Refuting Richard Gill's strange claim against my theory

[Gordon Watson]

.
0. Titled "Bell's theorem refuted: Einstein and locality prevail", my theory has been discussed at http://www.sciphysicsforums.com/spfbb1/ ... ?f=6&t=496

1. Therein I infer (in a commonsense notation against Bell 1964, and backed by many heuristics) to the following equation:

(5)

2. We need only refer to the middle and RH terms.

3. By private and public messages and backed by other Bellians, Richard Gill makes the following claim:

“(eq:5) is manifestly nonlocal. This is not about correlation versus causation. The probability of the A result, conditioned on the B result, and given both settings a and b, depends on the setting, b, in the other arm of the apparatus. Changing the b setting changes the probabilities on spacelike separated Alice's side. This is precisely what is called [after my edit for clarity] Gill-nonlocal."

4. As I see it, we have a matter of fact; one that might be found in any good book on conditional probability: "The probability of the A result, conditioned on the B result, and given both settings a and b, depends on the setting, b, in the other arm of the apparatus."

5. And then we have what appears to be a matter of total confusion: "Changing the b setting changes the probabilities on spacelike separated Alice's side."

6. In my view: since the probabilities on spacelike separated Alice's side are determined LOCALLY via Alice's setting a and the incoming local random variable , we have

(W)

7. Since I am happy to address any and all serious objections directly, and since I am happy to propose any Bellian as a nominated referee, am I missing something here?

Thanks; Gordon
.

[FrediFizzx]

.
7. Since I am happy to address any and all serious objections directly, and since I am happy to propose any Bellian as a nominated referee, am I missing something here?

Yes, you are missing something. There is no such word as "Bellian" in this context. The phrase is "Bell Fanatic". Which simply means an extreme fan of John Bell. Thanks.
.

[gill1109]

.
7. Since I am happy to address any and all serious objections directly, and since I am happy to propose any Bellian as a nominated referee, am I missing something here?

Yes, you are missing something. There is no such word as "Bellian" in this context. The phrase is "Bell Fanatic". Which simply means an extreme fan of John Bell. Thanks.

Exactly.

The problem is that Gordon did not catch my irony.

The problem with his arguments is always that they are circular. He *assumes* a certain expression for P(A+|B+, a, b). He says it follows from heuristics and/or from a conditional probability calculation. He now derives the famous formula for the correlation in the EPR-B model. He now claims to have disproved Bell’s theorem. He has done no such thing. He has not exhibited functions A(a, lambda) etc etc etc. He has just gone round in a little circle. He assumes QM formulas for EPR-B and uses them to get other QM formulas for EPR-B using elementary probability theory.

I should not have said that the expression was *manifestly* non-local. It is non-local. I know that because of Bell’s theorem. Because of the CHSH inequality.

You could derive a similar formula showing that the probability of A+ given B+, a, and b, also depends non-trivially on b, for Bell’s famous example local model. Just looking at the formula does not tell you whether or not it can be derived some local realistic mechanism.

Knowing A+, B+, and a, gives you information about b. So give Alice some non-local information, and she gains non-local information about more stuff.

[Gordon Watson]

.
7. Since I am happy to address any and all serious objections directly, and since I am happy to propose any Bellian as a nominated referee, am I missing something here?

Yes, you are missing something. There is no such word as "Bellian" in this context. The phrase is "Bell Fanatic". Which simply means an extreme fan of John Bell. Thanks.

Exactly.

The problem is that Gordon did not catch my irony.

The problem with his arguments is always that they are circular. He *assumes* a certain expression for P(A+|B+, a, b). He says it follows from heuristics and/or from a conditional probability calculation. He now derives the famous formula for the correlation in the EPR-B model. He now claims to have disproved Bell’s theorem. He has done no such thing. He has not exhibited functions A(a, lambda) etc etc etc. He has just gone round in a little circle. He assumes QM formulas for EPR-B and uses them to get other QM formulas for EPR-B using elementary probability theory.

I should not have said that the expression was *manifestly* non-local. It is non-local. I know that because of Bell’s theorem. Because of the CHSH inequality.

You could derive a similar formula showing that the probability of A+ given B+, a, and b, also depends non-trivially on b, for Bell’s famous example local model. Just looking at the formula does not tell you whether or not it can be derived some local realistic mechanism.

Knowing A+, B+, and a, gives you information about b. So give Alice some non-local information, and she gains non-local information about more stuff.

.

Another one bites the dust!

1. Bell's theorem refuted.
2. Bell's inequality refuted.
3. Bell's error identified and avoided.
4. Bell-locality refuted.
5. Gill-nonlocality refuted.
6. Gill-irony exposed: not simulated ignorance.

Cheers; Gordon
.

[gill1109]

Sorry Gordon, I have the impression that you are the only person in the world who agrees with your "refutations". They may agree with you that Bell was wrong, and/or that I am wrong

[Justo]

I don't know if it will help but I have the impression that the problem is somehow semantics.
The Bell theorem has hypotheses. I believe that Joy does claim the theorem is false because he says that given the hypothesis the result does not follow or that it has no physical meaning. I don't understand well which one it is.
However, Gordon's claim is different. He challenges the definition of locality. So he is not talking about the Bell theorem because he rejects its hypotheses.

[gill1109]

I don't know if it will help but I have the impression that the problem is somehow semantics.
The Bell theorem has hypotheses. I believe that Joy does claim the theorem is false because he says that given the hypothesis the result does not follow or that it has no physical meaning. I don't understand well which one it is.
However, Gordon's claim is different. He challenges the definition of locality. So he is not talking about the Bell theorem because he rejects its hypotheses.

If only that were true

Gordon does not define locality. He works heuristically. There are some relations known from classical optics (ie, from a wave theory of light) which everyone understands as being local. He rewrites them as conditional probability assumptions and says they are local because we already know that. He hasn't grasped this shift from waves to particles or even from waves to "waves and particles depending on what aspect of light you are looking at".

Joy has published many papers and I think that from a mathematical point of view he switches from one claim about Bell's theorem to another. He challenges it. He believes it is false. He presents what looks like mathematical counter-examples, ie what looks like arguments that the conclusion does not follow from the hypothesis, but he also claims that our conceptions of locality and realism need to be changed.

[Joy Christian]

.
@gill1109: More waffles from the master of waffles. Go harass somebody else, like 't Hooft or Sabine, if you have the guts to do so.
.

[Gordon Watson]

I don't know if it will help but I have the impression that the problem is somehow semantics.
The Bell theorem has hypotheses. I believe that Joy does claim the theorem is false because he says that given the hypothesis the result does not follow or that it has no physical meaning. I don't understand well which one it is.
However, Gordon's claim is different. He challenges the definition of locality. So he is not talking about the Bell theorem because he rejects its hypotheses.

Dear Justo,

1. In my draft, every paragraph, equation, reference, etc, is identified by a number. Please identify the source of your claim that I challenge the definition of locality.

2. To be clear. If you think I err with eqn (5) -- a conditional probability over events which are spacelike separated and correlated -- then see my rebuttal of Richard Gill's similar nonsense above.

3. In words, what do you object to here:

GSW writes: Locality: the real factual situation of the physical system is independent of what is done with the spatially separated physical system ; after Einstein, see Bell (1964:200).

4. Is this any clearer for you?

GSW writes: From Bell (1964:195), we take this to be Bell's theorem: 'No locally causal theory can reproduce the predictions of quantum mechanics (QM).' Our reproduction of the QM results is therefore bound by commonsense notions of locality (no signal propagates instantaneously) and causality (a cause precedes its effect). We are not bound by Bell's errors.

5. AND, PLEASE: Why do Bellistas like you ignore Bell's death-bed dilemma?

GSW writes: From Bell (1990:84): (i) ‘This is the dilemma. We are led by analysing this situation to admit that in somehow distant things are connected, or at least not disconnected.'

That's a dilemma that I resolve: in Einstein's favour!

6.

So Gordon is not talking about the Bell theorem because Gordon rejects its hypotheses.

Specifically: which hypotheses do I reject? I suggest that it is clearer too say: Gordon avoids Bell's blunders!

Please respond carefully. Thanks; Gordon
.

[Gordon Watson]

I don't know if it will help but I have the impression that the problem is somehow semantics.
The Bell theorem has hypotheses. I believe that Joy does claim the theorem is false because he says that given the hypothesis the result does not follow or that it has no physical meaning. I don't understand well which one it is.
However, Gordon's claim is different. He challenges the definition of locality. So he is not talking about the Bell theorem because he rejects its hypotheses.

If only that were true

Gordon does not define locality. He works heuristically. There are some relations known from classical optics (ie, from a wave theory of light) which everyone understands as being local. He rewrites them as conditional probability assumptions and says they are local because we already know that. He hasn't grasped this shift from waves to particles or even from waves to "waves and particles depending on what aspect of light you are looking at".

Joy has published many papers and I think that from a mathematical point of view he switches from one claim about Bell's theorem to another. He challenges it. He believes it is false. He presents what looks like mathematical counter-examples, ie what looks like arguments that the conclusion does not follow from the hypothesis, but he also claims that our conceptions of locality and realism need to be changed.

Dear Richard,

1. To practice irony, you need to simulate ignorance, not prove it.

2. To tell the truth, you need to stop lying.

3. This is just one of you lies here: "Gordon does not define locality."

4. Further, I work hypothetically and heuristically. Just like Einstein and Bell and thousands of others. So, please: (i) See my (above) reply to Justo. (ii) And similarly identify how you support your claims.

5. You once claimed that my math was full of errors. I still have no clue as to what you are referring. So please reply carefully and identify no less than one of them. (Your attack on my conditional probability in my eqn (5) was supposed to be your best shot: please do not repeat that nonsense in your reply.)

Gordon
.

[Justo]

Dear Gordon,
I beg your pardon. I went over your paper and checked that for me it is unintelligible. So I can't have an opinion of it. Send it somewhere and let's see what the reviewers say.
If it is well written and proves that Bell was wrong, start by sending it to Nature.
Recently Eugene Muchowski published a refutation of Bell's theorem in a very serious journal, so who knows.

[Gordon Watson]

Dear Gordon,
I beg your pardon. I went over your paper and checked that for me it is unintelligible. So I can't have an opinion of it. Send it somewhere and let's see what the reviewers say.
If it is well written and proves that Bell was wrong, start by sending it to Nature.
Recently Eugene Muchowski published a refutation of Bell's theorem in a very serious journal, so who knows.

Justo,
What is going on with you? This is not the first time that you've made a false claim, against my theory, and then run away from it.
How about pointing to at least one thing that is unintelligible to you?
Gordon
.

[FrediFizzx]

@Gordon What is the link to the paper and I will tell you?
.

[Gordon Watson]

@Gordon What is the link to the paper and I will tell you?
.

Thanks Fred,
A final version is on its way. This draft will get you started, for nothing technical changes:
https://www.academia.edu/54714203/Bells ... ty_prevail
Gordon

[FrediFizzx]

@Gordon What is the link to the paper and I will tell you?
.

Thanks Fred,
A final version is on its way. This draft will get you started, for nothing technical changes:
https://www.academia.edu/54714203/Bells ... ty_prevail
Gordon

First thing. Your introduction is terrible. Take out the numbers on the paragraphs and try to make it more readable. It is so bad I didn't even bother to try to read the intro. So, get that fixed first. Then maybe I will try to read more.
.

[Gordon Watson]

@Gordon What is the link to the paper and I will tell you?
.

Thanks Fred,
A final version is on its way. This draft will get you started, for nothing technical changes:
https://www.academia.edu/54714203/Bells ... ty_prevail
Gordon

First thing. Your introduction is terrible. Take out the numbers on the paragraphs and try to make it more readable. It is so bad I didn't even bother to try to read the intro. So, get that fixed first. Then maybe I will try to read more.
.

Thanks Fred,
But more help needed!
How about you help me via some specifics?
Saying that my Introduction is 'terrible' does not help me edit it to a 'non-terrible' one.
The numbered paragraphs facilitate later cross-referencing and discussion. So what is the basis for your advice to get rid of them?
To me: my numbering of every paragraph and equation akin to readily-identified bullet-points; especially in the light of this next:

In §2.2 I say that I take mathematics to be the best logic. (So the Introduction specifies some of the foundations on which my math is based.)
So one way I see to fix the "readability" is to open with this at §1.1: "I take mathematics to be the best logic. Here are some of the foundations on which my analysis of Bell's theorem is based."

But it seems you want more than that? SOS! Thanks again; Gordon

[FrediFizzx]

@Gordon Sorry, way too busy on our own project. You're on your own or hire a pro writer. I'm very lucky to have Joy helping me out.
.

[Justo]

Dear Gordon,
I beg your pardon. I went over your paper and checked that for me it is unintelligible. So I can't have an opinion of it. Send it somewhere and let's see what the reviewers say.
If it is well written and proves that Bell was wrong, start by sending it to Nature.
Recently Eugene Muchowski published a refutation of Bell's theorem in a very serious journal, so who knows.

Justo,
What is going on with you? This is not the first time that you've made a false claim, against my theory, and then run away from it.
How about pointing to at least one thing that is unintelligible to you?
Gordon
.

I already apologized for my previous comment because I realized that I really do not understand what you wrote. How can that be a false claim?

[Gordon Watson]

Dear Gordon,
I beg your pardon. I went over your paper and checked that for me it is unintelligible. So I can't have an opinion of it. Send it somewhere and let's see what the reviewers say.
If it is well written and proves that Bell was wrong, start by sending it to Nature.
Recently Eugene Muchowski published a refutation of Bell's theorem in a very serious journal, so who knows.

Justo,
What is going on with you? This is not the first time that you've made a false claim, against my theory, and then run away from it.
How about pointing to at least one thing that is unintelligible to you?
Gordon
.

I already apologized for my previous comment because I realized that I really do not understand what you wrote. How can that be a false claim?

Justo,

1. This your false claim:

However, Gordon's claim is different. He challenges the definition of locality.

See §1.4 of my draft.

2. As for not understanding what I write: please supply a least one example (the more the better). I am happy make things clearer.

Thanks; Gordon
.

[gill1109]

Justo,
What is going on with you? This is not the first time that you've made a false claim, against my theory, and then run away from it.
How about pointing to at least one thing that is unintelligible to you?
Gordon
.

I already apologized for my previous comment because I realized that I really do not understand what you wrote. How can that be a false claim?

Justo,

1. This your false claim:

However, Gordon's claim is different. He challenges the definition of locality.

See §1.4 of my draft.

2. As for not understanding what I write: please supply a least one example (the more the better). I am happy make things clearer.

Thanks; Gordon
.

Gordon, Fred gave you the best possible advice anyone could give you. Hire someone to help you write.
Richard