next steps for the group

[Alexandre de Castro]

Dear colleagues,
We have respectfully pointed out that Bell’s approach contains a fundamental ambiguity, which allows one to rigorously derive conflicting conclusions. In particular, the predictions for the singlet state can be shown to be either incompatible or compatible with the Bell–Wigner inequality, depending on how the framework is applied. This directly impacts the experimental inferences, since the Bell–Wigner inequality is a fundamental result of Kolmogorov’s probability theory. Thus, one may argue in favor of one side or the other, but it may not be possible to determine a single definitive conclusion.

We can see that the discussions are very active. I would like to respectfully suggest that we keep the focus on technical aspects, avoiding personal remarks or emotionally driven positions that could lead to misunderstandings. People are free to leave the group at any time, without needing to ask the group manager.

With respect to removing members from the group, I think we should reconsider and try together to put aside personal passions in order to reach a mutual understanding.

Another option might be to close the group to avoid any further inconvenience. I’d really appreciate your input on what you think would be the best way forward.

[Richard Gill]

Dear Alexandre

The main problem at present is that a non-member of the group is aggressively using a known loophole or bug to spam the group.

There are a few simple steps you can take to stop that from going on.

The group exists because opinions differ! That is not the problem. That has always been welcomed.

Participants are required to behave in a civilised manner.

Richard

Sent from my iPad

On 28 Jan 2026, at 14:46, Alexandre de Castro <alx...@gmail.com> wrote:



--
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/CAPcOYam_XvhXNGzXBXzWsdo%2B17dVe8yaKT32zY%2B%2BaYtw6HDSDw%40mail.gmail.com.

[anton vrba]

Dear Alexandre,  Please check if you can find Fred as a registered member. Richard, Bryan and myself cannot find his address fredifizzx (at) gmail.com on the member list.  If he has voluntary left the group and is exploiting a google group vulnerability then please put an end to Fred's spamming. I mailed you the fix yesterday, but if my external mail was filtered I attach it again here (it was generated by google gemini interactions.)

Thanks and kind regards

Anton

PS. If managing the group is overwhelming, I am willing to help as a manager, and before you close it down I will happily take it over as owner.

3. Email Spoofing via Legacy Threads

Scammers and former members can exploit the way Google Groups identifies "conversations."  

• The Issue: If a sender uses the exact "References" or "In-Reply-To" headers from an existing email thread, Google Groups may associate that email with the existing conversation even if the sender is no longer a member.
• Vulnerability: Security researchers have demonstrated that if a group's spam filters are not strict, an external sender can "inject" a message into a private group thread just by knowing the group's email and the thread ID.  

To stop a former member from exploiting old threads in a 2026 Google Groups environment, the owner should combine banning with thread-level restrictions. Banning is the most direct solution for blocking specific individuals, while "locking" prevents further replies to existing conversations.  

1. Ban the Former Member  

Adding Fred to the banned list is the most effective way to prevent him from posting, even if he still has thread IDs or email headers.  

• How to Ban: Sign in to Google Groups, select the group, click Members, check the box next to Fred's name (if he reappears) or manually add his email to the Banned users list under the members section.
• Effect: Banned users cannot post new messages or reply to existing threads, even if they were once members.  

2. Lock the Targeted Conversation

If Fred is currently spamming a specific thread, the owner should "Lock" it immediately.

• How to Lock: Open the specific conversation in the Google Groups interface. Click Lock conversation (usually found in the top right or under "More options").
• Effect: This prevents everyone  from replying to that specific thread while keeping the history visible to current members.  

3. Bulk Closing Previous Threads

There is  no single button to lock every thread in a group's history at once, but the owner can perform a bulk action for all threads on a single page.  

• Step-by-Step Bulk Lock:
  1. Go to the group's conversation list.
  2. Check the "Select all" box at the top of the list (this typically selects the 30–50 conversations visible on that page).
  3. Click the Lock conversation icon in the upper right toolbar.
  4. Repeat this for each page of the conversation history.  

Summary Checklist for the Owner

• Set Posting Permissions: Ensure "Who can post" is strictly set to "Group members" under Group settings > General.
• Enable Spam Moderation: Set Posting policies > Spam message handling to "Moderate and notify content moderators" to catch spoofed emails before they reach the group.
• Check for Nested Groups: Verify if Fred is a member of another group that has been added as a member to this group.  

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

From "Alexandre de Castro" <alx...@gmail.com>

To "Bell quantum foundations" <bell_quantum...@googlegroups.com>

Date 1/28/2026 1:46:35 PM

Subject [Bell_quantum_foundations] next steps for the group

--

[Alexandre de Castro]

Anton, Richard,
I couldn’t find the email fredi...@gmail.com, but the group is open to anyone on the web, including posting. I’ve now changed it so that only group members can post.

Regarding the management of the group, an alternative would be to find one person who supports Bell and another who opposes Bell to help manage the group.

[Mark Hadley]

I'm not sure what you mean by supports or not. I reference CSHS are you saying the group should have a moderator whit thinks that calculation is wrong? Or invalid?

--
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/CAPcOYann2wmJuJjhQNwpyS00mR4qXSBJmR0gW3BmHAErQpej0w%40mail.gmail.com.

[Richard Gill]

Dear Alexandre

That was a wise change, to start with! Thanks.

You are a Bell opponent, right? Isn’t one helper enough?

But if you want to own but not manage you’d better come up with an idea for the Bell opponent in your two person management team. 

Richard

Sent from my iPad

On 28 Jan 2026, at 15:52, Alexandre de Castro <alx...@gmail.com> wrote:



[Richard Gill]

Austin Fearley, ben...@hotmail.com, believes in retrocausality. Maybe he’d be a good co-manager?

Sent from my iPad

On 28 Jan 2026, at 16:10, Richard Gill <gill...@gmail.com> wrote:

Dear Alexandre

[anton vrba]

Alexandre,  That explains it all, Thank you!  

Let's see what happens, hopefully things will quieten now.

Regarding management, cordial discussions of any kind must be allowed that is the scientific process, (does not need a pro or against Bell manager) but the spamming and insults from Fred must be managed.  Many have fled the group since Fred discovered it.

Regards

Anton

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

From "Alexandre de Castro" <alx...@gmail.com>

To "anton vrba" <anto...@gmail.com>; "Richard Gill" <gill...@gmail.com>

Cc "Bell quantum foundations" <bell_quantum...@googlegroups.com>

Date 1/28/2026 2:52:18 PM

Subject Re: [Bell_quantum_foundations] next steps for the group

[Bryan Sanctuary]

Dear Alexandre,

Regarding Bell, your comment-- In particular, the predictions for the singlet state can be shown to be either incompatible or compatible with the Bell–Wigner inequality, --- is consistent with what I am saying:  Spin has two channels due to complementarity.  Bell used only one.

Thanks for pointing that out

Bryan

--

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/CAPcOYam_XvhXNGzXBXzWsdo%2B17dVe8yaKT32zY%2B%2BaYtw6HDSDw%40mail.gmail.com.

[Mark Hadley]

Bell did not use 1 channel as you have been told multiple times by multiple people, in words, and with a mathematical proof - which you have not challenged.

Stop repeating this nonsense. I encourage you to engage with the maths and physics or withdraw your ludicrous claims now. Stop behaving like Fred.

Mark

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/Bell_quantum_foundations/CALLw9YwjSNMbvAtFuXJif5wObhG-8tE0zz2Fzc3dR9gydBxcxg%40mail.gmail.com.

[anton vrba]

Bryan, your geometric classical approach may be an ansatz, but fails miserably in real life experience.  Spin 1/2 particles the cyclic spin vector repeats every 4pi and changes sign or polarity, that is from a source to sink every 2pi, yours is cyclic with 2pi but it is either a source or a sink.  Furthermore, you require equal flight time to Alice and Bob, once you randomise flight time your model fails but real life experiments with entangle pairs via satellite have continues changing flight times but entanglement is proven. Finally explain the Stern-Gerlach experiment results, the experiment which showed that classical thinking does not apply.

I know you will answer that my views are not important to you, but you are engaging with group members who understand the real world.  First explain the real world with your model, just two criteria (1) asymmetric flight times, (2) The Stern-Gerlach observations the first experiment that observed spin.  Once you do that the world is open to you.  As an academic you must take note of the reality and change your mind when models do not describe reality.  I am sure you taught that to your students so please practice what you preach.

You cannot cherry pick and then take on a Trumpian stance "I am correct and only I am correct!"

Alexandre, should you read this you need to understand models that conflict with Bell also need to describe reality, a point that many geometric explainers try to avoid in their discussion.

Regards

Anton

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

From "'Mark Hadley' via Bell inequalities and quantum foundations" <Bell_quantum...@googlegroups.com>

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

Cc "Alexandre de Castro" <alx...@gmail.com>; "Bell quantum foundations" <bell_quantum...@googlegroups.com>

Date 1/28/2026 4:47:11 PM

Subject Re: [Bell_quantum_foundations] next steps for the group

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/Bell_quantum_foundations/CAN%3D2%2Bo1ORtKVaB5U7PcZeEDUKtuhODh8uesPGa1skHJYnEKRPg%40mail.gmail.com.

[Bryan Sanctuary]

Anton,  

Never have I said or implied  "I am correct and only I am correct!"  Where do you get that???  You have a fertile inference in your points.

Also I do listen to you, but where does the bivector miserably fail? My bivector contains the SU(2) to SO(3) homology, and is much more physical than fermions.  Do you understand this "fermions are not fundamental, but the polarized blades of a spin 1 boson"  It requires some thought.  Have you seen the classical origin of spin?  You do not  have that with fermions.  I am consistent with all experiments, except the hype around neutrinos.  They have never been detected, and I say they do not exist.  

So what are you objecting to?  Please be specific. Happy to discuss

Bryan

[anton vrba]

Bryan, rightfully you called me out on my fertile inference, I apologise. 

Lets discuss, but on a separate thread:  BCS-ALV Debate: Physical Meaning of Bivectors

regards

Anton

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

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

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

Cc "Mark Hadley" <sunshine...@googlemail.com>; "Bell quantum foundations" <bell_quantum...@googlegroups.com>

Date 1/28/2026 9:21:30 PM

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/Bell_quantum_foundations/CALLw9YzNi1afYGUDJ0RqD18Ga8mNwMaU5PuLzT1rwtL%2BQnZGdQ%40mail.gmail.com.

[Richard Gill]

Next steps for the group: I think we need to debate (1) retrocausality (2) superdeterminism. Regarding superdeterminism, see recent works of Tim Palmer, Jonte Hance, Emily Adlam, Sabine Hossenfelder, Engel Wichmann. I don’t think there are any superdeterminists in the group.

Sent from my iPhone

On 28 Jan 2026, at 21:21, anton vrba <anto...@gmail.com> wrote:



To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/Bell_quantum_foundations/em2ec9973c-e80c-4194-8deb-1afaae0ed573%40ebbbb63b.com.