Superdeterminism?

[Alexandre de Castro]

Does this show that the measurement angles can be obtained from a hidden variable model?

[Jan-Åke Larsson]

Superdeterminism is the assumption that everything is predetermined = trivially can be obtained from a hidden variable model. No calculation needed: proof by assumption.

/JÅ

On 9/29/25 22:19, Alexandre de Castro wrote:

Does this show that the measurement angles can be obtained from a hidden variable model?

--
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 visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/Bell_quantum_foundations/CAPcOYamj7KKuLJhg3kEDX4VGNwnPJWnDwcp2WF0R7G12pcDgNg%40mail.gmail.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

[Alexandre de Castro]

  Wow, I had no idea it was so easy!  

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/Bell_quantum_foundations/a06a85ab-8e81-4ba3-89af-0b67eb1b92a3%40liu.se.

[Bryan Sanctuary]

Jan-Ake,

I do not know of any HVT that improves QM, please give me one that does improve QM and makes sense (that is in not just math, but has a physical and geometric basis.)  There is recent literature rejecting Bell 1966 paper, so I believe that HV do not exist.  Therefore,  Bell's 64 paper is a bit moot since they depend on HV.  I think Richard will try to wiggle out of that one. Here are recent papers that support this, and a few older  ones.

Bryan

1. Recent papers: 

Golub, R.; Lamoreaux, S. K. (2024). Hidden Variables: Rehabilitation of von Neumann’s Analysis, and Pauli’s Uncashable Check. arXiv:2401.04002 (quant-ph). arXiv+1

Golub, R.; Lamoreaux, S. K. (2024). A retrospective review of von Neumann’s analysis of hidden variables in quantum mechanics. Academia Quantum 1. DOI: 10.20935/AcadQuant7311. INSPIRE

2. These are earlier:

Mitsch, C. (2022). Hilbert-Style Axiomatic Completion: On von Neumann and Hidden Variables in Quantum Mechanics. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part A 95: 84–95. DOI: 10.1016/j.shpsa.2022.06.016. PhilPapers+1

Unnikrishnan, C. S. (2021). On the Unconditional Validity of J. von Neumann’s Proof of the Impossibility of Hidden Variables in Quantum Mechanics. arXiv:2105.13996 (quant-ph). arXiv

Bub, J. (2010). Von Neumann’s ‘No Hidden Variables’ Proof: A Re-Appraisal. Foundations of Physics 40(9–10): 1333–1340. DOI: 10.1007/s10701-010-9480-9.

Dieks, Dennis (2016) Von Neumann's Impossibility Proof: Mathematics in the Service of Rhetorics.

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/Bell_quantum_foundations/a06a85ab-8e81-4ba3-89af-0b67eb1b92a3%40liu.se.

[Richard Gill]

A friend of mine has just created this super-deterministic midel

https://zenodo.org/records/17183036

On Mon, Sep 29, 2025 at 10:19 PM Alexandre de Castro <alx...@gmail.com> wrote:

Does this show that the measurement angles can be obtained from a hidden variable model?

[Richard Gill]

Yes, it is that easy. For an example see this preprint, published by a friend of mine.

https://zenodo.org/records/17215125

Sent from my iPad

On 29 Sep 2025, at 22:30, Alexandre de Castro <alx...@gmail.com> wrote:



To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/Bell_quantum_foundations/CAPcOYa%3DmQv3CFWGO0mAxJ3US-qs8z4Db3NYskGP_5C6WxwMOQg%40mail.gmail.com.

[Richard Gill]

Yes, it is that easy. For an example see this preprint, published by a friend of mine.

Sent from my iPad

On 29 Sep 2025, at 22:30, Alexandre de Castro <alx...@gmail.com> wrote:



To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/Bell_quantum_foundations/CAPcOYa%3DmQv3CFWGO0mAxJ3US-qs8z4Db3NYskGP_5C6WxwMOQg%40mail.gmail.com.

[Richard Gill]

Bryan believes hidden variables do not exist. However, hidden variables models clearly do exist. Some hidden variables models have a strong physical and geometric basis, for instance this one

Found Phys (2016) 46:1109–1126

DOI 10.1007/s10701-016-0011-1

Replacing the Singlet Spinor of the EPR-B Experiment in the Configuration Space with Two Single-Particle Spinors in Physical Space

Michel Gondran, Alexandre Gondran

https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10701-016-0011-1

Are these two guys a father and son collaboration?

[I can privately email a pdf to anyone who doesn’t want to pay Springer, if it is behind a paywall]

Of course, the model is non local 

Sent from my iPad

On 29 Sep 2025, at 23:51, Bryan Sanctuary <bryancs...@gmail.com> wrote:



To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/Bell_quantum_foundations/CALLw9YxOup7cNB5H1uHpoFTn%2BWJQML5FmdCmWKYZ26jOPR8pXA%40mail.gmail.com.

[Richard Gill]

Dear Alexandre,

In Engel Wichmann’s non local hidden variable model , https://zenodo.org/records/17215125,  the hidden variable is an angle in [0, 2 pi). Its probability distribution depends on theta = alpha - beta, the difference between the two settings. So, if the experiment can be repeated very many times with the same measurement settings, and if the realisations of the hidden variable are observed, that observer can deduce the value of alpha - beta. If that observer also knows alpha or beta they can deduce the value of the other.

Mr Wichmann is a close friend of mine. I disagree with him about the value of his model. A non-local model can explain anything but predict nothing beyond that which has been explicitly been built into it. It fails Karl Popper’s falsifiability criterion.

Bohmian theory exactly reproduces quantum theory. It does not add to it beyond perhaps supplying a different route to doing computations within quantum theory.

The joint wave function of two separated particles makes for a very simple non-local hidden variable.

Richard

[Mark Hadley]

The observer at alpha will get a 50:50 result. They will learn nothing without information from beta. If they have the alpha beta correlations then they can reduce the angle beta. Which is unremarkable.

--
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 visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/Bell_quantum_foundations/101c589d-4d51-4be7-9b91-31ad56de1da8n%40googlegroups.com.

[Eugen Muchowski]

Bryan,

here you get a physical model that improves QM:

From the derivation of Bell's 64 inequality, it follows that entangled polarization states are incompatible with photons that have fixed properties. Because hidden common variables are also impossible due to teleportation and entanglement swapping, a different approach is required to understand quantum correlation:

 

A superposition state can be understood as a vector sum of photon beams polarized perpendicular to each other. If one now changes perspective and moves from Hilbert space to R3 position space, the superposition state can be understood as a scalar sum of components of a mixture of indistinguishable photons with the same polarization perpendicular to each other. A polarizer at position alpha selects photons with polarization alpha. Due to the mixing property, these photons already have polarization alpha before measurement.

 

Conversely, a mixture of indistinguishable photons with polarization perpendicular to each other can also assume a common polarization.

 

I discussed this in my paper

On Superposition and Entanglement of Polarized Photons without Hidden Variables

 

https://ijqf.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/03/IJQF2025v11n2p6.pdf

Eugen

[Bryan Sanctuary]

Dear Richard,

We have discussed Wichmann's paper before, and I asked you a  question that you did not answer. But you are now calling the paper super-deterministic, which I raised in my earlier objection:

"Well I started to read Wichmann, and right away his Eq 5 shows the paper explicitly introduces a setting-dependent density by \theta. This is a superdeterministic/measurement-dependent escape hatch Therefore, the paper is not relevant, and unless you can answer that, I cannot continue to read it."

I reject the notion of superdeterminism.  However, I will continue to read the paper, and get back to you ASAP.  

What I have done, in contrast,  is found the Classical Origin of Spin, and this means that all the classical properties of spin carry over to the quantum:  P  C and T conserved, no neutrinos, no collapse, ...  ...... no hidden variables....  resolves all the issues with the interpretation of QM.  It is based on Geometric Algebra. 

There are two ways to linearize the KG equation:   Dirac's way (chiral spinors) and my way, (a classical bivector).  This is a Black Swan event:  now you know, you cannot ignore it: it is out there. You cannot deny a Black Swan exists after you have seen it. Only one linearization can be correct: all scientists now must make a choice:  

Which do you choose?  That choice is between the SM and a new Bivector SM  (BiSM)--see figure below.

I have been following these conversations with interest:  thanks Jarek, much appreciated.

Bryan

paper

"The Classical Origin of Spin: Vectors Versus Bivectors,” Bryan Sanctuary, Axioms 14(9):668 (Published 29 Aug 2025). 

Open access; DOI: 10.3390/axioms14090668. 

https://www.mdpi.com/2075-1680/14/9/668/pdf

Videos

https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLfE6XkGjhsIcNbCcWVZwEw1Lzd4-v5c4H

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/Bell_quantum_foundations/CAA%3DwgkLtkNq79%3DAORW%2B_k%3DEn_fwyq5zRXoQCFD7Ow3Xp7d1dQg%40mail.gmail.com.

[Alexandre de Castro]

measurement angles are obtained from a hidden-variable model. Using these angles and probabilities you obtain the correlations E(θ), violating the CHSH inequality

[Алексей Никулов]

Dear Colleagues,

I must say that your disputes are disputes between believers belonging to different faiths, who rather believe than understand what they are arguing about. You argue about Bell's inequalities because the majority believe in the outstanding significance of these inequalities. But the majority had not read Bell's works or do not understand its sense. To understand that Bell's inequalities are meaningless, one must know and understand how Bell explained why variables can be hidden and why he believed that von Neumann's no-hidden-variables proof is not merely false but foolish. Bell wrote in his first article [1], which he was unable to publish for several years: “These hypothetical 'dispersion free' states would be specified not only by the quantum mechanical state vector but also by additional 'hidden variables' - 'hidden' because if states with prescribed values of these variables could actually be prepared, quantum mechanics would be observably inadequate”.

Bell believed that “von Neumann's proof on the mathematical impossibility of such variables in quantum theory” [1] is false because for some reason he thought that von Neumann did not know about Bohr's quantum postulate about “the impossibility of any sharp distinction between the behaviour of atomic objects and the interaction with the measuring instruments which serve to define the conditions under which the phenomena appear” [1]. But von Neumann not only knew about Bohr's quantum postulate, but also understood, unlike the majority, “that 'measurement' might be complete only in the mind of the observer” [2], as Bell himself spoke about in his 1989 talk “Against Measurement”.

The 'measurement', which might be complete only in the mind of the observer, is observation. Bell's inequalities were made possible because of false substitution of ‘observation’ by ‘measurement’. Majority believed in this false substitution. Only few critics understood that this false substituting cannot be possible logically: no first measurement can remove the indeterminacy in the result of the second measurement of the same dynamical variable as Dirac postulated in 1930 and von Neumann in 1932. The indeterminacy can be removed only through the observer's knowledge. Heisenberg justified the postulate about the Dirac jump or wave function collapse by a discontinuous change in our knowledge: "Since through the observation our knowledge of the system has changed discontinuously, its mathematical representation also has undergone the discontinuous change and we speak of a ’quantum jump’" [3]. Our knowledge of the system changes indeed discontinuously through observation. But creators of quantum mechanics were forced to postulate discontinuous change in the state of the quantum system under influence of the discontinuous change of our knowledge, through the Dirac jump or wave function collapse.

This absurdity is a logical consequence of the trick with ‘observation’ or ‘measurement’ used by the creators of quantum mechanics to describe some paradoxical quantum phenomena. Von Neumann’s no-go theorem has proved that the description of some quantum phenomena is impossible without this trick. Bell understood the absurdity of quantum mechanics much better than majority. He said in 1989: “Einstein said that it is theory which decides what is 'observable'. I think he was right - 'observation' is a complicated and theory-laden business. Then that notion should not appear in the formulation of fundamental theory” [2]. But for some reason Bell believed that the trick with ‘measurement’ is much better than the trick with ‘observation’. He stated that von Neumann's no-go theorem is false because of the absence of the requirement of locality in this theorem, without which, in his opinion, it is impossible to distinguish the action of ‘observation’ from the action of ‘measurement’. Bell, unlike von Neumann, did not understand that quantum mechanics cannot describe, for example, the Stern-Gerlach effect without the absurd postulate about the influence of the mind of the observer on the state of a quantum system, which must be non-local. Bell's no-go theorem has no sense because it contains nothing new compared to von Neumann's no-go theorem.

The mass delusion about Bell's inequalities is a consequence of the belief of most modern scientists in the decisive role of experiment and their disdainful attitude towards logic. The mass delusion about thermodynamics of superconductors on which I draw reader’s attention in the article [4] was made possible for the same reason.

[1] J.S. Bell, On the problem of hidden variables in quantum mechanics. Rev. Mod. Phys. 38, 447-452 (1966).

[2] J.S. Bell, Against Measurement. Phys. World. 3, 33-40 (1990).

[3] W. Heisenberg, Physics and Philosophy. George Allen and Unwin Edition, 1959.

[4] A.V. Nikulov, Belief in thermodynamics has provoked false thermodynamics of superconductors. Physica C: Superconductivity and its applications 638 (2025) 1354791; https://doi.org/10.1016/j.physc.2025.1354791 . The article will be freely available for 50 days at Share Link: https://authors.elsevier.com/a/1lo4G3HWwO4mFZ .

With best wishes,

Alexey

вт, 30 сент. 2025 г. в 17:53, Alexandre de Castro <alx...@gmail.com>:

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/Bell_quantum_foundations/CAPcOYak%2Bt5%3DB0C1pjNFkRoDGyFct3mtDUdj%2Bk0dO0QwpJe1i1w%40mail.gmail.com.

[Mark Hadley]

Nonsense.

I believe in Bells inequalities because I can derive them step by step, with a clear understanding of each and every assumption.

Many others have done the same.

There is an axiomatic formulation QM  which gives unambiguous probabilistic predictions and has always been confirmed by experiment. 

Mark

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/Bell_quantum_foundations/CAKiL4iKxQ9a0V%3D-FnTJm-u-wcBw7Udk7Han9VDF2PTJUM21K9A%40mail.gmail.com.

[Fred Diether]

@Mark  Any good mathematician can easily see the mistakes Bell made in deriving the inequalities.  It's pure nonsense mathematically.

[Mark Hadley]

It's in modern text books. As is often the case greater clarity comes over time.

I used Chris Ishams book, although others and even Wikipedia are good 

It really is very, very simple. With astonishingly few assumptions. 

If you want to be critical, work through CSCH on Wikipedia and tell this forum which lines you find faulty.

Cheers

Mark 

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/Bell_quantum_foundations/17eeb3bc-08a3-4538-8ca1-a69637d63180n%40googlegroups.com.

[Bryan Sanctuary]

Mark,

Nothing wrong with Bell's derivation of his inequalities, except spin has two complementary sets, and BI work only for one set. The violation is due to correlation between two vectors and between two bivectors. 

Bryan

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/Bell_quantum_foundations/CAN%3D2%2Bo1-BWf_btZxOX2oBSLrf6BBMrdy2T8EPN2vyUMQPaY%2Bdg%40mail.gmail.com.

[Mark Hadley]

Bryan,

You lost the bet.

Pay up and stop repeating your nonsense.

[Bryan Sanctuary]

Fred

Please be specific. What errors in the derivation of BI?

Bryan

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/Bell_quantum_foundations/17eeb3bc-08a3-4538-8ca1-a69637d63180n%40googlegroups.com.

[Fred Diether]

|E(a,b) - E(a,c)| - E(b,c) <=1  

| 1 -(-1)| - (-1) <= 1

3 <= 1

The inequality is pure nonsense.  The same thing can be done with CHSH.

[Bryan Sanctuary]

Fred

You say BI are nonsense because

|E(a,b) - E(a,c)| - E(b,c) <=1  

| 1 -(-1)| - (-1) <= 1

3 <= 1

How do you get that?

Note, e.g. a = 0, b = pi, c = 0

E(a,b)= - cos(a-b) so BI are

|-cos(a-b)+cos(a-c)|+cos(b-c))<=1

| 1 +1| - 1 = 1<=1

I disagree with your calculation. You made a trig error?  Then you defer to CHSH, which is an equivalent way to express the same content as BI, but the difference is the CHSH removes perfect anti-correlation from BI.  So what are you trying to say?

Bryan

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/Bell_quantum_foundations/9cb890df-175a-4c9a-8b5c-00fec87c7672n%40googlegroups.com.

[Fred Diether]

Not very good at mathematics, are you?

E(a,b) can be 1 since it can be -1 to +1.  E(a,c) can be -1 and so can E(b,c).  See how easy it is to "violate" the inequality.  It is pure nonsense and has been proven to be nonsense more than once.

[Bryan Sanctuary]

Just wondered what values of a,b and c you used, but it is not important

Bryan

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/Bell_quantum_foundations/3021d8d3-7815-439c-bf36-800e4eeeeea3n%40googlegroups.com.

[Jan-Åke Larsson]

Fred,

If you had read anything on Bell inequalities you would know there are specific assumptions used. Under these assumptions E(a,b), E(a,c) and E(b,c) can't be 1 simultaneously, meaning when inserting the same a,b,c in the three expressions. 

This is how mathematical formulas work.

Best
Jan-Åke

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/Bell_quantum_foundations/3021d8d3-7815-439c-bf36-800e4eeeeea3n%40googlegroups.com.

[Bryan Sanctuary]

Fred,

Heed Jan-Ake, and then tell me how you get 3 if Alice sets a = 0.  That is, what values do you then use for b and c that give 3?  We are all eagerly waiting to see how you do it.

Bryan

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/Bell_quantum_foundations/34b5c471-78bc-459a-b93c-17ac5a885061%40liu.se.

[Fred Diether]

Jan-Åke is not very good at math either; just regurgitating more nonsense.

"a" = "b" or "-b", etc.

[Jan-Åke Larsson]

So far, you are generating the nonsense. 

Wrong claims without a supporting argument, followed by abusive comments.

I will not respond more.

/Jan-Åke

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/Bell_quantum_foundations/5ebe9076-73b2-4792-802e-0dc4d815e53bn%40googlegroups.com.

[Mark Hadley]

Fred,

You are making a fool of yourself. I politely and positively tried to help tou., but ...

Jan is one of the most respected members of the group. He corrects me occasionally, for which I am greatful.

I sent you a simple derivation. Work with CHSH with 100% efficiency detectors ( to start with ) it's very simple logic and use of triangle inequality. To check the derivation, you need to consider various combinations of +/-1 at each detector. 

Logically, mathematically, it's one of the simplest derivations in physics. But very profound and difficult to come to terms with the conclusion.

Time for you to do some homework before spouting off again.

Cheers

Mark

[Алексей Никулов]

Dear Mark,

You didn't understand what I wrote. I wrote that “Bell's no-go theorem

has no sense because it contains nothing new compared to von Neumann's

no-go theorem”. You believe in Bell’s inequalities but you do not
understand that Bell’s inequalities would be unthinkable if the
Stern-Gerlach effect was not observed. Bell emphasized in the article
[1] that the creators of quantum mechanics abandoned realism because
of this effect. He explained very clearly and even popularly why the
Stern-Gerlach effect cannot be explained realistically. Von Neumann's
no-go theorem has proved mathematically that quantum mechanics cannot
explain the Stern-Gerlach effect without using the influence of the
mind of the observer on the state of the quantum system. No no-go
theorem can do anything beyond this.

[1] J.S. Bell, Bertlmann's socks and the nature of reality. Journal de
Physique, 42, 41-61 (1981)

With best wishes,

Alexey

чт, 2 окт. 2025 г. в 20:06, '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 visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/Bell_quantum_foundations/CAN%3D2%2Bo3_%2BRLemyMN83Tnc9Voa2Um1MfBt69mVk0x07_--WLunA%40mail.gmail.com.

[Fred Diether]

@ Jan-Åke  Ok then, good choice.  It's been fun.

[Mark Hadley]

Having no sense, and saying nothing new, are very different statements.

Von neuman made extra assumptions that are not needed for Bells inequalities.

Yes, it's an analysis of an EPR experiment using steern gerlach apparatus to distinguish and measure two spin states. 

The mind of the observer is not part of the theoretical derivation. It needs measurements that take values +/-1 They could me measured by a scientist, a machine and written in a book or even recorded by a sociologist. 

Mark

[Jan-Åke Larsson]

I forgot to add: unless you write something sensible.

I have yet to see that.

/JÅ

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/Bell_quantum_foundations/142bf9e3-6712-4801-ab6b-ce774d700defn%40googlegroups.com.

[Fred Diether]

Oh dear;  looks like Mark is not very good with math either.  Sorry, but I didn't see your previous message and I am not going to look for it.

As I said, the same thing that I did for Bell's inequality can be done for CHSH.  See if you can figure it out.  If not, I will post it.

[Bryan Sanctuary]

Fred,

Rather than denigrating Jan-Ake, Mark and me, please choose the values of a, b and c in your calculation:

|E(a,b) - E(a,c)| - E(b,c) <=1  

You get: | 1 -(-1)| - (-1) <= 1     or        3 <= 1  which, in your words, is nonsense.

Let me help  you.  Use quantum singlet correlation:  E(a,b) = -cos(a-b)  and you want:

E(a,,b)=1, E(a,c)= -1 and E(b,c) = -1   to get 3.

So if a =0 then b must = \pi. --> (E(0,\pi)= - cos(pi) = +1.  

Now you want E(a,c) = -1, so c must be c = 0,   E(a,c) = -cos(0) =-1.  

So b =pi and c = 0 so E(b,c)= -cos(pi) =+1

So |E(a,b) - E(a,c)| - E(b,c) <=1   gives |1-(-1)|- (1) <=1  In agreement with Bell, but you get 3.

Please tell us how you get E(b,c) = -1   and the 3.

Bryan

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/Bell_quantum_foundations/5ebe9076-73b2-4792-802e-0dc4d815e53bn%40googlegroups.com.

[Mark Hadley]

Dear Bryan,

Well good luck with that. Of course the E are defined as expectation values, averages. To make sense of it Fred needs to go back to the definition of the Es but that in turn depends on the possible correlation outcomes from individual experiments. Which is where the triangle inequality gives interesting results.

Clearly Fred can't follow the reasoning.

[Fred Diether]

I posted the answer already; guess you missed it.  It is quite simple.

[Fred Diether]

Oh, I missed this.

So b =pi and c = 0 so E(b,c)= -cos(pi) =+1

Why do you think the "b" in E(a,b) is the same "b" in E(b,c)?  You are not very good at this.

On Thursday, October 2, 2025 at 12:11:23 PM UTC-7 bryancs...@gmail.com wrote:

[Bryan Sanctuary]

Fred,

I will not continue trying to help you with that calculation. You have demonstrated that you do not know how to put angles into Bell's Inequalities.  Not only that, but you condescendly dismiss and insult Jan-Ake, Mark and me, as we tried to point out your errors..  You made a fool of yourself.  I know people on forums like this are passionate about their ideas, and debate can be acrimonious and personal. However, this does not become ridicule like your remarks, but we agree to disagree and maintain academic respect for others, despite heated disagreements.  

I think you should be free to stay in this group because you are clearly in need of some enlightenment, but I would suggest you think carefully before you post again,  to avoid the embarrassment of showing your ignorance, as you did with your Bell Inequality calculation.

Bryan

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/Bell_quantum_foundations/ed7a8f36-a1b9-40da-b0d8-be38f6ec067en%40googlegroups.com.

[Fred Diether]

Thanks for NOT answering my question.  You must not know the answer as I suspected.  You really should delete your pointless rant.

[Bryan Sanctuary]

Fred,

I already answered your question by giving a = 0, b = pi and c = 0.  Your error is not knowing that in   |E(a,b)-E(a,c)|-E(b,c) <=1  b in the first term is the same value as the third term, and c in the second term must be the same as c in the third term.  You think the b and c in the third term can be chosen randomly, and that is your error. Now do you understand why you are a fool and mulish?

Bryan

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/Bell_quantum_foundations/ee492cc7-f722-4b50-9ea1-bb8a9d5d11ddn%40googlegroups.com.

[Fred Diether]

You still didn't answer my question.  Why do you think the b's are the same in the two expressions?  You are claiming that they are the same but you don't know the actual answer otherwise you wouldn't look so much like a complete mathematical fool like you are.  You all don't even realize Bell tricked you.

[Bryan Sanctuary]

Dear Fred.

I wish there was a book called Bell's Inequalities for Dummies I could refer you to,  because the answer to your question is in Bell's 64 paper.

I will leave you to muse, and I hope the Bell finally strikes for you.

Bryan

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/Bell_quantum_foundations/ab8921cf-c8d0-45f6-b4cb-c6f3058e9453n%40googlegroups.com.

[Fred Diether]

Yep, just as I suspected.  You don't know so you can't answer a simple question.  Don't you think you are the one being a mathematical fool?

I wonder if someone on this group actually knows the correct mathematical answer?

[Bryan Sanctuary]

Dear Eugen,

Thank you for your response and paper.  I had been asking people for HV (as defined by Bell) that improve QM, and your paper has no HV. Since you also keep locality and determinism, we share the same ontology.  I am not sure I understand completely yet, but you treat photon polarization as ensembles of orthogonal beams, with some rules to ensure Malus/Born is obeyed.  Since figuring out that spin is a classical bivector, everything now looks like a bivector to me! Your orthogonal beams might be expressed as bivectors, giving structure and chirality to the beams.  Geometric Algebra might be the math. In this way, I found this possible connection to my work which justifies our similar philosophies.

You did say, however, that your approach improves QM, but I did not get that. You have a way that replaces or supplements QM by expressing entanglement and superposition with predetermined outcomes.  I agree Bell does not apply with no HV nor nonlocality. This gives a different perspective to entanglement and QM but does not seem to improve it.  Please correct me as these are my initial responses. 

I am glad your paper is not a HV theory since I believe HV do not exist.  If we could all agree to this, much of the semantic confusion of the foundations would be eliminated.  So who can give compelling arguments that support keeping them?  We rely on their existence only in the hope they may: improve QM; remove dispersion; and somehow make the measurements of spin components non-linear (Bell 66).  I would be interested in peoples’ views on this.

Bryan

On Tue, Sep 30, 2025 at 6:57 AM Eugen Muchowski <eu...@muchowski.de> wrote:

Bryan,

here you get a physical model that improves QM:

From the derivation of Bell's 64 inequality, it follows that entangled polarization states are incompatible with photons that have fixed properties. Because hidden common variables are also impossible due to teleportation and entanglement swapping, a different approach is required to understand quantum correlation:

 

A superposition state can be understood as a vector sum of photon beams polarized perpendicular to each other. If one now changes perspective and moves from Hilbert space to R3 position space, the superposition state can be understood as a scalar sum of components of a mixture of indistinguishable photons with the same polarization perpendicular to each other. A polarizer at position alpha selects photons with polarization alpha. Due to the mixing property, these photons already have polarization alpha before measurement.

 

Conversely, a mixture of indistinguishable photons with polarization perpendicular to each other can also assume a common polarization.

 

I discussed this in my paper

On Superposition and Entanglement of Polarized Photons without Hidden Variables

 

https://ijqf.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/03/IJQF2025v11n2p6.pdf

Eugen

bryancs...@gmail.com schrieb am Montag, 29. September 2025 um 23:51:40 UTC+2:

Jan-Ake,

I do not know of any HVT that improves QM, please give me one that does improve QM and makes sense (that is in not just math, but has a physical and geometric basis.)  There is recent literature rejecting Bell 1966 paper, so I believe that HV do not exist.  Therefore,  Bell's 64 paper is a bit moot since they depend on HV.  I think Richard will try to wiggle out of that one. Here are recent papers that support this, and a few older  ones.

Bryan

1. Recent papers: 

Golub, R.; Lamoreaux, S. K. (2024). Hidden Variables: Rehabilitation of von Neumann’s Analysis, and Pauli’s Uncashable Check. arXiv:2401.04002 (quant-ph). arXiv+1

Golub, R.; Lamoreaux, S. K. (2024). A retrospective review of von Neumann’s analysis of hidden variables in quantum mechanics. Academia Quantum 1. DOI: 10.20935/AcadQuant7311. INSPIRE

2. These are earlier:

Mitsch, C. (2022). Hilbert-Style Axiomatic Completion: On von Neumann and Hidden Variables in Quantum Mechanics. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part A 95: 84–95. DOI: 10.1016/j.shpsa.2022.06.016. PhilPapers+1

Unnikrishnan, C. S. (2021). On the Unconditional Validity of J. von Neumann’s Proof of the Impossibility of Hidden Variables in Quantum Mechanics. arXiv:2105.13996 (quant-ph). arXiv

Bub, J. (2010). Von Neumann’s ‘No Hidden Variables’ Proof: A Re-Appraisal. Foundations of Physics 40(9–10): 1333–1340. DOI: 10.1007/s10701-010-9480-9.

Dieks, Dennis (2016) Von Neumann's Impossibility Proof: Mathematics in the Service of Rhetorics.

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/Bell_quantum_foundations/d6dcd25a-4ded-49ca-9db0-95dd621d673fn%40googlegroups.com.

[Алексей Никулов]

Dear Mark,

Your delusion is typical of most people. Bell spoke about this mass
delusion back in 1989, using the statements of N.G. van Kampen as an
example.

“Let us look at one more good book, namely Physica A 153(1988), and
more specifically at the contribution: 'Ten theorems about quantum
mechanical measurements', by NG van Kampen. This paper is
distinguished especially by its robust common sense. The author has no
patience with '. . . such mind-boggling fantasies as the many world
interpretation ..." (vK98). He dismisses out of hand the notion of von
Neumann, Pauli, Wigner — that 'measurement' might be complete only in
the mind of the observer:'. . . I find it hard to understand that
someone who arrives at such a conclusion does not seek the error in
his argument' (vKlOl). For vK '. . . the mind of the observer is
irrelevant. . . the quantum mechanical measurement is terminated when
the outcome has been macroscopically recorded ..." (vKlOl). Moreover,
for vK, no special dynamics comes into play at 'measurement': '. . .
The measuring act is fully described by the Schrodinger equation for
object system and apparatus together. The collapse of the wavefunction
is a consequence rather than an additional postulate ..." (vK97)” [1].

The claim of N.G. van Kampen that “The measuring act is fully
described by the Schrodinger equation for object system and apparatus
together” is obviously falls. Anyone who disagrees with this must
explain how the Schrödinger equation describes the act of measurement,
for example the act of measuring spin projection. Quantum mechanics
and Bell's inequalities in particular have become a mass misconception
precisely because most people, like you, are naive realists, unlike
von Neumann, Pauli, Wigner and the critics of quantum mechanics.

[1] J.S. Bell, Against Measurement. Phys. World. 3, 33-40 (1990).

With best wishes,

Alexey

чт, 2 окт. 2025 г. в 20:59, Mark Hadley <sunshine...@googlemail.com>:

[Inge Svein Helland]

Dear Bryan,

Your approach towards quantum foundations looks interesting indeed. I also thinks that it can be linked to my own approach; see the attached article.

My basis is what I call theoretical variables, which can be any physical variables. Some of these are accessible, can be measured accurately. I have certain postulates. Some of them are rather obvious, but one is crucial: I assume some fixed inaccessible variable w with the property that, in a given physical context, all accessible variables are functions of w.

Is this a hidden variable theory? I think not. In the spin case, w could just be an imagined spin vector, existing only in our minds, a vector with the property that any observed discrete spin component will be the discretized component of w in a given direction.

For the case with finite-valued accessible variables, included the spin case, my main result is as follows: Define first a partial ordering among the theoretical variables by s≤t if s is a function of t. This can also be seen as a partial ordering among the accessible variables, and under very weak assumptions there exist maximal accessible variables with respect to this partial ordering. Now assume in some context that there exist two different maximal accessible variables taking the same number of values, different in the sense that they are not one-to-one functions of each other. Then there exists a Hilbert space H such that every accessible variable s that can be defined in this context, has a self-adjoint operator As associated with it. The eigenvalues of As are the possible values of s, and s is maximal if and only if As has distinct eigenvalues.

Thus, essential elements of the quantum formulation follows essentially from the weak assumption: there exist two different maximal accessible variables, in my opinion, just what Niels Bohr called two complementary variables.

I am not very familiar with your theory, but my quastion is: Can two bivectors also be seen as complementary (accessible) variables? If so, this would provide a nice link between the two approaches.

Best regards

Inge

---

Fra: bell_quantum...@googlegroups.com <bell_quantum...@googlegroups.com> på vegne av Bryan Sanctuary <bryancs...@gmail.com>
Sendt: fredag 3. oktober 2025 05:12
Til: Eugen Muchowski <eu...@muchowski.de>
Kopi: Bell inequalities and quantum foundations <bell_quantum...@googlegroups.com>
Emne: Re: [Bell_quantum_foundations] Superdeterminism?

 

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/Bell_quantum_foundations/CALLw9YytgvLWPGbukstxJPJmPDNAsFE06%3D03fTNkcWE6TcMHCQ%40mail.gmail.com.

[Mark Hadley]

Fred, what Bryan and Jan say is fundamental to the formulation if Bells.

You only give one line so it's not clear if a is an angle as Bryan expects or the result of an event at a, which has to be +/- 1 as Jan said.

If you have a serious intent and a quest for understanding then I suggest you select the simplest available CHSH proof. Share it with us and tell us which lines puzzle you.

Cheers 

Mark 

[Bryan Sanctuary]

Dear Inge,

Thanks for your comments and paper which is a substantial work.  It is a bit mathematically overwhelming for me, and my remarks are more from your email summary of it, in particular, to try to link our approaches. Your physical variables seem to be ontic structures in our spacetime. A major difference between my approach is that spin is not postulated as an abstract chiral vector in a 2D Hilbert space, but a real physical object in 3D space: so spin is a classical bivector that becomes quantum in a limit. Bivectors do not superpose to give more spin states. So no superposition.

Your w is, to me, a real orientation that can be rotated. It is not a superposition within its Hilbert space. That is, w is governed by Geometric Algebra, not as abstract excited states in a ubiquitous QF as in the SM. Orientation, an angle say, is not a HV. So here is one difference in interpretation. The Pauli spin components do not describe abstract quantum states, but the classical chirality of a bivector, with each blade (m = \pm 1), having opposite chirality: the L and R hands of the electron.  This gives a classical origin of spin, so it need not be postulated. In the quantum limit, the classical bivector spin has two complementary contributions: polarization \sigma; and coherence i\sigma.  These are seen from the Geometric Product of two Pauli components:

Complementarity means that polarization and coherence are in dual spaces. Bohr said only one existed at any instant, and, in contrast,  the bivector approach says that both simultaneously exist, but in dual spaces. That physically means one is in the Lab FF and the other is in the Body FF*.

With that, I will try to answer your question: 

Can two bivectors also be seen as complementary (accessible) variables?

Two bivectors, Bij = e_i \wedge e_j, whose planes share an axis (e.g., B13 and B23) correspond to non-commuting components, so maximal access to one precludes maximal access to the other. Hence they’re complementary in your sense of accessibility. 

How does this link our approaches? 

Best wishes,

Bryan

*  I am compelled to express again that the violation of BI is a result of correlation between two bivectors, not nonlocality, so disproves Bell's theorem.  Here is the part of my paper that summarizes this in one focussed paragraph:

Sanctuary, B. The Classical Origin of Spin: Vectors Versus Bivectors. Axioms 2025, 14, 668. https://www.mdpi.com/2075-1680/14/9/668/pdf

[Fred Diether]

Let's see if you can wiggle out of this with more nonsense.  The answer to BS's question,

a = b = - c

Then using dot product

|b.b -(-c.c)| - (-c.c) <= 1

2 + 1 <= 1

3 <= 1

Yep, the inequality is pure nonsense just like I said.

[Jan-Åke Larsson]

First, the inequality does not apply to the quantum expression E(a,b) = - a . b

Second, the quantum expression has a minus sign. With your settings we have

|-(b.b) - (- (-c.c))|-(-(-c.c))=|-1-1|-1=2-1<=1

You have a sign error. 

What can I say, Fred is the one who is writing nonsense.

/Jan-Åke

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/Bell_quantum_foundations/95cb5355-e543-423e-b830-f9c3ed4c04e9n%40googlegroups.com.

[Bryan Sanctuary]

Fred,

Please note:

|b.b -(-c.c)| - (-c.c) <= 1  is NOT BI  

You want to use a = b = - c so BI are:

|-a.b -(-a.c)| - (-b.c) <= 1

|-1 -1| - (1)= 1 <= 1

I have done this several times for you and you still make the same mistake.

Bryan

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/Bell_quantum_foundations/95cb5355-e543-423e-b830-f9c3ed4c04e9n%40googlegroups.com.

[Mark Hadley]

Dear Fred,

I just don't know what you are talking about. I've not seen a line like that in the CHSH derivation 

[Inge Svein Helland]

Dear Brian,

Your model - as far as I understand it - seems to fit well into my scheme.  However, we may have some differences when it comes to interpretation. I try to market a general  epistemic interpretation, where the theoretical variables are connected to an observer or to a group of communicating observers. But, as I see it, in many cases this group may in principle consist of all humans, and then the distinction between the epistemic and the optic breaks down.

If I understand you correctly, your chirality, left or right, can be measured, so in my terminology it is accessible. Is this correct?

Best regards

Inge

Sendt fra Outlook for iOS

---

From: 'Mark Hadley' via Bell inequalities and quantum foundations <Bell_quantum...@googlegroups.com>
Sent: Friday, October 3, 2025 6:09:08 PM
To: Fred Diether <fredi...@gmail.com>
Cc: Bell inequalities and quantum foundations <bell_quantum...@googlegroups.com>
Subject: Re: [Bell_quantum_foundations] Superdeterminism?

 

--

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 visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/Bell_quantum_foundations/CAN%3D2%2Bo1diiq1vMT44bt2ukXn7g9zgiho-Ko_zcYbS3XtOD0cww%40mail.gmail.com.

[Fred Diether]

Ok, just seeing if you guys are "on your toes".  Still waiting for BS or anyone to answer my question.

[Mark Hadley]

You had an answer from me.

I'm waiting for you to present an accepted CHSH proof and indicate any strange step in it.

Your undefined snippets are unanswerable 

Mark

[Richard Gill]

Dear Fred

I think you have noticed that the correlations predicted by quantum mechanics, and observed in experiments, violate Bell’s inequality. Bell’s inequality assumed local realism. So quantum mechanics and local realism are incompatible. Which is exactly what Bell was trying to tell you.

Richard

Sent from my iPad

On 3 Oct 2025, at 23:17, Fred Diether <fredi...@gmail.com> wrote:

Ok, just seeing if you guys are "on your toes".  Still waiting for BS or anyone to answer my question.

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/Bell_quantum_foundations/df8bea67-f909-47b2-b5d4-57f22c3edee5n%40googlegroups.com.

[Fred Diether]

Ok Richard, perhaps you will answer my question though you never have in the past.  Which I will restate;

Why is the "b" in E(a, b) the same "b" in E(b, c)?

[Fred Diether]

Mark, for some reason your messages are not going to my email so I don't really see them in time.  And I am too lazy to look back in the thread.  :-)

[Richard Gill]

Thanks Fred

We would need to look at the precise context where Bell describes the set up and introduces his notation, but I think the answer is:

Bell intended “a”, “b”, and “c”  to stand for three unit vectors in R^3. E(a, b) is the correlation when Alice measures in direction an and Bob in direction b, and similarly E(b, c). A mathematical expression involving E(a, b) and E(b, c) becomes then a function of a, b and c. The symbols a, b, c are placeholders for three directions. All instances of b have to be filled with the same direction.

Does that make sense?

Richard

Sent from my iPad

On 4 Oct 2025, at 17:19, Fred Diether <fredi...@gmail.com> wrote:

Ok Richard, perhaps you will answer my question though you never have in the past.  Which I will restate;

Why is the "b" in E(a, b) the same "b" in E(b, c)?

On Saturday, October 4, 2025 at 1:31:13 AM UTC-7 Richard Gill wrote:

Dear Fred

I think you have noticed that the correlations predicted by quantum mechanics, and observed in experiments, violate Bell’s inequality. Bell’s inequality assumed local realism. So quantum mechanics and local realism are incompatible. Which is exactly what Bell was trying to tell you.

Richard

Sent from my iPad

The mass delusion about Bell's inequalities is a consequence of the belief of most modern scientists in the decisive role of experiment and their disdainful attitude towards logic. The mass delusion about thermodynamics of superconductors on which I draw reader’s attention in the article [4] was made possible for the same reason.

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/Bell_quantum_foundations/3f099226-583f-4d18-a763-bd56f2bf6cdcn%40googlegroups.com.

[Mark Hadley]

Well Fred,

I can't do much more than email the answers and explanations to you. Which I have done.

If you want to know why the a is the same in two places. That's fundamental to the theory and it's relationship with the experiments. You will find explanations on Wikipedia. But I have not seen any derivations with the clarity given in Chris Ishams book.

I used to teach it to master's students, but I don't have my notes with me any more. We went through the proof line by line, assumption by assumption. All with absolute clarity and rigor. And to the satisfaction of the most intelligent and skeptical students in the country.

If you put the effort in, then you will be rewarded.

[Bryan Sanctuary]

Fred,

Many have tried to show you your error. To help, I ask you to use the CHSH expression from Wikipedia and show the violation is 2root(2).

To help, the correlation is E(a,b) = -a.b and the vectors are 45 degrees apart. The exercise should straighten you out,

Good luck

Bryan

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/Bell_quantum_foundations/df8bea67-f909-47b2-b5d4-57f22c3edee5n%40googlegroups.com.

[Fred Diether]

Ok Richard, we know that the averages E(a, b) and E(b, c) can't happen at the same time.  IOW, two different thought experiments.  So, there is no good reason why the "b's" should be the same.  They could be but they don't have to be the same.  And that is one reason why the inequality is nonsense and can be disproven.  Bell made the assumption that they are the same but it is a bad assumption.

[GeraldoAlexandreBarbosa]

Hi Bryan,

Trying to understand your electron. Your statement:

“In isotropy, the electron has mass only. It has no charge, no helicity.”

How a charge appears when isotropy breaks?

Geraldo

Geraldo A. Barbosa, PhD

KeyBITS Encryption Technologies LLC

https://www.keybits.tech/

1540 Moorings Drive #2B, Reston VA 20190

E-Mail: GeraldoABarbosa@keybits.tech 

Cellphone: 1-443-891-7138 (US) - with WhatsApp

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/Bell_quantum_foundations/CALLw9YzvpQwuGyk94nO5oMMDyQNN%2BnbfwE9%2BTnnT6hxjA6w2kg%40mail.gmail.com.

[Bryan Sanctuary]

Dear Geraldo,

Thank you for that and for taking the time to look at the paper.  Your question is about the emergence of spin properties.  I am happy to give more on this as it is one of the most intriguing aspects of classical spin.  As you know, in isotropy, m= 0, it forms a double helix of mass.  This is exciting since the helix contains, in an electron, the harbinger of our life, with a left and right  hand and a double helix.  Moreover, that mass-only state, when it forms, cancels all other spin properties.  They are dark electromagnetically and pure mass.  It this way Nature maintains an inert state (m=0).  Now in a polarizing field, the electron comes to life.  The two intertwined orthogonal components are forced into polarization, with one axis aligned, and the other randomized (perpendicular to it).  In the process of the axes separating, ang mom \hbar, the charge, e^- and its spin (chirality and helicity) emerge.  That is, one of the blades of the bivector, m = \pm 1, aligns, and is our usual spin we observe.  

I wrote a section of the paper on this, and I cannot say it better here.  Please look at section: 

5. Unification of Bosons and Fermions

https://www.mdpi.com/2075-1680/14/9/668/pdf

The discussion of charge emergence is given is 5.3 and it also gives a rationale of the Zitterbewegung.  I was quite happy with that section.  The section 5.2 shows the emergence of fermions as blades of a bivector, an anyon transition and involves, it seems, braid theory.

I hope this helps and I look forward to any other comments or questions you or others might have

Regards,

Bryan

[Fred Diether]

So, the same thing can be done with CHSH,

|-1 -(+1) -1 -1| <= 2

4 <= 2

It's nonsense.  Any good mathematician will tell you the upper bound on CHSH is 4 not 2.

[Mark Hadley]

You have misunderstood the derivation. It's on Wikipedia visible and accessible to all. And even you are free to propose corrections.

The implications of Bells inequality are poorly understood and hotly debated.

But no mathematician who has studied the inequalities thinks the derivation is wrong.

[Bryan Sanctuary]

"Will no one rid me of this troublesome priest?"

Fred,

Several of us are trying harder than we should to make you see your error. Others have said the vector correlations have common settings that are fixed in the derivation by Bell. So please, stop doing that 4 <= 2 calculation you think is correct and please do the calculation which is the first part of the first lecture on Bell's work anywhere: show QM violates BI.  I am asking you to please do the calculation I set out, and come back to show us so we know if you did it correctly.  That is all I ask:

Bryan

I ask you to use the CHSH expression from Wikipedia and show the violation is 2root(2).

To help, the correlation is E(a,b) = -a.b and the vectors are 45 degrees apart. The exercise should straighten you out,

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/Bell_quantum_foundations/4a287aa4-e990-4185-acb2-9456bdabf33an%40googlegroups.com.

[Fred Diether]

It is not my fault that you guys want to remain clueless.  

Bell made a mistake by making the averages depend on each other.  Well, he made other mistakes also.  We will get into that later.

[Richard Gill]

Indeed Fred, we are talking about different thought experiments.

There is no “thought police” who can stop us imagining that the “b”s are the same in these different experiments.

In these experiments we can and do imagine the b’s as being the same. 

That leads to the CHSH bound and the Tsirelson bound depending on what else we imagine (LHV or QM).

You are welcome to imagine what you like, but you cannot impose your thoughts on others. You have to motivate them carefully and listen to objections.

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/Bell_quantum_foundations/0c12754b-902f-4450-9f22-efb8fc9442e5n%40googlegroups.com.

[Jan-Åke Larsson]

Same sign error 

|(-1)+(-1)|+|(-1)-(-1)| =2 \le 2

Fred is writing nonsense

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/Bell_quantum_foundations/4a287aa4-e990-4185-acb2-9456bdabf33an%40googlegroups.com.

[Richard Gill]

Well, you could say that 4 is a universal upper bound. If you do an experiment, the result will always be less than or equal to 4, and it could equal 4.

But if one assumes QM and certain commutation relations and go to the limit of an infinite sample size, it goes down to 2 sqrt 2. If you assume LHV …, it goes down to 2.

I think Fred has difficulty in comprehending the difference between theory and experiment. Between sample averages and theoretical expectation values. He’s a quite simple soul.

Sent from my iPad

On 5 Oct 2025, at 10:02, 'Jan-Åke Larsson' via Bell inequalities and quantum foundations <Bell_quantum...@googlegroups.com> wrote:



To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/Bell_quantum_foundations/e0ed7fbf-4395-456b-931a-5c1dbe7ab7b7%40liu.se.

[Bryan Sanctuary]

Dear Fred,

This is my final comment:  you seem not to be able to put the angles into the CHSH expression.  Here they are

As everyone has told you, the a in the first and second term are the same vectors (showing that you have not gone through Bell's proof).  Your idea that they can differ is wrong.

here are four experiments:

This discussion started from you replying to my request for examples of LHV theories.  In replying, you made your error and kept repeating it, while each time saying things like we are "not very good a math", I think you used "nonsense" in every reply, and you called us all "clueless" while you made an error which shows us clearly you have little understanding; and while at the same time, denigrating everyone trying to help you.  The word to describe your ignorance about Bell's inequalities is arrogance, and to be sure you know what I mean, here is the definition,

Arrogance: the quality of having an exaggerated sense of one's own importance or abilities

For me, in short, you are a person who acts unwisely or imprudently; a silly person, that is a fool, and you should be truly embarrassed,

Bryan

On Sat, Oct 4, 2025 at 9:43 PM Fred Diether <fredi...@gmail.com> wrote:

It is not my fault that you guys want to remain clueless.  

Bell made a mistake by making the averages depend on each other.  Well, he made other mistakes also.  We will get into that later.

On Saturday, October 4, 2025 at 3:21:00 PM UTC-7 bryancs...@gmail.com wrote:

"Will no one rid me of this troublesome priest?"

Fred,

Several of us are trying harder than we should to make you see your error. Others have said the vector correlations have common settings that are fixed in the derivation by Bell. So please, stop doing that 4 <= 2 calculation you think is correct and please do the calculation which is the first part of the first lecture on Bell's work anywhere: show QM violates BI.  I am asking you to please do the calculation I set out, and come back to show us so we know if you did it correctly.  That is all I ask:

Bryan

I ask you to use the CHSH expression from Wikipedia and show the violation is 2root(2).

To help, the correlation is E(a,b) = -a.b and the vectors are 45 degrees apart. The exercise should straighten you out,

This discussion started from you replying to my request for examples of viable LHV.  In replying, you made your error and kept repeating it, while each time saying things like we are "not very good a math", I think you used "nonsense" in every reply, and you called us all "clueless" while all the time you made an error which shows us clearly you have little understanding; frankly, made a fool of yourself; and at the same time denigrating everyone trying to help you.  The word to describe your ignorance about Bell's inequalities is arrogance, and to be sure you know what I mean, here is the definition,

Arrogance: the quality of having an exaggerated sense of one's own importance or abilities

For me, in short, you are a person who acts unwisely or imprudently; a silly person, that is a fool,

Bryan

 

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/Bell_quantum_foundations/a206254f-528a-42b4-8673-ffd081623fa7n%40googlegroups.com.

[Fred Diether]

LOL!  You guys are so predictable and still clueless.  Yep, I know Bell fans are the most stubborn in the world but thought I would just have a bit of fun.

I'll be back with some more mistakes Bell made.  It is actually a somewhat surprising you guys ignore them.

[Bryan Sanctuary]

Richard said

But if one assumes QM and certain commutation relations and go to the limit of an infinite sample size, it goes down to 2 sqrt 2. If you assume LHV …, it goes down to 2.

I ask:  what if you have two complementary dual spaces?  How do you treat that?

Bryan

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/Bell_quantum_foundations/C3D57002-4BFF-43A4-8BEE-AD46803BE88E%40gmail.com.

[Richard Gill]

I have no idea what that means so I have no idea what to do. Bryan is using QM language and what he does with it is his business. It has no bearing whatsoever on Bell’s theorem. Bryan has published some papers on his ideas. I don’t understand them. So far they do not seem to have had much impact. I am going to wait till some renowned physicists adopt his ideas and I hope they’ll be able to popularize them, too.

Sent from my iPhone

On 5 Oct 2025, at 18:54, Bryan Sanctuary <bryancs...@gmail.com> wrote:



[Fred Diether]

LOL!  You will be waiting a very long time since renowned physicists don't usually adopt fantasies.  But what the hey; look what happened with Bell.

[Bryan Sanctuary]

Richard,

He said:  "I have no idea what that means (sic. duality) so I have no idea what to do. "

I will try to explain:  a convex set is convex so it allows for a lever law to  mix states. Extreme points are pure states, and interior points are mixed states.  That is one convex set.  However, in QM, duality is common, and the duality of spin has contribution from both a vector, \sigma, and a bivector i\sigma. 

 They are complementary and are represented in two dual convex sets (above i cannot be equal and not equal to j at the same time, which is duality).  When combining from different convex sets, you use the Minkowski sum:  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minkowski_addition.  Using a lever law is wrong as Minkowski proved.

I have said this ad nauseam  but you and Jan-Ake do not seem to get that point. 

The bearing on Bell's theorem is Bell's derivation is classical, it is confined to one classical convex set and Bell ignores duality in favour of non-locality.  If you apply Bell twice, and sum them, you get a violation which is really the Minkowski sum of two dual events. 

Jan Ake just said he and you studied my papers in detail, but Richard says he does not understand them.  It appears the latter is more to the truth.  I am not worried about my ideas eventually prevailing, but it will take time, which I might not have.  You, however, are not privy to my communication with others, who express genuine interest, and the encouraging comments from the reviewers.  Changing paradigms is not easy when it means billions of research funding will dry up, and we must dump the SM in favour of a new BiSM.  Many experiments are so expensive they cannot "fail" like billions spent on neutrino detection, when no neutrinos have ever been detected, and the LHC which shatters bivectors into chiral bits, which confuse everything.  

I have the classical origin of spin, with a quantum limit of a double helix of properties.  No one has done that. Does that mean anything to you?

Bryan

[Mark Hadley]

Dear Bryan,

Utter gibberish as usual. Science words string together in ways that make no sense.

Do you agree that 

C(a,b) = ( N++  + N-- - N+- - N--+)/N_tot

In the usual notation.

I would say it's a definition and trust you are familiar with it. Could you confirm that?

Mark

[Bryan Sanctuary]

Dear Mark,

I agree with that, as we all do.  As I say in the paper, the initial conditions will determine the binary pairs.  The challenge to experimentalists is to do experiments that distinguish between events from two distinct convex sets. I discuss that too. I think they can do it, then QM becomes deterministic.

What I said is standard set theory that I learned in grad school.  Why do you say it is gibberish and how would you treat duality differently in Bell type experiments?  EPR treated duality with position and momentum?  How does Bell's work apply to complementary events? My answer is two convex sets with a Minkowski sum, apply BI to each set, and sum the correlations. It is all in Wikipedia. 

Bryan

[Richard Gill]

Dear Mark

You take the words out of my mouth.

It is nice for Bryan that he is receiving some appreciation. Now we await further publications building on his remarkable breakthrough by a new generation of physicists who have seen the light.

Richard 

Sent from my iPhone

On 5 Oct 2025, at 19:48, Mark Hadley <sunshine...@googlemail.com> wrote:



Dear Bryan,

Utter gibberish as usual. Science words string together in ways that make no sense.

Do you agree that 

C(a,b) = ( N++  + N-- - N+- - N--+)/N_tot

In the usual notation.

I would say it's a definition and trust you are familiar with it. Could you confirm that?

Mark

On Sun, 5 Oct 2025, 14:41 Bryan Sanctuary, <bryancs...@gmail.com> wrote:

Richard,

He said:  "I have no idea what that means (sic. duality) so I have no idea what to do. "

I will try to explain:  a convex set is convex so it allows for a lever law to  mix states. Extreme points are pure states, and interior points are mixed states.  That is one convex set.  However, in QM, duality is common, and the duality of spin has contribution from both a vector, \sigma, and a bivector i\sigma. 

[Richard Gill]

Bryan

Where does Wikipedia tell you that correlations can be added?

Which two convex sets are you taking the Minkowski sum of? And why?

Richard 

Sent from my iPhone

On 5 Oct 2025, at 20:06, Bryan Sanctuary <bryancs...@gmail.com> wrote:



Dear Mark,

I agree with that, as we all do.  As I say in the paper, the initial conditions will determine the binary pairs.  The challenge to experimentalists is to do experiments that distinguish between events from two distinct convex sets. I discuss that too. I think they can do it, then QM becomes deterministic.

What I said is standard set theory that I learned in grad school.  Why do you say it is gibberish and how would you treat duality differently in Bell type experiments?  EPR treated duality with position and momentum?  How does Bell's work apply to complementary events? My answer is two convex sets with a Minkowski sum, apply BI to each set, and sum the correlations. It is all in Wikipedia. 

Bryan

On Sun, Oct 5, 2025 at 1:48 PM Mark Hadley <sunshine...@googlemail.com> wrote:

Dear Bryan,

Utter gibberish as usual. Science words string together in ways that make no sense.

Do you agree that 

C(a,b) = ( N++  + N-- - N+- - N--+)/N_tot

In the usual notation.

I would say it's a definition and trust you are familiar with it. Could you confirm that?

Mark

On Sun, 5 Oct 2025, 14:41 Bryan Sanctuary, <bryancs...@gmail.com> wrote:

Richard,

He said:  "I have no idea what that means (sic. duality) so I have no idea what to do. "

I will try to explain:  a convex set is convex so it allows for a lever law to  mix states. Extreme points are pure states, and interior points are mixed states.  That is one convex set.  However, in QM, duality is common, and the duality of spin has contribution from both a vector, \sigma, and a bivector i\sigma. 

[Richard Gill]

Bryan, what is a lever law?


Sent from my iPhone

[Mark Hadley]

So added to my C= ..... Equation 

Do you agree that if the events seen by an experimenter are of type p or q then ..

N = Np+ Nq ( I'm on my phone, I would choose superscripts)

I think this is the structure of your model, but without any important detail at this stage.

Can you confirm?

Mark

[Bryan Sanctuary]

Well Richard,  a new generation is usually needed for a paradigm shift.  There will be, one day I predict, a great shaking of heads at the waste of ideas in the first 100 years of QM.  I will call it the "fermion era". The new era is the "bivector era".

  I thank you for noting my work is a remarkable breakthrough, and indeed, quite humbly I agree.  All I did was complexify spacetime like Penrose did. I was gobsmacked to learn the matter-antimatter pair is wrong and a bivector was correct.  I was amazed how quickly parity was restored and neutrinos disappeared.  It was immediately obvious that baryogenesis was moot, and the long neg energy problem of antimatter positrons evaporated.  I was surprised how easily a bit of undergrad classical mechanics of a bivector gave the classical origin of spin. And, hey, no renormalization; no gauge bosons (that are off shell and never been observed anyway), no unphysical wiggles and squiggles in Feynman diagrams that bear no relationship to anything one can understand.  Do you understand how the Higg's mechanism works?  

Stuff gets easier and clearer.  I quote Einstein: 

 "It can scarcely be denied that the supreme goal of all theory is to make the irreducible basic elements as simple and as few as possible, without having to surrender the adequate representation of a single datum of experience".

Isaac Netwon said in his First Rule of Reasoning from the Principia, \cite{Isaac} "no more causes of natural things should be admitted than are both true and sufficient to explain their phenomena".  He went on to say, "Nature does nothing in vain, and more causes are in vain when fewer will suffice. For Nature is simple and does not indulge in the luxury of superfluous causes."

The SM violates these concepts with a burden of math, with little geometric basis. The BiSM is consistent with Einstein and Newton's views,

However, most of all, it was the remarkable insight one gets into parity (which is derived from reflection) and the identification of a left and right hand of Nature and the double helix of an electron.  That gave me vivid visualization of how electrons respond to fields, and how matter is built.  It was so satisfying to reject the ubiquitous fields of the SM (I think there are 17 at last count)  in favour of the very simple use of the Geometric Algebra of a classical bivector.

And yes, I have loads to do.  Right now I am getting a nice geometric understanding of the FSC.  Following that, I can see how quarks lead to geometric structure of neutrons and protons, and will try to write that up.  I can also calculate the g-factors to the same accuracy as the SM (it is just perturbation theory). I can now visualize how nuclei grow and why they are stable and decay.  In short, EVERYTHING I have looked at just falls out, is simpler, vividly geometrics and fits so well, that I am certain that others with different knowledge will see how the BiSM can be used in their cases. 

So yes, let's be gnostic and the paradigm shift will happen--it is overdue as most publicists on YouTube seem to agree is coming. 

But you guys seem stuck by not understanding duality and complementary convex sets.  

Bryan

[Bryan Sanctuary]

Richard,

Sigh  I cannot keep repeating.  Please read the paper, and study convex sets.  Then get back to me if you still have questions

Bryan

[Bryan Sanctuary]

Mark, 

Coincidence experiments collect binary pairs into bins.  The experimentalists must distinguish bins.  Then they look at each bin and use

C(a,b) = ( N++  + N-- - N+- - N--+)/N_tot

for each bin.  That gives the correlation from distinct bins. Those correlations are from different convex sets and they sum using the Minkowski sum.

Your sum is ok, but the total number of counts N_tot from each is not important and unrelated, since the correlations are intensive.

Bryan

[Mark Hadley]

Yes, I'm trying to show Richard and Jan exactly where the convexity comes in. We are agreed what the experiments measure and how they define and measure correlation. That's a good start.

And do you agree that each sum N, of events, is the simple sum of p-events and q-events??? ( Even though and experimenter can only count the total. )

N = Np + Nq

So, I'm just asking if you agree to that one statement?

Cheers 

Mark

[Mark Hadley]

Dear Bryan,

I'm asking a simple question. Is it true that each event is either a p event or a q event and that therefore every N in the correlation coefficient can be written as 

N = Np + Nq

I'm asking because I think we can then do a simple algebra to present it as a combination on a convex set in one dimension.

Your previous answer below seemed to stop short of agreeing. This is an assumption in the model so I don't want to proceed without clarity.

You say ...

The experimenter must filter the coincidences, and calculate the correlations separately from the bins.  It does not matter if N=N_p +N_q. since correlation is intensive, and there are two experiments. 

Bryan

On Sun, 5 Oct 2025, 15:54 Bryan Sanctuary, <bryancs...@gmail.com> wrote:

[Jan-Åke Larsson]

Mark, I've already done this to Bryan, he doesn't accept adding events like that because then correlations become convex combinations, of the whole dataset.

Which contradicts Bryan's claims.

I have a PDF somewhere of this, sent to the group some years ago. An actual calculation that exposes Bryan's error.

His response to this is to yell "you don't understand" (over email) and then refuse to answer any reasonable question.

I am honestly tired of this bullshit.

But good luck Mark!

/Jan-Åke

--

[Bryan Sanctuary]

Mark,

I have answered.  N = N_p +N_q is extensive and the correlations are intensive.  So I do not care what N is.  The values are determined by experiment, and for p and q they must be filtered.  Now I  have discussed this to no avail with Jan-Ake and Richard about two years ago.  You are repeating the same questions. So go ahead and do your simple algebra and at the end present it to me.  I have better things to do, and if the past is any indication, you are attempting to trip me up, and you won't.  I am not playing games, like stupid Fred's disingenuous  bit of fun.  So I prefer you read my papers and work out your difficulties without me.  I have had enough for now.

Bryan

[Mark Hadley]

I'm asking a very simple question about your model.

Why are you reluctant to give a clear answer?

Yes, I do want to do a calculation to relate your model to the experimental results. Do you object to that?

Cheers

Mark

[Mark Hadley]

Bryan,

N = N_p +N_q

It's an equation. True or false ???

I did something similar years ago and you thanked me and said it was correct.

I'm talking about a normal experimenter, who counts events.

You seem to claim that some events will be of one type say p and others of a different type, say q.  From which I think the sum rule above applies to any analysis that I might want to do.

That is what your model says isn't it.

[Fred Diether]

Yeah, it is pretty easy to see that BS's nonsense is way way worse than Bell's.  I'm really surprised that some of it got published.  But I'm not surprised that you are tired of his BS.  :-)

[Bryan Sanctuary]

Mark,

I will give you my answer and it again depends upon complementarity.  Do an experiment and find N coincidences. Some are N_++ and some are N_-- and the correlation is 

.

Now you note that you can distinguish (filter) them, so you separate out all different types and get:

 .......

You keep doing it until all the distinct coincidences are found, and all the correlations calculated.  In the total experiments the sum of all the clicks is N total, but it does not matter since correlation is intensive.  These are complementary calculations from different sources. The total correlation is their sum. I could do the same with density:

 and the total density is the sum.  For the four CHSH experiments, their correlation is their sum.  

FOr the EPR coincidences I find on the average, 3/4 coincidences are from polarization and 1/4 from coherence.  In general  N_total = N_1 +N_2 +....+N_n

You must do the rest.  I am busy and I will not reply for a few days.  I just caught a racoon, (want a picture?) which I must take away and release.  My orchard needs pruning (45 trees).  My four ponds need cleaning, (big job), and I must prepare for winter.  I have some wood to split and my tractors need servicing. Then, when I come in, I want to finish my paper on the FSC, and really,  I will only respond to people who really do have honest questions.

Hope you understand.

Bryan

[Richard Gill]

Bryan really does seem to think that a/b + c/d = (a + c)/(b + d)

Sent from my iPad

On 6 Oct 2025, at 00:43, Bryan Sanctuary <bryancs...@gmail.com> wrote:



Mark,

I will give you my answer and it again depends upon complementarity.  Do an experiment and find N coincidences. Some are N_++ and some are N_-- and the correlation is 

<image.png>

.

Now you note that you can distinguish (filter) them, so you separate out all different types and get:

<image.png>

 

<image.png>

.......

<image.png>

You keep doing it until all the distinct coincidences are found, and all the correlations calculated.  In the total experiments the sum of all the clicks is N total, but it does not matter since correlation is intensive.  These are complementary calculations from different sources. The total correlation is their sum. I could do the same with density:

[Jan-Åke Larsson]

Well, last time I had a student in the introductory math course that thought 1/5+1/7=2/12 I advised against continuing in engineering.

--

[Mark Hadley]

Yes, that sums it up.

But I think he really knows the mistakes and is afraid to admit it. The bet plus the excitement of getting a lot of attention.

[Austin Fearnley]

Hi Bryan

As you may remember, I like many aspects of your approach as it has an analogy to the progression of my own model, especially the abandonment of static vectors to represent polarisation vectors.  I went on to use a gyroscopic model of the electron and photon.  

I have looked up 'intensive correlations' using google AI deep dive as it is a new term for me.  I note that it mentions usage in biochemical geometries.  I do think though that your correlation calculation is flawed and you answer should be approximately -0.375. That is the final correlation I obtained using LHVs in classical methods and is what drove me to consider retrocausality (as probably started by Costa de Beauregard decades ago). [your description of intensive correlations vaguely reminds me of intraclass corelations.]

An example of adding correlations:
Take a coincidence bin with N1=200 readings in it.
Say N++ = 75, which is the count of paired observations by Alice and Bob.  So p++ = 75/200.
N+-, N-+ and N-- could easily be calculated as there is only one degree of freedom in the bin, though it is unnecessary as there is a simple formula to calculate the correlation for the bin:
correl = 4 * p++ - 1.
So for this bin, correl = 0.5.

Take a second bin with N++ = 50 with N2 = 200 and p++ = 50/200.  Correl =  0.0.

Add the numbers in bins 1 and 2 to give N++ = 125 with N3 = N1 + N2 = 400 and p++ = 125/400 for a combined bin 3.  where bin 3 = bin 1 + bin 2 and has correl = 0.25.

Bin 1 has the higher correlation, 0.5, which is dragged down when accompanied by the zero correlation in bin 2, to give an intermediate correlation of 0.25 for the combined bin.  I would never add the correlations 0.5 and 0.0 (that is, 0.5) to get the correlation of 0.5 for bin 3.  So that is why I opt for correl = -0.375 for your method.

I also believe that nothing breaks the Bell Inequalities.  QM does not as it uses a non-local procedure for the connections of the polarisations of the entangled particles. My version of retrocausality is local within a time reversed framework which does not correspond to currently accepted reality, thus is non-real.  I am unclear if your model is intended to remain within the currently accepted view of reality. If it does, then Bell's Inequalities will prevent your claimed correlation.

[Inge Svein Helland]

Dear Bryan,

I think that your model is consistent with my approach, and I encourage you to read about it.

Inge

---

Fra: bell_quantum...@googlegroups.com <bell_quantum...@googlegroups.com> på vegne av Bryan Sanctuary <bryancs...@gmail.com>
Sendt: fredag 3. oktober 2025 05:12
Til: Eugen Muchowski <eu...@muchowski.de>
Kopi: Bell inequalities and quantum foundations <bell_quantum...@googlegroups.com>
Emne: Re: [Bell_quantum_foundations] Superdeterminism?

 

Dear Eugen,

Thank you for your response and paper.  I had been asking people for HV (as defined by Bell) that improve QM, and your paper has no HV. Since you also keep locality and determinism, we share the same ontology.  I am not sure I understand completely yet, but you treat photon polarization as ensembles of orthogonal beams, with some rules to ensure Malus/Born is obeyed.  Since figuring out that spin is a classical bivector, everything now looks like a bivector to me! Your orthogonal beams might be expressed as bivectors, giving structure and chirality to the beams.  Geometric Algebra might be the math. In this way, I found this possible connection to my work which justifies our similar philosophies.

You did say, however, that your approach improves QM, but I did not get that. You have a way that replaces or supplements QM by expressing entanglement and superposition with predetermined outcomes.  I agree Bell does not apply with no HV nor nonlocality. This gives a different perspective to entanglement and QM but does not seem to improve it.  Please correct me as these are my initial responses. 

I am glad your paper is not a HV theory since I believe HV do not exist.  If we could all agree to this, much of the semantic confusion of the foundations would be eliminated.  So who can give compelling arguments that support keeping them?  We rely on their existence only in the hope they may: improve QM; remove dispersion; and somehow make the measurements of spin components non-linear (Bell 66).  I would be interested in peoples’ views on this.

Bryan

On Tue, Sep 30, 2025 at 6:57 AM Eugen Muchowski <eu...@muchowski.de> wrote:

Bryan,

here you get a physical model that improves QM:

From the derivation of Bell's 64 inequality, it follows that entangled polarization states are incompatible with photons that have fixed properties. Because hidden common variables are also impossible due to teleportation and entanglement swapping, a different approach is required to understand quantum correlation:

 

A superposition state can be understood as a vector sum of photon beams polarized perpendicular to each other. If one now changes perspective and moves from Hilbert space to R3 position space, the superposition state can be understood as a scalar sum of components of a mixture of indistinguishable photons with the same polarization perpendicular to each other. A polarizer at position alpha selects photons with polarization alpha. Due to the mixing property, these photons already have polarization alpha before measurement.

 

Conversely, a mixture of indistinguishable photons with polarization perpendicular to each other can also assume a common polarization.

 

I discussed this in my paper

On Superposition and Entanglement of Polarized Photons without Hidden Variables

 

https://ijqf.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/03/IJQF2025v11n2p6.pdf

Eugen

bryancs...@gmail.com schrieb am Montag, 29. September 2025 um 23:51:40 UTC+2:

Jan-Ake,

I do not know of any HVT that improves QM, please give me one that does improve QM and makes sense (that is in not just math, but has a physical and geometric basis.)  There is recent literature rejecting Bell 1966 paper, so I believe that HV do not exist.  Therefore,  Bell's 64 paper is a bit moot since they depend on HV.  I think Richard will try to wiggle out of that one. Here are recent papers that support this, and a few older  ones.

Bryan

1. Recent papers: 

Golub, R.; Lamoreaux, S. K. (2024). Hidden Variables: Rehabilitation of von Neumann’s Analysis, and Pauli’s Uncashable Check. arXiv:2401.04002 (quant-ph). arXiv+1

Golub, R.; Lamoreaux, S. K. (2024). A retrospective review of von Neumann’s analysis of hidden variables in quantum mechanics. Academia Quantum 1. DOI: 10.20935/AcadQuant7311. INSPIRE

2. These are earlier:

Mitsch, C. (2022). Hilbert-Style Axiomatic Completion: On von Neumann and Hidden Variables in Quantum Mechanics. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part A 95: 84–95. DOI: 10.1016/j.shpsa.2022.06.016. PhilPapers+1

Unnikrishnan, C. S. (2021). On the Unconditional Validity of J. von Neumann’s Proof of the Impossibility of Hidden Variables in Quantum Mechanics. arXiv:2105.13996 (quant-ph). arXiv

Bub, J. (2010). Von Neumann’s ‘No Hidden Variables’ Proof: A Re-Appraisal. Foundations of Physics 40(9–10): 1333–1340. DOI: 10.1007/s10701-010-9480-9.

Dieks, Dennis (2016) Von Neumann's Impossibility Proof: Mathematics in the Service of Rhetorics.

On Mon, Sep 29, 2025 at 4:26 PM 'Jan-Åke Larsson' via Bell inequalities and quantum foundations <Bell_quantum...@googlegroups.com> wrote:

Superdeterminism is the assumption that everything is predetermined = trivially can be obtained from a hidden variable model. No calculation needed: proof by assumption.

/JÅ

On 9/29/25 22:19, Alexandre de Castro wrote:

Does this show that the measurement angles can be obtained from a hidden variable model?

--
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 visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/Bell_quantum_foundations/CAPcOYamj7KKuLJhg3kEDX4VGNwnPJWnDwcp2WF0R7G12pcDgNg%40mail.gmail.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

--

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 visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/Bell_quantum_foundations/a06a85ab-8e81-4ba3-89af-0b67eb1b92a3%40liu.se.

--

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 visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/Bell_quantum_foundations/d6dcd25a-4ded-49ca-9db0-95dd621d673fn%40googlegroups.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 visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/Bell_quantum_foundations/CALLw9YytgvLWPGbukstxJPJmPDNAsFE06%3D03fTNkcWE6TcMHCQ%40mail.gmail.com.