Sci.Physics.Foundations

.
For many years it has been known to some of us that all Bell-believers of every kind use a blatant bait-and-switch tactic to deceive themselves and the rest of the physics community. Some of these Bell-believers have Ph.D.'s and some even call themselves "mathematicians." They claim that Bell inequalities are violated in experiments, by quantum mechanics, and by some voodoo euphemized as "nonlocality." In this thread, I am going to expose their fraud without using any fancy details. For all kinds of details, check out some of the topics in the old forum: http://www.sciphysicsforums.com/spfbb1/ ... um.php?f=6.

The trick used by Bell-believers is very simple. Consider the CHSH inequality, |CHSH| < 2, which was essentially proven in 1853 by George Boole, some one hundred and eleven years before Bell's famous paper. It is a trivial mathematical inequality, and no one with high school education questions its validity.

As I said, I am not going to discuss any details. So I have written the Bell-CHSH inequality simply as |CHSH| < 2. But this is a mathematical inequality and cannot be violated or exceeded by anything. So what do the Bell-believers do? They first flood any discussion about it with all sorts of mumbo-jumbo --- i.e, they use the old magician's trick. Then, within the mumbo-jumbo, when the audience is distracted, they SWITCH TO A COMPLETELY DIFFERENT INEQUALITY. Typically, they switch to |Pre-CHSH| < 4. Notice that this one has the bound of 4, and thus it can be exceeded by anything that the tricksters told you was bounded by 2. That is all they do. The funny thing is that a very large proportion of the otherwise intelligent members of the physics community has fallen for this trick for more than half a century. Remember what I have explained here. No matter what the tricksters are telling you, always come back and read this, and you will be able to unmask their trick yourself, without any sophisticated knowledge of the so-called "theorem" of Bell. It is blatant fraud, folks!
.

Joy Christian wrote: ↑Mon Nov 08, 2021 1:47 am .
For many years it has been known to some of us that all Bell-believers of every kind use a blatant bait-and-switch tactic to deceive themselves and the rest of the physics community. Some of these Bell-believers have Ph.D.'s and some even call themselves "mathematicians." They claim that Bell inequalities are violated in experiments, by quantum mechanics, and by some voodoo euphemized as "nonlocality." In this thread, I am going to expose their fraud without using any fancy details. For all kinds of details, check out some of the topics in the old forum: http://www.sciphysicsforums.com/spfbb1/ ... um.php?f=6.

The trick used by Bell-believers is very simple. Consider the CHSH inequality, |CHSH| < 2, which was essentially proven in 1853 by George Boole, some one hundred and eleven years before Bell's famous paper. It is a trivial mathematical inequality, and no one with high school education questions its validity.

As I said, I am not going to discuss any details. So I have written the Bell-CHSH inequality simply as |CHSH| < 2. But this is a mathematical inequality and cannot be violated or exceeded by anything. So what do the Bell-believers do? They first flood any discussion about it with all sorts of mumbo-jumbo --- i.e, they use the old magician's trick. Then, within the mumbo-jumbo, when the audience is distracted, they SWITCH TO A COMPLETELY DIFFERENT INEQUALITY. Typically, they switch to |Pre-CHSH| < 4. Notice that this one has the bound of 4, and thus it can be exceeded by anything that the tricksters told you was bounded by 2. That is all they do. The funny thing is that a very large proportion of the otherwise intelligent members of the physics community has fallen for this trick for more than half a century. Remember what I have explained here. No matter what the tricksters are telling you, always come back and read this, and you will be able to unmask their trick yourself, without any sophisticated knowledge of the so-called "theorem" of Bell. It is blatant fraud, folks!

Yep, we have been saying this for years now. The really really mind boggling thing is that NONE of the Bell Fanatics seem to "GET IT". Well..., of course if they "GET IT", then their Bell world is ruined, wrecked, finished, decimated, etc.
.

Joy Christian wrote: ↑Mon Nov 08, 2021 1:47 am .
For many years it has been known to some of us that all Bell-believers of every kind use a blatant bait-and-switch tactic to deceive themselves and the rest of the physics community. Some of these Bell-believers have Ph.D.'s and some even call themselves "mathematicians." They claim that Bell inequalities are violated in experiments, by quantum mechanics, and by some voodoo euphemized as "nonlocality." In this thread, I am going to expose their fraud without using any fancy details. For all kinds of details, check out some of the topics in the old forum: http://www.sciphysicsforums.com/spfbb1/ ... um.php?f=6.

The trick used by Bell-believers is very simple. Consider the CHSH inequality, |CHSH| < 2, which was essentially proven in 1853 by George Boole, some one hundred and eleven years before Bell's famous paper. It is a trivial mathematical inequality, and no one with high school education questions its validity.

As I said, I am not going to discuss any details. So I have written the Bell-CHSH inequality simply as |CHSH| < 2. But this is a mathematical inequality and cannot be violated or exceeded by anything. So what do the Bell-believers do? They first flood any discussion about it with all sorts of mumbo-jumbo --- i.e, they use the old magician's trick. Then, within the mumbo-jumbo, when the audience is distracted, they SWITCH TO A COMPLETELY DIFFERENT INEQUALITY. Typically, they switch to |Pre-CHSH| < 4. Notice that this one has the bound of 4, and thus it can be exceeded by anything that the tricksters told you was bounded by 2. That is all they do. The funny thing is that a very large proportion of the otherwise intelligent members of the physics community has fallen for this trick for more than half a century. Remember what I have explained here. No matter what the tricksters are telling you, always come back and read this, and you will be able to unmask their trick yourself, without any sophisticated knowledge of the so-called "theorem" of Bell. It is blatant fraud, folks!

Joy, how come you, and Boris Tsirelson, both proved that S < 2 sqrt 2?

In neither case, using high school math, but still.

Is your inequality also a bait and switch fraud?

Of course everyone realises that with empirical data all one could say is S < 4

But Fred and your simulations don't show that S < 4. Apparently they confirm QM, which says S < 2 sqrt 2

@gill1109 I'll leave this one for Joy to respond to. The answers are mind bogglingly simple.
.

gill1109 wrote: ↑Mon Nov 08, 2021 6:51 am
Joy, how come you, and Boris Tsirelson, both proved that S < 2 sqrt 2?

In neither case, using high school math, but still.

Is your inequality also a bait and switch fraud?

Of course everyone realises that with empirical data all one could say is S < 4

But Fred and your simulations don't show that S < 4. Apparently they confirm QM, which says S < 2 sqrt 2

Neither I nor Boris Tsirelson in our respective derivations of the bound of 2 sqrt 2 on the sum of four independent expectation values subscribes to the Boole-Bell-CHSH bound of 2 in the first place. The bait and switch tactic involves first baiting the gullible with the bound of 2 and then surreptitiously switching to the bound of 4 when claiming a violation in experiments or by quantum mechanics. While the latter tactic is fraudulent, the former is not.
.

It would be fraudulent if it were done with intent to deceive. But if it is done in good faith, it is not fraud. The Boole-Bell-CHSH bound is mathematics. Boole was not a fraud. The bound was derived under certain assumptions. When you see it violated, the assumptions must be violated also. That’s moreover exactly what physicists who report violations of the inequality say. They say that their experiment casts doubt on the *physical* assumptions put into the derivation of the inequality.

If you have a problem with that, tell us which of Boole’s assumptions was wrong.

gill1109 wrote: ↑Mon Nov 08, 2021 9:58 pm It would be fraudulent if it were done with intent to deceive. But if it is done in good faith, it is not fraud. The Boole-Bell-CHSH bound is mathematics. Boole was not a fraud. The bound was derived under certain assumptions. When you see it violated, the assumptions must be violated also. That’s moreover exactly what physicists who report violations of the inequality say. They say that their experiment casts doubt on the *physical* assumptions put into the derivation of the inequality.

If you have a problem with that, tell us which of Boole’s assumptions was wrong.

Bait and switch is done in good faith only by magicians on a stage where everyone knows that it is just a magic trick for entertainment. When bait and switch is done by Bell-believers, it is done deliberately to deceive the community so that they keep getting adulated by the community and keep getting honors, grant money, and prestige. What Bell-believers are doing is fraudulent, unless they are extremely stupid and don't know what they are doing.

Your comment suggests that you are either rationalizing the fraud or haven't a clue what Fred, Michel, and I have been explaining to you for years.
.

My comment on the first of Joy’s two IEEE Access papers is now also accepted! RSOS should follow soon.

https://arxiv.org/abs/2103.00225

gill1109 wrote: ↑Tue Nov 09, 2021 1:18 pm My comment on the first of Joy’s two IEEE Access papers is now also accepted! RSOS should follow soon.

https://arxiv.org/abs/2103.00225

LOL! You can't even do an abstract without lying. What a piece of trash your paper is!
.

FrediFizzx wrote: ↑Tue Nov 09, 2021 1:25 pm

gill1109 wrote: ↑Tue Nov 09, 2021 1:18 pm My comment on the first of Joy’s two IEEE Access papers is now also accepted! RSOS should follow soon.

https://arxiv.org/abs/2103.00225

LOL! You can't even do an abstract without lying. What a piece of trash your paper is!

This unpublished preprint by Gill is a prime example of how the blatant fraud is perpetuated by all Bell-believers for self-glorification. Note the "theorem" based on the inequality stolen by Bell from George Boole he reproduces in the preprint. He then claims that that mathematical inequality was violated in the so-called loophole-free experiments. The guy has absolutely no clue what he is talking about. And he calls himself a mathematician in the preprint.
.

Joy Christian wrote: ↑Tue Nov 09, 2021 2:59 pm

FrediFizzx wrote: ↑Tue Nov 09, 2021 1:25 pm

gill1109 wrote: ↑Tue Nov 09, 2021 1:18 pm My comment on the first of Joy’s two IEEE Access papers is now also accepted! RSOS should follow soon.

https://arxiv.org/abs/2103.00225

LOL! You can't even do an abstract without lying. What a piece of trash your paper is!

This unpublished preprint by Gill is a prime example of how the blatant fraud is perpetuated by all Bell-believers for self-glorification. Note the "theorem" based on the inequality stolen by Bell from George Boole he reproduces in the preprint. He then claims that that mathematical inequality was violated in the so-called loophole-free experiments. The guy has absolutely no clue what he is talking about. And he calls himself a mathematician in the preprint.
.

If Gill's comment is actually published, it will be interesting to know also Joy's response, especially if it is also published (which means that it would have passed peer review)

Justo wrote: ↑Wed Nov 10, 2021 4:23 am

Joy Christian wrote: ↑Tue Nov 09, 2021 2:59 pm

FrediFizzx wrote: ↑Tue Nov 09, 2021 1:25 pm
LOL! You can't even do an abstract without lying. What a piece of trash your paper is!

This unpublished preprint by Gill is a prime example of how the blatant fraud is perpetuated by all Bell-believers for self-glorification. Note the "theorem" based on the inequality stolen by Bell from George Boole he reproduces in the preprint. He then claims that that mathematical inequality was violated in the so-called loophole-free experiments. The guy has absolutely no clue what he is talking about. And he calls himself a mathematician in the preprint.

If Gill's comment is actually published, it will be interesting to know also Joy's response, especially if it is also published (which means that it would have passed peer review)

Justo, I have already refuted most of the claims made by Gill in the above preprint in my previous reply to him, which is published in IEEE Access:

https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/9418997.
.

Justo wrote: ↑Wed Nov 10, 2021 4:23 am ... If Gill's comment is actually published, it will be interesting to know also Joy's response, especially if it is also published (which means that it would have passed peer review)

Well, besides all that we have strict mathematical proof that Gill is wrong and lies in many places.

Here is a simulation that is similar to Joy's model that shot down Bell's junk physics theory back in 2007. Using quaternions instead of geometric algebra so perhaps you might understand it and agree that it is true. Plot of product calculation 20,000 trials.


The blue is data points and the magenta is the -cosine curve for an exact match so easy to see that the model predicts -cos(a-b) exactly like quantum mechanics.
Justo, that is all you really need to know! But you really should learn how these models work. Ask questions.

Cloud File.

https://www.wolframcloud.com/obj/fredif ... c-forum.nb

Direct Files.

download/newCS-35-S3quat-prodcalc-forum.pdf
download/newCS-35-S3quat-prodcalc-forum.nb

Enjoy this Bell junk physics theory killer!!
.

Joy Christian wrote: ↑Wed Nov 10, 2021 4:32 am

Justo wrote: ↑Wed Nov 10, 2021 4:23 am

Joy Christian wrote: ↑Tue Nov 09, 2021 2:59 pm
This unpublished preprint by Gill is a prime example of how the blatant fraud is perpetuated by all Bell-believers for self-glorification. Note the "theorem" based on the inequality stolen by Bell from George Boole he reproduces in the preprint. He then claims that that mathematical inequality was violated in the so-called loophole-free experiments. The guy has absolutely no clue what he is talking about. And he calls himself a mathematician in the preprint.

If Gill's comment is actually published, it will be interesting to know also Joy's response, especially if it is also published (which means that it would have passed peer review)

Justo, I have already refuted most of the claims made by Gill in the above preprint in my previous reply to him, which is published in IEEE Access:

https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/9418997.
.

I see, however, this is a different paper and perhaps deserves its own response.

Justo wrote: ↑Wed Nov 10, 2021 11:12 am

Joy Christian wrote: ↑Wed Nov 10, 2021 4:32 am

Justo wrote: ↑Wed Nov 10, 2021 4:23 am

If Gill's comment is actually published, it will be interesting to know also Joy's response, especially if it is also published (which means that it would have passed peer review)

Justo, I have already refuted most of the claims made by Gill in the above preprint in my previous reply to him, which is published in IEEE Access:

https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/9418997.

I see, however, this is a different paper and perhaps deserves its own response.

No, it does not deserve any response. It is a junk paper and repeats the same discredited arguments over and over again as he has been doing for the past ten years (see the introductory paragraph of my IEEE Access response above for all the references). If I may end up writing a response, it will be purely for sociological reasons. His scientific arguments have all been repeatedly refuted by me for the past ten years. His arguments have all been crank arguments.
.

My "Comment" https://arxiv.org/abs/2106.03169 on Joy's RSOS paper has also been accepted. No doubt, Joy will yet again be invited to write a "Reply". I hope he will do so, if only for sociological reasons.

My IEEE accepted Comment https://arxiv.org/abs/2103.00225 on Joy's IEEE Access quaternions paper had more than 10 referees. Joy had exactly two supporters, one of whom was, I suppose, Joy himself. All the others were in favour of publication. Even Joy's sole supporter felt that my Comment should be published in order to further debate and let people make up their minds for themselves.

I'm glad this saga is coming to an end. Time to move on. I feel that Joy's papers were valuable in promoting discussion of Bell's theorem and in clarifying its content. There are a lot of misunderstandings around in the wider physics community. Moreover, he got them published: there is no establishment conspiracy trying to silence him. Everybody can study his works and come to their own conclusions.

gill1109 wrote: ↑Wed Nov 10, 2021 11:53 pm My "Comment" https://arxiv.org/abs/2106.03169 on Joy's RSOS paper has also been accepted. No doubt, Joy will yet again be invited to write a "Reply". I hope he will do so, if only for sociological reasons.

My IEEE accepted Comment https://arxiv.org/abs/2103.00225 on Joy's IEEE Access quaternions paper had more than 10 referees. Joy had exactly two supporters, one of whom was, I suppose, Joy himself. All the others were in favour of publication. Even Joy's sole supporter felt that my Comment should be published in order to further debate and let people make up their minds for themselves.

I'm glad this saga is coming to an end. Time to move on. I feel that Joy's papers were valuable in promoting discussion of Bell's theorem and in clarifying its content. There are a lot of misunderstandings around in the wider physics community. Moreover, he got them published: there is no establishment conspiracy trying to silence him. Everybody can study his works and come to their own conclusions.

I consider myself a crac** (can't pronounce the word in his forum), why? Because I' am against an orthodox view of the Bell theorem and an orthodox derivation of the inequality. However, I do not believe in conspiracies. The proof is that I could publish my papers despite the belief of people like Gill that thinks I am completely mistaken. It is funny that according to many orthodox scientists of the physical community Novel laureate t' Hooft is also that unspeakable word (he advocates for local realism). Luckily, Joy also can publish his ideas for everyone to see and judge.

.
Ok, guys, let us get back to the topic of this thread about the bait-and-switch fraud committed by all Bell-believers, for unscientific reasons.
.

Joy Christian wrote: ↑Thu Nov 11, 2021 6:22 am .
Ok, guys, let us get back to the topic of this thread about the bait-and-switch fraud committed by all Bell-believers, for unscientific reasons.
.

It does not exist. There is no fraud. The folk who think Bell was right and repeat or even improve Bell’s arguments, genuinely believe he was right. Other people believe Bell was wrong. Other people (maybe the majority) are sheeple: they just repeat what other people say. I’m not aware of any deception.

Unfortunately, whether or not he was right, Joy’s arguments did not convince many people. Maybe they were poor arguments? Maybe, Joy should try to learn from them? Maybe, despite being a physicist, he should try to learn some mathematics? He will have to convince mathematicians, too. He should at the least learn their language.

gill1109 wrote: ↑Mon Nov 15, 2021 7:42 am

Joy Christian wrote: ↑Thu Nov 11, 2021 6:22 am .
Ok, guys, let us get back to the topic of this thread about the bait-and-switch fraud committed by all Bell-believers, for unscientific reasons.
.

It does not exist. There is no fraud. The folk who think Bell was right and repeat or even improve Bell’s arguments, genuinely believe he was right. Other people believe Bell was wrong. Other people (maybe the majority) are sheeple: they just repeat what other people say. I’m not aware of any deception.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_3HmZMOIEkc
.