Sci.Physics.Foundations

by **Joy Christian** » Wed Feb 16, 2022 5:02 am

gill1109 wrote: ↑Wed Feb 16, 2022 4:52 am Amazing what a mere statistician can achieve:

Dear Richard D. Gill,

We’d like to inform you that Research.com, a leading academic platform for researchers, has just released the 2022 Edition of our Ranking of Top 1000 Scientists in the field of Mathematics.

We are sure you will be very happy to learn that you have ranked #675 in the world ranking and #1 in Netherlands.

The ranking is based on the H-index metric provided by Microsoft Academic and includes only leading scientists with an H-index of at least 30 for academic publications made in the area of Mathematics.
My trick was to have been very lucky with some very early work, and then keep on publishing one or two papers a year, with every few years a paper which again was often cited. And somehow kept on being cited. I changed fields several times. Statisticians can stick their noses in, everywhere.

The H-index is really just the age-index.

The "Research.com" guys must be either total idiots or blind as bats. For I have exposed many elementary mathematical mistakes by Richard D. Gill for anyone to see for themselves, for example in the paper I submitted to RSOS and papers cited therein: http://dx.doi.org/10.13140/RG.2.2.34887.37286.
.

by **gill1109** » Wed Feb 16, 2022 4:52 am

Amazing what a mere statistician can achieve:

Dear Richard D. Gill,

We’d like to inform you that Research.com, a leading academic platform for researchers, has just released the 2022 Edition of our Ranking of Top 1000 Scientists in the field of Mathematics.

We are sure you will be very happy to learn that you have ranked #675 in the world ranking and #1 in Netherlands.

The ranking is based on the H-index metric provided by Microsoft Academic and includes only leading scientists with an H-index of at least 30 for academic publications made in the area of Mathematics.

My trick was to have been very lucky with some very early work, and then keep on publishing one or two papers a year, with every few years a paper which again was often cited. And somehow kept on being cited. I changed fields several times. Statisticians can stick their noses in, everywhere.

The H-index is really just the age-index.

by **Joy Christian** » Wed Feb 16, 2022 12:50 am

gill1109 wrote: ↑Wed Feb 16, 2022 12:31 am My “Comment” on Joy’s RSOS paper is now published. Looking forward to the publishing of the necessary “Reply”. https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/ ... sos.201909

Finally!

I have already submitted my Reply paper to RSOS: http://dx.doi.org/10.13140/RG.2.2.34887.37286.

Abstract: In this paper I respond to a critique of one of my papers previously published in the Royal Society Open Science, entitled “Quantum correlations are weaved by the spinors of the Euclidean primitives.” The critique incorrectly claims, without engaging with the model presented in my paper, that there are errors in it. I demonstrate that the critique is based on a sequence of misunderstandings, and refute its claims. I also bring out a number of logical, mathematical, and conceptual errors from the critique and other critiques it relies on.

by **gill1109** » Wed Feb 16, 2022 12:31 am

My “Comment” on Joy’s RSOS paper is now published. Looking forward to the publishing of the necessary “Reply”. https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/ ... sos.201909

by **Joy Christian** » Mon Feb 14, 2022 1:27 am

Joy Christian wrote: ↑Fri Jan 14, 2022 1:55 am
Joy Christian wrote: ↑Tue Dec 21, 2021 10:25 pm .
Richard D. Gill has published another crank "comment" paper on my work on quantum correlations, which he mistakenly thinks is on Bell's "theorem":

https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/9622238.

As tedious a waste of time it is for me to keep replying to Gill's crank papers, I have ended up submitting a Reply paper to IEEE Access:

http://dx.doi.org/10.13140/RG.2.2.24054.11847.

My paper is currently under peer review at the journal where my original paper has been published:

https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/8836453.
My "Reply to Comment" paper has been accepted by IEEE Access. Its publication will follow after my submission of the final manuscript files.

This paper is now fully published, with page numbers, etc. (open access): https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/9693502. Bell's theorem is finished.

.

by **FrediFizzx** » Tue Feb 08, 2022 7:25 pm

gill1109 wrote: ↑Tue Feb 08, 2022 6:33 pm ...
Are you interested in physics or in philosophy?

This particular section is a PHYSICS forum. We are not interested in stinkin' nonsense here. There is a section where nonsense can be posted.
.

by **gill1109** » Tue Feb 08, 2022 6:33 pm

Gordon Watson wrote: ↑Mon Jan 31, 2022 11:11 pm
Joy Christian wrote: ↑Sun Jan 30, 2022 8:12 am
Gordon Watson wrote: ↑Sun Jan 30, 2022 6:51 am
To Richard Gill and Joy Christian: WRT your debate, please define REALISM.
There is no "debate".

Richard D. Gill cannot do math ... <SNIP>

As for "realism", it was defined by Einstein and Bell in the context of the Bohr-Einstein debate. Look it up. There is no debate regarding that either.
Joy,
1. I'd welcome your identification of the texts that provide the definition of "realism" by Einstein and Bell.

2. But I'm seeking your definition of "realism".

3. When you say there is no debate re realism: I guess you are implying that Gill agrees with your definition?
.

Gordon: in the context of Bell-EPR and sticking to physics, “realism” is just a fancy word for determinism. I imagine that Joy and I agree on that. Joy thinks he can do math, and I can’t. I have the opposite opinion.

Now, in the many worlds interpretation, there is just the deterministic evolution of the wave equation. Our idea that things definitely happen is an illusion because all possibilities exist for ever in quantum superposition. The moon is there and it is not there, whether or not you look. Moreover, in some worlds you look and in some you don’t! In very many, you never even existed.

So the philosophical question is: what is real? It’s a different question from the question whether the laws of nature are deterministic or not.

Are you interested in physics or in philosophy?

by **FrediFizzx** » Thu Feb 03, 2022 5:20 pm

@Justo Thanks. I'm going to read the comment paper you wrote.
.

by **Justo** » Thu Feb 03, 2022 6:49 am

FrediFizzx wrote: ↑Wed Feb 02, 2022 10:59 am
Justo wrote: ↑Wed Feb 02, 2022 9:52 am
FrediFizzx wrote: ↑Wed Feb 02, 2022 6:42 am You need to back up claims like that with at least a couple of references.
Here you have https://doi.org/10.1007/s10701-007-9104-1, https://doi.org/10.1007/s10701-010-9508-1

FrediFizzx wrote: ↑Wed Feb 02, 2022 6:42 am What a bunch of nonsense!!!!!!!! I think we need to start writing comment papers to expose this nonsense.
.
You're right. You should write comments on what you believe is nonsense. I did that a couple of times, for instance, http://dx.doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevA.104.066201
Have you got links not behind a paywall? References like that are useless.
.

https://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0607057, https://arxiv.org/abs/0909.0015
https://arxiv.org/abs/2102.07524

by **FrediFizzx** » Wed Feb 02, 2022 10:59 am

Justo wrote: ↑Wed Feb 02, 2022 9:52 am
FrediFizzx wrote: ↑Wed Feb 02, 2022 6:42 am You need to back up claims like that with at least a couple of references.
Here you have https://doi.org/10.1007/s10701-007-9104-1, https://doi.org/10.1007/s10701-010-9508-1

FrediFizzx wrote: ↑Wed Feb 02, 2022 6:42 am What a bunch of nonsense!!!!!!!! I think we need to start writing comment papers to expose this nonsense.
.
You're right. You should write comments on what you believe is nonsense. I did that a couple of times, for instance, http://dx.doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevA.104.066201

Have you got links not behind a paywall? References like that are useless.
.

by **Justo** » Wed Feb 02, 2022 9:52 am

FrediFizzx wrote: ↑Wed Feb 02, 2022 6:42 am You need to back up claims like that with at least a couple of references.

Here you have https://doi.org/10.1007/s10701-007-9104-1, https://doi.org/10.1007/s10701-010-9508-1

FrediFizzx wrote: ↑Wed Feb 02, 2022 6:42 am What a bunch of nonsense!!!!!!!! I think we need to start writing comment papers to expose this nonsense.
.

You're right. You should write comments on what you believe is nonsense. I did that a couple of times, for instance, http://dx.doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevA.104.066201

by **FrediFizzx** » Wed Feb 02, 2022 6:42 am

Justo wrote: ↑Wed Feb 02, 2022 6:21 am ... 2) You only have to read the literature to find many physically irrelevant definitions of realism. ...

You need to back up claims like that with at least a couple of references.

Doesn't matter if Bell never mentioned realism. He started the nonsense rolling a bunch. A lot more than before his junk physics theory.

https://journals.aps.org/prresearch/abs ... .4.L012002

"It is arguably one of the most astonishing features of quantum theory that local measurements performed on certain quantum states can lead to the phenomenon of quantum nonlocality [1]. That is, the measurement statistics cannot be explained classically as they are not compatible with the principle of local realism. Mathematically this can be witnessed by the violation of a so-called Bell inequality [2]. Even though nonlocality [3] has been studied ever since the foundations of quantum theory [4], it is not yet completely understood."

What a bunch of nonsense!!!!!!!! I think we need to start writing comment papers to expose this nonsense.
.

by **Justo** » Wed Feb 02, 2022 6:21 am

FrediFizzx wrote: ↑Tue Feb 01, 2022 1:47 pm For physics, the definition of realism is very clear. If you know the initial variable values for a system, you can predict with certainty the outcomes or results. The reason you think it is obscure and others might think that, is you believe in Bell's junk physics theory. That pretty much started all the freakin' nonsense.
.

I agree, but your definition of realism should be called, simply and clearly, determinism. I do not have to believe in "Bell's junk physics" to realize the obscureness of realism for two simple reasons: 1) Bell never used that term 2) You only have to read the literature to find many physically irrelevant definitions of realism.
As van Fraassen said in 1982 "A reader as yet unfamiliar with the literature will be astounded to see the incredible metaphysical extravaganzas to which this subject has led."

by **FrediFizzx** » Tue Feb 01, 2022 1:47 pm

Justo wrote: ↑Tue Feb 01, 2022 10:24 am
FrediFizzx wrote: ↑Tue Feb 01, 2022 6:56 am There is nothing obscure about realism as it is used in physics. See my example above! Not sure why you think it is obscure.
In part you are right. The problem is that everyone has his own definition of realism and some of them are obscure metaphysical ideas. Besides, I don't recall Bell messing with that term.

For physics, the definition of realism is very clear. If you know the initial variable values for a system, you can predict with certainty the outcomes or results. The reason you think it is obscure and others might think that, is you believe in Bell's junk physics theory. That pretty much started all the freakin' nonsense.
.

by **Joy Christian** » Tue Feb 01, 2022 11:27 am

Justo wrote: ↑Tue Feb 01, 2022 10:24 am
FrediFizzx wrote: ↑Tue Feb 01, 2022 6:56 am There is nothing obscure about realism as it is used in physics. See my example above! Not sure why you think it is obscure.
In part you are right. The problem is that everyone has his own definition of realism and some of them are obscure metaphysical ideas. Besides, I don't recall Bell messing with that term.

It does not matter whether Bell used the term "realism" or not. His so-called theorem is worthless nonsense regardless. He should have known better.
.

by **Justo** » Tue Feb 01, 2022 10:24 am

FrediFizzx wrote: ↑Tue Feb 01, 2022 6:56 am There is nothing obscure about realism as it is used in physics. See my example above! Not sure why you think it is obscure.

In part you are right. The problem is that everyone has his own definition of realism and some of them are obscure metaphysical ideas. Besides, I don't recall Bell messing with that term.

by **FrediFizzx** » Tue Feb 01, 2022 6:56 am

Justo wrote: ↑Tue Feb 01, 2022 6:19 am
Gordon Watson wrote: ↑Mon Jan 31, 2022 11:11 pm 1. I'd welcome your identification of the texts that provide the definition of "realism" by Einstein and Bell.
I do not know about Einstein, but I doubt Bell ever mentioned such an obscure concept as "realism". Bell was a very clear thinker and I don't recall reading "realism" in his writings, at least as a hypothesis for his theorem.
Terms such as realism, counterfactual definiteness, pre-existing values, and similar metaphysical and far-fetch contrivances are inventions unfairly attributed to Bell.

There is nothing obscure about realism as it is used in physics. See my example above! Not sure why you think it is obscure.
.

by **Justo** » Tue Feb 01, 2022 6:19 am

Gordon Watson wrote: ↑Mon Jan 31, 2022 11:11 pm 1. I'd welcome your identification of the texts that provide the definition of "realism" by Einstein and Bell.

I do not know about Einstein, but I doubt Bell ever mentioned such an obscure concept as "realism". Bell was a very clear thinker and I don't recall reading "realism" in his writings, at least as a hypothesis for his theorem.
Terms such as realism, counterfactual definiteness, pre-existing values, and similar metaphysical and far-fetch contrivances are inventions unfairly attributed to Bell.

by **FrediFizzx** » Tue Feb 01, 2022 1:58 am

Gordon Watson wrote: ↑Mon Jan 31, 2022 10:38 pm
FrediFizzx wrote: ↑Sun Jan 30, 2022 7:22 am
Gordon Watson wrote: ↑Sun Jan 30, 2022 6:51 am To Richard Gill and Joy Christian: WRT your debate, please define REALISM.

Thanks; Gordon
Well, I will define realistic as it relates to the latest simulation. Give me 2D values for the vectors a and b and a 3D value for the singlet vector s then I will tell you what the outcomes are at A and B. IOW, I can realistically predict the exact results. That is pretty much it for realism.
.
Thanks, Fred, sounds promising.

How about the Bohm-Aharonov experiment in Bell (1964)? Can you show me a couple of worked examples that achieve such results?
Gordon

Sure. Give me the values of the vectors I requested above and I will tell you what the values of A and B are. For example,

Code: Select all

(In x,y,z), s = {-0.270857,-0.68521,0.676109}
(In Degree), a = 137
(In Degree), b = 123
A = {1}
B = {-1}

I should note here that the norm of "s" should be 1 and "a" and "b" have the range -179 to +180 degrees.

Code: Select all

In[168]:= Norm[s]
Out[168]= 1.

.

by **Gordon Watson** » Mon Jan 31, 2022 11:11 pm

Joy Christian wrote: ↑Sun Jan 30, 2022 8:12 am
Gordon Watson wrote: ↑Sun Jan 30, 2022 6:51 am
To Richard Gill and Joy Christian: WRT your debate, please define REALISM.
There is no "debate".

Richard D. Gill cannot do math ... <SNIP>

As for "realism", it was defined by Einstein and Bell in the context of the Bohr-Einstein debate. Look it up. There is no debate regarding that either.

Joy,
1. I'd welcome your identification of the texts that provide the definition of "realism" by Einstein and Bell.

2. But I'm seeking your definition of "realism".

3. When you say there is no debate re realism: I guess you are implying that Gill agrees with your definition?
.

Sci.Physics.Foundations

Reply to IEEE Access "Comment" by Richard D. Gill

Post a reply

Expand view Topic review: Reply to IEEE Access "Comment" by Richard D. Gill

Re: Reply to IEEE Access "Comment" by Richard D. Gill

Re: Reply to IEEE Access "Comment" by Richard D. Gill

Re: Reply to IEEE Access "Comment" by Richard D. Gill

Re: Reply to IEEE Access "Comment" by Richard D. Gill

Re: Reply to IEEE Access "Comment" by Richard D. Gill

Re: Reply to IEEE Access "Comment" by Richard D. Gill

Re: Reply to IEEE Access "Comment" by Richard D. Gill

Re: Reply to IEEE Access "Comment" by Richard D. Gill

Re: Reply to IEEE Access "Comment" by Richard D. Gill

Re: Reply to IEEE Access "Comment" by Richard D. Gill

Re: Reply to IEEE Access "Comment" by Richard D. Gill

Re: Reply to IEEE Access "Comment" by Richard D. Gill

Re: Reply to IEEE Access "Comment" by Richard D. Gill

Re: Reply to IEEE Access "Comment" by Richard D. Gill

Re: Reply to IEEE Access "Comment" by Richard D. Gill

Re: Reply to IEEE Access "Comment" by Richard D. Gill

Re: Reply to IEEE Access "Comment" by Richard D. Gill

Re: Reply to IEEE Access "Comment" by Richard D. Gill

Re: Reply to IEEE Access "Comment" by Richard D. Gill

Re: Reply to IEEE Access "Comment" by Richard D. Gill