Gill–Sanctuary Bet?

[antonvrba]

Did I miss something? Is it settled or have both parties lost steam?

[Bryan Sanctuary]

For my part the bet is on as far as I am concerned.  Richard has only one objection, to average correlation rather than add.  This is wrong as I explain in the paper, but he won't budge because then he will be admitting defeat.  Also my spin has a load of spin offs, with nothing to do with EPR,  like, hold onto your hat, it shows neutrinos cannot exist and that parity is not violated for the weak force.  This is a result of using quaternion symmetry for spin rather than SU(2)--works.  

Spin is a quaternion, which make sense.

Check out the paper.  

Bryan

On Sun, Mar 10, 2024 at 9:31 AM antonvrba <anto...@gmail.com> wrote:

Did I miss something? Is it settled or have both parties lost steam?

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Bell inequalities and quantum foundations" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to Bell_quantum_found...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/Bell_quantum_foundations/a487c905-981c-495e-8eab-c9b7fa224337n%40googlegroups.com.

[Mark Hadley]

I didn't think the Bet was dependent on Richard's opinions.

I thought you needed to convince the community.

Cheers

Mark

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/Bell_quantum_foundations/CALLw9YzoGCRS-u7KonG-sKa3gkxbhUNgogD6iMgJthN5%3DbgZBg%40mail.gmail.com.

[Bryan Sanctuary]

Hi Mark,

Well Richard won't admit he is wrong, so I agree, he must be told he is wrong.  I would like to get a few physicists who have no axe to grind and know the Dirac field to enter into a discussion with me and Richard to come to some consensus. 

When Dirac linearized the KG equation he used (\gamma_1, \gamma_2, \gamma_3), and SU(2) follows with the matter-antimatter pair.  He could also have used (\gamma_1, i\gamma_2, \gamma_3), which I use and which solves most of the problems with QM and makes spin geometrically the same as a photon. This makes sense to me.

So I introduce a bivector i\sigma into the Dirac equation and then QM makes a lot more sense. I think Dirac made the wrong choice.

Any reviewer must show that this change, and the only change I make, is wrong for me to lose.

So can we get a team?  How about Penrose, van t'hooft, L. Susskind?  Suggestions of others?

Bryan

[Richard Gill]

The outcome of the bet was to be decided by the opinion of the majority of our peers. The deadline was January 1, 2024. I’m OK with giving Bryan a bit of extra time. And if he can recruit some more members to this group, that’s OK by me too. He has not got his papers published yet in any reputable journal, as far as I know.

Sent from my iPhone

On 10 Mar 2024, at 17:21, Bryan Sanctuary <bryancs...@gmail.com> wrote:



To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/Bell_quantum_foundations/CALLw9YytCKmcirWtOfKZLbSPjyVaU5U00-ZJHwodxtwxxsG1TA%40mail.gmail.com.

[Mark Hadley]

Richard,

I'd suggest that you don't allow extra time, but offer a subsequent double or quits bet with a later fixed deadline.

[Bryan Sanctuary]

Richard said I had to convince the majority after the bet was made, not me.  Additionally Richard  has a conflict of interest yet  did not reveal it to the editor.  You are wrong, no one has reviewed them yet.  No one has disagreed except the bellists on their point which shows they do not understand complementarity. Privately some agree with me.  And, most importantly, quaternion spin solves problems that are far removed from EPR, which is compelling.

So I seek honest and unbiased reviews, with discussion.  But my spin means the whole paradigm of QM will change--so it is like blowing in the wind.  

Bryan

[Richard Gill]

In my opinion it’s settled. Bryan made a wager that he would win the hearts and minds of a majority of our peers by the beginning of this year. I think it’s clear he didn’t. But if he can get Penrose or ‘t Hooft or similar to support him then everyone here might think again. I don’t know. He can try.

Bryan will never give up. But Clauser, Aspect, and Zeilinger have not renounced their Nobel prizes and people are not clamoring for them to do so. I would say it is evident that Bryan lost his bet.

Richard 

Sent from my iPhone

On 10 Mar 2024, at 14:31, antonvrba <anto...@gmail.com> wrote:

Did I miss something? Is it settled or have both parties lost steam?

[Richard Gill]

No Bryan, you specified how our bet would be settled, not me. 

Those were your words, not mine.

Sent from my iPhone

On 10 Mar 2024, at 18:34, Bryan Sanctuary <bryancs...@gmail.com> wrote:



To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/Bell_quantum_foundations/CALLw9Yx0OS73AkM9qLfjvwUYdK48NYK%3DAM_ZPEod3vR6bDA71g%40mail.gmail.com.

[Richard Gill]

Bryan, I had *published* a review of your paper long before you submitted it to FooP. You had already put it out on a preprint journal which allows reviews to be submitted and published on the journal website.

The editor of FooP later asked me to referee your paper. I sent him what was already online (written by me) and what you already should have seen. I don’t know if it influenced him. You could send him a refutation of my review, if you think it can be refuted, and you could ask him for another referee.

Sent from my iPhone

On 10 Mar 2024, at 18:34, Bryan Sanctuary <bryancs...@gmail.com> wrote:



To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/Bell_quantum_foundations/CALLw9Yx0OS73AkM9qLfjvwUYdK48NYK%3DAM_ZPEod3vR6bDA71g%40mail.gmail.com.

[Richard Gill]

Bryan already had one one-year extension. I’ve really lost interest now. But if he wants to do a double or quits, we can discuss it. 

It’s not enough to get his work published. He has to get it acclaimed.

Sent from my iPhone

On 10 Mar 2024, at 18:07, Mark Hadley <sunshine...@googlemail.com> wrote:



[Bryan Sanctuary]

I cannot ask alone Nobel Laureates and notable figures in physics to form a panel, so we need group effort with a request from Richard and me, and endorsements from others: I can suggest half a dozen, and people you might suggest to endorse.  I think three mutually agreed-to people is good, and I would give USD$100 as a token to each for their help.  Richard might do the same. I would want the panel to enter into a discussion about any points that are relevant or need clarification. 

So how about that?  Any name suggestions for the panel?

Bryan

[Mark Hadley]

Dear Bryan,

You seem to be confusing technical reviews of the paper with the terms of the bet. Your paper could be completely wrong yet still win the bet and vice versa: you could author correct papers (like mine ) but still fail to convince anyone and hence loose the bet.

You would need to give judges the exact wording of the bet and ask who has won it.

Won't any science editor or science journalist be able to answer?

In fact it's blindingly obvious that you have lost the bet, quite regardless of the correctness if your papers.

Cheers

Mark

[Richard Gill]

Very well said, Mark. A science editor or science journalist can tell us whether a majority of physicists in a certain field (foundations of physics + quantum gravity?) agree that you have fixed the Einstein-Bohr problems of fusing relativity and QM, and that you have proved that “non locality” is a myth, spooky action at a distance doesn’t exist, etc).

Obviously: you have already lost.

Of course, there are quite a few who already believe that non-locality is a myth (Joy Christian, Karl Hess, Tim Palmer, Gerard ‘t Hooft, Marianne Kupczynski…) but I haven’t seen any of them adopting your framework. They each have their own. And each remains on their own).

How about a new bet: 10 000 Euro says your work won’t be featured as an incredible breakthrough in a major spread in “Science” within 10 years. We will both invest 100 Euro now in a fund to create the prize money (more to be raised by crowd funding) since it’s unlikely we’ll both will be around in 10 years (possibly modern civilization won’t be there either). Don’t want to saddle our actual legal heirs with unpleasant financial obligations because of our foolishness now. 

Sent from my iPhone

On 10 Mar 2024, at 23:05, Mark Hadley <sunshine...@googlemail.com> wrote:



[Алексей Никулов]

Dear Richard,

Your bet with Bryan made no sense, at least not scientifically, since
Bell's inequalities could only have appeared as a result of a false
understanding by most physicists of quantum mechanics. I have proved
in the article [1] that the orthodox quantum mechanics cannot predict
violation of Bell’s inequalities and the EPR correlation. The lack of
interest in this publication proves the conclusion made in it: the
rejection of realism by the creators of quantum mechanics led to the
degradation of physical thinking. Using the example of the authors of
the GHZ theorem, I show that this degradation was caused by the fact
that almost all modern scientists are naive realists who do not
understand what realism is. Bohm invented in 1951, with the help of
absurdity, the EPR correlation, which is impossible according to
orthodox quantum mechanics, since he was also a naive realist who did
not understand what he was claiming.

Bell, like Einstein, understood the falsity of rejecting realism, but
he, unlike Einstein, did not understand what realism is. He misled
other naive realists by making two mistakes: 1) he did not understand
that the von Neumann’s no-go theorem proved the impossibility of a
realistic description of some quantum phenomena, such as the
Stern-Gerlach effect, and 2) he did not understand that orthodox
quantum mechanics cannot predict EPR correlation and that this
absurdity was invented by Bohm. Bryan shouldn't have made that bet.
Even if his work made sense, he would not be able to prove it to the
majority in two years because of the degradation of physical thinking.

[1] Nikulov, A. Physical Thinking and the GHZ Theorem. Found Phys 53,
51 (2023). DOI:
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10701-023-00693-y , the
article is available on ResearchGate
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/370581308_Physical_Thinking_and_the_GHZ_Theorem
.

With best wishes,
Alexey

пн, 11 мар. 2024 г. в 08:39, Richard Gill <gill...@gmail.com>:

> To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/Bell_quantum_foundations/DCA5A224-C986-440F-AF0E-08A6AC6B8E1F%40gmail.com.

[anton vrba]

Hi Bryan, after reading your paper "Beta decay with no neutrinos and parity conservation" (Parity.pdf ) in which you claim "It immediately follows that neutrinos are not needed to balance spin and conserve energy in beta decay" (line 9) and "We assert this puts into doubt the experimental existence of neutrinos." (line 208). You requested an honest and unbiased view, here it is:

I'm afraid you have lost me, and you risk alienating yourself from the physics community with these claims. Neutrinos are essential for recoilless reactions, both linear and spin. Although your pet theory might account for the absence of spin recoil, it fails to address linear recoil. How would you explain the beta decay of 210Bi  (see Pages from Krane, attached) with measured electron kinetic energies ranging from nearly 0 to 1.16 MeV? It was precisely this observation in the 1920s that inspired Wolfgang Pauli to propose the theory of neutrinos. 

Referencing the figure below which shows the discrete energy levels  encountered in the 60Co decay. Your paper (Parity.pdf) implies that in the 60Co decay that electrons are always emitted with exactly 0.318MeV and 1.491Mev and not with a distribution 0 to 0.318 and 0 to 1.491 MeV with the neutrino making up the balance as we expect from the beta decay.  Now,  please refer to Kossert  [1] especially his Fig 5 which plots a theoretical beta decay spectrum for the 0.318Mev path, and and "in summary, the analysis shows that the results from TDCR and CIEMAT/NIST efficiency tracing are only in agreement when using the more sophisticated beta spectrum calculation, taking relevant corrections into account." Kossert's observations are in direct conflict with your theory.

I am of the opinion it is time that you honourably accept your error and pay up. Furthermore, your endeavour to engage notable personalities is just a grandiose dream in which no other physicist will participate in. 

[1] K. Kossert et al. Activity determination of 60Co and the importance of its beta spectrum. Applied Radiation and Isotopes, 2018, 134 (SI), pp.212-218. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S096980431730297X#f0025 

Regards
Anton

[Bryan Sanctuary]

The bet was that I use a local realistic model and simulate the EPR correlations.  That I have done, and, actually, a lot of other stuff too.  I made the bet to bring the issue to the public.  I do not consider the time limit part of the bet, but what is more important is I succeeded, but was delayed by interminable waits for Journal reviewers, and 9 months out of 24 waiting for Found of Physics that used Gill as reviewer!!  So far I have not got a review by unbiased experts. 

So do not be in such a rush to reject me because of time.

Bryan

[Mark Hadley]

This is factually wrong.

You got reviews by me and Jan on this forum. You didn't like them, but to claim we are biased is defamatory.

What about the editor of FoP? He read Richard's comments and yours. What did he or she conclude?

The bet was that you convince people .. was it not? 

Cheers

Mark

[Bryan Sanctuary]

Richard,

I guess that email is to me, not Mark.    I would be interested in any bet but the present bet  is not yet resolved. Also you have on several occasions stated the 5,000 euros was too much for you., and now you want 10,000.  You frequently claim I have lost, yet you admit you do not understand what I did.  You are using media and postings to discredit me (using Bell's theorem) without acknowledging you are biased and conflicted.  So it seems to me we should not bet more, until the first is resolved.  

What about forming the panel of experts?   We can bill it as an EVENT and publicize it.  "Chemist bet mathematician 5,-000 euros that physics got spin wrong".  Put it on YouTube etc. My goal, (although 5K would be nice) is to educate and restore reality, locality and rational results (in contrast to weird results).  Your goal is the opposite. Please give me your views on this.  

OTHERS: please give your views on the panel and suggest names.  The consequences are far reaching: if spin is a quaternion: then 

no quantum weirdness

no matter anti-matter from the Dirac equation (must be another source) ;

a structured spin and not a point

restored local reality

no parity violation of the weak force

no neutrinos needed in beta decay.

Bell's theorem is not applicable to QM

etc. etc.

And this paradigm shift is too great for most to accept after 100 years of barking up the wrong tree and rationalizing the weirdness.

Or you must accept non-locality, infinite negative energies, parity violation, and particles no one can see and that do nothing (neutrinos).  

Thanks

Bryan

[Mark Hadley]

State the bet clearly, then get experts to judge the bet, not the paper.

You agreed to the timescales.

It's up to you to find the experts to endorse your work.

But .. the deadline has passed and you failed to get the endorsements required fir the bet.

It's over. Be honest and admit that in the agreed time you failed to convince the community.

Cheers

Mark

[Bryan Sanctuary]

Dear  Алексей   

I agree with most of what you say, and indeed I do think that physics is in a rut like in 1900.  The present rut is people believing in quantum weirdness. I also agree that major events have led to major problems, like non-locality and parity violation (both make no sense) and this has led to a degradation of thinking because they are barking up the wrong tree. Then when something does not make sense, they come up with another idea to counter the former (there are many examples), and then the new ideas need a bigger LHC to prove. (for example, physics is like a doctor who gives a pill to counteract the side effects of the previous pill, and we get iatrogenic results.)  

Maybe you are right, I should not have bet because the present mood of physics (defending the absurd) is salved by hugh research grants and thousands of research projects that simply perpetrate the absurd.  But it is our responsibility to communicate.

Thanks for your thoughts

Best wishes,

Bryan

[Bryan Sanctuary]

Dear Anton

Indeed thank you for that.  I will most certainly look into it in detail.  That is what I want, objective criticism.  Based on the fact that so far comments by critics have all been answered and fit into my theory, I think yours too can be answered. I will look into them and I welcome your remarks.

Just one initial reaction before I start to dig in, is this:  quaternion spin has internal energy and it is not a point particle.  I suggest that the recoils and conservation of energy is maintained by that energy and not by neutrinos.

Bryan

[anton vrba]

Dear Bryan, 

You write "Just one initial reaction before I start to dig in, is this:  quaternion spin has internal energy and it is not a point particle.  I suggest that the recoils and conservation of energy is maintained by that energy and not by neutrinos." But, then that energy must be measured somewhere, it cannot disappear.

Gamma spectroscopy is a well established art. The 1173keV  and 1332keV peaks are narrow and sharp and not smeared over a range which they need to be to account for that energy normally carried away by the neutrino. Also your theory needs to hold for the decay path 1.491 MeV (.12%)  beta decay and one gamma ray at  1332KeV. Furthermore, your theory must also explain the 210Bi  to 210Po decay but here no gamma rays are emitted. 

I honestly think your quaternion spin was an innovative approach, but you yourself have found the answer why it cannot be once you weigh up all the facts presented to you. I am reminded of Feynman's “It doesn't make a difference how beautiful your guess is. It doesn't make a difference how smart you are, who made the guess, or what his name is. If it disagrees with experiment, it's wrong.”

Regards

Anton

------ Original Message ------

From "Bryan Sanctuary" <bryancs...@gmail.com>

To "anton vrba" <anto...@gmail.com>

Cc "Mark Hadley" <sunshine...@googlemail.com>; "Bell inequalities and quantum foundations" <Bell_quantum...@googlegroups.com>; "Алексей Никулов" <nikulo...@gmail.com>; "Richard Gill" <gill...@gmail.com>

Date 3/11/2024 12:45:33 PM

Subject Re: [Bell_quantum_foundations] Gill–Sanctuary Bet?

[Алексей Никулов]

Dear Anton,
Feynman, like most people, did not understand quantum mechanics since
he, like most people, did not understand that a guess or a theory must
not disagree not only with experiment but also with our a priori
knowledge, such as logic, mathematics, and the regulative principles
of our reason, such as realism and determinism, which determines the
very possibility of empirical cognition of Nature.

With best wishes,
Alexey


пн, 11 мар. 2024 г. в 17:21, anton vrba <anto...@gmail.com>:

[Richard Gill]

Alexei, the bet was Bryan’s idea. It’s about his work, and only about his work. The question is, do you agree with his resolution of all the quantum entanglement mysteries?

Sent from my iPhone

> On 11 Mar 2024, at 10:02, Алексей Никулов <nikulo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Dear Richard,

> To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/Bell_quantum_foundations/CAKiL4iJ29GUR9U0Zx0UpBi9vbgg725reecxCbzctNg%3DFjyS%2Bhg%40mail.gmail.com.

[Richard Gill]

No Bryan, that was not the bet we agreed to. You wanted to make that bet with me, but I didn’t accept it because it was not clear when the bet would be resolved, nor how its outcome was to be decided. You came up with the notion of “the agreement of the majority of our peers” and we agreed you had one year to achieve that. You didn’t, I granted you an extra year. Now we’re in the third year and my conclusion is that you lost the bet which you made with me and won’t admit you lost. I really have no interest in the further progress of your work. I want to get an innocent nurse out of jail. Preferably, while I’m still in the land of the living. Your 5000 Euro would be extremely helpful in that venture. I’ve set up a foundation to help in this and similar cases. Maybe you would like to join the scientific advisory board, or the list of gold contributors to the cause of preventing and rectifying abuse of science in the courtrooms of the world.

Do make a new bet with someone else.

Sent from my iPhone

On 11 Mar 2024, at 12:40, Bryan Sanctuary <bryancs...@gmail.com> wrote:



Sent from my iPhone

On 11 Mar 2024, at 12:40, Bryan Sanctuary <bryancs...@gmail.com> wrote:



[Richard Gill]

Bryan, we did not bet that I would understand what you did. We bet that a majority of our peers would, and moreover that they would agree with your analysis.

You may be clever in physics but you are not clever at making bets. I do occasionally bet but I am very careful in getting a clear and mutually agreed specification of how the bet will be settled, precisely in order to avoid the silly objections you are putting up now.

Seems that in your enthusiasm for publicity and optimism concerning the correctness of your findings, you took no notice of the conditions which you signed up to.

Sent from my iPhone

On 11 Mar 2024, at 13:14, Bryan Sanctuary <bryancs...@gmail.com> wrote:



[Richard Gill]

Alexei, could you please say whether or not you think that Bryan’s approach has restored sanity to modern physics?

To ask the question another way: are you going to recommend that young physicists study his ideas and follow the direction he has set out? Or not?

Sent from my iPhone

> On 11 Mar 2024, at 15:51, Алексей Никулов <nikulo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Dear Anton,

[anton vrba]

Dear Alexey,  you misunderstood the context of quoting Feynman. It is aimed at Bryan's theory and not QM, Bryan asserts that neutrinos do not exist as a further consequence of his quaternion spin approach. 

Dear Richard, experimental evidence is fact, the probabilistic vs deterministic debate is not settled and is ongoing as the Bell-CHSH experiments do not eliminate a reality that transcends locality (i.e. non-local hidden variable). But, Bryan's interpretations that, by his accounts, also eliminates neutrinos is absurd (or insane). 

Regards

Anton

------ Original Message ------

From "Алексей Никулов" <nikulo...@gmail.com>

To "anton vrba" <anto...@gmail.com>

Cc "Bryan Sanctuary" <bryancs...@gmail.com>; "Mark Hadley" <sunshine...@googlemail.com>; "Bell inequalities and quantum foundations" <Bell_quantum...@googlegroups.com>; "Richard Gill" <gill...@gmail.com>

Date 3/11/2024 2:51:45 PM

[Mark Hadley]

Actually ALL the great advances in physics broke an a priori understanding. That's why they were great.

My bet, and my work, is that causality will become a classical approximation, broken in the quantum realm.

Deary Alexey,

As you have been told many times the eor correlations are a straightforward calculation in QM. Unfortunately you take a mathematical short, give it physical and then denounce the result.

Mark

[Алексей Никулов]

Dear Richard,

Schrodinger understood that his wave function describes the state of
the mind of the observer if we agree with Born’s proposal to consider
the Schrodinger wave function as a description of the amplitude of the
observation probability. Therefore he defined in 1935 the EPR
(Einstein – Podolsky - Rosen) correlation as entanglement of our
knowledge: ”Maximal knowledge of a total system does not necessarily
include total knowledge of all its parts, not even when these are
fully separated from each other and at the moment are not influencing
each other at all”. The entanglement of our knowledge is a matter of
psychology rather than physics. Bryan did not consider the issues of
psychology.
There are no special mysteries in the entanglement of our knowledge.
Mystery and even mysticism appeared only after Bohm postulated the
ability of the observer's mind to create a quantum state of a particle
that he does not observe. I have demonstrated in section 6 “The
Rejection of Realism Results to the Absurd” of the article [1] that
the Bohr jump postulated by Bohm results in the obvious absurd: two
observers can create different states of the same particles. This
absurdity is absent in the orthodox quantum mechanics According to
which, the observer's mind can create a quantum state only of the
particle he is observing.
Bryan’s approach cannot restore sanity to modern physics, since only
the understanding by most physicists of the inadmissibility of
abandoning realism can bring sanity back to modern physics. I would
not recommend young physicists to study most books on quantum
mechanics, which do not say anything not only about the
inadmissibility of abandoning realism, but even that quantum mechanics
contradicts realism.

[1] Nikulov, A. Physical Thinking and the GHZ Theorem. Found Phys 53,
51 (2023). DOI:
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10701-023-00693-y , the
article is available on ResearchGate
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/370581308_Physical_Thinking_and_the_GHZ_Theorem
.

With best wishes,
Alexey

пн, 11 мар. 2024 г. в 19:20, 'Mark Hadley' via Bell inequalities and
quantum foundations <Bell_quantum...@googlegroups.com>:

> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Bell inequalities and quantum foundations" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to Bell_quantum_found...@googlegroups.com.

> To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/Bell_quantum_foundations/CAN%3D2%2Bo1rTDB8_osx2rKjJuQwxMTjg%2BJpD7GBLdO1jz5SaO15%3DA%40mail.gmail.com.

[Richard Gill]

Dear Anton, I agree with you regarding the locality debate.

What I have not been able to get across to Bryan is that his model does not encompass the results of present day Bell experiments because of his weird addition of two correlation functions.

R.

Sent from my iPhone

On 11 Mar 2024, at 17:07, anton vrba <anto...@gmail.com> wrote:



[Thomas Ray]

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/373258714_nonlocal_causality?channel=doi&linkId=64e3e4230453074fbda5364b&showFulltext=true

--

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Bell inequalities and quantum foundations" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to Bell_quantum_found...@googlegroups.com.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/Bell_quantum_foundations/ADD75DFA-712F-4F66-95A4-ABD2306D5397%40gmail.com.

[anton vrba]

Dear Richard,  In the past I remained out of the Gill-Sanctuary debate but followed it keenly and was curious if the bet was resolved or not, hence this thread.

I am not a quaternion expert and cannot comment on Bryan's method regarding his reasoning of interpreting the Bell-CSHS experiments but I believe you and Marc have identified his faulty approach. 

But Bryan makes live easy: He now uses the same Ansatz ie his quaternion spin or Q-spin, (which he also used in the paper you analysed) in a new paper "Beta Decay with No Neutrinos and Parity Conservation" https://www.preprints.org/manuscript/202401.0118/v5  in which he asserts that neutrinos do not exist. I challenged his assertions, based on known and non-controversial physics (theoretical and experimental), my challenge he acknowledged and he said he will answer. 

Nevertheless, because I am 100% sure that he is wrong, (neutrinos do exist!) and because the ansatz , Q-spin is the basis of his neutrino paper, proves his Q-spin absurd.  Automatically, his EPR paper also using the Q-spin is absurd too! Thus, I can confidently state his QM conclusion are wrong too.  End of debate!

Regards

Anton

------ Original Message ------

From "Richard Gill" <gill...@gmail.com>

To "anton vrba" <anto...@gmail.com>

Cc "Алексей Никулов" <nikulo...@gmail.com>; "Bryan Sanctuary" <bryancs...@gmail.com>; "Mark Hadley" <sunshine...@googlemail.com>; "Bell inequalities and quantum foundations" <Bell_quantum...@googlegroups.com>

Date 3/11/2024 4:45:32 PM

[Austin Fearnley]

Arguments about the terms of the bet ... surely the terms were decided long ago.

Opinion on aspects listed by Bryan, but my opinion is based on my retrocausal method:

no quantum weirdness.
My retrocausality does not get rid of weirdness as it has two opposing time directions simultaneously at work ... but it does remove superluminal effects.  Einstein was right to raise concerns about QM, yet QM gives the right answers to calculations.

no matter anti-matter from the Dirac equation (must be another source)

In my preon model, matter-antimatter is complicated as it requires preons and antipreons at a more fundamental level.

a structured spin and not a point

My preon model gives structure to Standard Model fundamental particles. When can a particle have intrinsic spin yet not be rotating about an axis?  Take a cube and put a spinning gyroscope at each of the eight vertices.  The cube will have intrinsic spin but no net spin about its axis. (Not sure about this and do not want to try the maths, but would such a cube start spinning about its axis if suspended freely in space?)

restored local reality
Yes, my retrocausality restores locality of effects.  Though in two time directions.

no parity violation of the weak force

Pass

no neutrinos needed in beta decay.

Neutrinos are not a problem for my retrocausality.  (Use of my preon model leads me to believe that double neutrino-less decay does not occur, but that is a separate issue.)

Bell's theorem is not applicable to QM

Bell's theorem has been very important for QM.  But in my retrocausal model the flight paths of particles/photons use two different time arrows.  This evades the S <=2 limit imposed by Bell's Theorem.  Nothing can beat the inequality but it can be evaded or bypassed by rethinking what is happening in the experiment.  It is amazing that QM correctly predicts the r=0.707 outcome.  But statistics is wonderful and QM gives statistical outcomes.  Both Feynman and Aharonov have modified QM equations, or their interpretations, to use two-directional causations in time. Is this flexibility in the QM equations why QM give the right answer of 0.707? I do not like Aharonov's 'weak measurememnts' as it seems to need strong physical constraints in the experimental apparatus in order to enforce weakness.

I do not like most published retrocausal models.  Sutherlands is probably my least disliked.  Most retrocausal methods are half-hearted as they only allow uncertainty in time direction within the laws of Special Relativity.  I watched a long lecture by Emily Adlam recently but was disappointed in her retrocausal model which was all-at-once retrocausality which did not throw out action-at-a-distance.

More to come ...


Austin Fearnley

[Алексей Никулов]

I am sending my article since Anton couldn't download it from ResearchGate.

вт, 12 мар. 2024 г. в 15:21, anton vrba <anto...@gmail.com>:
>
> Hi Alexey, the article is not freely downloadable on ResearchGate. Please be so kind and forward me a copy
>
> Thanks and Regards
> Anton

[Richard Gill]

I think that this *new* theory is a reincarnation of Belavkin’s “eventum mechanics”

Anomalous contribution to galactic rotation curves due to stochastic spacetime

Jonathan Oppenheim, Andrea Russo

We consider a proposed alternative to quantum gravity, in which the spacetime metric is treated as classical, even while matter fields remain quantum. Consistency of the theory necessarily requires that the metric evolve stochastically. Here, we show that this stochastic behaviour leads to a modification of general relativity at low accelerations.

In the low acceleration regime, the variance in the acceleration produced by the gravitational field is high in comparison to that produced by the Newtonian potential, and acts as an entropic force, causing a deviation from Einstein's theory of general relativity. We show that in this "diffusion regime", the entropic force acts from a gravitational point of view, as if it were a contribution to the matter distribution.

We compute how this modifies the expectation value of the metric via the path integral formalism, and find that an entropic force driven by a stochastic cosmological constant can explain galactic rotation curves without needing to evoke dark matter. We caution that a greater understanding of this effect is needed before conclusions can be drawn, most likely through numerical simulations, and provide a template for computing the deviation from general relativity which serves as an experimental signature of the Brownian motion of spacetime.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Bell inequalities and quantum foundations" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to Bell_quantum_found...@googlegroups.com.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/Bell_quantum_foundations/8f7921f6-c563-4290-9ad8-a140c4518ac0n%40googlegroups.com.

[Jan-Åke Larsson]

I think the model (not yet a theory imho) is interesting, but fail to see the connection to eventum mechanics.

Belavkin's model had a switch from quantum to classical at the time "now".
In this new model, the spacetime metric is classical, full stop, and matter fields are quantum, full stop.

Richard, why do you think this is eventum mechanics, I'm intrigued?

Best
Jan-Åke

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/Bell_quantum_foundations/E3F1DA58-091A-4E3D-8D15-95342D9D9DAB%40gmail.com.

--
Jan-Åke Larsson
Professor, Head of Department

Department of Electrical Engineering SE-581 83 Linköping Phone: +46 (0)13-28 14 68 Mobile: +46 (0)13-28 14 68 Visiting address: Campus Valla, House B, Entr 27, 3A:512 Please visit us at www.liu.se

[Richard Gill]

Bryan and I have called off our bet, by mutual agreement. 

I hope he is happy that I reproduce his email to me below. As you can also see below, I already sent Bryan my agreement to call off the bet. Yes, I know that I acted unfairly to Bryan, I worried about this for quite a while before acting, but in the end I found it more important to act fairly to the editors of FooP and to the readers of FooP ad hence to “science". If I have a conflict of interest it is that I know Guido Bacciagaluppi (Utrecht University) personally, very well. I also told him about the bet, in my accompanying message to him, and I’m sure he was already aware of it. Some of the guys and gals in his foundations of physics research group in Utrecht knew about it already. I go to their seminars from time to time and occasionally speak in them and we chat about “what is going on” in the Bell-followers vs Bell-deniers arena.

In my opinion not much is going on, superdeterminism is a last resort and it is in fashion. (It is not fundamentally different from retrocausality, in my opinion.) I think it is a red herring.

Begin forwarded message:

From: Richard Gill <gill...@gmail.com>

Subject: Re: [Bell_quantum_foundations] Gill–Sanctuary Bet?

Date: 12 March 2024 at 15:53:39 CET

To: Bryan Sanctuary <bryancs...@gmail.com>

Thanks Bryan

I agree we should call off the bet. 

Richard

On 12 Mar 2024, at 15:32, Bryan Sanctuary <bryancs...@gmail.com> wrote:

Dear Richard,

I have been mulling things over.  I think we should call off the bet, which you seem to want, for several reasons.  One reason is I am not interested in taking your money, and the bet for me was about EPR awareness and not money.  Also, I really was dismayed that you agreed to review my paper for the Foundations of Physics. That was unfair because you were in a conflict of interest with me.  That is enough to cancel the bet too.  You wasted 9 months of the two years you suggested.  

I also know that changing paradigms often takes a generational change, and I should live so long.  Like us all I need constructive criticism.  People on this forum have been very helpful, which I appreciate very much, and thank them.  The discussions helped focus my issues. However, I have decided not to participate in this forum anymore.   It has run its course and we have expressed our ideas and differences; all very useful for me.     I am happy, of course, to have private discussions with anyone willing. 

Good luck with Lucy,

Bryan

On Tue, Mar 12, 2024 at 7:05 AM Richard Gill <gill...@gmail.com> wrote:

Why don’t you just ask Penrose, ’t Hooft, and Susskind?

You could cc me if you like, I would certainly be interested in their reactions

Watch your spelling carefully: the guy in the middle writes his name as follows: Gerard ’t Hooft 

On 11 Mar 2024, at 12:40, Bryan Sanctuary <bryancs...@gmail.com> wrote:

[Richard Gill]

The connections:

1. Because it makes the future intrinsically random and because it seems to have some aspects of space-time as classical and fixed in advance.

2. It modifies relativity in a minor way in order to adapt it to QM

On 13 Mar 2024, at 08:25, 'Jan-Åke Larsson' via Bell inequalities and quantum foundations <Bell_quantum...@googlegroups.com> wrote:

I think the model (not yet a theory imho) is interesting, but fail to see the connection to eventum mechanics.

Belavkin's model had a switch from quantum to classical at the time "now".
In this new model, the spacetime metric is classical, full stop, and matter fields are quantum, full stop.

Richard, why do you think this is eventum mechanics, I'm intrigued?

Best
Jan-Åke

On 2024-03-13 08:15, Richard Gill wrote:

I think that this *new* theory is a reincarnation of Belavkin’s “eventum mechanics”

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/Bell_quantum_foundations/fd714495-76a4-4c36-b1a0-9e1d9c1d9a94%40liu.se.

[Jan-Åke Larsson]

Those are similarities in intent, not connections through actual similar mechanisms.

Best
Jan-Åke

[Richard Gill]

There has to be no mechanism. The randomness is irreducible, it is fundamental.

Sent from my iPhone

On 13 Mar 2024, at 08:52, Jan-Åke Larsson <jan-ake...@liu.se> wrote:

 Those are similarities in intent, not connections through actual similar mechanisms.

[Jan-Åke Larsson]

That is not what I mean. The models don't share attributes, they are completely different. From what I can see.

[Austin Fearnley]

Richard

I agree that superdeterminism is a red herring.  Retrocausality as currently modeled is also not working (except my method, of course ...).  

Had already seen Sabine's video on post quantum gravity and will wait and see.

I have switched my activities to painting and have joined a local art class.  I have four paintings on the go.  But it is hard not to think about particle physics.  I am determined not to write another paper, but have had new ideas which I had not written down in the hope that I will soon forget them.

One idea from retrocausality is that the spacetime block could be dynamic. That removes the grandfather paradox as who cares if the grandfather is killed in a dynamic spacetime.  I prefer to add randomness to spacetime rather than remove randomness from quanta if trying to unite them.  

My preon model has three generations of higgs bosons.  The first generation higgs has zero mass, and speed c, which may seem odd for a spin zero boson.

Although I did not write my retrocausal model using geometric algebra, I have since realised a close connection (at least in a straw man fashion) with a certain model which uses opposite trivectors simultaneously within calculations.  I do not need to name that well known model.  I see the universal time direction as determined by its trivector.  For example, dS and AdS would have opposite time directions.  If one were to re-write my model using geometric algebra, the key change is that the Bell experiment using my retrocausality does not start at the oven/source/crystal but with those of the incoming photons which travel backwards in time.  Before switching to retrocausality I was getting r=0.37 approximately.  This, in my opinion, is about what Bryan would be getting if he had used the standard method of calculating correlations.  Using retrocausality gives r=.707 ignoring sign).

Austin

[Richard Gill]

I perceived some similarity in spirit (that was my first point). 

Secondly, my second point, they do what I believe for a long time has to be done: relativity needs to be adapted so as to face up t oa random future space-time.

[Mark Hadley]

Dear Richard and Bryan,

Well I'm annoyed.

I think you both owe the forum an apology. We invested a lot if time and energy to help this bet. 

Your reasons for ending it are inappropriate. 

Conflicts of interest are commonplace and there are processes to handle them. Bryan would have been encouraged or required to supply referee names and people to exclude. He would have been given comments from the editor himself and probably a couple of reviewers.

Bryan was foolish to place the bet in the stated terms. To do what he claimed would take 30 years even if he was right. It would have needed distinctive testable predictions and a team of experimentalists motivated to do the careful experiments. Since he claimed to overturn QFT and the incredibly successful electroweak theory even three or four successful experiments would not have been sufficient for the recognition that he promised.

As it is, I don't believe he has a single follower. (Even I beat that with magazine articles and books written about me. Not a single error in my work several published papers and I'm still decades away from the recognition that Bryan promised.)

To show that Bryan failed is easy. Do a Google or Wikipedia search. Look for any articles in the popular press, look at recommended reading lists from top universities.it is dishonest of Bryan not to recognise this and conced.

As it is the work contained an elementary mathematical error. Independently identified by at least three people. And very easy for Bryan to check and well within his mathematical abilities. It is a disgrace that Bryan does not admit the error and apologise.

Cheers

Mark

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Bell inequalities and quantum foundations" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to Bell_quantum_found...@googlegroups.com.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/Bell_quantum_foundations/74E5C2C9-3FF7-4E04-994E-DB271BFAE9F9%40gmail.com.

[Jan-Åke Larsson]

Agreed.

I also believe quantum mechanics needs to be reformulated so that it can be understood. Otherwise we do not really know what adaptation needs to be done.

Best
Jan-Åke

[Jan-Åke Larsson]

I agree with every point Mark makes below.

/Jan-Åke

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/Bell_quantum_foundations/CAN%3D2%2Bo0vnECuJqjG9bPH%2BH7BLj1B083GQ4v1mJbQEesG7Bs2Gg%40mail.gmail.com.

[anton vrba]

Richard wrote: "There has to be no mechanism. The randomness is irreducible, it is fundamental." 

Have a look at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0HXv3BO25Tk&t=475s :) here too the randomness is irreducible but only if we cannot observe mechanism i.e. the physical rotation.  Possibly we are missing something in our fundamental understanding and modelling.  Just food for thought.

Regards

Anton

------ Original Message ------

From "Richard Gill" <gill...@gmail.com>

To "Jan-Åke Larsson" <jan-ake...@liu.se>

Cc "Bell Inequalities and quantum foundations" <Bell_quantum...@googlegroups.com>

Date 3/13/2024 10:13:35 AM

Subject Re: [Bell_quantum_foundations] Post quantum gravity

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/Bell_quantum_foundations/4329E694-508D-4568-BF8B-979C4B807F77%40gmail.com.

[Richard Gill]

Dear all, especially Bryan

The bet is now thankfully a thing of the past, but we can of course continue to discuss Bryan’s ideas. And he has two newer papers on Preprints.org

https://www.preprints.org/manuscript/202312.1277/v1

Quaternion-Spin and Some Consequences

(December 2023)

https://www.preprints.org/manuscript/202401.0118/v5

Beta Decay with No Neutrinos and Parity Conservation

(January 2024)

The first sentence of the abstract of the first paper is "Changing the symmetry of spin from SU(2) to the quaternion group, Q_8, has many ramifications”.

I’m a mathematician not a physicist and I don’t understand what this means. 

Wikipedia says: "The special unitary group SU(n) is a strictly real Lie group (vs. a more general complex Lie group). Its dimension as a real manifold is n^2 − 1. Topologically, it is compact and simply connected. Algebraically, it is a simple Lie group (meaning its Lie algebra is simple; see below).”

I understand that. It also says "The quaternion group Q_8  is a non-abelian group of order eight, isomorphic to the eight-element subset {1, i, j, k, -1, -I, -j, -k}”

How can you change the symmetry of spin from a continuous group to a discrete group???? What does that mean??

Is this just a language problem? Starting from the quaternions i, j, k and the number 1 one can define a real algebra - take real linear combinations of those four elements and use the natural multiplication and addition rules. The result is of course a four dimensional real vector space with a multiplication. Looking just at the multiplication rules, it is a continuous group. I forget the relations between that algebra and with the groups U(2), SU(2), O(3), SO(3). Maybe someone can enlighten us.

Richard

<Physical_Thinking_and_the_GHZ_Theorem-1.pdf>

[Richard Gill]

Mark, well, I do apologise to this forum. I am very grateful for all the work so many put into this. I’m obviously sorry that it did not end with a graceful admission of defeat by Bryan!

I agree that Bryan was foolish to ask me to accept a bet in the form he originally had in mind. I didn’t accept it. I told him we had to have a finite horizon and a mechanism for deciding who had won at the end of the time horizon, before any bet between us was on. I think we agreed in public what the terms were though I was unhappy with *his* proposal to determine the winner in terms of “the majority of our peers”. I kept telling him we needed a robust definition of who our peers were. This, he never supplied. So in legal terms, our bet was never finalised, so legally we both can withdraw from the envisaged bet, and this has been an enormous waste of time, and I’m sorry about that.

[Mark Hadley]

Irreducible randomness is just one option. It's not necessary in context dependent theories, but these need some mechanism to violate causality.

Mark

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/Bell_quantum_foundations/em79cd1f29-0919-4ad3-bd3b-cb5e34c0c35d%404cd7e46e.com.

[Jan-Åke Larsson]

They don't need to violate causality. They do need to violate Bell-locality.

/JÅ

[Inge Svein Helland]

Dear Jan-Åke, dear Richard, dear all,

I completely agree with you, Jan-Åke, that quantum mechanics needs to be reformulated so that it can be understood.

What I can offer you all in that connection, is the content of the attached article, just finished, and intended as a conclusion after many years of rather intensive research with the goal to find a version that could be explained also to my colleagues, the statisticians.

In this article, the whole quantum formulation is derived from 6 postulates, postulates that in my opinion are much easier to understand than the ordinary formal apparatus. The basic notion is that of theoretical variables, which have connections to the outer world, but also are connected to an observer or to a group of communicating observers in some context. The theoretical variables may be accessible or inaccessible to the observer(s), again primitive notions, but regulated by the postulates.

The variables may be made more precise in several directions. If they are physical variables, a foundation of quantum mechanics is given. If they are decision variables, a foundation of quantum decision theory is the result.

The mathematical proofs are not given in this article, but in a long article just published in Foundations of Physics, together with another article submitted to the same journal.

In the present article, also explanations are given, using my theory, of the results of David Bohm's version of the EPR experiment, and of the results of the Bell experiments. Also, socalled paradoxes like that of Schrödinger's cat can be addressed.

It is interesting that links can be found from my theory to relativity theory and to quantum field theory. This is the content of a forthcoming book written together with the Indian physicist Harish Parthasarethy.

I have dicussed aspects of the theory with you, Richard, but I now miss a more broad discussion. I will post the article on arXiv and on the discussion forum Queios today, and it is also posted here.

Any feedback or comment wiil be welcome.

Best regards

Inge

---

From: 'Jan-Åke Larsson' via Bell inequalities and quantum foundations <Bell_quantum...@googlegroups.com>
Sent: 13 March 2024 12:33
To: Richard Gill

Cc: Bell Inequalities and quantum foundations

Subject: Re: [Bell_quantum_foundations] Post quantum gravity

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/Bell_quantum_foundations/ad956419-10d0-4a8d-b3b7-fb648c4d7c6c%40liu.se.

[Bryan Sanctuary]

Dear All

I am pleased to inform you that my second and third papers have been published in Quantum Reports in a special edition of 100 Years of Quantum Mechanics.

https://www.mdpi.com/journal/quantumrep/special_issues/QM100

2.      Sanctuary, B. C., Spin helicity and the disproof of Bell’s Theorem, Quantum Rep. 2024, 6(3), 436-441;  https://doi.org/10.3390/quantum6030028

3.      Sanctuary, B. C., EPR Correlations using Quaternion Spin. Quantum    Rep. 2024, 6(3), 409-425; https://doi.org/10.3390/quantum6030026

These follow from the earlier one published:

1.       Sanctuary, B. Quaternion Spin. Mathematics 2024, 12, 1962. https://doi.org/10.3390/math12131962

All the referees accepted the papers with minor revisions.  I have extracted some of the comments at the end.  These three papers introduce Q-spin and show how a bivector gives the violation.

The third paper presents the simulation that Richard, Jan-Ake, and other Bellists say is flawed. Richard says the two correlations should be averaged rather than summed, as I do in Eq.(21) of paper 3.  

I assert that Bell’s Theorem is disproven by counterexample.  I make the following statement in the paper:

”Bell's theorem does not apply to quantum systems, and no conclusions concerning non-locality and quantum theory can be drawn from any of his works \cite{BellBert}. Only his classical inequalities are relevant to QM, because they quantitatively define the ``Infamous boundary'' \cite{Wick} between the classical and quantum worlds via a CHSH value of two.”

Richard, I was never interested in your money. I'm looking for your papers. Years ago, before our bet, you pledged that if I ever disproved Bell’s Theorem, you would retract all your papers on the subject. The time has come. Either you present a compelling, coherent rebuttal to my papers in the press that proves my arguments wrong, or you withdraw your papers.

One reviewer referred to the Nobel prize,

 “Interestingly, in contrast to the Nobel Laureates’ conclusions and frequently accepted interpretation of Bell test experimemts, the author demonstrates how their more general definition of spin helicity can trivially circumvent and violate Bell inequality for classical systems without need for any non-locality.  If this is correct it will substantially invalidate the prize-awarded work. “

I see that Anton Zeilinger is a member of this forum.  I propose the demise of non-locality and persistent entanglement.  Under Q-spin,  most of Anton's work and his co-recipients are interpreted incorrectly.  They have experimentally shown local realism. I ask Anton to respond to this. 

It is time for science to give up non-local nondeterminism in favour of local realism. Bell has misled several generations of physicists, leading them into unfathomable directions and hindering the progress of physics. As scientists, we are morally obligated to set the record straight. The change is for science, not for us.  I hope you agree because if the three Nobel Prize winners accept my approach, it will help the future of physics. 

Bryan

Extracted reviewers’ comments

1.        A consequence of the paper is the remarkable conclusion that Bell’s theorem is not valid. This is a harsh claim but as far as I can follow the logic of this paper it is justified.  I am not surprised as many other publications have claimed that Bell involves silly arguments and he also seems to have misunderstood von Neumann . (my emphasis). A consequence of this paper is the conclusion that ‘quantum coherence’ (which concept the author introduces) accounts trivially for the violation of Bell’s inequality, thereby obviating non-locality. Another interesting consequence of the introduction of Q spin and helicity-entanglement could be that replacing Dirac spin with Q, could overcome some inherent limitations of quantum mechanics.

2.       this paper is well written and, albeit not always easy to apprehend, constitutes a very important contribution. I recommend publications after careful proofreading (a few typos).

3.       Interestingly, in contrast to the Nobel Laureates’ conclusions and frequently accepted interpretation of Bell test experimemts, the author demonstrates how their more general definition of spin helicity can trivially circumvent and violate Bell inequality for classical systems without need for any non-locality.  If this is correct, it will substantially invalidate the prize-awarded work.  I have, therefore, spent some time trying to find any mathematical or other logical error in the paper but must admit that all seems to be correct.  In a way, although virtually surprising, this is not surprising since the CHSH variant of Bell’s inequalities is associated with assumptions that limit the application.

4.       The paper is important and should be accepted for publication if the author can address the following comments and modify it to clarify unclear points.

5.        Bryan Sanctuary presents a very enticing modification of Dirac’s quantum mechanics. His work is worthy of a broader discussion and, therefore, should be published.

6.         I recommend publication because the paper shows how to avoid the troublesome interpretation that violating Bell’s inequalities would imply non-locality.

7.       Since the result is eye-opening and the arguments are drawn from established works, I must recommend publication, for I cannot see faults in the mathematical logic.

 

[Jan-Åke Larsson]

Dear Bryan,
It is sad to see you wasting your time like this.

Equation (21) of paper three is simply wrong.

Best regards
Jan-Åke

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Bell inequalities and quantum foundations" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to Bell_quantum_found...@googlegroups.com.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/Bell_quantum_foundations/CALLw9YyjxirwtE-qnAEzxS0yopBJcaYk57%2BPqh5yTagv_JREyw%40mail.gmail.com.

[Bryan Sanctuary]

 You cannot say it is wrong by fiat.  Prove it, Jan-Ake.  Sadly, you are so stuck in absurdity. 

Bryan

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/Bell_quantum_foundations/5994c203-8e66-4ff9-8ecc-5f561dc1ef2f%40liu.se.

[Jan-Åke Larsson]

Not by fiat. I've already proven to you that it is wrong. Explicitly, in writing.
You just don't understand, or worse, don't accept it.

/JÅ

[Mark Hadley]

Dear Bryan,

I'm with Jan on this. Your work is wrong. It's been shown to you several times and impressively at least three independent researchers identified the same error and showed you a correction.

I'm also disgusted that you use these forums after failing to settle your bet. You did not convince your peers. And your current publications are long after the deadline in the bet.

Stop wasting our time.

Cheers

Mark

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/Bell_quantum_foundations/CALLw9YzyayoAeGx1pTgji8-o9fCxr1Xia4m%2BLi329fgg2y-yuQ%40mail.gmail.com.

[Bryan Sanctuary]

 JÅ

Stop whining.  You should withdraw your papers too.  Either put up in press, or capitulate.

Bryan

[Bryan Sanctuary]

You too Mark, Put up in press or shut up.  You have shown nothing.  Richard lost the bet.  

Bryan

[Jan-Åke Larsson]

You really are stupid. I don't need to do anything.

/JÅ

[Jan-Åke Larsson]

Bryan, are you insane?

[Bryan Sanctuary]

Mark,

Please respond in press.  Read the paper, Spin Helicity and the disproof of Bell's theorem.  It is short and very easy to read,  trivial, the reviewers say.  So it is not challenging.  I average nothing in that paper, so your complaint is not relevant. You do not understand complementarity.  You might better understand that rather than wasting time on absurdity.

But you are a blinkered Bellist, so I expect nothing

Best wishes,

Bryan.

On Wed, Aug 21, 2024 at 8:16 AM Mark Hadley <sunshine...@googlemail.com> wrote:

[Jan-Åke Larsson]

Bryan,

Your whole argument is based on your so-called "counterexample".

But the counterexample depends on the correctness of your averaging formula (21) of paper 3.

Since that does not hold, you have no argument.

And I am asking if you are sane because according to all evidence, you lost the bet with Richard.

/Jan-Åke

[Bryan Sanctuary]

Jan-Åke

You are not looking at the right paper.  I have attached it. The DOI is not yet registered.  There is no averaging, and I disprove Bell.  However, you must show convincingly in press that the averaging is wrong in paper 3.  And then I will shoot you down as I have several times before. 

Bryan  

[Jan-Åke Larsson]

But you haven't

[Richard Gill]

Dear Bryan, dear all,

Bryan, you lost our final bet since you did not succeed within two years from our final “conditions of the bet” negotiations in convincing the majority of our peers that Bell’s theorem was wrong.

One or two years later you still haven’t. How much your present works will be adopted remains to be seen, but I predict your works will have no impact and soon will be forgotten. 

Meanwhile, there now seems to be some hope for Lucy Letby and hence some chance I’ll work again on quantum foundations. If that happens I’ll consider publishing a rebuttal of your claims. But hopefully there are more interesting and useful things to do.

BTW, I think I can imagine who your referees were. Quantum crackpots are getting few and far between but you cite a few in your paper. They will cite you in their papers but I predict none of them will adopt your ideas.

I’m glad for you that you can now feel your work in this area is complete.

Richard

Sent from my iPad

On 21 Aug 2024, at 13:40, Bryan Sanctuary <bryancs...@gmail.com> wrote:



[Richard Gill]

> On 21 Aug 2024, at 13:40, Bryan Sanctuary <bryancs...@gmail.com> wrote:

that one of his referees wrote

>
> the CHSH variant of Bell’s inequalities is associated with assumptions that limit the application.

The assumptions are satisfied *by deliberate experimental design* in the loophole free experiments of 2020 which led to the Nobel prizes of 2022.

This shows that both Bryan and his paper’s referees have no idea what they are talking about and their faculties of precise logical reasoning are completely absent.

[Mark Hadley]

Dear Bryan,

When the bet was active I read the papers that you presented.

They contained a crucial mathematical error. I pointed it out, gave you the correct formula - which you agreed with at the time. You then reverted to the incorrect formula without justification. The very simplest examples will show that you are wrong. You certainly have the mathematical ability to do the algebra for combining two distributions so you are either in self denial and delusional or dishonest.

Your arguments are also conceptually flawed because you cannot explain how any of the normal conclusions from BI are avoided.

Your previous failures are so gross that I will not read any further papers from you.

The average of 0.5 and 0.7 is 0.6 not 1.2 I can't publish a paper saying that, and I don't need to. 

You have now transitioned from bold but foolish research to delusional fraud.

Pay up and shut up.

Cheers

Mark

[Bryan Sanctuary]

Dear Richard,

First, the bet: you acted with a conflict of interest to delay me and discredit me with irrelevance.  Not nice. The bet was about showing that non-locality is nonsense. It will not be long before you must agree you lost.  Like I said, I want your papers retracted. Unless you can reply, Lucy or not, you are admitting defeat and must withdraw your papers.

If I look at your work, you quickly jump on anyone who argues against Bell.  Why are you silent with me?  It is obvious.  You are flummoxed and defeated. 

Please answer.  Do you intend to withdraw your papers?  If not, you are perpetuating a myth and misleading others.

By the way, Richard, my work in this area is far from over. I have another paper in the works, which I believe will further nail the Bell coffin.

Bryan

[Richard Gill]

Dear Bryan

No it was indeed not quite nice what I did, but I also have a duty to science and truth and to the scientific community. You should have told the editors of your chosen journal about your fight with me and my already widely publicized criticism of your work. Of course you didn’t, because you don’t understand it. That’s your problem in a nutshell. Blind incomprehension. Personally it saddens me greatly that such a nice and intelligent guy can be so blind.

I told you I have some other priorities right now. I don’t think your publication will have any impact at all so I am not in a hurry to write to the journal which has published it. I’m glad for you that it’s published. Good luck with the next one.

I’m not about to withdraw any of my papers. I’m not admitting defeat. I won the bet.

Sent from my iPad

On 21 Aug 2024, at 19:39, Bryan Sanctuary <bryancs...@gmail.com> wrote:



[Bryan Sanctuary]

Dear Richard,

 I am not interested in continuing talks here. I just wanted to give you all the good news about the other two papers being published, and the demise of Bell's Theorem,  

It is remarkable that you say I have blind incomprehension when it is I who saw what you and others did not see for the last 100 years.  As expected, you and Jan Ake are posting everywhere that my eq 21 is wrong and negates my proof.  The only problem is that it is the wrong paper.  The disproof is paper 2 with no equ 21 and no averaging.  You are referring to the simulation.  Eq 21 has not been used in the disproof.  It shows again your motivation is dishonest, ill-thought-out, and wrong.

You and Jan-Ake also dishonestly attack to discredit rather than present your arguments and let others decide.  The only reason you are not writing a rebuttal is because you have nothing intelligent to say.  I have done what many believe:  shown that non-locality is absurd.  I did it from the depth of QFT and the Dirac equation up to the simulation, giving a mechanism that replaces non-locality.  The EPR paradox is solved, along with many other problems with QM.

You said earlier I have quantum crackpots reviewing my paper. Please tell me who these people are.

It is not surprising that Anton Zeilinger has not provided any substantial arguments. I suspect he has none. It seems he, like you, hopes this issue will disappear. It will not. However, I still hope to hear his arguments if he chooses to respond. 

I have often found that issues I ignore in science tend to resurface later to bite. Many physicists blindly accepted Bell's nonsense, that is a mistake, and now it is biting,

Bryan S.

[Richard Gill]

Bryan

What you see is a Fata Morgana, a figment of your own imagination, wishful thinking. What you write in your paper (equation (21)) is non-sense. It violates basic rules of grammar in mathematics. It seems your use of mathematics is strongly driven by your intuition. You do not have the mathematical discipline to even parse the equation you wrote down.

Many creative scientists are like that. It often is not a problem. But in your case it is a very serious problem. 

All the best

Richard

[Jan-Åke Larsson]

Bryan,
This really is not very useful.

Equation (17) in paper 2 is the same as equation (21) in paper 3. Both are wrong. You might think that eqn (17) in paper 2 is unimportant. Let me then say something about paper 2, repeated from an old message I sent to you and the group, that I do not care to dig up now:

What you do in paper two is to present a different model from Quantum Mechanics, that is also not local realist, and that only reproduces the correlations, not even the probabilities, nor predictions for the measurement outcomes.

That such a model can exist we already know: Quantum mechanics fits the bill and does a much better job. Its existence does not disprove Bell's theorem, because the inequality does not apply. There is no contradiction.

Nor is there for your, quite inferior, model. You are drawing the wrong conclusion. There is no actual content in Paper 2.

In paper 3 you claim to violate the Bell inequality with a local realist model. But there is a calculation error that would make you fail the introductory undergraduate course in probability theory.

/JÅ

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Bell inequalities and quantum foundations" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to Bell_quantum_found...@googlegroups.com.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/Bell_quantum_foundations/CALLw9YwAYN09NNRLs-HscjkkoOMd_6kg72TsPO6p8a8SGyC5XA%40mail.gmail.com.

[Richard Gill]

Dear Bryan, Jan-Åke, everyone,

Both equations say number = number times operator plus number times operator

The right hand side is an operator unless both numbers equal zero. 

This is NON SENSE. Sorry for the capitals, I am not shouting, I am trying to explain the meaning of the word “nonsense”. What Bryan has written makes no sense. I don’t understand why he cannot see that.

Richard

Sent from my iPad

On 22 Aug 2024, at 13:18, 'Jan-Åke Larsson' via Bell inequalities and quantum foundations <Bell_quantum...@googlegroups.com> wrote:

 Bryan,

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/Bell_quantum_foundations/ce320055-923f-4c26-872a-4b38cc1996fa%40liu.se.

[Bryan Sanctuary]

If Eq. 17, paper 2, and 21, paper 3 are wrong, then so is the geometric product from Geometric Algebra.   To prove your points, you must show that GA is wrong.  Good Luck,

Bryan

Bryan

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/Bell_quantum_foundations/71049D84-B550-4BC8-A1D2-46BBDA55F2A7%40gmail.com.

[Jan-Åke Larsson]

Try to understand.

I am not debating the validity of Eqn (15) in paper 2. Nor the separation into two terms in Eqn (16).

(I wrote "What you do in paper two is to present a different model from Quantum Mechanics, that is also not local realist, ... That such a model can exist we already know: Quantum mechanics fits the bill and does a much better job. Its existence does not disprove Bell's theorem, because the inequality does not apply. There is no contradiction.")

But you cannot read the two terms as separated correlations from two separate ensembles, combined into one.
This is what you do in equation (17) in paper 2 and equation (21) in paper 3. Those are not from geometric algebra, but from probability theory. The equations are invalid, but crucial for your argument.

/JÅ

[Richard Gill]

Bryan, your statement proves again that you do not understand mathematics, in particular, the logic of mathematics. [You are good at manipulating formulas, but that is not the same as doing mathematics]

Equation (17) of paper 2 effectively says that sqrt 2 / 2 = 0.5 + (sqrt 2 / 2 - 0.5)

You now define E(a, b)_pol = 0.5 and E(a, b)_coh = (sqrt 2 / 2 - 0.5

[Of course you do this more generally - you do it for three functions of theta, not just at one particular value of theta]

You dreamt up local hidden variable models with correlation functions E(a, b)_pol and E(a, b)_coh respectively, and moreover show that those two correlation functions follow respectively also from two entanglement free quantum models. In the second case you use some non-standard quantum theory since you want to work with non self-adjoint operators. I leave the questions this brings up, aside.

To justify the addition of correlation functions you will have to do some probability theory. You don’t, and of course, you cannot. You are doing something completely unorthodox and you don’t realise it. You don’t give any references or justification for your non-standard maths.

This is crackpot science, I don’t mean the word in a horribly derogatory sense, I mean it in the sense that someone without mathematical training might imagine they are a brilliant and original and misunderstood mathematician and produce stuff like this. (I have had encounters with quite a few in the past.) As I said many times, it is in my opinion just non-sense.

[Bryan Sanctuary]

Here is the probability theory Richard and Jan-Ake do not accept:

I would prefer if you do not reply

Bryan

[Jan-Åke Larsson]

Correlations refer to outcomes, which are classical. Correlations should use weighted sums.

I'd prefer if you understood.

We can't always have what we want, it seems.

/JÅ

[Richard Gill]

I reply to the group, not to Bryan.

That picture of Bryan's is not probability theory. And it certainly does not motivate the addition of correlation obtained in two completely different quantum systems.

As Jan-Åke says, correlations refer to outcomes. 

In quantum theory it is true that if A and B are commuting self-adjoint operators, and have eigenvalues +/-1, then trace(rho A B) is a way to compute the expectation value of the product of the outcomes +/-1 of measuring observables A and B simultaneously.  That’s a theorem. One can apply it to bipartite systems by noting that if A and B are observables of the two components, then A tensor product identity and identity tensor product B are the observables on the composite system, and indeed commuting observables on the joint system. Their product is A tensor B. Therefore if rho is now the state of the composite system, the trace(rho A tensor B) is the expectation value of simultaneous measurements of A and B respectively on the two subsystems.

This is where elementary probability theory enters into standard elementary quantum theory. Bryan seems to be unaware of these basic foundational facts. He starts with the formula trace(rho A tensor B) with rho the singlet state, writes it as a sum of two terms, and interprets each term separately in a quantum way, without entanglement. He then gives pretty names to the two parts and claims this resolves EPR and bans non-locality and disproves Bell’s theorem. 

On 23 Aug 2024, at 16:24, Bryan Sanctuary <bryancs...@gmail.com> wrote:

Here is the probability theory Richard and Jan-Ake do not accept:

[Jan-Åke Larsson]

I would add: In quantum theory, separate measurement of A and B followed by multiplication of the outcomes is not the same experiment as joint measurement of the tensor product of A and B. Even when A and B are observables of the two tensor components. So you will need the theorem that Richard mentions.

/Jan-Åke

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/Bell_quantum_foundations/DD6DDE02-92C7-4F6F-8656-147728461049%40gmail.com.