Search FQXi


If you have an idea for a blog post or a new forum thread, then please contact us at forums@fqxi.org, with a summary of the topic and its source (e.g., an academic paper, conference talk, external blog post or news item).
Forum Home
Introduction
Terms of Use

Order posts by:
 chronological order
 most recent first

Posts by the blogger are highlighted in orange; posts by FQXi Members are highlighted in blue.

By using the FQXi Forum, you acknowledge reading and agree to abide by the Terms of Use

 RSS feed | RSS help
RECENT POSTS IN THIS TOPIC

Zeeya Merali: on 2/6/13 at 16:30pm UTC, wrote Hi all, I can see that there are a lot of interesting parallel...

Constantinos Ragazas: on 2/6/13 at 14:31pm UTC, wrote John, Vladimir Though I believe in simple Truth, I also don't have...

John Merryman: on 2/6/13 at 11:24am UTC, wrote Vladimir, I think it's not so much a situation of trying to knock down...

Fred Diether: on 2/6/13 at 7:28am UTC, wrote Hi Vladimir, I am still reading your paper. Yes, there is some...

Vladimir Tamari: on 2/6/13 at 4:32am UTC, wrote Constantinos said "...[why not] seek to create a Universe that 'makes...

Constantinos Ragazas: on 2/6/13 at 1:03am UTC, wrote Tom, Fred and Joy This discussion of 'Physics Law' vs. 'Math Theorem' is...

John Merryman: on 2/6/13 at 0:49am UTC, wrote Tom, I suppose I was looking at it from the other direction; The greater...

Fred Diether: on 2/6/13 at 0:25am UTC, wrote Hi Joy, Yeah, I probably should have worded that differently. I am...


RECENT FORUM POSTS

Thomas Ray: "" ... finds a causal rationale ... One can rationalize anything, Peter;..." in The Quantum Pet Store:...

Steve Agnew: "It is true that the QM duality does make for a rather confusing description..." in Black Holes Do Not Exist,...

Steve Agnew: "It is truly amazing that you say these things. "Sound energy does not..." in Black Holes Do Not Exist,...

Steve Agnew: "I am just going by the numbers that I read in the vast majority of the very..." in The Quantum Pet Store:...

Steve Agnew: "Electrons scattered from a thread will behave either ballistically or..." in Pilot Wave Hydrodynamics

Pentcho Valev: "Fatal Acceleration in Einstein's Special Relativity ON THE ELECTRODYNAMICS..." in Ripping Apart Einstein


RECENT ARTICLES
click titles to read articles

Life's Quantum Crystal Ball
Does the ability to predict the future—perhaps with quantum help—define the fundamental difference between living and inanimate matter?

The Quantum Truth Seeker
Watching particles fly through an interferometer might help to unveil higher-order weirdness behind quantum theory.

Quantifying Occam
Is the simplest answer always the best? Connecting Medieval monks to computational complexity, using the branch of mathematics known as category theory.

Heart of Darkness
An intrepid physicist attempts to climb into the core of black hole.

Why Quantum?
Entropy could explain why nature chose to play by quantum rules.


FQXi BLOGS
October 25, 2014

CATEGORY: Blog [back]
TOPIC: Looking Forward: FQXi Endorsement [refresh]
Bookmark and Share
Login or create account to post reply or comment.

FQXi Administrator Brendan Foster wrote on Jan. 22, 2013 @ 19:11 GMT


On behalf of Max Tegmark and Anthony Aguirre, FQXi Directorate ---

In a previous post, we wrote about our plans for maintaining helpful, useful and interesting scientific discussion in our online forums. In this post, we want to discuss a second important institutional issue. This issue touches on the question of FQXi's reputation and what constitutes an endorsement by FQXi.

FQXi exists to serve the scientific community and the broader community interested in science, and not to serve FQXi in and of itself. Nevertheless, we at FQXi must pay attention to our reputation, since our reputation helps us serve our function as a supporter of research at the frontiers of physics. Along similar lines, FQXi cannot serve a positive purpose in the scientific community if its reputation is inappropriately leveraged to support a particular scientific opinion or agenda. We have heard concerns expressed from various people that certain activities and representations made by others may have damaged FQXi's reputation as well as its ability to effectively support its community.

Our strengthened forum policy gives one way for us to address this issue, by encouraging constructive scientific discussion. The following set of explanations provides another way for us to address this issue. These statements explain what constitutes an 'endorsement' by FQXi, in terms of Membership, Large Grants, and Mini-Grants.

1) Membership means that at least two independent Members nominated the person, and a review by FQXi agreed that the person has done strong work; OR that a review panel has awarded either a Large Grant or 1st, 2nd or 3rd essay contest prize.

2) A Large Grant (or essay contest prize) means that a panel of experts appointed by FQXi granted an award, and as such implies a peer-review process. FQXi reviews the recommendations of its panels for due diligence, but prefers not to second-guess the panels.

3) A Mini-Grant means that a Member submitted a small proposal appropriate to the funding program, and then basically got lucky -- Mini-Grants are chosen by a random lottery. We might in the future raise the bar on 'appropriate'; currently, however, a Mini-Grant does not mean a proposal has passed any serious peer-review process.

As corollaries of these facts, Membership does not imply endorsement of any particular research project, and financial support from FQXi does not alone imply endorsement of the supported work.

FQXi as an institution does not take on the job of an arbiter of scientific truth or validity. Rather, we hope to support an open, constructive, and collegial forum for the scientific process to play out. FQXi does, however, have the job of deciding on the basis of peer-review which projects merit our limited fiscal resources. It is important that we do this job carefully prior to grantmaking, and that we also keep careful track of how effectively projects spent the money.

A recent situation involving intense controversy surrounding the work of FQXi Member Joy Christian brought many of these considerations to our attention (though it is far from the only case to which the considerations apply). To study this issue, we convened a special panel composed of experts exquisitely qualified to read, understand, and evaluate both Christian's work, and the way discussion of the work has played out in the public sphere. This panel provided detailed reports to FQXi, and came to three unanimous conclusions:

a) Christian's work on Bell's theorem is flawed, and they would recommend against funding any research that is part of Christian's work on Bell's inequalities.

b) The recommendation in (a) does not reflect on the quality of Christian's work on any other topic.

c) The manner of discussion of Christian's work on FQXi's forum and elsewhere has been unfortunate, with an unacceptable lack of decorum. That discussion has also at times misleadingly suggested that FQXi endorses Christian's work on Bell's inequalities, and that this work has passed peer-review by FQXi.

The panel did not recommend any action on FQXi's part going beyond recommendation (a), and was split as to what degree its findings should be made public.

We felt that (with the panel's permission) making the panel's recommendations public, but not the panelists' identities or detailed reports, would be useful both for the scientific community interested in this controversy, and as a case-in-point for the discussion above.

Although we could in principle use this panel model in the future, we hope, frankly, to avoid it. Rather, we hope that public discussion of scientific matters on FQXi's forums and elsewhere will seek a more elevated level of discussion, accuracy and propriety that will avoid such a need, as does the vast majority of scientific discussion and even controversy that takes place in the FQXi community and elsewhere. We also hope that enforcement of our strengthened terms of use for the forums can prevent discussions of future scientific controversies from becoming uncivil.

this post has been edited by the forum administrator

report post as inappropriate


Member Joy Christian wrote on Jan. 22, 2013 @ 20:45 GMT
Are we engaged in Science or Politics?

While I fully appreciate the difficult position FQXi has been put in because of the reactions to my work on the origins of quantum correlations, I am compelled to make the following statement:

I strongly object to the hollow conclusion by the anonymous panel of supposed experts that "Christian's work on Bell's theorem is flawed." I demand FQXi...

view entire post


attachments: 25_whither.pdf

this post has been edited by the author since its original submission

report post as inappropriate

Constantinos Ragazas replied on Jan. 23, 2013 @ 04:54 GMT
“Christian's work on Bell's theorem is flawed, ... We felt that (with the panel's permission) making the panel's recommendations public, but not the panelists' identities or detailed reports,”

Suddenly, FQXi is flawed! Secret panels deciding truth without reasons is intellectually dishonest. Are we engaged in Science or Politics?

Constantinos

report post as inappropriate

Fred Diether replied on Jan. 23, 2013 @ 07:30 GMT
At least it would be good to know what the panel's specific reasons were in coming to their decision. IOW, that should really be made public. I suspect that we could easily find flaws in their reasoning should they be made public. I suggest that a polite discussion should follow once FQXi makes logging in to post effective.

Fred

report post as inappropriate

Member Joy Christian replied on Jan. 23, 2013 @ 11:07 GMT
Thank you, Constantinos and Fred.

Constantinos,

You are right on the money (pun intended). I would only add that it is politics only of a small vocal minority within the vast ocean of the larger physics community. It is sad to see the noble goals of FQXi being hijacked by this minority to their own political ends.

Fred,

You too are right on the money. We would indeed find flaws in the reasoning of the supposed experts should they be made public. One only has to witness my detailed rebuttals to every little criticism put forward to me to date, by anyone, both publicly and privately. Perhaps that is what they are afraid of. I challenge them to come out of their comfort zones and put their mouth where their money is. They can continue to hide behind the veil of anonymity if they like, but (in Constantinos's words) have the guts to recognize their own intellectual dishonesty.

---------------------------

Note added on 28 Sep. 2013:

What is shown below are charts of two explicit, event-by-event, numerical simulations of my local-realistic model for the EPR-Bohm correlation (discussed in detail in the first attached paper). These charts prove---once and for all---that, not only the FQXi's exquisite panelists, but *ALL* of the detractors of my work were, and are wrong. Is there no accountability in science for willful wrongdoing?





attachments: 26_whither.pdf, 17_2piSpinor.pdf

this post has been edited by the author since its original submission

report post as inappropriate


Bee wrote on Jan. 23, 2013 @ 09:02 GMT
I think you're taking the wrong perspective here. It should be clear that whichever way you select members or decide on grants you cannot possibly scrutinize every paper each of your members produces. What you are 'endorsing', in my opinion, is what you think is a promising inquiry on an interesting topic by researchers who have demonstrated good scientific practice. Some of the research outcomes will inevitably be controversial, some will be wrong, but that's how science works. It has been said before, but it's worth repeating, if all the research you fund is uncontroversial and successful in meeting its goals, it just means you're not taking enough risk and thereby defeating the purpose of your own existence.

That having been said, you should think about the criteria to make people members. It might seem funny I say that since I acquired membership by virtue of an essay contest, but writing a good essay is imo not sufficient demonstration that the author pursues promising research and has demonstrated good scientific practice.

report post as inappropriate

T H Ray replied on Jan. 24, 2013 @ 12:34 GMT
I second Bee's opinion as the voice of reason and impartiality. Though institutions and their anonymous panels may decide whom to endorse and fund, science is not decided by institutional fiat, and if research weren't flawed, we wouldn't call it research. Credibility has to be earned; it cannot be bought.

Tom

report post as inappropriate

Fred Diether replied on Jan. 27, 2013 @ 20:37 GMT
Hi Tom,

For me, what FQXi has done here is mind-bogglingly bizarre! They are attacking one of their own members that they have given financial support to with no chance of allowing that member to properly defend himself against the criticism. What's up with that?

All I can say is that Dr. Christian must be on the right track since people's buttons are getting pushed because they see some kind of threat to their "religion" and don't want to allow further proper discussion of the issues. I personally challenge any one of this "expert" panel to come on the blog here tell us why this particular research is "flawed". "The moon is still there even when no one is looking."

Best,

Fred

report post as inappropriate

Member Joy Christian replied on Jan. 27, 2013 @ 22:23 GMT
Hi Fred,

My book is also "still there even when no one is looking." :-)

The expert panel will just have to live with that, I am afraid.

Best,

Joy



report post as inappropriate


James Putnam wrote on Jan. 24, 2013 @ 12:01 GMT
Without regard for who is right or wrong:

"a) Christian's work on Bell's theorem is flawed, and they would recommend against funding any research that is part of Christian's work on Bell's inequalities."

Choices of funding are FQXi's prerogative.

"c) The manner of discussion of Christian's work on FQXi's forum and elsewhere has been unfortunate, with an unacceptable lack of decorum. That discussion has also at times misleadingly suggested that FQXi endorses Christian's work on Bell's inequalities, and that this work has passed peer-review by FQXi."

FQXi made at least one clear statement that this was not the case.

"We felt that (with the panel's permission) making the panel's recommendations public, but not the panelists' identities or detailed reports, would be useful both for the scientific community interested in this controversy, and as a case-in-point for the discussion above."

The claimed flawed work must be made public. There is no way to avoid it. Maybe not here and maybe not now; but, it must come out and be discussed. I expect that it will come out somewhere sometime soon. The free exchange of ideas, along with its stresses, has no substitute. It is the means by which science progresses.

Wrappings cannot be made attractive enough to make up for a box being empty.

With respect and appreciation for all that FQXi has stood for,

James Putnam

report post as inappropriate

Member Joy Christian replied on Jan. 24, 2013 @ 13:10 GMT
James,

Just to be clear, funding is not the main issue.

Nor have I misleading implied more than the extent to which FQXi *has* endorsed my work.

The main issue is the following. It was nailed by Constantinos above:

"Secret panels deciding truth without [providing] reasons is intellectually dishonest."

For me, this is the main issue. I smell a rat, and for good reasons.

Best,

Joy

report post as inappropriate

James Putnam replied on Jan. 24, 2013 @ 15:10 GMT
Joy,

"Secret panels deciding truth without [providing] reasons is intellectually dishonest."

Reviewers do not have to risk becoming targets for me to appreciate learning their scientifically expressed opinions. I have read accounts about past bitter scientific rivalries. Having witnessed, and, been involved at a minor level in this one over a variety of platforms, I realize that personal attacks and insults are tolerated in scientific debate. I know that voices will immediately cry out that this is not true. However, it appears to me to be true. Condemnation appears to me to be selective and late. The last recourse of belatedly condeming the practice in some general form is too weak to be effective. I am saying this in relation to the several platforms, some being far worse than others. Some resorting to censoring opposing views. FQXi has been open to the free exchange of ideas.

It is the ideas that matter to me. If the panel's ideas remain undisclosed while grand pronouncements are made about them then, for me, the task undertaken by FQXi remains undone. I want to know if the panel determined unanimously that the mathematics is incorrect and why? I will not be using the words 'intellectually dishonest'. I will ask what and why? If there was an answer, then I would read the discussion that followed. Ideas have to be free flowing and discussion has to take place. This statement is not meant to suggest that professionals should have to tolerate pointless interruptions by amateurs. I am part of the amateur class. I want to know what the professionals think.

James Putnam

report post as inappropriate

Member Joy Christian replied on Jan. 24, 2013 @ 15:39 GMT
James,

Fair enough.

Note, however, that my work on Bell's theorem has been directly and bluntly attacked by the so-called "exquisitely qualified" experts from behind the veil of anonymity. I do not take this lightly. In fact I condemn the attack as cowardly. I challenge the anonymous experts to state their arguments explicitly and openly. They do not have to reveal their identities, but they are obliged to provide detailed arguments explaining why my work is "flawed." Furthermore, they should also allow me to respond to their arguments in the same forum in equal terms. They owe that much to physics. FQXi does not have to be part of this. My fight is with the exquisiteness of the so-called experts.

Best,

Joy

this post has been edited by the author since its original submission

report post as inappropriate


Constantinos Ragazas wrote on Jan. 24, 2013 @ 15:56 GMT
James,

Since you referenced my quote I feel I should respond. The issue for me here is not whether FQXi can refuse to fund specific research. But whether FQXi can take sides in a scientific dispute. And do this without a “trial”. To proclaim an idea is “flawed” without a “trial” is intellectually dishonest.



I too have been very supportive of FQXi and all it has stood for. But just as the true character of a government is revealed in a crisis, the intent of an institution is revealed when those behind it are challenged. I am hopeful FQXi will rise to this challenge and defend principle and not personalities.

Constantinos

report post as inappropriate

James Putnam replied on Jan. 24, 2013 @ 16:34 GMT
Constantnos,

I don't consider funding to be the issue either. That is why I separated it out and dispensed with it.

"But whether FQXi can take sides in a scientific dispute. And do this without a “trial”. To proclaim an idea is “flawed” without a “trial” is intellectually dishonest."

I did not see FQXi take sides. They convened a panel of experts. They reported the findings of those experts. They are holding back the detailed findings, but, I think it is up to the panel to decide to release their findings. I presume that FQXi purposefully played a minimalist role in order to not take sides. If the findings had been the opposite, I have no doubt that FQXi would have reported those in the same manner. I fully accept that the panel gave its honest opinion. However, their opinion should be subjected to discussion. I prefer to be patient and let matters develop over time. I expect the findings to come out, perhaps leak out, somewhere, sometime soon.

James Putnam

report post as inappropriate

Constantinos Ragazas replied on Jan. 24, 2013 @ 17:46 GMT
James, you write “I did not see FQXi take sides.”. Quoting from the FQXi report, “Christian's work on Bell's theorem is flawed,”. That is taking sides! Put yourself in Joy Christian shoes if you have trouble seeing this!

What makes the bias most evident is that FQXi chose to make this “expert opinion” public, but kept all else secret! There can be only one reason to do so. Namely to discredit one side of a scientific dispute. Not providing reasons for the panel's conclusion I find to be intellectually dishonest.

We must adhere to principle above personalities! Otherwise all is a lie!

Constantinos

report post as inappropriate

James Putnam replied on Jan. 24, 2013 @ 18:28 GMT
Constantinos,

Ok, you see it differently. I do not see it the same way. The report was of the panel's findings. A full quote shows that to be the case. I assume the panel served independently. I think that is the right way for them to have done it. They shared their results with FQXi apparently along with the restriction that the panel retains the right to release or not release the details. FQXi could have stated their own conclusions after having received the details. They did not do that.

The panel consisted of qualified experts who arrived at unanimous conclusions. This panel should have carried great weight in the debate. They chose to report their conclusions in a manner that I think cannot carry great weight. I don't know why they would do that. FQXi reported their undetailed conclusions. I don't think that is enough, but, I think under the circumstances it was all they could do. The result appears to me to be unhelpful and prone to being used harmfully. What I mean is that the lack of details undermines the conclusions. Now the unsupported conclusions become part of the debate instead of resolving it.

"Put yourself in Joy Christian shoes if you have trouble seeing this!"

The result is that Joy has not lost the debate. The panel has not fruitfully intervened in the debate. The undetailed presentation of their conclusions is not a debate. It is not scientifically sufficient to add to the debate regardless of whom they are. If the details are not released then the panel's findings are at most only a footnote. That is what I think.

James putnam

report post as inappropriate


Nick Mann wrote on Jan. 25, 2013 @ 06:42 GMT
FQXi quite simply owes the scientific community a report justifying its panel's public (repeat: public) conclusion that Christian's work is flawed. I say this as no friend of that work.

Christian's attack on BT is important if only because it generates confusion extending outside of science into the broader intellectual community. There cannot be too much clarification. Guys, you've a public duty.

report post as inappropriate

Fred Diether replied on Jan. 25, 2013 @ 07:32 GMT
Hi Nick,

Yes, there is that aspect also. If they really have found something that decisively shows that Dr. Christian's work is flawed, they should let everyone know about it. Because I have been all over his work with a fine tooth comb and there are no flaws that I found. Yep, we all definitely deserve a definitive report about this.

Best,

Fred

report post as inappropriate


Member Joy Christian wrote on Jan. 25, 2013 @ 17:09 GMT
Dear FQXi

Timing is everything.

If the detailed arguments by the panel of supposed experts are not forthcoming soon, then I demand that FQXi remove the unwarranted slander against my work from this page and apologize to me publicly for wrongfully condemning my work for reasons other than science.

If the detailed arguments *are* forthcoming, then I apologize for being impatient and continue to sharpen my pen while I wait for writing my equally detailed response.

Joy Christian



report post as inappropriate

Nick Mann replied on Jan. 25, 2013 @ 20:24 GMT
Joy --

An intellectual precision problem here. "Slander" is legal terminology and not applicable in this context. You've not been slandered and you'd never win a slander suit in any Developed World court of law.

Maybe you've been insulted. But probably not.

report post as inappropriate

Member Joy Christian replied on Jan. 25, 2013 @ 21:10 GMT
I don't care what words are used. The bottom line is that FQXi---given its standing in the community---cannot make a public claim like "Christian's work on Bell's theorem is flawed" without providing any scientific arguments to support that claim. You have no idea what such a claim can do to the life and career of a researcher like me. As grateful as I am to FQXi for supporting my work in the past, I find its current stand against my work quite unacceptable. My demand is very simple: removal of the unjustified claim above and public apology, or scientific arguments to support the claim and willingness to let me respond to the arguments. I do not think this is an unreasonable demand.

report post as inappropriate

Fred Diether replied on Jan. 26, 2013 @ 00:21 GMT
All,

"Public humiliation" of Dr. Christian is the words I would use. FQXi should just remove this whole blog thread as this is not the way to deal with science debates. FQXi, what the heck are you thinking???? This is really a terrible way to handle this and smells BIGTIME of behind the scenes politicking.

I do think *unjust* public humiliation is a form of slander, BTW.

Best,

Fred

report post as inappropriate


Constantinos Ragazas wrote on Jan. 26, 2013 @ 04:38 GMT
Quoting from Brendan's post, “The panel ... was split as to what degree its findings should be made public.”

The question of public disclosure was, therefore, discussed by the panel. With dissenting opinions. Yet the decision was made to release the statement “Christian's work on Bell's theorem is flawed”. But not their reasons. This was deliberate. Thus, some members of the panel felt it was more important to publicly discredit Christian's work than refute it with reasoned arguments.

I have been a strong supporter of FQXi and continue to be. But I am having great difficulties understanding how this action fits their stated mission. I have to believe this was forced on the FQXi administrators. Who many be no more than the public face of the wizards behind the curtains.

Constantinos

report post as inappropriate

Member Joy Christian replied on Jan. 26, 2013 @ 05:16 GMT
Constantinos,

FQXi was held to ransom by Scott Aaronson on his blog last year. He is a FQXi member with very strong views about Bell's failed theorem. He teaches computers at MIT and thinks that he also knows physics. He demanded on his blog last year that FQXi stop legitimising my work by funding it. There is no mystery here. He is your wizard.

Joy

report post as inappropriate

Fred Diether replied on Jan. 26, 2013 @ 06:47 GMT
Hi Joy,

But why the long delay? I think there is more to this than just Aaronson. Plus he has been busy lately having a child. That takes up a lot of time; been there done that.

Hmm... FQXi = Foundational Questions Institute

But I guess it is only for scientific researchers that don't rock the foundations too much? And why make themselves look bad and foolish by publicly humiliating one of their own members? This just doesn't make much sense at all. Are we in some kind of time warp and it is April Fool's day every day?

Best,

Fred

report post as inappropriate

Member Joy Christian replied on Jan. 26, 2013 @ 07:45 GMT
Hi Fred,

Well, whoever are the real wizards behind the curtain it is quite clear that the whole expert-thing is a purely politically concocted nonsense. It is deeply disappointing to see FQXi sliding down the same slippery slope I have seen one other institute slide down before.

Best,

Joy

report post as inappropriate


Gregory Timms wrote on Jan. 28, 2013 @ 17:34 GMT
Quite honestly, I don't know who is correct on this issue - but since I am familiar with how FQXi organized an essay contest voting procedure that actually encouraged corruption, I am inclined to be very suspicious of FQXi's motives with anything.

Since FQXi has a history of receiving large sums of $$$ from organizations with strong ties to religion, I'm wondering of any conclusions that can be drawn as a result of Joy's work are in direct conflict with the agenda of any funding source?? Maybe others can chime in on that.

Seems ironic that a so-called science organization with such religious ties is now throwing a Christian to the Lions.

report post as inappropriate

Member Joy Christian replied on Jan. 28, 2013 @ 18:03 GMT
Gregory,

I will not speculate on FQXi's motives in general, for I think their heart is in the right place. Plus I like most of my colleagues, and believe that---despite their human fallibilities---they are all doing the best they can.

I want to make one thing clear, however: My name, Joy Christian, is most ironic. Personally, let alone being a Christian, I am not even a theist. I am a scientist, if only a rather unappreciated one. And the closest I have come to believe in is in the god of Spinoza.

Thanks for your thoughts in any case,

Joy

report post as inappropriate

Constantinos Ragazas replied on Jan. 28, 2013 @ 18:40 GMT
Gregory,

The issue is lntellectual integrity. What is it about this you don't know?

Constantinos

report post as inappropriate

Member Joy Christian replied on Jan. 28, 2013 @ 20:09 GMT
Find "intellectual integrity" attached below:

attachments: May_15th_09_THE_IDEAL_OF_INTELLECTUAL_INTEGRITY_version_refined.ppt

report post as inappropriate


James Putnam wrote on Jan. 28, 2013 @ 23:06 GMT
Will the report concerning the purported flaw or flaws in Joy's 'Disproof' of Bell's Theorem be released?

My opinion:

The unsupported declaration of finding will not suffice. It is necessary to support the announcement of the panel's decision of scientific right versus wrong. The panel is exquisitely qualified to support their decision. If it is desired to respect the panel's anonymity, that is acceptable from my perspective. The proof of the finding cannot be secret. In the end, it just cannot be kept secret.

James Putnam

report post as inappropriate

Member Joy Christian replied on Jan. 29, 2013 @ 11:45 GMT
Dear FQXi,

You owe me either public apology or scientific arguments.

Why have you stooped to lying?

There never was a panel of sufficiently qualified experts who can understand my work, was there?

There never were detailed reports (let alone scientific arguments) against my disproof, were there?

Why resort to slandering one of your own members in public without a prior warning?

Are any of your members safe tonight from such a lopsided, tyrannical, and politically motivated attack on their work by you?

You could have simply stopped funding my research in order to appease your Scott Aaronson.

Why did you have to lie for it?

You can still redeem yourself by releasing the detailed scientific arguments showing exactly how my work is "flawed" as you claim it is.

Until then your actions are inconsistent with your proclaimed charter.

Joy Christian

report post as inappropriate

T H Ray replied on Jan. 29, 2013 @ 13:20 GMT
I am compelled to concur. FQXi's argument from authority is fallacious, and not a refutation.

FQXi, will you stake your reputation on a logical fallacy?

Tom

report post as inappropriate

Rick P. replied on Jan. 29, 2013 @ 21:38 GMT
IIRC Aaronson threatened publicly on his blog to resign his FQXi membership unless some kind of action were taken by the organization to [renounce, discredit, disavow] Joy Christian. Implicit in that threat was the requirement that the punitive action be publicly declared (unless, of course, JC made all that unnecessary by conveniently resigning his own membership). Aaronson also noted that he put his faith in the judgment of Tegmark and Aguirre.

FQXi has complied in full.

report post as inappropriate


John Merryman wrote on Jan. 29, 2013 @ 00:23 GMT
Obviously none of us know FQXi's organizational structure, but it seems diffuse enough that no one will be taking the blame for this snafu and it appears the convenient route is to ignore it and assume the dust will eventually settle. This would amount to a win by default for Joy.

report post as inappropriate

Constantinos Ragazas replied on Jan. 29, 2013 @ 03:27 GMT
John,

The wizards behind FQXi responsible for this would like nothing better than for us to think of this as a “snafu”. No “snafu” here! This is very deliberate! There is no winning by default. Only truth which must be known sooner or later. Knowing so is no consolation to Joy, however. Who is hurting through this. As we all, with any intellectual conscience, should also be!

Constantinos

report post as inappropriate

John Merryman replied on Jan. 29, 2013 @ 05:18 GMT
Constantinos,

If one has truly reached the heights of awareness and knowledge, there is no judge and jury of peers. On the other hand, if you are trying to patch a hole in the current model, there will always be competition.

To me the discipline of physics goes about its goal about like sticking an apple in a food processor and then wondering how it ever fit together in the first place. You grind it down to little bitty bits, then wonder what held it together. Like boiling away a pot of water, then thinking the white stuff in the bottom must be the essence of water. Space, waves, the thermodynamic equilibrium that is temperature, all forms of connectivity, are all relegated to statistical effects and measures. Then they find "entangled particles" still seem to have some mysterious, uneliminatable connection and it's a massive puzzle of how you turn the particles! I'm not buying it. Joy seems a nice enough guy, but I still think they are all fighting over just how many angels can dance on a pin. Where the missing epicycle must be.

Energy manifests information. Energy is conserved and dynamic, so it is constantly destroying information. Information must adher to the rules of energy. If the information seems fuzzy, it is because the ability to measure the energy is not sufficiently dynamic. Math is a very effective tool, but it has to be demythologised.

report post as inappropriate

Fred Diether replied on Jan. 29, 2013 @ 06:07 GMT
John said, "This would amount to a win by default for Joy."

In a strange sort of way. Joy could say, "Look... I challenged them to produce the reason they called my model flawed and they couldn't do it so my model must be correct." But knowing Joy, I would say that he would rather explain why they are wrong in calling his model flawed. I would like to also.

In words, his model is really not all that complicated if you understand a little bit about parallelized 3-sphere topology. Do a YouTube search for Hopf Fibration and look at Niles Johnson's excellent lecture about it.

Best,

Fred

report post as inappropriate


Fred Diether wrote on Jan. 30, 2013 @ 07:37 GMT
Hi Folks,

Some of you on this thread have shown an interest in Joy Christian's work but admit that you don't fully understand it. Well... now might a good time to learn more about it. I am sure that Joy would answer any questions you might have about his model and I can possibly help with that also since Joy was patient enough with me to learn quite a bit about his model. Maybe we can turn a negative here into something more positive?

You interested lurkers out there can join in also if you wish. We can start with his one page paper and work out from there. I am sure you all can print out a single page and ask some question about what you don't understand with it.

The bottom line is that you will probably gain a better understanding of Bell's theorem and other good stuff like 3-sphere topology, etc. even if you don't come to agree with Joy's model. Let do it before the party poopers start showing up! :-)

Best,

Fred

PS. Link above fixed

this post has been edited by the author since its original submission

report post as inappropriate

Member Joy Christian replied on Jan. 30, 2013 @ 07:59 GMT
Excellent idea, Fred. I will be happy to answer any questions. Here is a link to all 14 of my papers on the subject. Feel free to ask questions about any one of them.

report post as inappropriate

Constantinos Ragazas replied on Jan. 31, 2013 @ 02:07 GMT
Fred,

Great idea! Tried the link several times unsuccessfully. As soon as I read the paper I'll respond with questions. Having a reasoned discussion of Joy's work is very apropos under the very blog where his work is deemed “flawed”; without giving reasons. But any discussion we should have here does not absolve FQXi's 'secret panel' from their intellectual dishonesty.

As a precursor to that discussion, let me say: though more math may refute other math, more math cannot fix Physics! Only a 'physical view that makes sense' may do that. What is that 'physical view' (Einstein's 'picture') in Joy's refutation of Bell?

Constantinos

report post as inappropriate

Fred Diether replied on Jan. 31, 2013 @ 05:51 GMT
Thanks Constantinos,

I fixed the link to the one page paper so should be working now. Your question is a good segue to more about the model. Einstein thought (via EPR) that quantum mechanics was not complete. Not that it was wrong but that it was missing something. Of course everyone thinks that in 1964, Bell put an end to that proposition. Fast forward to 2007 and Joy Christian discovered what was missing! And that is the topology of a parallelized 3-sphere applied to the EPR-Bohm scenario. The 3-sphere topology is really not anything that is all that radical or new. It basically involves spinors that we already knew about from quantum theory and math. But no one ever applied it to the problem before like Joy did. When you come right down to thinking about it, it really is a natural choice to try. Lo and behold, it actually works to solve Einstein's problem with QM! Basically said, space has similar properties to say... fermions.

Now, since the 3-sphere topology is parallelized, it has zero curvature (flat) but a non-zero torsion (twist). Joy, in his model, has normalized the topology to a unit 3-sphere so that points on the 3-sphere can be +1 or -1. However, an interesting thing is that the topology also has a left or right handed orientation. Basically opposite. So the signs of the 1's become flipped in the two different orientations. When the particle pair is created in the EPR-Bohm scenario, there is a 50-50 chance in Nature that the orientation of that particular pair's topology will be left or right handed. That is Joy's hidden variable. And this is all involving physical postulates here. That hidden variable coupled with the torsion of the topology (space) is what gives us quantum correlations in the EPR-Bohm scenario.

Well, I will break here for any possible questions about the above or corrections or comments by Joy. :-) Also, once you have the one page paper, we can reference some of the above to it.

Best,

Fred

this post has been edited by the author since its original submission

report post as inappropriate


T H Ray wrote on Jan. 30, 2013 @ 12:14 GMT
Most of the criticisms I have read fail to understand that Joy's model is fundamentally analytical. Perhaps a detailed exposition of this basic point will help steer the discussion away from irrelevant arguments concerning arithmetic and probability (and as a consequence, eliminate every computer simulation so far suggested).

Toom

report post as inappropriate


Vladimir F. Tamari wrote on Jan. 30, 2013 @ 15:28 GMT
Bee's comment sums my own views very well:

"It has been said before, but it's worth repeating, if all the research you fund is uncontroversial and successful in meeting its goals, it just means you're not taking enough risk and thereby defeating the purpose of your own existence"

Exactly, and what a pity. This has been obvious by the generally tame choice of winning essays for the contests, presumably because of a tame choice of judges. The most interesting ideas are necessarily incomplete and controversial, but by seemingly self-imposing a filter of "academic credentials and reputation come first" fqxi has allowed some great work to be neglected. Eric Reiter's experimental challenge to quantum mechanics (see his 2012 Contest essay ) has been all but neglected. His and Joy's is just the sort of research fqxi should be supporting without any embarrassment or retraction.

report post as inappropriate

John Merryman replied on Jan. 30, 2013 @ 16:29 GMT
Vladimir,

Consider the ways this is following a basic, normal pattern. The establishment recognizes there are problems and seeks to get ahead of them. Whether constructing computer operating systems, or biological evolution, old systems are patched together, until they can no longer compete, then something new comes along. I don't really blame FQXi. Obviously there are competing interests within it, but the old guard naturally controls the money and would like to do whatever is required to survive. Those working under them are going to have very mixed feelings. Time. Patience.

As for Joy's work, I'd better stick the meta questions and leave the fine detail to those wired for it.

report post as inappropriate

Vladimir F. Tamari replied on Jan. 31, 2013 @ 02:24 GMT
John yes that is how things evolve. But rapid change also occurs in some scenarios, when a situation drags on and on and becomes intolerable. Time and patience for those who can afford it, but 'revolutionary' change may be the only way to go forward at other times. Humans (and institutions large and small) act in both modes as the need arises.

Yes one wishes that Joy's work was easier to understand. Eric Reiter's on the other hand can be presented in everyday language and images - a light quanta hits a beamsplitter and is recorded in two detectors simultaneously, which would be impossible if the photon is a point particle.

report post as inappropriate

John Merryman replied on Jan. 31, 2013 @ 03:51 GMT
Vladimir,

The irony here is that as Reiter proposes and shows in his loading experiments, quanata are just such an example of punctuated equilibrium.

The pressure builds gradually, until change occurs suddenly.

By patience, I don't mean don't do anything, by all means keep up the pressure in every way possible, just don't lose hope if nothing seems to be happening.

report post as inappropriate


Vladimir F. Tamari wrote on Jan. 31, 2013 @ 15:39 GMT
John

Good, yes, punctuated equilibrium is one way for radical changes to happen. Catastrophe Theory is the mathematics of sudden change, so it does occur! Another way is to start anew from new first principles. That takes time and patience, and it might work out. Or not. Either way there was no need for the moralistic accusing tone Joy's work has evoked.

report post as inappropriate


Member Joy Christian wrote on Jan. 31, 2013 @ 23:18 GMT
Dear All,

Just to let you know that FQXi has finally released a report on my work by one of the panelists (who apparently volunteered to make his or her report available to me).

This partially restores my faith in FQXi.

They are in learning process about how to handle such situations, and I am in a forgiving mood.

I have already looked at the report briefly, and---as I suspected---the panelist has failed to understand my model altogether, despite considerable effort to understand it.

In due course I will write up my detailed response to the report, seek the anonymous panelist's permission somehow, and release both the report and my response to it at an appropriate venue.

Now we are talking the proper intellectually respectable way of doing things.

Joy Christian

this post has been edited by the author since its original submission

report post as inappropriate

James Putnam replied on Feb. 1, 2013 @ 00:05 GMT
Good

James Putnam

report post as inappropriate

Vladimir F. Tamari replied on Feb. 1, 2013 @ 02:04 GMT
Joy, Brendan,

This seems to be a good development, and we look forward to seeing the report and your answer to it.

In the heated exchanges above we missed commenting on the other points Brendan has raised concerning fqXi's reputation. Echoing Feynman's "What do you care what other people think?" I urge fqXi administrators to quietly think through their original mission, with a view first of continuing to be open and support physics research and discussions that more mainstream universities and institutions are not open to. Almost by definition new ideas will have flaws in them that will have to be ironed out. Whether this applies to Joy's work or not is immaterial: fqXi's mandate is not to judge the work, but to support it and allow open discussions of it on its forums.

fqXi's reputation (for being too careless in choosing sponsored work? for being too conservative? whatever) comes as a second consideration to this. New ideas are sure to jar the establishment and there are always sparks when diehard traditionalists meet with new thinkers. By worrying too much about its reputation, fqXi is sabotaging the very mission it set out to do. Such discussions could get heated but yes decorum and mutual respect are essential. Thank you fqXi and Joy for your patience while these matters are ironed out. Physics will be the winner. Perhaps one day a Nobel prizewinner may say from the podium in Sweden "...and a special thanks to fqXi where my ideas were first supported, encouraged and discussed."

Vladimir

report post as inappropriate

Constantinos Ragazas replied on Feb. 1, 2013 @ 03:39 GMT
Great! I am pleased. Now perhaps a good honest discussion can ensue.

Constantinos

report post as inappropriate


Member Joy Christian wrote on Feb. 1, 2013 @ 06:29 GMT
Dear All,

It would seem ironically unfair to the anonymous panelist if I declared that the report just released to me by FQXi has already been refuted by me several times over. But I feel compelled to do just that.

It is a 15 pages long well-written analysis of two of my papers---the first paper of 2007 and the one-page paper. As far as I can see it fails to mention the words "parallelized 3-sphere" even once. It elaborates on some technical issues which I have already addressed elsewhere in my replies to various critics. Most importantly, the report essentially contains the same mistakes that James Owen Weatherall has made in his criticism of my work (see the attached paper for my reply to him). Thus, in that sense, this report too is a straw-man argument, but with a much better disguised straw-man.

Note again that the report concentrates only on my paper of 2007 and on my one-page paper, and never mentions "parallelized 3-sphere." Nor does it mention the completeness criterion of EPR, or consider any of my more substantive papers on the subject. The technical issues it does raise are worth refuting, however, and I will do that in due course. But those of you who are curious to know what my reply would be like can check out the attached papers, which already refute the report in great detail. In the past five years my model for quantum correlations has evolved miles beyond my first paper on which the report is based. In other words, the report is a straw-man argument, albeit of an exquisite kind.

Joy Christian

attachments: 16_whither.pdf, 14_2piSpinor.pdf

this post has been edited by the author since its original submission

report post as inappropriate

Fred Diether replied on Feb. 1, 2013 @ 07:21 GMT
Hi Joy,

Looking forward to the reports. Your research is an interesting experiment as it is basically getting peer reviewed outside of the traditional peer review process of journal publishing. Of course, the tradional route for this topic is probably not available very easily. At least not for the most respected journals. "Ah, you have a paper disproving Bell's theorem. Please go away." That is what they would be saying. At least FQXi is not doing that so far.

Best,

Fred

report post as inappropriate

Member Joy Christian replied on Feb. 1, 2013 @ 07:51 GMT
Hi Fred,

Ideally it would be nice if we can concentrate on moving my program forward, with the kind of discussion we had at Michael Goodband's essay page. Writing a response to a criticism is much less exciting for several reasons. First, it is like correcting the homework written by a bad student. But with this particular report it is even less exciting because, like most of my recent critics, it wants to drag us back to my first paper, which has been superseded by much more substantive and careful presentations of my model in my most recent papers attached above.

Nevertheless, it is important that I systematically refute all of the issues raised by the panelist, at least to my own satisfaction. By now we know that a skeptic will never be satisfied with my work no matter what.

Best,

Joy

report post as inappropriate

Member Joy Christian replied on Feb. 1, 2013 @ 10:54 GMT
Dear All,

Just an update: Although I have not yet proved this publicly, at least to my satisfaction the report released to me by FQXi does not contain a single valid argument that could undermine my work on Bell's theorem. In broad terms, what the panelist has missed is the fact that singlet correlations are correlations among the points of a parallelized 3-sphere. As a result, the report has missed the most important physical and mathematical basis of my model. However, although vacuous, the report is elaborately and carefully written. It will take me days, if not weeks, to go through it line-by-line and prove to everyone's satisfaction that the arguments of the panelist indeed do not undermine my model by a whisker. I am, nevertheless, content to discount the released report as essentially valueless. This leaves reports by two other panelists that have not been released to me by FQXi. The validity of the conclusion drawn about my work in Brendan's post above thus rests on the unseen arguments of these unreleased reports.

Joy Christian

------------------------------

Note added on 28 Sep. 2013:

What is shown below are charts of an explicit, event-by-event, numerical simulation of my local-realistic model for the EPR-Bohm correlation (discussed in detail in the first attached paper). These charts prove---once and for all---that, not only the FQXi's exquisite panelists, but *ALL* of the detractors of my work were, and are wrong.





attachments: 15_whither.pdf, 20_2piSpinor.pdf

this post has been edited by the author since its original submission

report post as inappropriate


Cris Landrieu wrote on Feb. 2, 2013 @ 00:12 GMT
Dr. Christian:

Okay ... since BT is, among other things, sound classical logic and as such Venn-diagrammable, and of course formulable in terms of set algebra, and moreover commonly applied in physics classes using students as set elements and their physical characteristics as experimental parameters, and under these macroscopic classical conditions isn't violated ...

Are you maintaining that formal logic and set theory are invalid in the macroworld along with BT? (Your proposed physical experiment would violate BT macroscopically, to my understanding.) In other words, where does the unraveling end?

report post as inappropriate

Member Joy Christian replied on Feb. 2, 2013 @ 00:51 GMT
Cris,

We have to distinguish between physics and mathematics. I have no problem with BT as a mathematical, or even a logical theorem. What I am saying is that this mathematical theorem has no relevance for physics---either for microphysics or for macrophysics. It is derived under certain physical and mathematical assumptions that are simply not valid for the real-life experiments---conducted either in the micro domain or in the macro domain. Thus you are correct to observe that I expect my proposed experiment to violate Bell inequalities macroscopically. But that does not mean that classical logic itself is thereby violated.

Joy

report post as inappropriate

Constantinos Ragazas replied on Feb. 2, 2013 @ 03:58 GMT
Joy,

... you write, "We have to distinguish between physics and mathematics." Point well made. Too often it is assumed if the math is correct, the conclusions must be physically true. This just isn't so! Quoting from my essay of two years ago,

"We can have beautiful mathematical results based on any view of the Universe we have. ... But if the view leads to physical explanations which are counter-intuitive and defy common sense ... than we must not confuse mathematical deductions with physical realism. Rather, we should change our view! And just as we can write bad literature using good English, we can also write bad physics using good math. In either case we do not fault the language for the story. We can't fault Math for the failings of Physics.

The failure of Modern Physics is in not providing us with 'physical explanations' that make sense."

I have no doubt the math here (in BT and in your disproof of BT) is correct. So the real difference must be in the 'physics' used. This raises a question I have been wanting to ask: what is your 'physical view' in your disprove of BT and how does that view differ from Bell's?

Constantinos

report post as inappropriate

Member Joy Christian replied on Feb. 2, 2013 @ 06:29 GMT
Constantinos,

"...just as we can write bad literature using good English, we can also write bad physics using good math."

Indeed.

As for your question, "...what is your 'physical view' in your disprove of BT and how does that view differ from Bell's?", you can find the answer in the Figure 2 on the page 4 of the attached paper. As you can see from the figure, both BT and my disproof of it concern measuring pure numbers, +1 or -1. But Bell unjustifiably discounted the fact that these numbers occur, in the real physical experiments involving the singlet states, on the surface of a ball of radius 1, by construction. This is the physical difference. The rest is math and politics.

Joy

attachments: 1_Disproof_GHZ.pdf

report post as inappropriate


Vladimir F. Tamari wrote on Feb. 2, 2013 @ 01:13 GMT
Joy said: "I can see that being on the "outside" has its advantages. You are not corrupted by power and politics."

Exactly. There is a case to be made that some of the greatest advances in physics were made by outsiders: Hassan Ibn Al-Haytham in his Cairo imprisonment writing about his experimental and theoretical proofs of his theory how light rays propagate (and by doing so establishing the scientific method), Newton ensconced on his farm away from plague-threatened Cambridge, thinking up his calculus and optics, Einstein in his patent office gedungexperimenting his Special Relativity... (although many fqxi essayists, myself included, feel that SR was not an advance so much as an alternative, a deviation from the physics of Lorentz).

report post as inappropriate


nmann wrote on Feb. 3, 2013 @ 00:14 GMT
"And in simple macroscopic experiments, the Bell inequalities seem to hold. [...] The thing is though, even if BT holds for every macroscopic test, Joy's model still can hold for microscopic physics since it does in fact produce the results of quantum theory. So what can rule out Joy's model physically for microscopic physics?"

BT holds macroscopically because it's a statement of local realism -- i.e., it succinctly defines a measurable feature of the macroworld's distinctive ontology. Per Abner Shimony, although undoubtedly he was thinking in micro terms, it's experimental metaphysics. Metaphysics only, not genuine physics, here in the coarse-grained macroworld. Unless of course Joy gets his experiment and the results, loophole-free, go his way.

Otherwise -- absent the experiment, or without the conducted experiment yielding a positive outcome -- Joy's construct remains only a curiosity. Unlike BT it couldn't define any difference between macroworld and microworld ("Bell entanglement") because in the macroworld it would be either experimentally unproven or disproven and in the microworld remain entirely conjectural along with other plausible (assuming the math is correct) but unprovable ideas. How it places on the Occam totem pole I dunno.

report post as inappropriate

Member Joy Christian replied on Feb. 3, 2013 @ 00:42 GMT
"BT holds macroscopically..."

This is a statement of faith and dogma, not science.

No one has ever tested this dogma experimentally.

Attached is a proposal which could test the dogma experimentally.

The experiment would cost as little as 200k.

I am no longer eligible to apply for even 10k.

Therefore the dogma will remain a dogma for now.

attachments: 33_0806.3078v2.pdf, 15_2piSpinor.pdf

this post has been edited by the author since its original submission

report post as inappropriate

Constantinos Ragazas replied on Feb. 3, 2013 @ 04:06 GMT
Joy, et al

You have triggered a whole line of thinking I wasn't inclined to think before. Seeking to understand this better, these thoughts come to my mind. Correct me if any are incorrect.

1)Bell's “quantum world” was assumed to be “flat”

2)Joy has shown this world to be “round”

3)Bell's disproof of “local realism” rests on such measurements obeying Bell's Inequality. And the experimental fact that they don't.

4)Joy's disproof of Bell's disproof argues the “flat” logic of Bell is incorrect since the experimental apparatus used have a spherical geometry (which is reflected in the analysis of the data). Were the math done on the sphere (instead of the plane) we would have consistency between theory and experiments.

5)This is analogous to measuring the distance between two places on a flat map and measuring the distance between the same two places on a globe.

6)Q: Is “quantum entanglement” analogous to the difference between measurements on a “plane” and same measurements on a “sphere”? Thus, by explaining that difference Joy's work explains “quantum entanglement” and shows this to make sense? So why are people objecting?

nmann: you write, “How it[Joy's disproof] places on the Occam totem pole I dunno.” Though Occam's Razor asks we choose the “simpler theory” I like to suggest and expand this principle to include the most “sensible theory”! If Joy's work removes the QM weirdness, do we still hesitate?

Constantinos

report post as inappropriate

Member Joy Christian replied on Feb. 3, 2013 @ 08:36 GMT
Hi Constantinos,

Your observations 1 to 6 are essentially correct. Since I have gone to great length to address all technicalities in my papers, let me not get too pedantic here and simply agree with all 6 of your observations, because they capture the essence of my argument correctly.

As to your questions in 6, the answers to the first two parts are: Yes, modulo the above comments.

As to your question, "So why are people objecting?", you will get different answers from different people.

The detractors of my work will tell you that my claims are simply false; that I haven't understood Bell's theorem; that you cannot disprove a theorem; that I have made a mistake or mistakes of either mathematical or conceptual or whatever kind.

This is all nonsense, of course.

If you ask me, then it is the detractors who are making the mistakes, and it is Bell who got things all wrong. The resistance to my work is thus no different from how the scientific community always resists a new idea. It takes the community sometimes decades or centuries to accept a new idea. My work just rocks the boat too much. Or worse still, it completely destroys their castle in the air, which they have been embellishing for the past 50 years. And let us not mention the billions of dollars at stake; the prestige and egos of hundreds of distinguished scientists at stake; and the future Nobel Prizes for the followers of Bell at stake. I have experienced all sorts of underhand tactics from all sorts of people to shut me out, and have overcome all sorts of academic blocks to stifle my work from seeing the light of day. The measures taken by FQXi against my work is just another in a long series of such measures taken against it during the past five years.

This is how science works, I am afraid.

Best,

Joy

report post as inappropriate


Vladimir F. Tamari wrote on Feb. 3, 2013 @ 12:44 GMT
Joy,

You said "And let us not mention the billions of dollars at stake; the prestige and egos of hundreds of distinguished scientists at stake; and the future Nobel Prizes for the followers of Bell at stake. I have experienced all sorts of underhand tactics from all sorts of people to shut me out"

All this resistance to your contradicting a mere Bell. How about those of us trying to Fix Physics! by showing that a result by Einstein is wrong, such as Eric Reiter who experimentally disproved the point-photon concept. Or by suggesting that Einstein's premises have alternatives that just may solve the logjam of ideas facing physics. Including Bell's can of worms. Einstein was a great physicist who was open to revisions of his work. Now however as a cultural icon and TIME magazine Man of the Century only fools or those with nothing to lose dare question his work.

Vladimir

report post as inappropriate

Pentcho Valev replied on Feb. 3, 2013 @ 15:45 GMT
Vladimir wrote: "How about those of us trying to Fix Physics! by showing that a result by Einstein is wrong, such as Eric Reiter who experimentally disproved the point-photon concept. Or by suggesting that Einstein's premises have alternatives that just may solve the logjam of ideas facing physics."

"Those of us" have no chance at all. Einsteinian "science" is dead but to show that dead science is dead proves impossible. Those who try sooner or later find themselves in Mr. Praline's situation:

Owner: Oh yes, the, uh, the Norwegian Blue...What's,uh...What's wrong with it?

Mr. Praline: I'll tell you what's wrong with it, my lad. 'E's dead, that's what's wrong with it!

Owner: No, no, 'e's uh,...he's resting.

Mr. Praline: Look, matey, I know a dead parrot when I see one, and I'm looking at one right now.

Owner: No no he's not dead, he's, he's restin'! Remarkable bird, the Norwegian Blue, idn'it, ay? Beautiful plumage!

........................

Mr. Praline: No, I'm sorry! I'm not prepared to pursue my line of inquiry any longer as I think this is getting too silly!


Pentcho Valev

report post as inappropriate

Vladimir F. Tamari replied on Feb. 4, 2013 @ 04:25 GMT
Pentcho

Thanks for the amusing sketch, welcome comic relief from the heavy discussions here.

I would not say Einstein's "science" is dead, nor would I belittle it with quotation marks. Rather I would say that it works very well in predicting physical effects such as mass change measured regularly at CERN or clock time changes in satellite communications. However, because of the conceptual artificial premises it is built upon (the photon is a point, c is constant, and the imposition of an observer-point-of view on physics) it leads to dead-ends. Joy has enough on his hands with Bell, let others reverse-engineer Einstein and start afresh to the degree we would wish.

Cheers

Vladimir

report post as inappropriate

T H Ray replied on Feb. 4, 2013 @ 11:18 GMT
Joy's framework is classical, and therefore fully relativistic.

Tom

report post as inappropriate


Peter Jackson wrote on Feb. 3, 2013 @ 19:50 GMT
Vlad, Kostas.

Wise words. The flat Earthers are 'reactionarying!' Bell like Einstein had no compunction about honestly addressing contradictions. If only their followers were the same and relied less on beliefs. Kostas I do love your 6 points. In astronomy the complex and handed anisotropies of the CBMR are intimately known, why on (a round not flat) Earth do current theoretical physicists cling on to old guesswork and close their receptors like the 3 monkeys when real findings abound showing it looks like Bell's original conditions are not met!??? We don't seem to have 'joined up physics' from some quarters at present.

There's a pretty definitive set here for instance; Copi C. J., et al. Large-Angle Anomalies in the CMB., Adv. Astron.2010; 2010:847541. Summarised in Fig; CMBR Anisotropies link

Peter

report post as inappropriate

Constantinos Ragazas replied on Feb. 3, 2013 @ 20:41 GMT
Vlad, Peter, Pentcho

We cannot underestimate the profound importance Joy's work has. If this was about disproving Bell it wont have stirred so much resistance and controversy. But Joy's work has shaken the very core meaning of QM as a 'physical theory' (but NOT the math). This being, of course, “quantum entanglement”. With Bell, Einstein's objection to “spooky action at a distance” became the “way Nature works”. Weird and mysterious. But not to be questioned. And all the experiments confirmed this belief. Since all these were designed, analyzed and interpreted through the same flawed reasoning.

From what I understand, Joy has shown “quantum entanglement” is as sensible as “apple pie”. If we were to consider the “apple” to be on a sphere and not on a flat plane. Through his work, “quantum entanglement” makes sense. Mystery resolved. No “spooky action at a distance” need apply. Local realism is saved. We do not need to live in constant contradiction and fear. Our senses are restored! The people are happy. But the Priestly Class is brooding, left naked and exposed for what they are: quantum-magicians.

Constantinos

report post as inappropriate

Pentcho Valev replied on Feb. 3, 2013 @ 22:00 GMT
Constantinos,

Joy Christian is the author of the so-called Heraclitean generalization of special relativity. Not a shred of criticism for Einstein - just an elaboration on his absurdities. If a revolution in science is coming, Christian is hardly the originator.

Pentcho Valev

report post as inappropriate

Constantinos Ragazas replied on Feb. 4, 2013 @ 04:33 GMT
Pentcho,

From what I know of Joy's work on Bell, I find it significant. As it explains “quantum entanglement” to make sense and takes away “quantum mysticism”. Like all men (great and small) some ideas are correct while other ideas may not be. Newton, for example, believed in Alchemy. Does this discredit him or his Physics? And some of our politicians like sex. Are they all wrong in their public service to the people? Why do we need to discredit Einstein in order to uphold what is true. I just can't prescribe to science or politics by personal attacks. Just as I reject “personality cults”. Better to stick to what is true than to who is true.

By the way, how do you know Joy's Heraclitean SR is wrong? I happen to believe in Becoming. And Parmenides too! Thanks for the link! When I am so inclined I may take time to study it! You write, “If a revolution in science is coming, Christian is hardly the originator”. Is that really important?

Constantinos

report post as inappropriate


Vladimir F. Tamari wrote on Feb. 4, 2013 @ 05:04 GMT
Constantinos, Peter, Pentcho, Joy

Noted.

Thank you Kosta for summarizing Joy's work in 6 easy points - all the more valuable because Joy has approved them. Then you added: "But Joy's work has shaken the very core meaning of QM as a 'physical theory' (but NOT the math)"

What do you mean by "not the math" - do you, like me, yearn for a less mathematically difficult explanation of Joy's ideas? Why in physical terms does he think QM is spherical? (Starting from very different premises I agree with that). As for the core meaning of QM I thought it resided in the overwhelming acceptance of probability as a conceptual basis for interpreting reality. What does Joy say about probability - the true origin of Quantum hocus pocus?

Apologies to Joy - this is turning into an interrogation of your work, distracting from the expressions of concern over the unfair campaign fqxi initiated to discredit you! To summarize the latter: to some you may be right, to others wrong, but you "question" - a core process embedded in the "q" in fqxi's very name.

We should all parrot: DO NOT BETRAY THE Q! DO NOT BETRAY THE Q!

Vladimir

report post as inappropriate

Member Joy Christian replied on Feb. 4, 2013 @ 06:49 GMT
Vladimir.

I think what Constantinos meant by "not the math" is that, like Einstein, I am not questioning the mathematical (or probabilistic) predictions of quantum mechanics, but simply showing that these predictions do not require the concept of quantum entanglement as a fundamental concept. The quantum predictions can be explained as simply correlations among the points of a "parallelized 7-sphere." I whould warn against taking the individual words in Constantinos's 6 points too seriously. I agreed with them because they capture the essence of my argument in broad terms. Unfortunately my actual argument involves highly technical concepts such as the octonionic 7-sphere. But in the end my framework is entirely classical. Most importantly, it rejects probability as a conceptual basis for interpreting reality. Probabilities within my framework are no more fundamental than they are in classical statistical mechanics. In my view all of the quantum world can be understood simply as manifesting correlations among the points of a classical, octonionic 7-sphere.

Joy

report post as inappropriate

T H Ray replied on Feb. 4, 2013 @ 11:30 GMT
I think where many get confused, is that the probabilistic interpretation of quantum mechanics, although derived from statistical mechanics, is not completely predictive, while of course the classical mechanics is.

Mathematically complete measurement functions assign no value to nonlocality.

Tom

report post as inappropriate

France replied on Feb. 4, 2013 @ 12:52 GMT
Vladimir, Joy

Am I wrong or is there a conflict between Joy's work and Eric Reiter's work? As I understand, Joy claims that his theory explains all quantum correlations in classical local way, but Eric on the other hand says that his experiments demonstrate a conflict with QM.

Joy, again I urge you to make a page for beginners (with no maths) of your wonderful work.

Best.

France

PS.: Interesting link about quantum computers link http://www.theinquirer.net/inquirer/news/2241167/cambridge-r
esearchers-write-off-quantum-computing


report post as inappropriate


Vladimir F. Tamari wrote on Feb. 4, 2013 @ 13:08 GMT
Thank you Joy

It was obvious from reading some of your papers that your work is highly mathematical. Thank you for being patient with those of us trying to understand things in more physical ways. Mathematics is precocious in that it can express the same situation in many different ways. I learned from my diffraction research that the field could be described as scattering from every aperture point (Fresnel wavelets) or just from the edges (Young) or, as I proposed, by curved streamlines - the latter being the simplest and closest to actual energy transport. I will take your word that your approach is fundamentally classical. Octonion 7-spheres and Lisi's E8 theory seem to emerge from similar areas of mathematics. Any thoughts on that?

You said " In my view all of the quantum world can be understood simply as manifesting correlations among the points of a classical, octonionic 7-sphere." Now that sounds much more interesting than demolishing Bell. It will be great if this can be explained to the layman. Dirac claimed that he thinks geometrically but never detailed that in figures - I hope you can do better in that respect!

Vladimir

report post as inappropriate

Fred Diether replied on Feb. 5, 2013 @ 00:32 GMT
Hi Vladimir,

Yes, that is not only much more interesting, it is also much more profound! Joy has probably unlocked an important key to making physics progress in the 21st century. Probabilities are no longer constrained to the real line. Realism has been restored. There is an interesting article discussed on Bee's blog here. "A Clock Directly Linking Time to a Particle's Mass" is the article. This is about real waves (frequency) as opposed to probability waves. It's a whole new ballgame for physics with this research coupled with Joy's research. Every year that goes by now, quantum mysteries become less and less. Of course we do have the mystery now of extra spatial dimensions but that is nothing new. String theory has had that mystery to deal with for a long time now and they did OK for awhile. :-) It does appear though that LHC has ruled out large extra spatial dimensions. Unless we just don't know how to tell.

Best,

Fred

report post as inappropriate

John Merryman replied on Feb. 5, 2013 @ 02:54 GMT
Fred,

Given the conceptual basis of three dimensions is the coordinate system, wouldn't extra dimensions simply be a mathematical artifact, ie, they are due to multiple frames? Such as there are many planes on the surface of a sphere, if every point on it constitutes a different zero point of its own coordinate system. It seems to me dimensions just define space, they don't create it, much as latitude, longitude and altitude define locations on the planet, they don't create the shape of the planet. As I've argued previously, space has two properties. It is inertial and infinite. For example, the gravitational effect of the spaceship on 2001 A Space Odyssey, is due to the centrifugal force of its rotation relative to an inertial frame, not any external points of reference.

As for space being flat and infinite, the notion of an expanding universe overlooks the fact it uses a stable speed of light as reference. If two points were to move apart, so that it requires longer for the light to travel between them, that's not expanding space, just an increased amount of stable distance.

Twisting the topology doesn't change the nature of space, only the shapes within it. When we measure time(frequency) or temperature(amplitude), we are measuring action, but when we measure space, be it 1, 2, or 3 dimensions, we are still fundamentally measuring space.

I predict the LHC will continue to not find curled up dimensions.

(I remember a lava rock being described as forming in five dimensions, because the gravity field was shifting as it hardened.)

report post as inappropriate


Vladimir F. Tamari wrote on Feb. 5, 2013 @ 02:14 GMT
Fred

Real waves. Yes. But the old question - waves of what? And why can they exhibit probabilistic behavior, the uncertainty relations, generate energy in (h) quanta, and so forth? I have the beginnings of a Beautiful Universe Theory theory that may explain exactly how that can happen in a Universe made up of spherically symmetric dielectric nodes. Three space dimensions and time matter and radiation are emergent from such a lattice. With this very physical model in mind I wonder if Joy's mathematics involves extra hidden dimensions, and, with Constantinos, await a palpable physical explanation. Without such an explanation wouldn't the quantum magical mystery tour - to my naive mind anyway - simply becomes diverted to a mathematical one?

Best Wishes

Vladimir

report post as inappropriate

Fred Diether replied on Feb. 5, 2013 @ 07:51 GMT
Hi Vladimir,

Well, they are not your ordinary waves like you have when you think of the ocean waves. I imagine point-like entities of some sort that basically are confined to circular-like motion. Also being massless and defining space and time they end up being brane-like. But not like branes from super-string theory. Tension within is not all that important. But there is a circulation of sorts within the brane. There is more in my essay about this.

Actually, I have been meaning to read more about your work since the essay contest but I had a horrible year last year the last few months. Lot's of minor medical problems and just forgot to get back to it. I have printed your paper at the link above and will give it a read.

Joy's work does involve extra spatial dimensions. I wasn't ready for that in my own work but will go down that path now that realism is restored by it.

Best,

Fred

report post as inappropriate

Vladimir F. Tamari replied on Feb. 5, 2013 @ 11:57 GMT
Hi Fred

Yes they are not ordinary waves. In my BU theory they are a wave pattern of pointlike spinning magnets' angular momentum making up the lattice. The energy pattern is transmitted from node to node, like lights "travelling" across a marquee sign showing moving patterns while the light bulbs themselves do not move. In BU it is not just the intensity (momentum) pattern that moves, but also the local spherical phase. Total causality and linearity at the most basic level imaginable. I just read the abstract of your paper Quantum Vacuum charge by scrolling down the web page. Very interesting. Your quantitative analytic approach is what my work needs, but I think we are on the same page as far as imagining how the Universe ticks, differing only in some details.

Get well soon and keep up the good fight!

Vladimir

report post as inappropriate

Fred Diether replied on Feb. 6, 2013 @ 07:28 GMT
Hi Vladimir,

I am still reading your paper. Yes, there is some intersection of our ideas. You can see that the lattice in my work is a kind fractal based on an Apollonian Gasket type of structure. Plus my cells are composed of two complementary spin 1/2 "less than virtual" fermions (remember that in particle physics, "virtual" just means "off mass shell") so my cell would be similar to your spin 0 cell. But with the advent of Joy's work, my geometrical lattice going to have to be much more complicated now.

I just finished up my last physical therapy session last week (after 3 months) and so far so good. It was pretty terrible for awhile because I couldn't sit at the computer for very long. Still have to watch myself. I'm definitely going to be keeping up the fight for sure. :+)

Best,

Fred

report post as inappropriate


Vladimir F. Tamari wrote on Feb. 5, 2013 @ 02:34 GMT
Tom

Eric and myself think that knowing the actual 'shape' of a photon is very important - for example if it is a point then the double- slit interference of photons generates conceptual quantum fog: As Dirac stated, a photon interferes only with itself. A point cannot do that, but a wave can. To advance in physics one must know what things are made of. If 'magical' Quantum interpretations can be replaced by simple physical explanations, we should not be satisfied with extra dimensions and complicated mathematical explanations. Without the point photon de Broglie would not have had to resort to the gymnastics of a pilot wave, and Schrodinger's equation would have been just a wave..no need for the probabilistic interpretation that has plagued QM, created the EPR conundrum and prevented unification all these years.

Vladimir

report post as inappropriate

John Merryman replied on Feb. 5, 2013 @ 03:00 GMT
And a more rational reason for redshift, than recession/inflation. Not to mention that as an optical effect, dark energy would be moot.

report post as inappropriate

T H Ray replied on Feb. 5, 2013 @ 13:17 GMT
Vladimir,

Very nice summary of the problem with wave-particle duality. You're right, the "shape" of -- not only the photon but space itself -- plays the key role in any theory involving orientable manifolds. (Similar lines of research are being pursued by Julian Barbour's group, and a plethora of researchers, string theorists and others, are following S.T. Yau's research program.)

You say, " ...we should not be satisfied with extra dimensions and complicated mathematical explanations." To topologists and analysts, though, the mathematics is not at all complicated (in fact, some of the opposition considers it too simple to be true). It's based on the simplest Riemann Sphere, S^3. This is where orientability enters -- and the rest is a matter of reconciling continuous measurement functions with discrete correlations.

We are used to thinking that our 4 dimension (3 + 1) experience is all there is to physical reality; however, we don't really "see" the extra dimension that time imparts, either. We infer it, by the metric implied in relative changes of position among mass points. By the same criterion, we (I guess "we" in this case means Joy Christian as the originator of the idea) infer correlated quantum properties from topological extra dimensions, to the limit of eight dimensions (S^7 in topological terms). The idea of 8 dimension physics is hardlly a non-mainstream concept; it's central to Hestenes' spacetime physics -- i.e., geometric algebra -- and to Lisi's E8 theory and and Tevian Dray's model, among others.

I guess the moral outrage I feel toward some of Joy's critics is that the attempt to marginalize his research disregards the fact that, like most breakthroughs whose time has come, it does not veer that far off the path. It comes down to a problem of progressive thinking against reactionary opposition.

Tom

report post as inappropriate


Vladimir F. Tamari wrote on Feb. 5, 2013 @ 02:49 GMT
Constantinos

I enjoy your comments and agree with everything you have said here. Your precision in explaining what you mean by a given statement is commendable, as is your insistence on a physical explanation. Us physics customers should not be satisfied by anything less!

Best,

Vladimir

report post as inappropriate

Constantinos Ragazas replied on Feb. 5, 2013 @ 03:33 GMT
Vladimir,

THEY are defining OUR Universe! We mustn't let them. We are currently in danger of losing our Nature. Replaced, as it were, by “computer simulations” and “cutebits”. Where is the “humanity” in that? Mind you, I am not against computers or math. But Physics must make sense! Or it is something else! Like Metaphysics!

Constantinos

report post as inappropriate

John Merryman replied on Feb. 5, 2013 @ 12:58 GMT
Constantinos,

Keep in mind the "atomization" came looong before computers. It is a function of the left, "distinction" side of the brain. We have to match it with the right, "connection" side of the brain.

report post as inappropriate

Constantinos Ragazas replied on Feb. 5, 2013 @ 14:56 GMT
John, Vladimir

Such 'grasping for Universe' will not stop until we realize we 'create the Universe we Understand'. And shouldn't we, therefore, seek to create a Universe that 'makes sense' to humans? That, I claim, is not only possible it is imperative. It is not a question of whether any other is true. Rather, if it should be true! We must have a Universe that is Free for humans! No Mysticism and no Metaphysics. No "spooky action at a distance". In my last essay and elsewhere I show how this is possible.

Constantinos

report post as inappropriate


Vladimir F. Tamari wrote on Feb. 5, 2013 @ 11:58 GMT
Constantinos

Amen to that!

Vladimir

report post as inappropriate


Vladimir F. Tamari wrote on Feb. 6, 2013 @ 04:32 GMT
Constantinos said "...[why not] seek to create a Universe that 'makes sense' to humans? That, I claim, is not only possible it is imperative. It is not a question of whether any other is true."

In the introduction to my BU theory I wrote "The human brain evolved over millions of years in organisms that interacted directly, causally and locally with inanimate nature on a molecular scale[15]. Is it too much to ask now that our understanding of Mother Nature should also be as simple, direct and realistic as possible?"

John - there are many roads to change, slow inevitable Kuhnian revolutions will occur, but if frustration builds up strongly enough, then "Occupy Physics!"

How many years can a mountain (of physics nonsense) exist? Before it is washed to the sea? The answer, my friends is blowin' in the wind. So let us continue to huff and puff until the rickety structure built by the Quantum Piggies and their Special Relatives is blown away to be replaced by something solid we can all live in and build upon. Hmm that makes us wolves, OK scratch this metaphor.

Vladimir

report post as inappropriate

John Merryman replied on Feb. 6, 2013 @ 11:24 GMT
Vladimir,

I think it's not so much a situation of trying to knock down the old, because the evidence is that its proponents will go to any conceptual length to patch it up and ignore any arguments against it. I think the best route would be to organize another center of gravity, so to speak and try to first outline where it goes wrong, then figure out what does work. This would then present a contrast to the old system. FQXi presumes to attempt this, but it's still tied pretty closely to the current model. The fact is it really will take some serious tearing up the old, not just the last hundred years, but going back to the dawn of conceptual thinking. For example, eastern and western ways of thinking are a real contrast and the western object oriented, atomized view of things is one big reason why the current quantum model seems so weird, as it imposes a particulate presumption on what is increasely clearly a network reality.

report post as inappropriate

Constantinos Ragazas replied on Feb. 6, 2013 @ 14:31 GMT
John, Vladimir

Though I believe in simple Truth, I also don't have problems accepting complexity either. And do believe, as Wolfram states, immense complexity can arise out of simple algorithms. What I object to are 'physical views' and 'physical explanations' that defy and contradict 'human experience'. Such as, for example, 'backward causality' and 'block time'. Though even here I do acknowledge and accept these may 'make sense' in some abstract mathematical derivation. But when they are presented as describing OUR physical universe, they cross the line for me and become 'metaphysical'. As such, such 'truths' can only be true if everyone believes in the 'view'. So we get 'religious wars' with 'us/them' battle lines drawn in the sand; and refutation of arguments by personal attacks and destruction. We see this clearly with Joy Christian's work. So much character assassination. So little well reasoned refutation of this work. It's what brought me to his defense in the first place, on principle.

Such sad State of Physics is just not necessary. We can do away with all the 'metaphysical bickering' if we don't make sweeping claims of "what is". But of our experience and observations of "what is". And the mathematical truisms (what currently passes as physical laws) we use to analyze and organize our senses (the experimental data). Planck's Law, for example, I show here to be a mathematical truism and not a physical law depending on the existence of energy quanta.

Constantinos

report post as inappropriate


FQXi Administrator Zeeya Merali wrote on Feb. 6, 2013 @ 16:30 GMT
Hi all,

I can see that there are a lot of interesting parallel discussions being conducted on this thread now (including atomization, the conceptual basis of three dimensions, and wave-particle duality). Unfortunately, we've veered quite far from the original topic of this thread, so I'm closing this thread down now.

Please do continue the discussions elsewhere in the forums, in an appropriate thread. If you can't find one, contact forums@fqxi.org for guidance.

[Edited to add that while looking through this thread, I came across a very nice comment from Tom about my Quantum Discord article in Nature, which I hadn't noticed before. Thank you, Tom! I am glad that you liked it.]

this post has been edited by the forum administrator

post approved


Login or create account to post reply or comment.

Please enter your e-mail address:
Note: Joining the FQXi mailing list does not give you a login account or constitute membership in the organization.