Here is the disproof of Christian's premature claim

http://rpubs.com/gill1109/Fail

He does indeed need to consult with some experienced programmers.

It is also worth recallingwhat the instructions in the bet which he is trying to win actually are:

http://www.sciphysicsforums.com/spfbb1/viewtopic.php?f=6&t=46

It should be noted that he helped compose these instructions and has agreed to them. It is perhaps revealing that he is now trying to rewrite those instuctions, unilaterally. We can now clearly see which of the two of us is a gentelman, which of the two is a liar and a cheat.

Joy Christian

It is sad to see Richard in such a desperate denial. Here is my response to his initial proposal: http://www.sciphysicsforums.com/spfbb1/viewtopic.php?f=6&t=46#p1716.

I have already presented incontrovertible evidence that I have won. I have won the 10,000 Euros offer made by Richard. There is no point denying the evidence I have presented.

Richard Gill

I hereby revoke all bets with Joy Christian. He has proven himself untrustworthy. A liar and a cheat. I suspect a narcissistic personality disorder. I have already informed Andrei Khrennikov, Hans de Raedt and Gregor Weihs that the bet concerning the outcome of the explodig balls experiment is now called off.

If anyone else wants to claim 10 000 Euro or (after June 11) 5 000, they are welcome. The conditions are clear. Christian's publications are on arXiv and may be useful as a guide to hopeful simulators.

Richard Gill

Note, anyone who believes that Christian's recently posted simuation experiment means that he has won the bet with me, merely has to extract the file of directions, post them on internet, inform me, and claim the 10 000 Euro, whether on their own or on Christian's behalf is a matter of complete indifference to me.

Richard Gill

Still no file of directions received. It is now more than 12 hours after dr. Christian's claim that he has won the bet he made with me.

For the time being, here is my answer to Christian:

http://rpubs.com/gill1109/Fail

It is a little R script proving that his claim is false. If he wants this result adjudicated by our board of adjudicators, he is welcome, but we can only bother them once on this particular challenge. So it would be his one and only chance for the 10 000 Euro jackpot.

Other alternatives: he tries again another day; he gives up; ...

My open one-sided offer does remain offer to anyone, up to June 11. After that it is reduced to 5 000.

Claims have to be submitted to me by email. For the time being I have had enough of discussions with dr. Christian. Submissions do not consist of some computer code drawing some pretty pictures. They consist of a link to a text file, posted on internet, containing N directions of angular momentum observed by Alice, and N directions of angular momentum observed by Bob. I will compute the "usual" four correlations E(0, 45), E(0, 135), E(90, 45), E(90, 135) according to the formulas agreed by Joy and myself which can be found here:

http://www.sciphysicsforums.com/spfbb1/viewtopic.php?f=6&t=46

If any of them is off by 0.2 or more from the target values - 0.7071, 0.7071, - 0.7071, - 0.7071 the claim has failed. If all four are within tolerance, the claim has succeeded and will be honoured by me.

In case of dispute as to whether or not a particular submission is valid or has / has not won the bet, we will jointly approach three wise men Andrei Khrennikov, Hans de Raedt, and Gregor Weihs, and they may adjudicate. I haven't asked them if they are prepared to do this job, so if they are unavailable, we will have to come up with another adjudication procedure. In any case, we are only going to resort to adjudication once, so after one false claim, you are no longer eligible for new tries (unless of course you actually immediately convince me on your n'th submission that you finally got it right).

Any questions about this procedure are to be submitted to me by email. I am happy to give any further necessary clarification. If an issue is raised of general concern I will add a posting here, addressing it.

Here is the R code referred to above:

## My response to Christian's claim to my prize.

## First I delete all lines from his code except those generating

## the set of directions "e"

set.seed(9875)

N = 10^5

s = runif(N, 0, pi)

t = runif(N, 0, pi)

x = cos(s)/1.28

y = -1 (2/(sqrt(1 (3 * t/pi))))

e = rbind(x, y) ## 2 x N matrix; N columns of e represent the

## x and y coordinates of points on a circle:

## Alice's observed directions of angular momentum.

## Bob's observed directions are -e.

## Now I separately compute four correlations according to the

## formulas agreed by Christian

alpha = 0 * pi / 180

beta = 45 * pi / 180

a = c(cos(alpha), sin(alpha))

b = c(cos(beta), sin(beta))

(E_0_45 = mean(sign(colSums(e * a)) * -sign(colSums(e * b))))

alpha = 0 * pi / 180

beta = 135 * pi / 180

a = c(cos(alpha), sin(alpha))

b = c(cos(beta), sin(beta))

(E_0_135 = mean(sign(colSums(e * a)) * -sign(colSums(e * b))))

alpha = 90 * pi / 180

beta = 45 * pi / 180

a = c(cos(alpha), sin(alpha))

b = c(cos(beta), sin(beta))

(E_90_45 = mean(sign(colSums(e * a)) * -sign(colSums(e * b))))

alpha = 90 * pi / 180

beta = 135 * pi / 180

a = c(cos(alpha), sin(alpha))

b = c(cos(beta), sin(beta))

(E_90_135 = mean(sign(colSums(e * a)) * -sign(colSums(e * b))))

## Just for fun

- E_0_45 E_0_135 - E_90_45 - E_90_135

Here are the numerical results which I obtained:

[1] -0.68418

[1] 0.68382

[1] -0.31326

[1] -0.31874

[1] 2

I am now going on a short vacation but will be reading my email from time to time.

Joy Christian

Richard,

You are in denial. I have already won. I have won 10,000 Euros offered by you. There is no point denying the incontrovertible evidence I have presented in this simulation: http://rpubs.com/jjc/16415. For further details, please do read my post just above this one. If you don't understand something, please feel free to ask me. I will be happy to explain my results. Although the simulation plots speak for themselves.

Joy

Richard Gill

Joy, you lost yet again, though you did prove something interesting: you are a cheat and a liar. Your ejaculation sorry announcement was premature.

I am going on vacation. You may email me when you have posted the file of directions on internet. You may need to wait a few days for a response.

Joy Christian

Richard,

You are in denial. I have already won. I have won the 10,000 Euros offered by you. There is no point in denying the incontrovertible evidence I have present in the above simulation. The game is over, Richard. It is time to move on.

Joy

Florin Moldoveanu

Sometimes it is best to stand back and reflect. Here is a Jewish proverb:

"A fool can throw a stone into the water that ten wise men cannot recover."

So why exactly are we paying this much attention to what Joy is claiming? There was never any valid claim about Bell's theorem. Many people attempted to talk sense into Joy that he is mistaken but none succeeded (I can easily count over 10 very qualified people). The pattern of interaction is always the same so why expect a different outcome? The very safe thing to bet is that this controversy will live on, and on, and on, like the energizer bunny.

There is however intrinsic value to Richard's bet because it is open to everyone and not only to Joy. This is on the same lines as the Randy quantum challenge: achieve something under controlled conditions. Because you need to achieve a mathematical impossibility (prove Bell theorem wrong) you can never do it, but in the process of trying you will learn valuable things. Those kinds of bets and challenges are great pedagogical tools.

[deleted]

Florin, I have no interest in barroom bets over serious matters. I do have an interest in the persistent claims by you, Richard Gill and Sascha Vongehr that programming = physics.

It's one of those "not even wrong" claims that obscures the issue of rational science based on correspondence between the model and the phenomenon. You three are satisfied to program the phenomenon, call it an "experiment" and declare that the model is true independent of a theory to support it.

If you really want to do experimental metaphysics -- have a theory. Then test it honestly. You can gather 10 or ten thousand authorities around you to agree on a mathematical theory that has nothing to do with the given proposition -- even I have agreed with you on that -- one cannot, however, derive a theory from an algorithm. That is, a specified set of instructions is only as meaningful as the motivation one has to write them. There is nothing in the "QRC" that transcends itself and qualifies as science, any more than children making mudpies are making a dinner that we plan to eat.

Thomas Ray

Last was mine. I'm sure I'm not the only one who will be happy to see this log-in problem fixed.

Florin Moldoveanu

Tom, you said something very important: "Then test it honestly." But how can you do that when the person claiming he proved Bell's theorem wrong is claiming in bold letters a blatant lie: "Richard Gill has conceded defeat"? How can you reach a definite conclusion of yes or no under such circumstances? You tell me.

Thomas Ray

Well, I've never agreed that Bell's theorem is disproved, only that the domain of the proof is restricted. That is, the theorem identifies a physical space that cannot be mapped to quantum configuration space without a nonlocal model. In other words, it limits quantum configuration space by fiat.

In Joy's framework, quantum configuration space -- the complete space of all quantum correlations -- is manifestly local.

One cannot test that measurement framework by a programmed simulation -- one can only show that at least one point at any angle of observation lies outside the chosen plane. If one is thinking in terms of Euclidean geometry, this is impossible: the one and only point that lies outside a line is orthogonal to the line (fifth postulate) so we have to assume it is nonlocal. Because the world is only locally Euclidean, however, the global (i.e., topological) effect of doing coordinate-free geometry with a pair of variables at the initial condition of a continuous function is to connect the nonlocal point to the Riemannian geometry of the sphere -- such that all rigid transformations (angle measurements) will show that the measurement system is both non-Euclidean and local.

The point that lies outside the plane of observation is an incomplete discrete representation of the continuous space, but the simulation sufficiently suggests analytical continuation by the outcome - a.b.

Florin Moldoveanu

Tom, you are not answering my question: in a dispute like this someone is right and someone is wrong. How can you settle anything when emphatic blatant lies are stated? There is no possible movement forward and the discussion of merits of various points is irrelevant until the sane ground rules of debates are re-established and respected. If you do care about finding the truth about nature and about this debate in particular you need to at least try to ask for the retraction of false statements like "Richard Gill has conceded defeat" and demand following the mutually agreed protocol of the bet. If Joy will not listen to you, then you can move on from a lost cause and discuss the merits of YOUR points. But that will not have anything to do with Joy whatsoever. However if you tie your arguments with Joy's position, until sanity is restored, your arguments are irrelevant because there will be no way to put them to the test: yey or nay. And what do you call that? Not even wrong.

Richard Gill

It's not just sanity which needs to be restored. It's civilized behaviour. Mutual respect. However Christian has unilaterally broken and then unilaterally rewritten a clear, honest, fair, public agreement.

This is not insane, it is criminal.

Richard Gill

BTW, this is the proof that Christian has failed, yet again.

http://rpubs.com/gill1109/Fail

Because he considers himself authorized to unilaterally rewrite previously made agreements, and to broadcast lies, I cancel all my previous agreements and bets with him; the experiment is cancelled, the adjudicators have been informed. I do not do business with a liar and a cheat. He cannot be trusted.

Anyone else who likes to claim the 10 000 - you are welcome. The offer stands. JJC has disqualified himself, that's all.

« Previous Page Next Page »