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

pjackson

Judy

Do you get angry at slow or rude students? Richard only appears arrogant as he thinks he's correct. He's denying his doubts as he'd focussed on Joys exploding balls so reverted to his 'comfort zone'. It's no problem as I can show Richard where my logic is consistent and his isn't. I produce the CHSH results with absolute precision, he's just holding to his 'logical' argument, taking my analogy, that it's logically proved that two coins CANNOT be classically turned into a can of drink, so there must be voodoo. The moment he realises that logic is irrelevant he'll see the solution. At present no cargo culture kid could conceive that the cans are sitting there and it's only turning the knob that makes one emerge. No amount of logic or evidence can overturn a belief.

I estimated 2020 some time ago. I still think that's optimistic. OK, I'm a little overwhelmed by the positive comments on my essay blog, but look at last years superlatives. Where did all those lead to!? Please don't get angry or frustrated on my behalf. It may seem justified but remember, intellectual evolution takes time. It's human nature.

Best wishes

Peter

Heine Rasmussen

I for one do not see how this can possibly be turned into two text files, one for Alice and one for Bob.

Richard Gill

I see many, many ways to turn this "submission" into a submission of two files!

That's "my problem".

Joy's problem is: which way to choose.

I don't want to lose 10 000

Joy wants to gain it

Why should I help him?

Why should anyone help him? They can still make a valid submission themselves!

Joy Christian

For me it is not about the money. To be sure, I could certainly use some. After all, I have been robbed of hundreds of thousands of dollars over the past seven years by the closed-mindedness of the naïve and dogmatic conformists. Meanwhile, those of small minds have made millions simply by conforming.

But still, for me it not about the money. In my view I have already won by explicitly producing the two sets of angular momentum vectors, +e's for Alice and -e's for Bob. The results of my recent simulations speak for themselves.

Richard Gill

PS if anyone wants to help JJC get 10 000 Euro, here's a hint:

write.table(t(e), "AliceDirections.txt")

write.table(t(f), "BobDirections.txt")

Those are two lines of R code. They take 2xN matrices e, f, and write them to text files as N lines, each containing two numbers.

But : you can get the 10 000 yourself by just making the files, posting them on internet, and sending me an email!!!

Whether you give my cash to JJC, or to "Médecins sans Frontières", or blow it, metaphorically speaking, on wine, women and song, is not a matter of complete indifference to me, but it is entirely your own choice.

When people make extraordinary but superficially impressive scientific claims there are three main possibilities: we are confronted by (a) a gifted scientist, (b) a gifted crackpot, (c) a gifted charlatan. Randi challenges are a scientific tool to determine which is the case.

Richard Gill

For me, it is not about the money. Whether positive or negative. It is about Science.

Richard Gill

PS obviously, it does impact my scientific reputation. About which I clearly care two hootsv or I wouldn't be spending time here. Yet it is part of my stake in this. As JJC's is part of his stake in this, too.

Battle of the giants or battle of the dwarfs? (With apologies to any vertically challenged persons out there).As Dyson famously said, "if I saw further than others, it was because I was surrounded by dwarfs".

Joy Christian

You are indeed making extraordinary claims Richard. You have been claiming that there is voodoo in the world, but you haven't provided even ordinary evidence for your voodoo. On the other hand, I have provided abundant evidence that you are wrong.

Here is my evidence again that you are dead wrong:http://rpubs.com/jjc/16531.

pjackson

Richard,

Your logic's domain is a small box on the sideline. Of course it works within that box, I've agreed that all along, but the overarching logical solution is; "So What?" which is as you suspected.

You're wrong that I can't produce the CSHS results. Remember you didn't deny that but only objected to the 'method'. It was too simple for you to accept. I simply turned the dial and the "can of coke" emerged.

Have you ever heard the old spy secret?; the best place to hide anything is 'right before our eyes'. That's exactly where it's been hiding. Of course you'll have to blink 3 times and get your brain into top gear to make it visible!

The proof of the pudding is in the eating. Correcting the error identified deep in QM allows a fully classical derivation of ALL the quantum predictions. Just because it doesn't do so the way you expected doesn't mean it's wrong.

If you insist statistics show I'm wrong, then I'll prove those statistics are indeed the 'damn lies' many have long suspected. But I think you know you can't do that. I also think you know QM is incomplete not voodoo. Your current position is that it's voodoo! My logic is impeccable. See the modified 3 disc figure in my essay and the limitations of the logic you cling to become clear.

To be fair to Judy it's you whose set that tone and were clearly being crass. You also never gave her that due apology. There's no need for that Richard. We're all trying to find truth here. Most would say; "I'm not going to read it so there" sounds rather childish. I know you're distracted by juvenile jousting elsewhere but please try to avoid that here and give this option a little 'rear lobe' thinking time. It actually agrees your suspicions!

Best wishes

Peter

Florin Moldoveanu

I like the simplicity of the R script this time, it is really straightforward. I played with it and no claims of winning or losing can be made until two files are provided. Since there is ambiguity of how to do that, the burden rests with the person who wants to make the submission.

In the current submission, the verification code is faulty, half is done with e_00 and half with e_90. Do it all with e_00 or all with e_90 and you get a beautiful 2 or 1.99904 adding the e_00 with e_90 correlations is like adding apples with oranges. Add only apples, or add only oranges and the correlation is 2.

Joy Christian

I have already won the 10,000 Euros challenge set up by Richard Gill with my submission above. There is nothing wrong with my submission. I have provided two sets of angular momentum directions, +e's for Alice and -e's for Bob. They are explicitly and unambiguously defined in this simulation: http://rpubs.com/jjc/16531. There is no ambiguity whatsoever in how the vectors +e and -e are defined. No ambiguity whatsoever. They are uniquely defined, just like any ordinary vector would be. At the bottom of the simulation we see that the four correlations (which are correlations among the points of a parallelized 3-sphere) correctly reproduce the predictions of quantum mechanics, and thus violate the Bell-CHSH inequality.

Richard Gill

No ambiguity whatsoever? Well sorry, I am just a third rate statistician, not even a mathematician. Please add two "write" statements in order to totally remove any ambiguity whatsoever.

I may be stupid but I am not giving away 10 000 Euro just like that! No cutting off the corners. JJC helped write the rules. Now he must stick to them if he wants my money. It's as simple as that.

I may be whatever, but I will pay if I have to. I am a gentleman. The rules rule.

By the way, Randi challenges have an important function in Science. For an amateur, it may be hard to distinguish between

a) a gifted scientist

b) a gifted crackpot

c) a gifted charlatan

Randi challenges are a scientific meta-scientific method in order for ordinary persons (non experts) to distinguish a) from b) from c).

Florin Moldoveanu

The purpose to provide the 2 files is to eliminate any chance for the adjudication to be contested after the verdict. Something along the lines: this was not my intention, I did not mean this but I meant that instead. Or: it was a "straw man" adjudication.

Sure, boring crossing the Ts and dotting the Is, but nevertheless important. And one sided declarations of success are meaningless. The only accepted one can come from the independent adjudicators.

Thomas Ray

"Randi challenges are a scientific meta-scientific method in order for ordinary persons (non experts) to distinguish a) from b) from c)."

Not the "QRC." It isn't science at all. There is no correspondence between a computer program that models a physical event, and a theoretical prediction of an event.

Richard Gill

Peter, you say your logic is impeccable, I say it is peccable.

You say I have to apologize to Judy, I say she has to apologize to me.

Seems we must agree to differ. End of conversation. It's boring for everyone else, and fruitless for us two, and clearly for Judy too. Fare thee well! It was fun exchanging ideas with you.

Richard Gill

The rules of this challenge, fully agreed by JJC, are:

* the challenger (any challenger!) posts two files on internet and informs the world, and me, that they are staking a claim

* the challenger and I recruit some adjudicators (who do not do anything at all yet, just agree to be adjudicators!)

* I check the files and either admit defeat (and write a check ...) or I claim victory

* If my claim is contested we go to adjudication

Submissions are disqualified if they do not satisfy the conditions of the challenge, which is plain and clear for all to see.

A subitter becomes disqualified from further submissions after an earlier attempt by the same person was rejected by the adjudicators

It's all very simple. There is an awful lot at stake. We have to play by the rules. People who crow victory before they have actually fairly and squarely gained it only make themselves look foolish, it seems to me. If they think it is all a formality then they just have to be patient and wait a couple of days for the formalities to be completed.

Richard Gill

Tom, you really should take a close look at the specific challenge which we are talking about here. It is not "the" QRC. It is "a" Randi-type challenge. Important distinction.

JJC has written a paper about an experiment which generates two computer files of numbers which are processed in a particular way. All that is explained in JJC's experimental paper. Maybe you should read it too.

The very specific challenge which we are talking about here is to produce two computer files which would do the job which the experimental paper claims can be done. There is no obligation to get them by doing a simulation. You can also get them by doing an experiment; even by doing *the* experiment. You can get them by dreaming them up out of your head. A lot of people in social psychology are very good at doing that, and many of them are being fired at the moment, so maybe they can help.

The challenge was designed in collaboration with JJC himself and he thinks he can win it. But anyone who wants to can win it before JJC. They just have to find out what they have to do, and do it. First come first served.

Richard Gill

Just to recapitulate:

The rules of this challenge, fully agreed by JJC, are:

* the challenger (any challenger!) posts two files on internet and informs the world, and me, that they are staking a claim

* the challenger and I recruit some adjudicators (who do not do anything at all yet, just agree to be adjudicators!)

* I check the files and either admit defeat (and write a check ...) or I claim victory

* If my claim is contested we go to adjudication

JJC has been posting R scripts on internet which do various computations and output some nice numbers or graphs. So far there has not been a script which writes two files of numbers to the computer which is running the script. So far there has been no submission. None at all.

There have only been premature claims that there was a submission, but in every case to date it was premature, it was invalid. Every time there were claims that the prize was already won ... and every time the claim had to withdrawn a day or two later.

There is no hurry. The first files posted on internet which do the job, get the prize. The whole world can compete. Submissions will be processed in the order that they are received. Invalid submissions (ie non-submssions) will be ignored.

Joy Christian

Very nice, Richard. Very impressive. But you forgot the most important rule of yours: You will constantly make up and add new rules to the challenge at your absolute discretion to ensure that the challenge is never met, the challenge that was originally discussed here.

Nick Mann

"You will constantly make up and add new rules to the challenge at your absolute discretion to ensure that the challenge is never met"

Can you be specific here? How has he done what you claim? (An enumerated list would be helpful if more than two items are involved.)

« Previous Page Next Page »