Sci.Physics.Foundations

.
Richard D. Gill has published another crank "Comment" paper on my work on quantum correlations: https://doi.org/10.1098/rsos.201909.

His paper is full of mathematical, conceptual, physical, and logical mistakes, as all of his papers and his silly "challenges" on the subject are.

It is a tedious waste of my time to keep replying to Gill's crank "Comment" papers. But I have ended up submitting a Reply paper to RSOS:

http://dx.doi.org/10.13140/RG.2.2.34887.37286.

This is an important paper and I urge everyone to read it carefully to understand how misguided the arguments of Richard D. Gill are.

My paper is currently under peer review with RSOS where my original paper has been published since 2018:

https://doi.org/10.1098/rsos.180526.

The following are two other Reply papers to Gill I have previously published in IEEE Access:

https://doi.org/10.1109/ACCESS.2021.3076449.

https://doi.org/10.1109/ACCESS.2022.3146421.
.

I hope I'll be invited to referee it.

gill1109 wrote: ↑Fri Mar 04, 2022 1:17 am
I hope I'll be invited to referee it.

What good would that do? You would only make your usual ignoramus third-rate comments without any knowledge or understanding of elementary physics.
.

gill1109 wrote: ↑Fri Mar 04, 2022 1:17 am I hope I'll be invited to referee it.

Why? You're finished as a Bell fanatic. Hard to believe you still want to support Bell's junk physics theory with a bunch of nonsense.
.

Joy Christian wrote: ↑Tue Mar 01, 2022 5:01 am .
Richard D. Gill has published another crank "Comment" paper on my work on quantum correlations: https://doi.org/10.1098/rsos.201909.

His paper is full of mathematical, conceptual, physical, and logical mistakes, as all of his papers and his silly "challenges" on the subject are.

It is a tedious waste of my time to keep replying to Gill's crank "Comment" papers. But I have ended up submitting a Reply paper to RSOS:

http://dx.doi.org/10.13140/RG.2.2.34887.37286.

This is an important paper and I urge everyone to read it carefully to understand how misguided the arguments of Richard D. Gill are.

My paper is currently under peer review with RSOS where my original paper has been published since 2018:

https://doi.org/10.1098/rsos.180526.

The following are two other Reply papers to Gill I have previously published in IEEE Access:

https://doi.org/10.1109/ACCESS.2021.3076449.

https://doi.org/10.1109/ACCESS.2022.3146421.
.

.
My invited reply paper mentioned in the above post is now published in Royal Society Open Science:

https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/ ... sos.220147

Section 2.4 of this paper explains why Bell’s theorem is a fundamentally flawed argument and why its impossibility claim against Einstein’s local realism is not valid. Section 2.8 of the paper consolidates a new associative normed division algebra in eight dimensions despite Hurwitz’s theorem. The rest of the paper is a compilation of elementary mathematical mistakes in the papers by a statistician called Richard D. Gill of Leiden University.
.

Joy: i'd like to see you write a paper about Bell's straight-line inequality and Clauser and Freedman's cosine experimental results, also comparing the latter with Malus's law.

JohnDuffield wrote: ↑Sat Mar 11, 2023 9:39 am Joy: i'd like to see you write a paper about Bell's straight-line inequality and Clauser and Freedman's cosine experimental results, also comparing the latter with Malus's law.

(1) In this paper I compare Bell's local model producing straight lines (or the seesaw curve) with the cosine curve predicted by quantum mechanics and observed in the Bell-test experiments. In particular, I bring out why the difference between the two models arises. The difference has nothing to do with quantum entanglement per se. It has to do with the spinorial sign changes induced by quaternions that constitute the geometry of the physical space.

(2) In this paper I demonstrate, on formal grounds, that Bell's theorem is a fundamentally flawed argument. In particular, I show that while Bell inequalities can be derived mathematically, they have nothing to do with any kind of physics whatsoever, let alone with local hidden variable theories.

(3) On page 10 of this paper (written in 2007) I derive Malus's law for sequential spin measurements within my Clifford-algebraic framework for explaining the strong quantum correlations local-realistically.
.

All points, noted, Joy. I was thinking of something less mathematical, akin to the article I wrote:

Quantum entanglement is scientific fraud

I give you a couple of mentions. I saw your 2007 paper where you mentioned Malus's law, but forgot to put it in the footnote. Apologies. it's now there. I also made the footnote text bigger.

.
Richard D. Gill seems to have bitten off more than he can chew this time by harassing some trial witnesses in a murder case.

At least that is what this petition seems to suggest: https://www.change.org/p/tell-thames-va ... of-justice
.