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

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.

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.

Joy Christian

Dear All,

Richard Gill has conceded defeat, both regarding his 10,000 Euros offer for generating N vectors as well as his 5,000 Euros bet concerning my proposed experiment.

I won his offer of 10,000 Euros yesterday by producing this simulation: http://rpubs.com/jjc/16415. It generates the 2 x N vectors, e_k and -e_k, which necessitate the strong correlation unambiguously, for any two freely chosen measurement directions "a" and "b".

It is pretty clear from the incontrovertible evidence presented in this simulation that when my proposed experiment is realized it will undoubtedly produce the same strong correlation, with e_k and -e_k as spin directions observed by Alice and Bob (respectively).

I think Richard Gill is smart enough to recognize the evidence I have presented and wise enough to realize the inevitability of seeing the strong correlation in my proposed experiment. He has therefore backed-off from the bet which he cannot possibly win. It is of course wiser to retreat then to be humiliated.

With my main opponent defeated, it is now time to get on with real physics, in both theoretical and experimental direction. There is much work to be done.

Joy Christian

I think this is a good place to start thinking about a third edition of my book:

Florin Moldoveanu

Member Joy Christian wrote on May. 2, 2014 @ 11:25 GMT: "Richard Gill has conceded defeat"

I would ask Joy supporters what do they make of this statement? Tom, Fred, do you agree with Joy on this one?

Joy Christian

This game is over, Mr. Moldoveanu. It is time to move on. If you are searching for a shoulder to cry on, then try this one:

http://www.sciphysicsforums.com/spfbb1/viewtopic.php?f=6&t=46&start=50#p1839.

Florin Moldoveanu

Tom, Fred, a little help here please: can you get please some common sense and reality check into Joy? I think you owe it to him. He will never listen to what Richard or I have to say, but you were his most loyal supporters and there is a small chance he will listen to you.

Richard Gill

http://rpubs.com/gill1109/Fail

[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

"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."

Richard, I tried to warn you that you are snookered.

The correlation function C_a,b is a pair of independent variables. No matter where you reposition your points the correlation continuous from the initial condition will survive.

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.

Richard Gill

Tom, anyone who thinks they know that Christian's recently posted simulation experiment means that he has snookered me, merely has to extract the file of directions, post them on internet, inform me by email, and claim the 10 000 Euro - whether on their own or on Christian's behalf is a matter of complete indifference to me.

I'll then pay up, apologize, withdraw half a dozen papers ... Please name your favourite charity or tell me your bank account name address and number. Email me the URL of the winning computer file.

About 18 hours have passed since dr. Christian prematurely expressed his orgiasmic joy at having won his bet from me, but still no computer file has been produced.

A gentleman's agreement is a gentleman's agreement. Christian proves he is not a gentleman by unilaterally breaking and then attempting to rewrite an agreement freely made here in public view. For this reason I consider other agreements made with him null and void. I've informed the adjudicators of the other, earlier, bet about the exploding balls experiment (Andrei Khrennikov, Hans de Raedt, Gregor Weihs). I've also explained to them why the bet and the experiment are cancelled.

Joy Christian

Well, we all know why Richard Gill backed off from his offers and bets at the first sign of trouble.

The problem for him is that I have already won his offer. I have presented my incontrovertible evidence in this simulation that I have already won his offer of 10,000 Euros.

It is also abundantly clear from the simulation that my proposed experiment can only confirm my hypothesis.

He therefore got out of his offers and bets as fast as he could.

No matter. I have won already, so no harm 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

Still no file? Well, I know why ... it doesn't exist. All that is left are the ravings of a narcisistic fool. Not a pretty sight.

Richard Gill

http://rpubs.com/gill1109/Fail

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.

« Previous Page Next Page »