Debate between Richard Gill, Inge Helland, Bart Jongejan

[Richard Gill]

https://arxiv.org/abs/2605.13154

Three ways to find comfort with the Bell proof and the results of the Bell experiments

Bell's theorem states that no description of a Bell experiment can be simultaneously local, realistic in the sense of counterfactual definiteness, and free of conspiracy between settings and hidden state. The recent generation of experiments has confirmed the predicted violation of the CHSH inequality, so one of the assumptions must be abandoned. Which one, and how one reconstructs a coherent worldview after doing so, is a question on which many authors disagree. This paper is written by three such authors. All three reject both counterfactual definiteness and conspiratorial violation of statistical independence of setting choices and state. After a joint exposition of the classical half of Bell's theorem in the language of Pearl-style causal graphs, a joint summary of the loophole-free experiments, and a joint survey of the recent literature, each author states where they have presently arrived. Gill accepts irreducible and non-local quantum randomness and finds the choice between locality and realism a false dichotomy. In his later works, Bell derives counterfactual definiteness from classical local causality, and that is what has to go. The metaphysical concepts "realism", "locality", "causality" need to be reconsidered. Helland reconstructs the Hilbert-space formalism from a theory of accessible variables, and from this theory he concludes that every observer must be limited in a specific sense. Jongejan proposes a geometric hidden-variable construction in which the degree of violation of the CHSH inequality depends on the number of dimensions of space, Tsirelson's bound corresponding to three dimensions. The authors conclude with a discussion.

[Austin Fearnley]

Excellent and very enjoyable thought-provoking reading.  I sense Inge's hand in the communality/community style of the paper?  

I have only skim read of course as Bart's work is new for me and Inge's is complicated, though I have seen it before, but I liked Bart's comments on Richard's work.

I assumed Bell and CHSH is correct so quickly passed over that and concentrayed on discussions.

I will read again but for now here are my first thoughts:

I am intrigued by irreducible randomness.  Bart usefully (for me) implies that it means that there are events in nature that 'just happen'.  It is interesting that you all dismiss retrocausality.  Along the lines of Costa de Beauregard, the transfer of a spin state from one particle to its twin is not something that 'just happens' therefore it is not irreducible randomness.  I have been working recently on an idea that randomness was less at the beginnings and ends of Penrose's CCC cycles and greatest at mid-cycle.  This ties in with my Rasch approach to collapse of spacetime at end of CCC cycle.

https://vixra.org/abs/1609.0329 (my Rasch paper)

and the Guttman scale which implies complete loss of randomness.

AI comment on Guttman scales:  "Guttman scaling and Rasch modeling both aim to create unidimensional, cumulative scales where items represent increasing levels of difficulty or intensity. While Guttman scales are deterministic (predicting precise item responses), Rasch modeling is a probabilistic extension that permits errors, providing interval-level measurement".

Rasch takes the Guttman determinism as an ideal for its model and yet if the data show exact determinism then, paradoxically, the Rasch scale collapses.

In my opinion the collapse of spacetime at a CCC node is caused by lack of randomness. Not surprising when all the stuff in the universe at the end of cycle is almost infinitely dispersed and are not local to one another.  In this sense randomness implies locality being available.

A geometric approach like JC's S3 model is closed (I am not an expert on S3).  Using Einstein's virement between space and time. I am surprised that a closed-space (and therefore time) model does not get accused of being retrocausal?

[Bryan Sanctuary]

Dear all,

Richard the Faintheart has capitulated!!!  He will not admit it, but this paper is a total change in his position.  Finally, the Bellists have thrown in the towel. Finally, Gill agrees with me.

His 48 pages are not worth reading if you know Bell:  nothing new but copy and paste of long ago papers.  EXCEPT Gill now changes his position to MY POSITION. But the Faintheart will not say it, and he will not reference me.  To show this, I attach the DRAFT of a paper I am working on that Richard had for the debate.  

It is MATH so he should be able to read it easily, but he ran away; left the debate; did not respond to my Theorem (see page 1 of attached): I question counterfactual definiteness and a single probability space.  NOW RICHARD HAS CHANGED HIS MIND FROM REJECTING THE NON-LOCAL ASSUMPTION.  RICHARD NOW QUESTIONS JOINT DEFINEABILITY.  He has capitulated away from Bell’s theorem and now admits there may be more.

[BTW the "more" is that spin must be treated as a quaternion rotor from source to detector.]

But does he refer to me?  Why? He even told Dennis and Jonte, the judges, that I do not understand Bell.  He changes his attacks to being personal when he realizes he cannot defend himself against my arguments. So the Faintheart is repositioning himself to avoid future embarrassment. To me, he is academically dishonest and a coward. 

I ask Richard, and the other authors, to please answer this:  CHSH requires joint definability of all four experiments with outcomes of \pm 1.  That is, the CHSH quadruple must form a polytope which in this case is the 4-cube (\pm 1)^4.  If those 8 points are not counterfactual (as Rchard now finally admits) this means the polytope cannot form, and Bell’s theorem is not applicable. What do you say to that, Richard?  You have tacitly shown that Fine’s theorem is not satisfied so BI cannot be formed.  Please answer that now that you reject counterfactual definiteness.

If you doubt this capitulation, please see his paper:

Gill has clearly pivoted away from the older rhetoric in which Bell’s theorem was treated as proof of unavoidable nonlocality. In this paper, he now places the failure instead on counterfactual definiteness, joint definability, and the impossibility of assigning all observables simultaneously on a single probability space. That is a major conceptual shift. It is also my long-standing position.

Moving away for a single probability space is a FUNDAMENTAL SHIFT.  Again it is my position clearly stated in the DRAFT.

Those are not small wording changes. He had moved his discussion away from “spooky nonlocal influence” and toward the exact structural premise I have been arguing for a long time.

Gill does not yet understand structural instantiation.  He does not understand what a contextual map is.

The uncomfortable question for him is therefore obvious:

If he now rejects joint definability and the universal counterfactual probability space, then what exactly remains of the standard claim that Bell experiments force nonlocality? 

Because once Fine’s equivalence is weakened, or not applicable because of the failure of counterfactual definiteness, , the logical route from CHSH violation to nonlocality is no longer valid.

That is the pivot. And it is not minor. Richard the Faintheart has capitulated. The Gates of Bell have fallen. Gill is no longer a gatekeeper. 

I am curious to hear the authors' responses. The consequences are far reaching. 

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/c8705b2f-f907-4041-b8de-554f12abe90an%40googlegroups.com.

[Mark Hadley]

Dear Bryan,

Total nonsense from you.

Either you don't understand Bell or you are a fraud. I don't know which.

You lost the bet because you did not convince your peers before the deadline. Pay up.

I told you your two mistakes. I explained them both in detail, and I proved them. 

Bell applies perfectly well to your variables.

To combine averages ( or specifically correlation coefficients) you need to take a weighted averages. To simply add them unweighted is mathematical and physical nonsense, easily shown to give nonsense results.

Time for you to apologise and pay up.

Mark

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/Bell_quantum_foundations/CALLw9YycgEXAwq-gjeV%2BH60tqi8D5cG64hOC44-OJ9s_zgZrCQ%40mail.gmail.com.

[Richard Gill]

Dear Bryan

You are insane. You have totally lost your grasp of reality. You already lost any ability for logical reasoning.

Regarding the debate between us two, our two adjudicators (Jonte Hance and Dennis Dieks) agreed that I was right and you were wrong. We only had two adjudicators, not three, because you did not succeed in recruiting an expert in geometric algebra to support your work.

I doubt that my present coauthors Inge Helland or Bart Jongejan will want to comment. They have different positions from myself and you seem to be blissfully unaware of what they are saying. We agree on the maths of Bell’s theorem.

You really need to study Bell’s “La Nouvelle Cuisine”, chapter 24 of “Speakable and Unspeakable”. Bell derives counterfactual definiteness from his concept local causality, and from that he derives the CHSH inequalities. The CHSH inequalities are violated in loophole free experiments and therefore Bell’s local causality is not true. We three authors agree on that. 

Classical local causality has to be abandoned. Our paper gives three possible stances to take as a consequence of that.

Richard

[Richard Gill]

PS In fact, Bryan, you are the one who has capitulated. Your draft paper "Context-Generated Spin Sectors and the Inapplicability of Fine’s Theorem", is not about Bell's theorem at all. You agree with me that there is no local hidden variables explanation of the singlet correlations. Bell's theorem is correct. Fine's theorem is correct but irrelevant.

I am not interested in your bivector-based theory of spin. Good luck in getting your paper published and we'll see if anyone else takes it up.

[Richard Gill]

Dear all

Bryan wrote "Gill does not yet understand structural instantiation.  He does not understand what a contextual map is”.

Maybe someone can explain what he means by "structural instantiation” and by “contextual maps”. Once I know what he is talking about I will be able to say whether or not I understand these concepts.

Richard

[Bryan Sanctuary]

Richard,

Refrain in telling what to read. You have little credibility now.  It is years since I listened to you.  I know you are unable to admit your capitulation, but it is there.  Do you want me to list the statements?????  

You have now totally discredited yourself.  You flip and flop, and you attack me when you cannot answer. 

The Debate:
1. Richard never focussed when challenged, and prefers to question his adversaries credentials than engage in serious debate. He is happier to claim I have lost my marbles and do not understand Bell.  

2. I wanted a debate to focus Richard and keep him quiet.  It worked.

3. Dennis and Jonte did not say Richard was correct. They said I had not convinced them.  The lack of a third judge was our joint decision that Dennis and Jonte were enough.

4. Richard realizes he has been wrong all along and the real reason for the violation is lack of counterfactual definiteness. 

5. Richard refuses to debate the math, then bleats he is not a physicist, and only a mathematician, but he cannot disprove my theorem!!  If he could he would.

6. Richard writes a new diatribe-type paper in which he now agrees with my long position of complementarity, but refuses to reference me, and makes it out it is his new idea.

Richard does this all the time.  After I showed Diether was wrong and Joy Christian's work was flawed since 2006, Richard wrote a paper claiming he had found the error and mine was not relevant.  He cannot take others showing he is wrong.

The bottom line is the new paper is totally redundant, contains fundamental errors, yet changes Richard's position.  If he wants to see why, submit it to be published.  Few of Richard's papers are published.  Mine are.

Bryan

[Richard Gill]

Bryan

That’s the problem isn’t it, you haven’t listened to me for years. Our ways of thinking are incompatible. You are the one writing extraordinary diatribes instead of reading.

Your Theorem 1 is correct. It is a restatement of Bell’s theorem. Your bivector model reproduces the singlet correlations. By Bell’s theorem a joint probability space supporting all counterfactual polarization observables does not exist. 

Richard

Sent from my iPad

On 15 May 2026, at 19:32, Bryan Sanctuary <bryancs...@gmail.com> wrote:



[Richard Gill]

The latest version of Engel Wichmann’s work is:

Sent from my iPad

On 15 May 2026, at 19:32, Bryan Sanctuary <bryancs...@gmail.com> wrote:



[Richard Gill]

Sorry, this is the latest version.

Sent from my iPad

On 16 May 2026, at 09:29, Richard Gill <gill...@gmail.com> wrote:

The latest version of Engel Wichmann’s work is:

[Inge Svein Helland]

Dear Austin, dear all Bell theory discussants,

It is true that Richard, Bart and I have written a paper together, a paper based upon the views that each of us have on the Bell theorem and on interpretation of the results of various Bell experiments.

There is still some disagreements between us. Richard still means that I am barking the wrong tree. What is astonishing, is that he also means that Andrei Khrennikov, in his works towards macroscopic quantum-like models is barking wrong trees.

Some of the background behind the disagreement between Richard and me lies in our different views on religion. I believe in a higher, perfectly rational God, while Richard reject monotheistic religions.

I attach here my latest article, basically on the foundation of quantum decision theory, but also on various important consequences, first on complementary cultures in science, but also on political decisions that has lead to a number of complentary societies. A warning on the spread of nuclear weapons ends the article.

I have earlier sent this article to a number of friends and colleagues, but so far, I have only received one reaction.  Professor, Dr. theol and Dr. philos Jan-Olav Henriksen has praised my use of religion in the article.

I am interested in further reactions.

Best regards

Inge

---

Fra: bell_quantum...@googlegroups.com <bell_quantum...@googlegroups.com> på vegne av Austin Fearnley <ben...@hotmail.com>
Sendt: torsdag 14. mai 2026 13:47
Til: Bell inequalities and quantum foundations <bell_quantum...@googlegroups.com>
Emne: [Bell_quantum_foundations] Re: Debate between Richard Gill, Inge Helland, Bart Jongejan

 

--

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/da5045e5-89b7-4cce-b975-d8bcacb526c6n%40googlegroups.com.

[Richard Gill]

Dear Inge

I believe that Andrei Khrennikov was barking up a wrong tree for very many years. Hoever, just recently he has discovered a genuinely interesting special case, one for for which some genuinely original mathematics was needed. I already told Inge that I had been very impressed by that. Note that Andrei has found some extremely talenten and experienced collaborators in this project.

The problem with religion happens when religions, monotheïstic or polytheistic, are used for political ends by political leaders. We see an appalling example of how that can go wrong in present day Palestine.

I do not object to religions as carriers of culture, ritual, values. We humans have always had them, and always will. I am a very religious atheïst. But the word “God”, as denoting a supernatural being, denotes for me a fantasy being. I have no need of it.

Richard

Sent from my iPad

On 28 May 2026, at 10:38, Inge Svein Helland <in...@math.uio.no> wrote:



To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/Bell_quantum_foundations/OS6P279MB0699DEABF92D0E9E9F445E41F5092%40OS6P279MB0699.NORP279.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM.

<QDT_article.pdf>

[Inge Svein Helland]

Dear Richard,

Thank you very much for the article by Andrei and his collaborators. I have read the Introduction, which looks very promising. I will study the article closer.

Inge

Sendt fra Outlook for iOS

---

From: Richard Gill <gill...@gmail.com>
Sent: Thursday, May 28, 2026 11:56:39 AM
To: Inge Svein Helland <in...@math.uio.no>
Cc: Austin Fearnley <ben...@hotmail.com>; bell_quantum...@googlegroups.com <bell_quantum...@googlegroups.com>
Subject: Re: [Bell_quantum_foundations] Re: Debate between Richard Gill, Inge Helland, Bart Jongejan

 

[Austin Fearnley]

Dear Inge

I have taken a very brief look at your paper and that of Khrennikov provided by Richard.  Both papers are beyond me but I can make some naive comments about the topics.

I have been reading Russell's History of Philosophy recently but found there were large sections I did not want to read.  I loosely agree with Richard about God and religion.  I was brought up by devout RCs and one cannot easily take that out of the child. I have a distaste for the philosophy of goodness as I already internalised the RC version.  So those sections of philosophy I skip over.  My quibble about fervent religiousity is that it can divide families.  It is like non-continuous functions where one cannot slide over smoothly from one place to the next, but instead have to jump non-locally(?) from one camp to its opposite.  Which causes unrest.  Even if one does try to slide smoothly eg from RC to CofE to puritan to chapel etc, those smaller/smoother steps still can and did lead to much bitter unrest.  This reminds me that physical closeness is no guarantee of locality. Between any two rational numbers is an infinity of irrational numbers, so the rational numbers are non-local iff you are trying to evade the irrationals.  So locality depends on permissibility of paths between local points.

I used to have (boxed up now) text books on Operations Research, Decision Theory and Generalisability Theory.  I used to know, in the 1980s, Professor Simon French who lectured in Decision Theory.  All I remember is that Simon wrote papers involving Peano arithmetic.

Significance levels.  it all depends on what you are happy to accept as significant.  eg 5%, 1%, 0.1%  or 5sigma as used in  particle physics.  There is no absolute.  No 'big deal'?

Quantum-like theories and Khrennikov.   In principle I have to agree that in some ways there must be macro QM behaviour.  But I do not like it!
I have a preon model which sub-divides the fundamental particles and below that I have hexarks.  So in my model the fundamental particles are composites therefore I should admit that any or some composites should permit quantum behaviour.  Also, the thermodynamic arrow (which is not a vector) of time in my model applies to fundamental particles but not to anti-preons. Preons have their own arrow of time.  I do not like macro-QM effects as I am not sure how to explain them.  I distrust highly mathematical explanations (of anything!).

Somewhere else on this website, Leo hinted that colour theory resembled non-locality in some way. I disagreed with that (without explicitly saying so).  It is often said that adding a new colour to a painting changes all colours (hence a non-local effect). My explanation is that the body uses primary colour (RGB) receptors in such a way that all receptors respond to any input frequency.  So adding a new colour changes saturation points of all receptors thus changing slightly all colours in the painting.  This is not weird to me.  I did not follow all Khrennikov's brain-related work.

Related to your section on Limitations ...
QM-related macro behaviour seems to relate to fractal patterns.  A behaviour on a small scale may be replicated on a large scale?
As a baby I (mistakenly) thought that  I had beeen reincarnated.  To sum, I mistook successive awakenings as reincarnations.  The full story is here:
Early memories as a baby:  https://ben6993.wordpress.com/2008/09/

Related to some of your sections is my own revelation that I may need to revisit the philosophy sections that I skipped over.  I accept Penrose's CCC cyclic cosmology.  Also the universe is creating its own space and time as it expands.  This conflicts with my inbuilt RC upbringing and the absolute nature of eternity.  Further, space and time have virement which I consider makes time a spatial dimension over which we have little control.  Like water going over a waterfall, there is no turning back.  Spatial with a severe restriction on direction.  Or space falling into a black hole becoming the time direction.  Whereas accepting RC dogma implies a purpose, Cosmology implies the universe unfolds like a book which could lead anywhere.  Hence the need to discuss what is goodness.  

[Inge Svein Helland]

Dear Austin,

Thank you for your comments. We all have our own background histories, and that partly determines our opinions. So also with quantum mechanics and related topics. But somewhere there must exist a final truth, independent of our opinions.

Inge

Sendt fra Outlook for iOS

---

From: bell_quantum...@googlegroups.com <bell_quantum...@googlegroups.com> on behalf of Austin Fearnley <ben...@hotmail.com>
Sent: Thursday, May 28, 2026 4:22:56 PM
To: Bell inequalities and quantum foundations <bell_quantum...@googlegroups.com>
Subject: Re: [Bell_quantum_foundations] Re: Debate between Richard Gill, Inge Helland, Bart Jongejan

 

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/Bell_quantum_foundations/a1acff93-e38a-4ce9-9038-a81182bb344dn%40googlegroups.com.

[Richard Gill]

Why must there exist a final truth? I think that’s an absurd, primitive, European idea.

Both truly primitive peoples (ie nature proples, post fire, pre metal) and the Eastern civilizations know that life is cyclic. The Western idea of linear time with a purpose has led to the destruction of the natural world and the destruction of the ecosystemen which feeds us. Fortunately climate crisis will put an end to that. WW3 will be about water. It’s already started.

Sent from my iPhone

On 28 May 2026, at 17:01, Inge Svein Helland <in...@math.uio.no> wrote:



To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/Bell_quantum_foundations/OS6P279MB06991D89465C50D48CBCB108F5092%40OS6P279MB0699.NORP279.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM.

[Inge Svein Helland]

Richard,

So these are your opinions, perhaps also dependent upon some background history.

In my opinion, the purpose of science is to search for some truth.

Inge

Sendt fra Outlook for iOS

---

From: Richard Gill <gill...@gmail.com>
Sent: Thursday, May 28, 2026 5:13:48 PM

To: Inge Svein Helland <in...@math.uio.no>

Cc: Austin Fearnley <ben...@hotmail.com>; bell_quantum...@googlegroups.com <bell_quantum...@googlegroups.com>

[Richard Gill]

My opinions are of course formed by 75 years life experience in certain times and places and within a certain culture. In science we make a provisional agreement that there is an actual truth and that it deals with certain agreed facts. We realise that any theories we come up with are provisional. The idea that we are getting closer and closer to some final answer is a fantasy. In fact, the more we learn, the more we realise that we don’t know.

Sent from my iPhone

On 28 May 2026, at 17:23, Inge Svein Helland <in...@math.uio.no> wrote:



[Austin Fearnley]

Hi Inge and Richard

I have 76 years of experience but probably philosophically sleepwalked through much of it.
My wife of 54 years is religious but we manage to avoid arguing over religion by avoiding the topic.
As I said pro and con stances seem to be non-local as one cannot slide continuously from one stance to the other.  
This IMO is connected to the Rasch Model.  (Isn't everything?)
The Rasch Model in its formative assessment role was derived from L L Thurstone's poles of the mind.
These poles are binary polar opposites on narrow issues.  In tackling opinions on broader issues, groups of poles are at work.  One can try to use factor analysis to explain broad attitudes in terms of fewer fundamental poles.
My hexark and preon model similarly uses poles of eg QCD 'red/antired' and 'spin+/spin-' and builds up fundamental particles as linear collections of poles.
A preon and its antipreon will have completely opposite stances on all QM properties. So, likewise, one cannot slide smoothly from preon to antipreon.  To put them on the same scale requires some mix of poles common to each entity.  This applies to the Rasch scale also and explains the collapse of scale at the CCC node.  It probably explains via a fractal analogy the collapse of a wavefunction at a particle measurement.  A mix of poles implies some locality between the two entities without which a scale could not exist.

[Inge Svein Helland]

Dear Austin,

I will answer you later, but prefer to address Richard first.

Dear Richard,

I tend to agree with you, but not quite. I will claim that there are absolute scientific truths, for instance: If the charge of a proton is defined as positive, then the charge of an electron is negative.

It is tempting to take this discussion in terms of theoretical variables, variables that we have in our minds. Some such variables are shared between all scientists. I am free to define what I mean by accessible variables. In this context I will say that a variable is accessible if all scientists agree on its value. And I claim that there exist accessible variables in this sense. Other variables just lead to infinite discussions.

But yes. The more we learn, the more we realize that we do not know. If we learn the value of one accessible variable, then new inaccessible variables may appear.

Inge

Sendt fra Outlook for iOS

---

From: bell_quantum...@googlegroups.com <bell_quantum...@googlegroups.com> on behalf of Austin Fearnley <ben...@hotmail.com>

Sent: Thursday, May 28, 2026 6:59:41 PM

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/Bell_quantum_foundations/c7a70abe-e29a-4660-b550-d9ee55465532n%40googlegroups.com.

[Inge Svein Helland]

Hi Austin,

The notions that you mention are new to me. I had a quick look at the Rasch model on Wikipedia, and also at preon models, which Wikipedia characterized as speculative.

Do you have a reference to your hexark and preon model?

Inge

---

Fra: bell_quantum...@googlegroups.com <bell_quantum...@googlegroups.com> på vegne av Austin Fearnley <ben...@hotmail.com>

Sendt: torsdag 28. mai 2026 18:59

Til: Bell inequalities and quantum foundations <bell_quantum...@googlegroups.com>

Emne: Re: [Bell_quantum_foundations] Re: Debate between Richard Gill, Inge Helland, Bart Jongejan

 

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/Bell_quantum_foundations/c7a70abe-e29a-4660-b550-d9ee55465532n%40googlegroups.com.

[Austin Fearnley]

On vixra website https://vixra.org/author/austin_j_fearnley
Number 3 is my very early paper on Rasch. It originated in a query from when I was employed ( I retired in 2006).
Numbers 1, 3, 6 and 9 are on my preon model.

My model developed very slowly so I will explain here.  On retirement in 2006 I was simply trying to learn about fundamental particles.  Ideas like the 8 fold way and symmetries with meson structures convinced me that preons must exist.  I did not like the look of the Rishon model of preons and decided to try my own model.  I did not use group theory as seems to be de rigeur but I did use known properies of fundamental particles in the Standard Model.

My Thurstone poles were electric charge [+/-]; QCD red [red/antired]; QCD blue [blue/antiblue]; QCD green [green/antigreen]; intrinsic spin [+/-].
It turned out that, in my model, electric charge is not fundamental and depends on combinations of QCD colour charges.
My hexarks are all the possible combinations of the Thurstone pairs.  For example
Q- red  antigreen blue spin + is one hexark  [Q = electric charge]
Q+ antired green antiblue spin -  is the exact opposite hexark (cf its antiparticle)

Next I grouped hexarks into preons.

. . . .

The normal use of Rasch scaling is in examination work in objective testing.
But there is another use with formative assessment using a slightly different Rasch model.
That is the version used in my paper.
I am too tired to do more work on that computer program but I do have an idea related to gravitation.  One day maybe.
I have been working on Rasch recently and made two papers using google AI but I don't like the papers. They are on my website but I am working on my own versions.  I have put them on hold while painting more recently.  IMO Rasch answers why the higgs boson sits comfortably on a shelf at its middling weight rather than zoom off to be a much heavier boson [the hierarchy problem].  It is a similar reason to why Iron is stable.

Austin

[Richard Gill]

There are absolute mathematical truths. And there are truths which are tautologies. The words “proton”, “‘electron”, “positive”, “negative” are words in a theory which we were told was true, when we were young; now we are old enough to know that we were told “lies for children”. Now we are told matter is made up of the particles of the Standard Model, but the standard model is just a catalogue of solutions to a particular model, which we know is only an approximation, at best, 

Sent from my iPad

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/Bell_quantum_foundations/OS6P279MB06995D18F4690B2B5813B0CCF5092%40OS6P279MB0699.NORP279.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM.

[Inge Svein Helland]

I guess that you are right, Richard. In that case, one only has models, models in the minds of individual scientists, and models that can be shared within groups of scientists. And in that case, discussions of the kind that exist in this forum are important.

I must confess that up to this day I have believed that somehow there must exist scientific truths that one can stretch one's mind in searching for. One of my heros here has been Andrei Khrennikov, but I see now, by looking through his latest article, that he also is satisfied by considering different models, not one particular model that could represent the 'truth' in some sense.

And Austin, without having the time to look closer at your model, I guess that this also must be seen as an approximation.

But still, I mean that life has much more to offer than seemingly endless discussions. Personally, I still have to rest in some kind of faith. And in that connection, there does exist some goals that we can stretch ourselves towards.

Inge

---

Fra: Richard Gill <gill...@gmail.com>
Sendt: fredag 29. mai 2026 10:59
Til: Inge Svein Helland <in...@math.uio.no>
Kopi: Austin Fearnley <ben...@hotmail.com>; bell_quantum...@googlegroups.com <bell_quantum...@googlegroups.com>
Emne: Re: [Bell_quantum_foundations] Re: Debate between Richard Gill, Inge Helland, Bart Jongejan

 

[Mark Hadley]

as a scientist I search for better models. ideally ones that make better predictions - which is objective. but also better insight which is subjective.

The fine structure constant should come first, I expect. because it combines the quanta if charge and the quanta of QM ( angular momentum and frequency/ energy etc. )

Cheers

Mark 

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/Bell_quantum_foundations/OS6P279MB06999F99A5249F571D27FF04F5162%40OS6P279MB0699.NORP279.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM.

[Austin Fearnley]

As I said, you can't take RC out of the boy and I sort of have two states of mind simultaneously.
Popper wrote that science advances by ruling out false models.  I see that like a sculpture where the artist sees the form in the stone and gradually reveals it.  However, looking for the truth might leave all the stone of the block lying on the floor, chipped away.

I am not sure why the fine structure constant is so mysterious.  I looked online and found that Pauli had said that when he died the first thing he would do was ask the devil what was the meaning of the fine structure constant.  I presume he would then assume the devil was lying and then assume the opposite was true.  The trouble is that I do not  think that truth and falsity are opposite vectors which means that Pauli still could not access the truth.

Using my gyroscope analogy, the |up> state really means only that it is not |down>.  A gyroscope spinning on a table has an axis pointing anywhere in the upper hemisphere.  The vertical axis of up is only its average position (eg a polarisation vector).  We know that it never points downwards.  Truth and falsity may be like these quantum states, knowing what is false does not tell you exactly what is true.  Chipping a piece off the marble does not tell you what piece to chip off next.

I often do not like where ideas lead.  My ultimate model of the universe has at least five 4D universes interacting/intertwining and if you chip away at them there is nothing left except empty dimensions.  And why should an empty dimension move anywhere.  Well, there is something in each universe and that is knots tied in/by the other universe's dimensions.  As in Calabi-Yao manifolds.  So the contents of the universes are knots of dimensions. I suppose you could say that knots of dimensions are not strictly nothing.

I have chipped away the marble block and found nothing left except dimensions.

[Inge Svein Helland]

Dear Richard,

Of course there are scientific truths. A trivial example is my statement about the negative charge of the electron. Other examples may be found from medical research, where a large set of studies may show that a certain medicine works well against some illness.

My point is: Science is more than a study of models. Scientists also have a role in being instrumental in bringing about their results. Then we must simplify, using word that can be understood, like 'proton', 'electron' 'positive' and negative'. The resulting statements must be classified as scientific truths if all relevant scientists can agree on the formulations.

Inge

---

Fra: Richard Gill <gill...@gmail.com>
Sendt: fredag 29. mai 2026 10:59
Til: Inge Svein Helland <in...@math.uio.no>

Kopi: Austin Fearnley <ben...@hotmail.com>; bell_quantum...@googlegroups.com <bell_quantum...@googlegroups.com>
Emne: Re: [Bell_quantum_foundations] Re: Debate between Richard Gill, Inge Helland, Bart Jongejan

 

[Richard Gill]

Inge

Today’s scientific truths can tomorrow become accepted as a historical delusion.

Please make up your mind whether you are talking about the sociology of science, or the philosophy of science, about psychology, statistics, or about pure mathematics.

Sent from my iPad

On 30 May 2026, at 09:23, Inge Svein Helland <in...@math.uio.no> wrote:



[Inge Svein Helland]

Richard,

The scientific truths of Newton's mechanics are today seen as good approximations. Yes, science is progressing, not by seeing the past as delusions, but by trying to improve the past.

In my last e-mail, I had the philosophy of science in my mind, but in certain connections this is also linked to the sociology of scientists. If you want to read more about my thoughts here, please consult my latest paper, again attached here.

Inge

---

Fra: Richard Gill <gill...@gmail.com>
Sendt: lørdag 30. mai 2026 09:32

Til: Inge Svein Helland <in...@math.uio.no>

Kopi: Austin Fearnley <ben...@hotmail.com>; Bell_quantum...@googlegroups.com <Bell_quantum...@googlegroups.com>

[Richard Gill]

Dear Inge

The conclusion of your paper is “Imagine a possible future scenario where an atomic bomb is dropped over some human population. Experiences from Hiroshima and Nagasaki are clear: Thousands of people will die immediately, and among those surviving, long time effects like cancer will cause enormous sufferings. This scenario should be avoided by all means. My sincere wish is that the following idea should be spread across the world: The political leader who makes a decision causing a nuclear bomb to be exploded over some humans, deserves a terrible punishment after death.”

I believe that there is no life after death. I doubt that Trump, Putin, or Xi believe there is one. They do wish their families to prosper. Though I think Trump and Putin are so selfish that they would both be happy to destroy life on earth - if they can’t get what they want, then everybody must be punished. At the end, Hitler was happy to have the German people destroyed - they had failed him.

I think it is not a good idea to build an interpretation of quantum mechanics on the idea of an all-knowing, all-powerful, super-natural entity. It works for you, but it won’t work for most scientists.

Richard

Sent from my iPad

<QDT_article.pdf>

[Inge Svein Helland]

Dear Richard,

At the end, Hitler was defeated.

My article was written in the hope that ultimately, the negative forces that rule the world today, may be defeated. I have no delution that such an article can have any lasting impact, but at least it may perhaps be a small contrubution in the right direction. That is why I have ended with the terrible nuclear bomb example.

I must also clear up a major misunderstanding. My proposed approach towards quantum foundation is in no way based upon my religious beliefs. The two are completely separated. But I allow myself to have two thoughts in my mind at the same time. And I must confess: I often fold my hands and pray before I write down my ideas. So also in connection to this answer to you. That is just the way I am.

Best regards Inge

---

Fra: Richard Gill <gill...@gmail.com>
Sendt: lørdag 30. mai 2026 10:16