Updated R code for LocalQM simulation

[Fred Diether]

Thanks.  Richard,  here is updated R code that includes the Pauli Matrices.

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1t6bTsIlPSzIese3CYv069VO0AmNKcmTj/view?usp=sharing

Now, you need to tell us where the non-local action is since you say the simulation is not local.  So, let us know or it is more of your freakin' nonsense.  Which you definitely have plenty of.  LOL!

Richard Gill

3:01 AM (3 hours ago) 

to Mark Hadley, anton vrba, Fred Diether, Bell Inequalities and quantum foundations, Bryan Sanctuary, John Reed

PS I am very grateful to Fred for having prepared a translation of his Mathematica code to R

[Fred Diether]

I didn't think you would be able to point out where my calculation is non-local because my prediction is 100% local.

And my simulation does produce +/- 1 outcomes and provides averages for A and B that match QM predictions.

The simulation is a prediction of the product calculation of the A and B functions.  It is not a simulation of an experiment.

Local Quantum Mechanical Prediction of the Singlet State Using Geometric Algebra

https://www.scirp.org/journal/paperinformation?paperid=147271

Bell was wrong big time.

On Fri, Jan 23, 2026 at 8:30 AM Richard Gill <gill...@gmail.com> wrote:

Same mistake, Fred!

Your simulation does not simulate binary +/-1 valued outcomes and average their products.

Sent from my iPad

On 23 Jan 2026, at 15:30, Fred Diether <fredi...@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/a79d8898-bd1f-495e-b8e8-d5b13b66aa26n%40googlegroups.com.

[Mark Hadley]

Dear Fred,

You idiot, you are not capable or interested in understanding the meaning of local nor the implications for BI. We don't think you are wrong, we can and have proven it with maths that we have shared.

This topic is demonstrably beyond your abilitues.

Your publications are worthless.

Mark

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/Bell_quantum_foundations/CAPFeD8U1aTkKFEJy60XizMYWj_A-3gf2iXBfRo3SQw3i-H6cUg%40mail.gmail.com.

[Fred Diether]

And Mark again demonstrates how clueless he is.  Typical Bell fanatic nonsense.

[Richard Gill]

Fred, you average A’s, and you average B’s, but you don’t average A times B!

Sent from my iPad

On 23 Jan 2026, at 18:43, Fred Diether <fredi...@gmail.com> wrote:



[Fred Diether]

Eavg = N[sumAB/(countAB + 10^-7)];

That is the average of the A function times the B function so what the heck nonsense are you talking about?

Local Quantum Mechanical Prediction of the Singlet State Using Geometric Algebra

https://www.scirp.org/journal/paperinformation?paperid=147271

Bell was wrong big time.

[Richard Gill]

Dear Fred

That depends on how you define “sumAB”.

Let us know when you’ve stopped rewriting your Mathematica code and please then send a new conversion to R. I’ll take another look at it then.

At your service

Richard

Sent from my iPad

On 24 Jan 2026, at 03:36, Fred Diether <fredi...@gmail.com> wrote:

Eavg = N[sumAB/(countAB + 10^-7)];

--

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/e8a33807-63b9-42a9-8a4d-9062761162cbn%40googlegroups.com.

[Richard Gill]

Fred says “The simulation is a prediction of the product calculation of the A and B functions.  It is not a simulation of an experiment.” That is a very telling statement.

In fact the “simulation” is merely a computation of the negative cosine, at very many random points theta. The binning of 10,000 uniformly random data points for theta into 360 bins of width 1 degree generates a tiny amount of random noise.

Sent from my iPad

[Richard Gill]

You add 10^{-7} because you’re afraid countAB could be zero?!

What’s the point of randomly sampling theta in the continuous real interval [0, 2 pi] if you’re only going to plot at 360 equally spread points? You could make your simulation much more fast and accurate and your code much less bloated.

Sent from my iPad

On 24 Jan 2026, at 03:36, Fred Diether <fredi...@gmail.com> wrote:

Eavg = N[sumAB/(countAB + 10^-7)];

--

[Richard Gill]

Dear Fred

Please reduce your Mathematica code to the following case, and convert to R:

alpha = 0

beta = 45 degrees

…

A = …

B = …

and then output 

mean(A)

mean(B)

mean(A*B)

A and B must be vectors of the same length filled with +/-1’s 

Richard

Sent from my iPad

On 24 Jan 2026, at 03:36, Fred Diether <fredi...@gmail.com> wrote:

Eavg = N[sumAB/(countAB + 10^-7)];

--

[Fred Diether]

Afraid?  Afraid has nothing to do with it.  If there is no data for a particular bin, countAB will be zero.  And it is well known that computers can't deal with divide by zero.

Where do you see this "random sampling of theta"?  You have the R code, do whatever you want to it.  My programming works just fine in Mathematica.  Are you having trouble running the R code?  Talk about ancient junk.  You really should invest in a decent math program.

[Fred Diether]

Why would I do that nonsense?  It is idiotic and meaningless.

[Richard Gill]

You won’t do it because you know it would expose to everyone that your paper is a fraud.

Sent from my iPad

On 24 Jan 2026, at 17:01, Fred Diether <fredi...@gmail.com> wrote:

Why would I do that nonsense?  It is idiotic and meaningless.

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/Bell_quantum_foundations/65355c15-5953-4b5c-abd6-c910e742b897n%40googlegroups.com.

[Fred Diether]

You can do it if you want.  You have the R code for it.  But it is just pure nonsense so I don't expect that you will actually do it.

Local Quantum Mechanical Prediction of the Singlet State Using Geometric Algebra

https://www.scirp.org/journal/paperinformation?paperid=147271

Bell was wrong big time.

[Richard Gill]

I’ll do it. Is this the latest version?

Sent from my iPad

On 24 Jan 2026, at 18:36, Fred Diether <fredi...@gmail.com> wrote:

You can do it if you want.  You have the R code for it.  But it is just pure nonsense so I don't expect that you will actually do it.

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/Bell_quantum_foundations/dbeb9160-042d-4dc0-b251-529ddff999bdn%40googlegroups.com.

[Richard Gill]

Sorry, that Mathematica and it’s a pdf.

What’s the latest R translation, as a text file?

Sent from my iPad

On 24 Jan 2026, at 19:13, Richard Gill <gill...@gmail.com> wrote:

I’ll do it. Is this the latest version?

[Richard Gill]

Sorry, found it! 

Sent from my iPad

On 24 Jan 2026, at 19:14, Richard Gill <gill...@gmail.com> wrote:

Sorry, that Mathematica and it’s a pdf.

[Fred Diether]

https://groups.google.com/g/Bell_quantum_foundations/c/5qOd5T_azhw/m/_r6QDMB7AAAJ

[Richard Gill]

Fred’s R code:

# Parameters from Source [8, 9]

m <- 100000

bins <- 361

# 1. Define Pauli Matrices [Source 18, 23, 37]

sigma_x <- matrix(c(0, 1, 1, 0), nrow = 2, byrow = TRUE) + 0i

sigma_y <- matrix(c(0, -1i, 1i, 0), nrow = 2, byrow = TRUE)

sigma_z <- matrix(c(1, 0, 0, -1), nrow = 2, byrow = TRUE) + 0i

pauli <- list(sigma_x, sigma_y, sigma_z)

# 2. Vector Generation Function [Source 15, 21, 35]

# Generates Uniform Unit 3D Vectors

get_unit_vector <- function() {

  vec <- rnorm(3)

  return(vec / sqrt(sum(vec^2)))

}

# Initialize Arrays [Source 10, 11, 12]

A <- numeric(m)

B <- numeric(m)

pc <- numeric(m)

sumAB <- numeric(bins)

countAB <- numeric(bins)

# 3. Main Simulation Loop [Source 14-70]

for (h in 1:m) {

  # Particle Spin [Source 15-17]

  s <- get_unit_vector()

  s1 <- s

  s2 <- -s

  

  # Polarizers [Source 21-22, 35-36]

  a <- c(1, 0, 0)                                 # Richard’s change

  b <- c(1 / sqrt(2), 1/sqrt(2), 0)     # Richard’s change

  

  # Construct Pauli Spin Matrices [Source 18, 23, 37]

  sigma_s1 <- s1[1]*pauli[[1]] + s1[2]*pauli[[2]] + s1[3]*pauli[[3]]

  sigma_s2 <- s2[1]*pauli[[1]] + s2[2]*pauli[[2]] + s2[3]*pauli[[3]]

  sigma_a  <- a[1]*pauli[[1]]  + a[2]*pauli[[2]]  + a[3]*pauli[[3]]

  sigma_b  <- b[1]*pauli[[1]]  + b[2]*pauli[[2]]  + b[3]*pauli[[3]]

  

  # Matrix Extraction for Detector Interaction [Source 25-26, 38-39]

  # Using the identity: 1/2 * ((1 0).Mat.(1 0) + (0 1).Mat.(0 1))

  inter_A <- sigma_a %*% sigma_s1

  cosas1 <- Re(0.5 * (inter_A[1,1] + inter_A[2,2]))

  

  inter_B <- sigma_s2 %*% sigma_b

  cosbs2 <- Re(0.5 * (inter_B[1,1] + inter_B[2,2]))

  

  # Store Sign Results [Source 33, 45]

  A[h] <- sign(cosas1)

  B[h] <- sign(cosbs2)

  

  }

  table(A)

  table(B)

  mean(A)

  mean(B)

  mean(A * B)

R Output:

A
   -1     1 
49912 50088 

B
   -1     1 
50210 49790 

[1] 0.00176

[1] -0.0042

[1] -0.49816

[Fred Diether]

Sorry, but  mean(A * B) is not a prediction that quantum mechanics can make.  So, pure fraudulent nonsense from you!  LOL!

Quantum mechanics can predict that the A and B outcomes will be 50-50 and I already did that part in Mathematica.

Local Quantum Mechanical Prediction of the Singlet State Using Geometric Algebra

https://www.scirp.org/journal/paperinformation?paperid=147271

Bell was wrong big time.

[Richard Gill]

Indeed Fred, QM does not agree with local realism.

QM predicts the negative cosine.

Your local realist model actually predicted the triangle wave, as I had already said. It’s quite simply Bell’s toy model.

The corrected derivation of the correlation starting from your definitions, and the corrected computer simulation, do actually agree.

Sent from my iPad

On 24 Jan 2026, at 20:51, Fred Diether <fredi...@gmail.com> wrote:

Sorry, but  mean(A * B) is not a prediction that quantum mechanics can make.  So, pure fraudulent nonsense from you!  LOL!

--

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/fb155aee-12b4-40aa-ba9e-023acd526c1fn%40googlegroups.com.

[Fred Diether]

Ah, more freakin' nonsense from the head Bell fanatic.  My model is a local QM model so you screwed up again.  And it predicts the negative cosine using the A and B function product.  Same as QM.  

QM does not predict the negative cosine using the +/-1 outcomes.  You have been told that a million times already.  Learn some actual physics and the proper math of EPR-Bohm.

You are the fraud!

[Richard Gill]

There is one true statement in Fred’s most recent post:

“QM does not predict the negative cosine using the +/-1 outcomes”

Diether’s “model” is completely compatibel with Bell’s theorem.

The initial parts of his paper and of his Mathematica code actually define Bell’s simple LHV (the one which leads to the triangle wave).

Fred then computes a negative cosine using the standard QM formulas rewritten to look like an average over many photon pairs of a product of two local functions.

But these functions are not his measurement functions. In particular, they do not even take the values +/- 1.

The paper is an elaborate fraud

Sent from my iPhone

On 24 Jan 2026, at 22:20, Fred Diether <fredi...@gmail.com> wrote:

Ah, more freakin' nonsense from the head Bell fanatic.  My model is a local QM model so you screwed up again.  And it predicts the negative cosine using the A and B function product.  Same as QM.  

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/Bell_quantum_foundations/8c80a54e-6f35-4010-a7f8-d26bac77d419n%40googlegroups.com.

[Fred Diether]

Richard is the fraud!  He says, " But these functions are not his measurement functions. In particular, they do not even take the values +/- 1."  That is two LIES in one statement.  As anyone can plainly see.  Here are the measurement functions.

Local Quantum Mechanical Prediction of the Singlet State Using Geometric Algebra

https://www.scirp.org/journal/paperinformation?paperid=147271

Bell was wrong big time.

[Richard Gill]

Fred can’t read.

He does not multiply A and B. He multiplies some cleverly constructed variables which take values continuously distributed between -1 and +1

Notice that Fred’s A and B are Bell’s measurement functions.

Sent from my iPad

On 25 Jan 2026, at 03:18, Fred Diether <fredi...@gmail.com> wrote:

Richard is the fraud!  He says, " But these functions are not his measurement functions. In particular, they do not even take the values +/- 1."  That is two LIES in one statement.  As anyone can plainly see.  Here are the measurement functions.

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/Bell_quantum_foundations/9181d765-4ff3-4095-a980-e8fcf6d103dan%40googlegroups.com.

<ABfunctions.jpg>

[Fred Diether]

Poor Richard, he's got no valid criticisms so resorts to insults and lies.

Yep, my A and B are like Bell's measurement functions because that is the way you have to do the physics.  Of course with Joy Christian's and my improvements.

Richard says, " He multiplies some cleverly constructed variables which take values continuously distributed between -1 and +1"

Another pure lie.  Easy to see that I multiply the A and B functions.  See equation (20) at the paper link.

Local Quantum Mechanical Prediction of the Singlet State Using Geometric Algebra

https://www.scirp.org/journal/paperinformation?paperid=147271

Bell was wrong big time.

[Richard Gill]

Easy to see - by running Fred’s R code!

Sent from my iPad

On 25 Jan 2026, at 17:23, Fred Diether <fredi...@gmail.com> wrote:

Poor Richard, he's got no valid criticisms so resorts to insults and lies.

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/Bell_quantum_foundations/27b6fe6a-fbc7-414d-805b-323276e80ed7n%40googlegroups.com.

[Fred Diether]

That was your R code, not mine.  LOL!  More lies from the head Bell fanatic liar.

[Richard Gill]

Don’t be stupid! I fixed alpha and beta, and added “mean(A*B)”.

Sent from my iPhone

On 25 Jan 2026, at 18:15, Fred Diether <fredi...@gmail.com> wrote:

That was your R code, not mine.  LOL!  More lies from the head Bell fanatic liar.

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/Bell_quantum_foundations/35d29d56-ef3e-4557-b9e8-3d6c8da16180n%40googlegroups.com.

[Richard Gill]

In the paper, the mistake happens between equations (21) and (22). See attached pdf.

[Fred Diether]

You are the stupid one since you admit that it is your code for the bogus result.  LOL!

Local Quantum Mechanical Prediction of the Singlet State Using Geometric Algebra

https://www.scirp.org/journal/paperinformation?paperid=147271

Bell was wrong big time.

[anton vrba]

Fred,

Since you’ve decided that being corrected is an invitation to get defensive rather than educated, let’s try a different tone: your paper is a masterclass in missing the point.

Publishing in SCIRP is effectively paying to have your homework put on a fridge; it doesn’t make the math right. You are treating spin as a static bivector in $SO(3)$. That’s cute for 19th-century classical mechanics, but it fails the moment you encounter a fermion. By ignoring the universal cover—specifically $SU(2)$—you are ignoring the very topological "doubling" that makes entanglement non-classical.

Your bivector model tries to mimic entanglement by pre-assigning correlations. That’s just a "hidden variable" theory with a fresh coat of paint. Bell already buried this. The reason your model "behaves" like it’s entangled at Alice and Bob is because you’ve manually baked the correlation into the geometry, yet you’re still failing to account for the measurement collapse and the basis-erasure demonstrated by the Stern-Gerlach effect. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stern%E2%80%93Gerlach_experiment

If your model was correct, the following table wouldn't be a problem for you. But in the real world (and my lab), this is what actually happens:

The "Memory Loss" of Real Quantum States

Apparatus Sequence	Input State	Output Result	Fred's Static Bivector Prediction
1. Z-Magnet	Random Mix	50% z+, 50% z−	"It was already pointing that way."
2. X-Magnet (on z+)	Pure z+	50% x+, 50% x−	Usually fails to explain the 50/50 split.
3. Z-Magnet (on x+)	Pure x+	50% z+, 50% z−	Total Failure. (You think it stays z+).

By measuring $x$, you erase $z$. Your static bivector cannot "forget" its $z$-orientation because it’s a rigid object in your model. In $SU(2)$, the state is a spinor, and measurement is a projection that fundamentally alters the state vector.

Until your "theory" can explain why a particle filtered for $z$-up suddenly becomes a 50/50 coin flip for $z$ again just because it caught a glimpse of an $x$-magnet, stay off arXiv. You aren't proving Bell wrong; you're just proving you don't understand non-commuting operators.  You lost your memory regarding physics, you are the fool, you resort to abuse, you are the cheat and the fraud!

Regards,
Anton

PS. Bryan, you and Fred are making the same mental mistake, demonstrate the Stern-Gerlach and people will take note . Till then you and Fred are cruising to Fool's Paradise.

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

From "Fred Diether" <fredi...@gmail.com>

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

Date 1/26/2026 4:20:27 PM

Subject Re: [Bell_quantum_foundations] Updated R code for LocalQM simulation

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/Bell_quantum_foundations/6945ff99-d8f6-45ea-9adb-2373375ff824n%40googlegroups.com.

[Mark Hadley]

Dear Anton,

Fred won't I understand that. He will just be rude to you. It's the only way he can engage.

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/Bell_quantum_foundations/em1b2c076b-42e1-4feb-9cba-69d2b07dc5cf%40ebbbb63b.com.

[anton vrba]

And the problem is that Richard --- by his professional choice --- is an endearing educator, who takes time to show untruths and the takes the time to engage in corrective discussion, ad infinitum.

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

From "Mark Hadley" <sunshine...@googlemail.com>

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

Cc "Fred Diether" <fredi...@gmail.com>; "Bell inequalities and quantum foundations" <bell_quantum...@googlegroups.com>; "Richard Gill" <gill...@gmail.com>; "Bryan Sanctuary" <bryancs...@gmail.com>

Date 1/26/2026 5:06:20 PM

[Fred Diether]

As expected, more freakin' nonsense from the Bell fanatic peanut gallery.

Local Quantum Mechanical Prediction of the Singlet State Using Geometric Algebra

https://www.scirp.org/journal/paperinformation?paperid=147271

Bell was wrong big time.

[anton vrba]

Fred, I do not care about Bell, I care about empirical and repeatable observations that formulate physical law. If your model does not describe physical reality, then the paper it is printed on is only suitable to wipe your backside after you know what! Come on Fred give us a break and stop your nonsense.

Please explain the Stern-Gerlach experiment with your model, it does not, so all your mathematical juggling, code writing amounts to mental masturbation, in the sense of self satisfaction of a grandiose narcissist.  You will not get admiration here so try it somewhere else!!

Or you are playing a game, "who lasts the longest and has the last word".  

This Forum is unproductive with your continued spamming.

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

From "Fred Diether" <fredi...@gmail.com>

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

Date 1/26/2026 5:27:25 PM

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/Bell_quantum_foundations/a09a7c6d-9544-440e-a864-3d6a07b14397n%40googlegroups.com.

[Fred Diether]

If you have an actual reasonable question about the content of my paper, I would be happy to answer it.  Otherwise you are just part of the peanut gallery of Bell fanatics.

Local Quantum Mechanical Prediction of the Singlet State Using Geometric Algebra

https://www.scirp.org/journal/paperinformation?paperid=147271

Bell was wrong big time.

[anton vrba]

Fred, I asked you a simple straight forward question as a consequence of your paper:  Please explain the Stern-Gerlach experiment on hand of your static spin bi-vector. I am waiting for an intelligent answer and not abuse.

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

From "Fred Diether" <fredi...@gmail.com>

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

Date 1/26/2026 5:53:44 PM

Subject Re: [Bell_quantum_foundations] Updated R code for LocalQM simulation

If you have an actual reasonable question about the content of my paper, I would be happy to answer it.  Otherwise you are just part of the peanut gallery of Bell fanatics.

Local Quantum Mechanical Prediction of the Singlet State Using Geometric Algebra

https://www.scirp.org/journal/paperinformation?paperid=147271

Bell was wrong big time.

On Monday, January 26, 2026 at 9:43:49 AM UTC-8 anton vrba wrote:

Fred, I do not care about Bell, I care about empirical and repeatable observations that formulate physical law. If your model does not describe physical reality, then the paper it is printed on is only suitable to wipe your backside after you know what! Come on Fred give us a break and stop your nonsense.

Please explain the Stern-Gerlach experiment with your model, it does not, so all your mathematical juggling, code writing amounts to mental masturbation, in the sense of self satisfaction of a grandiose narcissist.  You will not get admiration here so try it somewhere else!!

Or you are playing a game, "who lasts the longest and has the last word".  

This Forum is unproductive with your continued spamming.

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

From "Fred Diether" <fredi...@gmail.com>

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

Date 1/26/2026 5:27:25 PM

Subject Re: [Bell_quantum_foundations] Updated R code for LocalQM simulation

As expected, more freakin' nonsense from the Bell fanatic peanut gallery.

Local Quantum Mechanical Prediction of the Singlet State Using Geometric Algebra

https://www.scirp.org/journal/paperinformation?paperid=147271

Bell was wrong big time.

On Monday, January 26, 2026 at 9:14:39 AM UTC-8 anton vrba wrote:

And the problem is that Richard --- by his professional choice --- is an endearing educator, who takes time to show untruths and the takes the time to engage in corrective discussion, ad infinitum.

--
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/fd80212d-93ff-4d29-a82c-daad045a0931n%40googlegroups.com.

[Fred Diether]

LOL!  And I am still waiting for an intelligent question!  Do not give me more Bell fanatic nonsense!

Local Quantum Mechanical Prediction of the Singlet State Using Geometric Algebra

https://www.scirp.org/journal/paperinformation?paperid=147271

Bell was wrong big time.

[anton vrba]

Good Morning Alexandre,  Here is another example of Fred's grandiosity.  How do you see the future of the group?  I predict that every future discussion will be hijacked by Fred with his drive to promote his geometric classical mathematics that has nothing to do with reality.

Fred is destroying the group!  As I appealed to you in the past, the future sanity of the group is your hands.

I appeal to other group members, 

let's amplify Fred's NONSENSE, 

every time Fred voices his nonsense we simply forward an email to Alexandre alx...@gmail.com 

Regards 

Anton

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

From "Fred Diether" <fredi...@gmail.com>

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

Date 1/26/2026 6:05:32 PM

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/Bell_quantum_foundations/9a0dac30-9228-485a-88f8-e7f7cb569a99n%40googlegroups.com.

[Fred Diether]

I was having a discussion with Richard, then crybaby Anton and Mark noticed I caught Richard in more than one lie.  So, they had to start in with their Bell fanatic nonsense attacking me.  Anton, you might do better in the debate if you had a better command of the English language.  And... I am still waiting for an intelligent question.  I guess you don't have any.

Local Quantum Mechanical Prediction of the Singlet State Using Geometric Algebra

https://www.scirp.org/journal/paperinformation?paperid=147271

Bell was wrong big time.

[Alexandre de Castro]

Friends, 

I’ll get back to you by tomorrow.

[Fred Diether]

Alexandre, it is actually Anton that will kill this group.  He is asking for you to moderate the group to keep me from posting about Bell fanatic nonsense.  Moderation will kill the group since you don't have time.  The solution is to make me a moderator.  I have time to read all the messages and to keep people from posting nonsense and lies.

[Mark Hadley]

Dear Fred,

The only person in danger of killing the group is you, Fred. Because you are just not engaging in scientific or mathematical debate. And your contributions do not seem to have interested anyone. If they have merit, which I doubt, then you have totally failed to present them appropriately to a scientific group.

With considerable reluctance, I would support you being removed. You contribute nothing and sap our energy while responding with insults but no intelligence.

You have had ample chance to engage but have squandered it.

Good riddance I say.

Mark

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/Bell_quantum_foundations/b5e4b2b6-9853-4438-837a-7512b4aff047n%40googlegroups.com.

[Fred Diether]

And here comes Mark with his freakin' nonsense completely devoid of any scientific content as usual.

I'm not a member of this group but I can still report your message to Google Groups as abuse.  Which I have done.

Here is some scientific content for you.  I'm happy to answer any reasonable questions about it.  Do NOT ask Bell fanatic nonsense about it like Anton did.

Local Quantum Mechanical Prediction of the Singlet State Using Geometric Algebra

https://www.scirp.org/journal/paperinformation?paperid=147271

Bell was wrong big time.

[Fred Diether]

BS, your paper about my paper is a bunch of lies and nonsense.  Why the heck should I respond to a freakin' traitor whose own papers are a pile of junk.

The fact is, I caught Richard in more than one lie, then Anton and Mark start up with their Bell fanatic nonsense against me.

On Tue, Jan 27, 2026 at 8:50 AM Bryan Sanctuary <bryancs...@gmail.com> wrote:

Dear All,

I thought that Fred had been silenced since I showed that his paper is wrong big time.  I attach the comment which shows his Equations (20) to (27) tacitly introduce non-locality and do not disprove Bell's theorem. Although Richard questions the limit he uses in this, that is not conclusive. Diether ignores Gill, and uses that limit as it should be to get the right sum over Boolean pairs (he does what Bell did in 64 without realizing it).  Diether continues to assert he is right big time, without responding to his critics.

So if you engage with him, he will continue with his inane attempt to use his paper as proof that Bell is wrong big time.  Unless he answers his critics, I strongly suggest he be ignored, and then, eventually, he will give up small time.

Bryan

[Mark Hadley]

Fred, I'm not looking at your papers.

You don't understand BI and you did NOT engage. I was helping you go through it or CSHS line by line, but you could not cope with either the discipline, maths, or more likely that it was leading to a roof of BI.

Someone who has so little understanding or appreciation of physics can't really produce relevant research.

Mark

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/Bell_quantum_foundations/c5dc0a81-f728-4829-aa30-b6bea7493060n%40googlegroups.com.

[Fred Diether]

Mark, I'm reporting your nonsense to Google groups again.

[Mark Hadley]

Well done Fred, I suggest you ask them to confirm your views on Bell's inequality as well.

I

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/Bell_quantum_foundations/b749ec1b-cf70-424c-9966-fea9cbd51cadn%40googlegroups.com.

[Fred Diether]

I don't really care that much about the inequalities other than they have to be PHYSICALLY wrong.  It is Bell's theorem that is just plain junk,

“If [a hidden-variable theory] is local it will not agree with quantum mechanics, and if it agrees with QM it will not be local.”

My calculation says it is definitely wrong.

Local Quantum Mechanical Prediction of the Singlet State Using Geometric Algebra

https://www.scirp.org/journal/paperinformation?paperid=147271

Bell was wrong big time.

[Bryan Sanctuary]

Dear All,

I thought that Fred had been silenced since I showed that his paper is wrong big time.  I attach the comment which shows his Equations (20) to (27) tacitly introduce non-locality and do not disprove Bell's theorem. Although Richard questions the limit he uses in this, that is not conclusive. Diether ignores Gill, and uses that limit as it should be to get the right sum over Boolean pairs (he does what Bell did in 64 without realizing it).  Diether continues to assert he is right big time, without responding to his critics.

So if you engage with him, he will continue with his inane attempt to use his paper as proof that Bell is wrong big time.  Unless he answers his critics, I strongly suggest he be ignored, and then, eventually, he will give up small time.

Bryan

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/Bell_quantum_foundations/6a1cd0f1-9710-4c82-a1a1-bebcc0b02781n%40googlegroups.com.

[Mark Hadley]

In that sense he behaves just like you.

Though you are a bit more polite.

Mark

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/Bell_quantum_foundations/CALLw9YwnRuK2o9vFS%2Bt%3DjyCQNi7JrqDCjWi%3D4yPUh5Z5UHRpvw%40mail.gmail.com.

[Richard Gill]

Dear Bryan, dear all, 

Emails to the group should *not* also be sent to Fred. That only allows him to continue to exploit the bug and spam us.

Just now, you have engaged with him! I hope it was an accident.

Richard 

Sent from my iPad

On 28 Jan 2026, at 14:50, Bryan Sanctuary <bryancs...@gmail.com> wrote:



[Richard Gill]

Dear Bryan

I have long ago revised my analysis of Fred’s paper. I’m preparing a paper exposing the main error, it will be very short. We could collaborate on writing a longer one. And submit it to a better journal than the one in which Fred published.

The definitions do make sense but they define Bell’s simple LHV model. The computation of the correlation function is wrong. Fred does not multiply +/-1 valued outcomes and average the products. 

Instead he uses (indeed) a Joy Christian trick, and multiplies and averages locally computed real numbers in the interval [-1, +1].

It would be useful to express those “pseudo outcomes” in a simple maths formula. No need to refer to Christian’s work.

Richard

Sent from my iPad

On 28 Jan 2026, at 14:50, Bryan Sanctuary <bryancs...@gmail.com> wrote: