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

[Joy Christian]

To Richard Gill and Joy Christian: WRT your debate, please define REALISM.

There is no "debate".

Richard D. Gill cannot do math and he does not have any knowledge or background in physics. So he resorts to ad hominem and ad verecundiam attacks on me personally and concocts a grotesque strawman of my perfectly sensible local-realistic model for quantum correlations to mislead the physics community into believing that there is something wrong with my model and therefore there is some kind of debate about it. This totally anti-scientific strategy is what Gill has been pursuing for the past ten years (including other unethical activities behind the scenes such as harassment, slander, and character assassination) to undermine my work and me personally. The bottom line is that he is a pathetic loser and does not have the guts to admit defeat.

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.
.

[Gordon Watson]

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
.

[Gordon Watson]

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?
.

[FrediFizzx]

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.

.

[Justo]

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.

[FrediFizzx]

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.
.

[Justo]

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.

[Joy Christian]

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.
.

[FrediFizzx]

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.
.

[Justo]

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."

[FrediFizzx]

... 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.
.

[Justo]

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

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

[FrediFizzx]

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

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.
.

[Justo]

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

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

[FrediFizzx]

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

[gill1109]

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?

[FrediFizzx]

...
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.
.

[Joy Christian]

.
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.
.

[gill1109]

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

[Joy Christian]

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.