And now, Bell's biggest mistake...

[Fred Diether]

Is simply that he continued the nonsense that quantum mechanics is non-local for the EPR-Bohm scenario.  Here is a PDF copy of a simulation that proves quantum mechanics is local for EPR-Bohm,

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1-6i8r0d2dsZ4Z5odWcHuuu0q1YGaTydc/view?usp=sharing

[Fred Diether]

[Fred Diether]

Ok then, It looks like the Bell fans have finally realized Bell was doubly wrong.  The inequalities are broken physics and quantum mechanics is local for EPR-Bohm.  Sorry guys.  LOL!

[Mark Hadley]

Dear Fred,

You have spent several weeks proving to the group that you don't understand BI, and you are incapable of following the logic and simple maths in CHSH and you do not respond sensibly or even politely when people try to help you. 

Therefore, I have not the slightest interest in any simulation you might have done. It is worthless.

Cheers

Mark

--
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/1a9a7d1b-c0fb-4979-959e-d909e5826b77n%40googlegroups.com.

[Richard Gill]

Dear Fred cc Alexandre; dear friends and colleagues

Fred’s “simulation” proves that Mathematica can draw a nice negative cosine. It does not appear to be a simulation of an LHV model reproducing the negative cosine correlation in the EPR-B model. The “Bell fans” are simply ignoring Fred’s posts and probably wishing that the owner/manager of this group would chuck him out. The few Bell critics (including yourself) are ignoring Fred too.

Alexandre: if you want this group to come back to life, please maintain some minimal standards of civilised discourse and of scientific competence. It seems that nobody is motivated to learn the Mathematica language in order to find out what Fred is doing. He seems incapable of writing a decent arXiv style paper setting out his “theory”.

Richard

Sent from my iPad

On 22 Nov 2025, at 17:17, Fred Diether <fredi...@gmail.com> wrote:

Ok then, It looks like the Bell fans have finally realized Bell was doubly wrong.  The inequalities are broken physics and quantum mechanics is local for EPR-Bohm.  Sorry guys.  LOL!

--

[Fred Diether]

Here you go,

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

"Local Quantum Mechanical Prediction of the Singlet State Using Geometric Algebra"

Christian's model is now published in 9 journals.  You Bell fans are real dinosaurs.  This is the 21st century! 

[Richard Gill]

Thanks Fred, I do apologize for saying you were incapable of writing a scientific paper. And congratulations on your now substantial publication record.

What you are doing is following Christian (2007) and his later works on disproving Bell’s theorem. Correlations are not observed as averages of products of computed measurement outcomes, but in a theoretical derivation using Joy Christian’s principle “limits of product = product of limits”.

I doubt if this work will have much impact.

Richard

Sent from my iPad

On 22 Nov 2025, at 19:14, Fred Diether <fredi...@gmail.com> wrote:

Here you go,

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/Bell_quantum_foundations/06c6aee0-8bd2-4b6e-9a39-30c1f64619efn%40googlegroups.com.

[Mark Hadley]

Hi,

Seems to me that it is pointless trying to simulate EPR results with HV without first explaining which aspect of BI they are avoiding. Or showing a fault in BI- ha ha.

Only when you can relate the work to BI can we know whether to  take it seriously or if we are interested in the result.

Cheers

Mark

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/Bell_quantum_foundations/AF726CC6-1160-4015-9D6A-83490282F1BF%40gmail.com.

[Austin Fearnley]

Hi Fred

I do not have energy any more to follow every line of your paper, and do not necessarily agree with your results.  But, I was very interested in your text under eqn (11) and in your final paragraph concerning the paradox of apparently n.n = a.b  .    

That paradox is related to the mysterious and maybe unreal collapse of the maybe unreal wavefunction.  But I have suggested another possibility in my retrocausal model.  In a retrocausal model, the entanglement is in the middle of the process or experiment and not at the beginning.  My retrocausal explanation has the experiment beginning with Alice (and Bob) measuring a time reversed antiparticle [or photon].  The antiparticle is given a polarisation vector of either +a or -a by Alice's device (and for Bob, either +b or -b by Bob's device ). At the oven or Hadamard gate or whatever, a particle is subsequently emitted (via conservation) with -a or +a polarisation vector.  That particle is then measured by Bob.
In this scenario n could not be other than always equal to +/-a or +/-b throughout the experiment.  In the retrocausal experiment, however, there is no singlet state because particles always have their own individual polarisation vectors.

In Joy's original one-page paper, an entangled pair were launched into the same cover of space.  Is this true in your paper?  And can a pair be launched into either cover, +1 or -1, that is, its pseudo-scalar, I3, can be either +1 or -1 in your paper?

It is just my idea of an analogy but I see my retrocausal method as launching one particle into cover +1 and the other into cover -1.  Maybe not currently realistic but the retrocausal method abandons current realism.

[Richard Gill]

Fred Diether and Joy Christian are ignoring the underlying aspect of BI that 1 + 1 = 2

They are ignoring logic and arithmetic.

Similarly, I believe that Alexandre de Castro (manager and owner of this group) believes that violation of BI shows that mathematics and logic as we know it is inconsistent. CHSH inequality is both true and not true.

Sent from my iPad

On 23 Nov 2025, at 11:30, Mark Hadley <sunshine...@googlemail.com> wrote:



[Fred Diether]

Maybe some day you will get it.  The inequalities are broken physics.  That is why classical and quantum predictions can be made that violate those inequalities.

[Mark Hadley]

I get it . It's simple.

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/Bell_quantum_foundations/fd8114cb-5ca7-441b-bac5-31a293a15ec1n%40googlegroups.com.

[Jan-Åke Larsson]

I second the "please maintain some minimal standards of civilised discourse and of scientific competence."

/Jan-Åke

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/Bell_quantum_foundations/8F9BA942-DE8A-4D62-AD5E-64C288CABF72%40gmail.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