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

It is clear that Sascha Vongehr and his "peer reviewer" Richard Gill have an axe to grind in preserving probabilistic quantum theory against relativity, as shown in Vongehr's own abstract, which reads like a manifesto for a crusade against 300 years of well understood classical physics. That he can call it a campaign against "pseudo-science" is nothing more than psychological projection.

And it's not that I'm so concerned that Vongehr and Gill take themselves seriously. It's that more thoughtful researchers in quantum foundations also entertain the belief that reality is fundamentally probabilistic. Besides being a prescription for nihilism, it's demonstrably wrong. If probability were a true measurement function, the world would cohere only in a single binary outcome, instead of a statistical array of continuous measurement.

Tom

Tom,

You of course know this well, but for the benefit of those who don't, let us remember that errors were manufactured and inserted into my work, as political, sociological, and financial weapons, by those who are far less knowledgeable and qualified in the subjects of physics and mathematics than myself. This was quite an effective and successful political strategy. It needlessly undermined my flawless work and discredited me personally, with serious academic and financial consequences for me. The perpetrators of this criminal act (and it is a criminal act in my eyes) are free and prospering. This includes at least three members of FQXi, who launched ad hominem attacks on me on public blogs, without ever reading (let alone understanding) a single paper of mine.

There is no accountability in science for criminal wrongdoings, as long as it is done in the name of science, either openly on un-moderated blogs, or behind closed doors within the corridors of power.

Best,

Joy

  • [deleted]

Joy, I agree that it's a travesty of no small proportion. One can expect a certain amount of snide comments, incredulity, hard feelings, in any case of professional rivalry in any field. However:

When I was introduced to what appeared to be an actual strategic campaign to smear and discredit -- with words like "crackpot," "charlatan," "academic fraudster," "pseudo-science" -- I was outraged. I cited and linked that sophomoric paper above, to make evident to reasonable people, the lengths that true believers will go. It's sickness, not science, that drives such efforts, no matter what academic trappings attend them.

Now, though -- the silence is deafening. Absolutely every demand the critics made to find your work acceptable has been met. It has become trite to say that evil triumphs only when good people do nothing. All I can do, is to publicly call on academics who still believe in honesty and justice -- particularly if they are in a position of influence -- to do whatever they can to remedy the wrong.

Not that long ago, Grigori Perelman quit mathematics for the very reason that many in the community allow such perfidy, when they could do something about it. The loss to science of talented people who are victimized by the jealousy and small-mindedness of a few, is immeasurable.

All best,

Tom

Hi Folks,

It's very sad to hear about Perelman. A definite loss to the world's intellectual advancement. But I don't think he will really stop thinking about Math; he'll just take the process underground.

A suggestion for the query in block above; how about 'strongly correlated probabilities'?

It is good to read that your detractors are not favored, at this point, Joy. But it is a travesty that such adolescent behavior is tolerated in academia today. I have been studying avidly - doing a lot of reading of Math books and papers lately - and I may have something intelligent to say before long. I'll check in from time to time, now that I see there is a discussion here.

All the Best,

Jonathan

Jonathan,

You seem to have missed the point Tom is making with the example of Perelman.

Those FQXi members who launched ad hominem attacks on me on various public blogs, and who are now being handsomely rewarded, have been proven wrong. They and an exquisitely qualified FQXi expert claimed that correlation predicted by my model is always constant and equal to -1. They were wrong and we knew that. But now there is an absolute proof of how wrong they were, provided by three different event-by-event computer simulations of my model for the EPR-Bohm correlation (shown below).

Best,

Joy

Image 1

Image 2

Hi Jonathan,

Thanks for joining in!

The case of Grigori Yakovlevich (Grisha) Perelman is a model example of one who put integrity above the "personality cults" that Einstein warned against. Rather than be perceived as a player in this petty game of competing personalities, he chose to get out of it. I don't know if any of the various quotes attributed to him can actually be verified, but this one seems consistent with his actions: "It is not people who break ethical standards who are regarded as aliens. It is people like me who are isolated."

In the cooperative rational enterprise we call science this is exactly the wrong thing to happen. Perelman freely shared his results, which one with the knowledge to understand cannot but agree are beautiful (and if not the knowledge to understand, I think Donal O'Shea's book captures the essence), and wished only that the work would be appreciated as he appreciated it.

Instead, squabbles over priority and stolen credit threatened to soil the accomplishment, only to become a permanent stain should Perelman accept the honors thrown at him, which of course he did not.

In Joy Christian's case, I perceive something more sinister. It isn't just that he is right -- it is that his being right apparently threatens an academic-commercial enterprise with an interest in promoting probability-based quantum theory as an *exclusive* scientific standard. It is absolutely clear in Vongehr's abstract. And it also isn't that I deny Vongehr his misguided opinion -- he willfully and recklessly led a smear campaign to libel Christian and every physicist who has a viable classically-minded framework of measurement functions that obviate the assumption of a probabilistic measure space. It was Christian's misfortune to have the most viable and complete framework, so that he took the brunt of the attack.

The chutzpah it takes to call such researchers "charlatans," "crackpots" and "pseudo-scientists" would be beneath comment except that more well known scientists such as Gill jumped aboard and helped propagate the injustice.

Indeed, as Perelman is purported to have said, "It is not people who break ethical standards who are regarded as aliens. It is people like me who are isolated."

Special interests already rule government. Academia was *supposed* to be immune from this influence.

All best,

Tom

It is easily explained..

For some time now; the power elite has been using a tactic of divide and conquer, to control the intelligentsia, and it works so well mainly because there are so many smart people who are still emotionally adolescent - and gratuitously rise to the charge once things get competitive. Of course that denies the encompassing nature of the truth. The fundamentals serve to unify reality, and this is inconvenient to fractionation.

Part of it is due to convenient simplifications in Physics. Most people would imagine reality begins and ends with the reals, but we know R,C,H and O, all come into play. But if you try to start with a blank slate and it actually contains four division algebras by default, this kind of blows some people's minds. They would rather believe something as complicated as the octonions is - at best - peripherally related to 'normal' reality. But they come as an essential part of the package.

I attach two papers with short and fairly elegant proofs of two different conjectures of Frobenius, which were found during my recent research. As it turns out; they relate to our discussion and the statements above.

Enjoy,

JonathanAttachment #1: S0273-0979-1991-16084-2.pdfAttachment #2: 0009022v2.pdf

Sorry for the repetition.

I didn't realize until I hit submit that I'd used 'but' so many times in a row.

It sounds silly, but you all know what I mean. (there I go again)

Regards (no ifs, ands, or buts),

Jonathan

Thank you, Jonathan.

Those are two quite useful references.

Some things are worth repeating. Such as this from Grisha Perelman:

"It is not people who break ethical standards who are regarded as aliens. It is people like me who are isolated."

I hope the power elite has conscience enough to learn something from Perelman.

Best,

Joy

It is evident..

In the case of Grisha Perelman and in that of Joy Christian and Bell's theorem interpretation disproofs, what is featured are unifying properties of nature, or unifying features present in the structure of Math itself. One can't really get around the existence of these things, in terms of their ubiquity or universality.

Until recently; I'd have heard the words 'Frobenius conjecture' and said "No thanks, I'll stop there; that's a bit too deep or abstruse for me." Likewise with Poincare, for many people. But once you grasp the proof of certain conjectures; you realize why certain things are intuitively obvious or self-evident, as something that must be true, to a great mind.

All the Best,

Jonathan

I guess I should say..

Regarding the Frobenius papers. Given that one was published in 1991 and the other in 2000, the conclusive evidences have been on the table for long enough that the implications of such proofs are noteworthy as truths. Also with Perelman's proof; it leads inexorably to certain truths about reality and the internal structure of Math, which MUST apply on some level to Physics.

I can clearly state that a lot of what you have set out, Joy, is a direct outgrowth of that applicability. Is your usage exactly correct, in terms of recreating the Physics phenomenology precisely. Who knows? But some of the correct ideas and motives are there. What I am learning now will help me to discuss these things in a more informed manner, however.

All the Best,

Jonathan

An addendum (tongue in cheek)..

Maybe you are tolerated by FQXi, Joy, because Max Tegmark sees your theory as the ultimate fulfillment of the Mathematical Universe Hypothesis, and secretly hopes that you turn out to be precisely correct.

Regards,

Jonathan

In the beginning there was no math. Then came sedonions, then octonions, then quaternions, then complex numbers and finally the real numbers. Humans discovered what nature created in reverse order.

Best,

Fred

Jonathan,

Thanks for bringing up the Frobenius conjecture (theorem) and especially the Feldman paper.

It has troubled me since the beginning of this affair, that the mathematics Joy employs is little understood in terms of how dimensionality affects relations among points of geometric objects (generalized to topology) where the function is continuous and not degenerate. It's been a great source of frustration to me personally that there was (and apparently continues to be) a lack of understanding that a measurement function continuous from an initial condition is independent of linear parametrization. In other words, the singular initial condition (such as Bell's theorem dependence on observer orientation) does not constitute an element of the function, because it is discontinuous from the nondegenerate measure space.

My own research attempts to show by an arithmetic method how random nonlinear input smooths the function, proving the lemma: An indefinite relation between two distinct odd primes implies one parametrically definite relation.

All best,

Tom

Someone didn't like my previous post. No matter.

Below is a sneaky peak of the *fourth*, explicit, event-by-event, simulation of my local model for the EPR-Bohm correlation---this time the code written (independently) in Python (the previous simulations were written in Java, Excel Visual Basic, and Mathematica). The details of the simulation will follow soon.

Image 1

The model can be found in the attached paper.Attachment #1: 20_whither.pdf

    Joy, can you give a closer look? Looking forward to the details.

    Tom,

    The work on the latest simulation is still in progress. I will post the details soon.

    On a different note: What happened to my previous post reminded me once again of the quote from Grisha Perelman you posted earlier: "It is not people who break ethical standards who are regarded as aliens. It is people like me who are isolated."

    Best,

    Joy

    Hi Joy,

    I have not shown much interest in your work as I have am inclined to believe like Einstein that QM is incomplete. As a result discussions for and against Bell's theorem have not ignited any interest in me. Moreover most of the discussions are conducted in mathematical language, which like all languages can equally be used to tell lies or tell the truth. I recently took a peek at your site and it appears like Einstein you are on the side of locality and realism so I think I can engage.

    To start this engagement, in Fig.1.1 "The Point Bell Missed", you said this statement is fundamental and I am in full agreement. The statement is "Although lines and planes contain the same number of points..."

    What does this mean?

    Firstly, do lines contain points? And if so, are these numbered? If numbered, how are they to be counted, to know and assert that lines and planes have the SAME number?

    Note that I am not a critic of your work neither am I currently endorsing it. It all depends...

    Akinbo

    *By the way your Bio is impressive so I believe you can unearth the truth.